>"Authority" claimed by force alone is not authority at all but tyranny.
Call it what you want, the problem remains the same; what are you going to do about it? How? By playing semantics? Poetry?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/authority
the moral or legal right or ability to control
the power to control or demand obedience from others
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authority
the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
...
Whether that power is tyrannic or not is irrelevant, it doesn't make it just go away, ask north koreans
Vastrightwing is absolutely right
Half your definitions included "moral" or "right". And that's what I'm getting at. It's low IQ to pretend that force alone generates authority, which carries the idea of moral or rightful obligation for obedience. It's important because authority and tyranny are opposites and we should then act differently with regard to them.
And what about the other half? Authority doesn't necessarily have to be legal or moral, it can be, that's all
>And that's what I'm getting at.
You're getting nowhere
> It's low IQ to pretend that force alone generates authority
Who has the authority when you're captured by a cartel, tied to a chair and surrounded by 10 of them, in a cave
You? Or their boss?
...
You're naive and you're not very bright, obviously, so you can shove that "low IQ" up your ass, and spin...
> It's important because authority and tyranny are opposites
No, they aren't mutually exclusive, ask north koreans...
No, they aren't mutually exclusive, ask north koreans...
Fair, I misspoke. Should have said that just authority and tyranny are opposites. And I should have put "just" in the title.
(post is archived)