Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/25/2011 8:31:47 PM (GMT-6)

Brandon:  Which is why I don’t think you have totally grasped my viewpoint as well.  Austin makes the distinction between the NECESSITY of authority and the FORM of authority which he says has often been confused--and which I think you are confusing with your question(s). For an example, the authority that a society needs does not have to be a distinct body from the society itself. Austin says,

And then in the next section he deals with the suppression of free agency of members of society which I’ll get to in the next post (running short on time). But let’s go back a step to this question asked earlier but ties into your question(s) above.

What is legitimate authority? Why obey this one and not that one? Let’s look at the orchestra analogy that Austin provides. He who has ears to hear and eyes to see.    In an orchestra we have:

A. A mini society within a larger society.

B. It may have a corporate identity.

C. It may be a non-profit organization operating under given laws.

D. It has employees.

E. A public that is interested in hearing its music, benefactors, officers and the like.

In this mini society, the people associated with the symphony will be members also of other organizations, ie., families, employees of corporations, churches, etc. So what we want to say is that to be human is to be a member AT ONCE of a multiplicity of societies that are “nested and interrelated with each other in complex ways.”

Now, this society is not a political society and it therefore “lacks recourse to coercive force.” It CAN call the police or a judge but it doesn’t itself have a police officer or a judge. Also, a symphony is not a church so it doesn’t “press upon us questions of ultimate truth or putative divine authority.”

So how does authority work in the society that is a symphony orchestra? Well, let’s say that all of the musicians are mature players who are selfless and committed fully to the orchestra (the Amish character above). They don’t carry grudges or undercut one another nor seek more glamour for themselves than their part in the music warrants. As a matter of fact they don’t have to worry about any penalties because they give themselves to the practice and to the “common good” of the orchestra such that they are always at the top of their game. The question Austin asks is this:

Well, especially if we are not musically trained or acute to the nuances of symphonic music we might think they don’t but it is obvious, EVEN IN THIS STATE OF PERFECTION that they would need a conductor (who is btw, not simply an authority unto himself as he is accountable to others). Why? Because even as perfect as they are, “with any given piece of music, there is a RANGE OF LEGITIMATE INTERPRETATIONS. Decisions must be made with regard to phrasing, tempo, volume, and blend of various instruments. And guess what?

On each of these questions THERE ARE MANY WRONG ANSWERS; BUT THERE IS SELDOM JUST ONE RIGHT ANSWER. So decisions must be made and they must be made among alternatives which have equal reason.

Which is why a conductor is needed. I suppose many folk think we can do without the “conductor” today. But we can’t. And why can’t we? Because if we don’t submit to the authority of the conductor and accept the conductor’s “determinations” no music will be played (this is related below to human creativity.  Next, Austin asks,

Well, he does lose the ability to play ANY WHICH WAY HE WANTS but then it is asked, “Is that a true loss of freedom?” But that’s the thing. Even if say a violinist or trombonist played any number of solos and play them well without an authority outside of himself, he could NEVER play:

As a matter of fact, (and here is where the paradox of authority and freedom come in. Which is not “dressed- up”)

That is, as the piece of music becomes more complex the more authority is needed even if the authority is “shared authority” or “democratically shared” amongst all its members through long hours of practice:

So it seems that a legitimate authority is one where those who are the musicians recognize the conductor to be so. A trombonist may be happy to work for such an authority because he recognizes that he would not always “play/perform the music that way.” She has authority and he acknowledges that she has it.

Now the conductor could lose their authority because he:

Thus if they failed to maintain the good quality of performance intelligently interpreted. Or perhaps through a selection of music that never used trombones except in trivial spots, a particular trombonist might start to wonder if the conductor had their good in mind. A conductor could lose their authority by not intending the good of the musicians.

In the end, the question has not to do with how authority is related to human inadequacies (immaturity, egoism, sin, etc) but with human excellences.

True (legitimate?) authority is exercised within reasonable bounds yet make “determinations that go beyond what is given by reason (a conductor can choose a wrong musical interpretation, yet there is no single right interpretation). But what the analogy of the symphony shows is that authority ENHANCES the freedom to participate in corporate action, as it also enhances freedom of individual fulfillment within corporate action.

I'll get to the the question of the suppression of free agency within society tmw.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/26/2011 2:16:37 PM (GMT-6)

In other words:

That is, “we need authority because it is desirable that particular goods should be taken care of by particular agencies. If all persons of mature talents and good will were to turn their attention to the matter of the common good, the many non-common particular goods of society would suffer and society would be, overall, less rich, less varied, less advanced.”

And if you don’t, then you don’t really have a problem with sphere sovereignty or principled pluralism. Principled pluralism or sphere sovereignty allows for the individual but realizes that we are MORE than individuals. We exist in a diversity of ways. This is why I essentially don’t agree with Jeff’s last post. Governing authority and particularly political authority’s ESSENTIAL FUNCTION is not about usurping. It is judicial. Even if we say that it usurps we say that it is overstepping its proper role. And I think you guys would TOTALLY agree with that. I’m rather realistic about government usurpation when you folk think I’m not. And then I get all these questions that say, “Well, what happens if someone doesn’t agree with your view of government?” or “WHO defines the spheres?” when we are in basic agreement on that.

So now, what we are left with is that you can’t conceive of political authority without coercion (force). As I understand your position, your position on force is TOTALLY negative outside of someone taking someone’s life and their possessions. In other words, if someone took someone’s life or their possessions then force would be legitimate. OK.  Let me put it this way.

I think a distinction has to be made between political authority per se and political authority in the historical period between Christ’s ascension and his return to establish his kingdom. Authority per se has three elements: power, judgment and the perpetuation of tradition all of which are held together in one agency. However, in the period following Christ’s resurrection and ascension a secular political authority has come into existence whose chastened and limited purpose is simply to protect the right. This is social authority (the members of orchestra, authority that is for society as a whole) at their most extensive. It is where power must be accounted for. In other words, there is nothing beyond what political authority can resort to other than recourse to coercive force in order to deal with violence, recalcitrance and other affects of sin.

Other authorities (which you essentially a priori recognize in your argument) can only exclude. If there is coercion then these social authorities appeal for it namely from beyond themselves which is primarily political authority. If there were no sin, political authority would still exist but wouldn’t need in any way to coerce the support and cooperation of citizens. Which is to say that finitude, while it calls for authority does not call for coercion. And political authority, while it must have power, need not have coercive force at its disposal. And that’s the thing. Austin says:

How I understand that statement is that there is a lot of human activity that occurs freely. One is not forced or compelled on a daily basis to adhere to the “rules” but freely assent to follow them. However, if one doesn’t follow the rules there is a the threat of compulsion in which case “Do this or face the consequences.”

So the question has to be asked, “What is political authority for?” (unless of course you really don’t think it has any reason for existence outside of usurpation of its God-given limits). Again, folk like Skillen would say it is judicial such that humans can live together in FREE communications/associations/individuals (which is the human good).

Now how does this relate to coercion and force? Because even if we speak of authority we cannot speak of it apart from politics (though politics is not necessarily the first we speak of). So this works out like this (the example that Austin uses).

Say someone is wronged. The court needs to assure itself of the facts and then apply punishment. But as with political judgments of this sort, there are complexities having to do with both the person wronged and the person who did the wrong. Was the taxi driver who ran into the pedestrian wrong because he was speeding, ran a red light, accelerate when he saw the pedestrian in his way? What about the pedestrian? Does it matter that she was a violist who was just laid off and now faces an uncertain future because now she has a fractured shoulder from the taxi driver?

All of this assumes that we humans exercise epistemic authority in order to apprehend the truth of the matter which is to say that it is this that we speak of first. Not politics but epistemic authority that precedes it. Everything needs to be clear because EVERYONE, that is, all parties, including the public at large, are interested and deserve to have the truth told.

As a part of this, we will (or should) be concerned for the punishment due to the person who did the wrong. Mitigating factors may be at play for both the wrong doer and the person wronged. The driver’s need for livelihood, the violist’s need for the same as well (and one I think most forget) the consequences for the city of a sentence that is perceived as excessively harsh or so light as to be unserious (many folk don’t think that is all that important and I think I see some of that in Asher’s response when it comes metaphorically ameliorating deficiencies in children). All of these come into play, but none is determinative.

In both parts of judgment, the statement of wrong and the execution of punishment, the court is required to look in two directions--both backwards and forwards. It looks backwards to the past to not only to make a verdict on wrong, but to put an end to the wrong that happened and bring closure to an unhappy event and to foreclose possible future revenge. So both the verdict and the sentence of punishment have a backward looking aspect. But they also have a forward looking aspect, to the future which they now help to establish. That is to say, that in this society in the future it will now be known, by the authoritative political judgment that has been issued, that the action in question was indeed wrong. Austin says:

And it is into the future that the injured party now must live. She cannot ask for further compensation or revenge, but needs to accept the judgement as the gift of closure that it is. The wrong-doer must accept the wrong he has done, and pay the penalty imposed as a necessary yet also sufficient condition of his continuance in his political society.

Surely, this is more than mere coercion for coercion’s sake. To simply point out that the baton is a gun and that bothers you really only speaks to me about your feelings and not about the broader scope of things. It really does not believe in justice. Or it is without teeth. Can we not honestly say that all justice is accountable via mere persuasion and not brute force? Can we honestly say that in SOME WAY the future life of the pedestrian is NOT strangely liberated from the fault committed against her?

Huh. 

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 12/2/2011 6:49:01 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Similitude) : 12/4/2011 2:20:46 PM (GMT-6)