It is difficult to establish unequivocally why authority evokes such negative connotations. Authority’s historical manifestations, especially in the 20th century, do not contribute to the amelioration of negative sentiments. The use of authority often leads to its abuse, and though the frequency argument is not philosophically conclusive, nor can it be altogether ignored. This consonance of negative sentiments does not, however, mean that authority is not a controversial matter. It is; but its controversiality is of a peculiar kind, in which (...) it is not a question of whether authority is good or bad, but whether it is a lesser or a greater evil. Or more accurately, whether it is a necessary or an unnecessary evil. The diverse opinions in this matter have their origin in different anthropological visions of man. One group, which tends to be much more optimistic in its assessment of human nature, professes all authority to be superfluous. The anarchic utopia is presented as the alternative to authority, the utopia of a spontaneous order founded upon agreements established in each particular moment by the members of a given society. The second position, which is more pessimistic of human nature, sees authority as a necessary element, which superimposes order on the chaos of reality, and in so doing creates suitable living conditions by protecting humans from each other. The first conception sees authority as an enemy or, more precisely, as an unjustified destroyer of freedom. The second sees it as a strict father who protects his child for his own good, but in order to do this he justifiably restricts the child’s freedom. The dispute between these two positions is usually resolved through a process of painful reflection: the first position is rejected as being unlikely and unrealistic, while the second is accepted as uncomfortable but necessary. (shrink)