“Papers!” If you’re an adult, you’ve probably had this command shouted at you at some point, usually by an armed government employee in a uniform. It can be accompanied with a completely sincere yet unintentionally ironical “please” that does nothing to soften the verbal blow. The following text will examine assumptions behind such authority, the attitude behind such words and the truth that will show you how to behave without having to know a single word of law.
As I said in my post on logic, the first step towards the truth is to define relevant terms. This is the most important part of any deconstruction, since incorrect or incomplete definitions will lead us astray. Authority is defined as “the power to exact obedience”, but it is also used in the context of trust and respect; an authoritative person need not use any force to persuade others, as they subject willingly. In all cases, authority is about getting someone to do something you want without giving them anything in return, either through implied or direct use of force or influence.
Since logic is the most powerful tool we can possibly have, it stands to reason that the only relevant authority is the one derived from facts and logic. In other words, having an armed bully bark commands means nothing; if he knew how to use logic, he’d use it, which means that his authority is meaningless, no matter how ostentatious it is.
Quid pro quo
Now, let’s examine some examples of authority. Usually, you can only take goods if you pay for them, which maintains the balance, but a government agent might decide to confiscate trafficked goods, meaning he takes them without any compensation. Further, those goods might be destroyed. The cause for this is that trafficking avoids all documentation and helps criminals fund their operations. In that sense, confiscation was done for the greater good.
A parent might forbid the child to go out or do something specific. Again, the reasoning is that going out or doing that particular thing will harm the child, and the motivation is again presented as doing something for the greater good. In both examples, we see that the authority, as it’s typically used, relies on moral superiority rather than facts or logic. Because authority tends to give such disproportionate power for such a vague reason, it is always bound by limitations. The greater the authority, the greater the limitations, since we don’t want anyone to have uncontrollable power.
The limitations themselves don’t have to make any sense, they just have to proportionally impede uncontrollable displays of authority. But, one limitation that is always present when it comes to authority is that the person with it cannot be anonymous. In fact, if you’ve ever been in a court, you’d notice that the first thing the judge will do (if there’s no nameplate displayed) is introduce himself. Why? Because we can’t hold an anonymous entity accountable. You can notice this same principle of accountability in action across all public displays of administrative authority.
Auctoritas est potentia
We’ve concluded that authority necessarily needs to have limitations imposed on itself, but is the reverse true as well? Does it mean that whomever we limit necessarily has authority? To discover the answer to that, let’s take a look at the most common limitations. For example, speed limit forbids traveling over a certain speed. If the cars were not able to go faster than that, the speed limit would make no sense, thus cars are more powerful than is otherwise considered safe for the public good.
Prisons are another example – we limit people who have shown lack of self-control and displayed undue amounts of power. We can safely conclude that limits are imposed on physical power and that this means authority grants actual, palpable power, which is why it absolutely must be controlled. Such authority is actually highly coveted by many people who look for nothing more than to serve their own interests, even if this means simply inflicting misery and gloating over it.
The deadliest flaw
So, in theory, the authority and limitations are perfectly balanced and there’s no abuse of power, yet we can obviously see there is. Where’s the problem stemming from? The whole reason is exactly because such abusive authority is derived from moral superiority instead of logic. Once you take a cop and tell him to go out and defend such vague concepts as “greater good” and “law and order”, you’ve inevitably created a loose cannon and there’s no telling what will happen next. Worse yet, once ego kicks in, there is also a certain air of arrogance that follows such people and they will absolutely never admit they did anything wrong. What can be done to stop this abuse and how can you avoid it?
Before anything else, you must be cautious when dealing with such arrogant abusers. The type of contempt that comes with these blatant tyrants often takes years or decades to develop, meaning that there’s been a line of victims before you where the abuser had the opportunity to fine-tune the intimidation tactics. Physically defying the abuser or trying to “accept for value” his commands will at best cause bouts of laughter; at worst, you’ll end up in a hospital.
Code of conduct
I previously stated that authority and anonymity are incompatible, but there’s one more reason why you should always ask for the person issuing orders to introduce himself – your personal safety. You see, just because someone is wearing a uniform doesn’t mean they actually are what the uniform represents. Anyone can manufacture or steal a uniform, put it on and strut around, reaping the ego boost and monetary gain that comes from the authority associated with it. For example, Samuel L. Jackson wore a police uniform in Lakeview Terrace (2008). Does that mean he’s a cop in real life? Of course not, and you should never assume otherwise, especially when it’s to your detriment.
Whenever you’re approached by a person claiming authority and issuing orders, you should ask for that person’s name. In fact, it is your duty as an upstanding citizen to make sure the government employees are doing their job right, which includes introducing themselves. You don’t necessarily have to ask for an ID right away, but you should pay attention to the tone of voice and the way the reply is phrased. If a cop pulls you over and, upon being asked what’s his name, he says, “Uhhhh….. Damien?” you can be quite certain there’s something troublesome going on.
Formal humility
In any case, if you’ve detected arrogance in the behavior or the voice of the public authority figure that’s interfacing with you, or if you feel abused, you have every right to file a formal complaint. Remember that there is absolutely no way to convince chronic abusers that what they’re doing is wrong, so just spare your energy, do what you’re told and write a formal complaint to be forwarded to their seniors for a well-deserved lesson in humility. Not just that, but such formal complaints are excellent deterrents for promotion and career advancement to a position with even more authority.
Your formal complaint should contain facts but is also a great way to tell your side of the story. Thus, a complaint might go, “On Wednesday, July 27th 2016, at 2:15 p.m., I was stopped at 123 Pike Street by a police officer in a uniform for no apparent reason. He asked me for my documents but when I asked him for his name, he refused to answer and started shouting. At this moment, I felt afraid and uncertain about his motives.” On its own, this is a solid template for a complaint, though it’s probably too terse.
“Why even bother?”
All of this might seem petty and vindictive, as you probably have better things to do than tattle on every time an authority has wronged you. However, you must be aware that there is nobody else to do it. Remember that cops have no qualms about ticketing someone for driving 1 mph over the speed limit or jaywalking, which is essentially just crossing the street. In this case, systemic arrogance of armed people with authority is much more dangerous than an act of a single individual. To see the inevitable conclusion to systemic arrogance, read Solzhenitsyn’s “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich” and everything will become clear to you.
Another excuse is that nobody reads these complaints or cares about them. This is absolutely not true. In fact, filing a formal complaint is the most impactful thing you can ever do against an authority of any kind, as it stays on the record forever. From my personal experience, I can assure you that such complaints are read, hands are wrought because of them and the replies are pretty much detailed novels of the account, as the cop in question is sat down in front of a stern panel and thoroughly questioned: what did you say, why, when, how etc. While the most likely result will be that no harm was done and thus no disciplinary action will be taken, there is nothing that teaches humility better than being schooled like a small child, just like the authority in question tends to do with upstanding citizens. Now, isn’t that justice?
You can tip me at patreon.com/SgtBrutalisk
zmiblog 
