What is the source of authority?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.