Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sventipluk OP t1_j0ze1yw wrote

Reply to comment by ValyrianJedi in Anarchism at the End of the World: A defence of the instinct that won’t go away by Sventipluk

> Then it makes the claim that authority would still exist, they just can't tell people what to do. Which in most uses of the word would mean that they aren't actually an authority...

The article makes the distinction between being an authority and being in authority. In the first case one is forced to obey, in the second one does so voluntarily.

14

ValyrianJedi t1_j0zec1n wrote

Right. I'm saying that the latter isn't really authority by most uses of the word.

9

OldGentleBen t1_j0zkiga wrote

Which word would be better suited and cause less confusion?

9

GameMusic t1_j0zx588 wrote

You attack the thought by your objection with his wording but that is pretty much compatible with his point

Words are built in systems and making original points requires either new words or a temporary best fit redefinition

It does not matter whether authority can be classified within one word but two different ideas by the linguistic taste you have personally developed

The difference was stated without confusion either way

5

OctopusButter t1_j10cpet wrote

Now we just moved on from talking about the subject and just started going all pedantic on grammar. He has a point, you can't just use words and decide they mean something different for you. In and an authority makes no difference if it is voluntary for me to obey. Where is the authority?

2

GameMusic t1_j10ew6t wrote

"Doctor Expert is an authority on healthy habits"

2

jeffroddit t1_j11mfrq wrote

I'm widely regarded as an authority in the design of smoke detectors. Yet nobody regards me as the smoke detector authority.

Also, I'm not really an authority on smoke detectors, but I have used it as a disguise before. Turns out most people really don't know anything about smoke detectors so you can sound authoritative with a minimum of research.

2

VitriolicViolet t1_j15o24t wrote

so what happens when someone decides not to?

if i choose 'no' and happen to be the largest producer of food for x region i can simply dominate. offer food to enough people to form my own militia and then only give food to those who do what i want.

you have no answer to this that isnt itself facing the same issue (the defence force is the easiest way to get your own militia, even if you didnt bribe them what if they did the same thing? were up to minor civil war now).

how do you prevent someone with resources using those resources to slowly gain control?

anarchy and libertarianism both rely on far too much hippy BS to ever function (no system ever conceived has survived the wealthy, ever)

1