Is violence the only true authority upon which all other authority is based?

Is violence the only true authority upon which all other authority is based?

The state maintains its authority based upon violence against its citizen's. AKA, arrest and jail. If you resist you will be forced to comply through violence.

I personally think that yes, violence is the only true authority in the world. Always has been and always will be.

 

To be clear, im not calling for nor condoning violence. Im just saying that violence has always been humanitys ultimate authority to impose its will upon its citizens in the name of furthering civilization etc etc. But in the end. violence is always the fall back that enforces those rules.

 

No one has seen Starship Trooppers?

 

All laws are ultimately predicated on the notion that breaking them will result in the govt coming to your house with weapons to punish you for breaking them. It might be after a littany of bureaucratic attempts to enforce the law peacefully, but eventually the only options are comply are be forced into jail. If it wasn't so, many would not comply.

 

It sounds like you had a rough childhood and only behaved out of fear. Cooperating with authority (dad) for the common good wasn't an option?

 

I said yes because I have been violent myself

 

I dunno about whoever you're talking too... but my childhood was quite peaceful. You see, I was living on someone else's property, eating their food, pretty much dependent on them for my well being. That meant they got to make all the rules. Once I realized this fact, 'cooperation' made perfect sense.

Now I live on my property and eat my food and depend on myself for my well being. Other people keep trying to make more rules for me. Fortunately no one has shown up to try and compulse those rules with force ...yet (probably because I'm reasonable, civilized, amenable to polite discussion and prefer to avoid violence, but perhaps also because everyone where I live have guns).

Im happy to cooperate for the common good. The problem is that quite often, whats claimed to be 'for the common good', clearly isnt.

 

Yes, the common good (mostly) are rules to live by. You shouldn't steal from your neighbor. You shouldn't beat your wife. No one, except the OP, has a problem with that because they have a moral code and the fear of repercussions for transcending that moral code doesn't come into the equation.

 

I think you missed the point. By a lot.

 

I would say both yes and no, on different levels.

It also depends on the political and social system, somewhat. In some social and political systems, commonly shared values and ideals play a big role in guiding that society.

Maybe this is an oversimplification, but in a conservative religious society where individuals are encouraged to take the initiative, it is more likely to be shared social values and ideals, whereas in a totalitarian Soviet-type system it is more likely to be mostly run by threat of force.

 

I'm not sure which continent you live on but without rules and laws here in the United States there is a portion of the population that would do whatever the hell they wanted.

If what you were saying was remotely true there would be no need for prisons or correctional facilities of any sort.

Because you see if there are not consequences for violating the law people will simply treat it as a voluntary suggestion.

 

There is a portion out of the total population who would do that in every society.

That portion is much larger in some societies than others.

 

I don't think so. I think the majority of people follow laws because it is the right thing to do and is in the best interest of society, whether they consciously know that or not. Some laws may not be followed, if you're an ethical person, if they don't meet your ethical standards and harm no one else, like having more than one wife or eating peyote.
A small minority purposely break laws that harm others and there needs to be the threat of retribution and it followed through.

What I was saying most people want to do the right thing and the threat of violence doesn't come into it to make them do the right thing.
Are you holding back the urge to rape and pillage because there are laws against it?

 

I did not vote, but had you made the distinction in the thread title as in your opening statement, I would have voted yes, because Satan is the prince of the world ( a legal maneuver), God the King of the Heavens and the Universes.

 

The United States Constitution (as well as laws in general) are the foundation of any governmental authority. At least in a democratic system of government. Those laws are basically a societal contract agreed to by which we choose to live by. I don't see the necessity of violence to encourage compliance. Not if people can acknowledge the need for laws.

 

Too much blah, blah, blah!
Look at it the simple way:
If I raise the cattle and corn you live on and someone steals it, you go hungry. And if there is no one with bullets and ropes to stop the theft, I will have to stop raising cattle and corn entirely.
That means you have to stop sawing and selling lumber for building towns because now your manpower is out growing food until the men with the bullets and ropes come back and fix it.

 

In a way, but I don't think I'd look at it that way. Violence is just what happens when two or more sides don't agree and don't find a tolerable compromise - either because the other side is demonized, delusional or their interests are in conflict and wildly different. People can believe in whatever authority they want: Divine right, democracy, science, religion. But when a common belief breaks down with the above conditions, violence determines who is in a position to make the decisions. But people in a stable society are a lot more likely to point to other authorities rather than violence, and people don't want to depend on violence as an authority because it's better to live in peace based upon some shared value.

 

Of course. That is why the government wants to ban firearms so badly and why the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Ultimately, if the politicians controlled the only means to commit violence, then they can tear up the constitution and do whatever they want.

laws and rights work only if everyone agrees to respect them. When that stops, and diplomacy, bribery, and reason fails, only violence will decide who is in charge.

 

Are you still beating your wife?

 

The pols can never control ALL the means to commit violence. Our arms and legs are still available. We are never more than one step away from having possession of a gun, we can simply take it from someone having one (which is generally much easier than people think for capable individuals)

 

Yeah, I think I’d rather have mine from the get go, lol.

 

Then someone may take it from you. All the preppers forget their stocks of food and weaponry makes themselves targets and they will have no protection but themselves once the breakdown comes in any case. I don't have any stocks but I know who has them and where they are.

 

I say no, the will of the people is all.

 

ba-DUM-bum You need new material.

 

You are partially correct. I had a very terrible childhood. Lots of violence, beatings and even an attempted murder. Co-operating with my father figure was not an option. He was a violent alchoholic.