Authority

Authority is a broad term with many applications. One of the most important of those deals with the origin and scope of government power. The intersection of that power with "the power of an individual's inner freedom' is an important place to make fine distinctions.

Following the link to Perry's "Tale of Two Thieves" blog provided in his comment to the previous post led to another excerpt from Walter Williams' forward to his friend's book (which looks to be well worth a read, by the way):

"Give us what we demand," cried out the multitude, "lest we seize it by force."

And the merchant replied, "Depart in peace while ye yet can, for ye have no right to my possessions save with my consent, and as I have done no wrong to any man, none of ye have any authority to seize any of my possessions."

"Behold," cried out his neighbors with one voice, "that we have declared ourselves a government, and as such we have given ourselves the authority."

The merchant replied, "Ye have no authority, for one cannot give authority unto oneself."

"That matters not," they replied and began to grumble, "for we are a greater number than thee and thy family, and because of our greater numbers, we have decided that thou shalt pay us tribute."

Then did his neighbors, armed with swords and staves, seize a goodly portion of the merchant's possessions. The merchant did not consent in his heart, but for the sake of his wife and children, he did not resist in his actions.

While allowing for the possibility that the necessary distinction came before the excerpted portion, it is necessary to observe it is not contained within this passage. By way of explanation, here is the comment I left on Perry's blog:

"Ye have no authority, for one cannot give authority unto oneself."

And here, at the very beginning, the merchant has lost the argument.

If, as the merchant asserted, a collection of individuals calling themselves a government cannot give themselves authority then how can a single individual do so? He means, of course, authority over the lives of others but by failing to make that distinction he diminishes his right to authority over his own life. In essence it constitutes "giving" his right to others rather than himself. And he's doing it voluntarily! Through an incomplete epistemology.

But that right exists nonetheless, and it derives from man's mere existence as a volitional being. If he abandons that right he is no longer fully human and instead becomes an animal.

Free men must choose to act as individuals in voluntary self-interested cooperation or as a primative lynch mob by rule of the jungle. There is no middle ground here. (Although by variously choosing to be a man or an animal at different times and for different purposes many men attempt to find "balance" between individual and group rights. No such balance exists, in reality.)

Thomas Jefferson wrote a declaration to do the former and lesser men who succeeded him have done their best to undo it through constitutional amendment and every other subordinate form of law. I believe we will see in our lifetime whether Americans wish to live like Jefferson or like the subjects of every civilization which preceeded Americans.'

Philosophy Posted by JohnGalt at July 13, 2008 2:18 PM