tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697837128689426211.post4513211897615728473..comments2008-12-11T00:58:02.000-06:00Comments on Power @ Rhodes: authoritative comfortDoctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3697837128689426211.post-91524321053521868112008-09-13T09:48:00.000-05:002008-09-13T09:48:00.000-05:00I think you've struck on something quite intuitive...I think you've struck on something quite intuitive to most of us in your post, Courtney... namely, that subjecting ourselves to an "authority" can be <I>both</I> stifling <I>and</I> comforting. it seems to me, though, that this is true of <I>all</I> forms of authority, of which "sovereignty" is only one.<BR/><BR/>My question for you, then, is this: why choose sovereignty? Why did the Western world move from structures of authority that centered on the power of kings and priests to structures of authority goverened by the concept of sovereignty? If we are all craving the "comfort" of authority, as your post suggests, it seems that we would prefer that authority to be as monolithic and powerful as possible... but what we have now is a world in which sovereign states compete for authority, conduct wars against each other for power, and organize (in things like the United Nations) to "check" each other's influence. Wouldn't a single, all-powerful "World-King" be more "comforting"?Doctor Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.com