[cap-talk] Is "Authority" Subjective?

[Toby Murray]

Hi cap-talk,

I've hit an interesting issue during my work on the formal
characterisation of authority. I've come to wonder whether the
definition of "authority" is actually a bit subjective and
intuition-dependent. I'm hoping this list can confirm or falsify this
hypothesis. 

Suppose we have a system represented as the following CSP process (don't
worry if you don't know CSP, I'll explain what's going on)

P = a1 -> a2 -> b -> STOP [] 
    b -> STOP

Initially the system can perform either of the actions a1 or b. If it
performs an a1, the only choice for the following action is a2, after
which the only thing it can do is perform b. In both cases, after
performing b, the system halts.

Now suppose that actions a1 and a2 are performed by some object Alice
and b is performed by another object Bob. Does Alice have authority to
cause Bob to perform b?

I can't decide -- I keep dithering between the following two arguments.
I suspect that in different circumstances, both are valid. But I might
be wrong -- I'm hoping you can help me decide whether one of them is
definitely more valid than the other.

Argument 1: Before Alice acts, Bob can perform b -- the system won't
refuse it. After Alice finishes acting, Bob can perform b -- the system
won't refuse it. With and without Alice acting, Bob can still perform b.
Hence, Alice doesn't cause Bob to perform b and hence, has no authority
to do so. 

Argument 2: If Alice performs a1, she can cause Bob to perform b by
performing a2. In fact, if she refuses to perform a2, the system
deadlocks and Bob will never perform b. Hence, by performing a2, Alice
causes Bob to perform b. Hence, Alice does have authority to cause Bob
to perform b.

Does either (or perhaps, another) of these arguments appear more valid
to anyone than the other? Do you believe that we should consider that
Alice has authority to cause Bob to perform b?

Thanks heaps in advance for any responses, they're much appreciated.

Cheers

Toby