Is being anti authority a virtue or sin?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This unquestoonable authority only works for Allah SWT, no one else. And even then you can still question Allah SWT (in order to better understand Him and His orders, not out of rebellion)

[EastKekistan]

Is crime really a serious issue in democratic Japan, democratic South Korea or democratic Taiwan? Do Germans and Italians need Hitler and Mussolini to not kill each other for lulz?

Africa: authoritarians still can't stop crime
Japan: is Democratic and safe
Germany and italy: apparently need literally hitler to stop people from killing each other for fun

Exactly..wait. Germans and Italians don't need fucking Hitler to be safe..because without him they are doing fine.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Depends on what the authority is, and what it’s trying to do, doesn’t it?

^This, pretty much. Authority is a means, not an end.

[EastKekistan]

Depends on what the authority is, and what it’s trying to do, doesn’t it?

^This, pretty much. Authority is a means, not an end.

The problem is that the end is often personal gain for authority holders. That is, authority is a means to achieve wealth and status for authority holders.

[Zukchiva]

In my opinion, it depends on the situation. But most of the time, we should respect authority, even when it's handled wrong unless it's in an extreme case.

Like if your parent punished you as a kid because you didn't say good morning, then it could be a good thing to question them and say that you shouldn't be required to say good morning. However, you should respect your parents because (at that point) they (most likely) provided (or helped to provide) some food, shelter, and schooling for you.

Or if police acted brutally towards you, you should be allowed to respond and report them immediately. And in that instance, there should be no respect. The police isn't doing his job properly and it would be harming you.

In general, if the authority is used properly in the way it was meant to be, then it's fine. If a police officer treats you nicely and follows proper procedures, then they should be given respect as they're just doing their job, which is often a dangerous one.

Maybe respect for the authority doesn't come solely for the sake of respecting them. Maybe we continue to respect authority because some people don't let that authority mess with their heads and become power hungry.

[United Muscovite Nations]

^This, pretty much. Authority is a means, not an end.

The problem is that the end is often personal gain for authority holders. That is, authority is a means to achieve wealth and status for authority holders.

Sometimes, but I think that's a little reductionist and simplistic. Most people are ideological, and not intentionally malicious or negligent to the state they hold authority over. I think you'd be fairly hard pressed to find a government official or world leader who is in it just for the wealth and status.

[EastKekistan]

In my opinion, it depends on the situation. But most of the time, we should respect authority, even when it's handled wrong unless it's in an extreme case.

Like if your parent punished you as a kid because you didn't say good morning, then it could be a good thing to question them and say that you shouldn't be required to say good morning. However, you should respect your parents because (at that point) they (most likely) provided (or helped to provide) some food, shelter, and schooling for you.

Or if police acted brutally towards you, you should be allowed to respond and report them immediately. And in that instance, there should be no respect. The police isn't doing his job properly and it would be harming you.

In general, if the authority is used properly in the way it was meant to be, then it's fine. If a police officer treats you nicely and follows proper procedures, then they should be given respect as they're just doing their job, which is often a dangerous one.

Maybe respect for the authority doesn't come solely for the sake of respecting them. Maybe we continue to respect authority because some people don't let that authority mess with their heads and become power hungry.

Children can of course be disproportionally punished for completely trivial "offenses" because they are powerless. Adults can't..and for a reason.

That's in fact a good piece of evidence that the universe is ultimately Hobbesian in nature. Rights can only be earned through deterrence and that without continued supply of sufficient deterrence rights naturally erode as everyone else begins to infringe on it.

[Diopolis]

Being anti-authority is just wrong. Society works on a hierarchical basis for a reason, and 999,999 times out of a million, the damage to society's authority structure is not worth the gains in not being a dick.

[EastKekistan]

See? The problem is actually psychological and maybe even genetic.

However just like tolerance and intolerance, liberty and authoritarianism are not symmetric. Authoritarians from both the soc left and the soc right by definition hate leaving others alone. To preserve liberty maybe we need to adopt an analogous version of Popper's thoughts. You are free to do whatever you want other than commiting authoritarianism. There is authority against nothing but....authoritarianism. If you murder, rape or steal then you have commited authoritarianism and hence that can't be permitted..

[Kowani]

Being anti-authority is just wrong. Society works on a hierarchical basis for a reason, and 999,999 times out of a million, the damage to society's authority structure is not worth the gains in not being a dick.

Well, back to being cavemen.

[Xmara]

Depends. Authority is necessary to some degree, and I do believe it usually has good intentions, but authority can also be corrupt, and if that’s the case, then it is a virtue to defy it.

[The Liberated Territories]

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: Disobedienve to the State is Obedience to God

[Diopolis]

Being anti-authority is just wrong. Society works on a hierarchical basis for a reason, and 999,999 times out of a million, the damage to society's authority structure is not worth the gains in not being a dick.

Well, back to being cavemen.

Social progress is generally just running in the wrong direction, and calling anyone who doesn't run with you evil.

[EastKekistan]

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: Disobedienve to the State is Obedience to God

That's a highly fundamentalist / Puritan view. However the world doesn't work like that.

[EastKekistan]

Well, back to being cavemen.

Social progress is generally just running in the wrong direction, and calling anyone who doesn't run with you evil.

People with different religious views don't even have the same goals and basic assumptions in life.

If you are fine with poverty + Christian Heaven while Kowani wants a good life and does not believe in the existence of a Christian Heaven then your views are so incompatible that I don't think you guys can even get what the other side is talking about.

So maybe we really need to have some form of religion-based pillarisation such as what is practiced in Belgium.

[Rojava Free State]

The problem is that the end is often personal gain for authority holders. That is, authority is a means to achieve wealth and status for authority holders.

Sometimes, but I think that's a little reductionist and simplistic. Most people are ideological, and not intentionally malicious or negligent to the state they hold authority over. I think you'd be fairly hard pressed to find a government official or world leader who is in it just for the wealth and status.

Trump?

[Diopolis]

Social progress is generally just running in the wrong direction, and calling anyone who doesn't run with you evil.

People with different religious views don't even have the same goals and basic assumptions in life.

So maybe we really need to have some form of religion-based pillarisation such as what is practiced in Belgium.

Was. Pillarization is no longer a thing.
I for one look forwards to obedience to Fr. Wegner as my Rum Millet leader.

[EastKekistan]

The problem is that the end is often personal gain for authority holders. That is, authority is a means to achieve wealth and status for authority holders.

Sometimes, but I think that's a little reductionist and simplistic. Most people are ideological, and not intentionally malicious or negligent to the state they hold authority over. I think you'd be fairly hard pressed to find a government official or world leader who is in it just for the wealth and status.

Most people are Machiavellian opportunists. At least those officials in China are.

So you think Russia is different? Lol.

[EastKekistan]

People with different religious views don't even have the same goals and basic assumptions in life.

So maybe we really need to have some form of religion-based pillarisation such as what is practiced in Belgium.

Was. Pillarization is no longer a thing.
I for one look forwards to obedience to Fr. Wegner as my Rum Millet leader.

Rum Millet? You think Islam is likely to rule over North America? Very unlikely.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Was. Pillarization is no longer a thing.
I for one look forwards to obedience to Fr. Wegner as my Rum Millet leader.

Rum Millet? You think Islam is likely to rule over North America? Very unlikely.

I wish tho
Wilaayatul-Amreeka ftw!

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

"And this, class, is a group of people pretending to be leaders of nations denouncing obedience to authority. Do we all see the irony?"

[EastKekistan]

Rum Millet? You think Islam is likely to rule over North America? Very unlikely.

I wish tho
Wilaayatul-Amreeka ftw!

Very unlikely simply because there aren't many Muslims in North America.

I'm a fairly competent Machiavellian. I know that in Europe it is White Nationalism vs Islam and nobody knows who will win in which country. In North America on the other hand it is going to be a White Nationalist victory because there is almost no Islam or any other force that can compete with WNs.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I wish tho
Wilaayatul-Amreeka ftw!

Very unlikely.

I'm a fairly competent Machiavellian. I know that in Europe it is White Nationalism vs Islam and nobody knows who will win in which country. In North America on the other hand it is going to be a White Nationalist victory because there is almost no Islam or any other force that can compete with WNs.

WNs are tiny, and almost everyone hates them. I doubt they'll do anything substantial.

[Diopolis]

Was. Pillarization is no longer a thing.
I for one look forwards to obedience to Fr. Wegner as my Rum Millet leader.

Rum Millet? You think Islam is likely to rule over North America? Very unlikely.

I consider a system where the different american tribes govern themselves more likely to turn out well than the belgian example.

[Comus Eleutherios]

Depends on why they are an authority, but I'd say it better to be anti-authority.

There are authorities based on hierarchy, and each and every one of those can go straight to Hell.

There are authorities based on knowledge and experience, in the way we might call a palaeontologist an 'authority on dinosaurs', and I tend to respect these people. It's important to remember they are not infallible, lest we have a repeat of race science and the eugenics movement. But with appropriate scepticism, reading their works and the works of an equal authority who opposes them, drawing a consensus among these authorities... it is 'virtuous' to listen to authority to keep us from becoming flat-earthers.