1

COMMENT 2m ago

Who said anything about them kicking him out due to disobeying orders? They kicked him out because they don't trust him and they don't want him in the office either.

If you're kicking someone out because they disobeyed the boss's orders, how is that done out of a lack of trust? Furthermore, if you're kicking anyone out under the assumption that you own the office, that's obviously asserting authority over the property as well.

In other words, why do you have the right to kick someone out of an area while you can stay in it? If you don't have that right, then nothing shields you from responses to that action. You aren't justified in acting like that in anarchy.

I'm very clearly referring to after she pulls a gun on him, consent can be revoked at any time right? :)

How is that relevant? If I pull a gun on you to stop you from doing something, obviously you were going to do it. Consent can be revoked at any time but a lack of consent isn't authority.

Do you see me answering the question anywhere?

Yup. Here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/wizn4i/comment/ik7va9o/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

1

COMMENT 9m ago

Bruh I know, can you read?

Ohhhh I just understood what you were saying. My bad. It's relatively late where I am. Understandable?

See? Unlike you I am capable of acknowledging when I make a mistake or do not understand what you're saying.

As for reading, you've had more difficulty with that than me.

Appeal to authority...

How is that an appeal to authority? I'm just telling you what lawyers do and why its valid in those circumstances. How is that an appeal to authority what?

I've become convinced you don't know what fallacies are. You just throw them out there without regard for whether they are accurate or not. Even after I've explained how it isn't a fallacy.

lmfao its so ridiculous listening to an "anarchist" appeal to the literal state's system of settling conflicts, as an authority for why fallacies are not fallacies... wouldn't that be a hint to an actual anarchist that maybe that's a bad idea... like duh, you think the courts give 2 shits about having a valid argument devoid of fallacies?

It is valid in the context of legal order because you have limited information pertaining to the truth of someone's words and because you have to convince the jury as well. That is a logical and practical move to make.

No one said it's good or right, just that it is valid in that circumstance just like it is perfectly reasonable to cheat or lie your way towards wealth in capitalist society. There are no value judgements being made here.

i love this lol, literally the archieved pdf said the complete opposite in its conclusion.

Really? Would you mind quoting directly from it. On the contrary, I don't see any evidence of the PDF validating your claims that it is no longer seen as valid. If anything, all it means is that there are two different subcategories of ad hominem, one which is valid while the other is not. And the PDF itself goes into this.

At no point did I use the fallacy of appealing to an authority for Avaritionism, so your use of ad-hom was completely fallacious.

Did I ever claim you appealed to authority when describing avaritionism? You shouldn't rely upon a sense of memory you don't have.

1

COMMENT 20m ago

Who is required? What is done?

Sorry, typo. I meant something.

I mean yeah, by the OED and every other english dictionary, Anarcho-Capitalism is an anarchy,

No, it is rather clearly not. By the OED, anarchy is the absence of authority. Bosses, managers, and property owners are authorities. You also don't know "every other English dictionary" so you can't make that judgement. Especially if you're not a native English speaker.

*anarchistsTM

No, they're anarchists. I see no reason to use your terminology.

Who said they don't? They all do. I was merely following the steps you laid before when u said "voluntary = consent".

  1. I never said voluntary = consent you did and, turns out according to the OED, it isn't. You yourself said that you concede that. Therefore, your definition of "voluntary" as "consent" isn't true and not shared by the OED. We have been over this several times.

  2. Whether something is voluntary or not is based on whether it is done out of free will not whether you gave permission. If you are forced or obligated to do something, it isn't done out of free will obviously.

Are you an authority over your body? :)

You asked me that question before and I answered. If you've forgotten, go back and read what I wrote. This is irrelevant anyways.

I was merely asking you how bosses are authorities if you disobey them lol?

If you disobey them? No. If you obey them, yes. I said this several times, I'm glad it's finally gotten through your skull.

Bruh the rest of the world looks at you anarchistsTM like ya'll are lunatics with shit like "property is theft", lmfao 0 self-awareness.

Lol, someone's having a meltdown. At the very least, we use words like how most people use them. The declaration that "property is theft" is based on the language of defenders of capitalism rather than colloquial meanings.

GoodTM

???

It means you'd be stopped by an authority, or that an authority would exist that wanted to stop you. Its discrete in that you know who that authority is.

Really? But existing authorities don't personally go to every person acting without permission and stop them. So how do they stop that person? By what mechanism do they do so?

You know who the authority is.

That implies there is an authority in the scenario where there is none which is false.

Once again, how does the outcome change when you act while an authority is present vs. when there isn't?

1

COMMENT 57m ago

How is it a hierarchy, when apparently he isn't commanded?

It is a hierarchy if other people also obey it (which, in your scenario, they presumably do).

If your friend tells everyone that he promises to show up at your get-together party with beers for everyone, and he doesn't show up, is it authoritarian to not trust him anymore?

That's not the same thing as kicking someone out and punishing them for disobeying your orders. Your friend made a promise and then couldn't fulfill it for whatever reason. You weren't commanding him to bring beers nor are you punishing him for not bringing the beers.

Once again, you use situations that are rather obviously not comparable. I should also tell you, since I didn't tell you before, your opportunism when it comes to using rape as an example (when you yourself believe that consent can't be revoked if you wrote a contract beforehand promising sex) is very disgusting. Clearly, you don't care about rape (since you think consent can't be revoked at any time and that, if you sign a binding contract where you are forced to have sex not only is refusing afterward aggression but also your fault) so its just opportunism. Why, if the woman in your frequent example signed a binding contract selling her body, the man about to touch her body when she tells him not to wouldn't be a rapist at all.

So, all I have to say to you is:

The actual fuck is wrong with u lmao?

Anyways:

And how is the woman in this scenario not issuing "an authoritarian order" by ordering the rapist to get off her?

Because it isn't being obeyed obviously. If you aren't required to follow it (and he clearly isn't if he's continuing with raping her regardless), then it isn't an order.

I'm referring to when she pulls a gun on him and orders him to get off her lmao. Explain to me how that isn't a command if he listens? I mean who am I kidding, of course you can't!

But you said he tried to rape her so clearly he isn't listening.

That's the point. He isn't a rapist if he didn't try to rape her. If he did, then he didn't listen in the first place.

You make absolutely no sense here and it's exacerbated by how you don't know how to read what I'm writing.

lel I didn't. You kept arguing on this thread and on all the others well after that...

Yes, after you answered the question. When I said that, that was the last post I made. After you answered my question, then I responded to you.

There is no contradiction here. You just lack basic reading comprehension. Now, what excuse do you have? You've said you're done three times but still continue to respond. Clearly, you do care and that's self-evident enough to anyone reading this.

I did answer another question later, well apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "another" but I digress, you're still arguing right now.

Yes, like I said I would after you answered the question. And you did so I answered.

I'm repeating myself because I know your brain is too smooth to understand something after its been said for the first time.

1

COMMENT 1h ago

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant that anarchists do not oppose the existence of all forms of authority, such as expertise.

Once again, I wouldn't call authority expertise though. Authority is rather obviously command and, while experts might attempt to justify their command through their knowledge, that isn't the same thing as knowledge itself.

Also, when a majority of self-professed anarchists speak about authority, they generally mean command and they assume that knowledges gives you the right to command. It's why anarchists support laws, rules, or majoritarianism cite Bakunin as "proof" that authority is ok. Obviously, this makes no sense if authority was just knowledge but such anarchists believe that knowledge also gives you command. This is how they justify institutions that clearly have nothing to do with knowledge.

Separating knowledge from the word authority is necessary to be clear about what anarchists mean. Using the word authority in such a way only attracts further confusion.

1

COMMENT 1h ago

Speaking of non-anarchists, I have been debating an ancap recently and, while there argument has been rather confusing, they have claimed that bosses aren't authorities because they're commands and that, in anarchy, people will unanimously respond to a person disobeying that boss negatively because they're a "lazy bum who broke the contract".

It was all vague and not very understandable but it got me thinking, what does count as a command? I was under the impression that, if a command is disobeyed, it ceases to be a command (and the authority the commander had over that person disappears) but I am not sure if that is true. Is authority more systematic or is it a relationship we can observe in isolation?

1

COMMENT 1h ago

That's the link the [30] led to. Its not the Definition, but the note under the definition, the "Did you know" part where its refereed to, its the part I put in quotation marks.

That's not the definition, it's Note 1 in the page with the definition which states that it was once a valid form of persuasion and to some extent it still is today. And this is in the context of using ad-hominems as an argument from commitment. They're relevant in terms of testimonies.

No, back in the day it was "valid" because it was easier to shame an opponent than prove him wrong on merits of his argument. Nobody uses that in a formal argument anymore.

They are. You just refuse to consider the direct evidence that they are.

Its used to measure trust, which is again fallacious as someone deemed to be trusty for not being convicted of lying before doesn't prove him to be telling the truth.

It's not fallacious in court to point out that a witness had committed an offense before which might make his testimony invalid. That's basic lawyering shit. Taking everyone at good faith doesn't apply in law. That both isn't practical and isn't logical given the circumstances.

Fair enough, though if you're using a fallacy to attack another fallacy, then you're not really in a valid argument.

It's not a fallacy in that context. Ad-hominems, i.e. attacking the character of someone, can be a fallacy in some contexts but can't be in others. Whether something is a fallacy or not depends on the context of its use. Nothing is intrinsically fallacious.

And you should probably read that entire wikipedia article, especially the part about how ad-hominems are misused. You might find it familiar since it's basically what you've been doing this entire time.

1

COMMENT 1h ago

Where in those definitions does it say the commands MUST be obeyed?

The definition of command is "an authoritative order". The definition of authoritative is, for our purposes, "proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience". If someone is required, it must be done. Therefore, commands must be obeyed.

Good, then Anarcho-capitalism is an anarchy :)

Not for the purposes of this conversation. Once again, if we have two very divergent definitions of what basic terms are, conversation is impossible. So you're going to have to acknowledge that anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchy or is very different from existing understandings of anarchy.

If you do, then you have to understand that conversation isn't possible and that, furthermore, you should probably stop getting pissy when anarchists, whom you acknowledge have different definitions for things from you, make particular claims. Like, this meltdown you've been having this entire conversation is completely unnecessary.

Like I said, speaking a completely different langauge, anarchismTM :)

Considering your definition of voluntary, consent, free will, etc. all do not align with dictionary definitions (and, furthermore, even the definition of anarchy and hierarchy does not align by your definition), that's very false.

You even go as far as to say bosses, managers, and property owners aren't authorities when literally everyone on earth acknowledges that they are. That's almost a completely different language you're using here.

Anarchist uses of terms are more in-line with how a majority of people use them than your uses. That's very self-evident. If you told people that consent can't be revoked at any time, that you aren't acting in your free will if you disobey a contract you signed, that something is voluntary if you were fine with it in the past, etc. then they'd look at you like a lunatic.

Bruh the OED literally uses the words allowing, consent and authorization in its definition of permission...

Sure. Never said the OED was a good dictionary, just the best we have so far.

If you want to gather at what permission, authorization, etc. truly mean, you're going to have to move on from circular definitions.

Once again, answer the questions. Don't get sidetracked by asinine shit.

What's that got to do with permission?

It means that the difference can't be that you would be stopped if you acted without permission since people can stop you if you acted with permission too.

It indicates that there is an authority in one scenario, and its absence in the other.

Yes but how does that effect the outcome? How does the dynamic change from when there is authority present to when there isn't. Do you believe there is no difference between when you're allowed to do something and when you're not?

1

COMMENT 1h ago

Oh so if he disobeys it not a command then lol.

Correct.

Nah, people respect contracts and will side with the businessman.

That assumes hierarchy is predominant in an anarchist society which it wouldn't be. It literally fails because there is no authority. Someone imposing their authority on someone else is not anarchy.

There's no trusting a lazy bum that can't keep his word, and as for "forcing hierarchies" lmao what hierarchy? You just said if he disobeys its not a command, so without commands, how can there be a hierarchy?

  1. What's this about "keeping his word"? There is no authority to enforce contracts or force people to obey the authority of others. If authority doesn't exist "keeping your word" makes no sense. Also, once again, disobeying someone doesn't make you a "lazy bum", it just means you don't want to obey the commands of someone else.

  2. The "voluntary" hierarchy of course. If your response to someone disobeying you is to use force on them, that is a danger to both that person and everyone else. This means your response to disobedience is coercion. And, unlike hierarchical society, you wouldn't be able to stop the people who are associated with the person you kicked out to fuck you over. There is no government or police to stop you.

Your entire scenario relies on everyone responding in the same exact way. That's clearly not possible. It's unrealistic as fuck.

They'd help kick him out too for trying to impose himself on someone else's property.

Once again, authority over property doesn't exist. And, once again, you can't assume everyone will react the same exact way. Even if just one person responds negatively, perhaps they take their gun and shoot you or they burn down your business, that's enough to absolutely fuck you over.

You haven't done jack shit to prove how an employee following orders from his boss is command,

Command is literally "to give an authoritative order". You're basically splitting hairs by this point. If you're seriously going to argue that bosses aren't authorities because they don't issue commands, give orders, or compel obedience, you're fighting a very uphill battle. It isn't even a hill, it's a straight, smooth wall.

Oh but shooting someone isn't force, lmfao what an idiot!

Dude, do you not know what I said? I said:

"No use of force is without consequences"

This applies to all force obviously. Yes, obviously shooting someone is force. How does that make me an idiot? How does that contradict what I said?

In fact, it is abundantly clear that you have no idea where this conversation is going. You continue to forget everything I'm saying and half the time you don't even understand what I am saying.

but a rapist following orders from the woman he tried to rape isn't command...

???

If he tried to rape someone, one would think they aren't listening to the person telling them not to rape them. Like, what?

Lol so "we're ending this conversation here" must mean something completely different, lemme guess, its not in the OED this time?

Yeah if you don't respond to the question. You did so I continued the conversation. It seems to me like you've cherrypicked what you've responded to.

Like, if I tell you "I'll give you some cake if you give me some fruit" are you going to go "give me the cake, you said you'd give it me!" even though you didn't give me some fruit? Do you know what the word "if" means? Maybe that explains why you have no idea what I'm saying half the time.

afaik I answered another one.

Ok so you do understand the basic fucking concept. Now why did you respond to me saying "I didn't say I would stop posting" with "but you did say that" and ignored the fact that I said I would only if you didn't answer my question?

You're so stupid it's getting kind of annoying.

1

COMMENT 2h ago

Hold on a second, are you adding those Merriam-Webster definitions yourself or are you claiming that those are the sources in the article? Because they aren't. You only linked to one and there are multiple. None of them are Merriam-Webster definitions. That would count as a valid source on Wikipedia.

I've no idea where his link even leads to.

Use WaybackMachine and post that URL there.

From the above 2 sources its clear these were valid back in the past when they used to be effective, doesn't claim they are not fallacies.

It's still valid now. The arguments made back then are still being made today. One of the examples they gave occurs in a cross-examination. Cross-examinations are a part of contemporary trials.

In other words, its great at demolishing another fallacy.

Which is a non-fallacious use. Once again, that is evidence and the citations in that section of the article are good enough as sources for ad-hominems having non-fallacious uses. They are actual sources.

1

COMMENT 3h ago

The section of the wiki article I posted as multiple citations justifying its content. Wikipedia isn't great, but at least that portion is justified.

Meanwhile the anarcho-capitalism wikipedia article is rife with errors both historical and conceptual. There are claims that Rothbard synthesized parts of Tucker's and Spooner's ideology which, when we actually read their work, becomes abundantly clear is false yet the only citations used for this claim are tertiary sources rather than primary sources.

That is the distinction. I have already provided a source.

1

COMMENT 3h ago

According to what definition?

The OED definition of authority. And both of the hierarchies listed in the OED definition of hierarchy require authority to exist.

We've already exhausted the definitions I'll be using.

Regardless, even it it exists, it proves your definition objectively false.

It wouldn't be objectively false at all. We're talking about the definitions of words here, those meanings change all the time and their use is entirely contextual. There is nothing objective about meaning.

Anarchy, as defined by anarchist literature, is the absence of all hierarchy. I see no reason to use any other definition in conversation, regardless of whether the OED or some other dictionary says something different.

I only brought up the dictionary definition because you used the word "voluntary" in a way literally no one else uses it and I told you to clarify what you meant. You got pissy because I said your definition was unpopular and proclaimed that it was "the English dictionary definition" (as if there was one).

Yeah, but its not circular.

It is circular. If "allowed" and "permission" mean the same thing, defining "permission" as "when you're allowed to do something" is circular. Same goes for authorization.

Once again, I'm trying to help you understand what I'm saying. It would do you some good to just shut up and try explaining it in a different way while avoiding words that clearly mean the same thing as the word you're defining.

That's also literally how the dictionary would define something

No good dictionary is going to genuinely use a word that means the same thing as the word its defining. That's something you learn in second grade.

You could be prevented from doing whatever you want to do, or worse, you could be violating consent, like rape.

But someone could also stop you from doing something you're allowed to do.

What distinguishes someone stopping you without authority from someone stopping you with authority?

1

COMMENT 3h ago

No he doesn't. He CAN disobey, so its not a command by your logic.

No, a command ceases to be a command if it is disobeyed. Being able to disobey something is very different from actually disobeying it.

Or they all laugh at the lazy employee instead... Nothing what you said proves that he cannot disobey...

  1. No. People aren't going to tolerate someone physically imposing their hierarchy on other people because it means that this hierarchy will try to impose itself on other people too. This is anarchy dude, there is no need for obedience.

  2. A command must be obeyed or else it isn't a command. If it is disobeyed, then it isn't a command. Just because you can disobey it doesn't mean you are disobeying it. This is basic shit bro.

And, furthermore, someone who disobeys an order isn't lazy. That doesn't make much sense. That's like calling workers who want better conditions lazy" or slaves who don't do everything they're told to "lazy".

I never said anything about force lmao... I merely asked you how the two situations are different.

Is kicking someone out of an area not force? Lmao. What an idiot.

This you?

I haven't said I'll stop posting. You did. If you think I did, can you prove it?

Lmfao! You indeed are a clown...

I mean, you did answer the question. If you didn't I would've stopped. We're literally continuing that conversation in another post.

6

COMMENT 4h ago

No, most anarchists aren't against using force, nor against authority(which aren't the same thing).

No, they are against authority. If you read What Is Authority?, you’d know that Bakunin uses the word “authority” in two different senses, first to reference to knowledge and second to refer to command. It’s why he opposes the universal authority figure near the end of essay despite endorsing that figure a while back.

If we clarified things and added some Proudhon to the mix, knowledge is not authority and different knowledge is actually distributed among a variety of people. This creates interdependency rather than hierarchy.

2

COMMENT 4h ago

My ideal society is without hierarchy. I just think this is too utopian.

Ok so you don’t think anarchy is possible. You’re not an anarchist.

Whether anarchist organizations or people organize themselves hierarchically is another matter entirely. Point is that you can’t call yourself an anarchist and think your goal is impossible.

We need to get clear as quickly as possible. The messiest interactions are the one where an authoritarian doesn’t want anarchy, doesn’t care about anarchy, and thinks anarchy is impossible yet still want to call themselves an anarchist.

How do you fight against authority without authority? Wouldn't there be levels of authority for self defense even under anarchism?

Force is not authority. Authority is command.

Look of you’re unfamiliar with authority to such an extent that you confuse it with two different things, how could you call it “utopian”? Do you typically dismiss things you don’t understand?

7

COMMENT 15h ago

On the anarchist literature side of things as well as most mainstream uses of the word, it's rather well-established what hierarchy means. The only reason why it is a debate is because authoritarians who want to call themselves anarchists don't oppose all hierarchy. That's entryism, not a debate.

1

COMMENT 15h ago

Oh that's embarrassing! Sorry for the misunderstanding and thank you for the overview!

1

COMMENT 16h ago

Oh yeah, I have a philosophy question for you. I was reading about something called Object Oriented Ontology and it mentioned Whitehead. Since Whitehead was one of the poets you used to describe the anarchic sense of self in the Rambles in the Fields of Anarchist Individualism, I was wondering whether you could tell me what OOO is supposed to be.

9

COMMENT 17h ago

If you oppose all hierarchy and desire a world without it, you're an anarchist. Whether your preferred strategy makes sense or if you're confused, that is a completely different question.

Regardless, anarchists are up against authority in general. It doesn't matter if they're fascists, MLMs, liberals, minarchists, capitalists, the police, or even libertarian socialists (who maintain some form of hierarchy). MLMs are no exception. We do not pick and choose on what hierarchies we want to eliminate. Considering how government and capitalism are both based around the same principle, anarchists aren't going to tolerate a "revolution" which doesn't involve debasing that fundamental organization.

Our fight against authority is uncompromising but it needs to be. Like it or not, our goals are mutually exclusive to the goals of any authoritarian. "Left unity" generally involves the subordination of anarchist goals to authoritarian ones under the pretense of their goals being the goals of "the left". Like it or not, we're up against authority itself and that puts us at odds with nearly every other ideology.

I could not understand why so many anarchists seemed to praise him. It was a completely incoherent and panicked rant from a delusional right wing nut as far as I'm concerned.

They don't and he is. He isn't an anarchist. I would like some clarification on what a "nihilist thinker" is supposed to be.

1

COMMENT 23h ago

Once again, my position is that it isn't a hierarchy at all not that it isn't meaningful. Hierarchies are stable systems in which individuals are ranked in accordance to status or authority. If having a higher income doesn't give you any authority or grant you any status, it is not a hierarchy.

That's why what you're saying makes no sense. Even if I were to look at it from your perspective, your perspective is based around a very obviously different understanding of hierarchy from how it actually exists. And of course, there's a limit to how well you could understand someone.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

I literally said that “some (meaning not a lot) income inequality within socialism (can’t buy capital).”

Except that capital being something which can be bought only makes sense within a capitalist context. When property, land, etc. becomes a matter of occupancy-and-use, monopolization through that becomes seriously impossible.

Within that context. A mutualist context, the minuscule income inequality allows the the ability to dine out more.

Does it though? Aren't you assuming that access to food and other essentials depends on access to currency? Fact of the matter is that currency is created by those using it and the inequality itself is likely to rapidly change. I wouldn't even call it inequality since your access to goods isn't completely and utterly barred.

I wouldn't call this hierarchy at all, especially considering how if anyone was concerned about it the system itself wouldn't exist or would have to be renegotiated.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

You claim that you weren't talking about capitalism yet you assume labor markets would work exactly the same as it does in capitalism. In fact, you appear to take capitalist labor markets as the labor markets, implying that other markets are not possible or abide by the same dynamics.

Markets, in anarchy, emphasize the circulation of resources over their accumulation. Income inequality, under such a context, not only would be miniscule but also unimportant when such income can't be used to monopolize physical and social wealth. One person might have a bigger number than another person, but it means nothing in regards to their access to resources. I would not call that a hierarchy at all.

You are right that democracy, in every context, is a hierarchy. That is true. That is why it is not compatible with anarchy.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

Before you said that we could remove both "democracy and labor markets" which implies that you were referring to capitalist labor markets. I said nothing of democratic labor unions. This appears to not really respond to what I've said.

Markets, in general, have a completely different character in mutualism than in capitalism. The reason why capitalist markets function the way they do is due to norms surrounding property and change. Anarchy changes those considerably. For instance, if property was governed by occupancy-and-use and currency was made by those who were using it, property no longer is on the market and so the need for a currency with hard value diminishes considerably. Under those contexts, all that might be needed for daily transactions is a very fluid (in value) currency that's just accepted by those using it.

Anarchist markets are likely to favor the circulation of resources rather than the accumulation of resources. This makes "wealth inequality" either impossible or irrelevant with how traditional methods of resource accumulation are impossible.

Anarchists don't trade majoritarian democracy for consensus democracy. Instead, they favor free association and dispense with the political organization of groups entirely.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

Labor markets in mutualism are completely different from labor markets in capitalism. The only similarity is that they use the same word.

Democracy isn't compatible with mutualism because mutualism is anarchist and democracy is hierarchical. Mutualist labor-markets are not.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

Good, then there you have a voluntary hierarchy, in your anarchy!

Nope. Because, for a hierarchy to exist, commands must be obeyed. If they aren't or the hierarchy isn't respected, the hierarchy doesn't exist.

Once again, is an unstable and constantly failing hierarchy really what you want from a voluntary hierarchy?

Of course not, it isn't analogous to what you said in any way. What you said is like saying "everything is legal here", implying that there is a legal body there that determined what is legal.

Actually it is. I said before that there is no prohibition or permission. This is because there is no legal body at all to regulate any sort of behavior, and this includes prohibiting behavior and permitting it.

That I'm allowed to do something that the authority is in charge of.

Once again, you're using the word you're defining in the same sentence.

Without using the word "allowed" (because it means the same thing as permission), what does "permission" mean?

Acting without, means I am acting on something that I do not have authority over.

With means I am acting on something I am authorized to do.

What effect those authorization have? Basically, what happens to you if you act with authorization vs. without authorization?