Where Does Authority Come From?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

The social contract is an observation it's not created. It was first observed by Plato. It was then theorized as to how to guide it.

Your two examples are not good ones BLM and the bundies are poorly organized.

You are correct though the government under Roseau has no right to claim land it does not need. He specifically says this.

Again your not having much of an arguement with the social contract but rather what has been done to destroy it.

The forefathers knew exactly that every 300 years their would need to be bloodshed to regain liberty. They actually say this.

Your argueing against human nature and not offering any realistic alternative.

Once a powerful state is ineveitably created with force and superior weapons if another organized group of people isn't there to stop it , the tyranical state will enslave people.

Revolutions are a necessary part of liberty. Whether they are intellectual or physical.

Your confusing tyrany and the social contract.

The social contract is an observation of what happens to mankind as we leave the natural state of being. The theory put into is how to guide the social contract. The social contract is not created by anybody it happens naturally. The guidance is from observations of where it goes wrong in history.

Authority can only be given by each individual.

So basically might is authority in almost every case.

Sure I may disagree that whichever government representative I have to deal with has no authority over me but if i don't do what they say then they use 'might' to enforce their wishes and I get fined/jailed or killed.

Now of course this is not real authority it's just bullying but that's the world we live in and unfortunately have, ever since we got civilised.

a reply to: luthier

There are alternatives, but as you said, it requires a lot of reading. I will supply links to two alternatives.

Anarcho-Capitalism:

For A New Liberty by Murry Rothbard (PDF download)

The Wikipedia article on Anarcho-Capitalism is actually quite good.

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").[2][3] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies.[4]

Various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. The first person to use the term, however, was Murray Rothbard, who in the mid-20th century synthesized elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism, and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (while rejecting their labor theory of value and the norms they derived from it).[5] A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow."[6] This pact would recognize self-ownership and the non-aggression principle (NAP), although methods of enforcement vary.

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and other anarchists who often seek to prohibit or regulate the accumulation of property and the flow of capital.

Anarcho-Communism:

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

a reply to: CharlestonChew

I have a philosophy degree and am familiar.

The same exact problems occur as we see today except worse.

Capitilism will consolidate wealth and maximize efficiency. This requires enforcement to not exploit workers and to regulate property damage through polution.... and to prevent an oligarchy. Enforcement is authority. Without a government there is no protection at all from an oligarchy and cronism.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Sorry if what I'm going to elaborate on may be slightly off-topic, but I surely come back to answer the question "where authority comes from?".

Imagine: America, the whole continent, wouldn't have been discovered by ....well....the ones who did. And the natives would still be without even questioning where authority comes from, because the ones who could hunt a buffallo best, could fish a salmon best, who could make tents best, could take care of and ride horses best, would be the ones who have authority by being skilled and experienced in such things.

That is what I would call a natural order, a natural hierarchie, that would not even be questioned by anybody.

In other words, tribes, that are un-spoiled by intellectual over-thinking and too much symbol-making, would be naturally in a state of perfect goverment. That's what taoism is talking about, I think.

So...authority comes from being skilled and experienced in being the best in exercising certain survival means and skills in a particular tribe. And eductating others to do the same.

Who is the leader of a band? Ideally the one who is voted as such by those who play with him or her in that particular band. Out of free-will.

a reply to: luthier

Capitilism will consolidate wealth and maximize efficiency. This requires enforcement to not exploit workers and to regulate property damage through polution.... and to prevent an oligarchy. Enforcement is authority. Without a government there is no protection at all from an oligarchy and cronism.

That is exactly what a government is: an oligarchy and inherently "crony." Government has the power, businesses have an incentive to lobby because of that. Government is a monopoly and government protects monopolies. You are claiming that, to gain protection from an oligarchy, you have to create an oligarchy to live under first.

The market can provide all the services that government provides, at both a higher quality and lower cost.

Privatization acts as a disincentive against polluting. Example: if I dumped all of my garbage on your front lawn you would get angry for a number of reasons. I would be destroying your property, I would be decreasing the value of your property, and trash buildup is a health risk. You could take me to a private court, provide evidence of my actions, and seek reimbursement from me for damages--and not just reimbursement for the damages to your property, if I am legitimately guilty of polluting your property, I should also have to pay for your court expenses, too.

A business has to calculate both profit AND loss. For many businesses government has become a buffer that protects them from having to calculate loss (bailouts, subsidization, etc). In that way, government acts as a distortion of the market.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

I understand we have an oligarchy but it wasn't meant to be. Human nature changed that. Hence the needing to revolt.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

But thinking succeful people in a free market would not ban together and create an oligarchy is rediculous. They can simply amass an army without regulation and take your home by force if they choose. Nothing to stop them. They can bribe people and judges.

All the same problems still occur in that model. The very same safeguards you say there are, are already supposed to exist in this system.

as observed historically it's inherited, passed on, generation to generation. authority is a bloodline.

a reply to: luthier

I understand we have an oligarchy but it wasn't meant to be. Human nature changed that. Hence the needing to revolt.

I would argue that it wasn't human nature that changed that, that it was the nature of government that we can't get away from.

Darwin hypothesized that empathy and compassion are the natural tendencies of a species, because a species cannot thrive without those characteristics. Which means that sociopathy would constitute a random, genetic mutation that is an exception to the majority of the human population.

If sociopaths are an exception, I would argue that government, according to it's nature, attracts sociopaths to public office or positions in government.

A position in government would be sought after by two types of people:

1. The first type being the person who believes that they are helping other humans, whether that belief is true or false.
2. The second type being the sociopath, who understands the nature of government and the power it offers the individual. The sociopath would be the most likely to commit conspiracies, both to gain and later increase power.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

I love this quote, and agree, but I don't think we should make the same mistakes past generations made. Government is too dangerous to trust, and history proves it. Something different is needed, and anarchy the exact political movement we should be advocating for.

But thinking succeful people in a free market would not ban together and create an oligarchy is rediculous. They can simply amass an army without regulation and take your home by force if they choose. Nothing to stop them. They can bribe people and judges.

The psychology of the matter would be completely different. Patriotism and nationalism are tools that protect government by indoctrinating the youth of a society. A business has no such protection, and people would not tolerate power-grabs from a business the same way they tolerate, and even encourage, power-grabs done by government. The market could very well come up with a solution to this very problem, and most likely would.

The argument you're making effectively comes down to creating states to protect from people trying to create states.

All the same problems still occur in that model. The very same safeguards you say there are, are already supposed to exist in this system.

They are two very different models.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

They are not different models. Capitalism will always seek to exploit workers and resources for lower consumer prices.

You didn't provide an arguement against how you would protect against an oligarchy or large ultra massive cooperation or trust from taking over.

The fact that a kingstates and corperate states took over shows Darwin was not correct to assume this will always be the case.

The same thing that made Marx incorrect is what makes an anarchist model incorrect.

The only way this version of anarchy works is if all arms are gone and the world goes back to hunter gatherer.

Let's use your model.

A and B want C's land who stops them?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Authority comes from God's will.

Most people are confusing the exercising of authority with authority.

Just as someone exercises their authority over you, you could just as well do the same to them, so you should not conflate the two.

I realize most of you believe the law is bs, but sometimes the law is nothing more than the smartest people in the world answering some complicated questions. Legally, authority can be actual or apparent. Actual authority arises when say an employer hires an employee. Actual authority may be expressed or implied. Apparent authority is crated when say an employer tells a third party that someone will else may buy goods on their behalf. I think most importantly is that even if actual or apparent doesn't exist, authority is created if the principal ratifies the decision. May be boring and not nuanced enough but the point Is in there somewhere.

a reply to: luthier

A and B want C's land who stops them?

If C's claim is legitimate, private security.