NationStates Jolt Archive

What is it to you? Is it the Government? The laws they pass? What your peers think? What your parents say? Your teachers?

I predict this will become an anarchist wank fest and full of angsty teens by page 3.

Anyway, the law.

I predict this will become an anarchist wank fest and full of angsty teens by page 3.

Anyway, the law.

i predict page 2....any bets?

*Anarchy rant* Yeah, except for the fact I'm not an anarchist.

*Anarchy rant* Yeah, except for the fact I'm not an anarchist.

Angsty teenager?

I guess all of them are authorities.

Though if I honestly didn't feel like complying with any or all of them I wouldn't.

Laws.

I guess all of them are authorities.

Though if I honestly didn't feel like complying with any or all of them I wouldn't.

Uhuh, you only follow law because you feel like it, right?

Authority can mean a lot of things. To me, it generally means the ability to render another a means to ones own ends. It is pretty much synonymous with power.

I predict this will become an anarchist wank fest and full of angsty teens by page 3.

Anyway, the law.

Are there a good deal of angsty teenage anarchists on here now?

All are some form of authority. The government is one authority, laws are another. So are people one looks up to. My personal principles are my ultimate authority, as all the rest I am fine with disobeying if I think it's warranted.

Uhuh, you only follow law because you feel like it, right?

Pretty much. If a law makes sense, I follow it.

Pretty much. If a law makes sense, I follow it.

Yep, 'cause the police can't stop you from doing something illegal if you wanted to, no one can stop you from doing whatever the fuck you want, right?

The government has legitimacy through election. Laws have legitimacy when formulated by a legitimately elected assembly. Parents have a natural position of authority as providers of sustenance and care for children. Teachers, when part of mandatory schooling, legitimately act in loco parentis, to which the parents have consented by not homeschooling their children. In further education, the choice to continue or not is that of the student, and thus staying on is a free acceptance of the authority of the teacher. In all these circumstances, I think authority can be justly exercised. Peers? There is no legitimate reason for them to have authority to determine your actions or behaviour. If they attempt to do so through physical or mental bullying, it is a case of an illegitimate attempt to use coercive power.

Yep, 'cause the police can't stop you from doing something illegal if you wanted to, no one can stop you from doing whatever the fuck you want, right?
They could stop me after the fact, yes.

Though I can't think of anything that I want to do that is illegal.

Authority is not defined to any praticular object or person
Authority is simply control over another
So essentially authority is everything
For Example, I have authority over my dog, the Catholic Church has authority in the Vatican, the Sun has authority over the Earth, etc.

Generally, authority is imposed by people with the power to impose it. Sometimes, it's chosen by the people and other times it's imposed upon people by necessity, but the fundamental truth is that you can fight authority all you want, but authority always wins.

Authority is not defined to any praticular object or person
Authority is simply control over another
So essentially authority is everything
For Example, I have authority over my dog, the Catholic Church has authority in the Vatican, the Sun has authority over the Earth, etc.
The sun does not have authority over the earth because the sun and planets are inanimate objects which cannot exercise authority or power over each other. All they do is influence each other by their proximity with nothing even remotely like a power relationship. There is no way for the sun to make the earth do anything or stop the earth from doing anything, and neither the sun nor the earth has the capacity to form the desire to do anything or stop anything from being done.

To the OP: To my mind, authority is power that is granted legitimacy by the consent of those who are subject to it. Without that consent, the power loses the quality that makes it "authority."

I recognize authority in the following descending order: (1) the law; (2) myself; (3) individuals who demonstrate to my satisfaction that they deserve to be in a position of authority -- i.e., they are competent to do whatever they have the authority to do, what they are doing is good rather than bad, and/or they have won my personal trust. That last one includes everybody from the president, to teachers, to individual cops, to my own family, and pretty much everyone else you could think of.

All three levels of authority are subject to constant questioning and testing.

Generally, authority is imposed by people with the power to impose it. Sometimes, it's chosen by the people and other times it's imposed upon people by necessity, but the fundamental truth is that you can fight authority all you want, but authority always wins.
Even when there's a revolution? In a clash of power groups, can you really say authority always wins? Which authority?

Personally, I think you are confusing "authority" with mere power. I may have the power to kill you, but that does not authorize me to do it. Power exercised without consent is tyranny or crime.

Authority - something I strive to ignore.

Fuck authority.


Minoriteeburg for the win.

Me.

Laws mostly

Angsty teenager?
Well, teenager I suppose. Half-right is better then completely wrong.:p

All of the above, and then some. Basically, I go by what the dictionary says is authority.

Authority - something I strive to ignore.

Who bet page 2? you win.

Ultimately you are your own authority. You make every one of your own decisions after all. Now whether you follow the guidelines or not is a different story...

Only law is authority. The government is instituted by the authority of law (else it's not legitimate).

DVRA LEX SED LEX

physical realities that do not begin and end with the coerciveness of human cultures are the ultimate authority.

never argue with the guy with the gun,
but,
you don't have to volunteer to support him either!

i respect the need for people who are unwilling or unable to dicipline themselves,
to be somehow collectively restrained by the rest of us,
and the poor bastard who'se job it is to be the agent of our doing so.

but at the same time, i question the moral legitamacy of any such concept as authority beyond that.

The government has legitimacy through election. Laws have legitimacy when formulated by a legitimately elected assembly. Parents have a natural position of authority as providers of sustenance and care for children. Teachers, when part of mandatory schooling, legitimately act in loco parentis, to which the parents have consented by not homeschooling their children. In further education, the choice to continue or not is that of the student, and thus staying on is a free acceptance of the authority of the teacher. In all these circumstances, I think authority can be justly exercised. Peers? There is no legitimate reason for them to have authority to determine your actions or behaviour. If they attempt to do so through physical or mental bullying, it is a case of an illegitimate attempt to use coercive power.

Shit, man, so it's coercive if a peer does it, but if a teacher does it, it's the teacher being in the position of the parent?

Authority? Me, myself and I.

I don't care much for "outside" authority. I also believe in questioning authority.

Unfortunately in my case this leads people to believe I'm crazy.

Have you guys been watching fight club or something?
Authority is the people who are in charge of making me food, sometimes it's me sometimes it's people i pay and that's the crux of the problem, if no one makes food who's in control then?

Well there seems to be a dichotomy between authority in society and authority one personally accepts. Laws, law-enforcement, et al. are the agreed sources of authority in society, but if you ask people what authority they accept, anyone with sufficient self-esteem will say that they follow their own reason, and only incidentally the laws, values, norms of society, because it serves them best - some people prefer to maintain the right to choose (or illusion of choice), even if that choice is almost universal conformity.

Which is why this was bound to get to be an "anarchist wank fest", even though most people here don't actually espouse anarchism.

hey it's better than those communist wank fests, there's far to many of those reds. lol

Teachers, my mum, the law and the government.

*hides his socialist cap*

To me, authority is represented by my parents and elders and by the law.

Well it means many things really. Some conected with power, some conected with knowldge.

People who know what they are talking about, because of their knowledge and experience. Things, like the law and good manners, that have shown themselves over generations to be a good thing.

*hides his socialist cap*

oh it's too late now, we anarchists found where you are in this thread, we have ways of making you....Goddamn it Jerry! put the lighter down, yes and the fuel can. No we're not going to burn the red. Steve did i say you could try to chop off is arm? did i? DID I?! no didn't think so. Goddamn these anarchists.

Give them a little freedom then they go absolutely ballistic.

Oh and as to the thread, the greater authority belongs to those people with lots of friends who think the same as they do, because the more people who hold similar beliefs the more power they have. A basic principle of military might really.

I see two types of authority, epistemic and non-epistemic.

Epistemic authority is the kind we are talking about when we say something like, "s/he's an authority on the matter". I defer to, say, Neo Art's epistemic authority on matters of the US legal system; being a lawyer in the US, he knows far more about it than I do.

Non-epistemic authority is that claimed by governments and the like, authority -- perhaps based on rights or social contract theory -- to have power over an individual's actions, etc.

As someone with anarchist sympathies, I fully endorse the former but reject almost all forms of the latter.

I predict this will become an anarchist wank fest... by page 3.
Done.

Anyway, the law.

...the law.

... the law
Law isn't authority; it's derived from authority (usually non-epistemic), legitimate or not.

Authority is whomever I decide to listen to for whatever reason.

*sits with her night stick watching for rule breakers*

I am the law, baby! :D

Law isn't authority; it's derived from authority (usually non-epistemic), legitimate or not.

And who administers the law, pray tell?

Authority figures like the police and the government.

And who administers the law, pray tell?

Authority figures like the police and the government.
Exactly.

They're the authority, not the law.

Exactly.

They're the authority, not the law.

Then, if law isn't the authority, why are we supposed to follow it?

physical realities that do not begin and end with the coerciveness of human cultures are the ultimate authority.


Such as?

Then, if law isn't the authority, why are we supposed to follow it?
Because it's derived from authority (legitimate or not).

You're supposed to follow the law because you're supposed to agree with the government that they have legitimate authority over you, legitimate authority to legislate and enforce law, by the nature of you being a citizen, etc.

Because it's derived from authority (legitimate or not).

You're supposed to follow the law because you're supposed to agree with the government that they have legitimate authority over you, legitimate authority to legislate and enforce law, by the nature of you being a citizen, etc.

What about in some cases when the state itself is restrained by law, such as with the US constitution. You could say that is an authority in itself, albeit one with diminishing power.

What about in some cases when the state itself is restrained by law, such as with the US constitution. You could say that is an authority in itself, albeit one with diminishing power.
In the US Constitution's case, is its authority not based upon the 'inalienable rights' of humans, or the will of the people?

Law does constrain (or, at least, claims to constrain) some government action, but that's not to say the government is deferring to the authority of law. In these cases, it's based upon some other authority. For example, in the case of the UNCHR, or the EU's human rights legislation, it's the authority of the UN and the EU, respectively, that the law is based on.

I don't think one can point to an example of law which has authority in itself, not in the area of government, at least.

In the US Constitution's case, is its authority not based upon the 'inalienable rights' of humans, or the will of the people?


Realistically, the law of the constitution doesn't have inherent authority, the authority comes from the threat of not being elected, or from a coup or some sort of revolt, since the constitution does mean a lot to the people. So in that sense, I guess you're right. But that does make authority seem circular. The government have authority over the people due to the threat of violence, but the people are the ultimate authority over the government due to democracy, but democracy is only there because the government authorises such an institution, but that's because it is the will of the people and so on and so on. Kind of like a chicken and egg thing.

But that does make authority seem circular. The government have authority over the people due to the threat of violence, but the people are the ultimate authority over the government due to democracy, but democracy is only there because the government authorises such an institution, but that's because it is the will of the people and so on and so on. Kind of like a chicken and egg thing.
Exactly, and this sort of illegitimacy is a common anarchistic critique.
,
EDIT: Folks often cite social contract theory to found the legitimacy of the government's authority, but there's a whole bunch of problems in that.

Exactly, and this sort of illegitimacy is a common anarchistic critique.

Well I'm not saying it's nessecarilly(fuck spelling!) illegitimate, just confusing. What exactly is legitimate authority, how can you differentiate between legitimate and non legitimate?

No no no, you guys are making interesting points but i think that authority comes from socially engineered institutions and organisations that peter down through society, for example;
the large banks, look at the mess today and they are the ones we look to fix things. (the lifeblood of a country is it's money)
the large supermarkets, if they started running out of food there would be chaos. (coercive power, or reward power)
the justice system, if it is too badly corrupted, or badly run people will start to resist authority even more. (Punishment power)
the mass media, they advertise millions of products to us, they are a primary source of information for the majority of any given Westernised country. (informational power)

They are where the authority comes from, because authority necessarily comes from power.

Coups and revolts may occur if there is a power vacuum, or if one of the powers is not properly looked after.

Because it's derived from authority (legitimate or not).

You're supposed to follow the law because you're supposed to agree with the government that they have legitimate authority over you, legitimate authority to legislate and enforce law, by the nature of you being a citizen, etc.

Which doesn't quite compute because people will and have disregarded the law and have and will have differences wih the government.

Wouldn't the law be the only unchangable constant there?

Well I'm not saying it's nessecarilly(fuck spelling!) illegitimate, just confusing. What exactly is legitimate authority, how can you differentiate between legitimate and non legitimate?
I'm perhaps confusing things.

Some political philosophers differentiate between power and authority; authority being legitimised power. So, no-one could realistically deny that the UK government has the power to enforce it laws, but many would deny it has the authority to do so.

Whch doesn't quite compute because people will and have disregarded the law and have and will have differences wih the government.
Aye, but then those people might, (a) not believe the government has authority, or (b) believe the government has authority, but simply disregard it.

I'm perhaps confusing things.

Some political philosophers differentiate between power and authority; authority being legitimised power. So, no-one could realistically deny that the UK government has the power to enforce it laws, but many would deny it has the authority to do so.


But in your opinion, can anything or anyone have the authority to do so?

Aye, but then those people might, (a) not believe the government has authority, or (b) believe the government has authority, but simply disregard it.

Which begets this question: Isn't the law, in those instances you mention, the only constant and, therefore, authority in itself?

just keep ignoring me, go on i dare you, no i double dare you.

*ignores Mad hatters in jeans*

But in your opinion, can anything or anyone have the authority to do so?
I have major problems with establishment of political authority, in the sense of a government holding authority on your behalf. So, in that area, I don't think any state has real authority; though they obviously have real power.

I'm more sympathetic with non-epistemic authority in the sense of, for example, the mods here on NS:G. Without getting into the way forums should or shouldn't be run, I think we've all fairly and without coercion agreed to be subject to the authority of the mods. But I wouldn't say all agreements of the contractarian form are legitimate.



Which begets this question: Isn't the law, in those instances you mention, the only constant and, therefore, authority in itself?
Simply because it's a constant, I don't see how it holds the ultimate authority.


just keep ignoring me, go on i dare you, no i double dare you.
*pats on head*

I have major problems with establishment of political authority, in the sense of a government holding authority on your behalf.


But why?

But why?
Because I don't think there's a convincing argument for their establishment.

*ignores Mad hatters in jeans*
*ignores Hydesland in return lol*


Simply because it's a constant, I don't see how it holds the ultimate authority.
*pats on head*

woof?

Because I don't think there's a convincing argument for their establishment.

What about a utilitarian argument, as in, without an establishment giving authority to law enforcement, as well as limiting the power of law enforcement agents, we're fucked.

What about a utilitarian argument, as in, without an establishment giving authority to law enforcement, as well as limiting the power of law enforcement agents, we're fucked.
You mean like a Hobbesian argument, claiming that existence without strong central government would be shitty?

I don't accept it. In fact, on the contrary, I think strong central government is the cause of many of society's ills.

Me.

You mean like a Hobbesian argument, claiming that existence without strong central government would be shitty?

I don't accept it. In fact, on the contrary, I think strong central government is the cause of many of society's ills.

Well, from what I've studied (in things like developmental economics), statistically speaking, decentralised governments tend to be far more corrupt and vulnerable to corruption.

Well, from what I've studied (in things like developmental economics), statistically speaking, decentralised governments tend to be far more corrupt and vulnerable to corruption.
For a start, corruption isn't the only issue.

Secondly, are these accountable decentralised governments? Genuinely democratic (i.e. not one election every five years)? How decentralised is decentralised? Are we talking communitarian local government or the councils set up by authoritarian governments such as the UK/US?

EDIT: Moreover, having the best style of governance is naught if you're in an economic condition and/or using technology, that isn't conducive to free society.

For a start, corruption isn't the only issue.


Well what is the issue? How can you make sure that you don't have corrupt officials walking around with their own ideas on how to enforce their law, without central regulation and oversight.


Secondly, are these accountable decentralised governments? Genuinely democratic (i.e. not one election every five years)? How decentralised is decentralised? Are we talking communitarian local government or the councils set up by authoritarian governments such as the UK/US?

Well, for one of the studies, a comparison was made between the US, and western European nations, and how the US's less centralised system seems to foster more corruption.

Well what is the issue? How can you make sure that you don't have corrupt officials walking around with their own ideas on how to enforce their law, without central regulation and oversight.
Genuine political accountability to, and engagement from, people. Bottom-up regulation, not top-down.

Well, for one of the studies, a comparison was made between the US, and western European nations, and how the US's less centralised system seems to foster more corruption.
US-style representative democracy isn't what I mean by decentralised governance.

Something more like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_municipalism).

Genuine political accountability to, and engagement from, people. Bottom-up regulation, not top-down.


Far too vague, also, you can have genuine accountability whilst still having a state with political authority. You need to be a little more specific.

Far too vague, also, you can have genuine accountability whilst still having a state with political authority.
I would question this.

See below.

You need to be a little more specific.
True.

This (http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031117110637888) article by Murray Bookchin (a thinker who heavily influences my political ideals) gives an overview of what I think society should be like:

[Libertarian Municipalism] seeks to reclaim the public sphere for the exercise of authentic citizenship while breaking away from the bleak cycle of parliamentarism and its mystification of the "party" mechanism as a means for public representation. In these respects, libertarian municipalism is not merely a "political strategy." It is an effort to work from latent or incipient democratic possibilities toward a radically new configuration of society itself--a communitarian society oriented toward meeting human needs, responding to ecological imperatives, and developing a new ethics based on sharing and cooperation. That it involves a consistently independent form of politics is a truism. More important, it involves a redefinition of politics, a return to the word's original Greek meaning as the management of the community or polis by means of direct face-to-face assemblies of the people in the formulation of public policy and based on an ethics of complementarity and solidarity.

-snip-

Now I'm sure Bookchin is a great writer, but that paragraph alone is still a little too wishy washy and non specific. How are these face to face assemblies going to work? Are there only going to be assemblies for individual communities, and none at the national level? Because if this is the case, then I'm sure I don't need to tell you the extreme danger such a system like that poses. If there is assemblies at the national level, you're going to have to have representatives, you can't have a few million people deciding face to face. In that sense, why is it any different from a progressive parliamentary state?

Fear. Anything with the capacity to make thus subject to it fear the results of non-conformity. Fear, and, in consequence, belief, are the basis of authority, and nothing else.

Fear. Anything with the capacity to make thus subject to it fear the results of non-conformity. Fear, and, in consequence, belief, are the basis of authority, and nothing else.

Don't forget actual physical force. Like the ability to shove people into a police car and throw them in jail.

Now I'm sure Bookchin is a great writer, but that paragraph alone is still a little too wishy washy and non specific. How are these face to face assemblies going to work?...
I'm no prophet.

I have ideas about how they could work, ranging from direct democracy to accountable representation, and Bookchin's article discusses some contingent ideas. To fully discuss how a society I envision 'would work', I'd have to write several thousand words, if not more.

Suffice to say, Bookchin (and others) expound these better than I can.



Fear. Anything with the capacity to make thus subject to it fear the results of non-conformity. Fear, and, in consequence, belief, are the basis of authority, and nothing else.
The basis of some power, but that's no definition of authority.

Don't forget actual physical force. Like the ability to shove people into a police car and throw them in jail.

I'd still posit fear is the basis of obediance; what, ultimately, stops somebody refusing to adhere to the police, other than fear of the consequences.

The physical force is immaterial without fear of the failure of compliance.

I'd still posit fear is the basis of obediance
Yet that's not authority, at least in the sense of legitimised power, that's just obedience to power through fear.

Yet that's not authority, at least in the sense of legitimised power, that's just obedience to power through fear.

Yes it is. Encircle power with contemporary, fleeting, abstract legitimacy all you will, but most still obey out of fear of nonconformity.

I'm no prophet.

I have ideas about how they could work, ranging from direct democracy to accountable representation, and Bookchin's article discusses some contingent ideas. To fully discuss how a society I envision 'would work', I'd have to write several thousand words, if not more.

Suffice to say, Bookchin (and others) expound these better than I can.


Well I'm still not convinced decentralisation is a good thing, unless you're able to devise a system where you can have a strong and consistent legal system across the whole area, and one with a competitive market system (for at the very least luxury, non essential goods) where individuals are free to start their own businesses or pursue their own career of choice.

Encircle power with contemporary, fleeting, abstract legitimacy all you will, but most still obey out of fear of nonconformity.
Never mind whether or not people obey power through fear or not, it still doesn't make said power legitimate, and thus should not be obeyed; should indeed be destroyed utterly.

Well I'm still not convinced decentralisation is a good thing, unless you're able to devise a system where you can have a strong and consistent legal system across the whole area, and one with a competitive market system (for at the very least luxury, non essential goods) where individuals are free to start their own businesses or pursue their own career of choice.
That begs the question of economics, and I'd certainly argue decentralised government will always be hindered within capitalist society.

Never mind whether or not people obey power through fear or not, it still doesn't make said power legitimate, and thus should not be obeyed; should indeed be destroyed utterly.

I don't see any correlation between the abstract legitimacy of power and the obedience it extracts. Legitimacy and coercive or co-optive means bear no relation to each other, as the fragmentation of the Roman west, and the conduct of the medieval nobility, attest.

I don't see any correlation between the abstract legitimacy of power and the obedience it extracts.
If power is not legitimately wielded, then a challenge can be made to it; full obedience will never be had. Even the most despotic, most ruthless regimes have internal opposition. To construct a truly cohesive society, we need a legitimate base for political power.

Anything else will be (one) cause for civil strife.

One might argue that the illegitimacy of the UK government's power was one indirect cause of the London Tube bombings.

That begs the question of economics, and I'd certainly argue decentralised government will always be hindered within capitalist society.

Ok well lets go back before this digression:

You question whether you can have a state with political authority which is genuinely accountable. Why so?

You question whether you can have a state with political authority which is genuinely accountable. Why so?
Primarily because I don't think most forms of representation in politics can be genuinely accountable. They can be accountable, to certain people, once every election; but I wouldn't call that genuine accountability to the people.

State power without representation is, obviously, simply not accountable.

If power is not legitimately wielded, then a challenge can be made to it; full obedience will never be had. Even the most despotic, most ruthless regimes have internal opposition. To construct a truly cohesive society, we need a legitimate base for political power.

Anything else will be (one) cause for civil strife.

One might argue that the illegitimacy of the UK government's power was one indirect cause of the London Tube bombings.

Illegitmacy is a subjective concept, and, given that a government will inevitably offend some and please others. The cause of the Tube bombings was our being deemed a close ally of the USA, and an oversight by police and intelligence services.


In any case, what you suggest, with all respect, is idealistic. No polity will ever enjoy universal legitmacy, however, to be deemed legitimate by such elements of society as wield economic power is perhaps the best a polity can expect.

Illegitmacy is a subjective concept

This is a good point actually. Can you argue for a universal measure of legitimacy chumbly? You can't exactly prove an objective connection between accountable and legitimate, can you?

This is a good point actually. Can you argue for a universal measure of legitimacy chumbly? You can't exactly prove an objective connection between accountable and legitimate, can you?

I object to that. Harrumph.:wink:

Illegitmacy is a subjective concept
No, I don't think it is, in this context.

I believe we can derive morality from facts about human, and then derive a political philosophy that fits such a morality. That's a moral realist thesis.

The cause of the Tube bombings was our being deemed a close ally of the USA, and an oversight by police and intelligence services.
That's two other causes, but not the be-all and end-all.

In any case, what you suggest, with all respect, is idealistic. No polity will ever enjoy universal legitmacy
It is idealistic, and that is no bad thing.

Even if no political system will ever be completely illegitimate (which I contest), we should strive for the most legitimate system as possible. And the current pseudo-democratic system we live in today is certainly not that.

What is it to you? Is it the Government? The laws they pass? What your peers think? What your parents say? Your teachers?

Authority to me is the government, the law, and my parents. If you do not fall under this definition and you try to impose your authority on me, you are what is commonly known as a dick. (That's just how I work)