The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey
The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey by Michael Huemer The state is often ascribed a special sort of authority, one that obliges citizens to obey its commands and entitles the state to enforce those commands through threats of violence. This book argues that this notion is a moral illusion: no one has ever possessed that sort of authority. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137281650 infohash:6A92A77AF1DF21BD46FE7F5BF1EE324065A1FC58
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 09:36:17PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey by Michael Huemer The state is often ascribed a special sort of authority, one that obliges citizens to obey its commands and entitles the state to enforce those commands through threats of violence. This book argues that this notion is a moral illusion: no one has ever possessed that sort of authority.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137281650 infohash:6A92A77AF1DF21BD46FE7F5BF1EE324065A1FC58
On the list. I've used the phrase "duty of care to our state" and this is easy to misinterpret in hindsight. The duty of care in any so-called "democratic" state can be said to arise due to the individual's acceptance of the democratic state - to the extent the individual accepts the "democratic" state, then s/he has a duty of care arising. But what is this duty of care? The duty of care is to bring the state to heel, to hold the state accountable, and ultimately to ensure the state remains as the servant of the people. I know, I know, laugh away, that's why we put "democratic" in scare quotes! When "the people" fail in their duty of care (which is ultimately to themselves) to bring their rogue state to heel, then the people are utterly failing in their duty of care towards "their own dang state". Sadly most humans want to get on with their creative, productive, or otherwise, survival, and to leave all "state" level problems up to someone else. In such circumstances, the "democratic" state gets literally 0wned by those with the most money and lots of it, to create more money and more control in order to create more money - i.e. the oldigarchs. Except with a "benevolent dictator" who is actually benevolent (and his definition probably won't match the individual's in all respects), the state, apparently, deteriorates into despotism. However I think a goodly part of this is simply in the nature of humans and their typical unwillingness to improve much of anything - let alone "their democratic or otherwise state". Cest la vie,
participants (2)
-
grarpamp -
Zenaan Harkness