What is the source of authority?

[Aphaetonism]

Originally Posted by Friendly Black Mage

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.

Originally Posted by Friendly Black Mage

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.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

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.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

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.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

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.

Originally Posted by Azisien

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.

Originally Posted by Azisien

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.

Originally Posted by Azisien

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]

Originally Posted by Aphaetonism

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Kikuichimonji

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.

Originally Posted by Aphaetonism

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]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

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]

Originally Posted by Azisien

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?

Originally Posted by Azisien

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.

Originally Posted by Azisien

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?

Originally Posted by Kikuichimonji

(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.

Originally Posted by Kikuichimonji

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

Yeah, I think so too.

Originally Posted by Skyshot

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]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

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]

Originally Posted by Aphaetonism

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.