GWW

Many people conflate "society," "government," and "authority" as mutually inclus
ive concepts, but they are not.

Unfortunately, concepts like society, the state, government, or "We the People"
are not living, breathing entities, and by ascribing to them a thing that only r
eal objects can possess (in this case, authority), we are committing the reifica
tion fallacy:
Ambiguity in this form is a tool, used either by the ignorant doing "good" even
if their premise is naive at best, or the manipulative who strive for power over
others.
Society can be defined as some arbitrary number of humans, greater than one, liv
ing in close proximity to one another. That alone does not lend itself to us to
be able to deduce the derivation of authority. To do so, we have to define autho
rity:
The first part of the definition deals with what authority is: having the absolu
te sole right to exact obedience from another.
But, how do we gain authority?
For instance, let us imagine that three people--person A, person B, and person C
--are living within close proximity of one another.
1. If person A gives his explicit consent to person B, to allow person B to hold
authority over him, does person B's authority also extend to person C?
2. If person B and person C began trading goods and services with one another, d
oes person A automatically gain authority over 1 or both of them (or neither)?
3. Does person A, person B, or person C have some qualifying, natural characteri
stic that automatically ascribes the right of authority to them over the other t
wo?
Remember when thinking about these questions: we are discussing the right of a p
erson to both make rules and to force others to obey said rules.
Smash the social contract. Tiamat384
Male-Man of Theory
Member
Registered: 30-8-2015
Location:
Mood: Bored
Member was on ATS
48 minutes ago 1,541 148
2,685 20 27
posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:36 link
quote
Authority is derived from consent and/or power.
reply a reply to: CharlestonChew
So one can not answer your questions without knowing the relations of power betw
een the three.
intrptr
Member
Location: Planet Earth
Mood: Iconoclastic
Member was on ATS
48,465 325 30
quote reply Having the 'power or right
to give orders. In that nobody will step up and stop even if abusive or harmful.
Thats from power not from being in the right.
I just watched parts of Schindler's List again. Within the confines of the Camp
the Nazis had complete authority. One misstep and you're dead.
Things were the way they were not the way you remember them.
Things are the way they are not the way you perceive them.
Things will be the way they will be not the way you foresee them. CharlestonChew
Eat Chocolate Spread Anarchy
Member
Location: Anarchapulco
Mood: AntiAuthority
Member is offline.
91 6
89
0.75 16
quote
reply
originally posted by: Tiamat384

a reply to: CharlestonChew
Authority is derived from consent and/or power.
Consent is the only moral justification for gaining authority over another human
being.
If person A consents to be governed by person B, person B's authority does not l
end itself to exacting obedience from person C. It can't. We could deduce that a
uthority is derived from the individual.
Having the "power" to hold authority is an immoral argument in the sense that au
thority is being justified by one's ability to beat people up who may disagree w
ith your authority. It is a "might makes right" argument and is inherently circu
lar logic:
"He has the power to enforce his authority and his authority is derived from his
power because he can enforce his authority...."
So one can not answer your questions without knowing the relations of power betw
een the three.
There does not have to be any relation. They just have to live close enough to o
ne another to count as a "society." In the same sense that someone living in Cal
ifornia can agree that person A (whether Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump, or Bernie
Sanders, etc) may hold authority over them, and somehow that authority extends
to people living in Ohio, or Tennessee, or Florida, etc.
edit on 25-2-2016 by CharlestonChew because: (no reason given)
Smash the social contract. NthOther
Member
Location: Samsara
Mood: Funked
Member is offline.
2,128 946
9,532 71 72
quote reply Authority is derived from a
monopoly on the use (or potential use) of force.
Or, the people with the guns make the rules.
CharlestonChew
Member
Mood: AntiAuthority
Member is offline.
91 6
89
0.75 16
quote
reply
originally posted by: NthOther

Authority is derived from a monopoly on the use (or potential use) of force.
Or, the people with the guns make the rules.
I mean, for our current use of organizational powers that is the most honest arg
ument for what we actually do.
Male-Man of Theory
Member
Location:
Mood: Bored
Member was on ATS
2,685 20 27
quote
Your question has nothing to do with morals. Simply about authority. Power and c
onsent are the allowances to authority. If you are looking at it that only conse
nt is the means to power you are only looking at it from a liberal view point.
CharlestonChew
Member
Mood: AntiAuthority
Member is offline.
91 6
89
0.75 16
quote
reply
originally posted by: Tiamat384

a reply to: CharlestonChew
Your question has nothing to do with morals. Simply about authority. Power and c
onsent are the allowances to authority. If you are looking at it that only conse
nt is the means to power you are only looking at it from a liberal view point.
There is no justification for the use of power to force people, who do not conse
nt to your authority, to obey you.
My argument is that someone who uses that justification has no authority.
Smash the social contract. CharlestonChew
Member
Mood: AntiAuthority
Member is offline.
91 6
89
0.75 16
What about the 1st question:
quote
reply a reply to: Tiamat384
If person A gives his explicit consent to person B, to allow person B to hold au

thority over him, does person B's authority also extend to person C?
Do you think that person B's authority extends to person C?
Male-Man of Theory
Member
Location:
Mood: Bored
Member was on ATS
2,685 20 27
quote
Except that using your definition it is still authority.

Depends on power relations. I am taking both a liberal and realist view of the w
orld which is how it really works.
Look. Im just answering as IR theory has it and how the actual world works and u
sing your definitons.
watchitburn
Watcher
Member
Location: In the fire.
Mood: Burning
Member was on ATS
5 minutes ago 3,641 1,320
11,696 91 52
quote reply Authority us derived from a
glorious and manly mustache. Everyone knows this.
Its too late now to stop the process. This was your choice you let it in Tiamat3
84
Male-Man of Theory
Member
Location:
Mood: Bored
Member was on ATS
2,685 20 27
quote
reply a reply to: watchitburn
That explains so much about the 1930s.

truthseeker84
Member
Location: Southern California
Mood:
Member is offline.
544 44
870
7 25
quote
reply Animal Instinct perhaps?
In nature, there's always the Alpha, Pack Leader, Group Leader, Troop Leader...
etc.
Seems to be part of our genetics that we have to "follow" or "obey" somehow.
Thus, I love Loki's quote in the first Avengers movie:
Loki
Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of
humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your
life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled
. In the end, you will always kneel.
Oh, I forgot then the old man stood up and said: "Not to men like you."
But in my version, there's no Captain America and the geezer gets turned to dust
.
edit on 2/25/2016 by truthseeker84 because: (no reason given)
George Carlin:
"Some people see the glass half full. Others see it half empty. I see a glass th
at's twice as big as it needs to be." DISRAELI
Member
Location: Somewhere in the historical record
Mood:
Member was on ATS
8 minutes ago 9,995 1,279
12,036 103 19
quote reply a reply to: CharlestonChew
It might be useful for you to go to the older philosophers like Hobbes and Locke
and read up on the concept of the "Social Contract".
This is a corporate agreement among the members of a society to accept a source
of authority to provide order amongst them.

It is best to think of this original "contract" as something implied and only ha
lf-conscious, rather than explicit.
Hobbes was responsible for the statement that human life without some such arran
gement would be "nasty, brutish, and short" (as it might be again if the anarchi
sts got their way).
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord..."- Isaiah
"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?" - Tony Hancock luth
ier
Member
Location:
Mood:
Member was on ATS
3,161 21 28
quote
reply a reply to: DISRAELI
You beat me to it. I would throw in Roseau.

Locke and Kant disagreed about Hobbes state of nature comment. They all were par
t of different revolutions. Some 'bloodier" than others.
Personally I like Roseau and even Spinoza on the social contract and freedom.
edit on 25-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)
reddragon2015
Member
Location:
Mood:
Member is offline.
111 80
225
2 38
quote reply It comes from the man holdi
ng the largest stick. That's the US government with the army.
lightedhype
Member
Location:
Mood:
Member is offline.
972 43
4,336 27 67
quote
reply From the outfit/badge.
South Park even has a bit on it.

centarix
Member
Location:
Mood:
Member is offline.
126 53
344
3 45
quote
If I'm attacked, I have the right to fight back. So, natural rights can be a sou
rce of authority in addition to consent. I have a right to fight off an attacker
whether or not the attacker has granted me consent to do so.
CharlestonChew
Member
Mood: AntiAuthority
Member is offline.
91 6
89
0.75 16
quote
reply a reply to: DISRAELI
Have you read my signature by chance?

The social contract is complete make believe. A contract requires review, counte
r-offer, and acceptance/rejection by all parties involved. Did you read that? A
contract can be REJECTED.
The social contract implies that authority is derived from the consent of the go
verned, but in practice it is used to excuse enslaving person C when person A co
nsents to be governed by person B, when person C gave no such consent.
The only reason to use a "social contract" is to excuse any evil done to a perso
n under the guise that said person "tacitly agreed" to the mistreatment.
Don't want to be robbed? You tacitly agreed to it.
Don't want to be raped? You tacitly agreed to it.
Don't want to be murdered? You tacitly agreed to it.
It is an intellectually dishonest argument for abusing other humans while preten
ding any alternative would result in chaos (without being able to see the chaos
it causes).
Want organization? Build a society on the concept of explicit contracts accordin
g to contract law. Psychopaths would rather stick to the ambiguity of the "socia
l contract," though, because it gives them the power necessary to abuse others w
ith impunity.
Smash the social contract. MagnaCarta2015
Member
Location:
Mood:
Member is offline.
760 31
1,494 10 30
quote reply Person B has the potential
to exercise some authority over C by using A as a proxy. The extent to which B g
ains from any trade between A and C is dependent on the level of authority grant
ed by A to B and the level of autonomy C is able to exercise when dealing with A
.
Both A and C should cut B out completely.

GWW

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

GWW

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Many people conflate "society," "government," and "authority" as mutually inclus

ive concepts, but they are not.

Authority is derived from consent and/or power.

reply a reply to: CharlestonChew

originally posted by: Tiamat384

originally posted by: NthOther

reply a reply to: CharlestonChew

originally posted by: Tiamat384

reply a reply to: Tiamat384

If person A gives his explicit consent to person B, to allow person B to hold au

reply a reply to: CharlestonChew

Except that using your definition it is still authority.

reply a reply to: watchitburn

That explains so much about the 1930s.

reply Animal Instinct perhaps?

of authority to provide order amongst them.

reply a reply to: DISRAELI

You beat me to it. I would throw in Roseau.

reply From the outfit/badge.

South Park even has a bit on it.

reply a reply to: CharlestonChew

reply a reply to: DISRAELI

Have you read my signature by chance?

Anda mungkin juga menyukai