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]

Originally Posted by Aphaetonism

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. 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!

Originally Posted by Whale Biologist

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)

Originally Posted by Skyshot

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?

Originally Posted by Skyshot

Glocks. Smith & Wessons. Sig-Sauers. Berettas. Occasionally nightsticks. 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.

Originally Posted by Skyshot

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]

Originally Posted by Aphaetonism

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:

Originally Posted by Althane

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,

Originally Posted by Aphaetonism

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.