ZG

[Dale Eastman]

You have jumped into an ongoing discussion. Not a complaint because I often do the same. I am assuming you have done it for the same reason I do... You have observed something you don't quite agree with and wish to present your thoughts on the issue(s) being discussed.

I am replying to you in a new comment thread because Fecalbook is currently glitching making following the parties to a discussion a PITA. And more commentators makes for more comments which makes following the subthreads an increasing PITA.

I publicly archive discussions on my website. Names are anonymized to just initials. You are served notice that this is one such discussion. Address link upon request. Feel free to use it to check for any missed or overlooked points, and for reviewing the discussion.

➽ It gets to make the rules because it has more might than you do. That is how it always has been, and always will be. Even in the fantasyland of anarchists, the only reason anarchy would reign is because those with the greatest might choose not to exert it. In real world anarchy, anarchy reigns because no one has the might to exert their will over others.

You have my attention.

I often ask questions for clarifications. What, specifically, is the "It" you refer to as getting to make the rules?

I assume you mean "Government gets to make the rules because government has more might than [ I] do."

Your statement parses as the claim that "Might makes right." "Might makes right" is immoral bullshit. "Might makes right" is "extortion". "Might makes right" is "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you."

My perception, correct or not, causes me to specifically take issue with your implication that this extortion is perfectly okay with you. Furthermore, this statement of yours ignores the reason, the raison d'etre, of government's purpose of existing.

[Dale Eastman]

First to answer your question: Government in the most amorphous sense of the term, but authority is a better term. Any authority, from the kindergarten teacher over his class and the parent over her child, to the governor over his country, has authority only to the extent that it is capable of imposing that authority with might, be that the social structures and force of a government's police and military, or the might of a parent over their child.

Now turning to your general critique of my position, or what you think is my position:

You are incorrect in simplifying my comment as might makes right. Might does not make right, might makes what is. Morality does not dictate the order of this world, (this is, of course, something which many philosophers from Plato to the Christian theologians, to the Buddhists, to the Confucian and Daoists, and only in the rosy colored philosophies of modern liberalism has this view been rejected, and never with compelling arguments) and morality does not dominate its flows, beyond how morality influences those who have the might to exert their will on the world.

Might as the deciding factor of authority, and therefore of governance, is an amoral, not moral or immoral. You can take all the issue you want, but even so, your lack of ability to enforce your will, your taking issue, makes it nothing more than a solipsistic exercise. It does nothing to change what is the case. Nor do you take issue with what I've actually claimed. As I said, even an anarchist society, in the idealism of anarchist propositions, can only exist as an expression of might enforcing its will on the world. It could only be if those persons or groups with the greatest capacity to express their might on the world were to agree to withhold that enforcement. If you want to be in a world without authority, you must first adhere to the rules of authority to create it, and then to use superior might to enforce it against those who would otherwise impose their will upon the world.

There are no systems of social organization which are free of this might "extortion."

➽ Government in the most amorphous sense of the term, but authority is a better term.

Thank you for verifying my assumption of what you meant. Government ☑
And thank you for your time in engaging with me in this discussion.

➽ Might as the deciding factor of authority, and therefore of governance, is an amoral, not moral or immoral.

That statement, standing alone, is unrefutable.

I am viewing "might" as a tool. Just like any other tool, be it a baseball bat, or a gun. The tool's existences IS, as you point out, "amoral". And just like any other tool, how it is used is what determines if its use is moral or immoral.

➽ You are incorrect in simplifying my comment as might makes right.

I admit to that as a distinct possibility. I do not admit to that as a truth.

➽ As I said, even an anarchist society, in the idealism of anarchist propositions, can only exist as an expression of might enforcing its will on the world.

That statement indicates to me that you do not understand the philosophy of anarchism. And why would you when the term anarchy has been co-opted and corrupted to mean something that has nothing to do with the philosophy of anarchism.

Anarchy simply means "without rulers." The philosophy builds on that as one of the cornerstones.

Who, other than rulers and their sycophant collaborators, would want anarchy to mean; rapists, killers, arsonists, and other assorted criminals running rampant in the streets; breaking windows, throwing bombs, creating malevolent chaos, destruction, and death?

Upon re-reading your original comment and parsing two sentences therefrom, you have basically claimed "An anarchist society can only exist as an expression of might enforcing its will on the world."

This statement also indicates to me that you do not understand the philosophy of anarchism.

➽ If you want to be in a world without authority, you must first adhere to the rules of authority to create it [a world without authority], and then to use superior might to enforce it [a world without authority] against those who would otherwise impose their will upon the world.

Sorry for the three-peat... This statement also indicates to me that you do not understand the philosophy of anarchism.

Presenting the philosophy of anarchism is not my intent at this time. I reviewed my three comments that you replied to. IMO, you jumped to attack/challenge anarchy  of which the word was not even in those comments. On the other hand, authority is used 22 times.
_________________

I present the "standard" definitions of "authority" as you (and many others) are using.

⚠
Merriam-Webster
Essential Meaning of authority
1 : the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something

Full Definition of authority
1a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior
b : freedom granted by one in authority : right
2a : persons in command

Synonyms & Antonyms of authority
2 lawful control over the affairs of a political unit (as a nation)
Synonyms for authority
administration, governance, government, jurisdiction, regime (also régime), regimen, rule
Words Related to authority
command, leadership
autocracy, dictatorship, domination, hegemony, mastery, oppression, subjugation, tyranny
⚠

⚠
Britannica
Authority, the exercise of legitimate influence by one social actor over another.
[...]
Governments are perhaps the most familiar example of an authoritative social actor, as, by most accounts, they generally possess a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force to compel obedience to their mandates in a given geographic area. The soldier or police officer serves as an extension of state authority and shares its legitimacy.
[...]
To the political philosopher, the central question concerning political authority is: Under what conditions can state action be considered legitimate? It can be agreed that authority requires some clear appeal to a higher sense of legitimate state function, but agreement on that point does not imply agreement either on the principles that define what is legitimate or on the limits of this legitimacy. When, for example, are citizens obliged to obey laws that either imperil their own lives or conflict with other important moral considerations?
[...]
Max Weber identified three inner justifications, or sources of legitimacy, for the exercise of authority: (1) traditional norms sanctified by long-standing convention, (2) charisma, which attracts the personal confidence and devotion of followers, and (3) rational-legal considerations supported by belief in the validity of legal statutes and functional competence.
⚠

Excerpting from Merriam-Webster, "Essential Meaning of authority ... the ... right to direct or control someone or something"

Whence comes this alleged authority; Whence comes this alleged right; Whence comes this alleged permission, to control ANYone? Whence comes this alleged authority; alleged right; alleged permission, to make a human a slave?

Excerpting and parsing Britannica "Authority, the exercise of legitimate control of a human."

Whence comes this alleged legitimacy?

Here in the United States, this alleged legitimacy came from the ORIGINAL organic document, The Declaration of Independence. This document spells out the raison d'etre for the United States government specifically and for any other government generally.

⚠
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
⚠

The organic document states "to secure these rights"; The organic document does NOT state "To rule and control these people."

The organic document also states "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

I do not consent.

18 unexpected comments... Because I'm used to being ignored. Now I have a lot to read.

[Dale Eastman]

"Thank you for verifying my assumption of what you meant. Government ☑
And thank you for your time in engaging with me in this discussion."

I suppose if you choose to ignore everything else I said, this is at least close enough to the mark. As I said, government only in its more vague meaning, of a system of governance. One would not ordinarily call the parent-child relationship a government, but the parent does govern the child. As I said, it would be more accurate to refer to it as authority. And I won't agree that authority need be legitimate, unless legitimate is reduced to the capacity to exert it (that is, authority which can be exerted and is obeyed is legitimate, regardless of any other characteristics of it, because legitimacy, like authority, is amoral).

"That statement indicates to me that you do not understand the philosophy of anarchism. And why would you when the term anarchy has been co-opted and corrupted to mean something that has nothing to do with the philosophy of anarchism.
Anarchy simply means "without rulers." The philosophy builds on that as one of the cornerstones."

This is precisely the way I meant it in the portion you referred to. To live without rules still requires might, since it is only possible so long as those who wish to be without rulers are capable of exerting their might against those who wish to have or be rulers. It is still might which dictates that proposition.

"Upon re-reading your original comment and parsing two sentences therefrom, you have basically claimed "An anarchist society can only exist as an expression of might enforcing its will on the world."
This statement also indicates to me that you do not understand the philosophy of anarchism."

I was an anarchist once, I understand the philosophy very deeply. Everything I said is completely in line with that philosophy because, as I said above, for anarchy in any conception, but particularly in the conception of anarchy as being without rulers, to exist, it must exist through the might of those who would like to remain unruled, expressed against those who would have a ruler, or those who would be ruler. If those who wanted to rule or to be ruled had the greater capacity to exert might, they would simply overrule the will of those who wish to be without rulers, and install a ruler over them. Thus, only if those who wish to be without rulers have the greatest might, and are willing to exert that might over them, is it possible to have a system without rulers.

"Sorry for the three-peat... This statement also indicates to me that you do not understand the philosophy of anarchism.
Presenting the philosophy of anarchism is not my intent at this time. I reviewed my three comments that you replied to. IMO, you jumped to attack/challenge anarchy of which the word was not even in those comments. On the other hand, authority is used 22 times."

It wasn't, nor did I anywhere actually challenge or attack anarchy at all. I showed how there is in fact no system which is free of the reality that might defines what is. Whether a monarchy, a democracy, a theocracy, or anarchy, the system can and will only exist where those with the greatest might are willing, and able, to impose it. If a theocrat has the greatest capacity to express might, they can and will establish a theocracy by installing a or some theocrat/s. An anarchist could install an anarchy only by having the greatest might and being willing to exert it to remove all rulers and prevent new rulers from replacing the old. All systems are built on might, not because might is right, but because might is what is.

I don't find much value in the dictionary quotes you've provided, as I'm more than sufficiently acquainted with the meaning and definition of legitimacy, government, etc. However, I will take issue with your discussion on the Declaration of Independence. It is not a document which lends legitimacy to any system of government, nor does it claim to be or intend to be. It is a declaration only of the illegitimacy of a government (the British government) exercising authority. It was the claim, later backed up by the might of the American patriot forces, to refuse to obey the orders of the British government, thereby rejecting its authority. It was the article of confederation that claimed to establish the legitimate authority of the American government, and because it failed to provide that government with the means to enforce that authority, the American government faced a crisis of legitimacy and had to replace the Articles with the Constitution, which has secured sufficient legitimacy to not only preserve the American government, but to prevent secessions, to expand the sphere of authority of that government, and to enforce the increasing decline of the Federalist system.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ I suppose if you choose to ignore everything else I said

Um... POT-KETTLE-BLACK?

As I wrote in the comment initiating this thread:

⚠ I publicly archive discussions on my website. Names are anonymized to just initials. You are served notice that this is one such discussion. Address link upon request. Feel free to use it to check for any missed or overlooked points, and for reviewing the discussion. ⚠

I often review threads I'm in just for the reason that in the past I have asked a specific question about something and it was ignored. So I address the point again. It happens and sometimes it is a simple oversight without malice. Other times, sigh...

I've reviewed the discussion to see what I might have missed per your claim that I ignored something of import. I didn't see that I did ignore anything of import. But I'm not you, so it's possible that something you thought important I did ignore. Repeat, rephrase, or ask again.

There is a lot to unpack in your post. So I am going to break it down into manageable sized pieces, Likely only a few to a post. What gets ignored or missed (for the moment) is stored in my archive for later focus.

➽ because legitimacy, like authority, is amoral

I like to use non-bogus instead of legitimate. So I am parsing your claim as "because non-bogosity, like authority, is amoral".

Is initiating force against some person who has done you no harm, and killing them because you want what is rightfully theirs a legitimate, non-bogus action?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman There isn't enough information to answer your question. Do they have sufficient force and will to do so?

➽ There isn't enough information to answer your question. Do they have sufficient force and will to do so?

I want to make sure that this is the question you are answering:
Is initiating force against some person who has done you no harm, and killing them because you want what is rightfully theirs a legitimate, non-bogus action?

If so, Are you claiming you have no opinion on the matter of initiating offensive violence against a harmless victim?

Dale Eastman That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that legitimacy is a non-moral question. One could do something immoral with legitimate authority to do so, and one could be unable to do a thing with legitimate authority, despite it being the moral thing.
Our discussion was over the nature of authority and its legitimacy, not over the moral character of x or y action.

➽ What I'm saying is that legitimacy is a non-moral question.
➽ Our discussion was over the nature of authority and its legitimacy,

I'll set aside my issue in regard the connection between morality and legitimacy for the moment, with proviso that I will put it back on the table later.

We have two words to discuss the definitions thereof: "legitimacy" and "authority". I'm focusing on "authority" first.

Per the Voltaire Admonition, if one wants to communicate one must define their terms. The term "gasorminumplaz" means exactly what my brother has intended it to mean. My problem is that my brother has NOT provided a definition for the term. <shrug>

In the other thread, MB presented this definition of "law."
➽ A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority.

"Controlling Authority" was equated to "government". Government being a body of humans occupying government offices. Discussion of government often using the term in a reified manner; Government as a single entity, much like a king or a tyrant. As such, government becomes synonymous with ruler. Thus I equate "Controlling Authority" with "Ruler", using that nicer term instead of dictator or tyrant.

➽ A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by [a ruler].

By what authority does this ruler get the right to rule? In other words, whence comes this ruler's right to rule?

I am putting (alleged) in parenthesis because my allegation is that the authority; the right to rule does not exist. My intent is to prove this (alleged) authority is does not exist.

Authority is a right and a permission to do "ruler" things. Delegation of Authority is the passing on of this (alleged) right and this (alleged) permission to do "ruler" things from one who has this (alleged) authority to one that does not.

Whence comes the U.S. government's (alleged) authority to rule?
IOW, Whence come the U.S. government's (alleged) right and (alleged) permission to rule?

I claim this (alleged) right to rule comes from the U.S. CONstitution (sic), since this third organic document set up the present federal government in the U.S.