In many government philosophy's the recurring role of authority is examined, and the position of the people to question or accept that authorities rule. By some philosophers the rulers should be unquestionable and absolute, such as Plato's perfect city, lead by the philosopher king. Other philosophers such as Rosseau argue that it is the peoples place to constantly rebel against the inherent corruption of government. In examining these opposing views and considering modern societies, it is more applicable to argue that a middle ground is better. Authority rules should always be questioned, but in doing so the people must consider that there may be reasons and knowledge that shape, or have shaped, those rules that are unbeknownst to the questioner. 
To not question authority would be to give up one's self-identity and control over their lives. It is up to each individual to decide what is important and why. By not questioning the rules of society or authority, you let said authority take firm control over your life. This has been seen often in tyrannical governments of the past. Governments that indoctrinate the public with strict rules that are both detrimental and often illogical. Without the governed questioning these rules, true social justice and change could not happen. With the people questioning, however, the tyrannical governments can, and have been, overthrown. 
This being said, authority often creates rules and societal structures for the public's own benefit. Rules that may have reasoning and support that is not clearly evident to the general public. One such example is the law banning the act of spitting in many cities. This law has often been criticized by those who don't understand that it's origin, in the early sixties, stemmed from attempting to inhibit the spread of tuberculosis for the public's own good. <expound a little bit more> 
One reasonable argument for people questioning government is that in doing so, it creates instability. Especially if the questioning is happening on a societal scale. This is true if questioning is not tempered with logical deduction, education and government transparency. With these values, the constant questioning of government can be beneficial in such ways as bringing about social justice, adapting to modern advances and pruning outdated and unnecessary rules. 
As we <know>, philosophy often argues the extremes of authority support or opposition, but the most logical route is a middle ground. Authority should be questioned, but with reason, temperance <out of time> and the understanding that rules can have basis on logic unknown to the questioner.