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

[muir]

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, or learning, 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.

You are using the word 'authority' in two different ways there...so first of all lets clear that up

if someone is an expert at something we often call them an 'authority' on their subject...however that is NOT the meaning that this thread is using the word 'authority' for

The authority in this thread is about coercive authority

I made the distinction before between 'respect' and 'authority'

A person follows authority because it tells them what to do. Sometimes they might agree with what they are being told to do and they might go along with it willingly. Other times they might disagree with what they are being asked to do but when they disagree with authority, then authority threatens them and ultimately penalises them

respect on the other hand (which is more relating to the other meaning for the word authority that you mentioned) is more about going along with what someone is suggesting because you respect that persons opinion; however if you decide not to go along with it then you are not penalised

Authority is not the reason i am typing on a computer right now. The reason i am able to use a computer now is HUMAN INGENUITY

How human ingenuity is harnessed however is where you then get into systems whether coercive or non coercive

Now a person can be coerced into inventing and building things...sure...and yes such a society will gain benefits from human ingenuity over time but with all the negative side effects of coercion such as low motivation, depression and tensions etc

if our society had been non coercive and had allowed human ingenuity free reign then instead of typing a computer right now i would probably be exploring space in the USS enterprise

 

[muir]

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.

You can't judge anarchism by the behaviours that are generated under capitalism

Alongside an anarchist revolution would also be required a revolution of the mind...we'd need to rethink how we were behaving and why we are thinking the ways we are thinking

We have all been conditioned to think like capitalists and as a result we see all the capitalistic behaviours that result from such a competive mindset

So you can't say that anarchism doesn't work because of how people behave in a capitalist workplace....

I'm not saying that such a switch would be easy...we have generations of conditioning we would have to work through but i am saying that if we don't make the switch we are heading at the moment at least on a very dangerous trajectory

 

[the]

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.

In my post, I was thinking more of the mob vs myself, as opposed to the mob vs choosing a single leader. In America the government is basically a mob = "We the People" as opposed to a single tyrant. I do like when there is a single leader because I feel safer in knowing that I could potentially cut off the head of the dragon as opposed to having to cut the head off of several dragons (mob rule). Certainly there will be a time if I ever try to do something that could potentially negatively affect someone in some way. Realistically speaking people like to gossip and gossip (aka bad publicity) is something I would rather avoid. This could potentially incite the mob to turn against me - even if the reasons are false!

A real life example might be that I am happily existing on my farm and the mob (in the form of the government aka "We the People") decide to build a highway through my farm. I would prefer to be able to use an authority such as a politician or something of a similar nature to stop this highway from being planted in my farm land. Unfortunately for me "We the People" usually prevail in scenarios like this. This is why I don't like mob rule and I don't see anarchy or even the philosophical/libertarian/rainbows and unicorns/muir-type anarchy as valuable. ... well I do see the power vacuum that would be created as a potential opportunity but that's a different story.

 

[muir]

In a libertarian socialist ie anarchist communist society the 'mob' cannot coerce the individual, neither can the individual coerce the mob

 

[the]

In a libertarian socialist ie anarchist communist society the 'mob' cannot coerce the individual, neither can the individual coerce the mob

Yes, no one has any influence. All are equal just like Harrison Burgeron.

There will always be someone who can coerce and one who will be coerced. People don't develop equally. There will always be someone stronger than someone else to take away their candy bar, and then another smarter than him to snatch it from the strong man.

 

[sprinkles]

Authority is a reflection of what goes into it, therefore it can possibly be pragmatic. More often though we are simply lucky that it isn't entirely abused.

Many people accept authority on good faith, speak of 'enlightened officials' who know what they're doing, trust that the government will not allow the latest 'bad thing' to happen in society - but these people are naive. That is fortune, people! That's not the inherent benefit of authority, that's you being lucky that it isn't quite corrupted yet.

That's right. You can't speak of authority without corruption. You can get away with saying that power doesn't corrupt but it instead is the individual, but authority is made of the individual and therefore inherits this corruptibility.

Authority is like aluminum foil. It's pristine when fresh off the roll, but as soon as you get a wrinkle in it, you can't completely get rid of it. It's more easy to damage and corrupt it than it is to maintain its pure state. Another way of saying it is like a house of cards - if you work hard you can make one that stands up, but at the same time it is incredibly easy to destroy it.

Even if you can have faith in the current leaders and current authority, that cannot last forever because these people are mortal and there's always somebody looking to knock down the house of cards. This doesn't only happen to China, Japan, Germany, India, Korea, or wherever else you think was just 'backwards' and think "my government would never do that". Next thing you know you'll be waking up to find that this has happened to you also.

 

[sassafras]

The authority in this thread is about coercive authority

Oh, is it?

Let me refresh my memory. Here's the topic starter.

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?

Oops. Silly me. Yes, none of that is open-ended in the least and certainly does specify that this thread is about one specific type of authority, the kind that you want to talk about and define as it suits you.

Try to keep an open mind, muir. Not every topic related to power and authority boils down to one world government or doom and gloom. I know that this is important to you, but keep in mind, there are other perspectives, other subjects out there. The fact you can only see things through one lens is a bit concerning.

 

[Lark]

In my post, I was thinking more of the mob vs myself, as opposed to the mob vs choosing a single leader. In America the government is basically a mob = "We the People" as opposed to a single tyrant. I do like when there is a single leader because I feel safer in knowing that I could potentially cut off the head of the dragon as opposed to having to cut the head off of several dragons (mob rule). Certainly there will be a time if I ever try to do something that could potentially negatively affect someone in some way. Realistically speaking people like to gossip and gossip (aka bad publicity) is something I would rather avoid. This could potentially incite the mob to turn against me - even if the reasons are false!

A real life example might be that I am happily existing on my farm and the mob (in the form of the government aka "We the People") decide to build a highway through my farm. I would prefer to be able to use an authority such as a politician or something of a similar nature to stop this highway from being planted in my farm land. Unfortunately for me "We the People" usually prevail in scenarios like this. This is why I don't like mob rule and I don't see anarchy or even the philosophical/libertarian/rainbows and unicorns/muir-type anarchy as valuable. ... well I do see the power vacuum that would be created as a potential opportunity but that's a different story.

Opportunity for the wrong sort of people, the history of most of the tyrants who've risen to power or even experiments like the Standford Prison experiment and others which have sought to emulate it has been the weak authorities are quickly replaced with fascistic ones, even if there's an interlude of anarchy or chaos.

I would probably be just as dry about anarchism as you've been but I like to read most of the classical or earlier anarchist authors, they're good writers, a lot of them were aristos, and Bakunin had a great line about people dont appreciate being hit with a stick even if they're told it's "the people's stick" and a lot of other lines like that too. Although no one would read Enders Game or some other literary source like and consider it a design for life.

Its really life in small groups and communities which has left me less convinced of its efficacy as an alternative to the status quo, whether I've got personal or speculative sympathies with it or not.

 

[Lark]

Oh, is it?

Let me refresh my memory. Here's the topic starter.



Oops. Silly me. Yes, none of that is open-ended in the least and certainly does specify that this thread is about one specific type of authority, the kind that you want to talk about and define as it suits you.

Try to keep an open mind, muir. Not every topic related to power and authority boils down to one world government or doom and gloom. I know that this is important to you, but keep in mind, there are other perspectives, other subjects out there. The fact you can only see things through one lens is a bit concerning.

Good response, it certainly wasnt my intention to post a Muir thread, I'm more interested in how people are actually living their lives and experiencing life and if what they think in any sort of formal or reflective sense about politics or philosophy or sociology or psychology has an impact.

 

[muir]

Oh, is it?

Let me refresh my memory. Here's the topic starter.

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?


Oops. Silly me. Yes, none of that is open-ended in the least and certainly does specify that this thread is about one specific type of authority, the kind that you want to talk about and define as it suits you.

Try to keep an open mind, muir. Not every topic related to power and authority boils down to one world government or doom and gloom. I know that this is important to you, but keep in mind, there are other perspectives, other subjects out there. The fact you can only see things through one lens is a bit concerning.

yes and 'authoritarianism' (mentioned by the OP) relates to the meaning of authority that i was talking about

It does not relate to the meaning of authority used as follows: ''X is an authority on that subject matter''

From wikipedia:

Authoritarianism is a form of government.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] It is characterized by absolute or blind[SUP][4][/SUP] obedience to [formal] authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.[5

 

[sassafras]

smh

see above post, muir. Also, re-read OP again carefully.

 

[LucyJr]

Force makes everything stable, like a fine tunning in the relationships and good peace of the society. Weirdly enough, force by means of coercion is something like a hammer that keeps a good balance. Whithout authority, without force that keeps things in balance, there would be no peace.

Edit: Of course, force must be used at the hands of justice, because force without justice is tyrany.

 

[muir]

smh

see above post, muir. Also, re-read OP again carefully.

See wider reality

 

[muir]

Force makes everything stable, like a fine tunning in the relationships and good peace of the society. Weirdly enough, force by means of coercion is something like a hammer that keeps a good balance. Whithout authority, without force that keeps things in balance, there would be no peace.

Edit: Of course, force must be used at the hands of justice, because force without justice is tyrany.

Go and tell that to the next person whos family member has just been killed by a coercive authority

Who makes the 'justice'? Who makes the law? Which interest group shapes these things?

[video=youtube;XW15CGAiscw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW15CGAiscw[/video]

 

[LucyJr]

Go and tell that to the next person whos family member has just been killed by a coercive authority

[video=youtube;XW15CGAiscw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW15CGAiscw[/video]

I think you don't understand at all what authority means.
Your examples are completly irrelevant, as they are relative to certain situations that have moral implications. But it hasn't anything to do with authority itself.
Also there is a difference between authority and coercion. Coercion is just a tool, used not only by authority.

If there would be no authority, the world will colapse simply. This should be recognised intuitively, without any non-sensical discussion. Even animals know this simple truth.

 

[muir]

In my post, I was thinking more of the mob vs myself, as opposed to the mob vs choosing a single leader. In America the government is basically a mob = "We the People" as opposed to a single tyrant. I do like when there is a single leader because I feel safer in knowing that I could potentially cut off the head of the dragon as opposed to having to cut the head off of several dragons (mob rule). Certainly there will be a time if I ever try to do something that could potentially negatively affect someone in some way. Realistically speaking people like to gossip and gossip (aka bad publicity) is something I would rather avoid. This could potentially incite the mob to turn against me - even if the reasons are false!

A real life example might be that I am happily existing on my farm and the mob (in the form of the government aka "We the People") decide to build a highway through my farm. I would prefer to be able to use an authority such as a politician or something of a similar nature to stop this highway from being planted in my farm land. Unfortunately for me "We the People" usually prevail in scenarios like this. This is why I don't like mob rule and I don't see anarchy or even the philosophical/libertarian/rainbows and unicorns/muir-type anarchy as valuable. ... well I do see the power vacuum that would be created as a potential opportunity but that's a different story.

You wouldn't own a farm under an anarchist system, the land would belong to everyone

You would own your own small items of property

The land would be for everyone to benefit from

The scenario you describe of a force claiming to be acting on behalf of 'the people' steamrolling their way through your world is in fact the system we are currently living in NOT an anarchist system

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

It is known that some people seek authority, they search to "subdue" or to be accountable to something or somebody. Why do they do this?...its a very very interesting question, a philosophical one.
Those kind of people are called mature people, or to be more exact, they themselfs consider to be mature, as you can not expect from a child to recognise and appreciate maturity.

I am not one of them. I do want to follow authority and I do follow it, but up to this time, I do it only because somehow I have a vague idea that this is very good, but still I have problems understanding it, proof that I am still a child somehow. I admire people that see clearly the meaning in authority and I want to be like them.

 

[muir]

I think you don't understand at all what authority means.
Your examples are completly irrelevant, as they are relative to certain situations that have moral implications. But it hasn't anything to do with authority itself.
Also there is a difference between authority and coercion. Coercion is just a tool, used not only by authority.

If there would be no authority, the world will colapse simply. This should be recognised intuitively, without any non-sensical discussion. Even animals know this simple truth.

Well if we go by the following definition from wikipedia (to use an external but well recognised source):

The word authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning 'invention', 'advice', 'opinion', 'influence', or 'command'. In English, the word authority can be used to mean power given by the state (in the form of government, judges, police officers, etc.)

In government, the term authority is often used interchangeably with power. However, their meanings differ: while power is defined as "the ability to influence somebody to do something that he/she would not have done", authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. For example, while a mob has the power to punish a criminal, for example by lynching, people who believe in the rule of law consider that only a court of law has the authority to punish a criminal legally as per law says.

So authority is the right to weild power over others

And i'm saying we should not recongise authority...we should recognise attributes which we respect

There are of course exceptions for example if a person steps out in front of a vehicle and we pull them back then we have applied force but with reasonable cause

Also self defence is reasonable cause

In my view it is about trying to live within the spirit of an idea...the idea is that people shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do

It's kind of like the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do to you

Or the libertarian ethos of: do what you want to do as long as you are not hurting others

If you ascribe 'authority' to a person or entity you are essentially giving away responsibility to make your own judgement because you are bowing to their authority

 

[muir]

@muir

It is known that some people seek authority, they search to "subdue" or to be accountable to something or somebody. Why do they do this?...its a very very interesting question, a philosophical one.
Those kind of people are called mature people, or to be more exact, they themselfs consider to be mature, as you can not expect from a child to recognise and appreciate maturity.

I am not one of them. I do want to follow authority and I do follow it, but up to this time, I do it only because somehow I have a vague idea that this is very good, but still I have problems understanding it, proof that I am still a child somehow. I admire people that see clearly the meaning in authority and I want to be like them.

Following authority does not make someone an adult....exercising personal responsibility makes someone an adult otherwise people absolve themselves of all sins: ''its not my fault i was told to do it...''

 

[muir]

There are parameters to this discussion which is how we define authority and our views on it

I have defined it, given my view on how it operates in our society, given historical examples and put it into a real world context