Resistance to unjust authority

[MamaLiberty]

While I agree, I also see it in the opposite sense. Those who exercise full responsibility for their lives have the full authority to do so. Consequently, those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives lose the authority to do so. Those who depend on the government for everything become wholly owned by the government. Of course they retain the power to take back the authority to rule themselves - by taking back the responsibility to provide for their own lives.

Of course, but their lack of responsibility is not MY responsibility. I don't have any authority to do it for them, even if I wanted to - which I don't.  Anyone who does wish to help them should certainly do so voluntarily and at their own expense.

There are many who are happy to fill that role, naturally. Does not make it "legitimate" authority, most especially when others are forced to suffer for it, and even pay for it. All of the "gun control" laws are, supposedly, the answer to the irresponsibility of a few. It is highly illustrative to the point how utterly useless all that truly is in changing the behavior or choices of the irresponsible.

There is a big difference between perceived authority, assumed authority, accepted authority and legitimate authority. I've defined legitimate authority for myself, and you must do so for yourself... the bottom line is that I won't accept the idea that anyone can define it for me, and enforce their definition on me - LEGITIMATELY.

[Cyclonesteve]

Who get's to decide what is "neglect" or what a "child" is? By what authority do they have this right? If different neighbors have different opinions, which take precedent and why?

So, to get into specifics. My neighbor wants my imaginary daughter to join her brothel. Can I stop her if she's 14? How about 17? Is the age 18 or 21 the magic ages when she can do what she wants? In your "Liberty Land" who gets to decide what the magic age is and how do they get that authority? If it's only about what the "community standards" saying is OK (or not) then can my 14 year old daughter run away to the pedophile part of town and she's good?

I'm just wondering how the "rule yourself" theory works in detail.

[MamaLiberty]

I'm just wondering how the "rule yourself" theory works in detail.

This is what so few people seem willing to face...   There is no master plan, no magic age, no pat answers at all. Each person has to work it out for themselves and negotiate, cooperate with their neighbors each and every moment - always willing to defend themselves when necessary. Freedom is messy, unpredictable, can't be "organized" into neat little blocks. Freedom won't ever be absolute either, or guaranteed, or even obvious... and it will never be the same for everyone because everyone sees it differently.

Those who agree to live and let live, to refrain from aggression, to mind their own business, and to take responsibility for themselves and their dependents... they have the best chance to live in peace. But there is no guarantee of it. You have to suck in your breath each moment, and however many breaths you took in the past can't negate the need to keep doing that as long as you live. The key is that nobody can breathe for you... and if they could, would you really be alive?

And, in the end, if your 14 year old WANTS to join a brothel, she will... eventually. Your neighbor's "want" in the matter is not the problem - unless you have somehow given him the POWER to do as he wishes with your child - say, as with the government schools. You have assumed temporary responsibility for your children, I'm sure. But you don't own them.

[Paul Bonneau]

Can I stop her if she's 14? How about 17?

One might argue, if she is seriously thinking about this, then you haven't been a very good parent.

The hardest part of parenting is letting go. Kids will make mistakes; we just have to hope they survive them. At some point physical restraint (e.g. grabbing a toddler who wants to run across the busy highway) no longer works. You are reduced to advising them what is smart behavior and what isn't. If they don't trust your judgement, it's a result of your earlier parenting mistakes combined with a need for independence that all kids have to varying degrees. Good luck on your negotiations with your imaginary daughter...   

I will add one comment about your example. It's common for liberty to be questioned by the crafting of very unlikely hypotheticals. "What if X happened?" But we shouldn't be spending too much time worrying about very unlikely events. We have only to look at what happens every day, around us. Money ("taxes") is stolen from you every day. People in places like Chicago are prevented from defending their lives every day. Thugs in blue uniforms harm innocent people every day.

[Cyclonesteve]

This is what so few people seem willing to face...   There is no master plan, no magic age, no pat answers at all. Each person has to work it out for themselves and negotiate, cooperate with their neighbors each and every moment - always willing to defend themselves when necessary. Freedom is messy, unpredictable, can't be "organized" into neat little blocks. Freedom won't ever be absolute either, or guaranteed, or even obvious... and it will never be the same for everyone because everyone sees it differently.

So it's up to me (and every individual) to decide when we're comfortable using force on our children (and neighbors) to "protect them" from bad decisions until we decide it is now time for them to fully accept the full responsibility (both the good and the bad) for their actions?

[rhodges]

So it's up to me (and every individual) to decide when we're comfortable using force on our children (and neighbors) to "protect them" from bad decisions until we decide it is now time for them to fully accept the full responsibility (both the good and the bad) for their actions?

Yes, correct.

[Vince]

The research on personal factors in resisting unjust authority gives us hope that we are not all sheep. Some people do say no. If we model critical thinking about authority ourselves and encourage others to do the same, we may be able to contribute to a world in which more people say no to unjust authority.

It is a good start.  Personal freedom and responsibility are not going to come naturally to a majority of people whose training, education, and cultural background are weighted against it.

I am proud to see even a few people say, "NO!".  I am more than satisfied to see even a few who say a quiet, "no".  It is enough.

And, when you consider that more than a few are sending a much louder message these days (Colorado, Et Al), fundamental transformation takes on a completely different connotation than the one statists recognize.

[Terence]

First, however, your dogma of voluntary delegation being the only
legitimate form of authority was overturned by my example of a father's authority
over his children. Having been proven wrong in your assumption you shirked the example
that did so into a "whole other category". That was a false argumentative dodge.

Terence, there is a tendency (reasonable enough) for human beings to seek and understand universal rules. In science and mathematics, this makes a lot of sense. In relationships between human beings, well, it's not so clean-cut. There may well be exceptions. You can't just dismiss the exceptions as a dodge.

Quite fair expectations, Paul: To not expect questions of ethics and human relations to flush out like
 physics and chemical equations meant to predict interactions on the periodic chart to four numbers
past the decimal point.

But, that's also a great reminder to take extreme care when spouting dogma in absolute (Universal) terms.
It is dogma, not its refutation, that assumes universality and therefore bears its burden.

Different tribes of humans have lots of rules in common, but also some rules that are different. I don't like to say one tribe is right and the others wrong. Instead, one set of rules works to a certain extent and is suboptimal to a certain extent; and likewise for another set of rules. You don't find mathematical purity in human relations.

Yes, and even the rules that tribes have in common are often applied with subtle differences.

Ironically, those who are systematically squelching liberty in almost all areas of life
have no qualms in doing so on absolute and universal terms. They don't water down
their opinions on population reduction, for instance, by saying it's just their opinion. Instead,
they claim (Falsely) that the argument has been resolved and all "reasonable" people agree.
Then we get maggots like Gates in his TED talks explaining how wonderful vaccines are
for that purpose.

Among the few methods of offense that have been successful (Spawning legal precedents, getting left alone in
real life, etc.) are those of or like the Amish. For that matter and for the sake of survival, perhaps it's time
 the Amish were properly referred to by their essence: Christians who won't negotiate.

[Terence]

I don't understand why you are arguing this, since in the past we have agreed most completely about individual self ownership and responsibility. Imposed "authority" negates self ownership. They are mutually exclusive.

Postings on the forum that "stand" without dissent
should not be confused with assent by supposedly "silent" members.

Even in this last, and least controversial, of your recovering comments, your 2nd and 3rd sentences are either completely unvetted, dangerous, or both.

Your sentence two, from above: “Imposed ‘authority’ negates self ownership” is Glib, false, vacuous and useless, I say, the sort of words that pass in a vacuum of overly forgiving friends or a world of no real-world test.

Perhaps you have yet to recover from your recently overturned dogma. That refutation was not in some “whole other catergory” of your delusional and convenient making. It was in direct response to your fully constructed dogma launched on the very subject you sought to launch it, as you often do, on this forum. My response was a refutation, clear and simpler. Here it is given back to you with respect to sentences two and three, above:

A father has authority over his children imposed upon him by the necessity of survival (According to you).

So, if  “Imposed ‘authority’ negates self ownership” whose self-ownership has the imposition negated? The father’s or the sons?

Terence

[MamaLiberty]

Well, Terrence, I've explained how I think about as well as I know how. I'm sorry you see it as bad, foolish. dangerous or whatever. It is what it is.  I don't have to prove anything to anyone about what I think, and neither does anyone else. Take it or leave it. And I'm sorry to disappoint you.

[Cyclonesteve]

So it's up to me (and every individual) to decide when we're comfortable using force on our children (and neighbors) to "protect them" from bad decisions until we decide it is now time for them to fully accept the full responsibility (both the good and the bad) for their actions?

Yes, correct.

So how is that different than what we have now? I have to decide when I'm comfortable using force, my neighbors have to decide when they are comfortable using force (and they are VERY comfortable) and we all have to accept the full responsibility for our actions.

[Terence]

It is irrelevant to their legitimacy whether or not the person in "authority" exercises it with restraint, or any other good intention. The only thing that matters to me is if the relationship is voluntary or not. If not, then I will resist it with all my might.

Authority in the form of parent/child or dependent/caregiver is a whole other category, far as I'm concerned. The employee/employer "authority" relationship is voluntary, as are a number of other such. These are not what I'm talking about at all, and it is unfortunate to use the same words, probably.  The vast array of involuntary "authority" situations is the problem, especially because most people see all or many of them as somehow "legitimate." I reject that legitimacy out of hand.

Delegated (Legitimate) authority is lost precisely due to behaviors judged by the delegator to be no longer consistent with the authoritative role. For example,  teachers, family members with temporary custody and even someone who has borrowed the car can lose legitimate authority the very instant they exercise that authority in a manner inconsistent with its delegation.

Resisting "with all (your) might” is rarely an optimal allocation of resources. Wouldn’t it greatly improve your odds of survival, or just allocation of limited resources, to channel your “might” into any one of dozens of possible reactions to illegitimate authority, assuming you’ve done the work in distinguishing it from legitimate authority?

In response to agitprop shall those of us who can make authoritative distinctions allow our inferiors to turn the mere word “Authority” into a dog-whistle guaranteed to turn “those crazy anarchists” into zombies?

Let’s say your of the opinion that mere survival is of continually decreasing importance with respect to other things you want to accomplish with your life. Even then it seems that refraining from a knee-jerk reaction to whatever illegitimate authority may come along greatly and needlessly reduces ones options for having the greatest impact.

[MamaLiberty]

 Terence- we seem to be talking about two different things here.

Each human being is the sole owner of his/her life and body. Owner, sovereign, authority... whatever word works for you. Sovereign is, of course, one with no higher authority over them. Without this individual sovereign authority, how does one have any right to self defense, for instance? Would not one have to get permission from whoever did have that authority?

Each human being has sovereign authority over their life, from conception. But not every human is able (or willing) to exercise that authority, of course. Infants, the senile, brain damaged, etc... all must be cared for by others if they are to survive. This is, ideally, a voluntary acceptance of responsibility by the caregivers, but does not confer ownership. And if there is nobody willing to care for them, they don't survive. That's just a harsh reality of life, even in the socialist welfare state.

There are a large number of possible voluntary arrangements and relationships, of course. We can delegate tasks, permission to perform certain things regarding our lives and possessions, but we do not thereby necessarily surrender our sovereignty. One must be the owner, the "boss," in order to delegate. 

Many people are happy to have someone else responsible for some things or everything. Many "give" themselves to god, for instance. But how can they GIVE their lives or loyalty or possessions if they do not first OWN them?

You, or anyone else, can certainly disagree with me on any of that. But for me, I own this life and my body. I am responsible for it, my choices and actions. I am not responsible for anyone else, or their choices.  And nobody else has any LEGITIMATE authority to either make my decisions or to force me to assume responsibility for others. Power to do so? All too often, but that is a completely different thing.

[Terence]

A father has authority over his children imposed upon him by the necessity of survival (According to you).

So, if  “Imposed ‘authority’ negates self ownership” whose self-ownership has the imposition negated? The father’s or the sons?

Terence

Still unanswered.

  Now I have a question for you: Since you've said, "I don't think many of us here would question that as legitimate."
from where does a father's authority over his children come?

The "authority" of parents, both mothers and fathers, comes from the necessity of survival.

Cite "necessity of survival" as the source of authority and they'll put you
in the same cage as the horses and the ducks. And that's exactly what they're
trying to do.

Each human being is the sole owner of his/her life and body. Owner, sovereign, authority... whatever word works for you.

It’s your statement. Pick a word. Three words, three subjects.

Each human being has sovereign authority over their life, from conception.

That's when sovereignty was given (According to you), not from where.

You say your authority comes from the "necessity of survival". So, from where does your sovereignty come?

Sovereign is, of course, one with no higher authority over them.

Is that what you are? One with no higher authority?

 

[MamaLiberty]

Is that what you are? One with no higher authority?

Yes.