Where does the power lie?

[Matt_Trahan]

Does power lie in numbers or in the individual? Said another way, what is more dangerous to a government… a large number of it’s people working together against it? Or a large number of people independently resisting? A concerted movement towards a specific goal by a large group is traditionally considered the way to motivate government. However, wouldn’t a large number (an equal number) of people that simply stopped listening to government be as equally dangerous to the power of the state regardless of the fact that their actions were incoherent?

[Jon_Irenicus]

Yeah, Hoppe seems to think so and thus is in favour of many secessionist groups cropping up throughout a given nation, making it hard for it to focus its energies on any given group.

-Jon

[kaiwaldron]

I think a large number of independent and spontaneous actors is best. Divide and conquer. The distributed model is key. This will force the State to scramble to put down various movements, and they will have to prioritize based on resources, geography, etc. And while they may succeed in thwarting some elements, others will have survived. I’m afraid the lone individual is no match. Take the lone (heroic) tax resister who is squashed like an insect, a warning to the rest.

[nhaag]

Power lies in the denial to serve.

One of my favorites on this topic is “The politics of disobedience” from de la Boetie. You can find it here.

[Stranger]

Power lies in a large number of individuals prepared to protect each other from government retribution.

[Nitroadict]

@Matt

Does power lie in numbers or in the individual? Said another way, what is more dangerous to a government… a large number of it’s people working together against it? Or a large number of people independently resisting? A concerted movement towards a specific goal by a large group is traditionally considered the way to motivate government. However, wouldn’t a large number (an equal number) of people that simply stopped listening to government be as equally dangerous to the power of the state regardless of the fact that their actions were incoherent?

IMO, there are various responses that hinge on whether or not one believes that power is inherently repressive. As of late, I am beginning to think less so, which obviously stands in contrast with some of the usual anarchist and/or libertarian thought.

An excerpt from an Interview (w/ Todd May, largely concerning one of his books) may help clarify as to what I’m hinting at:

For postructuralist anarchism, power is both creative and destructive. In contrast, anarchism['s] natural justification of its own existence - that humans are essentially good and it is the institutions of power that are bad therefore we need to get rid of them - characterizes all power as bad. How does the anarchist concept of power change with the addition of postructuralism?

While [anarchists] have a two-part distinction: power (bad) vs. human nature (good), I have a four-part one: power as creative/power as repressive and good/bad. I do not take creative power as necessarily good, nor repressive power as necessarily bad. It all depends on what is being created or repressed. The ethical evaluation is independent of which kind of power it is. That’s why it’s so important for there to be clarity on one’s ethical vision - a point which too many poststructuralist thinkers neglect. But one does not solve the ethical problem by positing a good human nature and then saying that it should be allowed to flourish. There is too much evidence against the idea of an essentially good (or essentially bad) human nature for that claim to be made. One cannot rest one’s ethical judgments on human nature, but instead must develop the socially given ethical networks within which our lives unfold.

[source: here ]

I apologize if my response is at both, vague (concerning the OP, but related), & specific (concerning power), but the concept of power as either inherently repressive or not inherently repressive would have definite repercussions on the OP, I’d think.