6 ms·
The definition of "Authority": the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. We're all free-willed individuals. Accepting orders,
by meric 11y ago
The definition of "Authority":
the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
We're all free-willed individuals. Accepting orders, accepting other's decisions, and obeying others are voluntary actions. As soon as we refuse to follow an order, refuse to obey, the "authority", by definition, returns its power back to ourselves. Authorities are only authorities because by our grace, we allow them to be authorities.
The crazy ones are those who would voluntary give up their own initiative to the stupid, to the power obsessed, to the egocentric, to the selfish.
- x5n1 11y agoAnd yet this giving up is the quintessential behavior of humans which makes mass society possible. If we did not cede power and allow ourselves to be made into essentially slaves to serve each other's desires, society and the economy would not be possible. Yet I often feel that this was in fact a deal with the devil which has already reduced people to machines to be coerced at the whim of others and in the future will do more of that and continue to make life less autonomous, stable and pleasurable because of the continued decreased autonomy to be yourself and say what you want to say when you want to say it, and not be judged and discriminated against for having your own non-mainstream opinions.
- meric 11y agoI am more optimistic - the various revolts and revolutions, numerous events in the past of destruction of the aristocratic classes, the modern phenomenon of electing party insurgents (Trump, Sanders) shows people giving up power is, in the long run, a free choice. Authority must be at least somewhat benevolent to continue to be.
- Aeolos 11y agoIn what universe is electing Trump or Sanders a way to reclaim power?
- oldmanjay 11y agoI can't defend Sanders as a choice here, but Trump has gathered a group of supporters who believe he represents a well-placed high explosive that will detonate the current political system, whether deliberately or through his utter unsuitability for the Presidency.
- wfo 11y agoSanders describes campaign finance reform as a return to democracy as opposed to the oligarchy we currently live in; I'd suspect this is what he's referring to. "reclaiming power" is essentially a paraphrase of his entire campaign if you take his "millionaires and billionaires" analysis to be accurate.
- jsutton 11y agoSanders is literally running on a campaign to reclaim power from the wealthiest to everyone else.
- Aeolos 11y agoWe heard the same things about Obama 7 years ago. Sanders is still part of the Democratic party and, like Obama, there's only so much he can stray from general party policies. Remember, this is the party that favors Hillary as a presidential candidate, a known liar, anti-encryption, for-surveillance hypocrite.
- meric 11y ago"Anything but the status quo".
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- awinter-py 11y agoFollowing orders isn't totally voluntary. You don't have time in a stressful instant to decide whether an order from your boss (colonel, coach) is correct. People still argue about the milgram experiment and nuremberg trials but one conclusion you can draw -- it's 'abnormal' to reject orders on moral grounds. You're defining authority as power and that ends up being circular; the two are synonyms. I think this issue is more complicated than you're making out. The opposite of slavery is freedom, but the opposite of leadership is anarchy and waste. I can't survive on my own so I work with groups of people.
- meric 11y agoYou have to believe either you or society is going to be better off if you followed the order than you didn't, for you to follow it. A person who can force that situation on you so you would follow their orders have authority. A random person off the street can't order you around.
- awinter-py 11y agoDepends on the situation; in the presence of danger, I trust the person with the most information (and use various heuristics to assess who that is). The analysis you're suggesting is right (am I better off following), but in general that's just 'what is optimal to do' -- and that takes time to know. The implicit bargain in all power transactions is Sam Jackson's 'come with me if you want to live'. (where 'live' can be 'get rich', 'not go to jail', 'eat'). And there's never enough information or time to make a smart decision. Smart despots hoard information as much as guns, but even fair leaders have to choose what to say because of limited attention and TMI risks.
- btbuildem 11y agoTell that to the club cracking your skull.. People are often coerced into obedience of authority, via violence or other means.
- kazagistar 11y agoThe man with a literal gun has very real authority. An authority often has the ability to threaten punishment for noncompliance. Resisting is a tradeoff. Not doing your math homework in middle school "cause it's dumb", for example, is kinda stupid, because the punishment doled out (bad grades, hostile teachers, extra work) are worse in the long run then just dealing with doing something pointless. Resisting where you can actually do some good is useful. Always blindly resisting is at least suboptimal, but the word disorder might not be entirely off base.
- meric 11y agoIf the teachers and parents can't convince you they're there for your own good despite the natural inclination for you to believe that is the case, then it's entirely unsurprising you'd refuse to follow their orders - they're bad teachers/ parents. If disorder arises because of that then that's only there were bad leaders to begin with, and order was never "deserved".