Ramblings

Authority is a system of delegated responsibility. In a system of society, individual people, groups or institutions may be imbued with the legitimacy to make and enforce decisions that affect third parties. The goal of an authority is to allow centralized decision-making in scenarios where full self-governance of every individual would lead to negative utility.

However, the power and legitimacy of any one authority is limited by its scope. Teachers at school may take a student's phone in class to prevent disruptions - they may even forward that phone to the school principal for further disciplinary measures - but it would be outside the scope of their authority to then go on and sell that phone for personal profit. The scope of any one authority is defined by the authority's purpose. Teachers are meant to teach, and they are granted their authority to be able to create an enviroment in which teaching can reasonably take place. Primarily this involves shutting down disruptions, hence why teachers can often take phones away (often backed up by school rules which ban phone usage in class). Ultimately, all authority derives its legitimacy from the purpose that it aims to fulfill.

In general, nobody gets to tell other people what to do. In all cases, authority requires legitmization to override other people's choices. An authority doing so must be able to explain the reasoning for their decisions. Authority is accountable to both its purpose, and the people it affects. As a result of that, authority is not a hierarchy, but a relationship. An authority has responsibilities towards the people under its authority just as those people have responsibilities towards it. If an authority cannot be held accountable, it is no longer an authority.

To me, an authority is just another voice. When I evaluate the decision of an authority, I look at how well that decision fulfills its purpose. If an authority can explain how its decisions contribute to its purpose, I have little difficulty accepting it. In fact, in everyday life most authorities make sense and I don't even require any explanation in the first place. The problem arises when an authority cannot or, more typically, does not want to provide justification.

Over time I have realized that many people - especially authorities themselves - tend to think differently about authority. Many authorities seem to treat authority as self-justifying, so that merely being in a position of authority just gives them free reign with the power that position gives them. They often appear to treat the position itself as sufficient justification for a decision, and if discussion reaches an impasse, they will simply appeal to their authority. This is fundamentally incompatible with how I work, because authority in my worldview always remains answerable to those it governs. In fact, noone has more responsibility to provide justification for their actions than someone who can exert power over others.

For that reason, I see authority as something that earns and maintains legitimacy through competence, accountability, and fidelity to its purpose. It is neither absolute nor arbitrary, nor does it place one person above another in any fundamental sense. It is a practical arrangement in which certain people are entrusted with particular responsibilities, and the trust placed in them is maintained by their willingness to exercise that responsibility transparently and in service of the purpose for which their authority exists.