Political Authority

Political AuthorityMarrie Angela D. Santiago x Jeffrey Angelo R.

Gorith

Political Authority• Authority– power that people accept as right

• Power– the ability to influence or control the behavior of

people• Political– Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or

affairs of government, politics, or the state

Therefore…

• Political Authority– Is the power of the government to enact laws and

control the behavior of the people

Political Authority• How we govern ourselves today? Under what

arrangements do we live together in society?– We are governed by the state that wields

unprecedented power to influence our lives• Provides us with basic protection against attack on our

persons and possessions• Regiment us in countless ways, laying down the terms on

which we may make our living, communicate, travel to and fro, raise children, and so on• Supply us with a huge range of benefits – health care,

education, roads, etc

Political Authority• It would not be going too far to say that

today…

WE ARE CREATURES OF THE STATE.

Political Authority• Human History– Tribal societies – small scale• Authority might rest in the hands of the village elders,

who would meet to settle any disputes that arose among the members of the tribe, or interpret tribal law

– Larger scale• Supreme authority rested in the hands of

kings/emperors

• Impact on people’s lives was limited– They neither attempted to regulate them nor

provided most of the goods and services that modern states provide

Political Authority

Political Authority• Political authority was woven into

the social fabric in such a way that its existence seemed relatively uncontroversial.

Political Authority• The only arguments that took place were

about– Who in particular should wield it– Whether it should be divided between different

bodies

Political Authority• The problem of political authority

has preoccupied political philosophers for the last 500 years.

Political Authority• When we say the state exercises political

authority, what do we mean?– Two sides• People generally recognize it as authority

– Obey the law – they think that the body has the right to do so, they have to comply

• People who refuse to obey– But are compelled to do so because of threat of sanctions

Political Authority• These two sides are complementary– Those who do keep the law out of a sense of

obligation are encouraged to do so by knowing that people who break it are likely to be punished

– So people who comply with authority voluntarily know that they are protected from being taken advantage of by less scrupulous persons

Political Authority• Political authority then…

–Neither pure authority nor pure force, but a blend of the two• Combines authority proper with forced

compliance

Political Authority• But the question remains…

Why do we need it?

Political AuthorityThomas Hobbes vs. Anarchists

Political Authority• Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651)– Political rule is one of the ferocious competitions for

the necessities of life– Hobbes has experienced the absence of political

authority during English Civil wars – the picture he painted of life in its absence was unremittingly bleak.

– Natural condition of mankind: without political rule, leaving people in constant fear, and constantly inclined, therefore, to strike at each others first

Political Authority

“In such condition, there is no place of Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; No navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no

Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the Life of

man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Political Authority• Hobbes reaches pessimistic conclusion– People are naturally selfish or greedy, and will

therefore try to grab as much for themselves as they can when unrestrained by political authority. But his real point is… • Cooperation between people is impossible in the

absence of trust, and that trust will be lacking where there is no superior power to enforce laws• It is not safe to expect people to work together and do

their part in the absence of political authority

Political Authority• Without political authority = mistrust = fear of others

–Turns life into ‘a perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbor’

Political Authority• Was Hobbes’s pessimism justified?– Critics• If we look around us, we can find enough evidence of

people trusting, cooperating, and even helping each other with nothing expected in return, without any involvement by the state– E.g. group of neighbor may decide to repair a derelict

playground, form a team, divide up the work, without any legal agreement or means of enforcement

Political Authority• Although Hobbes has low opinion of human

nature, his real point…– In the climate of fear that would follow the

breakdown of authority, the kinder, more trusting, side of human nature would be destroyed

– And from what we know of human behavior when people are caught up in civil war and other situations in which their survival is at stake, he seems to have been right

Political Authority We need political authority because it

gives us the security that allows us to trust other people, and in a climate of trust people are able to cooperate to

produce all those benefits that Hobbes listed as signally lacking in the ‘natural

condition’

Political Authority• But how can we create authority where it

does not exist?– Hobbes envisaged everyone gathering together

and covenanting with one another to establish a sovereign who would rule them from that day forward; alternatively, they might submit themselves individually to a powerful man

Political Authority• Anarchists– Say societies can govern themselves perfectly well

without political authority– The state is essentially a racket run for the benefit

of those who hold positions of power– Believe social cooperation is possible in the

absence of political authority

Political Authority• Anarchists– Two directions• Towards community• Towards the market

Political Authority• Towards community – Communitarian

anarchists– Communities as the building blocks that make

trust and cooperation between people possible• Small community

– Social order is easy to maintain; makes it possible to have cooperation

– One of the most important human motives is a desire to be accepted and respected by those around you, even if people are not saints


anarchists– It can also be attained in a larger scale• Small communities will agree and collaborate to

exchange services with one another• These communities voluntarily know that if they break

that agreement, other communities won’t be able to cooperate with them in the future.


anarchists– That makes them believe that there is no need for

a central authority to tell people what to do – the system will be effectively self-policing

Political Authority• Critics– What is wrong with this peaceful picture of life

without the state?• It is no longer applicable in this modern times

– Societies are highly mobile» There’s a need for a legal system that will track down and

punish people

Political Authority• Critics– Cooperation between communities is also less

straightforward than the anarchist picture supposes• For loyalty to your own community frequently goes

along with a fairly intense distrust of others, and agreements may therefore collapse• We need the state – can impose solution: it can require

each person or each community to contribute a certain amount, say through taxation.

Political Authority• Towards market – Market anarchists

(Libertarians)– We could contract and pay individually for the

services that the state now provides– Including crucially for personal protection• In the absence of the state, agencies would offer to

protect clients and their property – includes retrieving property that had been stolen, enforcing contracts, and obtaining compensation for personal injury.

Political Authority• E.g. If my neighbor steals, I would call my

protective agency– What if the neighbor disputes my claim and calls

his agency which may be different from mine?• If the two agencies cannot agree, they may refer the

case to an arbitrator, who again would charge for services• After all it is not in the interest of either agency to get

into a fight

Political Authority• There would be…– Primary market – protective services– Secondary market – arbitration services

Political Authority• Critics– It is impossible for everyone to sign up with the same

protective agency. And since there is no authority proper, the other party can always fight back because it is not obliged to recognize the agency of the other party

– Each agency would need force to protect their clients’ rights• This would mean that increasingly disputes would have to

be settled by physical force, with the risk to ordinary people of being caught in the cross-fire

Political Authority• We would be slipping back into Hobbes’s

condition of– “Warre where every man is enemy to every man”

Political Authority• And in this condition…– The only rational decision for each person is to

sign up with the agency that is likely to win the most fights• Result: to create a body with the power and authority

to impose the same body of rules on everyone – in other words, we would inadvertently have recreated the state

Political Authority• The other services that the state now provides

would also be handed over to the market– Health insurance, pay for education, pay to use toll

roads, etc

Political Authority• There is another problem with relying on the

market to carry out all the functions that states now perform

• Provision of what are called ‘public goods’ – benefits that everyone enjoys and that no one can be excluded from enjoying– Clean air, water, access to roads, parks, etc

» These goods are created either by imposing restrictions on people or by raising taxes and using the revenue to pay environmental protection, transport systems, etc

Political Authority• Could these goods be provided through an

economic market?– Critics• The market operates on the basis that people pay for

goods and services they want to use while with public goods, they are provided for everyone whether they pay or not• But it is very tempting to free ride

Political Authority• We need Political authority with the power to

compel in order to ensure that these goods are provided to everyone fairly, and there is maintenance and no delays.

Political Authority• Therefore, since neither communities nor

markets can replace political authority and its embodiment, the state…

–WE NEED POLITICAL AUTHORITY.

Political Authority• But there is still one crucial question that

needs to be answered…– Why should I obey it, when it tells me to do things

that dislike or disapprove of (e.g. taxes us)?

Political Authority• Political Philosophers call this…– ‘The Problem of Political Obligation’

The Problem of Political Obligation

• Why should we obey the law?– Of course, one reason is we are likely to be

punished if we don’t• But we are looking for a more principled reason and

some philosophers conclude that the problem is insoluble but others have tried to provide positive solutions


• Two solutions– Consent approach– Appeal to fairness or ‘fair play’


• Consent approach: First solution claims…– We are obliged to obey because we have agreed or

consented to do so• E.g. I joined a local soccer club. I turn up for the match, but

instead of playing by the rules, I insist on picking up the ball and running with it because my argument is that the game is more fun if I do so. Club members would no doubt be highly angry. And they would say that by joining the club, I am agreeing to play football by the normal rules whether or not I have signed an explicit agreement to that effect. Anyone who joins implicitly accepts the prevailing rules


• Let’s transfer the argument to the state– Generally speaking, people do not choose to join

states: they are required to obey them whether they like it or not• In what sense do they give their consent?


• Hobbes:– We choose to belong to the state because it is

preferable to the state of nature where life, as we saw, is ‘nasty, brutish, and short’ and it doesn’t matter how the state arises• We consent to the authority to escape a worse fate


• Problem:– But Hobbes’s argument stretches the idea of

consent beyond recognition– And take note that the football club example was

compelling because of the fact that I freely chose to join• Later writers rejected his argument and tried to find

something other than the mere fact of subjection to the state which could use to indicate our consent to the law


• John Locke (Second Treatise of Government, 1689):– We all accept benefits from the state, and our

acceptance can be treated as a form of consent• E.g. since one of the chief functions of the state is to

protect our property, when we acquire it by purchase of inheritance, we are also tacitly consenting to the state’s jurisdiction over that property, and therefore to its law


• Problem:– We really have little choice about accepting these

benefits: we cannot live without property, we cannot escape from the state without travelling the highway to the border • Still stretching the idea of consent too far to say that

anyone who enjoys state benefits is giving her consent, and obliging himself to obey the law


• Other ideas– When we take part in elections, we agree to

comply with the government that emerges and the laws it enacts.• We do at least have a free choice as to whether to vote

or not, and there would be no point in holding elections unless people recognized the government that emerged as legitimate


• But unfortunately, there still seems a gap between voting and registering your consent.– What if you deeply disagree with both parties, but

vote because you think that one is slightly less bad than the other? Or what if you think that although you have in a sense consented to the overall package of policies that the winning party has announced in its manifesto, there are few items you find unacceptable – and you have no choice to vote on these individually?


• Perhaps the voters’ consent can help explain why governments have legitimate authority, but not why people have an obligation to obey the law.


• Appeal to fairness of ‘fair play’– E.g. A group of us are living in a house with a

shared kitchen. Every week or so, one of the residents tidies the kitchen and gives the pans and the surfaces a really thorough clean. Now, everyone else has done the cleaning routine and it is my turn.


• Why ought I to do this?– I have benefited from the work the others have

put in and so I ought to carry my share of the cost too – manual labour. If I don’t take my turn, I’ll be taking advantage of the other residents, and that’s unfair.


• There’s no need to assume that I have agreed/consented to take part in cleaning rota– My obligation stems directly from the fact that I

am the beneficiary of a practice that requires each person to contribute in turn


• Let’s transfer the idea to political obligation– Keeping the law, and complying with political

authority more generally, means forgoing opportunities that would otherwise be available to you.• Each of us would prefer to do exactly what he pleases –

respecting other people’s rights, paying taxes, and observing traffic laws


• Compliance is a benefit to others.– When you pay your taxes, the rest of us benefit from

the roads, schools, and hospitals that the taxes are used to pay for.

– When you stop at the red light, you make it safer for other motorists to cross on green.• So it looks as though the person who breaks the law but

benefits from the fact that other people are observing it is behaving unfairly in just the same way as the person who uses the kitchen but won’t take his turn at cleaning it.


• Difficulties on justifying. First…– We have to show that the benefits the state

provides really are benefits for everyone• E.g. what if the laws protect property, but only some

people are property owners? What if taxes are being used to fund art galleries and many people care nothing for art?


• The argument can work, however, so long as the whole package of benefits makes everyone better off and are shared reasonably fairly among all the people whose compliance makes the system of authority possible.


• Second…– What would a fair distribution of social benefits

look like, given that people have very different needs, abilities, preferences, and so forth? And if the way that benefits are actually distributed in societies today falls very far short of this ideal, can we still say that everyone has an obligation to obey the law in order to maintain a fair practice?


• It seems that the preferred solution requires us to tackle the issue of SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Presentations & Public Speaking

Political Authority