Is Authority Necessary?
Offline I'm frequently told that it is and frankly I just don't see that it is.
Authority does not make people peaceful and cooperative. Authority has a necessarily limited sphere of influence. It manifests only in the actions of it's pretended agents, let's call them "cops" (it could also be "crusaders" if the authority in question is, say, God, in which case nobody here needs to be told that that particular authority frequently makes people extremely violent), and cops are limited. They cannot be everywhere or see anything, authority can only govern where it's agents can govern, and 99.999% of the time, that doesn't include where you're sitting right now. If people were not naturally peaceful and obedient, no amount of policing would stop bloodshed. It is thus impossible for Authority to make people peaceful and cooperative.
Authority does not "protect the weak against the strong". In reality, it does exactly the opposite. Authority frequently disarms the weak and makes them victims of stronger criminals. And if you look at it objectively, the stronger criminals are usually the agents of the Authority figure. It's possible (though improbable, given the vast areas in which police are absent) for authority to protect the weak against non-authoritarian aggressors. But who protects the weak against the authority? Nobody. The authority becomes the strong who the weak are supposedly being protected against, and often deprives the weak of the means of protecting themselves against the authority. Government actions contradict this blatantly. How can Walmart bully the smaller stores? Through government. Government not only cannot protect the weak against the strong, it's more common function is to protect the strong against the weak.
Authority is not "necessary" and I see no reason why it possibly could be. If anyone does not need an authority, then authority is not necessary. If everyone does need an authority, then who is the authority of the authority? Are people in positions of authority magically rendered benevolent and omniscient? Do they answer to the authority of the people being led by the authority? If that's true then everyone is someone else's authority, but nobody is their own authority. Does this make any semblence of sense? Why the hell would it have to be that way? Why can't people be their own authority figures?
Can someone put to bed once and for all why authority is necessary?
Opportunists would become a new majority and the strong would kill the weak. Now, I see what you're saying, but the utopia of a non governed world actually being successful is naive. I have thousands of dollars of musical equipment sitting in front of me right now. If there were no laws against someone rushing in and snagging it while I'm at work, chances are I wouldn't be typing this right now.
I understand the concept of "Well, if someone was really going to snag your equipment, they would do it regardless of law." But when the law's not there, a lot of people would switch from "I'd never do that, I'd get arrested!" to "HELL YEAH FREE JUNO106."
And the people are supposed to be the authority of the Authority, but due to laziness and nationalism, I'm afraid that's not happenning anymore, and probably never will.
First let me say I was challenging the concept of authority and it's necessity. Not the police. You don't need authority to have police. Any principled libertarian can tell you why free-market policing would be cheaper, more courteous, and more effective than state-monopoly policing. The free market is always cheaper and better. Authoritarian policing is wasteful and unnecessary.
[quote=UltraWill]Opportunists would become a new majority and the strong would kill the weak. Now, I see what you're saying, but the utopia of a non governed world actually being successful is naive. I have thousands of dollars of musical equipment sitting in front of me right now. If there were no laws against someone rushing in and snagging it while I'm at work, chances are I wouldn't be typing this right now.[/quote]
We're already in anarchy. Opportunists would not become a greater majority than they are now. Guns are an equalizer: Strong or weak, man or woman, a gun will do the same thing in everyone's hands reguardless of who you are. The weak only need guns to kill the strong. You don't need laws to tell someone not to steal your stuff. The law isn't there if someone breaks into your house. Theives get in, get out, and get away in less than 3 minutes most of the time. Even the pizza delivery guy won't get there in 3 minutes, much less the police. The chances of law being there are astoundingly slim. The theives know this. If all that stopped them from breaking into people's houses was law enforcement, they'd be breaking into everyone's houses. There's a good reason why they don't do this. Because some people own guns and theives are not interested in getting shot.
[quote]I understand the concept of "Well, if someone was really going to snag your equipment, they would do it regardless of law." But when the law's not there, a lot of people would switch from "I'd never do that, I'd get arrested!" to "HELL YEAH FREE JUNO106."[/quote]
The people that want to take your stuff will take it reguardless of the law. The people that don't want to take your stuff will not take it reguardless of the law. Nothing is "Free" when there's a good chance of getting shot trying to get it. "Free" indicates zero price, not zero cost or zero risk. I know I certainly wouldn't go around stealing people's stuff just because I knew there were no government police if for no other reason than because a lot of people have guns and I don't want to find out the hard way who owns them. Besides, in a modern anarchist society there would be protection agencies to stop your stuff from being stolen. Like police, but you'd be their customers rather than the children they're babysitting (from their perspective).
[quote]And the people are supposed to be the authority of the Authority, but due to laziness and nationalism, I'm afraid that's not happenning anymore, and probably never will.[/quote]
So then the authority system is a failure. If everyone needs an authority and some people don't have any, the system isn't working, and the people in positions of authority can do essentially whatever they want.
To me authority is best when well regulated and controlled by the populace that gives said person authority weather it be a government figure or a police officer. This is one of the reasons i don't support republicans big on authority lax on oversight,it also happens to be one of the reasons i'm an atheist i don't see how or what gives god the authority to rule over me even if he did "create" me which i find hard understand beacuse i remember when i was young my mother telling me that i came out of her womb not some space man mashing me together with magic.
i'm adding to what i posted earlier i had to leave the computer due to the end of class, so basicly i dont belive that some "divine" ruler has a right to claim authority neither does anyone else for that matter. A leader must be intelligent, have the best intrest of the people in mind and responsible with the authority given to them. so few leader's actually posses these quality's though. to a spacific extent i belive a limited form of authority oversight by others is necessary,absolute authority is never necessary.
Okay, if you believe that a limited form of authority is necessary, what is it necessary for?
[quote=Zhwazi]
Okay, if you believe that a limited form of authority is necessary, what is it necessary for?
[/quote]
Defense? Commerce?
How is it necessary for those things? Can people not defend themselves and each other without any kind of authority to do it for them? Can people not set their own terms of exchange without some authority to set the rules?
A functioning justice system? and a functioning goverment? ive never been one to belive in absolute anarchy some form of goverment is necassary if your going to have large populations like a major city exist without things like crime being rampant. What i mean by a limited form of authority is that a police officer has the right to arrest someone but he doesn't have the right to go around and arrest everyone for anything at all. Another point about limited authority is that there must be acccountability, if an authority figure abuses his authority he must pay for it. Although i'm makeing this point for a limited form of authority i do see the flaws in authority in that alot of people have ego's. Power goes to there head and they think they can do anything, that is why if we should give authority to anyone it should be to intelligent, responsible people that we can monitor and be shure wont abuse there authority, in a perfect world the people would be monitoring the goverment not the other way around. The limited authority i belive in would be comparable to everyone in the united states careing about what the president does with his power and makeing sure he can't even get out of bed without someone knowing about it. this also goes to another point if you are willing to accept authority you must also be willing to sacrifice privacy eveyone must have the right to know were you are and what you are doing all of the time. but my idea of a good limited authority is really just a pipe dream. people dont give a damn what the leader's do which leads to bad and courrupt leadership also we vote some of the most ignorant people into office i.e.)george bush some people i talk to actually think it's a good thing to get an ignorant leader elected so he doesn't abuse his power. but this raise's the question how can an ignorant leader run the country? this is the way authority is necessary.
You don't need authority to have a functioning justice system. And what can governments do that nobody else can? You can say government is necessary but restating your position does not support your point. It also doesn't support your point to say you only support a limited form of authority, because I'm questioning any degree of authority. There needs to be accountability with or without authority, and very often authority is a way to avoid being held accountable for one's actions. The entire second half of your post wasn't relevant, I'm not asking you to elaborate on what conditions are necessary for authority to be good, I'm questioning the entire idea. Except for the last two sentences, where I'm just not seeing how the one implies the other.
i understand what you mean by is authority as a whole necessary people are capable of defending themselfs but what about people that are unable to defend themselfs? or what about crimes that need more than one person to stop? you could form a posse to say stop a gang but then that group becomes the authority figure there is no way a society could funtion beacuse someone would always become the authority figure so weather or not authority is necessary it will always exist in one form or another. im just curious to ask you how would your society function if none could take authority say if there was no authority how could it run? how would you stop someone from takeing authority?
[quote=Zhwazi]Can people not defend themselves and each other without any kind of authority to do it for them? Can people not set their own terms of exchange without some authority to set the rules?[/quote]
I think humans simply don't possess the intelligence and selflessness needed to work together effectively in many different areas. A certain level of authority is always necessary to carry out important tasks. Recall the difficulties that America experienced under the Articles of Confederation. Without the ability to raise an effective military, the national government was threatened by both internal and external enemies. Shay's Rebellion lasted for several months and was finally put down by disorganized private militias raised by private citizens in Massachusetts. Similarly, since the national government had no control over commerce, the different states quarreled over different currencies and exchange rates.
Without government, who's going to maintain highways? Collect garbage? Deliver mail?
Bleh, I'm guessing this is going to end as a discussion of human nature again.
[quote]And what can governments do that nobody else can?[/quote]
In theory, nothing.
But, realistically, I just don't think that a society without any centralization could function due to human nature. I still support a mostly capitalist society with some socialistic elements.
[quote=Aaron1212]
i understand what you mean by is authority as a whole necessary people are capable of defending themselfs but what about people that are unable to defend themselfs?[/quote]
They do not need authority, they need empowerment. If somebody else wants to defend them (e.g. kids and legally incompetent people) then they're free to, if someone is the type that nobody can even sympathize with them then they're the type to be marginalized by authority anyways.
[quote]or what about crimes that need more than one person to stop? you could form a posse to say stop a gang but then that group becomes the authority figure[/quote]
Woah, define authority here. You seem to be conflating it with power. It's not the same thing.
[quote]there is no way a society could funtion beacuse someone would always become the authority figure so weather or not authority is necessary it will always exist in one form or another.[/quote]
The given cause does not support your conclusion that "there is no way a society could function".
[quote]im just curious to ask you how would your society function if none could take authority say if there was no authority how could it run? how would you stop someone from takeing authority?[/quote]
What is your standard for a society "functioning" anyways? What is the function of a society? And in a society where nobody was inclined to respect authority, would there be any authority to even take?