It's easy to tack on the word "inherent" here, but it's misused. There's nothing inherently suspicious about authority. The Zeitgeist, though, is so strong that it's difficult to think of counterexamples, and easy to believe that how you perceive it now is how it's always been.
While it is ultimately a matter of opinion and personal judgment, mine disagrees with yours.
I do find authority to be inherently suspicious, because it substitutes use of force for the use of rationality, and usually only for the sake of the authority-haver's personal convenience.
If you are correct, and can prove it, no authority is required. Otherwise the authority, if available, is inevitably used to win by rhetorical distraction rather than by the strength of the reasoning. And a swat on the noggin with a baton is very distracting indeed. As they say, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.
That's not to say authority is useless. It is often the only way to achieve timely results. But is is no less suspicious, and should always be ratified by a deliberative, non-authoritative process.
I have no idea what you're saying, so I'll just add to my point. Did authority originate as 'the people' purposefully vesting some of their power into one or more leaders, in order to organize society more effectively? Or is that how we post-rationalize the state we're born into?
