I was doing this political survey a few months ago and got stuck on this question:

Authority should always be questioned

Agree or disagree?

I'm not sure :S

It’s a silly question.

Too much depends on what is meant by “authority”.

If I claim to be a leading authority on the construction of box-girder bridges, should you scrutinise my claim before you rely on my advice in building your bridge?

If I am, in fact, hugely well-qualified and experienced in constructing box-girder bridges, should you be asking any other questions before relying on my advice? (In other words, do my qualifications and experience give me an “authority” which should not be further questioned?)

If I claim to be a policeman and tell you to leave a particular area, should you question my authority by (a) asking for evidence that I am a policeman, (b) asking for evidence that a policeman has the legal right to tell people to leave the area, (c) asking why I want you to leave the area, or (d) telling me to bugger off? Which, if any, of these things should you actually do, and why?

My answer is yes. I would define an authority as someone who believes they know best. The ultimate authority is reportedly God? I believe he has been questioned? His existence is questioned too.

We should question everything, including our own to ourselves, and then decide what action to take. However, it is impractical to question everything so humans have developed automated responses for many activities.

I believe I am an authority on my own benefit.
- Should my heart beat once more? I say yes.
- Do I need another breath? We have some control over that.
- Do I want to kiss that lovely girl? The body will automatically respond, but we usually question our body's response and act accordingly.
- The policeman has asked me to step back, but if I do step back, I may step on my daughter behind me, if I don't I may be penalised.

If we wish to act ethically, we should question everything, including those in authority and act accordingly. If we unquestionably accept another's request or command, we are abrogating our responsibility for the outcome of that action.

It is of course possible to decide that an authority's judgement is better than ours, and therefore accept largely unquestioned what they put forward. The military is based upon this model and it is very effective. Driving over the Sydney Harbour Bridge is an example of where we accept the authority of the RTA. But I will not cross the road on a green WALK sign without looking both ways because I question the authority of the green WALK as meaning safe to cross.

I am not an authority on this, so please question what I have said.

Airzone,

You are wise to look both ways, it's a thing that I always do; a friend of mine was so severely injured at a pedestrian crossing that he almost lost his life. The people on either side of him moved onto the road and he instinctivly went with them, they jumped back but he didn't and was struck by a car.

When questions are frammed with absolute terms such as always they are usually wrong.We have statutory authority. A judge had virtually absolute athority in his courtroom. Ignore him at you peril.The same is true for a police officer at a crime scene or a fireman at a fire.

There is also authority by virtue of knowledge or expertise. One listens to a lawyer, a doctor, an accountant and so forth should be listened to because the presumbably have knowledge and expertise that you don't. Tht doesn't mean you should alwys, that term again, take their advice but you should seriously consider it.

Then their are the self-styled authorities. Not unlike other know-it-alls, they can and usually should be ignored. Teachers and professors fall into this category when they're pontificating on matters outside their field, if any, of expertise.

I guess I would query the source of the authority . If it is authority that stems from the nations constitutionally created legal system - one that I respect and value I would obey without too much deliberation.
Authority of a financial medical or 'lawerly ' nature sometimes requires second opinion as these
areas are not nearly so clear cut .

Patrick,



I may have mentioned this on the old forum, but here goes again. I was attending a court case out at Parks (a town in Western NSW) as a police witness (hotel, all meals and my pay made up by the Dept, of the Army). On the way to the Court House we saw the Judge, robed, on the other side of the street headed in the same direction and preceeded by a Police Constable, attended by a Sargeant and followed by another Constable. We noticed that all the men that he passed raised their hats to him and he was smilling and returning their greetings. I remarked to the Sherriff's Officer who was with us that the Judge seemed to be very popular. The Sherriff laughed and explained that when the Judge stepped out of his hotel wearing his robes and escorted that the Circuit Court was deemed to be in session and that the first time that this particular judge set out for the Court a local bloke laughed at him. The Judge had him arrested on the spot for contempt of the Court and tried him as his first case.

The laugher was sentenced to the rising of the Court and when he protested he was told that he could be relatively comfortable in the Court Room or uncomfortable in one of the cells; the choice was his. "So" said the Sherriff "that's why everyone around here 'likes' the Judge".

It was while attending this case that I found out that when the Court is in session that all doors to the Court Room must be unlocked. While the case was going on someone tried to enter one of the side doors to the corridor and finding it hard to open he rattled it, the judge noticed, stopped proceedings, had the door tried by his clerk and when it prooved to be locked he called for the Sherriff and gave him a dressing down in front of the bench. It seems that if even one door is locked that the Judge can be accused of holding court 'in camera'. These days probably all the doors are locked and a few armed police on hand as well.

John Locke argued not only against the authority of kings and popes, but also argued that if one person did not have the right to coerce, control, or tax another person that he could not delegate this right he did not possess, to another person or to a group of people, essentially saying that democracy was ethically illogical. Later, Locke changed his mind and accepted a version of Thomas Hobbes theory of an implicit "social contract". Under this theory that was later popularized by Jean-Jaques Rousseau, all people are obliged to accept the dictates of whoever wields political power in any given area, and "render Caesar's unto Caesar".

Later, American political activists Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner argued for Locke's original case-- that if a person did not voluntarily sign or explicity accept a contract or a constitution, that that these documents had no legitimate authority over that person.

Spooner and Warren argued that if no person can show how he or she acquired a right to coerce another person- to control another person's life through the use of or threat of force, that individuals are inherently sovereign, and do not, ethically, have to obey the dictates of anyone else unless they choose to do so voluntarily. No one, it seems, has ever tried to refute this logic, or to explain, as the joke goes, why democracy isn't the equivalent of "Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."

If we reject not only the legitimacy of the rule of kings, ayatollahs, dictators, and other rulers, but also democratic majorities, we are left with individual sovereignty and individual liberty, and no involuntary governing authorities. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so."

If we accept that people do not like having the things Proudhon described done to them, we see that individual sovereignty is supported by the Golden Rule, particularly in Rabbi Hillel's negative form- "Do not do to others that which is hateful to you. This is the whole of the law; the rest is commentary" which was articulated several decades before the positive version espoused in Christ's Sermon on the Mount , "Do unto others...". The positive version is okay, but it leaves room for such things as a masochist beating one up because that's what he likes done to himself.


It seems that the case for individual liberty has logic on it's side--that there's no logical way to show how one person or a group of people acquire a right to coerce anyone else, and it also seems that individualists also have the world's most widely accepted religious and ethical principle, the Golden Rule, on their side

John Locke made the argument that if one person did not have a right to coerce or control another person, that he could not transfer this right, that he did not possess, to a third party. Thus, Locke not only questioned the divine rights of kings and popes, but also the "rights" of democracies. Later, he changed his mind and accepted a version of Thomas Hobbes' "social contract", which was later popularized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The social contract effectively said that all people are obliged to obey the dictates of whatever political power is in control of a given area, and to "render Caesar's unto Caesar".

Later, Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner, political activists in the US, argued for Locke's original case, saying that no person could logically delegate a right they did not possess to a third party, and that no group calling itself a government could legitimately claim to have power a person without his or her consent, thus leaving all people as sovereign individuals.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so."

When we condider that no one wants the above things done to them, we can see that Individual Sovereignty is not only logical but is compatible with The Goldne Rule, particularly in the negative version espoused by Rabbi Hillel several decades before Christ's Sermon on the Mount-- "Do not unto others that which is hateful to you." While Christ's positive version, "Do unto others..." is good, it leaves the possibilty for such things as a masochist beating another person because this is what he wants done to himself.

Thus, it seems that those people who claim self-ownership and dispute anyone having legitimate authority over them, not only have logic on their side, but also the world's most widely accepted ethical principle, The Golden Rule.

Interesting arguments Tom . However if one believes that an individual in society is just a part of a whole and for the 'whole' to exist the parts must conform to certain laws it kind of questions to what extent the individual has absolute sovereign rights and at the same time have the right to be part of the whole .
Humans are social beings for a reason - inorder to improve their chances of survival. It follows that inorder to remain protected by one's fellow members one has to sacrifice certain things .

Thanks, Catey. I've presented this same case in slightly different forms, trying to get the wording compact and concise, in various forums including Skeptic.com, and libertarian, invidualiist, and anarchist sites, and the arguments I get in response are usually almost identical to yours. This morning, in fact, I got a response from a friend of a friend who used almost your exact wording to say that people must conform to certain rules of "society".

First, I think that we should define our terms. What is "society"? To me, my society includes family, friends, and aquantances in the US, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, and elsewhere. Some might include all of North America in their society, others might call their local commnity their society, and still others might say that any nation-state, such as Saudi Arabia, constitutes a society. How do you define society?

Secondly, It is widely assumed that any "society" should be organized in pyramidal fashion, from the top down, with a politician at the top. In the US, for example, George Bush once said "I am the decider." A small minority of people feel that soicety might be better organized in a horizontal fashion, with decisions be made in all manner of ways, including springing from the ground up, instead of the top down in colonial fashion. This is very sketchy, but David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, and Butler Shaffer, Boundaries of Order, have made larger cases for a humane, just and prosperous world based on these ideas.

Tom, I have a slightly different take on your perspective. You quoted John Locke amongst others and talk about the right of someone or something to control others. George Bush is a classic!

I will define a "right" as an absolute unalienable expectation which is to be realised in accordance with that expectation.

Such "rights" are concepts only and do not exists, nor can they exist. Nothing is absolute.

One can correctly argue people should do this or that, but people are not born with an unalienable right to anything. Babies die, people suffer, people feel love, and some of us get rich in terms of money, and others do not. No one has any "rights". If you can name someone who has a so called right, it is easy to find someone else who lacks that same "right" but should receive it. Rights (absolute unalienable expectations) are shown not to exist because there are exceptions. An absolute cannot have an exception because if it does, it is no longer absolute or unalienable.

As you put in your earlier post, rights cannot be assigned to others ... not for ethical reasons but simply because "rights" do not exist. For example, one cannot grant life to anyone, all people die. Yes, in the past some religious authorities believed they could grant eternal life, as did their opposite number in an alternate religion for different reasons. They did not have that right or capability of course. We can extend life of a few, for a while, sometimes, and often not very well. One can fulfil wishes, because a wish is a desire, a hope and not absolute. Rights are figments of people's imagination. It is good to dream but dreams are dreams.

When people talk about rights they usually mean reasonable expectations, which they are passionate about and through that passion, they feel there would be created a great benefit if such a so called right should be applied to a certain defined group of people. But as they do not have that right themselves it cannot be assigned to others. Often the perceived benefit is limited to a few and actually is disadvantageous to others.

Concepts like "society" are concepts and have no persona. We may choose to give different societies different persona so we can explain their behaviour, but this is a tool only and not correct. The word metaphor springs to mind.

People and Prime Ministers can tell us what they want us to do, and may have a reasonable expectation that we may or may not obey based upon the penalties or rewards that that person in authority (with more power) can apply to us. But they have no absolute unalienable right to do so. Kings thought they had that right but over time were replaced by various forms of democracy. If Kings actually had such unalienable rights, kings and queens will still be in charge.

The challenge for leaders and authority is to fulfil their wish to lead by acting in the best interest of the people who permit them to command. Politicians and such important people (large egos?) have no rights to command - just human expectations that most people will follow their lead and hopes like all of us. The concept of a "right" is simply a concept, useful for debate and discussion but light perfect communism, socialism; capitalism ... doesn't exist except in our mind.

So, as I mentioned before in this topic, if we (or our leaders) wish to act ethically, we should question everything, including those in authority (or so called experts) and act accordingly. If we unquestionably accept another's request or command, we are abrogating our responsibility for the outcome of that action. Leadership does not endow rights, it endows responsibility.

As for rules of life I lean more towards a Buddhist flavour myself ... and this is reflected in most religions including Christian teachings of course. No ego (we as individuals are unimportant when compared with things in general), be nice (do unto others what we would like done to ourselves), be aware of the consequences of our actions (be ethical).

However, having rules or guidelines as I prefer to call them, does not guarantee anything, rights, happiness or anything. We all must do the best we can I reckon. And that isn't a bad outcome; in fact, it has worked for quite a while now.

Airzone,
I agree with everything you said, and it doesn't surprise me that you "lean towards a Buddhist flavour."
It seems that most people, including myself, have given up looking for religious solutions to problems and look solely to political solutions, but political solutions must be compatible with human nature if they are to promote human happiness. This may be where The Golden Rule fits in. Confucius was allegedly asked, some 300 years before Christ's Sermon on the Mount, if there is one word that expresses ethics, and he replied Shu, meaning reciprocity, which is essentially The Golden Rule, treating others as one would be treated. I've read that at least all major relgions, and perhaps all relgions, espouse the Golden Rule in one form or another, although I don't how Buddhists express it.
It seems that attempting to live by the Golden Rule, effectively "live and let live" is most compatible with human creativity, productivity, and general happiness, and that The Golden Rule is more compatible with the ethics of political individualism than it is with coercive collectivism. What do you think?

I agree with catey. tom and airzone are referring to ideals, catey is talking about reality.

Depends how you define 'consent'. Is choosing to live in a country consenting to be governed by the relevant government?


All these things are done by individuals. What people fail to understand is that government is made up of individuals and individuals will behave this way with or without the concept of 'government'.



Self ownership, freedom, autonomy. these are all just words. These are not absolutes. You are deluding yourself if you think no one has authority over you, whether it is 'legitimate' or not depends on whether you choose to live among others. Whenever you have a group of people, you will have authority. I believe authority has its place for example; police offier, teacher, judge, parent etc. Authority is legitimate in certain contexts because it allows groups of people to live together.

Freedom or authority is a false dichotomy. It is not an 'either/ or' situation. We can be autonomous to some extent and controlled to some extent. In fact we always will be. Absolute freedom is not possible.

I challenge you to tell me how groups of people could function without authority. It's not possible. i suggest you read 'Lord of the Flies'. An excellent example of what happens when authority is removed. Or, look at Iraq right now, an authoritative dictator is removed, their is a power vacuum, a certain level of chaos ensues before another authority comes into place to bring 'order' back. Make no mistake, people prefer order to chaos. It's safe and predictable, and therefore allows people to live more fulfilling lives.

Tom Palven wrote:

... It seems that attempting to live by the Golden Rule, effectively "live and let live" is most compatible with human creativity, productivity, and general happiness, and that The Golden Rule is more compatible with the ethics of political individualism than it is with coercive collectivism. What do you think?

I think the Golden Rule you mention is one good guideline, I'm not big on rules. However, I do think more than that is required and that is where "minimise the ego" and "be aware of consequences of actions" are important. Reciprocity is not a good idea when one person is a masochist and the other isn't as you stated earlier.

So I think we need a bunch of guidelines. Simple, short and sweet and I have my three that I try to employ. Maybe four is better, maybe two? For me I like three. Once I spent quite a bit of time stating things, ideas and concepts in three words. It seemed to me three words were adequate to capture the essence without waffle. However, I needed four words to express that concept so maybe it is flawed! "Three words are enough." I commend this exercise to anyone. Try to capture the key essence of an idea in three words. It focuses the mind. Sadly when I look at my emails, they often seem to be (much) longer than three words.

arry wrote:

... Freedom or authority is a false dichotomy. It is not an 'either/ or' situation. We can be autonomous to some extent and controlled to some extent. In fact we always will be. Absolute freedom is not possible. ...

This I agree with.

arry wrote:

...I challenge you to tell me how groups of people could function without authority. ... Make no mistake, people prefer order to chaos. It's safe and predictable, and therefore allows people to live more fulfilling lives.

One example of a group of people who largely lived with minimal authority were academics. Another are artists. I am talking about academics and artists that traditionally cared little for power or influence but simply for their research and work. In the past the academics were largely groups of university professors who shared their knowlege and such like. The Curie's spring to mind. Another example, albeit short term, is the use of brainstorming and change management. In such instances it is important to have minimal authority in order to bring out as many new ideas as possible without any possible punishment or scorn for so called "stupid" ideas. I'm not saying these are ideal long term "nil authority" situations, but they do tend in the direction of minimal authority and are quite effective. If I were cynical (ha!) I would say some schools seem to be retreating from having any effective authority - which is not a good thing in my view.

And yes, some order is good for people in their lives, but it is a matter of degree. I would also note that many people e.g. young children, try to reject order initially but to then toe the line. Initially kids don't want to go to bed when told to etc.

arry wrote:
"I agree with catey. Tom and Airzone are referring to ideals, catey is talking about reality." Reminds me of The Architect in Kentucky Fried Movie (The greatest story ever told), who said "Whose reality, yours or mine?"
arry also said:
"Depends how you define 'consent'. Is choosing to live in a country consenting to be governed by the relevant government?"

No, arry, I don't think that being born in Saudi Arabia, for example, is evidence that one wants to be governed by a king, or that Palestinians necessarily want to be governed by Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud Party. The Palestinians have lived on that land for centuries, just as the Cherokees lived in the US Southeast, but they are effectively being told, "Israel, Love It or Leave It". Wherever people are born, or go to, there will always be a person or a group of people who want to dominate them, but that doesn't make it ethical.

Regarding your challenge and Iraq example. You, perhaps, look at Iraq with the politcally correct view that it is in danger of becoming a "failed state", but the problem there may be statism itself, with a single "decider" at the top of the pyramid. Kurds, Shiia, Sunnis, etc, may want to live with their own versions of secular or Islamic rules. Butler Shaffer, in Boundaries of Order discusses horizontally organized societies as opposed to authority being imposed from the top down as by US-approved puppets, such as the Shah of Iran. (You might check out Operation Ajax at Wikipedia.)

Airzone: I'm not big on rules, either, and would add to arry that The Third Reich loved order. It was law-driven and anal retentive, loving rules, proper papers, and so on, and was "safe and predictable" until it wasn't.

I'm not espousing The Golden Rule as a commandmnet, but as a suggestion that it might be compatible with human nature. Mark Twain said that "When you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Twain was suggesting that it was easier to tell the truth. Contrast this with Thomas Aquinas' explantion of the Commandment not to lie that a lie is a misuse of God's gift of speech. That attempting to be truthful conforms to human nature is evidenced somewhat by the fact that lie detectors detect stress as shown by blood pressure and other factors, showing that humans are innately uncomfortable lying unless they are well-conditioned to it, or are born politicians. Teaching children that perhaps honesty is, after all, the best policy, and that they might be better off in the long run if they try to avoid lying and stealing, would not, IMHO, do them a disservice.

Lord, I love that above post! My best ever. Talk to me, arry and Airzone. Without you I am nothing!

Sorry mates. Been drinkin' a bit.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote Tom.

Geez, arry, tht's good news and bad news. Bad news is I have nothing to argue about. Since we seem to think alike, is there a book that you've enjoyed and might recommend?