The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What are the constituent parts of authority? > Comments

What are the constituent parts of authority? : Comments

By John Tomlinson, published 3/8/2006

We should remember the old demonstrators’ slogan, 'When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty'.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Those interested in this topic should read the timely piece by Henry David Thoreau: "On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience".

Thoreau was a quiet man, not a revolutionary, yet he mused long and hard over the boundaries of legitimate authority and the point at which the citizen has a moral duty to buck the system, even if it means contravening the (questionable or amoral) laws of the state. or when a greater harm was being done by abiding by the law.

The problem we have in 2006 is that large numbers of Australians have lost respect for authority figures, but yet seem disempowered to do anything more than grumble to their mates.

Those in authority have effectively disabled the public conscience, taken the wind out if its sails. Australians care about things as much as ever, but have been locked into passivity by two means - growing insecurity and the dog-eat-dog survival regimes that have overwhelmed our workplaces, universities and even academic institutions.

Authority has never been more disrespected, yet more entrenched all the same.
Posted by gecko, Thursday, 3 August 2006 9:36:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I look forward to seeing how the right reacts to this piece.

Couldn't agree more with your comments on terrorism, though at the same time we should never adopt an attitude that it's okay to kill civilians - 'terrorists' may be much more desperate, and some of their reasons may be more just, but the religious warfare element cannot be condoned.
Although, neither can killing to secure resources.

That being said, it is far too easy to label an enemy a 'terrorist'.
One of the first rules of war is dehumanise the enemy - they can be communists, nazi's or terrorists, but never people as people are harder to shoot.

Terrorism is a more effective label than any other we've seen - there is no strict definition, essentially any militaristic group that is outside government control is a terrorist organisation.

This is worrying, because not all governments are just, and those that are run the risk of becoming unjust, simply because they can now point the 'terrorist' finger. Anyone who uses force to disagree is a 'terrorist'. I suppose the Americans who rebelled against british control would these days be 'terrorists'.

So too would the few who brought arms against the chinese government's occupation of Tibet. Most were pacifists and simply died. That on the other hand, is okay, dying doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist right?

Though sometimes it does... those who hanged themselves in Guantanamo weren't performing a suicide act out of desperation, according to the pentagon it was an act of war. How naughty of them.

I'd advocate the labelling of any organisation that kills unarmed civilians as terrorists.
That includes through 'collateral damage', assassination, bombings etc. See how many terrorists we have then.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 3 August 2006 9:54:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John's comments are touching, but naive and surprisingly unsophisticated for someone who is no longer a 19 year old undergraduate.

All the world powers have sophisticated military, police and security apparatuses: France, Russia, China, UK, US. Ours is comparitively mild.

The major threats to a peaceful life are not terrorists but states that devote enormous resources to authority - in the form of military security.

North Korea (followed by Iran) is devoting enormous resources to develop nuclear missiles. North Korea coerces its people with a truly Orwellian security apparatus.

A cute example is here http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/02/news/army.php:

"... Seo Hyang Wol, a 43-year-old North Korean housewife, has given birth to nine children, making her a shining example of a national campaign to increase birth rates.

But that is not the only thing that makes "women across the republic abuzz with talk of emulating her," according to North Korea's official news media.

Inspired by the leader Kim Jong Il's "songun," or "army-first," policy, Seo named three daughters Chong Byol, Pok Byol and Tan Byol - or "Rifle Star," "Bomb Star" and "Bullet Star."

"...I produced many children hoping they will grow up and become gun-barrel soldiers for our army-first fatherland," Seo said in an interview in March with Pyongyang Radio. The report added that names like her children's were "fast becoming a vogue" in North Korea.

Although dismissed as ridiculous in the outside world, stories like Seo's provide an example of how closely tied North Korean society has become to Kim's army-first doctrine.

The doctrine promotes North Korea's nuclear weapons, missile programs and huge military spending even as the country remains the second-largest recipient of food donations in the world after Ethiopia.

That policy, coupled with huge damage caused by recent floods, is pushing 23 million North Koreans into a new food crisis - in a country that has already lost an estimated one million people to famine, according to relief officials in Seoul.

"...Comrades, we can live without candies, but we can't live without bullets," Defense Minister Kim Il Chol said in a speech last week"

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/07/north-korean-taepodong-2-missile.html
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 3 August 2006 12:27:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘John Howard as prime minister committed us to wage war in Iraq even though public opinion was running strongly against the war.’

My memory isn’t what it used to be, but I seem to remember polls showing that, initially at least, most Australians approved of commitment to Iraq. Apart from that, the author seems to be suggesting that an elected parliament doesn’t have the right to make foreign policy decisions.

In ending his absolutely crazy piece with: “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”, he ignores the fact that ‘injustice’ in a democratic society is invariably a subjective and emotional value that minorities who don’t get what they want from the democratic system try to force on the rest of us.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 3 August 2006 12:41:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Public opinion is also against taxes. Therfore we should abolish all taxes.

Dr John also naively states that stopping defence expenditure will solve all the worlds problems - except until some lunatic comes along that wants what someone else has.

It is true, however that the world produces more food that what can be consumed. Why then do people starve? It's not a shortage of food but difficulties in distribution. You can't transport food to where there are no rail or road networks. The market would sooner bury excess food rather than incur the cost of infrastructure upgrades to these regions and paying for the transport.
Posted by Narcissist, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, what a crock! Firstly John Howard was re-elected with an increased majority as well as control of the senate. The war was a big issue in that election so the Doc's assertion that public opinion was against the war is untrue. So much for acting as an "absolute ruler", you must be thinking of Fidel Castro.

Secondly, anyone who considers the fascist terrorists in Iraq the moral equals of the French Resistance during WWII has some serious ethical issues.

Thirdly, seeing our soldiers are civilian-murdering terrorists I'll expect the good Doc. to be there when they return home with his bucket of red paint and some revamped "baby killer" type slogans. It'll be like a return to his halcyon days of the '60s.

It really is a joke! An old broken down anarchist moaning over abuses of authority in his democratic country whilst at the same time giving support to fascists who actually know how to abuse authority on a breath taking scale. I would have thought that wrong, is wrong, is wrong. But according to the Doc, who commits the wrong seems to be the most important factor. Actually, it seems you can be right, but still wrong, due to the fact that you're America or some other degenerate capitalist nation of swine (and/or apes).

I think the good Doc. should step out of his social policy faculty and spend some time in the psychology department.
Posted by bozzie, Friday, 4 August 2006 12:36:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy