Eclectic Views

    
"Arguably", yes, but the means of enforcing that social rule is,
perforce, authoritarian.

The question of whether taxation is good, bad, justified, etc., and
under what social theory, is for another topic. But the fact that it 
is authoritarian is beyond question.
  

    
Enforcement is distinct from authority. Authority is not the right to
use force. Authority exists when one should do what is said because of
who says it. If an oncologist tells a lay person that surgery is needed
immediately, he or she speaks with authority, yet has no right to
enforce treatment. 

An authoritarian claim to taxation would claim that the state knew
better than individuals how that money was best to be spent. If,
however, the money does not belong to idividuals, no authority is
needed. No one needs authority to claim what is their own.
  

    
> An authoritarian claim to taxation would claim that the state knew
> better than individuals how that money was best to be spent. 

Yes, and that is the nature of the Left's acceptance of authority. 
Full stop. 

The fig-leaf of social theory under which that money somehow never
belonged to the individual (checkbook stubs notwithstanding) is merely
obfuscatory, and an failed attempt to extricate the Left from its love
affair with authoritarianism. 
  

    
>But the fact that it
 is authoritarian is beyond question.

I question the hell out of it -- unless you're stating that all laws, from
the tax laws to the speed limits on highways, are authoritarian, in which
case I don't question it but I'm sure not very interested in it.
  

    
All laws are (by definition) authoritarian, but I'd agree that's
not particularly interesting.  There is a huge difference between
the minimal intrusion of traffic laws, however, and the social/economic
transformative effect of tax laws and other large-scale enactments and
the creation of the regulatory state and the welfare state. Nor is the
Left's love of authority limited to the economic sphere: consider, for
example, the controversy over so-called "speech codes".

But what I'm getting at here is that really, there is not a single
shred of evidence that "the right likes authority and the left
fears it".   Look, I disdain social conservatives as much as anyone
here, probably more, but it's folly to pretend that the traditional
Left, though generally accepted as socially liberal, in any way
"fears" or eschews authority. 
  

    
I think the evidence is so abundant that I hardly know where to begin. But
this is a drift -- I can't even remember what the Question of the Week was
-- and George Lakoff lays this stuff out far better than I ever could
anyway. I'm going to let it go.
  

    
Ah, OK. That makes sense. Your mention of Lakoff leads me to believe
that the "authority" that the Left disdains is the so-called "strong
father", that is, a central, hierarchical leader cloaked in moral
authority and rectitude. I'd agree with that, and I see where you're
coming from.

The "authority" that I argue that Left embraces is the faceless State,
whose authority, by contrast, is cloaked in the metaphors of
collectivism, "the people", "society", "the common good", etc.

As a non-authoritarian, I find both equally pernicious, but at least I
understand your argument.
  

    
I wonder if the two political wings are invariant enough to make
generalizations about their relationship to authority valid over time.
Thinking back to an early voice of the conservative movement, Edmund Burke's
"Reflections on the Revolution in France" criticized the radical Jacobin
rulers then in authority but spoke favorably of the British constitutional
monarchy.
  

    
Thanks, Michael. That's it exactly.
  

    
QotW:  What authority figure(s), if any, do you trust?
  

    
Oh yeah, that one.  :-)
  

    

Public authority figures? I trust that they'll be consistent in doing
things in the way that seems harmful to me. That's the extent of it.
  

    
it's interesting how the very essence of "authority" seems to have
become tainted or identified in people's minds with mainstream power
figures and thus corrupted.  To my thinking, this also goes to states
of mind that involve parental figures, since they are the earliest
archetypes of authority.  I have to admit in my own case, both gender
images of parental authority were tainted.  But in my journeys, I was
fortunate enough to have those shatter images healed and resurrected by
other, better figures.

The question didn't specify anything about what the source of the
authority was or the field or whatever.
  

    
Hmm. Interesting about parents as autorities.  

I trust my Mom in regard to those things she knows about.  She's not out to
mess with me or others, and she doesn't trick or con people.  She's 
got her personality flaws as we all do, but seeing that is part 
of establishing an adult sort of trust.  Getting to know who's solid on 
what and who has a blindspot about what else is part of the trust
equation.  

It's easier to not trust more distant authorities.  I know I don't trust 
the Prez to tell the truth, act with the interests of all of us in mind, 
or have the long view.  Not trusting him is easy.   I didn't trust 
Clinton either, but I liked him overall, felt he was better than the 
alternative, and twice voted for him.  You don't have to have absolute 
trust (with blindness to all flaws) to prefer leadership from one person 
over another, and if folks do have absolute trust of a leader, it 
becomes a cult.
  

    
Once when I was sitting in an emergency room waiting to have a broken
nose fixed, an old Chinese man, the radiologist, decided that I needed
straightening out. Possibly it was the purple hair or the rotting black
rags. He spent a long time explaining to me that I should do what my
parents would want, because my parents would only want what they
thought best for me. That is probably true in most cases, and, I think,
counts as another kind of authority. 

Someone who sincerely wants what is best for one may very well be
wrong, but they will be wrong only when they get past the limits of
their understanding, not before. So long as one can figure out what the
limits of their understanding are, they count as authorities within
those limits.
  

    
unfortunately that kind of thinking [barring <ckridge>'s caveats, of
course] got a billion Chinese into deep doodoo during Mao's 5-year
plans and the Cultural Revolution

i like the point <gail> makes about the distance of the authority
  

    
It's important to remember that "authority" is merely a transference
of one's personal power to another person.  Usually that transference
is coerced, sometimes conditioned, and occasionally consensually given.
 Trust requires consent.
  

    
I know that this doesn't really address the problem, but I've come to
the conclusion that no matter how ill considered and butt headed and
flat out wrong the advice or commands my mother gives me, she really
does want only the best for me. It is difficult to believe this in the
aftermath, but I don't think she's a sociopath.
  

    
New question:  What's the last book you read just for fun?
  

    
This may give fun a bad name, but I just finished a leaden tome titled "The
Barbarian Conversion".  It covers the period in Europe from Constantine to
about 1000 AD which is otherwise pretty thinly treated, and the author's
writing style is not bad. But I learned I am not that interested in 9th
century Lithuania after all.  Still, it does address some historical
questions you won't find objectively discussed most any place else, like
"just how did Christianity manage to knock off all its pagan rivals all over
Europe so thoroughly" and "how did it coexist with Islam in Spain and other
places where it had no alternative". I'm glad I read it but even more glad
it's over.

Now I'm reading a hiking guide to the Teton Mountains for next month's
vacation, and Robert Graves' translation of Apuleius; what an improvement.
  

    
One Neal Gaiman book or another. "American Gods," probably. I hardly
ever read like that any more, in great greedy gulps, all but snarling
at people who come near, finishing stunned, gorged, and mildly ashamed
of myself.

It is not a bad book, you understand, just very easy to enjoy. It has
all my favorite things in it, gods, heroes, a noble monster, magical
objects, and sacred places.

His "Anansi Boys" is coming out in September.
  

    
in the middle of Stephenson's "Cryptonomicron" right now-- delightful
  

    
I read Barbara Tucman's "A Distant Mirror" which is about 14th century
Fance and feudal society. An excellent book that gives a great view
into the 14th century and all of its horrors.
  

    
Just finished our own <mag>'s VALLEY OF BONES.  Cracking good! 
  

    
After all these erudite entries I'm ashamed to admit
that in the past week I sucked up three Kidd mysteries
by John Sandford (pseudonym for John Camp).   Ah well.

One of them actually mentions "an ancient email address
that goes back to the Well"!