A few questions if you will river.... [1] Where do people that weal authority come from? [2] Do you believe we would be a better society without any authority? [3] How do we react to injustices on our person if we are unable to call an authority? [4] How did authoritarians [people that are in a position of authority] get to be in that position?
So authority is totally necessary? My question at number one by the way was where do people of authority come from? The answer is of course, from you, me, Alex and Joe Blow over in the corner.
Authority is necessary . as long as it doesn't overstep its bounds . People of authority don't come from us , they come from lawyers , government .
Authority is the law. The law is made by the Government. The law is enforced by police and various government officials in the case of criminal law and in the case of civil law people and corporations may seek damages or compensation from others who have wronged them. The judiciary interprets the law. So authority could be said to be a mix of all the above which can be referred to as our laws. Alex
The government is made up of elected representatives. The police etc are gathered from the community. The judges come from the lawyers. All involved are people. A corporation is however an entity separate from the people making it up. Alex
Laws, rules, governments, and leaders are necessary for a society that lives to serve itself over others, that is controlled and dominated by the ego and enslaved by beliefs and belief systems, that lives out of harmony with it's environment, and that is disconnected from everything and everyone. Without laws and governments we would most likely have destroyed ourselves a long time ago, quite possible to the point of near extinction. At the very least we wouldn't have near the population we have today. Of course I'm not saying that this is either good or bad. We are still a highly underdeveloped and an extremely infantile society. We are nowhere near as advanced as a lot of people would like to think we are. This is all just a learning experience. It is my belief that there would be no need for laws, rules, governments, and leaders in a selfless serving and free society. Well maybe there would still be a need for leaders, but not similar to the types of leaders we have today. Probably more like organizers. Yeah yeah, I know. I can already see the word "Utopia" popping into most people's head. It is my belief that world peace is not impossible, but is eventually inevitable, and not just some Utopian fantasy. World peace is certainly a choice. That part is not a belief nor an opinion.
That might be a personal problem, and, no, on this occasion that's not sarcastic. Look, it's just a matter of priorities. And something about the idea of what you find subtle compared to what else might seem completely obvious. The last time I recall that being tested, the answer is no. In truth, had the principle rolled, I would think I would have heard, but you never know. Competence is a difficult question, but, presently, consent to imminent homicidal act as means of suicide is generally not considered a competent decision. That is to say, that we might permit a doctor to assist you in what would otherwise be self-termination in the face of mortal illness is one thing; that I can shoot you to death amid an ostensible sex act because you're suicidal for acute depression, melodramatic, and want to make a statement on your way out is quite another. The insurance companies will win out eventually, or else we go to single payer and the government plays that role. But as long as tobacco is legal, there are ways for insurance companies to compel people to reconsider their habits. No, seriously, on their best days, actuaries can be society's best friends. One of life's great ironies is that we will eventually achieve the science-fiction fake intoxicants for the sake of our insurance costs, because I'm betting we probably won't be doing the science-fiction bit about ditching currency as the resource allocation model. Some say the purpose behind a nanny state is financial, which might be true.[/QUOTE] To a certain degree it's financial. But that's the thing: Somebody's gotta pay for it. Sorry, that's an old joke I have with my father. It had to do with newspapers and advertising, and I did, actually, think of it recently because one of the local newspapers has taken a note from the internet and is now covering its content with advert stickers. But that's the thing. That's driven by the chambers of commerce crowd. It's not going to be the communists who bring the step-time, gloomy, behavioral dystopia; it will be the private sector. Watch for imposed behavioral economics; they're getting so goddamn naked about it, and that's what blows my mind about the politics. Two-thirds of what pisses people off about government, at least, is more properly blamed on the private sector. And it is some manner or morbid comedy; Americans have been doing this most of the time I've been politically aware. People vote for business, inherently voting against themselves. Business screws up, augmenting the damage. People blame government, and thus vote for business, inherently voting for themselves .... We do it over and over again. In this case, per behavior, if you happen to have Comcast, consider that the experience is only going to get worse. Everything that's wrong with their X1 platform has to do with the fact that serving television is a secondary priority. Everything else is about training you as a customer to click and buy. What you buy, how you buy it, and why you want it will all be more greatly affected by the private sector than government. In the end, if they really want you to quit smoking, insurance companies will rely on the mandate and jack your rates for being a smoker. And maybe you'll blame Obamacare, for instance, even though they could have done the same thing before.
Until we realize how authority screws us, then we look at ways to limit its power or direct its influence.
