Old Dialog Boards and Old Threads > Old Threads
A Facebook Discussion
Dale Eastman:
As I copy-n-paste the dialog here, I will be highlighting unaddressed points in red.
--- Quote ---Does anyone feel like fighting today? I feel like that all the time.
--- End quote ---
No. But I'll have at it anyway.
Nice segue to our unfinished discussion about authority.
--- Quote ---yes the most violent usurp the authority -- I told you that before -- all authority is acquired by force and/or coercion -- just because vioilence was used does not make the authority illegitiamte because all land is conquered by violence and all laws forced on us.
--- End quote ---
(I finally looked at your FB page. The irony of the following is not lost on me.)
Then according to you Ms. xxxxxxxx, Hitler had non-bogus authority regardless of how acquired.
Using your own words regarding the validity of authority, the German soldiers invaded Poland because they had a belief in Hitler's authority.
And by your own words, Ms. xxxxxxxx, Hitler then had valid, non-bogus authority over Poland and the people thereof.
Germans shipped Jews and other undesirables to the death camps.
Germans showered Jews and other undesirables with Zyklon B...
Again because they had a belief in Hitler's authority.
Let's apply your statement to a scenario of you and I on some lost deserted island. How we got there is irrelevant, ship wreck, plane crash, alien kidnapping, whatever.
There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.
I am a big guy and an asshole. I will tell you what to do and if you don't, I will hurt you. I have taken you and the island by conquest.
By your own words: "I have authority over you whether you consent or not [ ] I have more power than you have."
By your own words, my authority over you is legitimate - NOT bogus.
And by you defending the concept of your words, I must presume that you are okay with this.
Are you?
A link to where the following post resides on Facebook was here in the original.
Dale Eastman:
Chain of Authority
1. A chain of authority has a subordinate end.
2. A chain of authority has a superior end.
3. Which may also be called a sovereign end.
4. The person allegedly holding a position of superior authority is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of subordinate authority.
5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.
6. For comparison, a plantation owner's ownership of a cotton picking slave was presumed to have had a higher claim on the slave than the slave had over him or her self, property, and labor.
7. Any unagreed or forced relationship of superior and inferior authority is by definition: enslavement.
8. The alleged authority of those calling themselves government hinges upon The Consent Of The Governed.
9. Governmentalists and Statists presume and pretend everybody has consented.
10. This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT!
11. There are some Governmentalists and Statists who will claim that acquiescence to the laws (politician's opinions) is consent. They are wrong.
12. For example, I always used seat belts before there were laws (politician's opinions) commanding I always wear seat belts. To properly protest that law, I would have to do something that lessens my survival odds in a collision - Not wear the seat belt.
13. Examination of alleged consent finds that it was never actually given, only usurped or fabricated. I'll come back to this.
14. Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have? Well... If they don't have it...
15. Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else? Claiming you were born with authority over me is a declaration of war with me. You have been warned!
16. The alleged authority of statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances is presumed to come from the legislators.
17. This means the alleged authority imbued in the written words of law (politician's opinions) is the authority that the legislators (politicians) are alleged to have over everyone else.
18. Legislators (politicians) are not born with this alleged authority over everyone else, therefore this alleged authority must be delegated to the legislators (politicians).
19. The main source of this alleged authority is presumed to come with the office.
20. The other part of this alleged authority comes from the selection of a person to hold the office.
21. If you do not have authority over me, then you can not select any person to have an authority over me. You can only select a person to have authority over you.
22. Voting for a person to hold the office of legislator does NOT give him authority over me unless I also voted for that politician.
23. Prove I've ever voted for any present officeholder. (You can't because I didn't.)
24. If appointed to an office, if the person doing the appointing does not have authority over me, then the delegation of authority and the appointee can not have authority over me.
25. The person doing the appointing was put into their office the same way... By appointment or by vote. The same failure to have authority over me still exists.
26. Returning to the alleged authority of the office. These offices were created by people who were not born with authority over me.
27. Therefore these offices do not have authority over me.
28. Focusing on the federal level constitution, also known as the highest law in the land, Those long dead authors of the constitution did not have authority over me.
29. Therefore, the constitution has no authority over me.
30. And neither do the offices created by the constitution.
Any alleged authority over me is bogus and fraudulent.
Regarding the Consent Of The Governed...
--- Quote from: Larken Rose ---There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent”– both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” – one person controlling another. Since these two – consent and governing – are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing, there is no consent.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
Ms. xxxxxxxx attempted to dodge the issue and unknowingly made my point for me by writing:
--- Quote ---That was a very long answer to say that those with might have rights. Yes if you were bigger and stronger than me and we were on a deserted Island, you would have authority over me until I kill you.
--- End quote ---
Didn't you say authority is valid regardless of how acquired?
{Scrolling up to verify my memory is correct.}
You wrote: "just because vioilence was used does not make the authority illegitiamte"
Yep. You claimed my authority is valid regardless of how acquired.
You stated that you intend to rebel against people with VALID authority.
Were the roles reversed, my intent would be to rebel against people who claim threat, duress, and coercion are valid authority.
If that authority is bogus, your rebellion is justified.
If that authority is valid, your rebellion is not justified.
Threat, Duress, Coercion, or Extortion is not Authority.
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---I disagree. I believe that your authority is valid if acquired by force.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---and my rebellion against it is also valid
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---yes the most violent usurp the authority -- I told you that before -- all authority is acquired by force and/or coercion -- just because vioilence was used does not make the authority illegitiamte because all land is conquered by violence and all laws forced on us.
--- End quote ---
To challenge and examine this view of authority, I wrote:
...................................... ......
Let's apply your statement to a scenario of you and I on some lost deserted island. How we got there is irrelevant, ship wreck, plane crash, alien kidnapping, whatever.
There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.
I am a big guy and an asshole. I will tell you what to do and if you don't, I will hurt you. I have taken you and the island by conquest.
By your own words: "I have authority over you whether you consent or not [ ] I have more power than you have."
By your own words, my authority over you is legitimate - NOT bogus.
And by you defending the concept of your words, I must presume that you are okay with this.
Are you?
...................................... ......
--- Quote ---That was a very long answer to say that those with might have rights.
--- End quote ---
And:
--- Quote ---Yes if you were bigger and stronger than me and we were on a deserted Island, you would have authority over me until I kill you.
--- End quote ---
I will confess to misreading this. At first read it translated in my mind as "Might makes Right" / "Might makes Moral".
After I replied to your reply, I found this editorially added:
--- Quote ---Am I ok with those who have the power and money controlling those who don't? Of course not -- but that is how reality works. THose with the weapons make the rules.
--- End quote ---
I didn't say anything about those with power and money.
What I did say is, “There's just you, I, the clothes on our backs, and whatever is provided by nature on that island.”
I'm calling you on your attempt to change the subject to avoid what the question was actually meant to examine...
Your words, specifically and to wit:
--- Quote ---all authority is acquired by force and/or coercion -- just because violence was used does not make the authority illegitimate because all land is conquered by violence and all laws forced on us.
--- End quote ---
Rephrasing because of avoidance of the question.
Are you okay with me having VALID authority over you gained by conquest and violence?
It's your own damn words that claims my authority over you is NOT BOGUS.
You wrote: "you would have authority over me until I kill you."
By parsing, combining, and translating your various words, you have claimed that:
You would be willing to kill me to end my VALID authority and VALID rule over you.
This says much about your morality and beliefs. You stated that you are willing to commit murder to end authority that you claim is valid.
If this authority is valid, then why would you premeditate murder to end it?
Perhaps you recognize that you did not consent to this authority over you and you actually recognize that this is BOGUS authority?
Or perhaps you've described yourself with your own words: “yes the most violent usurp the authority”.
Or perhaps you believe "Might makes Right" and "Might makes Moral", twin concepts that I reject and dismiss unless you actually claim such belief, thus taking the discussion in another direction?
You previously agreed to this description of authority:
4. The person allegedly holding a position of superior authority is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of subordinate authority.
5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.
At issue is, When is such a claim valid?
I have read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy web page about and titled “Authority”. (Link) I have found nothing to change my view, and in fact that page has helped me clarify my view.
I draw a line between one concept of authority and all the rest.
Authority by extortion on the one side, Authority by consent on the other.
Extortion is not authority.
Threat, duress, or coercion is not authority.
Do what we tell you to do or you will be hurt is not authority.
So STOP using authority as a euphemism for threat, duress, coercion, and extortion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version