Revisiting the post "Zack Matheny: Cause Of Downtown Violence?"

The post Zack Matheny: Cause Of Downtown Violence? appeared 11/11/2014 on the EZ Greensboro blog. The following is an excerpt:

　

‘Zack Matheny's response to the recent wave of downtown violence:

“I want there to be an army down here,” he said. “Because I want people who are coming from Winston-Salem, from High Point, from Siler City to know that we mean business. I want cameras downtown. I want people that are loitering to know that we’re watching them.”’
　
　
Going to the above hyper-link one finds an additional quotation:

“We are very concerned about what happened,” Greensboro Mayor Nancy Vaughan said. “We have looked at entertainment ordinances and how we can strengthen them over the last 48 hours. I think this discussion is very important because there are things we can do and things we cannot do. ... A quick answer is come in and shut them down. But we don’t have the ability to just come in and shut them down.”

　

One might state the above quotations are authoritarian in nature, Orwellian, and/or one might say it is a centralized regulatory-technocratic response. Maybe so. However, considering the statements further, one might be well served to consider the concept of: Political authority. How so?

If one decided, as a mere citizen, to create an army downtown, erect more surveillance cameras, and/or become more technocratic and deploy additional regulatory edicts, would one have such authority? No, one would not have such authority. If one, as a mere single citizen, were to in fact create an army downtown, erect surveillance cameras, and/or become more technocratic and deploy additional regulatory edicts, upon one’s own accord, other citizens would deplore such activity. Other citizens would be, in the main, outraged.

Regardless of the vast majority of citizen-outrage against the authority deploying single citizen, what if the single citizen’s army, surveillance cameras and edicts came with a price tag? Now the single citizen authority comes to all the other citizens and tells them they must pay a share of the price regarding the army, surveillance cameras and edicts. Either pay the price or face a fine, imprisonment or both. The other citizens outrage would reach a new zenith regarding the single citizen deployment of authority via coercion.

Now the question arises regarding what difference, if any, exists between the politico statements above regarding creation of an army downtown, erect more surveillance cameras, and/or become more technocratic and deploy additional regulatory edicts - and - that of the authority deploying single citizen? A further question arises regarding what difference, if any, exists between the politico statements above regarding creation of an army downtown, erect more surveillance cameras, and/or become more technocratic and deploy additional regulatory edicts, the price thereof, and the price associated with the price extracting, authority deploying, single citizen?

Why would it be perfectly fine to engage, considering engaging or outline a stratagem of engagement by supposed political authority, yet the same behavior, by any one single citizen, would be considered outrageous? Why is it fine for politico Smith to deploy particular behavior but outrageous for individual Jones to deploy the same behavior?

If the above questions intrigue, one might find the following book of value: The Problem with Political Authority, an examination of the right to coerce and the duty to obey, Michael Huemer, 2012, Palgrave and MacMillan. Link to the book appears below:

http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415984123&sr=1-1&keywords=the+problem+with+political+authority