i mewn ‘r ardda

Without authority people act chaotically and do not like it. Authority provides and understanding that the path chosen is a good one, and that groups of people can act, more or less, in concert. The resulting harmony (such as it may be) is precious, desirable and sought out.

Authority as such does not determine the actual virtue of the chosen path. This caveat I wish to make clear. I am not saying that authority is sufficient for goodness, merely that it causes people to believe that such and such is good.

Authority for most of civilization’s existence issued overwhelmingly from religion. The decline of religion’s influence and power has changed that. I suspect that the secular state retains more and more moral authority. And it sucks. It is fickle, depending on personal morals of those in power which are determined by a mishmash of ideas incubated in schools, churches, loose affiliates, and of course the State.  It is, minimally, undesirable authoritarian, because it is imposed on people who have not chosen it. At worst it is tyranny.

Here is an example of the State’s moral authority in action. Some city in LA banned new drive throughs, citing obesity and traffic problems. That it is even considered good for a city to determine the eating habits of it’s inhabitants is evidence of the existence of the State’s grip of the stave of moral authority.