In a general conversation one with more intelligence of or more information on the topic at hand could rightly be called “more of an authority” on the topic than the other but what, really, does “authority” mean? Where does “authority” arise? Can it be bequeathed? Bestowed upon? Does it just exist, a truth yet misunderstood? Let’s see whither the chain-of-thoughts this morning go…
Humanity’s earliest exposure to the concept of “authority” is, quite obviously, the parents or (in NewSpeak) the “caregiver(s).” “Stay away from that hot stove” is something every toddler hears at least once in his life, and for good reason: the parent KNOWS something the kid does not and imparts that wisdom in whatever fashion they deem most appropriate at that particular junction. They are “an authority” on the topic of burnt fingers vis a vis the toddler who does not KNOW but is curious enough that he’ll probably test the theory when said mother/father/caregiver isn’t looking. And then the toddler KNOWS too. It’s a form of teaching, with mixed results to be expected as some people just have to learn things the hard way. The poor things. Some of the meeker, or “mommy knows better than I do” children might start to heed the warnings but other, perhaps outright obstinate children will test all theories/instructions even if it risks self-harm. Maybe they’ll eventually learn, maybe they’ll be a Darwin Award candidate. Only time will tell which.
The 2nd most obvious recurrence of the concept of authority (outside of babysitters or what have you) is probably school. Presuming the parents knowingly, willingly sent you there the teacher then becomes a pseudo-parent, supposedly to impart even more Wisdom of the Ages that said parent(s) are, for whatever reason, either unwilling or unable to. School-pseudo-parent = “authority” #2 (or a subsequent number depending on who did most of the early childhood rearing.) And this is where the abstraction of “authority” becomes a focal point of one’s petty existence. The dangers inherent in repeatedly replying to a child’s wonderment with the words “Because I said so!” are nowhere more injudiciously spoken than they are by school teachers (both secular and parochial.) The fine-line betwixt imparting wisdom and outright indoctrination is one traversed by well-meaning figures as well as their evil counterparts, and always with the same result: the child’s obedience to whatever an “adult” tells them, for better or worse. The utilization of the word “danger” was intentional because a child who only learns obedience will probably never be able to proudly stand on his own two feet. He would be mentally crippled, handicapped the rest of his life. And therein lies the rub: for far too long our particular “American” institution of publik skooling has resulted in literally tens of millions of chronological adults who are irrevocably incapable of critical thinking whilst only a handful escape relatively unscathed by the experience. For and on the record I am NOT against education. Contrarily I am all for it – our society only flourished in the past because of those taking educated risks. Despite the hilarity of the Fail! videos so prevalent online the participants there do nothing to enhance society or the human condition but only parade their idiocy for all the world to see, not at all unlike circus clowns and the Three Stooges. All societies in history can accurately be regarded by their amusements: historians of the future will surely give our puerile, macabre and generally twisted version a failing grade.
On the topic of what is apparently flashing before sheeple’s faces on their teevees [I haven’t had one of those for 10 years] it becomes apparent that those presently “protesting” the probable abuse of others via heavily-armed, costumed goons known as “Police” are doing one thing, and one thing only: challenging the presumed “authority” of said police. On that mark I’ll give them kudos, and on that mark only. But, most importantly, is what these challenges actually consist of – and on that thought they, to a man, are on the wrong side of history. If one wishes to protest a heavy-handed set of self-appointed rulers and their minions against one’s tribal members then violating innocent 3rd parties’ inherent Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property is nowhere to be found in an advanced, polite society. Torching a couple of squad cars might get a point across but the lynching of tyrants in public squares would be even more effective if the desire is to actually bring the de facto rulers down off their high horses. [Rioting and looting are what starving animals do when they find a gate to the feeding trough open, it is not what any society worth “preserving” would even contemplate.] So it would seem that the Baltimore PD’s order to “stand down” from protecting guiltless bystanders and business owners during the worst of the rioting was merely to buy time while their masters contemplated their next moves against those who dared to challenge their “authority” in the first place. To those business owners and passersby who preferred calling the cops in hopes of protection from looters I say this: each of us has the inherent Right to protect our persons and property, to the death if required, and you failed miserably at the exercise of it. For your cowardice in the face of adversity, for your unfailing belief that “Police” are there to serve and protect YOU, you deserve whatever misfortune rained on your party. Unfortunately for the rest of us it is not only the invertebrates among us who have reason to wonder what is coming down the pipeline from our Dear Leaders.
In a recent Ad Council and AARP-sponsored advertisement that apparently ran on teevee can be heard (as background noise) the following statement:
“Riots nationwide have prompted local governments to declare martial law….the President is asking that citizens find safety and remain calm….authorities are working to contain the outbreak.”
In such a war-like scenario there is a singular “authority” that exists: the man who is protecting his Life, Limb, or Property from attack. Such personal authority can lawfully coelesce into several men protecting their several Lives, Limbs, and Properties together as a unit and even into the public sphere of protecting and enforcing their Rights to the use of the common roads, unimpeded by imbecility, in whatever collective fashion is called for. But the collective of like-minded men can never lawfully excercise any “right” superior to those enjoined to the individuals’ themselves. As should be self-evident “governments” have no rights at all, despite what screams might emanate from the chicken littles who are employed by (or who worship) said rulers of their fellow men. The job-description of “Police” is one and only one: to enforce the (corporate) policies of their paymasters. As a collective they have absolutely zero “rights” to enforce anything, only obligations to do their masters’ will. Hence, in the chaotic situations in Baltimore and the Capital of the [corporate] World New York City, and elsewhere, any be-costumed policy-enforcer (or be-suited governmental mouth-piece) attempting to “restore law and order” isn’t the least bit lawfully intervening in human affairs. The “law” and “order” referred to are not of our own making but that of CEOs of various multi- and supra-national corporations demanding the unquestioned obedience to their dictates as something like an “authority.” God’s Laws are infinitely superior to anything man-made, and ersatz contract-law is what governs the world, to our detriment.
In reality the only “authority” is truth. Even a watered-down version of truth, one riddled with little white lies, can never be considered worthy of praise, admiration, or obedience, regardless of any macchiavellian …and they all lived happily ever after endings. Godless might never makes right, even if it is the victors who get to write the new “history” books.