Skepticism

[Aranfan]

If the major thinks I should be shot for abandoning my post, then he should damn well shot me.

[Simon_Jester]

If the major thinks I should be shot for abandoning my post, then he should damn well shot me.

...So, you concede then that an army must be able to enforce the principle of obedience to lawful orders, not because the subordinates agree with them, but because they are lawful orders?

[Aranfan]

If the major thinks I should be shot for abandoning my post, then he should damn well shot me.

...So, you concede then that an army must be able to enforce the principle of obedience to lawful orders, not because the subordinates agree with them, but because they are lawful orders?

Not at all. I concede only what I said: that if the officer thinks I should be shot, then he should shot me. Perhaps someone who buys your lawful order argument would shoot me for him, but it would happen because someone thought I should be shot.

A question though, under the lawful order doctrine, which orders should be examined for lawfulness? All or only some? If all, then how does this differ from my view that all orders should be questioned, if only some should be so questioned, how do you decide which to question?

[Simon_Jester]

Not at all. I concede only what I said: that if the officer thinks I should be shot, then he should shot me. Perhaps someone who buys your lawful order argument would shoot me for him, but it would happen because someone thought I should be shot.

The fundamental question, then, is whether you reserve the right to shoot back (in which case the army dies, having decapitated itself before it even left garrison), or not (in which case the army lives, but the principle of obedience to lawful orders is upheld).

A question though, under the lawful order doctrine, which orders should be examined for lawfulness? All or only some? If all, then how does this differ from my view that all orders should be questioned, if only some should be so questioned, how do you decide which to question?

A lawfulness-check is not the same as "I personally disagree with the order." The point is that the person issuing the orders is himself responsible to some other law, some other force. A policeman has lawful powers to tell you what to do, but those powers are restricted by regulations that govern his actions. You do not have a defensible right to ignore him because you dislike the look on his face or don't think you were doing anything wrong, but you do have a defensible right to ignore him if he's violating the regulations that govern his own activities. He can arrest you, but he can't make you give him your wallet.

And it's not a question of whether you want that. If you don't want to be arrested and don't think you should be, he can still arrest you. Conversely, even if you are perfectly willing to give him your wallet, he still can't order you to give it to him, because that's not part of his authority.

That is the difference. If an act you are ordered to perform by a lawful authority is consistent with the law governing that authority's actions, obedience is mandatory. You don't get a choice in the matter. The purpose of the law is to ensure that individuals are forbidden from using this broad authority granted to them by law as a way to commit wrongs.

Without this, we're back to tribal standard of government, or even lower than that, because tribes routinely enforce various "laws" against their own members without those members' consent, and which all members of the tribe agree to assist them in upholding.

Again, the heart of the problem is that when every person has unlimited and unquestioned writ to do as they please until stopped by an outside force, organized activity can not happen. It really is that simple. Anarchist communes do not function on that basis, insofar as they function at all. Instead, you see self-organizing groups making active decisions which, interestingly, tend to resemble the activities of a government. You cited the Paris Commune; perhaps you have heard of the Central Committee? The Commune Council?

Such authority may not be official, but it is very real: scratch an anarchist society and you will find a society dominated by charismatic leaders who are quite capable of ordering a dissenter beaten to death in the streets for opposing the Revolution.

[Aranfan]

Just a clarification.

The reason you don't get a choice is because a distinct minority of people will, for reasons they believe sufficient at the time, choose to do the wrong thing. Or choose to do something with immediate benefits to them (avoiding hard work) and subtle, intangible long term costs (the army suffering a dysentery epidemic because no one dug the latrines). There has to be a mechanism in place to prevent this from happening, and so far the most satisfactory solutions all involve some kind of collective decision, or decision by an agent empowered to command the collective whole, to punish individuals who decide to do things harmful to the collective.

So, because people can choose to do the wrong thing (by whose criteria?), they should be stripped of the ability to make choice? Am I interpreting this wrong? If freedom to err something worth keeping or not?

[Simon_Jester]

Freedom to err is worth keeping under conditions where it does not impose catastrophic costs on other people who did not err. It would be the height of folly to argue otherwise. Even if you have a right to burn down your own house while playing with matches and die of exposure, you don't have a right to burn down mine while playing with matches.

There have to be consequences for such actions, and those consequences have to be metered, measured, rational. They cannot be left up to the whims of whoever feels personally annoyed by the harm your mistakes cause to others, or you will often be punished far more or far less severely than you deserve.

I am beginning to think you're being disingenuous, because that really is a fairly straightforward and obvious practical issue.

[Aranfan]

I am beginning to think you're being disingenuous, because that really is a fairly straightforward and obvious practical issue.

You appear to have missed the title of the thread. I'm inquiring to every position presented here. Any advocacy for any position by me is purely as devil's advocate. I would spout arguments for authority if an anarchist came into the thread. If trying to apply a dose of skepticism to the forum is trolling, then ban me (although I would argue otherwise ).

[Simon_Jester]

"Trolling" is not the same as "disingenuous." However, since I have no particular interest in picking a wrestling match with Proteus, I'll simply note that you're not doing a very good job of your devil's advocacy on certain points.