Is this true or false? I'm fairly certain that I'm paraphrasing Robert Heinlein on this one, and it seems to me to be one of those essential truths.
(In case you missed it, I hold that this is true)
Of course, this is applied by us human beings, who are characterised by our existence in Gray Areas (incapable of true good or evil) and never perfect in our expression of anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"My parents were always on me to groom myself and wear underpants. What am I, the Pope?"
I can exert authority over you by for instance peacefully refuse to bake a tasty cake for you, even in the face of torture and death.
Your violence then will be futile in reaching your goals, and you ultimately will have to seek for another way to get in my favour, thus increasing my dominance and authority over you.
So, I don't think the statement is true 100% of the time. But it is close.
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Well that depends on whether you mean it theoretically or factually. Factually, all authority can be traced back to violence in some way. That's inescapable, because there was violence to gain authority in our past, so anyone who has authority today either got it through violence or got it from someone else who got it though violence. However, theoretically it is quite possible to gain authority without violence. Just get enough people to adore you and when time comes for someone to make decisions, you'll naturally be chosen.
Well that depends on whether you mean it theoretically or factually. Factually, all authority can be traced back to violence in some way. That's inescapable, because there was violence to gain authority in our past, so anyone who has authority today either got it through violence or got it from someone else who got it though violence. However, theoretically it is quite possible to gain authority without violence. Just get enough people to adore you and when time comes for someone to make decisions, you'll naturally be chosen.
...but if you charm everyone and get chosen, and I try to beat you up to make you give up your position of authority, wouldn't it come to a test of violence again? Or would I be stopped out of fear of violence by the people who have chosen you? In that case, your power and authority still comes from -theoretical- violence.
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
...but if you charm everyone and get chosen, and I try to beat you up to make you give up your position of authority, wouldn't it come to a test of violence again? Or would I be stopped out of fear of violence by the people who have chosen you? In that case, your power and authority still comes from -theoretical- violence.
Yes, it would. That is why in practice authority stems from violence. But for that brief moment before you decided to test my authority through violence, my authority had nothing to do with violence. The reason my people didn't revolt against me was because they liked me, not because they were afraid of me. That is what non-violent authority is, and it's pretty clear why it doesn't show up in the real world alot.
Interesting, but both responses tend to imply a vacuum. Also, keep in mind that I never said coercion was capable of making absolutely anyone do absolutely anything.
Grove: If there are others who would bake me a tasty cake if coerced, then I could still use violence to get what I want. And if you would refuse even to your death, would you not be losing something greater than anything I could take from you?
Mage: You may have authority based on respect, but how can respect be maintained without force? I do not believe that any sufficiently large group of people would follow anyone who didn't hold some kind of sway. And what of outside forces? How would the threat of violence from a more powerful outside force affect such a community?
As for fact versus theory, let's keep it open to both.
History seems to indicate that small numbers of people can be governed by respect, but once a group gets to a given size, some form of coercion becomes inevitable.
This actually ties in well with the on-going Social Security debate. Most people who oppose it seem to believe that they are being coerced into payment. I would argue that coercion is fundamentally necessary if a government hopes to apply taxation of any kind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"My parents were always on me to groom myself and wear underpants. What am I, the Pope?"
Interesting, but both responses tend to imply a vacuum. Also, keep in mind that I never said coercion was capable of making absolutely anyone do absolutely anything.
Grove: If there are others who would bake me a tasty cake if coerced, then I could still use violence to get what I want. And if you would refuse even to your death, would you not be losing something greater than anything I could take from you?
No, this is a special cake! I alone hold the secret. And since I control the monopoly, I use it as an insurance against your violence. You really really want this cake.
Killing me would be a greater loss to you than to me; I'll just be dead but you will have to live without my special cake!
So, I am quite sure you will accept my authority and do my bidding.
On the other hand, one could see cake-withdrawal as a form of psychological violence.
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Interesting, but both responses tend to imply a vacuum.
I addressed both vacuum and non-vacuum. In a vacuum it is false, in an actual environment it is true. It just happens that the vacuum is far more interesting.
Quote from Griever »
Mage: You may have authority based on respect, but how can respect be maintained without force? I do not believe that any sufficiently large group of people would follow anyone who didn't hold some kind of sway. And what of outside forces? How would the threat of violence from a more powerful outside force affect such a community?
Many political leaders throughout history have maintained a strong (albeit uneventful) hold over their country without force. The only reason they do not oppose the statement in question is that they gained their position from a system that gained it through force. But theoretically they could have gotten it without force if history had not been tainted by violence.
I addressed both vacuum and non-vacuum. In a vacuum it is false, in an actual environment it is true. It just happens that the vacuum is far more interesting.
Ah, I see what you mean. I think what you're saying is vacuum=theory, non-vacuum=reality.
Quote from Bogardan Mage »
Many political leaders throughout history have maintained a strong (albeit uneventful) hold over their country without force. The only reason they do not oppose the statement in question is that they gained their position from a system that gained it through force. But theoretically they could have gotten it without force if history had not been tainted by violence.
I'm not totally certain of this. After all, I would consider the very presence of police or an army as coercion. If the consequence to any action is violence, then coercion is in my opinion being applied.
What I essentially hold is that violence is an inseparable part of human nature. We always have used it to maintain control over each other in the past, and I believe it will continue to be used in the future. Heinlein also issued the Caveat to those who would forget; that if a group decides that violence cannot solve problems, someone with a different opinion will either change their mind or conquer them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"My parents were always on me to groom myself and wear underpants. What am I, the Pope?"
I can exert authority over you by for instance peacefully refuse to bake a tasty cake for you, even in the face of torture and death.
Your violence then will be futile in reaching your goals, and you ultimately will have to seek for another way to get in my favour, thus increasing my dominance and authority over you.
So, I don't think the statement is true 100% of the time. But it is close.
I think we're going to have to define violence as physical violence or capacity to inflict physical harm. Otherwise, the word "violent" can mean anything, thus making the whole sentence meaningless anyway.
No, I don't believe all authority is derived from the capacity for violence. I'm not sure what we're talking about by authority anyway. I'm guessing political authority? I guess on a country/country basis this is most true, but otherwise it begins to break down.
In terms of world political power, this is disgustingly accurate. If everyone in the world wasn't such a freaking ****, violence wouldn't be necessary and we'd all get along just fine. But, unfortunately, we as a species are mainly driven by our own selfish needs and can't put ourselves in another person's shoes for five minutes and realize all the pain and suffering we're causing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."
Yes, all political type authority can ultimately be traced back to violence or the implied threat thereof.
However, there are other kinds of authority. My departmental head has authority over me, and the control basically stems from money. Do good=get more. Do bad=lose job. There is no violence involved.
Equally, if albert einstein and I were in a debate about science, he would be the 'authority figure' - not because he is going to club me with all his atomic might, but because he knows stuff and I don't.
There is authority in trust. Or better, in the lack of decision making capability of the subjected. It is quite easy to tell someone what to do, because people feel safe when someone makes a decision for them when they don´t have enough information to make the decision themselves. Or when they are to overwhelmed or suprised to form an opinion.
The horrors of the Nazi´s and those with the Iraqi prisoners stems from this kind of authority: place people in a confusing situation, form some peer pressure and entire, otherwise intelligent people will follow their base herding instincts.
Like what is said in "Space: Above and Beyond" against the "Invitro´s": We are going to relieve you of the burden of choice."
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Violence comes from the Power of a Gun-Mao Zedong I bielve.
Same thing basically.I believe it to be true that all throughout Human History Violence has been the prime influence on society at large.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nyarlathotep must all things be told
for he is the messenger between the spheres
and the traveler between the realms of the living and the dead.
He shall summon forth the ancient ones
and wake them from their deathly slumber
then shall the elder signs be shattered. Trade Thread
Violence, like all other consequences, has no authority in and of itself.
Only threats can claim authority; only when someone realizes "hey, if I don't do that, he'll do this, and I don't want that" do we ever have control over another person.
The ultimatum is the ultimate authority from which all other authorities are derived. In the end, it always boils down to that. People who give strong, believable ultimatums are the socially powerful, and those who give weak, unbelieveable ultimatums are the socially powerless. The threat of violence, by the way, is a pretty damn good ultimatum.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
I can exert authority over you by for instance peacefully refuse to bake a tasty cake for you, even in the face of torture and death.
You assume your refusal to bake the cake will hold out against their use of torture... I think you'd be baking many cakes, and you'd thank them for the privilege.
Let's see how long you remain defiant when they give you an enema of boiling honey.
(In case you missed it, I hold that this is true)
Of course, this is applied by us human beings, who are characterised by our existence in Gray Areas (incapable of true good or evil) and never perfect in our expression of anything.
Anyhow, it depends on the definition of violence.
I can exert authority over you by for instance peacefully refuse to bake a tasty cake for you, even in the face of torture and death.
Your violence then will be futile in reaching your goals, and you ultimately will have to seek for another way to get in my favour, thus increasing my dominance and authority over you.
So, I don't think the statement is true 100% of the time. But it is close.
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
...but if you charm everyone and get chosen, and I try to beat you up to make you give up your position of authority, wouldn't it come to a test of violence again? Or would I be stopped out of fear of violence by the people who have chosen you? In that case, your power and authority still comes from -theoretical- violence.
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Yes, it would. That is why in practice authority stems from violence. But for that brief moment before you decided to test my authority through violence, my authority had nothing to do with violence. The reason my people didn't revolt against me was because they liked me, not because they were afraid of me. That is what non-violent authority is, and it's pretty clear why it doesn't show up in the real world alot.
Grove: If there are others who would bake me a tasty cake if coerced, then I could still use violence to get what I want. And if you would refuse even to your death, would you not be losing something greater than anything I could take from you?
Mage: You may have authority based on respect, but how can respect be maintained without force? I do not believe that any sufficiently large group of people would follow anyone who didn't hold some kind of sway. And what of outside forces? How would the threat of violence from a more powerful outside force affect such a community?
As for fact versus theory, let's keep it open to both.
History seems to indicate that small numbers of people can be governed by respect, but once a group gets to a given size, some form of coercion becomes inevitable.
This actually ties in well with the on-going Social Security debate. Most people who oppose it seem to believe that they are being coerced into payment. I would argue that coercion is fundamentally necessary if a government hopes to apply taxation of any kind.
No, this is a special cake! I alone hold the secret. And since I control the monopoly, I use it as an insurance against your violence. You really really want this cake.
Killing me would be a greater loss to you than to me; I'll just be dead but you will have to live without my special cake!
So, I am quite sure you will accept my authority and do my bidding.
On the other hand, one could see cake-withdrawal as a form of psychological violence.
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
I addressed both vacuum and non-vacuum. In a vacuum it is false, in an actual environment it is true. It just happens that the vacuum is far more interesting.
Many political leaders throughout history have maintained a strong (albeit uneventful) hold over their country without force. The only reason they do not oppose the statement in question is that they gained their position from a system that gained it through force. But theoretically they could have gotten it without force if history had not been tainted by violence.
Ah, I see what you mean. I think what you're saying is vacuum=theory, non-vacuum=reality.
I'm not totally certain of this. After all, I would consider the very presence of police or an army as coercion. If the consequence to any action is violence, then coercion is in my opinion being applied.
What I essentially hold is that violence is an inseparable part of human nature. We always have used it to maintain control over each other in the past, and I believe it will continue to be used in the future. Heinlein also issued the Caveat to those who would forget; that if a group decides that violence cannot solve problems, someone with a different opinion will either change their mind or conquer them.
I think we're going to have to define violence as physical violence or capacity to inflict physical harm. Otherwise, the word "violent" can mean anything, thus making the whole sentence meaningless anyway.
No, I don't believe all authority is derived from the capacity for violence. I'm not sure what we're talking about by authority anyway. I'm guessing political authority? I guess on a country/country basis this is most true, but otherwise it begins to break down.
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
Yes, all political type authority can ultimately be traced back to violence or the implied threat thereof.
However, there are other kinds of authority. My departmental head has authority over me, and the control basically stems from money. Do good=get more. Do bad=lose job. There is no violence involved.
Equally, if albert einstein and I were in a debate about science, he would be the 'authority figure' - not because he is going to club me with all his atomic might, but because he knows stuff and I don't.
I could go on, but ... QED.
There is authority in trust. Or better, in the lack of decision making capability of the subjected. It is quite easy to tell someone what to do, because people feel safe when someone makes a decision for them when they don´t have enough information to make the decision themselves. Or when they are to overwhelmed or suprised to form an opinion.
The horrors of the Nazi´s and those with the Iraqi prisoners stems from this kind of authority: place people in a confusing situation, form some peer pressure and entire, otherwise intelligent people will follow their base herding instincts.
Like what is said in "Space: Above and Beyond" against the "Invitro´s": We are going to relieve you of the burden of choice."
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Same thing basically.I believe it to be true that all throughout Human History Violence has been the prime influence on society at large.
for he is the messenger between the spheres
and the traveler between the realms of the living and the dead.
He shall summon forth the ancient ones
and wake them from their deathly slumber
then shall the elder signs be shattered.
Trade Thread
Only threats can claim authority; only when someone realizes "hey, if I don't do that, he'll do this, and I don't want that" do we ever have control over another person.
The ultimatum is the ultimate authority from which all other authorities are derived. In the end, it always boils down to that. People who give strong, believable ultimatums are the socially powerful, and those who give weak, unbelieveable ultimatums are the socially powerless. The threat of violence, by the way, is a pretty damn good ultimatum.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
You assume your refusal to bake the cake will hold out against their use of torture... I think you'd be baking many cakes, and you'd thank them for the privilege.
Let's see how long you remain defiant when they give you an enema of boiling honey.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.