What is the source of authority?

[Aphaetonism]

I'm speaking of legal authority but I guess other types of authority can be considered too.

Every country has laws its citizens are expected to follow. Why should they? What possible reason do I as a citizen have to follow any law if I don't feel like it? What is it that the authorities in charge of creating and/or enforcing laws need to do to get me to follow the law?

[Whale Biologist]

What possible reason do I as a citizen have to follow any law if I don't feel like it? What is it that the authorities in charge of creating and/or enforcing laws need to do to get me to follow the law?
Fear, and pain.

[Skyshot]

What is it that the authorities in charge of creating and/or enforcing laws need to do to get me to follow the law?I'd say they need to have the majority of the citizenry on their side. Otherwise, they risk a revolt or a revolution. Or no re-election.What is it that the authorities in charge of creating and/or enforcing laws need to do to get me to follow the law?Glocks. Smith & Wessons. Sig-Sauers. Berettas. Occasionally nightsticks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policing_in_the_United_States#Police_weapons). The approval of the majority of the citizenry.

What I'm basically saying here is they have the power to enforce their rules which involve us not doing things we want to do, and as long as A -- we realize other people don't get to do those same things to us and B -- the risks and rewards of of revolting don't exceed the various exasperations of living under such utter tyranny, we let them stay in power.

[Aphaetonism]

Ooo, answers already!

Fear, and pain.
Ah yes, fear is an excellent way to control people. But let's say, hypothetically, we have a person either too brave or too stupid to feel fear. How would the law be enforced in that case? Is that where pain comes in? (I'd also kind of like to know if you have any specific type of pain in mind that would be implemented as a matter of policy)

I'd say they need to have the majority of the citizenry on their side. Otherwise, they risk a revolt or a revolution. Or no re-election.
Good answer, good answer. Let's say there was one specific area of the country where the citizens were 100% opposed to the law. This area, and only this area, goes into a revolt. How would a government that wants to enforce its laws respond?

Glocks. Smith & Wessons. Sig-Sauers. Berettas. Occasionally nightsticks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policing_in_the_United_States#Police_weapons). The approval of the majority of the citizenry.
Well this probably answers my question above but I'll leave you to reiterate if it pleases you to do so. I'd still like to hear your take on the situation I proposed though, where the majority do support a law but one specific region overwhelmingly opposes it and goes into rebellion.

What I'm basically saying here is they have the power to enforce their rules which involve us not doing things we want to do, and as long as A -- we realize other people don't get to do those same things to us and B -- the risks and rewards of of revolting don't exceed the various exasperations of living under such utter tyranny, we let them stay in power.
Hmm... So are you saying it would be impossible to enforce a law that violates either of those stipulations or that it simply wouldn't be just to do so? Or are you merely saying that if either of those stipulations are violated the gubmint would (or could) have a revolt on its hands to deal with?

[Althane]

Ah yes, fear is an excellent way to control people. But let's say, hypothetically, we have a person either too brave or too stupid to feel fear. How would the law be enforced in that case? Is that where pain comes in? (I'd also kind of like to know if you have any specific type of pain in mind that would be implemented as a matter of policy)

The law is enforced by putting the people in jail. That's simple enough. So, yeah, pain. Fear of the punishment keeps people from comitting the crimes, and then the pain (sometimes) stops them from doing it again.

Good answer, good answer. Let's say there was one specific area of the country where the citizens were 100% opposed to the law. This area, and only this area, goes into a revolt. How would a government that wants to enforce its laws respond?

Well, if it were an entire STATE, then I don't believe the government, except under extenuating circumstances, could do anything about it, so long as they didn't invade the surrounding states.

Same for an entire section of a county. See the Civil War too.

If it were just a county, or a town... I really don't know.

[Aphaetonism]

So what has been determined thus far is that the government uses the fear of force to keep order. In the cases where fear isn't enough, it must use that force to punish the offender. Jailtime has been submitted as one example; I would say a less severe example would be fines and penalties (to be followed by jailtime if those are ignored).

Right, that's simple enough.

But the following intrigues me:
Well, if it were an entire STATE, then I don't believe the government, except under extenuating circumstances, could do anything about it, so long as they didn't invade the surrounding states.

Same for an entire section of a county. See the Civil War too.

If it were just a county, or a town... I really don't know.
The consequences of this are quite staggering! The structure of the government in the US is such that the laws of the federal government must apply to everyone in the country, as well as superceding laws from lower bodies of government that may contradict it.

If the citizens of a state can just collectively shrug their shoulders and ignore a federal law, what does this mean for the federal government? Such a thing would certainly undermine their authority. What if more states started following this example? Can a government be in control if states can just selectively ignore or follow the laws as they see fit? What would the federal government have to do to prevent this from happening, or to stop it if it had already started to happen?

The same logic can be extended to the relationship between counties and states as well as cities and counties.

[Sir Pinkleton]

first off, for some reason, your questions keep making me think "why doesn't he know this already?". Perhaps your'e not in america, I don't know.

anyway,

If the citizens of a state can just collectively shrug their shoulders and ignore a federal law, what does this mean for the federal government? Such a thing would certainly undermine their authority. What if more states started following this example? Can a government be in control if states can just selectively ignore or follow the laws as they see fit? What would the federal government have to do to prevent this from happening, or to stop it if it had already started to happen?

I'm going to just answer the last 2 questions as they seem to be most relevant:

1. Can a government be in control if states can just selectively ignore or follow the laws as they see fit?
A: No, obviously. you can't control a state if it doesn't listen. unless you...

2.What would the federal government have to do to prevent this from happening, or to stop it if it had already started to happen?
A: To prevent it, they would be a fair government. If there was a revolt, they would use force (unless they saw another way out of the problem). the military and such would go into the area and take down the rebels.

It's taking alot of control to keep me from saying "duh" after every sentence.

[Solid Snake]

Well, essentially that's why Lincoln went to war with the Confederacy. If the Confederacy were just allowed to say "we don't like the law you just passed, so we're going to break away", then any state, county or town in which the majority disagreed with federal law could cite precedent and attempt to break away from the Union itself; or at least, could attempt to enforce its own independent variation of aforementioned law, which would be against federalized principles.

That's why for the record I don't believe that if the Confederacy won the Civil War, our world today would consist of a U.S.A. and a C.S.A. There'd probably be far more than two indpendent 'American' countries on this continent because the Confederacy would serve as a template for any future attempted law enforcement by a President to turn into a revolt. You'd be looking at lots of little countries -- sort of how Europe broke down into city-states during the Dark Ages after the collapse of the Roman government.

In general I think the federal government's laws are often respected because, in most cases, the laws aren't seen as threatening to one's way of life. I mean, the laws here in America are like; "don't kill people. don't steal stuff. don't rape an underage girl." Not too many people are going to disagree with those kinds of laws. Then we have laws like "don't go over the speed limit," and that gets broken all the time. Laws tend to work because laws tend to be based on a moral system that few human beings would dare go against; there aren't too many people who could rationalize rape or theft or murder as the morally right course of events. Hence the majority of Americans in all areas of the country tend to follow the law. And the minority of Americans who would prefer breaking the law are suppressed by law enforcement; that's why we have the Police.

I disagree with Whale Biologist's assertation that "fear and pain" are the only two motivations to follow the law. While negative reinforcement certainly has its place in keeping deviants down, most folks living in first-world countries tend to respect the laws of their nations because of positive reinforcement. I am rewarded with respect, prestige, a decent job (or at least a job), the potentiality to raise a family, and hope for a greater future so long as I do certain things like -- refuse to resort to violence to solve problems, refuse to resort to rape as a 'quick fix' for sexual stimulation, refuse to steal from other individuals and risk getting caught, etc. Hence why poorer people tend to commit more crimes; if you're poor and you lack hope for a better future, you have far less to lose when you risk breaking the law.

EDIT: This post was written in response to Aphaetonism, not Friendly Black Mage. And Apha, if I spelled your name wrong, it's only because you chose such a nonsensical screenname in the first place.

[Azisien]

Might as well try to throw a few things into the pot.

Back to the original questions, and I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned, but what about morality? Authority seems to be getting an overly oppressive rap right now, though I only have a perspective of the things I've experienced, perhaps it's different in the US. The law is somewhat self-regulated, because a lot of it is based, in part, off ethics and morality.

Fear of jail time is not the only reason I don't rape that woman I saw on the street or murder someone that irritates me. Whatever moral compass my brain's equipped with tells me that well, I wouldn't want to be raped because some woman was horny, or murdered because I bumped into that 7ft. tall guy with the axe by accident. It's a little...sadist, pointless, to go through with all that grief.

But of course, there's authority for citizens who aren't self-regulated, for those willing to be immoral either because they have to be (poverty) or because they think it's good for them (selfish, immoral, what have you). Obviously there are lots of laws and rules we're expected to follow. Some are for your own safety, and for the safety of others. What's the difference between you murdering someone directly, or being careless and causing the death of someone indirectly? Lack of perception, maybe, but you cause the death of a citizen of the state/city/whatever in either case, and the laws and rules are there to protect that.

I think the hypothetical situation is a little...well...too theoretical. 100% revolt? I doubt that's ever happened in the history of human existence, ever. But there are still points to be derived...I think the federal government (or county, etc) is in deep...uh...smelly matter...if even 75% of a state is fine with revolting.

What does the government have to do to prevent revolt? Keep the citizens happy. There is a reason 75% of a state is revolting. I'm assuming of course this population of citizens didn't just materialize out of nowhere, and that at one point they WEREN'T revolting and therefore WERE happy (or just not sufficiently angry?). Did the federal government add a new law, rule, or policy that caused the revolt?

If this started a chain reaction, eventually you'd probably lead to a Civil War. At some point, if this is indeed a REVOLT, the lives of citizens, especially non-revolting ones, will be at risk. People will start to die. The authority has a duty to step in and stop the revolts. Be it through diplomacy (sounds less likely at the point of state-wide revolt) or all-out combat (more likely), they've got to try.

Citizens choosing to revolt and not follow the law of said country, ESPECIALLY if this endangers law-abiding citizens, forfeit their title as 'citizens' to me. But that's only at the point of the smaller scale. If this situation actually went down, it would probably be somewhat clear to me who was 'wrong' or 'right,' and who needed to stand down. If the government is wrong and still refuses to stand down to the growing rebellious population, you've got yourself Civil War, national revolution, and all that other juicy stuff.

[Whale Biologist]

Ah yes, fear is an excellent way to control people. But let's say, hypothetically, we have a person either too brave or too stupid to feel fear. How would the law be enforced in that case?
That person would be a 'criminal'. He would be beaten, arrested, tried, sentenced, then released. It's a good system, I think.

Morality, though, is what prevents non-criminals from committing crimes. Lack of morality thus creates two more blocks of people: People who don't commit crimes for fear of retribution (even though they want to), and people who DO commit crimes because they don't fear the retribution. So we have:

Good people (Say, 95%)
Scared people (Say, 3%)
Bad people (Say, the 2% of the US that's in jail right now).

Now, since putting people in jail doesn't decrease crime, I can only assume that as we take more people from group 3 out of public circulation, people from group 2 then decide to commit crimes to even out the levels.

Now, I would totally rob a gas station or two, knowing that sme simple planning would allow me to do it successfully. I DON'T, because I know it's wrong. I'm in group 1 -> governed by morality. However, I ALSO fear the police (trust me, I have good reason), so even if I wanted to rob that place, I wouldn't, but now I'd be in group 2 -> governed by fear. However, if it meant the difference between one of my kids getting medicine, or one of my kids dying, I would rob that gas station, and be in group 3 -> governed by something stronger than fear.

Authority requires people not to make this progression, and thus it is in their best interests to keep people from having to override their fear AND morality, which is usually caused by sudden (or lifelong) crippling poverty. However, America enjoys it's poor, and likes to leave them alone, so we get a lot of 1 -> 2 -> 3 migration.

This post was brought to you by the letter F.

[Aphaetonism]

2.What would the federal government have to do to prevent this from happening, or to stop it if it had already started to happen?
A: To prevent it, they would be a fair government. If there was a revolt, they would use force (unless they saw another way out of the problem). the military and such would go into the area and take down the rebels.
What is considered fair and unfair can be very different things depending on who you ask! But it seems we are agreed that the only way the federal government can enforce its laws is through the threat and possibly use of overwhelming or even deadly force.

It's taking alot of control to keep me from saying "duh" after every sentence.
Sometimes a person asks questions because he doesn't know the answers. Sometimes he asks them because the answer he is given is a good way to judge the character of the person (or people) he plans to associate with. At other times he simply wishes to make a point or present an idea. Philosophy does that last one a lot.

Laws tend to work because laws tend to be based on a moral system that few human beings would dare go against; there aren't too many people who could rationalize rape or theft or murder as the morally right course of events. Hence the majority of Americans in all areas of the country tend to follow the law. And the minority of Americans who would prefer breaking the law are suppressed by law enforcement; that's why we have the Police.
Hmm, so your view is that the law reflects morality. But what about laws that a person disagrees with on moral grounds? What, besides the fear of having property or freedom taken away, would compel a person to follow such laws? Morality can be quite subjective.

I disagree with Whale Biologist's assertation that "fear and pain" are the only two motivations to follow the law. While negative reinforcement certainly has its place in keeping deviants down, most folks living in first-world countries tend to respect the laws of their nations because of positive reinforcement.
In order for that to work you have to already want (and lack) the things that are provided to you as reinforcement. For someone who doesn't care about respect or prestige or family, and who has enough wealth that he doesn't need a job, those things aren't really much of a motivation. Whereas nearly everyone feels fear and pain, and no rational person would want to be forced into jail.

EDIT: This post was written in response to Aphaetonism, not Friendly Black Mage. And Apha, if I spelled your name wrong, it's only because you chose such a nonsensical screenname in the first place.
Your insight is appreciated and respected. Perhaps you could analyze the method by which I chose that name for me so that I may better appreciate how foolish I was to choose it.

What does the government have to do to prevent revolt? Keep the citizens happy. There is a reason 75% of a state is revolting. I'm assuming of course this population of citizens didn't just materialize out of nowhere, and that at one point they WEREN'T revolting and therefore WERE happy (or just not sufficiently angry?). Did the federal government add a new law, rule, or policy that caused the revolt?
That was what I was trying to imply, yes.

The authority has a duty to step in and stop the revolts. Be it through diplomacy (sounds less likely at the point of state-wide revolt) or all-out combat (more likely), they've got to try.
Right, like it was Britain's duty to try to stop its colonies from rebelling.

Citizens choosing to revolt and not follow the law of said country, ESPECIALLY if this endangers law-abiding citizens, forfeit their title as 'citizens' to me.
But surely a government's laws only apply to its citizens. How could it justify trying to put down a rebellion (for the sake of enforcing a law) if the people in question aren't even its citizens anymore?

[Azisien]

But surely a government's laws only apply to its citizens. How could it justify trying to put down a rebellion (for the sake of enforcing a law) if the people in question aren't even its citizens anymore?

Poorly worded on my part. What I should have said was, they forfeit their "rights" to be protected by the law, and deserve to be warned, fined, arrested, beaten, jailed, killed, whatever amount of force necessary under the circumstance to bring back control for the majority.

Right, like it was Britain's duty to try to stop its colonies from rebelling.

No? I'm not a history buff, so feel free to correct me. I thought in many cases the peoples of the British Colonies weren't REALLY British anymore, either by sheer population (India? I thought that was millions and millions of Hindus and Muslims, with some oppressive Brits in control?) or by generations of divergence (America).

In most or all of those cases I'd consider that the majority wanting change, and the authority trying to cling (war). That's beyond the point of a small isolated minority rebelling, while there's still a large majority happy and not interested in change.

[Kikuichimonji]

I'm speaking of legal authority but I guess other types of authority can be considered too.

Every country has laws its citizens are expected to follow. Why should they? What possible reason do I as a citizen have to follow any law if I don't feel like it? What is it that the authorities in charge of creating and/or enforcing laws need to do to get me to follow the law?
Why should you follow laws? John Locke (French philosopher) suggested that a government's legitimacy (authority is the ability of the government to use power, not its right to use power.) comes from a Social Contract between the people and the government. Without the government, chaos would ensue. If there is no cooperation, everyone would be worse off. Therefore, in order to give others no right to break the law, you ought to follow it.

Ultimately, legitimacy in government has to come from the consent of the people in some form.

[Skyshot]

Locke suggested that a government's legitimacy (authority is the ability of the government to use power, not its right to use power.) comes from a Social Contract between the people and the government.Let me point out for the rest of us this is John Locke, not our local atheist-anarchist. That confused me for a second.Right, like it was Britain's duty to try to stop its colonies from rebelling.That sort of goes back to my point (point B, that is). The people decided risking death was worth more than a certainty of taxation without representation and all that other stuff listed in the Declaration of Independence.

May I ask something? Are any of us really disagreeing here? It's the Discussion forum, not the Debate forum, so it doesn't matter that much, but I'm curious.

[Kikuichimonji]

Let me point out to the rest of you this is John Locke, not our local atheist-anarchist. That confused me for a second.Edited for clarity.

Personally, I blame NPF Locke for picking a person's name for a screen-name.

[Aphaetonism]

Poorly worded on my part. What I should have said was, they forfeit their "rights" to be protected by the law, and deserve to be warned, fined, arrested, beaten, jailed, killed, whatever amount of force necessary under the circumstance to bring back control for the majority.
Hmm, so you're saying that people only have whatever rights are granted to them by their government? Or merely that these rebels forfeit the right to be protected by the law?

I thought in many cases the peoples of the British Colonies weren't REALLY British anymore
The Crown considered the citizens of the American colonies to be its subjects. Even during the Revolution itself, only about a third of the colonists actively supported separating from Britain. About another third were Loyalists and the ones left over were neutral or just didn't care.

In most or all of those cases I'd consider that the majority wanting change, and the authority trying to cling (war). That's beyond the point of a small isolated minority rebelling, while there's still a large majority happy and not interested in change.
So by this logic, the American Revolution wasn't justified, correct?

(authority is the ability of the government to use power, not its right to use power.)
Actually it was the ability to use power that I was originally intending to discuss, but it's quite natural that such a discussion might gravitate to the right to use power. But yes, it's an important distinction to make.

Ultimately, legitimacy in government has to come from the consent of the people in some form.
Yeah, I think so too.

May I ask something? Are any of us really disagreeing here? It's the Discussion forum, not the Debate forum, so it doesn't matter that much, but I'm curious.
There's still the point about law and morality to discuss, but I was going to move the discussion along with another question anyway. I think I may wait though, I'm interested in seeing what kinds of other replies I get.

[Fifthfiend]

May I ask something? Are any of us really disagreeing here? It's the Discussion forum, not the Debate forum, so it doesn't matter that much, but I'm curious.

Holy shit, a discussion thread where people are sharing ideas with one another in a considered and not actively hostile manner?

Shit guys I need to go ring a bell, because I think an angel somewhere just earned his wings.

[Whale Biologist]

Betcha ten bucks Aphaetonism, who joined today and has only posted here, has a term paper due soon on the source of authority. :)

[Kikuichimonji]

Actually it was the ability to use power that I was originally intending to discuss, but it's quite natural that such a discussion might gravitate to the right to use power. But yes, it's an important distinction to make.I blame this one on Locke, too. Because he's my daily scapegoat. And I'm incapable of admitting the mistake I just made.

To address the topic, theoretically they don't need to make you. They just need to show that it's in your best interest. Of course, people are stupid or discover that they can manipulate the system. So... yeah.

[Fifthfiend]

Betcha ten bucks Aphaetonism, who joined today and has only posted here, has a term paper due soon on the source of authority.

Well yeah.

But we're a bunch of know-it-alls who can't keep our overweening brilliance to ourselves, in any case.

So it's cool.

Hell if someone wants to harness our hot air for the purposes of grinding a term paper out of us, I say more power to him, and happy to see a discussion topic actually serve some kind of real-life purpose, somehow.

[Azisien]

Hmm, so you're saying that people only have whatever rights are granted to them by their government? Or merely that these rebels forfeit the right to be protected by the law?

Certainly the latter, the former is a little touchy. I don't think governments give rights to their citizens so DIRECTLY. I don't believe in objective rights, as far as the word objective goes. But I do believe in human beings creating a fairly objective set of rights for human beings. Following that, the majority would agree with these rights and honor them. Since the government is more or less fuelled by its people, the majority in particular, I guess you might be able to relate that to the government 'granting' us rights. They are certainly take them away with their authority.

So by this logic, the American Revolution wasn't justified, correct?

Again, we haven't been dealing with numbers here, but now that I know the numbers regarding the American Revolution, I'm expected to make an assessment. I've been using the word majority, so in the strictest sense of my logic, yes, the American Revolution wasn't justified. There, I said it.

However, 33% of a population supported separation from Britain. That's a lot of people. Moreover, 33% were Loyalists. Since 33% were neutral or didn't care either way, let's just ignore them...that makes it 50% either way. Sounds like we've more than crossed the boundary for a "change" to occur. This is much different from the other example, where "one state" is revolting from "one country." I don't know my US geography, or population demographics, but that sounds more like...4% revolting, 96% neutral or loyal. Huge difference.

[Sir Pinkleton]

Hurray, this forum is making me think! I'll definately go here the next term paper I need to do.

Also, to make this post less spam (I'd post more, but all the points have been made), I'd like to ask where the name 'Aphaetonism' came from. dictionary.com has brought up nothing.

[Whale Biologist]

Well yeah.

But we're a bunch of know-it-alls who can't keep our overweening brilliance to ourselves, in any case.

So it's cool.

Hell if someone wants to harness our hot air for the purposes of grinding a term paper out of us, I say more power to him, and happy to see a discussion topic actually serve some kind of real-life purpose, somehow.
Here's something about the source of authority.

I don't talk about religion (anymore) on this forum because I fear the pain of being banned. I have absolutely NO moral or ethical qualms about it, so I am now safely in the Group 2 I mentioned. fifthfiend has the authority to ban my ass and not give me a reason (and truth be told, he's done it before). His authority stems from the fact that, although we outnumber him and may disagree, he still has the final say, and in the real world, that's fairly practical.

[Skyshot]

His authority stems from the fact that, although we outnumber him and may disagree, he still has the final say, and in the real world, that's fairly practical.To an extent, though, what I said in my first post applies here too. If we don't like our moderators' conduct, we probably can't oust them (unless you count hacking), but we can move to another forum and thereby indirectly neutralize their power. See for (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/rebelleader.htm) comparison (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/admin.htm).

[Whale Biologist]

You could, but "I'm going to leave a place I like because I don't like the guy in charge" is sort of the opposite stance to most situations. You leave a place you DON'T like, not a place you DO like with people you DON'T like.

That's the fifteen year old storming off, shouting "I'm gonna start my OWN club, and YOU WONT BE INVITED! It'll have POOL, and WII, and HOOKERS... in fact, forget the pool and the hookers!"

[Fifthfiend]

fifthfiend has the authority to ban my ass and not give me a reason (and truth be told, he's done it before).

Without derailing this thread too much further into It's All About Me-land, I'm pretty sure everybody I've banned for a serious reason has received a fairly exhaustive explanation of why.

Also and as a general guideline, I would be somewhat careful about extrapolating any conclusions about authority on an internet message board, into any kind of judgement about actual, real-life, meaningful authority.

To an extent, though, what I said in my first post applies here too. If we don't like our moderators' conduct, we probably can't oust them (unless you count hacking), but we can move to another forum and thereby indirectly neutralize their power.

You could always write a three-page-long flame telling them how hard they suck, then leave fo-evas.

Not that I would know anything about that.

[Mesden]

Without derailing this thread too much further into It's All About Me-land, I'm pretty sure everybody I've banned for a serious reason has received a fairly exhaustive explanation of why.

Also and as a general guideline, I would be somewhat careful about extrapolating any conclusions about authority on an internet message board, into any kind of judgement about actual, real-life, meaningful authority.



You could always write a three-page-long flame telling them how hard they suck, then leave fo-evas.

Not that I would know anything about that.

You know, up until the "then leave fo-evas"...Ah, nevermind!

Also, as far as I can give my whole thought process into WHAT makes authority, I have to go with...

Money. Money=Authority. Money, wealth, stocks, land, WHATEVER! You've got wealth, you've got more authority WHEREVER you want it.

Money is the universal power.

Also: Connections to money. The more influence you have on its overabiding crippling hold on the world, the more authority you have.

Authority is more than instant power, but rather ability to influence things the way you want, how you want without much resistance.

[POS Industries]

I've always felt that the illusion of power is much more persuasive than actually having it. All the money, weapons, land, whatever in the world is useless if the people realize that they outnumber you by about a million to one. If the peasants become willing to put themselves against the tanks in the hopes of eventually overwhelming them, you're up shit creek and, uh-oh, where'd your paddle go?

Just about every revolution in history has involved the "weak" amassing to take down the "powerful", because the former realized that the latter's power was only a front. The French and Bolshevik revolutions are obvious examples of this.

You can only be controlled if you allow yourself to be. Don't forget that.

[Sesshoumaru]

At the risk of getting a warning. All authority comes from God, and is governed by absolute truth.

[Mesden]

At the risk of getting a warning. All authority comes from God, and is governed by absolute truth.

Oh my...dude. Please, no. Something so defiantly blatant and placing through as a fact/opinion (THAT very means is an endlessly dwindling argument) in discussion forum, a place of means and debate, is not a good thing at all.

Please, like, delete that post so I may this one. Lives are best left intact, and this is way too risky to be prodding.

[Fifthfiend]

At the risk of getting a warning. All authority comes from God, and is governed by absolute truth.

Oh no need to worry about getting a warning, you're skipping right to being banned.

I really don't know what the damn deal is today, something is in the water or some shit I swear.

If you know it's wrong, and you openly state you know it's wrong, and then you do it anyway? I am not about to waste time warning you, you are just banned.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and apparently you've been warned once before (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?p=275013#post275013). Was gonna call this a three-day ban but fuck it, let's make it a week instead.