Now, I grant you, in this case, they are harmless in their absurdity, since they effect him, rather than trying to rope others into obeying the absurd authority he obeys... so I'm not gonna try and pass any laws against him or mess with him. But I still note, that there's a problem here.
The problem, ya see, is that making the critical decision "Does this effect just me? Or is this effecting others? Should my rules apply to them as well?" requires the application of reason.... and the defining characteristic of absurd authority is that it is immune to appeals from reason.
That's why we (or I, at least) are unsettled by absurd authority, even when it does not effect us directly at the moment, because at some time it may, and when it does, it will be just as immune to reason.
no subject
The issue is that his rules are absurd.
Now, I grant you, in this case, they are harmless in their absurdity, since they effect him, rather than trying to rope others into obeying the absurd authority he obeys... so I'm not gonna try and pass any laws against him or mess with him. But I still note, that there's a problem here.
The problem, ya see, is that making the critical decision "Does this effect just me? Or is this effecting others? Should my rules apply to them as well?" requires the application of reason.... and the defining characteristic of absurd authority is that it is immune to appeals from reason.
That's why we (or I, at least) are unsettled by absurd authority, even when it does not effect us directly at the moment, because at some time it may, and when it does, it will be just as immune to reason.