SuperDemocrat
Gold Member
- Mar 4, 2015
- 8,200
- 868
- 275
- Banned
- #1
This question seems to show up in many forums. Not directly but it does show up. Clearly everyone agrees we have some natural right to disobey authority in our own lives. Clearly we have a right to disobey our parents. Any parent knows that this right is executed routinely by children and teenagers and as annoying as it is it can be quite healthy for developing teens. One day they may want to be so free that, at the appropriate age, they may want to leave home. Do you hear that millenials?
An employee has the right to disobey their employer. It could lead to their termination but employees are not mindless slaves with no will of thei own. In each case, such a will to disobey authority acts as a healthy check on the authority itself because once the person who is issuing orders knows that not every order will be followed that person is then forced to issue orders that his subordinates will follow. It sounds almost democratic in many ways because the person from issuing orders won't issue orders his subordinates won't comply with.
why not apply this all the way up to the government? It would just seem that active resistance is the only way to check government authority and it just doesn't seem correct that we can't say the word NO to the government in the same way we can say no to our parents or employers. Once the federal government knows that it's laws won't get the cooperation needed to make them affective it may retract and create laws such that the people would be glad to cooperate with since that is the only laws that can be executed affectivly. At this point it would seem democratic since the only laws created are the ones the people themselves agree with. Isn't democracy grand?
An employee has the right to disobey their employer. It could lead to their termination but employees are not mindless slaves with no will of thei own. In each case, such a will to disobey authority acts as a healthy check on the authority itself because once the person who is issuing orders knows that not every order will be followed that person is then forced to issue orders that his subordinates will follow. It sounds almost democratic in many ways because the person from issuing orders won't issue orders his subordinates won't comply with.
why not apply this all the way up to the government? It would just seem that active resistance is the only way to check government authority and it just doesn't seem correct that we can't say the word NO to the government in the same way we can say no to our parents or employers. Once the federal government knows that it's laws won't get the cooperation needed to make them affective it may retract and create laws such that the people would be glad to cooperate with since that is the only laws that can be executed affectivly. At this point it would seem democratic since the only laws created are the ones the people themselves agree with. Isn't democracy grand?
