Authority, what is your attitude to authority? Is it cliched? Is it complex?

Ok...let me clarify my position here

I see how people are being conditioned to think and feel about different things including 'authority' by groups such as the frankfurt school and the tavistock institute

This process is carried out in such a subtle way that many people are not even aware of how the way that they percieve reality and everything in it is actually a box that has been created for them by manipulators...call them 'social engineers' or 'engineers of perception' or whatever

There are arguments that the manipulators want you to make because those arguments reinforce the box

I am trying to illustrate the invisible mechanics at work here...the chains that cannot be seen or what William Blake would call the 'mind forg'd manacles'
 
Anyone can and often does say that their particular force is justice.

For real balance you need some competition. Decentralized authority. Central or supreme authority just magnifies all effects of authority. There's a reason why we don't let just any old person be king or president.

There needs to be a balance between small and large units of authority. A tyrant is probably putting too many eggs in one basket, and individual mob rule is usually too small to be effectual for anything non-immediate. It has to be in between the two because the tyrant has world destroying potential, and the mob rule effects almost nothing outside of the here and now specific to its area.

The pitchfork mob might be terrifying when they're coming for you, but notice how nations that have this also have practically no progress, especially not outside their own area. But when you get central authority it moves to world politics. So I reiterate that there's too small and also too big.
 
muir said:
You wouldn't own a farm under an anarchist system, the land would belong to everyone

You would own your own small items of property

The land would be for everyone to benefit from

The scenario you describe of a force claiming to be acting on behalf of 'the people' steamrolling their way through your world is in fact the system we are currently living in NOT an anarchist system
Click to expand...

You must know that this could never work.
 
vandyke said:
You must know that this could never work.
Click to expand...

It worked for tens of thousands of years and its working still in places around the world

You must know that the current system could never work...right?
 
muir said:
It worked for tens of thousands of years and its working still in places around the world

You must know that the current system could never work...right?
Click to expand...

Pre-industrialized nations have less power to go around. The current system is very imperfect, but it's the result of human behavior. Create what you want, and we'll have feudalistic lords in no time.
 
vandyke said:
Pre-industrialized nations have less power to go around. The current system is very imperfect, but it's the result of human behavior. Create what you want, and we'll have feudalistic lords in no time.
Click to expand...

We have fuedalistic lords now! Nowadays they are called 'oligarchs' though

The system is NOT the result of wider human behaviour, the system is the result of the behaviour of a small group of oligarchs who have shaped the system to suit themselves at the expense of the many

Anarchism would not lead to fuedalism.

If a proper anarchist society was created then power would be exercised from the bottom of society upwards

Each community would elect a delegate to carry forward the mandate of the community. Unlike current politicians the delegate would be INSTANTLY REVOCABLE if they deviated from their communities mandate

At the moment politicians can lie to the electorate to win their vote but once they are in power they can then renege on their promises and do something completely different to what the electorate wanted. Also those politicans are paid for by the powerful monied interests

In an anarchist system there would be no powerful monied interests to corrupt the delegates and besides the delegate would instantly lose their position if they deviated from their communities wishes

The delegates might meet regionally and the regional delegates would then elect delegates to represetn them at national level and so on

Work groups would hold regular workers councils to decide matters and everyone would have a say

These kinds of structures have already been used in the occupy movement for example the 'peopls assemblies': http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/
 
Hey @TheDaringHatTrick sorry if i was a bit belligerent earlier on in this thread

As you know i do care about this issue, but i shouldn't have ploughed through the matter the way i did
 
At an earlier age in school, I came across authority inherently wielded unjustifiably. I turned my back on it and walked away. Because of my walking away, my Dad used his authority to take something back he had given me early to entice me to stay in school. I willingly and with great respect gave it back freely. He dealt with the situation with understanding, clarity, and love. I judged authority. I gave judgments to authority. I helped people to think more clearly and measure their judgments with fairness and truth.

If you are in authority, use it wisely and never underestimate those whose paths you have crossed.
 
I would say authority is a neutral entity. I find it useful, because it takes care of all the stuff with which I wouldn't want to deal. I don't tend to hold it in any special regard. When it stops being useful, and I have to deal with all of the stuff I am too lazy to volunteer for, I find it inconvenient, incompetent, and in need of change.
 
I don't believe in authority. I do what I believe is right, not what others instruct me to do. I will always help others to reach their goals if I believe their goal is in line with my own sense of morality, or if I believe I can help them achieve some manner of personal growth. But I never do things just because someone else tells me to do it. I always have to know the reason for the action in question and decide if it is worth doing, for myself. If I do not understand why another person has asked me to do something and the person is able to explain (assuming they have some knowledge of a particular field more than that which I already possess) then I will ask them for this knowledge and I will either concur with their direction of action or advise against it based upon consideration of new knowledge in conjunction with what I believe is right from countless number of angles.
 
DonTaushMe said:
If I don't respect you, you have no authority over me; that is all I know.
Click to expand...

How about "I respect you because you have authority over me?"
 
It would be really cool to see this question opened into a group of ISTPs....or ESTJs...it would be incredible.
 
Probably we INFJs need to do the army thing more, then re open this discussion.
 
LucyJr said:
Probably we INFJs need to do the army thing more, then re open this discussion.
Click to expand...

Is that a slogan from the old USSR?
 
muir said:
Is that a slogan from the old USSR?
Click to expand...
no, its a rule of common sense or logical rule applied in this particular, which is authority.
It means authority is granted authority in itself, without need for external aproval, especially from someone's "respect".
 
muir said:
Is that a slogan from the old USSR?
Click to expand...

I think you should really get a period in Soviet army. It will catch you good as a english INFJ.
 
LucyJr said:
I think you should really get a period in Soviet army. It will catch you good as a english INFJ.
Click to expand...

I'm not english and the army can go fuck itself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top