It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where Does Authority Come From?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

You should probably read Roseau he wrote pretty extensively about it. Most of these arguments you are presenting are within
The 4 books he wrote . His work also had a lot to do with the constitution.

And yes by choosing to live in society you have given tacit support of the social contract.

The contract that allows you not to have a gang run you off your property. Or you getting robbed every day.

You can argue about the effectiveness of the government/authority in regards to protecting your rights but the social contract was designed in the US using Roseua's social contract and John Locke's Two Treaties of Government. They also explicitly write that you have the right to rebel if they aren't doing there job or are unjustly robbing you.




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


You should probably read Roseau he wrote pretty extensively about it. Most of these arguments you are presenting are within


You could answer them yourself.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Four books worth?

I can start.

No legitamate political authority is founded by force.

Legitamate political authority is derived from a covenant (the social contract) between members of society.

A people only become a people if they have the freedom to deliberate amongst themselves and agree about what is best for all.

People living in a state of nature come together and agree to certain constraints in order that they might all benefit.

Our freedom and our humanity are closely tied to our ability to deliberate and make choices. If a monarch has absolute power over us, we lose both our freedom and humanity, and become slaves.

The problem resolved by the social contract is how people can bind themselves to one another and still preserve their freedom. The social contract essentially states that each individual must surrender himself unconditionally to the community as a whole.
(1) Because the conditions of the social contract are the same for everyone, everyone will want to make the social contract as easy as possible for all. (2) Because people surrender themselves unconditionally, the individual has no rights that can stand in opposition to the state. (3) Because no one is set above anyone else, people don't lose their natural freedom by entering into the social contract.

The community that is formed by this social contract is not simply the sum total of the lives and wills of its members: it is a distinct and unified entity with a life and a will of its own.

This is how Roseau saw it.

As it evolved in the US. It became simplified a bit to something like.
(1) mutual defense of rights; and (2) mutual decision by deliberative assembly.

This is a huge topic that spans several volumes over 100's of years.
edit on 25-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
you allow the authority to rule over you. it's your choice. it's not forced on you by guns or violence, you chose to live the way you do... there is nothing that you have to do, and there is nothing that you can't do, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions, which is what most people don't want to do. so they accept the ruler's authority.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Your post drew my attention, because I lean towards anarchy. Unfortunately most don't understand the aim or the nature of it to think about it rationally. When presented with the idea of anarchy, it is often perceived in an archetypical way without understanding the advantages. Ultimate responsibility. Good people mobilised, unrestrained by laws that neither protect us nor serve us. We think of anarchy and the first image we see in our minds eye is a punk on the corner with a petrol bomb.

These concepts are indoctrinated early as is authority, I suppose it helps to keep us compliant, but imagine a world were we willingly cooperated with each other and took ultimate responsibility, we wouldn't need authority, or is that anarchy?

I could accept authority if I could see power used to advance all life, but power is used to destroy and enslave. It is perverse that countries squander our wealth and planet on any kind of war, look at how their defence budgets are staggering compared to how much they reinvest in us to see the what authority gives you power over.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Authority comes by the seizing of power from those you gain authority over...
What one does to achieve authority would be different depending on what they have gained authority on...
The scope of this question is too far ranging and therefore any number of answers could be true if applied to the right situation...

edit on 26-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: auraofblack
[anarchy] the advantages. Ultimate responsibility. Good people mobilised, unrestrained by laws that neither protect us nor serve us. We think of anarchy and the first image we see in our minds eye is a punk on the corner with a petrol bomb.

Unfortunately observations of human nature made through history suggest that the utopian idea of "good people working together" is a pipedream. We would get that in the short-term (if society broke down), as a result of the long traditions of social structure which have embedded themselves into our reactions, but in the long-term there would be a reversion to the second option.
A human world without some kind of structure would be a tyranny of the strong over the weak. As we see in many situations already
The only people who ignore that consequence are those who haven't thought it through, and those who feel strong and macho enough not to care.

Whatever faults you find in authority, it comes down to - which is the lesser of the two evils?
Don't strain so hard to avoid the ditch on one side of the road that you pull the car into the ditch on the other side.

edit on 26-2-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
It flows from the barrel of a gun, of course.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

We are making assumptions here, though, regarding anarchy--and human organization in general. Government is one form of human organization, and it is hierarchical in it's orientation (the "authority" at the top issuing orders to everyone at the bottom). The assumption is that human organization is only possible under coercive hierarchies, that human beings are incapable of organization utilizing a different model, and that such attempts would result in chaos.

The false dichotomy that human beings either have rulers or fall to chaos is deceitful.

For instance, those "observations of human nature throughout history" that you are speaking of: are those behaviors natural to human beings, or are they the reactions of humans beings under controlling states? I would argue that history shows that a freer a civilization is from rulership, the greater the quality of living said civilization has been able to manifest, with the most totalitarian civilizations representing the exact opposite extreme in terms of human suffering.
edit on 26-2-2016 by CharlestonChew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Authority comes by the seizing of power from those you gain authority over...
What one does to achieve authority would be different depending on what they have gained authority on...
The scope of this question is too far ranging and therefore any number of answers could be true if applied to the right situation...


Are seizing power and legitimate authority the same thing, though? Is a de facto ruler a "true" ruler?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

It's not an assumption it's anthropology. The last egalitarian societies were overrun by bullies with larger weapons and sinister plans. A democracy was supposed to be a representational form of law to prevent a monarchy from happening and be a more organized version of domestic scale culture.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


It's not an assumption it's anthropology. The last egalitarian societies were overrun by bullies with larger weapons and sinister plans.


Conquest is inherent to state-building. It is often used as an excuse that we need a government to protect us from predatory governments (while ignoring the fact that all governments are predatory according to their nature).


A democracy was supposed to be a representational form of law to prevent a monarchy from happening and be a more organized version of domestic scale culture.


And it failed. The past 200 to 300 years have proven that democracy is just as despotic as any monarch. Structurally, democratic governments are still hierarchies, because all governments are hierarchical by nature. Government is a monopoly on specific services.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

So in your utopia the entire world of 7 billion people will not conspire to create a state and give up power?

That is the most unrealistic thing possible.

If your familiar with domestic scale culture you had things happen like getting your arms hacked off in the middle of the night, having your children stolen, slavery, disease, starvation etc



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


So in your utopia the entire world of 7 billion people will not conspire to create a state and give up power?

That is the most unrealistic thing possible.


When did I make that claim? I didn't. I didn't say that people would not attempt state-building, but the argument for building states to protect us from other states is dubious. It assumes that protection can only be achieved through coercive hierarchies.


If your familiar with domestic scale culture you had things happen like getting your arms hacked off in the middle of the night, having your children stolen, slavery, disease, starvation etc


What is "domestic scale culture"?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: luthier


So in your utopia the entire world of 7 billion people will not conspire to create a state and give up power?

That is the most unrealistic thing possible.


When did I make that claim? I didn't. I didn't say that people would not attempt state-building, but the argument for building states to protect us from other states is dubious. It assumes that protection can only be achieved through coercive hierarchies.


If your familiar with domestic scale culture you had things happen like getting your arms hacked off in the middle of the night, having your children stolen, slavery, disease, starvation etc


What is "domestic scale culture"?


Tribes.

Not dubious...reality. The level of organization it takes to protect yourself from a powerful state is beyound the capability of an anarchist system.

Now if we were to start over after a catastrophe of huge proportions possibly for a while there can be egalitarianism.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


No legitamate political authority is founded by force.


This I can agree with because it implies true authority is gained through consent


Legitamate political authority is derived from a covenant (the social contract) between members of society.


This is vague.

"Society" can be any number of people and is completely arbitrary.


A people only become a people if they have the freedom to deliberate amongst themselves and agree about what is best for all.


A person living in California doesn't have the knowledge to decide what is best for a person living in Ohio, or vice versa.


People living in a state of nature come together and agree to certain constraints in order that they might all benefit.


So if person A and person B agree to some mutual constraints, but person C does not agree, is person C bound by said constraints?


Our freedom and our humanity are closely tied to our ability to deliberate and make choices. If a monarch has absolute power over us, we lose both our freedom and humanity, and become slaves.


This I agree with, but the idiot, enlightenment philosophers simply traded Kings for "the social contract" which is just as bad, if not worse. A King can be killed, a social contract on the other hand is really hard to locate.


The problem resolved by the social contract is how people can bind themselves to one another and still preserve their freedom. The social contract essentially states that each individual must surrender himself unconditionally to the community as a whole.


Which community? What if I choose not to? Why does a concept have authority ("community")? Can I just call myself a community and pretend to have authority? That's basically what people do.

How many people does it take, specifically, to form a community?

How many people does it take, specifically, to form a society?

If person A and person B make contracts with one another, are their children bound to the contract?


(1) Because the conditions of the social contract are the same for everyone, everyone will want to make the social contract as easy as possible for all.


The conditions are not the same for everyone, when a select few are granted power over others, and said power gives them the ability to abuse others with impunity.



(2) Because people surrender themselves unconditionally, the individual has no rights that can stand in opposition to the state.


How many people does it take to form a state?

If you and another person form a "state," does the authority of your state extend to me? Why?



(3) Because no one is set above anyone else, people don't lose their natural freedom by entering into the social contract.


But people are set above others.


The community that is formed by this social contract is not simply the sum total of the lives and wills of its members: it is a distinct and unified entity with a life and a will of its own.


And this claim is complete fantasy. An idea is not a real entity.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Not dubious...reality. The level of organization it takes to protect yourself from a powerful state is beyound the capability of an anarchist system.


Government was responsible for the deaths of over 200 million human beings in the 20th century alone.

That doesn't sound like protection.


Now if we were to start over after a catastrophe of huge proportions possibly for a while there can be egalitarianism.


Why is hierarchy the only way to achieve defense or security?

That's like claiming "the only way I can get tennis shoes is if we create the Federal Department of Tennis Shoes." Or, "the only way I can get coffee is if we create the Federal Bureau of Folgers."

If people can practice religions without government, if they can produce shoes, televisions, automobiles, smartphones, airplanes, books, etc, etc...why do you claim then, that the only way we can achieve security is by creating a structure that monopolizes security?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Your confused about the meanings of these things.

You would find roseau is in agreement with several things you are saying.

A person who does not consent to the social contract has no rights to use the objects created by the state. By using say walking on the roads built by the state you are giving tacit support. Otherwise find your own place not claimed and do what you want.

Tyranical government is not allowed in the social contract. This is your confusion. You are supposed to revolt in this case. The fact that you have not is your fault. People are not supposed to be set above others per sae. The soveriegn elected have a different role in Roseau opinion.

Again we are talking about 4 books of info. It seems you haven't read at all but are willing to call these people idiots.

My guess is you aren't even very familiar with the Bloody Revolution, the Glorious revolution, and the French Revolution that led to these philosophies and the current power structures.
The social contract was created naturally it was not invented by anyone. It's an observation and then guidance as to how to use it to govern fairly.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Once superior technology is created people use it as an advantage against those who are peacefully.

If you examine how technology changed tribal warfare you can see this clearly.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


A person who does not consent to the social contract has no rights to use the objects created by the state. By using say walking on the roads built by the state you are giving tacit support. Otherwise find your own place not claimed and do what you want.


So the social contract is assumed to be the excuse for modern governments? So my claim that we traded Kings for ambiguous concepts is true?

The US is full of untouched forests, if I got caught hunting, fishing, or logging without a license I would be arrested. Why? Because the state has claimed a whole bunch of land. There is no unclaimed land.


Tyranical government is not allowed in the social contract. This is your confusion. You are supposed to revolt in this case. The fact that you have not is your fault. People are not supposed to be set above others per sae. The soveriegn elected have a different role in Roseau opinion.


Which is why victim-blaming is inherent to the social contract. "Oh, you don't like these abuses, well it's YOUR fault, lol"

Do you not see what happens when people try to organize against the state? Both the BlackLivesMatter movement AND the Bundy Ranch occupiers have been demonized by the media. Both groups have legitimate complaints, both groups are being targeted by government.

And why is it happening? Why does a corrupt state exist in the first place? Because a few hundred years ago some guys got together and formed a government, and somehow through magic, said contract between those men is somehow binding upon the millions of humans who were to follow.

I'm pretty sure John Locke wrote that a social contract can't be binding against the progeny of the original members of a contract.


Again we are talking about 4 books of info. It seems you haven't read at all but are willing to call these people idiots.


They literally just changed the names around to form new tyrannical governments. The social contract is no better than a monarchy.

“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.”
― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority


My guess is you aren't even very familiar with the Bloody Revolution, the Glorious revolution, and the French Revolution that led to these philosophies and the current power structures.
The social contract was created naturally it was not invented by anyone. It's an observation and then guidance as to how to use it to govern fairly.


That's kind of the issue. Go ahead and whittle government back down to what it was "supposed" to be according to social contract theory, or the Minarchist, wet-dreams of our forefathers. After another 2 to 300 years, we will be right back in the position that we're in now. Giving a few people a monopoly over the use of force, the creation of law, the interpretation of law, and court systems--and then expecting said monopoly not to grow in power is naive.




new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join