The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority

Human is naturally gregarious. Human lives together with others, and when people started to live in clusters, the hierarchy naturally formed. In order to enhance the function of the community, some people acquire authority. However, many side effects are entailed by the authorities. Some argue that in order for a society to be well-functioning, the engagement of the layperson is necessary. Without checking those in power, the welfare of society can not be obtained. Expanding on this convention is the statement on society's wellbeing and people's function and their questions on authorities. Though I acknowledge that the extreme case for the statement might not hold true, I mostly agree with the statement. [Though any absolute claim should be perused with suspicion, I mostly agree with the statement.]

One could suppose that the questioning can result in disobedience of rules and regulation, thus leads to chaos in society. Tales often have it that when laborers of a company often unite to challenge those in power, lots of drawbacks become tangible. The laborers' strike ultimately puts at halt of production and diverts otherwise productive attention of society to negotiation, damaging the social welfare as a whole. In other words, people disobeying their authority vehemently enfeebles the society for their own interest, not pondering the social damages. What is more, society can go further to the lawlessness as it was. In this light, rather than skepticism, firm belief in their authorities' decision may be required to guarantee the well-being of society.

Nonetheless, my view is that for social progress, society should put up with the abovementioned damages caused by questioning the authorities. As an old proverb says, "the failure is a father of success". In order for a society to progress and become more sturdy, robust, and even well-established, the society should endure ongoing change and disputes. The examples above reveal that when many people question the authorities, only disruption is followed. Disruption, however, is a precursor of progress. Consider the rise of Democracy in South Korea during the 1980s. Before the 1980s, the South Korea president have domineering power over the citizen, which forfeited the layperson of most freedom. Evidently, some citizens followed the authority and take those persistently questioning the power as "society's carcinogen". However, people were tenacious enough to make Korea truly "Democratic" by questioning the authorities and the spring of democracy eventually followed. In this way, doubting the authorities can be beneficial for society, as it enhances the motivation, civic engagement, and accountability of people for their society. As a result of such participation, the goals and practices of society are re-examined.

In support of the statement above, a society's well-being can be at risk when people do not question the authority. The privileged person are easily corrupted, and they are prone to serve self-interest and abuse their authority for their own rather than for society. On reflection of the example of Adolf Hitler, a prior governor of Nacchi reveals the possibility of corruption. Without being pre-empted by the Deutch, he continuously chases his own interest, which led to the great havoc, World War 2. If he readily accepted the criticism and addressed the doubt about the policy from the society member, why would he keep adhere to the destructive ideas? The injustices may be perpetrated by authorities that rationalized and even legitimized such exploitations. It follows, then many people must keep the authorities on their toes so that they can design and implement works that actually advance the overall good, not their private good.
In all, the statement on the relationship between society's well-being and its people's active check of the authorities earns my support.