justice

Authority, like a vector, has two properties: magnitude and direction. The magnitude of authority is proportional to the limits on individual freedom. The magnitude may range from anarchy to totalitarianism (chaos / order). All viable regimes fall somewhere between these idealized states. The ideal magnitude of authority for any given regime cannot be known in advance; it must be experimentally determined.

The direction of authority describes the degree to which popular sovereignty is considered a legitimate basis for the exercise of power. If power flows down from on high, the will of the people is irrelevant. Conversely, if a regime may only rule by consent of the governed, a lack of consent for any reason (e.g. instigated by subversive information warfare by hostile actors) produces anarchy, neutralizing the regime. As above, all viable regimes strike a balance between the will of the people (democracy, republicanism) and rule from above (panel of experts, time-honored tradition, divine will).

A regime that properly balances the magnitude of authority is effective in establishing order while permitting dissent, a necessary and useful input for error correction. A regime that properly balances the direction of authority fulfills the "conservative" moral foundations of hierarchy and loyalty while also satisfying the "liberal" foundations of caring for the poor and marginalized as well as allowing a modicum of potentially subversive expression (philosophy, art). Consider the term "Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" an attempt at such a balance.

An excess of free expression corrodes the ability of the regime to govern just as much as does an excess of heavy-handed paternalism. Ultimately, the balancing act of maintaining the magnitude and direction of authority is the pursuit of justice. There is no universally acceptable regime blueprint; all human societies must develop over time (potentially centuries) to establish this equilibrium.