Resistance to unjust authority

[Paul Bonneau]

Good article on resistance - what characteristics are needed to resist?

http://www.rit.org/authority/resistance.php
http://www.rit.org/authority/resistance.php

[MamaLiberty]

"Those who have a strong belief that authorities can sometimes be wrong are more willing to be defiant. "

Can "sometimes be wrong?" Oh yeah...  No person or group has any legitimate authority over any individual unless specifically granted to them by that individual. Nobody can grant authority for someone else.

[Terence]

Great article. I have a semantic gripe but certainly see the point.

Authority and Rulership are two altogether different words, roles and concepts.

In every instance in which it would be appropriate to resist authority the person
or entity pretending to have it has already given it up. Once they have, though they
may still claim legal authority, they no longer have moral authority which is the only
thing that matters.

A father has authority over his children and that authority is not granted
to him by those children.

Rebelling against authority, due only to its role, is a trap. Such rebellion is
best reserved for rulers or tyrants or those who abuse legitimate authority.

[MamaLiberty]

 Such rebellion is
best reserved for rulers or tyrants or those who abuse legitimate authority.

How do you define "legitimate authority," and who decides that for any given individual? Who defines "abuse?"

[Terence]

 Such rebellion is
best reserved for rulers or tyrants or those who abuse legitimate authority.

How do you define "legitimate authority," and who decides that for any given individual? Who defines "abuse?"

From previous post:
A father has authority over his children and that authority is not granted
to him by those children.

And when he exercises that authority by feeding them, clothing them, putting
a roof over their head, pulling them away from cliffs, keeping them away
from dangerous places, etc. it is the second best example of legitimate
authority in the four dimensions we're all supposed to agree comprise
all of "reality".

[MamaLiberty]

A father has authority over his children and that authority is not granted
to him by those children.

I don't think may of us here would question that as legitimate. Same would be for those caring for any other completely dependent person.

In any other instance, however, only the individual has legitimate authority over his own life. He can delegate it to someone else, if he wishes, and that would be legitimate too.  All other exercise of authority, one person over another, is illegitimate.

[Terence]

A father has authority over his children and that authority is not granted
to him by those children.

I don't think may of us here would question that as legitimate. Same would be for those caring for any other completely dependent person.

In any other instance, however, only the individual has legitimate authority over his own life. He can delegate it to someone else, if he wishes, and that would be legitimate too.  All other exercise of authority, one person over another, is illegitimate.

Yes, most (not all) of the other legitimate examples are delegated. And, of course, the
delegation is the origin of its legitimacy.

I think the article is useful as it highlights the attributes of people
who might, eventually, resist illegitimate authority and thereby perform
a service to all others who are blind to such matters.

However, it's a semantic boxed canyon to be lead into resisting all authority
only because it is such. In the few times and roles in which I've been given
authority with respect to others (Not "over" them) it comes with a set
of responsibilities not many would be jealous of. There are such roles for
people to play from time to time and it can be done in service with humility
and grace.

Actually, the article Paul posted is inspiring a set of simple rules that I might
be able to start teaching my kids. It's a tough can of worms to make simple
but let's see if its possible.

[MamaLiberty]

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.

[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.

There are many pitfalls in these two paragraphs, above. Some of the sentences are fine from a philosophical
standpoint only because you add words like "to me" and "far as I'm concerned".  I'll point out some
of the pitfalls in a follow up post, perhaps.  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. Namely, you decided
to put my example into a "whole other category" because it enabled you to recover the appearance
of never being wrong which you most certainly were.

I usually let these things go but now we're onto a pivotal area of thinking for which I'm about to formulate guidelines to assist my sons.
As they may read this, one day, I must now put on a different Terence hat for a little while.

You will be given no slack, whatsoever, in any and all areas of argumentative device or
area of life.

 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?

If you don't, or won't, answer this question, directly, neither will I answer further questions
or add more to this thread.

Terence

[rhodges]

You will be given no slack, whatsoever, in any and all areas of argumentative device or area of life.

Sigh. I hope this doesn't turn into an emotional drama.

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?

My answer is simple: When a soul chooses its mother and father, to join that family, that soul accepts the temporary authority as part of childhood care and safety.

[MamaLiberty]

  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. It IS a whole different category of "authority" than between sentient, self owning individuals, which is the only kind I was talking about. The assumed, imposed, and indoctrinated "authority" of some people over other people is, as far as I'm concerned, one of - if not the greatest -  evils in the world.  It is a very different thing than the relationships within a family or consenting adults.

And, interestingly, that authority is not absolute either... the parents can neglect or abandon the child, and the neighbors can intervene in the case of abuse or abandonment.  Parents have no more authority to commit aggression than anyone else, even if they get away with it a great deal.

And voluntarily accepted authority can be the same. A person who enters a hospital or other treatment (military enlistment, even a college course) voluntarily (usually) accepts a temporary limitation of his movements and choices, deferring to the authority of those in charge.  The key is whether or not he can opt out, revoke that trust, take back authority over his life and body when he wants to, whether anyone else likes it or not. It is exactly this that makes the "draft" or any kind of involuntary servitude a complete evil.

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.

[Paul Bonneau]

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.

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.

where does a father's authority over his children come?

It comes from culture, which in turn is connected to survival. At least that is my view.

[Cyclonesteve]

And, interestingly, that authority is not absolute either... the parents can neglect or abandon the child, and the neighbors can intervene in the case of abuse or abandonment.  Parents have no more authority to commit aggression than anyone else, even if they get away with it a great deal.

Sorry to get in the middle of this discussion, but I'm wondering. 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?

The reason I ask is you seem pretty confident in your "individual only has legitimate authority over own life" statement and I'm wondering how you reconcile that with the neighbors deciding when you are an individual that has this authority.

[MamaLiberty]

Sorry to get in the middle of this discussion, but I'm wondering. 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?

The reason I ask is you seem pretty confident in your "individual only has legitimate authority over own life" statement and I'm wondering how you reconcile that with the neighbors deciding when you are an individual that has this authority.

There are no guarantees, and each person has to do what they think is right and accept the consequences - hopefully negotiating and cooperating, but otherwise if necessary.  If you think your neighbor's child is being abused, you do whatever it is you think is best to do about it.  If you involve the neighbors, each one has to do what they think is best as well, and all must consider the consequences.

Each person has to act on his/her own "opinion" the best they can. Mostly, we seem to do pretty fair at that, until the coercive, non-voluntary "government" - or whoever decides to take on that role - comes alone and decides for everyone at gunpoint.

I am very confident in my position. I don't have any authority to decide what is right for my neighbors and they can't decide for me. That's the whole point. Self owners, with full authority over their lives as individuals, also have full responsibility for what they do with that authority. Doesn't it seem curious that those who exercise coercive, non voluntary "authority" are almost never held truly responsible for the consequences?

What is the basis for any "right to self defense" or "right to property"  if one does not have sovereign authority over his or her own life? 

[SunDog]

I don't have any authority to decide what is right for my neighbors and they can't decide for me. That's the whole point. Self owners, with full authority over their lives as individuals, also have full responsibility for what they do with that authority.

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.