Somewhere between the scary terror of uncertainty and the stagnating grey of certainty exists a place where “freedom” reigns.
Whatever actions demonstrate unfavorably in these categories will tend to be the types of actions that undermine individual and free association autonomy.
Wherever instability, uncertainty, risk, unpredictability reigns, authoritarian solutions become more palatable to an ever-increasing majority aggregate preferences within that given community.
This is not to suggest ‘we’ should seek to eliminate instability, uncertainty, risk, unpredictability, it is only to note that, at some point, ever-increasing states of instability, etc begin to become fecund ground for a multitude of authoritarian voices, offering grand salvation plans from the pain and suffering (real and/or imagined) of the world today.
A world with no risk and no uncertainty ( a world that, I believe, can only exist in a fiction of the mind) would also create a fecund ground for authority, an authority that can claim the mantle of such certainty.
The claims of non-risk and certainty will naturally be belied by reality, which spits in the face of such foolish notions. It will need special spooks with great powers to assure the veil is maintained, spooks like charismatic ladies and lads with grand titles, or sacred texts, be they deistic or based on ‘reason.’
Those who wish to maintain control must navigate between too much certainty (a fecund ground for the controllers) and not enough certainty (also a fecund ground for the controllers, usually a time when they want to fundamentally alter the behaviors of the people they control).
Yet, even as they are in the pitch of one or the other extreme, they must also yet contain an element of the other.
In times of behavioral modification continuation (in which the certainty myth is the most prevalent myth of that time), the controllers still need a measure of examples of the absolute extreme opposite of certainty, complete uncertainty, complete risk.
The same is true in opposite during times of great behavioral modification change, the controllers must still have a measure of infallibility that can only come with the myth of certainty.
The worst place for people to be, as far as controllers are concerned, is to exist somewhere more or less in the middle between complete certainty and total uncertainty.
Among individuals, those that have demonstrated reasons for one another to assign such qualities to one another will have the ability to exist between certainty and uncertainty, to exist in a place where, primarily, you assess what is directly in front of you, based on what that tells you, not based on whatever particular faction you might place people in.
You may be uncertain about human behavior, but you can have a measure of certainty that if you act in a certain way with this person, you can rely on a certain, more or less predictable, response back.
The opportunities for conflict are reduced (not eliminated) through a measure of an assumption of integrity and trust that is born not from the fear of a gun, but from the observations of another individual’s direct actions in your life.
In short, fully-informed, freely participating interactions between people who have an expectation of trust based on their mostly consistent demonstration of being a trustful person will feel the need to appeal to authority, either for more or less certainty, to achieve what they are already achieving without bringing the state into the conversation.