What causes us to follow authority?

OpinionsMatter

I have a few points to make.

1. We seem to always have (or have a need to have) some sort of leader. These leaders have influence and authority, and occasionally lead the nations to destruction. Why do we have to have leaders? Why can't we, as a nation, appoint our laws as we see fit? Why should one person stand as a representative for us, when s/he follows what s/he sees best? Why do we allow ourselves to be led?

2. If 100 people got stuck on an island, someone would take charge. I guarantee, that even if it's maybe two or three, somebody(s) will always be in a position of power and authority. We can't say, "Let's live a free life on this island, with no rules and no leaders!" because eventually someone is going to say "Let's have a rule that we can't murder each other." or "Let's not steal each other's supplies anymore." Eventually we always will have a set of rules and regulations, but why is that?

3. Why do we listen to rules? If I don't want to follow the president(Because it's a 'free' country) than why do I still get a speeding ticket, or go to jail because I trespassed on private property? Just because I happen to live in the USA, I have to follow his rules? Does that mean he own's the land within the USA, that he should be able to enforce rules in a supposedly free country? Because it's better for everyone? Perhaps ones individual needs are sometimes pushed aside, so that we can conform to society. If it's better for a majority, than it must be the best thing to do, right?

4. Suppose you were chosen to lead a country and your first law as leader is that their will be no more laws. That would be so contradicting! It seems from the beginning of intelligent, communitive beings that we have had rulers and nations. Kings, Emperors, Presidents and Prime Ministers have gained positions of power, but why do we, the people, give them this power? We have this choice and yet we seem to not give it much thought from day-to-day. Your own house barely belongs to you anymore, that's how much power the government has upon us. Why do we let them get away with this?

5. Sure, some people don't want to have to make these decisions themselves, but why does that mean the rest of us have to follow along too? In the past, being against the king was considered treason and you were quickly put to death. However, the president can't kill us for being against his 'rule' but he can imprison you, fine and charge you or worse. What do we do about this, are we being brainwashed into submission? Who really holds the power, the people or the ruler?

If YOU had the choice, what would your nation look like? Share this with us in the comments below.

Terrapin Station

Not wanting to be imprisoned is one of the big reasons. That at least motivates providing the appearance of following authority when one is most at risk.

OpinionsMatter

↪Terrapin Station

Great reason, but why do millions of people allow themselves to be threatened into submission?
After all, it's only one guy/girl in charge and only a few of the millions are actual security. (Police, body guards, FBI, etc.)

Terrapin Station

↪OpinionsMatter

Well, for one, it's not as if it's simply the case of an authority imposing some rule or other than almost all of the citizenry opposes uniformly. Different people agree/disagree with different things.

OpinionsMatter

↪Terrapin Station

Very true, but suppose we all made the rules, as a vote of majority from the citizens themselves? Then instead of an overall power figure assuming what is best of all, we get the results in whole? As in 60% of people agree we shouldn't have to follow building codes, so because of that we don't follow them altogether? Even the 40% who thinks we should have building codes would have to follow along, because majority rules? Even still, we would have a an authority in the leading group, would we not?

ZhouBoTong

because majority rules? — OpinionsMatter

Yes, the modern world has generally decided that majority rules is better than one person making the rules. Another big advance was setting up constitutions as "authorities". Things like Bill of Rights etc, take far more to change than simple majority decisions (yes this just changes it to 75% of people agree so the other 25% have no choice, but better than 51% to 49%).

And if there is NO authority, then (my view) things will probably be fine most of the time, but one minor famine, war, etc and it will become me and mine versus you and yours (absent authority those groups become MUCH smaller than countries {ie families, possibly small local communities - picture The Walking Dead}).

RegularGuy

Laws ensure rights. Without laws who’s to stop someone from stealing your shit or stabbing you? Who protects the environment? Who builds and maintains the infrastructure? Who ensures that drugs are safe? Who inspects the food?

Representative government with the rule of law is the best solution for safety, security, and freedom. We just need these representatives to be more responsive to the people. That’s why money in politics needs to be reformed. In the US, that means overturning Citizens United.

Anthony

What causes us to be dishonest within and without ourselves? What causes us to ignore what is, such as the violence we have in ourselves? Why is the sum total of "reason" for certain types obedience to authority? Why does mimesis of authority equate to reason for certain types, as authority demands copying and imitation of itself by its thralls?

Anything that can only be completed one way is authority. This is the simplest and most subliminal ghost of authority. Pursuing goals militantly and authoritatively is often pendent with anger, impulsivity, violence. Ambition is authority, too much effort is the handmaiden of it as well. Collectively, it's safe to say, the human species tries way, way too hard. But then I have no doubt I'd be considered lazy by the status quo. And I would equally rebut it and accuse the status quo of being far too hyperactive and incapable of discipline to hold still. Men of action seldom comprehend.

Durkheim had an idea of group selection, which could explain some of this. It doesn't make sense to me, as I'm a full-blooded anti-authoritarian (even within myself, authority causes stagnation in desuetude of old structures of mind); withal, authority is one of the taproots of violence, or inversely, violent people seek escape from self-regulation by obeying authority at all costs. So, maybe people that contain more violence in them, for whatever reason, follow authority.

All it takes is two people to carry on life, a man and woman. They would have a better chance of survival, with offspring, separate from the group in a lot of scenarios. There are some truly genius families I've learned...entirely free from social engineering; in other words, the smartest families are open enough to circumvent most all authority.

At any rate, this is an important topic and shouldn't sink to bottom of threads. This topic is exactly one I would've started myself.

Anaxagoras

↪OpinionsMatter

Perhaps there is a natural inclination to lead if there is a stagnant group with no direction. Of course nobody is born a leader but perhaps there is some primal instinct to direct oneself as well as others to a path.

ssu

If YOU had the choice, what would your nation look like? — OpinionsMatter

I like my own country. Things are quite fine, the only thing I would like is a bit more of the entrepreneurial spirit, some libertarian ethos and laws like in the US or in Switzerland. With a vibrant economy a welfare state can be upheld. And one should understand that with a welfare state there comes also drawbacks and negative consequences, which should be addressed honestly.

We should copy things from Switzerland, and absolutely not from Sweden! Luckily we haven't repeated the worst brainfarts that Sweden has done.

What causes us to follow authority?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions