> authority figures were generally incompetent for the role they were fulfilling The problem is: who judges competency? If you make yourself the sole judge, yo

> authority figures were generally incompetent for the role they were fulfilling The problem is: who judges competency? If you make yourself the sole judge, you're setting yourself up as the authority (meta-authority?) which can seem "arbitrary and capricious" to others. I say this because I've been there. I almost got fired once for using the exact phrase "arbitrary and capricious" too many times in a big public meeting. I've had feelings like you describe, and it often led to unnecessary conflict. One thing that reduced that conflict was the recognition that calling people incompetent - and particularly saying so to their faces - was a form of escalation. It literally never helped. See: almost fired. > they behaved in arbitrary and capricious way I think this is the part that really matters. They behaved. Not were. As you say, rules have value. Rules can even provide a level of comfort, if they are well justified, if they are applied fairly and consistently. The problems come when people act like they have the unilateral right to change or reinterpret the rules. Doesn't work for them, or for you, or for me. The productive response IMO is not to pit self-assumed authority (or meta-authority) against self-assumed authority, but to focus on the rules and the system and what needs to happen regardless of who is in what position relative to those.