Great article, although I think you've raised a point of investigation rather than a justification to change (which resides in the 'why' factor) i.e. 'Why is there present, such a predisposition to bestowing a belief in authority'?

Personally I believe it is not authority that we believe in, rather it is consequence that we fear. The whole "do this or else" approach is not workable if you were a sports coach (perhaps to some degree - that measure being the measure of consequences they can inflict), but for a President or corporate CEO, well that comes with an extended range of measureable consequence if co-operation was withdrawn.

We need to be objective and face facts about our sociological state - there most certainly is violent crimes, intrusions on basic human rights and liberties, while I don't agree that our system of rehabilitation and justice is sound, the immediate alternative to dissolve such an authority would create an open-season of looting and violence.

While I believe that humans are inherently social and assimilate harmoniously, this is mostly only observed when basic human needs are met (food, water, shelter, health). We don't live in that world yet, and quiet literally "criminals" are fighting for survival by any available (or perceived - education dependant) means necessary. People are going to prison for stealing bread, or medication for dying relatives that they can not afford, but some are also going to prison because they injured or harmed someone in the process - it is a grey area, the judgement of justice needs to consider the environmental conditions that fuel certain crimes, and furthermore, to re-evaluate the use of authority measures against their effectiveness to prevent secondary incidents.

Authority, justice, law, punishment - it's all interconnected into a systemic social system that quiet frankly is not concerned primarily with basic human needs, but rather the preservation of person and protection of property (which has become mostly a usurped agenda shifting towards acquisition of property, at the expense of disempowering the person).

We don't believe in authority, we conform to avoid the illegitimate consequences that we ourselves enforce - It's a crab bucket, when one crab tries to leave (behavioural disconformity) the others hold it back as to share the same fate. We're a little more intellectually sophisticated then crabs, and this is a 'bucket' problem - but what can be said, is that continuing to operate within this system of "do, or else" slowly diminishes the fear of consequence - we want this effect for most people, but not all.

If it was a police officer between you and someone wanting to rob you, that side-arm and authority is welcomed - but not if your the person to trying to commit the crime (for who knows what reason). First things first, as much as I don't believe that an authoritarian approach to leadership is effective (it actually is in the short-term), we have to acknowledge that there are other systemic problems underlying the need for authoritative consequence (purely because we lack a better option (one that is operational and capable of addressing violent behaviour - which includes the process of detention if required at all).

Society has witnessed time after time what happens to those who rebel against authority (for reasons fair or not) - even when the efforts were of good morality, most will leave the nonconformists out to dry when they need support the most e.g. 'Manning, Assange, and Snowden.

When you see a large protest, easily 100x bigger numbers then the riot-control police, back off to police aggression as the pick and detain people at will - it is that at that very point where power is up for grabs, sometimes it is ceased by the people (Iceland), and other times it is given back (Ukraine). But most of the time, authority upholds the power because consciously we don't want it, but subconsciously we're not sure if it's needed or not, and collectively we're not ready to make that decision.