A Jailor has monopolized violence within his facility. He can then use force, systemically to further organize the facility to suit his interests.
Let’s say the Jailor is interested in testing the efficacy of two martial arts: Kung Fu versus Capoeira. He decrees that the two will face off in weekly tournaments, and that the winner will decide how much influence each group will have. Not everyone has to join a group but since the Jailor can use systemic force against all Charges, everyone has to suffer the consequences of the game. A Charge doesn’t have to play, but does have to participate. If a Charge wishes to influence the results, then he must join one of the two groups.
Perhaps the Jailor favors Capoeira over Kung Fu. He takes some rations from the Kung Fu members and gives those rations to the Capoeira members. After a week of doing this, Isaiah of the Kung Fu group abandons it for the Capoeira group to capitalize on the extra rations. Isaiah has just used the Jailor’s power to his favor. Isaiah then publicly acclaims the Jailor to further gain his favor. Other members of the Kung Fu group make similar decisions. Perhaps even some people do the reverse out of defiance of the Jailor’s power.
After a while, the two groups differ psychologically and in Action. One is more supportive of he who holds power over them.
An observer, Francis, then claims that Capoeira is inherently authoritarian and that Kung Fu is inherently rebellious based on the correlation now present between the groups and those actions. This is a flaw in thinking. The Jailor’s Action of taking from some and giving to others acts as a selection process. Individuals respond to the Act. Concepts like Capoeira and Kung Fu do not. An Individual can choose to conform to the current privileged Group and be servile to the Master. An individual can choose to be in the other Group, but is still conforming to the forced dichotomy the Jailer created. In both cases, the Individual chooses Authority.
On the other hand, an Individual can choose to rebel against the system of which he had no say in to begin with, in which case the Individual chooses Liberty.
How the Individual is Lost
The Jailor uses force. The Jailor fears force.
Individuals, especially influential Individuals, are a threat to the Jailor. Groups are another threat. He cannot both take from the influential (top) Individual to give to the (bottom) Group and simultaneously do the reverse. Thus, he must choose to curry favor with one or the other at any given moment.
Isaiah supports influential Individuals while Francis supports some Group. Isaiah submits. Francis conforms. Meanwhile, James views himself as unique and rejects both.
In terms of Action, Isaiah in his servility to the top, wishes for the Jailor to take (theft) rations from the bottom to give the top. If this occurs, a disparity will prevail between the bottom and the top, creating an Hierarchy. OTOH, Francis in his conformity to the Group, wishes for the Jailor to take rations from the top and give (entitlement) to the bottom. If this occurs repeatedly, the outcome for all will be the same, creating Uniformity. Thus, servility-theft leads to Hierarchy while conformity-entitlement leads to Uniformity.
Recall however, that the Jailor can only choose one of the two actions. Let’s say he chooses to curry favor with the Group. He then takes from the top and gives to the bottom. Isaiah the Servile and James the Unique do not like this. To both the Jailor the Powerful and his current favorite, Francis the Conforming, these two are opposition. The Jailor wants to maintain power and Francis wants Uniformity of the Group, and it is in their interests to not be convinced of the objections from Isaiah and James. To them, Isaiah and James are on the same team. In fact, they will appeal to their supporters by decrying the evils of the theft of the Servile - the taking from the bottom. While James supports neither, he is grouped into the ranks of Isaiah’s ilk nonetheless.
The very same would occur if Jailor the Powerful chose to instead curry favor with the top. The Jailor wants to maintain power and Isaiah wants subordinance to the Hierarchy. Francis and James are the opposition, even if James views all three as violators of his autonomy. The politically powerful will then decry the evils of the entitlement of the Conforming — the taking from the top. James’ individualism will be lost in the squabble once more.
In each case, the Jailor performs some act of authority and others resist. If the Jailor chooses the Group, then those who are servile will resist along with those who are unique. It is then in the Servile’s interest to appease the Unique. Thus, the servile appear to champion Liberty in their resistance to conformity. The resistance of one type of authoritarianism is not necessarily Liberty if one simply seeks the end of another type of authoritarianism. The use of Power acts like a filter. It is a selection process.
To maintain power, the Jailor cycles between appealing to servile-theft or conformity-entitlement, or what the modern public mistake as right and left. The selection process of wielding that power is what makes it appear as though the “right” cycles through authoritarian to liberty doctrines, and likewise for the “left”.