He defends the non-normative legitimacy of non-liberal authorities, both charismatic figures and the
authority held by tradition. In 1862, he writes an essay in which he lauds the victory of Cavaignac over the socialists, “of the monarchical principle over the republic” and then the coup d’etat of Napoleon III in 1851, which Nietzsche justifies on the basis of his charismatic authority. Nietzsche privileges the authority exercised by concrete individuals as opposed to the liberal rule of abstract normativity.

He sees parliamentary democracy on the rise in Germany and this has meant a weakening of the authority of the executive state. In turn, this constitutes a grave impediment for the advancement of culture. A well-ordered state is one which places itself at the service of culture and does not step beyond this ancillary role. It is clear that Nietzsche is not critical of a state that strongly promotes culture.

The democratic state, grounded in popular consent, cannot aspire to develop a true culture. An aristocratic state is required for that purpose, a state whose matrix is a superhuman executive authority, a figure of divine proportions that can grant legitimacy to state authority.

Slaves are instruments par excellence and a society that appreciates culture must necessarily be a slave society. Such a society requires a state that sponsors an ethics of command and obedience. The state must remain in the service of an aristocratic society and culture, and serves as an “iron clamp” to establish and preserve the institution of slavery.

Nietzsche believes socialism is to be blamed for undermining the foundations of a healthy ethics of entrepreneurship. The captains of industry no longer seek to cultivate and heighten their superiority, and have thus lost their noble manners. Military society has yielded to an industrial society which shuns the ethics of command and obedience. Present-day workers understandably perceive their bosses as “clever, bloodsucking dogs, who exploit their needs, and whose name, figure, habits and reputation are indifferent to them”.

One may obey or disobey the commands of the will to power. Those who disobey will end up being commanded, and those who obey will be commanders. The will to power is not merely a drive for self-transcendence in pursuit of self-perfection; it also articulates an interpersonal relationship that involves command and obedience.

This marks Nietzsche’s determination not to ground the legitimacy of state authority on contractual formalities. At the same time, he defends other forms of authority as legitimate – charismatic authority and traditional authority.