« How Much For The Stealth Bomber in the Window? | Main | Most Obvious Violation of Free Exercise Rights Ever? »

May 26, 2005

The very word "authority" is unfamiliar from overuse. There is a difference, for instance, in the way that a physics textbook, a Cabinet secretary and the MTA are all "authorities," and yet the reasoning behind calling each of these entities "authorities" is similar. In each case, the idea is that authority is something that can be granted and, once granted, proceeds relatively unchecked.

Depending on the circumstance, this may not be a bad thing. The MTA (New York's Metropolitcan Transit Authority, which runs buses and subways), for instance, is not tremendously efficient, but it isn't that awful; the Port Authority of NY&NJ, which owns airports and trains and the World Trade Center (leased to a private developer), is similarly not all that bad. But once we move from such relatively acceptable ideas, and especially from situations in which having an authority makes sense (someone has to own the subways) into environments in which authority should be earned and constantly tested, authority can become a dangerous concept.

Such thinking lies behind Gary Wolf's useful, brief essay in Wired magazine on why many of the survivors of the 9/11 attacks were wise to disobey or disregard authority in that instance. It turns out that the authorities were not authoritative--better information could be had from private communications networks. The FDNY's communications failed during 9/11; Blackberries and cell phones worked, albeit irregularly. The network of private citizens constructed a more reliable net of information in this instance. So much for "authority."

Posted by Paul Musgrave at May 26, 2005 10:23 AM

Comments

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at May 26, 2005 10:46 AM | permalink

Posted by: Paul at May 26, 2005 10:49 AM | permalink

Posted by: Zach Wendling at May 26, 2005 04:22 PM | permalink

Post a comment