/townhall/ - Townhall

>We all know it's a human's duty to obey state power.
I think most people would very much dispute that premise.

>People seldom seem happy about taxes or government, but these feelings are not an excuse to resist the state
Why not?

>>12376
>I think most people would very much dispute that premise.
The creation of police power implies the state's expectation that a small portion will be disobedient and need peacekeeping violence.  If most citizens felt no obligation toward their state, and especially toward state power as an idea, states would probably quickly dissolve.  And then, I guess, there would be no state to obey.  But we don't seem to be in that place.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

The opposition of tyrants and oppressors is always just.

The failure of the American Revolution is the hypocrisy of slavery.

>>12377

That much is true.  A majority believes it is a human's duty to obey state power, and we do have police for enforcing state power against the people who disagree.

The root assumption here is fundamentally incorrect.

>We all know it's a human's duty to obey state power

State power is ultimately supposed to serve the humans in the state, the citizenry. That means state power ought to be bound by an ethic shared by the citizenry. Else, the state is abusive, working against the interests and needs of the humans (since ultimately that is what ethics serve), the well being of the humans. An abusive state is illegitimate. Humans have no duty to obey an illegitimate state. If anything, humans have a duty to to enforce the ethic back on the state to keep the state authority legitimate.

The revolution was a rebellion against a state that was seen by the colonists as an abusive, thus illegitimate state. That rebellion is seen as right because it is seen as the citizenry enforcing the ethics back on the state by rejecting it to form a new, more legitimate state where the citizenry had a say in who the authorities are.

Basically it's considered good because it's a refutation of your root assumption.

>>12375
>We all know it's a human's duty to obey state power
It's not. On the contrary, if anything, I'd argue it duty to resist injustice and tyranny, whether from the state or otherwise.

>And hurting a cop is the worse thing a human can do.
There are innumerable things far, far worse than that. Even assuming no just reason to do so.

>People seldom seem happy about taxes or government, but these feelings are not an excuse to resist the state
Largely due to that representation.
Though as the state becomes more concentrated in federal power away from local constituency...
Well, while a smaller form, nonetheless, I would argue it is an identical fare.
Certainly I have no desire for the taxes I pay to leave my community. After all, that whole idea of taxation is to benefit the community I am a part of.
Fortunately for the moment, it's not yet gotten to such an extreme level.

>>12378
If it is our duty to obey the state, and oppose tyrants, we must not have states that involve tyranny.  I suppose we must somehow make a definition that won't cause us to resist the US government.

>The failure of the American Revolution is the hypocrisy of slavery.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution on December 6, 1865 put restriction on slavery, and federally enforced slavery seems to have ceased, as a matter of tradition.  On a state level and below, it's more complicated.

So when do you count the valid beginning of America as a power that no longer needs to be justly resisted?

>>12383
>If it is our duty to obey the state
Reverse. The state must obey people.

>The 13th Amendment
Still allows for slavery. The ability of the government to hold slaves is in opposition to the 8th "cruel and unusual."

Not the scope of this dialogue so I will be excluding thoughts, comments, and concerns on the American Justice System.

>So when do you count the valid beginning of America as a power that no longer needs to be justly resisted?
Never. All state power must be resisted. Complacency and lack of resistance to state power will lead to authoritarianism.

>>12380
So...the task is to create a definition of abusive that fits the British in that area, but does not fit the rest of Britain, or America, however America prefers to allow representation or a lack of representation for its states and territories?  I see.

I was thinking maybe I could ammend my system to say "It is our duty to obey states and systems of political order destined to become states."  And people are likely to guess wrong about the second part, but states and political order destined to become states don't owe you anything, so you shouldn't count on there being any way to avoid punishment for treason, for example.

>>12381
Everyanimal seems to hold that the duty instead of blind obedience and respect is to resist tyranny that is possible in state power.  That seems to be a pattern in responses.  Is this determination of when a state is tyrannical or abusive or unjust up to the individual or the state?  While it's possible a state would say: "I am an unjust institution; resist me," we might consider it sufficently unlikely to say in practice everyone has a duty to the state.  So perhaps we agree, but with different semantics.

>>12384
>Reverse. The state must obey people.
This seems the consensus, but I don't feel that's what state force is designed for.

>Still allows for slavery. The ability of the government to hold slaves is in opposition to the 8th "cruel and unusual."

I'm no expert, but if that were clearly the case, slavery would not have been made a valid punishment for crime in the 13th amendment.  The 13th amendment seems to indicate slavery is not cruel and unusual, at least when used by the state, as if it were, that exception would be moot.

>Never. All state power must be resisted. Complacency and lack of resistance to state power will lead to authoritarianism.
I see.

>>12385
>So...the task is to create a definition of abusive that fits the British in that area, but does not fit the rest of Britain, or America, however America prefers to allow representation or a lack of representation for its states and territories?  I see

No, ideally, all Americans get representation within the government, the fact that that hasn't always been the case is what motivated a lot political conflict within the country that ultimately expanded enfranchisement to more of the country. In a way the revolution never really ended.

>>12385
>I was thinking maybe I could ammend my system to say "It is our duty to obey states and systems of political order destined to become states."  And people are likely to guess wrong about the second part, but states and political order destined to become states don't owe you anything, so you shouldn't count on there being any way to avoid punishment for treason, for example.

Problem with that is there is no such thing as destiny. No state is destined to be, nothing is destined at all.

And the state owes everything to the people because the practical reality is that the state's power only exist because the majority of the people agree to obey. A law becomes meaningless if enough people choose to disobey, just look at alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933, most people in the united states broke that law, thus revealing the true nature of state power coming solely from the consent of the people under that authority. That's how all authority works, if enough of the people choose to disobey, then the authority has no power. At that point what power the authority has is limited by what resources the authority has to expend to enforce it ... and the willingness of those more directly acting as enforcement to actually enforce it.

The power of the state stare is ultimately illusory, inescapably illusory, and always has been across all human civilization.

>>12388
If there were no overt rule that required obedience to state power, I can think of a lot of reasons to reject state power on the grounds of ethics.  At best, you might obey the state to avoid punishment, but there's only a fuzzy connection between obedience and a lack of punishment or harm, which is why I say the state doesn't owe you anything.

As >>12376 stated, I don't think most Americans think in terms of duty. Americans think in terms of freedom and defending it. This is written about in the Declaration of Independence. There is also the first part of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. "Duty" is something more commonly associated with dictatorships and monarchies. Sure, it can be fun to pretend that duty is important and to play the "bad guy," but freedom is really what it's all about.

As an example, one of the first times I, as an American, heard of the word "duty," it was within the context of watching The Lion King in the song, "Be Prepared," which Scar (the "bad guy") sang. The lyrics go like this:

"Of course, quid pro quo, you're expected
To take certain duties on board
The future is littered with prizes
And though I'm the main addressee
The point that I must emphasize is
You won't get a sniff without me!"

If you watch the video, you can see even more clearly the negative connotation with the word.

So, for people who watched the popular (now iconic) classic movie "The Lion King" as a kid, it was imprinted in their minds that duty = bad.

>And hurting a cop is the worse thing a human can do.

This almost seems like trolling at this point, but assuming you're serious (and for the sake of exercising my brainpower), cops are supposed to enforce the law. And the law is supposed to be based on freedom, as outlined in the documents mentioned earlier. Therefore, what is bad is when a cop doesn't defend the freedom of its citizens. It would be bad to hurt a cop that defends the freedom of its citizens, yes. But what if a situation arises in which a cop isn't defending freedom? What is freedom? If a cop is defending a law, and the law is just, we can assume that freedom is being defended. But what if they are defending a law but the law is unjust (oppressive)? What if they are defending freedom by not applying an unjust law? What if they are defending neither the law nor freedom (i.e.: maybe they're just going through the motions in order to get a paycheck?) So, context matters.

The revolutionary war would only be evil if it were unjust. What the Founding Fathers did was revolutionary because they were creating a system of government based on the idea of freedom, which had never been done before. This would have required a certain amount of education and abstract reasoning to do, and for the first time in history, enough people had gotten smart enough and the geographical situation was just right... for the revolutionary war to be possible and for us (in the U.S.) to have a chance at winning it.

>Shouldn't, respectfully, America's official start date be no sooner than it pleased the King to grant independence?

We would have been waiting around a long time for a king to do that... The revolution would not have been possible without the collective action of a lot of people. Even if the king had decided to change the system, he is still just one person. Without collective action, someone else or another small group would have simply changed the system back shortly thereafter, and freedom is something that you can't really teach others about through law, anyway. Everyone had to believe in the idea, and it was an idea whose time had come.

(For further research on understanding the concept of freedom (and defending freedom), as opposed to duty, see "The Lion King" and "The Lion King 2.")

>>12390

...a few more thoughts...

>>12377
>>12379

Most people consider the state a "necessary evil." They would prefer not to have it, but they are glad to because it keeps the bad people from doing bad things. It's not obligation that most people feel. I think it's more a kind-of subtle resentment - "OK. I'll pay this and follow the law because if I didn't, bad things would probably happen because there are bad people in the world, and I have more important things to worry about, anyway."

A Christian might cite the famous "Render Unto Ceasar" quote: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar).

I would argue that most Americans pay the state (through taxes) and obey its laws so that it will defend their freedoms for them (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in short) and feel no obligation to the state whatsoever. As a free country, I think the state has an obligation to its citizens to defend these things. So far as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defended by the government, its citizens will obey the laws, pay their taxes, and try to be good. So, rather than an obligation to the state - it's closer to an agreement, although even that is an oversimplification, since we are born into the country and can't make an agreement if we're a baby.

Politically-speaking (here are a few examples of issues) for Republicans, this might mean things like protecting unborn children (life), guns (liberty now and in the future), and God/family values (pursuit of happiness). For Democrats, this usually means a social safety net, gun control (life), pro-abortion (liberty), and progressive social policies (pursuit of happiness). Different political parties have different ideas about what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean.

>>12390
Hmm...maybe I am being trolled in an attempt to get me to post something disloyal to the state.  It's a group effort.  I'm not saying I am, but it's something to think about.  I need to consider this possibly more carefully before replying.

>>12392

I do apologize if you took offense to me saying you might be trolling. But with this being the /townhall/ board, there were a few statements that seemed pretty strong to me... for example, "evil" is an ambiguous word (if context is not provided) with different connotations depending on if you're religious or not (what is evil, anyway)? Saying "we all know" something is an assumption... we can never assume that we all know anything; so we need to ask questions and find out... Lastly, I wouldn't have said hurting a cop is the worst thing a human can do because then you're assuming everyone is in agreement with you... if you think that is the case, then it would be more clear and appropriate in discussion to state that it is either your own opinion or the argument you are putting forth.

It's fine to argue anything you want in a debate if you get value from it, but be sure to use less assuming language or it becomes harder to understand your angle.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to think more deeply about this topic.

>>12393
You are saying...I think...that it is not defamatory or anti-social to expect or allow for anarchist and anti-state preferences in ponyville users?  I suppose I need to ask that specifically rather than assume that might be what you mean.

>>12393
I will try to use better language.  I will try to be more respectful of the state and understand that the Founding Generation were good and the British were bad in that specific case, not to be generalized to any other case, as the British people are good now.

>>12394

*shrugs* I'm just a bored intellectual. But I assume as long as we are civil, we can discuss almost anything we want here, so long as it is done in good faith.

>>12395

As with everything, keep whatever you find reasonable and useful in what I wrote and discard the rest.

(Full version of "Art of The Dress" (with reprise): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8u7bSLtgc)

>>12398
Scar in a haughty, British-sounding character.  His allies are hyenas.  It's made pretty clear the hyenas don't have any deep grasp of Scar's politics and just want food.  I don't know if it's meant to represent populism, there's a few seconds of hyenas marching, but the three hyenas we get to know also don't seem to think of Scar as a charismatic leader.

Scar carries out a coop against the King and takes a leadership role in the...state?  Simba comes back and is recognized as King by the lions, Scar blames the Hyenas.  The Hyenas eat him.

(I think, it's probably been two decades since I've seen this film.)

How would you say this is related to the American revolution, if at all?

>>12403
Is this a law-enforcement based spin-off?  I wonder if the show discourages or encourages respect for law enforcement by the state.

>>12403

I don't know. I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I can't make any specific references. But in regard to freedom, one might interpret it as being about Simba discovering what freedom is. If we use the songs as a guide to the themes of the movie, the movie opens with the song, "Circle of Life," as a sort-of naturalistic view of the world.

Next, we have Simba singing "I Just Can't Wait to Be King," which is about how a kid with the expectation of receiving absolute power some day might feel about it; Simba things everything is going to be perfect when he becomes king. Zazu, representing Simba's higher reason, flies around, futilely trying to guide him away from the notion.

After this, we hear Scar's song, "Be Prepared." Scar wants the same thing as Simba - to be able to do whatever he wants because he thinks it will make him happy. But whereas Simba's desire for power is born out of youthful innocence, Scar's is born out of anger.

Next up, in "Hakuna Matata," Simba's innocence having been broken, he stops wanting to be king. He meets Timon and Pumba, who teach him a different way. Simba learns that he doesn't need power to be happy.

"Can You Feel The Love Tonight" comes next, which is where Simba falls in love, and in so doing, is confronted with his past and who he really is.

Simba talks to the wise monkey, Rafiki, who then helps Simba connect the dots for himself, resulting in Simba understanding who he really is. At Pride Rock, we see the results of thinking that power can bring happiness - the land barren and desolate. Simba returns to Pride Rock and defeats Scar. Having experienced innocence, suffering, healing, love, and lastly, confrontation with his past, Simba is no longer under any delusion that power will bring him happiness or fulfillment; he is just himself, the king. Pride Rock then begins to be restored.

I would need to research the American Revolution more, but as a sort-of rough-draft outline for relating the two: This movie has become iconic, and we can figure out why by relating its themes to the American Revolution. "The Circle of Life" opening can be related to the ideal of freedom... We also see how thinking absolute power will bring happiness is naive, and how, even if attained, it only leads to increased suffering for a country's citizens, even when told otherwise. When Simba ran away from his home, this might be related to the early settlers running away from the country they were born in (for various reasons, probably). Just like Simba, the settlers experienced some extra freedom. As time went on, however, the rule of Britain became more oppressive until the settlers were confronted with their past. (In the movie, Nala was hunting far from the Pride Lands for food because there wasn't any left where she was at.) This might be similar to how King George was imposing his rule too much on the U.S. from abroad. "No taxation without representation" was the rallying cry from the settlers. Simba falls in love with Nala, and then we end up with Rafiki helping Simba to rediscover himself. This could be related to the settlers, due to the fact that most of them came to the U.S. so they could worship God how they pleased. Lastly, Simba claims his rightful place as king. And in the American Revolution, lastly, the citizens together claim their rightful ownership of their country.

>>12404

Hm... I've never seen it, but I remember hearing about it a while ago. I didn't like the premise or that they used elements from the original movie to make it.

Wikipedia says about the premise, "The series centers on Kion, Simba and Nala's son and Kiara's younger brother who, as second-born to the throne, has been gifted with a power called the Roar of the Elders and becomes the leader of the Lion Guard, a team who protects the Pride Lands and defends the Circle of Life."

As the Circle of Life is something that continues whether it's defended or not, the whole premise seemed a bit silly. It was also made 20 years after the original movie, and I don't think it really had any of the original cast and crew working on it... so basically fanfic in modern terms.

>>12406
Thank you for providing that context, you have a deep understanding of The Lion King.  My sense in that The Lion King is told from the perspective of the leaders of the Pride Lands.  The solution to the problem of a bad king is a better king, not some kind of revolution against the Lion monarchy (especially not one involving hyenas -- they are a bad class of animal).  Perhaps King George or a successor might have discovered freedom in time and shared it with his subjects as a wise leader, in the mold of Simba.

>Lion Guard
While it's very much a kids show, I like some of the Hyena swing-style songs.  But I can't say I have any desire to watch it through critically.

There's actually a fundamentally great set of videos online about the underlying scientific and ethical philosophy behind the American Revolution, which lead into what we nowadays consider to be "classical liberalism" and "Enlightenment moral idealism". These videos are essentially superb in every way, explaining the belief systems behind the gigantic social change in English-speaking lands during the 1700s or so:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZiWZJgJT7I

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LVcu01QEU

>>12413
I think before discussing subjects like Locke or Hobbes, we might first ask whether it could ever be appropriate for a philosophy or text that we might discuss here to motivate resistance to state power.  My answer is no.

>>12430
My stance is a rather firm and unabashed "yes".

>>12413
Thank you for the provided links.  Hobbes believed anarchy was treacherous, and any state that was less harmful should be respected, I think.  But a state that set out to destroy you needn't be obeyed.

Locke believed that anarchy was not the best for human rights.  Any state that seemed to fail to be an improvement to the state of nature in securing human rights should be resisted.  I think any state that did not form from a valid social contract (constitution) or deviated from the mandate of that document should be resisted, as well.

I understand the US founders believed some of what Locke believed.


Both these ideas contrast with the idea that it is a human's duty to obey and respect the state (and appears to contrast with the state's mission to resist existential threat).