Authority, what is your attitude to authority? Is it cliched? Is it complex?

[Lark]

What is your view of authority? Is it cliched or complex? Why would or could you qualify it as either?

Does your view of authority effect your daily life or do you reflect on it much? Is authority different from authoritarianism for you and do you see or know many others who can or do make distinctions like that?

Does it effect your friendships or whether or not you are liable to befriend others or what opinions you form about them?

 

[Sriracha]

It's complex. While I may respect authority on the surface and be law abiding; of course I notice where power is abused. I don't reflect on it much. Does it reflect my friendships? It can, I wouldn't knowingly make friends with a criminal. Let's say hypothetically my best friend told me she was a compulsive shop lifter ... I'd more than likely back off the friendship.

 

[sassafras]

Contrary to the belief, it's not power or money that corrupts, it's the individual with power and money that has the potential to be corrupted.... just as they have the potential to do good with it.

I don't get people who are anti-authority entirely on principle. You know who I'm talking about. The people who believe anyone who's higher up is immediately a corporate, soul-sucking demon from the deepest. blackest depths of hell and you better hide yo kids, hide yo wife because any kind of POWER automatically means you've must have struck some kind of Faustian deal.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of government, just like there's nothing inherently wrong with someone who is in a higher up position. Being suspicious of them because they've got authority is fucking stupid. It's the equivalent to a foot-stomping teen refusing to listen to a parent's advice because its coming from parents rather than taking a moment to evaluate the advice on its own merits. Yes, the government is fucked up in a lot of ways, but not everything they do is some deep, dark conspiracy theory... just as not everything that your boss does is meant to make you feel inadequate or stupid. That kind of thinking breeds paranoia and ignorance and makes you miss the facts. Potential for corruption is not the same as corruption.

Also, keep in mind that sometimes a resentment of authority can really just be jealousy in disguise, feeling like you haven't gotten your due... and if you can't have it, you feel compelled to destroy it.

I think it comes down to just keeping your eyes open and not walking in with any kind of expectations. Evaluate the situation. Evaluate the individual. Judge by their actions, not their action through the scope of a general anti-authority bias. If someone has good advice for you, don't ignore it... but don't follow blindly either. Own your own mind and then you won't have to feel inadequate or threatened next to someone who has greater social currency than you.

 

[Nixie]

ditto to [MENTION=1360]TheDaringHatTrick[/MENTION]

The mind is always free and so is the spirit. I think the deeper question lies in the idea of conformity rather than authority anyway. We are conditioned to know authority and power by being born as infants with someone having to take care of us. I think we are all familiar with the concept and understanding of what it is to be powerless. Some strive to make sure they never feel powerless again. Some make a general peace with the idea that there will be moments where they are not in control, knowing they have relinquished a bit of their power to someone/something else.

Conformity, on the other hand, speaks more toward the idea of whether you act without thought or purpose, allowing yourself to drift along the path of least resistance.

 

[muir]

I don't agree with the statements placed here by some others regarding the concept that hierarchical systems don't become corrupted

If you go back to Plato's idea of the ideal society: plato's republic, he envisioned a society where philospohers such as himself were raised to the status of kings who would then rule over the rest of humanity

This is a deeply flawed idea

It is also an idea that has been latched onto and has inspired despots around the world

The banking fraternity that run wall street who are colloquially known as 'the masters of the universe' have said in their writings that they believe that they are better qualified to run the world than democratically elected governments

that banking cabal who operate out of the bank for international settlements (BIS) are platonists in that they see themselves as philosopher kings who should rule over the rest of humanity

So here's the part where we look at why this idea of a hiearchical society is deeply flawed

lets say that we go along with TDHT or Nixies idea that it is ok to give away power to certain people. lets say that we all put together a council of the most benevolent and kind hearted individuals that we can assemble

Let's say that this council rules wisely but with complete power over everyone else. This might work well for a while but over time a number of things will happen

Firstly the wise ones will die and need to be replaced

Secondly the power hungry people who are not benevolent but care only for themselves will seek to subvert the council and to place themselves in the council

This ALWAYS happens and anyone who knows their history knows this

There are examples of people regarded as 'good' leaders and there are examples of people who were considered 'bad' leaders and no society has consistently had good leaders...NEVER

The spanish conquistadors did not fight the mighty Incan army in open battle. What they did was to enter the royal city under a flag of peace. They then ambushed the unarmed royal train and captured the king.

By capturing the king the conquistadors placed themselves at the top of that society that was arranged as a hierarchical pyramid and they then set that pyramid of people to work to achieve THEIR goals which did not revolve around the feeding, housing and clothing of the incan people but rather the gathering of all the empires gold and silver and bringing it to them

This is the problem with hierarchical pyramidal structures....that they can be hijaked by people of ill intent

And indeed we have seen the same thing happen in our very own society...where a banking cartel have taken over the money supply and the government and they have put the system to work funnelling ALL the wealth upwards to them; they even created a set of policies to facilitate this called 'neoliberalism'

They are not focussed on feeding, housing and clothing the population which is why people are losing their jobs and homes and businesses and why people in detroit don't even have water

The only solution to this inherent flaw in the centralised power system is to DECENTRALISE power down to the people so that power cannot be focussed in the hands of despots

 

[the]

I like that there is authority and people who have authority; I like exposing and eliminating authority when it no longer suits me.

 

[muir]

There is a further reason why the idea that power doesn't corrupt is naive and that is because of a certain process that occurs over generations

Lets say that some people become powerful and wealthy. They set themselves up at the top of society and they want to make sure that they and their family stay at ther top of society so they split that society into two parts

They want to have the best of everything. they want the best education so they set up special schools that only their kids can afford to go to....meanwhile because they hoard the wealth the public schools become worse and worse leaving the rest of society to become increasingly illiterate

They want the best healthcare so they hoard the best and leave everyone else with a far lesser service

this they do in EVERY area of life

Each new generation born into that hunger games style elite becomes more and more seperate from the rest of society as the wealth gap widens between the two groups

Eventually the super rich become so far removed from the rest of society that they see themselves as godlike people who can play games with the rest of humanity as if they are pieces on a chess board

This we can see going on around us

 

[muir]

I like that there is authority and people who have authority; I like exposing and eliminating authority when it no longer suits me.

If instead of having to deal with the abuses of authority you had some say in the decision making process yourself you could avoid annoyances like unemployment, bad healthcare, dwindling public services, police oppression, big brother state spying and so on

But that requires a person to take responsibility and not be a little child in an adults body which is what the nanny state wants everyone to be

 

[muir]

Concerning people of power and influence striking faustian deals it works like this....

When a power hungry person or group have gained positions of influence within a hierarchical structure they then ONLY want to employ or promote people who will do their bidding...these are called 'yes men' because they always reply 'yes' to authorities dictats regardless of how oppressive those dictats might turn out to be for other people

This means that to advance yourself in a system that has been compromised by power hungry people then you MUST strike a faustian deal with them or you will not be promoted

So if you take our system for example....the government has been taken over by wallstreet who fund the political campaigns of politicians who have struck a faustian bargain with wall street

ONLY those that show a willingess to be corrupted will be advanced by the corrupt

 

[the]

If instead of having to deal with the abuses of authority you had some say yourself you could avoid annoyances like unemployment, bad healthcare, dwindling public services, police oppression, big brother state spying and so on

But that requires a person to take responsibility and not be a little child in an adults body which is what the nanny state wants everyone to be

Some say, against the say of everyone else, might as well be no say. Based on your post muir, I can only come to the conclusion that you are either horrible at explaining this idea, or this idea is bad. I'm not sure that you understand power. In your mind, what is "say" anyways?

 

[muir]

There is an important distinction to be made between AUTHORITY and RESPECT

Authority will make you do things even when they are not good for you or others...this is called 'coercion'

Respect on the other hand is something you choose to give

So lets say that AUTHORITY tells you to pick up a gun and round up some of your fellow citizens and put them in a gas chamber and then gas those people to death then you will be coerced into going along with that

AUTHORITY might even tell you that if you do not gas those people then you will be gassed yourself

This situation you will have allowed to be created becuase you did not challenge the idea that authority is not dangerous. Opposing the abuses of power that often come from authority does not make you a foot stamping teenager it makes you an adult because taking responsibility is THE HALLMARK OF ADULTHOOD

If on the other hand you live in a non coercive society then there will be some poeple who you listen to because you respect them. For example...lets say that you and some community members are doing a project together. lets say you are building a house.

One member of the team has already built 20 houses that you have seen and like

You will likely listen to the advice of this person because you RESPECT their experience, knowledge and expertise

However you choose to do this unlike authority where you would be TOLD to do it

Not blindly going along with authority is not footstamping teenage behaviour, it is exercising your natural ability to judge situations and people. Adult behaviour is about taking responsibility which means looking at what works and what the implications of things are and what the agendas, and background and knowledge and expertise and values and ideas and visions of people are before you choose to go along with what they are saying

if AUTHORITY is in fact corrupt as our government is being found to be then we should not just go along because we don't want to be thought of as a foot stamping teenager we oppose it because we are an adult able to think for ourselves and make our own assessement of what is right or wrong for ourselves and our community

 

[muir]

Some say, against the say of everyone else, might as well be no say. Based on your post muir, I can only come to the conclusion that you are either horrible at explaining this idea, or this idea is bad. I'm not sure that you understand power. In your mind, what is "say" anyways?

I went on to edit that post to clarify that by 'say' i mean having a say in the decision making process

So lets say that the government decides to implement a policy of taxation that shifts all the wealth to a handful of people at the top

Under the current system...because you have no real say except a vote every few years for one of two parties that have both been corrupted by the super rich there is little you can do to stop that policy and the resulting sabotage of your economy (because the people who spend are the lower classes NOT the super rich, who hoard the wealth)

If on the other hand you lived in a society where everyone had a say in such matters then the idea that all the wealth should be given to a handful of people leaving the rest to live in a crumbling economy would be LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM

 

[Eventhorizon]

If the idea is logical, makes sense and is viable, I will listen and perhaps go along with it. Otherwise I dont blindly follow anyone regardless of the position they are in. Example Obama himself told me to do something, I would tell him to jump off a cliff.

 

[muir]

If the idea is logical, makes sense and is viable, I will listen and perhaps go along with it. Otherwise I dont blindly follow anyone regardless of the position they are in. Example Obama himself told me to do something, I would tell him to jump off a cliff.

Now that is sensible!

That is the position of a person who is able and willing to exercise their own judgement

If we do not exercise our own judgement and instead hand all power of decision making over to others we should not be suprised when we find that they have taken all the money and services leaving our economy to crumble from the bottom up or carried out their vision for the world whether that is something going on in our workplace or something on a societal scale

 

[sassafras]

lets say that we go along with TDHT or Nixies idea that it is ok to give away power to certain people. lets say that we all put together a council of the most benevolent and kind hearted individuals that we can assemble

Let me quote myself once more:

I think it comes down to just keeping your eyes open and not walking in with any kind of expectations. Evaluate the situation. Evaluate the individual. Judge by their actions, not their action through the scope of a general anti-authority bias. If someone has good advice for you, don't ignore it... but don't follow blindly either. Own your own mind and then you won't have to feel inadequate or threatened next to someone who has greater social currency than you.

​

 

[muir]

Let me quote myself once more:

I think it comes down to just keeping your eyes open and not walking in with any kind of expectations. Evaluate the situation. Evaluate the individual. Judge by their actions, not their action through the scope of a general anti-authority bias. If someone has good advice for you, don't ignore it... but don't follow blindly either. Own your own mind and then you won't have to feel inadequate or threatened next to someone who has greater social currency than you.

[/I]​

lol

And let me quote yourself once more

Contrary to the belief, it's not power or money that corrupts, it's the individual with power and money that has the potential to be corrupted.... just as they have the potential to do good with it.

I don't get people who are anti-authority entirely on principle. You know who I'm talking about. The people who believe anyone who's higher up is immediately a corporate, soul-sucking demon from the deepest. blackest depths of hell and you better hide yo kids, hide yo wife because any kind of POWER automatically means you've must have struck some kind of Faustian deal.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of government, just like there's nothing inherently wrong with someone who is in a higher up position. Being suspicious of them because they've got authority is fucking stupid. It's the equivalent to a foot-stomping teen refusing to listen to a parent's advice because its coming from parents rather than taking a moment to evaluate the advice on its own merits. Yes, the government is fucked up in a lot of ways, but not everything they do is some deep, dark conspiracy theory... just as not everything that your boss does is meant to make you feel inadequate or stupid. That kind of thinking breeds paranoia and ignorance and makes you miss the facts. Potential for corruption is not the same as corruption.

Also, keep in mind that sometimes a resentment of authority can really just be jealousy in disguise, feeling like you haven't gotten your due... and if you can't have it, you feel compelled to destroy it.

Now you either believe that the individual should exercise personal judgement and responsibility in which case 'authority' should not be held to be sacred or you believe that authority is sacrosanct and should never ever be challenged....

But your post seems to be fudging the issue a bit

 

[sassafras]

lol

And let me quote yourself once more



Now you either believe that the individual should exercise personal judgement and responsibility in which case 'authority' should not be held to be sacred or you believe that authority is sacrosanct and should never ever be challenged....

But your post seems to be fudging the issue a bit

What?

Read it again. Carefully. There's nothing in that post that suggests that the issue is at all that black or white. At all. The essence is not to get bogged down by, authority = always bad or authority = always good. It's one thing to be a rebel with a cause, and entirely another to be a rebel without one.

Case in point, an employee that resents his boss just because the boss is in charge. Or a student that hates his teacher because the teacher is in charge. Or someone that is against an issue because the government happens to support it whereas, if the government didn't back it up, they'd be all for it.

 

[muir]

What?

Read it again. Carefully. There's nothing in that post that suggests that the issue is at all that black or white. At all. The essence is not to get bogged down by, authority = always bad or authority = always good. It's one thing to be a rebel with a cause, and entirely another to be a rebel without one.

Case in point, an employee that resents his boss just because the boss is in charge. Or a student that hates his teacher because the teacher is in charge. Or someone that is against an issue because the government happens to support it whereas, if the government didn't back it up, they'd be all for it.

I think you are missing the point...

People resent being told what to do because coercion is an abomination

If a person doesn't respect their boss or their teacher then they will not want to be coerced by them

So if you build a system reliant on authority you will have ENDLESS antagonism as these situations arise where people are coerced into doing things they don't want to do often by people they do not respect

 

[sassafras]

I think you are missing the point...

People resent being told what to do because coercion is an abomination

If a person doesn't respect their boss or their teacher then they will not want to be coerced by them

So if you build a system reliant on authority you will have ENDLESS antagonism as these situations arise where people are coerced into doing things they don't want to do often by people they do not respect

No, you are missing the point. Why is it that in your understanding, authority immediately means coercion and antagonism? Why do you assume that someone who refuses to see the issue as all black mean that they're willing to follow blindly, regardless of respect or personal reason?

Authority simply means having greater influence, advice, learning, resource or experience over another. It is what qualifies someone as a leader. We are not all created equal in every task. We all have strengths and weaknesses. The student is still learning. He has a weakness in his study of mathematics, for example. The teacher, on the other hand, is stronger in this subject and therefore, has the authority in this area. If the student is resentful of the fact that his teacher is better learned and commands the attention of his fellow students, is he being antagonized by the teacher or is he being antagonized by his own feelings of being the lesser in this situation?

Authority does not always go hand in hand with antagonism and coercion. Sometimes people take advantage and do horrible things with authority, and sometimes, they do lots of good. You are the product of authority. You are who you are because if the influence of your parents, teachers, and government. The reason why you're sitting in front of a computer right now, reading this, is because somebody somewhere got a brilliant idea and mobilized a whole bunch of people to build personal computers; someone else decided on rules of conduct in a forum and elected mods to enforce them to maintain quality of community and which you agree with and follow and would defer to mods if you saw someone else not following those rules.

Leaders need both respect and authority. You seem to be suggesting that one immediately negates the other. Or that we shouldn't answer to any leaders because they're all rotten to the core and we should just do what we want.

Its not that black and white.

 

[Lark]

Some say, against the say of everyone else, might as well be no say. Based on your post muir, I can only come to the conclusion that you are either horrible at explaining this idea, or this idea is bad. I'm not sure that you understand power. In your mind, what is "say" anyways?

I'd not like to substitute the authority of the mob for the authority of a single tyrant, most of the time they're both examples of authoritarianism rather than legit authority, wielded well or competently.

I read all the radical and anarchistic ideas about popular sovereignty and different sorts of direct democracy, delegate democracy etc. etc. and thought they were all great until I actually got out into a workplace and could appreciate all the awful ways in which your colleagues could out weigh the boss in terms of harm they'd set out to do you or their incompetence or the whole gummit of office politics, social climbing, letching, gossiping etc. etc.

Managerialism is bogus and I think this is becoming a fact universally recongised, given that the latest conservative party manifesto borrowed heavily from some of the more tame syndicalist, worker ownership, mututalism and co-management thinking there is out there, but there's not a workplace in the land that I've encountered which would function at all if self-management or the more fantastic democratisation ideas were introduced.

I say that all and I'm actually someone who despite the difficulty with finding consensus in the realm of political terminology and believing myself that they are discredited terms more or less would characterise my own beliefs as democratic, libertarian, socialistic and communitarian.