Deny Authority

[NonEntity]

In the 60s "we" had an expression, or at least a bumper sticker: Question Authority.

I'd like to suggest that we finally recognize that there is no authority higher than our individual selves, so the motto we should understand which reflects this is:  DENY Authority!

Recognize that when someone claims to have authority over you, they are in fact simply threatening you.  It's just that simple.

- NonE

[Plume]

I agree. and i think that there is a difference when a society sponsors "the rules" everyone should adhere to.
just because an entity has been designated to monitor "the rules", doesn't give "authority". it's just an employment opportunity where every and any one which abuses or manipulates, involved in nefarious mischiefs and supports favortism are held liable responsible and should be terminated of these job positions.

so right U R

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:DENY Authority!

and all this time I thought it was  DENY CRANE! 

:tongue:

:bootyshake: utt seriously, good perspective on the matter of authority, 4sure; questioning authority is kid stuff; authority can only be delegated and inalienably remains under one's individual control (other than among liars, tigers, and thieves, of course).

[tharrin]

So the question I might put forward is if you agree to the authority are you really subject to it? Example, NonE agrees to be my love slave and signs a statement to that fact with no reservation of rights, no clear reciprocity on my part or experation date (because NonE is so enamoured with me that NonE would do anything to be a part of my world) is NonE therefore in an unrevokable contract with me? Now say I led NonE on with promises of security, love and protection to get NonE to sign the document in which I have no true reciprocity because I (or a group of my peers) would also be the one to decide and procecute the case should NonE begin to moan that I wasn't loving NonE enough. Would NonE, who signed voluntarily, be subject to my decision and the reprocussions thereof? What if NonE voluntarily used one of my services that I provide (Method 32 in the art of love) and by using my service where my terms of service are presented in artful language that cleverly binds and NonE wanting the service decides to use that service without specifying in writing that he wishes to terminate the relationship at his leisure or control some of the terms has NonE signed up for the long term because NonE did not specify?

What if NonE decides he wants out of the relationship but decides not to tell me but stops using my services and I send him a bill and he does not pay. Is NonE in arrears because NonE voluntarily agreed to use the service for an unspecified time? Do I have the authority to collect from NonE because he did not formally end the relationship?

I am finding "authority" to be quite an interesting subject. I am also finding "Voluntary" may not be what you think it is as compared to what I think it is. So if we volunteer to contract with each other and one side spells out the terms and the other side volunteers to abide by those terms, how then can the one that volunteered to abide by the terms complain about those terms if they agreed to them? How can the volunteering entity then say the terms are unfair or they can't comprehend the terms?

Can you give full authority over to anyone? What if that is what you want? What if you will voluntarily sign a document to that effect?

I am finding Authority is who or whom you agree to allow partial or full control over you. Authority is empowered by those that wish to be subject to it. Authority is a provider of service to which the users of that service agree to the terms of usage, regardless if they have took the time to read all the terms and regulations of that service.

(Remember in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" Michael Rennie as the alien said, they created a race of robots to rule over them who would hand out death sentences if one group acted in aggression towards another group. They knew their nature and agreed voluntarily they needed the policing robot race to have peace. What if the robots program was screwed up? Or worse yet the robots made their own rules. Could that have been a propaganda movie. Damn!)

Money is a service provided by the Federal Reserve. Would you not agree that the Federal Reserve is the Author(ity) of the money you use? If you voluntarily use their service and voice no formal objection to the terms of that service what rights do you have if a contoversy arises?

Authority is created through agreement. Federal Reserve notes are voluntary. You could negotiate services by supplying other services or goods in exchange without using federal reserve notes (commonly called Bartering). Money is the method used in exchange to equate one thing to another by common belief or negotiation. You could offer me a car in exchange for 100 bales of hay. That would be a fair and equitible exchange for both participants if they voluntarily agree to the terms. The controversy arises when you get the hay home and find it is rotted in the center of the bales or I find issues with the car. You could therefore make a first attempt at correcting the problem by addressing it with me and asking for reparations. If I decline to make things right then you could take up the matter with a group of people you deem an authority regardless of what I think. Your group now empowered by like minded people could take me to task over the matter. If I agree to address the matter in front of your group of (because I am scared) I have just created an authority. Even if I do not agree with the groups philosophy. Regardless of my agreement with the group or not, I can only make a judgement call on what the group will do to me if I do not submit to their scrutiny of the matter at hand. I may choose to submit because I feel I might have a better chance of a more favorable decision if I am able to plead my case in front of the group or I may submit because I am afraid of what the group might do if I did not submit.

So deny authority even if you agree to it? Discussion?

[learnin2]

Can an employee, exercise authority over their employer? Does an individual of equal right, have authority over another individual of equal right?

[Lummox3]

A small story for you.

I as doing some shopping and a mother was chastising her kid for something or other. She had his full attention and he was getting really worked up about overcoming the resistance that she was offering him. He was trying to get some sweets and mum was saying "no way". They both seemed quite irritated with each other.

Suddenly (and the little lad can only have been 4 or 5) he made a sort of wincing face and took his eyes off his mom and put them onto the sweets. He then ran around her, and being smaller and more nimble got to the sweets in no time at all.

Of course, he then had the problem that he was relying upon his mom to actually buy them, but a few more years and a bit of growth will sort that problem out, as long as he works that out as elegantly as he worked out how to get his hands on what he really wanted.


Enjoy,

Lum.

[NonEntity]

Tharrin,

I'm a bit busy right now with some other stuff and so can't take the time to respond to your post at present.  I do want to make it clear, however, that I'm really pissed at you for revealing all of what you promised to me would be private, and just between you and I.  (Especially Method 32!  That's really embarrassing!)

- NonE







Okay... one little poke, just to stir the pot, then I'm gone...

Quote:Authority is created through agreement.

  Disagree.  You can't create authority.  Authority is what you have as the author (source).  You may be able to bestow some of your authority on another ("I'll let you bid up to $50 for me on that painting."), but it is not created, it simply is.  Maybe it's like my life.  It may be put out, but it cannot be "taken."

[Darren Dirt]

tharrin Wrote:What if NonE decides he wants out of the relationship but decides not to tell me but stops using my services and I send him a bill and he does not pay. Is NonE in arrears because NonE voluntarily agreed to use the service for an unspecified time? Do I have the authority to collect from NonE because he did not formally end the relationship?

WOW! Sounds like what the "state" does up her in Socialist Canadeh, when it comes to "services" like health insurance (even if you never see a "regular doctor" or "social insurance/employment insurance" (even if you are or plan on being completely self-sufficient and financially in-depend-ent without assistance from the gubmint in any form).

[Plume]

Quote:Tharrin: "NonE agrees to be my love slave and signs a statement to that fact with no reservation of rights"

first! an apparatus is overstepped here. How is a statement or contract constructed enforcement wise?

who agreed that this is good?  implying "the vote"

who are the monitors of "contractual agreements"? implying housing for these "agreements"  further implying ownership of this housing, further implying maintenance of said housing, further implying "A Bill will be due" which implies utilizer taxation.

what if competition comes along in the frame of a person building a foundation out of their own earnings
and offers the same business without having the customer responsible for the tax and maintenance.

both these scenarios offer no level playing field. because has revenue expands for both, the more disassociated they become with the matters of a customer.

maybe ownership should be limited to "length of term" like a president.

ROTATE! the ownership and occupation every 5 years

more fair??? Huh!? More Fair? moir fair? (french tick attack!)

would make life veddy veddy inthresting

[tharrin]

Remember I said the first option is to try and negotiate a settlement between the two persons that contracted with each other to exchange the car for the hay. The problems arises when one person feels cheated or is unsatisfied with what they received. If an equitible solution cannot be made then the two parties can decide to enlist the services of a person in which they both have faith to judge a fair solution. That does not mean the judgement will be liked by either party (nor does it mean it will be fair, equitible or even understandable or that the judge could not have his own agenda). The third solution could be hit the other guy over the head, take his stuff and move to Tahiti.

So authority can be created as in the case above. Authority was given to the judge to arbitrate the solution.

Do you agree that you can give (voluntarily) authority to some one else to make a decision for you. Many of you may already do this financially; or when you buy a house the inspector gives you a diagnosis of what he deems the house is worth and what problems it has. You have given him authority to do the job of inspecting for you because you either lack the expertise or have faith in his judgement. If he is incorrect it could cost you a great deal of money if he is correct then it doesn't matter. What do you do if he is incorrect. If you signed an agreement, the terms of the agreement would then govern the solution. If the solution to your particular grievance is not covered in the agreement then what standing do you have? If the terms of the agreement are not clear on this matter then it would have to go to arbitration or somebody would have to be given the authority to decide the outcome or solution.


Can you give authority over yourself to somebody else? Sure...ever hear of "Power of Attorney". You sign a document that says for a particular or indefinite time (if you are incapacitated) some one else will make decisions in your behalf. You have given them the authority to do this. This person could then say pull the plug if you were on a respirator and all they would have to do is show that you have given them the authority to do this.

Now you may think government has over stepped their boundaries (and quite frankly I think they have) but did we voluntarily (and individually) give them the authority to do this on our behalf for our own welfare. If you signed an SS-5 you said please take money from me and when I get old give it back to me. Voila, Social Security...but wait a minute they said the number didn't mean anything and that it was an insurance policy but did you read the agreement you made when you signed their document. Did it hold them to their side of the bargin? (I can tell you it did not.) Did it say they had to give it to you? (I can tell you it did not.) Did it say they could not change the terms of the agreement at their whim. (I can tell you it did not). Did it say that they would only give the money to participants of the program? (Really do I have to tell you it did not?) Did it say they could not end the program with or without your consent? (Nope.) Did it say you had any say in the matter? (I don't think so because if you did you could demand your money now. Sorry you have to wait until your fify-eighty-sixty-sixty-fivey-sixty-seventy something you know what they meant.)

So there you have it so why are you disatisfied? You agreed to give they a free hand in managing your money for you so why are you upset when you get a terrible return on investment or they deny you all together. You agreed to the terms when you signed. Did you not agree with what you signed then why did you sign? How may of us asked exactly what were the terms and what powers or rights were you divesting yourself of by signing it? Did you get a copy of all the binding documentation associated with your signature on the SS-5?

What!?! You were tricked!?! Why would you sign up on a pirate ship if you didn't want to be on a pirate ship? Even luxury liners have terms of passage, except they give you a lot for your fare in comparison.

Wow, Authority...Authorization...Authored...interesting who authored all those documents you signed to get your benefits? Food for thought. (I'm sorry food for thought is extra, that will be eighty-five-fifty from the lot of you.)

[tharrin]

Hey Darrin

My wife and I got a taste of your socialized medicine last year in Victoria. Let's just say my wife and I needed to visit a hospital whilst visiting your fair nation, um country um that place you guys live in. You know what? It wasn't much different than in the place the feds like to call the united states. They work in triage fashion and the only difference is you get back some of the money your parli-mounties steal from you to pay for those services.

Us, we had to cough up $600.00 green things of our own to be looked at (so much for hypocratic oaths) which is understandable because we don't belong to your social club and it would be unfair for us to burden you with the cost of our care but hey come down over the boarder, its great, well give you social security even if you don't want to be a citizen just have a kid here. Too much fun.