I'm familiar with a lot of the anarchist takes on the matter, not all of which agree (but any vibrant tradition doesn't have 100% agreement, anyway). There's anarcho-syndicalist Sam Dolgoff's sentiment, "I do not want the man who presses my pants to also prescribe me my medicine"-type stuff (that is, 'authority' in a particular practice/field would obviously be respected from anyone wishing to use that service, and there's nothing "authoritarian" about this sort of stuff).
Micro-level situations, like the "authority" of a construction crew team leader telling who to put what tool where, is related to this, I guess. It seems like it'd be up to the group to decide who might have the executive or facilitating authority in some matter like constructing a bridge. And that authority would be for that job, for that purpose, only -- recallable, accountable, etc. And if the group doesn't decide the team leader for that task, who does? A council of Ten Wise Men? A deity? The people will have to, somehow, anyway. They already do: they let property-owners and the wealthy decide.
Personally, these micro-level kinds of arguments on authority I find less interesting than the macro-level anti-authoritarian analyses on naton-states, capitalism, militarism, tc. -- but, yeah, this all has to be dealt with, too.
-B.
Chuck wrote:
> Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>> I agree that unquestioning obedience to authority
is dangerous. However, so is unthinking resistance to
legitimate authority. Structural engineer: "You need
to use bigger joists for this load-bearing rooftop".
Our hero who questions authority: "What the fuck do
you know? I'll build whatever I want!" (Again, I
just don't see how an industrial society can function
without legitimate authority being granted to people
with relevant knowledge and expertise in specialized
areas.)
>
> Hmmm. Do you want me to dig up some anarchist
articles and essays that address this question?
>
> Chuck