One of own personal favourites within jurisprudence is the legitimacy of force and violence, and where we draw the line between gangsterism, and a legitimate state. Each and everyone of us, hard as we may try and struggle or resist, conform to varying degrees as to the level of control the State applies onto us. We must pay taxes, or risk the loss of services. We must obey the law, and comply dutifully with the rules and regulations set out by law enforcement. Otherwise, we risk our liberty and personal wealth.
In other words, we are in a cage.
"What are States, but robber bands enlarged?" (Marcus Tullus Cicero).
After all, if it so chose, the State could simply overwhelm us, extort money, deny our rights and impose slavery. Yes, people could revolt and start a war. But why (for the vast majority of the world although admittedly some states have not managed to enjoy such a privilege) then has total chaos not resulted? And what keeps those in power, in power?
John Austen identified what he referred to as the Command Theory which consists of 3 components:
-a sovereign (which can include a monarch but not necessarily so. In this context, it merely refers to an entity, whether it is a person or group which is obeyed, without question and without challenge.
-Sanctions. Sanctions are the penalties resulting, as a result of non-conformity.
-Laws, are merely instructions, issued by the sovereign and which are obeyed for fear of sanction.
This is a somewhat narrow interpretation of State authority and the law. In this context, a rapist would be justified in committing the crime of rape because they are using force to acquire synthetic obedience, and uses force to do so.
Ill leave it there for now, to see how this thread works out.
(Im hoping that by not giving the full picture, then others can perhaps give their own counter arguments.)
