Society and Authority

[New.Art.Riot]

When we (me and some friends) were discussing things earlier we came up with this (in a discussion about smacking children):

Democratic society is the election of people to carry out violence and authority. We allow them to do this, without this "society" as it is now would collapse into Anarchy.1

So what really seperates us from the "elite" of society is the ability to exact authority and violence legitimatly.

For example we elect Party X, Party X has then the right to use violence and exercise it's authority over the populus.

1. Not Communist Anarchy, Anarchy as in rioting, random violence etc

[NovelGentry]

The idea is nothing new, and it follows along the lines of security for liberty. What you are giving up is some of your freedom on the principle that someone else will protect you, and of course a bit of the money you make in the form of taxes. As opposed to "anarchy" where you have complete freedom, but your personal security is left within your own hands. I would disagree, however, that even nono-communist anarchy leads to random violence and rioting. Most people have no desire to commit a violent crime, and they will not do so just because they are allowed to. There are of course people who do have that desire, and of course people who currently act on that desire but have to ensure they are not caught. Really what anarchy would do is make that behavior much more obvious to the public eye, as it would no longer be solely restricted to private areas where the figures of authority are not looking.

What is far more interesting than all of this is the alienation of that authority. Loosely as Marx points out, thise form of authority rises out of normal society, yet acts above it, thus is increasingly alienated from it. Do you view cops as regular members of society? I sure as hell don't. Nor do cops view us as regular members of society, at least not the majority of them, instead we are a crime waiting to happen, someone who has to be watched in case we do commit a crime, afterall, this is of course what we pay them to do. This form of alienation only leads to figures of authority understanding less and less the perspective of the rest of society, and therefore becomes increasingly likely to be able to act as we expect them to.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 02:14 PM
Democratic society...
It's actually debatable that it is democratic. I would argue that what the ruling class call democracy is just a facade that creates the appearence of democracy.

However, if you look at the role of governments in society you can see that it covers pretty much our existence. We elect every four or five years a political party with idea's or policies which are very difficult to differentiate from one to the other. What you're actually left with is a system which creates wealth for a few, by regulating society in such a way that it protects that system.

That's not my definition of democracy.


...is the election of people to carry out violence and authority.

In what capacity are you talking about and for who?

These governments employ violence all the time through overt and covert methods. Either through waging wars on third world countries, breaking up strikes, lowering benefit for the unemployed or evicting families from their homes.

They use their authority to protect their authority.


We allow them to do this, without this "society" as it is now would collapse into Anarchy.

We "allow" them to do it because the majority of people do not realise that there is an alternative. Most people do believe that society would turn into chaos, but that doesn't mean it's true.


So what really seperates us from the "elite" of society is the ability to exact authority and violence legitimatly.

What separates us from the "elite" of society is the fact that they have the monopoly on power and wealth.

This power and authority is passed around a very small circle of people. The Presidents and Prime Ministers of the world are from a very specific section of society.

A facade is created to make people like John Kerry and George Bush look like enemies. Of course they aren't. They come from the same class of people and they eat at the same restaurants, play at the same golf clubs and go to the same parties.

The separation already exists well before they assume power. Their ability is no more legitimate than my claim to the Dutch crown. They are thieves and liars and they take power because they can.


For example we elect Party X, Party X has then the right to use violence and exercise it's authority over the populus

They have no "right" what so ever. The game is fixed from the start. Their power is stolen and it is used for one purpose. The protection of the wealth and this authority you seem to speak so righteously about.

[New.Art.Riot]

It's actually debatable that it is democratic. I would argue that what the ruling class call democracy is just a facade that creates the appearence of democracy.

We off course can't elect out capitilism per se, we choose the officials, which is democracy. Not pefect, but yes, it is democracy.


These governments employ violence all the time through overt and covert methods. Either through waging wars on third world countries, breaking up strikes, lowering benefit for the unemployed or evicting families from their homes.

They use their authority to protect their authority.

Which govt. exactly? And of course they user their authority to protect their authority.


We "allow" them to do it because the majority of people do not realise that there is an alternative.

Everyone knows their is an alternative, or did the 20th century just pass people by?


They have no "right" what so ever. The game is fixed from the start. Their power is stolen and it is used for one purpose. The protection of the wealth and this authority you seem to speak so righteously about.

I am in no way advocating this at all??? This is how we saw society at the moment I don't know where you get the idea that I speak righteously about wealth and authority.

[The Feral Underclass]

So the purpose of this thread is what?

[New.Art.Riot]

Discuss an Idea we came up with?

[CommieBastard]

Democracy is where the people govern.
There is Direct Democracy, where they do it themselves.
Then there is Representative Democracy, where they elect people to represent their views. It can be said that unless there are people for them to select in the voting process who do indeed represent their views, then it is failing to be democratic.
We do not choose the officials, we choose the officials from a select and limited grouping. A bearacratic elite who do not care all that much if their opponenets gain power, so long as the masses they control do not.

The problem with them using their authority to protect their authority is that in the axioms of democracy they are OUR representatives, when they stop following our orders there needs to be a way to get rid of them. The fact is, though, that they protect their authority with enough force until it is such that we cannot (normally or with any kind of ease) remove them or get them to obey OUR authority.

If you fear the man in the street who commits a crime, ask yourself this: Do the laws and the punishments in place actually stop crime? Well, statistics are fuzzy. But if you look at dope when it was decriminalised in amsterdam, there was a short rise, but then level of use dropped to below the level it was before de-criminalisation.

By all means advocate the most functional way of preventing 'crimes', but do not assume without statistics that this is through laws and punishments. All evidence so far points the other way.

So what actually leads people to crime, if not the free ability to commit it? I would say what really leads people to crime is living in a cruel society that is constantly barraging them with nonsense about how they should be obedient, and that the fact they are being told this is all they need to know as to why they should be. When people are made to believe this kind of nonsense, many will obey and not commit crimes. But almost everyone commits some kind of 'harmless' crime. Everyone at some point realises that the laws they have been told about came with no justifications, and that they can personally benefit from ignoring them.

Society would do better to habilitate (after all, why say rehabilitate when we've never had it right) it's members through education. Make people think about the reasons why they might or might not want to commit a particular act. Lack of governance does not imply lack of organisation, but to have the latter we do need a decent education.

If we look at society now we have no organisation, despite governance. we have crime and suffering, despite governance. We have every single thing they tell us they are protecting us from. But do THEY?