Do you submit to authority?

Thomas Jefferson said the authority should be a natural aristocracy, not a coercive institutional one.

In the state, everyone has been subjected to authority based on fear. That is not all bad for teaching children to stay out of the fire and not to play in the street.

However, authority based of fear is a pro statist "subliminal" conditioning for the rest of the time of life, like a default setting to choose bigger government as the safe and normal solution to any irritation.

originally posted by: Terminal1


I think we need to define "submit" because I think that our definitions differ.

Personally I think there are times when you must yield to another person. This does not necessarily mean to give up control of thoughts and actions to another. I think this is where we differ or have a misunderstanding of sorts.
To read what you say that you have never submitted to anyone just doesn't make sense.

I had the same sort of confusion when I read his first post. In the second, it became clear there was some sort of miscommunication going on. To submit, to me, means to accept information another gives to me- not sell my soul or consider myself as inherently inferior a being. It is just pragmatic and temporary, and dependent upon context.

I must do this to learn a new skill or knowledge, I must do this to act in the role of a team member. I will submit to a teacher or trainer during our lessons (which I chose to take), and then outside the classroom or arena, I relate to him as an equal- he or she is superior in knowledge, experience, or position in a specific context, not outside of it.

This goes for politicians as well- I will acknowledge their authority and leadership in some areas, but not others. I will submit to their outlines of collective living- such as highway laws, but will not look to them, listen to them or pay attention to their information or guidance on my personal life in the bedroom, for example. It is not their area of expertise and position.

But it seems this person makes some sort of difference between submission and acknowledgement of leadership position, and the word submit means something much more deeper and lacking in self respect....?

A good example is my relationship to my boss at work, in which I yell out "Oui Chef!" to his commands, and call him "Vous",
But outside the kitchen, and when we see each other elsewhere, I kiss his cheeks in the traditional fashion, and we call each other by first names and use "Tu" (the familiar form of "you", reserved for equals). Context, context, context....

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Terminal1


I went on to say that submission is not in my nature and that I abhor being in a position of authority over others...Yet at the same time some persons for whatever reason need to be...led..............I don't require that.

I think there is some lack of effective communication going on, and I assumed it was just me (and still trying to puzzle out where we are missing each others meanings ) but I see I am not the only one, so it might be worth it to try to figure this puzzle out openly!

Now, you acknowledge you have been in positions of subordination yourself.
Did you see no reason or value to that? Did you not find any learning, or development, benefit, or even pleasure, that emerged from those experiences?

I guess what I find confusing is- how can you not perceive the same sorts of value and benefit in others experiences as subordinates to yourself?

To not see yourself as offering them valuable information, born from your experience, that will benefit them and they may be thankful for receiving?

Or not understand why some people might be needing that input from another, at a certain stage of their development?
We're all beginners at some point, in everything- we all need input from more experienced people, there is nothing shameful, nor irrational, in that. It is not hard to comprehend.

I've always thought that one of the reasons I can appreciate the value of being a subordinate is precisely because I appreciate being a leader- it is because of that I can accept authority and relate to it, and basically embrace hierarchial structures altogether. I find it somewhat curious and fascinating to regard your point of view here, simply because it seems uncommon and different.

It sounds similar to the "Peter Pan" syndrome , in which people just never want to be part of any pecking order in any context, refusing social structures (I don't blame the other poster for having taken it for that), but you take slight swerve in saying you DO get involved in social structures, and take a role, but- you just don't like to...?

Don't feel too offended.....people misunderstand each other sometimes and internet exposes us to people who can be radically different... which can be both wonderful... and terrible.

Interesting responses. I think the reason some people are getting a bit testy is because of the wording. I "comply" with "authority" in many situations, but I only "submit" to God. If a firetruck or police car is heading in my direction w/sirens on, I move out of the way. If a boss asks me to do something, I'll comply if it's not illegal. If I get a Jury Summons, I'll go to the courthouse to see if I'm needed for the jury. I follow most of the laws where ever I am. That's complying with authority.

But submitting to authority means complete servitude. I'm lucky enough to live in a situation in a free country where I don't have to worry about "submitting" to anyone. But I also don't think it's necessarily bad to submit to authority. There are probably hundreds of millions of public servants, military, and law enforcement globally that serve their authorities completely. They may do it for the sake of their country, homeland, region, communities, or from a sense of duty, love of their royalty, etc. I, on the other hand, don't trust people enough to put complete trust in them. And I refuse to comply with rules I feel are immoral or wrong.

Oh & someone earlier quoted Thomas Jefferson saying "the authority should be a natural aristocracy, not a coercive institutional one." But wasn't he a slave owner? So wasn't he forcing his authority onto other people (his slaves)? Or is that what he meant by "a natural aristiocracy"?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Oh & someone earlier quoted Thomas Jefferson saying "the authority should be a natural aristocracy, not a coercive institutional one." But wasn't he a slave owner? So wasn't he forcing his authority onto other people (his slaves)? Or is that what he meant by "a natural aristiocracy"?

No, I have never been a slave owner.

A natural aristocracy just happens. As people understand who is the best, or most reliably competent, or responsibly talented, or cultivated of a remarkably above normal ability in something, people will defer to the aristocrat's assessment of specific problems.

A coercive aristocracy has talent only in keeping itself the coercive aristocracy. Fractional reserve banking comes to mind. Some humans get to loan money they don't have and claim to own the thing bought by the loan, if the loan is not repaid. Our aristocracy keeps power with tricks like that.

The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

LOL Come on. Obviously I wasn't saying you were a slave owner. I was saying Thomas Jefferson was. And that his words weren't too meaningful in this context because his authority came from coercion on the 150+ slaves he had.

On top of that, he was an incredibly wealthy man who used his power, wealth & status to maintain his political power (at one point he was Virginia's wealthiest man). So how is that any different than today's wealthy & central bankers who use their wealth to maintain their power? It just seems like his idea of "natural aristocracy" in this case was closer to the people who believe in leaders by birth-right, as opposed to leaders by merit.

I try to keep authority consistent and honest no matter who they are talking to!

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Semicollegiate

LOL Come on. Obviously I wasn't saying you were a slave owner. I was saying Thomas Jefferson was. And that his words weren't too meaningful in this context because his authority came from coercion on the 150+ slaves he had.

On top of that, he was an incredibly wealthy man who used his power, wealth & status to maintain his political power (at one point he was Virginia's wealthiest man). So how is that any different than today's wealthy & central bankers who use their wealth to maintain their power? It just seems like his idea of "natural aristocracy" in this case was closer to the people who believe in leaders by birth-right, as opposed to leaders by merit.

You seem to say that you would have freed all of your slaves just as soon as you were old enough to talk. I don't know how much slavery affected Thomas Jefferson's thinking. Comparing slaves to servants might not be that much of a difference to a rich person. Depending on the economy, slaves might be better off than servants. Slaves always get enough to eat, because they are an expensive item of property, where as employees must pay for all of their necessities themselves, which is the most likely reason for the termination of slavery.

Thomas Jefferson was a voice for the population that wanted freedom from government, or at least that government be as small, weak, and accessible to the voter as possible, see Minarchism. The Democratic party of the 1800's is often called the Jeffersonian Democrats. The 19th Century Democrats were all in favor of non-fiat metal backed money, a small central federal government, and no federal government spending.

The hypocrisy of Jefferson was the Louisiana Purchase, which was done with Federal Government money and authority. I think we bought it, rather than just settling it, to keep other powers from establishing presences there.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I respectfully disagree. People have revisionist history when it comes to American slavery, b/c no one wants to admit how horrific it was. Just google search "slave torture", "slave torture devices" & "slave punishments". And sex slavery was a massive part of the slave trade, with something like 450,000 mulattoes being counted on the 1860 Census (and clearly it wasn't the slaves initiating that). Even Andrew Jackson's first slave was a woman. My own maternal bloodline is the result of this forced submission to an oppressive authority.

And while people love to idolize the Founding Fathers, it doesn't change the fact that they were humans with human emotions & behaviors. Many of the Founders were incredibly wealthy & were the equivalent of the 1920s Robber Barons. And it's not like they did a survey of the colonial masses & the broad majority cried for independence. In fact, most colonists during the war wanted to stay British. The allies of the Founders put out a lot of pamphlets about the situation, which was their form of mass media. And while I cherish the freedoms granted by the amended Constitution, the Founders never meant for myself or my people to benefit from it. I mention that because of the irony that they used to force submission to their authority onto their slaves & the Native populations (haha had to bring it back to the thread topic- high fives self).