[Sivad]

The capacity to comply with abusive authority is humanity’s fatal flaw. Fortunately, within the human family there are anti-authoritarians—people comfortable questioning the legitimacy of authority and challenging and resisting its illegitimate forms. However, as Resisting Illegitimate Authority reveals, authoritarians attempt to marginalize anti-authoritarians, who are scorned, shunned, financially punished, psychopathologized, criminalized, and even assassinated.

Profiling a diverse group of U.S. anti-authoritarians—including Thomas Paine, Ralph Nader, Malcolm X, and Lenny Bruce—in order to glean useful lessons from their lives, Resisting Illegitmate Authority is the first self-help manual for anti-authoritarians. Discussing anti-authoritarian approaches to depression, relationships, and parenting, it provides political, spiritual, philosophical, and psychological tools to help those suffering violence and marginalization in a society whose most ardent cheerleaders for “freedom” are often its most obedient and docile citizens.

Resisting Illegitimate Authority is about bigotry, but not bigotry directed at race, religion, gender, or sexual preference. It is about bigotry directed at rebellious personalities and temperaments.



Editorial Reviews
Review

“For a reader, there is no greater reward than to come upon a startlingly original book, one that prompts you to think anew about important aspects of the American character, past and present. Such is Bruce Levine’s Resisting Illegitimate Authority. This is a book, written in wonderfully clear prose, that will stay with you, and one that you will eagerly recommend to others. The portraits of famous Americans, ranging from Thomas Paine to George Carlin, as seen through an “anti-authoritarian” lens, are particularly memorable and compelling.”

—Robert Whitaker, author of Anatomy of an Epidemic

“Bound by the shackles of convention, many of us have become fearful of the outsider, the dissident and the anti-authoritarian—anyone who refuses to be ruled and regulated.... Bruce E. Levine has written an electric book charting the mechanics—political, economic and psychological—of our self-confinement. Yet, Levine’s writing simmers with a kind of optimistic rage meant to prod and provoke us out of our paralytic compliance with faceless authority. Resisting Illegitimate Authority has arrived just at the moment when we need it’s daring call for a new kind of human liberation the most.”

—Jeffrey St. Clair, editor of CounterPunch and author of Bernie and the Sandernistas

About the Author

Bruce E. Levine is a regular contributor to CounterPunch, Truthout, Z Magazine, AlterNet, Salon, and the Huffington Post. He is a practicing clinical psychologist often at odds with the mainstream of his profession, and he is on the editorial advisory board of the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry and on the scientific advisory board of the National Center for Youth Law. A longtime activist in the mental health treatment reform movement, he is a member of the International Society for Ethical Psychology & Psychiatry. His books include Get Up, Stand Up; Surviving America's Depression Epidemic; and Commonsense Rebellion.

[Sivad]

Clinical psychologist Bruce Levine explains how health authorities are increasingly listing individualistic behavior as abnormal in the move to pacify the population through mass medication, the education system and television.

[Sivad]

[ness31]

I was reading about the story with the kid getting in trouble for not saying the pledge of allegiance. What I found amusing is that the relief teacher was Latina.

What isn’t amusing is a relief teacher fucking up that kids time at school..

[Rancid]

One man's illegitimate authority is another mans legitimate authority.

[SolarCross]

Yeah and if there is such a thing as legitimate authority then what does that make an anti-authoritarian in that context, an illegitimate anti-authoritarian?

[Sivad]

One man's illegitimate authority is another mans legitimate authority.

It's not subjective, there's a rational standard for legitimacy and most authority is illegitimate.

if there is such a thing as legitimate authority then what does that make an anti-authoritarian in that context ...?

A criminal. There's a big difference between outlaws and criminals, outlaws have ethics, criminals don't.

I was reading about the story with the kid getting in trouble for not saying the pledge of allegiance. What I found amusing is that the relief teacher was Latina.

What isn’t amusing is a relief teacher fucking up that kids time at school..

The babbitt dinks are always on the look out for any sign of non-conformity and they love it when they get the opportunity to flex their mighty authority powers to make everyone behave(bee-hive).

[SolarCross]

It's not subjective, there's a rational standard for legitimacy and most authority is illegitimate.

So what is the standard?

[Sivad]

[SolarCross]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61TTRhlLOV0

That doesn't really answer the question. You said it wasn't subjective and there was a rational standard of legitimacy. Noam on the other hand is saying that it is up to the subject of authority to challenge the legitimacy of an authority and it is up the wielder of authority to justify that authority, which is effectively a subjective negotiation and not a standard.

[Sivad]

That doesn't really answer the question. You said it wasn't subjective and there was a rational standard of legitimacy. Noam on the other hand is saying that it is up to the subject of authority to challenge the legitimacy of an authority and it is up the wielder of authority to justify that authority, which is a effectively a subjective negotiation and not a standard.

That's not what he's saying, he's saying people accept illegitimate authority because they lack critical thinking. Legitimacy is just whatever can survive rigorous critical scrutiny. Rationality is the objective standard, what's rational is discovered through reason and evidence.

[SolarCross]

That's not what he's saying, he's saying people accept illegitimate authority because they lack critical thinking. Legitimacy is just whatever can survive rigorous critical scrutiny. Rationality is the objective standard, what's rational is discovered through reason and evidence.

That is just kicking the can down the way. What is legitimate authority? Whatever the "rational" authority says it is. Which is tantamount to an appeal to authority fallacy in order to justify authority and consequently circular reasoning. Who gets to decide what is "rational"?

[Sivad]

That is just kicking the can down the way. What is legitimate authority? Whatever the "rational" authority says it is.

There is no rational authority, rationality is the authority. I know people like to pretend rationality is subjective because that's the only way they can preserve their bullshit ideological commitments but just because some people are stupid or dishonest doesn't mean the rational isn't objective. And the rational is usually obvious, it's not hard to discover, it's only the dishonest bad faith motherfuckers with ulterior motives that try to obscure it. Unfortunately the world is full of those assholes and that's why most authority in this world is totally illegitimate.

[Sivad]

Take like the patriot act or mass surveillance for example, these are clearly illegitimate. They're justified by an obviously bogus threat and even if the threat was real the broad powers these laws provide government not only do not make us any safer they actually create more danger in the form of unchecked state power. The laws are objectively illegitimate but because there are so many lying babbitt frauds manufacturing alternative facts people get to pretend these laws are legitimate, but stupidity and bullshit do not and cannot negate objective reality.

[SolarCross]

There is no rational authority, rationality is the authority. I know people like to pretend rationality is subjective because that's the only way they can preserve their bullshit ideological commitments but just because some people are stupid or dishonest doesn't mean the rational isn't objective. And the rational is usually obvious, it's not hard to discover, it's only the dishonest bad faith motherfuckers with ulterior motives that try to obscure it. Unfortunately the world is full of those assholes and that's why most authority in this world is totally illegitimate.

Since the so called enlightenment "reason" became the new faith. If I parse what you say here cynically, dare I say skeptically, it amounts to a claim to exclusive ownership of "reason", which is to say the one true faith of our day. Everyone else is the idiot, everyone else is the liar so only I should have authority, is the implication of what you say.

Whatever the merits of your sales pitch it remains there is no standard of legitimacy present in it.

[Sivad]

Since the so called enlightenment "reason" became the new faith.

Reason is the opposite of faith, reason is methodical skepticism.

If I parse what you say here cynically, dare I say skeptically, it amounts to a claim to exclusive ownership of "reason"

I don't claim to own reason but I do I happily submit to it.

Everyone else is the idiot, everyone else is the liar so only I should have authority, is the implication of what you say.

Most people are dishonest fucking idiots, there is no doubt about that, so reason dictates that authority(the power to control other people) should always be restricted to only what is absolutely necessary and should always be regarded with extreme skepticism, that is the implication of what I say.

it remains there is no standard of legitimacy present in it.

Then all authority is de facto illegitimate so it's fine by me if you want to take that approach.

[SolarCross]

:knife: Reason is the opposite of faith, reason is methodical skepticism.

So it is presented by the cult of reason in a way that is not 100% truthful. Faith is not the opposite of reason, because faith is really more about honesty than gullibility. A faithful person (literally full of faith) is one who speaks the truth and acts honorably. A faithless person (literally lacking faith) is one who is deceptive and treacherous. It was a conscious deception on the part of the followers of the cult of "reason" to re-brand faith as gullible stupidity.

I don't claim to own reason but I do I happily submit to it.

Do you submit to my reason? Or only the "reason" that supports your prejudice and agenda?

Most people are dishonest fucking idiots, there is no doubt about that, so reason dictates that authority(the power to control other people) should always be restricted to only what is absolutely necessary and should always be regarded with extreme skepticism, that is the implication of what I say.

If most people are fucking idiots as you self-servingly claim then it seems to be implied they had best be subject to the authority of that precious minority who are "happy to submit to reason". Perhaps the real truth is no one has a monopoly on reason and that your misanthropy is a lie.

Then all authority is de facto illegitimate so it's fine by me if you want to take that approach.

We should probably say justified and unjustified in place of legitimate and illegitimate because "illegitimate authority" is a literal oxymoron.

[Sivad]

So it is presented by the cult of reason in a way that is not 100% truthful. Faith is not the opposite of reason, because faith is really more about honesty than gullibility. A faithful person (literally full of faith) is one who speaks the truth and acts honorably. A faithless person (literally lacking faith) is one who is deceptive and treacherous. It was a conscious deception on the part of the followers of the cult of "reason" to re-brand faith as gullible stupidity.

You're equivocating on the different definitions of faith. You used it in the religious sense and in the religious sense faith is a degree of belief beyond what it is warranted by reason and evidence.

Do you submit to my reason? Or only the "reason" that supports your prejudice and agenda?

There is no your reason and my reason, there's just reason and you either submit to it or you don't.

If most people are fucking idiots as you self-servingly claim then it seems to be implied they had best be subject to the authority of that precious minority who are "happy to submit to reason".

No, because power corrupts. Reasonable people don't stay reasonable for long when they no longer have to rely on argument and evidence to advance their positions.

Perhaps the real truth is no one has a monopoly on reason

I don't think anyone has a monopoly on reason but some people are definitely far more reasonable than others.

your misanthropy is a lie.

You vindicate my misanthropy.

We should probably say justified and unjustified in place of legitimate and illegitimate because "illegitimate authority" is a literal oxymoron.

Illegitimate and unjustified are synonyms in this context and an illegitimate authority is just a thug so there's no contradiction in the terms there.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@SolarCross @Sivad

The standard of legitimacy is an interesting question that should not be merely dismissed; that religious dictates regarding divine rights (or sanctions) for governmental authority were replaced by an "alleged" commitment to reason during the enlightenment seems hard to deny and given my views on things, I would be hard pressed to defend these so-called advancements in political theory as they seemed to have advanced tyrannical authority the most.

This creates the odd predicament from the standpoint of historical analysis wherein I would have to say that the most illegitimate forms of governance ever conceived by man were those which were concocted from the cauldron of "reason-apart-from-faith."

Hence, the "rationalists" and the "skeptics" have been those most prone to give us illegitimate governance, not their religious forbears.

Quite a conundrum indeed.

However; though I agree with @Sivad that reason must be the primary basis for determining a state's legitimacy or degree of legitimacy, at the same time, it would be foolish to say that reason is the opposite of faith. Obviously this is untrue with scientific reasoning as such isn't even consistent with logic, but even logic's authority comes from the improvable presuppositions (albeit a transcendental one) that the laws of logic are universally binding and absolute in some sense....this is a faith-belief.

In the end, everyone commits to some worldview where its foundational premises still ultimately rest on certain necessary presuppositions. This would have been as true for David Hume as it would have been King John, even if their thinking regarding political legitimacy were quite contrary.

As for me, I have not personally found my use of reason and my orthodox understanding of the Scriptures to ever by contrary regarding what constitutes a legitimate form of governance etc.


My personal view is that the social contract is unequivocally and universally illegitimate, and that certain patriarchal models are legitimizable (imperial or monarchal models), but never ideal. The ideal being the non-existence of any third-party monopolist of coercion; wherein each property owner exists in covenant with God as authoritative head of his own family.

[Sivad]

The standard of legitimacy is an interesting question that should not be merely dismissed; that religious dictates regarding divine rights (or sanctions) for governmental authority were replaced by an "alleged" commitment to reason during the enlightenment seems hard to deny and given my views on things, I would be hard pressed to defend these so-called advancements in political theory as they seemed to have advanced tyrannical authority the most.

I don't know that government [in general] has become more tyrannically inclined but it has certainly become more capable of imposing tyranny, but that has nothing to do with culture or philosophy, that's all due to technological advancement.

This creates the odd predicament from the standpoint of historical analysis wherein I would have to say that the most illegitimate forms of governance ever conceived by man were those which were concocted from the cauldron of "reason-apart-from-faith."

It's not fair to blame reason for lies, sophistry, and manipulation. Those are the enemies of reason. The most abusive forms of government since the Enlightenment can't really be considered reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. Reason has always guided us toward liberty, gulagism, fascism, imperialist crony capitalism, these are all products of madness.

Hence, the "rationalists" and the "skeptics" have been those most prone to give us illegitimate governance, not their religious forbears.

I would say the pseudo-rationalists and pseudo-skeptics have given us equally illegitimate government to their religious forbears.

Quite a conundrum indeed.

Not when you make the distinction between reason and sophistry.

However; though I agree with @Sivad that reason must be the primary basis for determining a state's legitimacy or degree of legitimacy, at the same time, it would be foolish to say that reason is the opposite of faith.

Well reason can be applied to faith(faith seeking understanding) and genuine faith is ultimately self-authenticating but faith is not predicated on reason and does not proceed on reason. Faith is in the heart, not in the head.

Obviously this is untrue with scientific reasoning as such isn't even consistent with logic, but even logic's authority comes from the improvable presuppositions (albeit a transcendental one) that the laws of logic are universally binding and absolute in some sense....this is a faith-belief.

I would say the laws of logic are self-evident and that logical contradictions are inconceivable so logic isn't even remotely a matter of faith.

In the end, everyone commits to some worldview where its foundational premises still ultimately rest on certain necessary presuppositions.

My worldview rests on self-evident axioms and rational skepticism.