The Pseudo-independence of Being Anti-authority

Last week, a reader asked me to expand on a remark made in a post about those who are anti-authority:

Many of those opposed to getting vaccinated call those who are getting vaccinated “sheeple”—mindless individuals who do as they are told by public authorities. The underlying attitude is one of anti-authority and pseudo-independence.

In principle, opposing authorities merely because they are authorities is the same as mindlessly following authorities because they are authorities.

Both are examples of the fallacy of ad hominem. It is a claim that someone is wrong (or right) simply because he is in a position of authority, not because his statements contradict (or conform to) the facts of reality. Whether his statements are true or not is irrelevant to those who are anti-authority.

The anti-authority individual believes that he is an independent thinker because he will not go along with the crowd. But being anti-authority isn’t being an independent thinker. It is a rejection of thinking. Despite appearances, the anti-authority individual surrenders their own judgment to authorities. Ayn Rand identified the essence of this type of individual, which she called a second-hander:

They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?”

The anti-authority individual doesn’t judge the facts.  He uncritically rejects what the authorities say is true.

The flip side of the second-hander coin is the individual who relies on authorities to make decisions for him. As an example, many did not get vaccinated until the Food and Drug Administration issued its stamp of approval. Such individuals essentially declared that they are incapable of judging the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. They surrendered their own judgment to the authorities at the FDA because they aren’t willing to judge the facts for themselves.

Whether one rejects authorities out of hand or relies on authorities to make one’s choices, one has abdicated the responsibility of thinking. If one regards the statements of authorities as inherently false or as infallible, one has surrendered one’s own judgment to others.

An independent thinker does not reject statements out of hand. He judges the truth of a statement by whether it comports with the facts and what he knows to be true, not by the position of the speaker. An independent thinker examines the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. He integrates that evidence with other knowledge that he possesses. If, after a careful evaluation of the facts he reaches the same conclusion as the authorities, he is not a “sheeple.” He is an independent thinker.