Leadership, organization, and cooperation are not the same thing as legitimate rulership.
Often times when we see someone as having more knowledge and understanding or just simply more capable at specific jobs, we consider them as having "authority". The foreman, engineer, electrician, etc, an expert at what they do.
But in the sense of how I am presenting "authority" is not the same as having expertise at something like in the blue collar field for example. Expertise may justify trust, guidance, or coordination, but not necessarily the moral right to rule another person.
When I mentioned authority in my previous posts, what I am speaking of is on the supposed, the always assumed to be legitimate, moral right to rule over others.
A school teacher is looked at as having "authority", and despite them giving orders, there is a thick line often overlooked. Yet we often follow teachers, parents, or skilled workers not because they own us, but because their experience can be useful to us.
So yes it is important (sometimes) to follow their orders and that of your parents because they have more years in their field and of life itself. However, this is not to be confused with "authority" like that of the political sense.
The purpose of guidance is not permanent dependence, but the development of self-governance. We listen to those "above us" because they are our leaders, our guides, until we reach adulthood or to the point where we can govern our own selves, for to be governed while able to govern ourselves is tyranny through and through.
Have we mistaken expertise for authority?
