4 ms·

I still don’t think it is a zero sum game, persay, but that is a good point about entrenched nobility. Even then the problem is are they exploitative, or are th

I still don’t think it is a zero sum game, persay, but that is a good point about entrenched nobility. Even then the problem is are they exploitative, or are they generous. Then having power is only bad if they are evil. But fortune and chance will affect all, some will rise up, and some will fall down. I think as a whole the economic pie would grow if all of us strove that our families might become nobility.

wpietri 5y ago
No, power over others is intrinsically bad, as it's the ability to force people to do things whether or not they think it's what they should be doing. Sometimes it's necessary to prevent further harm, of course. So we should always be seeking to limit and diminish power differentials in society. If you disagree, you can demonstrate your commitment by giving me unlimited power of attorney. I'll use that to your assets and income to my accounts and I'll give you back whatever's truly best for you. I am obviously good, so you can trust me on this.
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  Power over others is not intrinsically bad. It is an utter fact of nature. In some sense having power over others is neutral. What is also true is there are those who are weak. And everyone will have some little power at least, and some amount of weakness. While Marx thinks it is only used to oppress, that is just what he would do with it. I’d say for every person there is an amount of power they can wield for good, and past that they will use it to oppress. The most wicked can’t even use their smallest bits of power for good. The best of us at some point would start to use our power to oppress. There is no neutral ground though, you will use your power (be it physical, emotional, sociological, spiritual), to oppress the weak, or to lift them up. Because in order to have power in one area (e.g. you’re highly educated, speak well, or wealthy), there is someone else who must be weak (uneducated, stammers, or poor). To say power is intrinsically bad, is to say being weak is intrinsically bad, because being weak means someone else has power over you. “blessed are the meek” is true, but that is because someone powerful took the side of the weak, and defends them. The problem today is we have a ruling aristocracy, and they’re not noble and good, but oppressive and evil.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    What you are indulging in here is the naturalistic fallacy, aka the is-ought fallacy. What's natural tells us nothing about what's good. Tuberculosis is natural. Tooth decay is natural. If you believe what's natural is what's good, go hang out with people coughing their lungs out. Stop brushing your teeth. Refuse to take antibiotics. Have your next of kin let me know how long you survive in your immersion in utter facts of nature. Similarly, if you think power over people is good, prove it. Send me all your money. Sign a power of attorney. I'm good, I promise. (You also have a lot of fantasies about intrinsic goodness/badness. That may work in particularly Manichean novels involving wizards and whatnot. But please recognize that's the inside of your head leaking out, and not what's actually happening in the world.)
    - mostertoaster 5y ago
      What makes us humans as opposed to mere animals, is that we are not ruled by nature. Power exists naturally, the lion will tear apart the gazelle, chimpanzees will engage in cannibalism, it’s our humanness that allows what is natural to also be good. We should not devolve into nihilism, we should reach for what is good. Those stories are the way we describe what some material thing is doing. They most certainly exist and not just in my head, they’re just not material.
    - mostertoaster 5y ago
      I didn’t say power over people is good. I said it is natural. Of nature. Good is not of nature. Power over people can be used for good, and can be used for evil. I would give all my money to that which is good. Where do you think goodness comes from? You said it is not from nature? So you believe things exist outside of the material world?

wpietri 5y ago

No, power over others is intrinsically bad, as it's the ability to force people to do things whether or not they think it's what they should be doing. Sometimes it's necessary to prevent further harm, of course. So we should always be seeking to limit and diminish power differentials in society. If you disagree, you can demonstrate your commitment by giving me unlimited power of attorney. I'll use that to your assets and income to my accounts and I'll give you back whatever's truly best for you. I am obviously good, so you can trust me on this.

mostertoaster 5y ago
Power over others is not intrinsically bad. It is an utter fact of nature. In some sense having power over others is neutral. What is also true is there are those who are weak. And everyone will have some little power at least, and some amount of weakness. While Marx thinks it is only used to oppress, that is just what he would do with it. I’d say for every person there is an amount of power they can wield for good, and past that they will use it to oppress. The most wicked can’t even use their smallest bits of power for good. The best of us at some point would start to use our power to oppress. There is no neutral ground though, you will use your power (be it physical, emotional, sociological, spiritual), to oppress the weak, or to lift them up. Because in order to have power in one area (e.g. you’re highly educated, speak well, or wealthy), there is someone else who must be weak (uneducated, stammers, or poor). To say power is intrinsically bad, is to say being weak is intrinsically bad, because being weak means someone else has power over you. “blessed are the meek” is true, but that is because someone powerful took the side of the weak, and defends them. The problem today is we have a ruling aristocracy, and they’re not noble and good, but oppressive and evil.
- wpietri 5y ago
  What you are indulging in here is the naturalistic fallacy, aka the is-ought fallacy. What's natural tells us nothing about what's good. Tuberculosis is natural. Tooth decay is natural. If you believe what's natural is what's good, go hang out with people coughing their lungs out. Stop brushing your teeth. Refuse to take antibiotics. Have your next of kin let me know how long you survive in your immersion in utter facts of nature. Similarly, if you think power over people is good, prove it. Send me all your money. Sign a power of attorney. I'm good, I promise. (You also have a lot of fantasies about intrinsic goodness/badness. That may work in particularly Manichean novels involving wizards and whatnot. But please recognize that's the inside of your head leaking out, and not what's actually happening in the world.)
  - mostertoaster 5y ago
    What makes us humans as opposed to mere animals, is that we are not ruled by nature. Power exists naturally, the lion will tear apart the gazelle, chimpanzees will engage in cannibalism, it’s our humanness that allows what is natural to also be good. We should not devolve into nihilism, we should reach for what is good. Those stories are the way we describe what some material thing is doing. They most certainly exist and not just in my head, they’re just not material.
  - mostertoaster 5y ago
    I didn’t say power over people is good. I said it is natural. Of nature. Good is not of nature. Power over people can be used for good, and can be used for evil. I would give all my money to that which is good. Where do you think goodness comes from? You said it is not from nature? So you believe things exist outside of the material world?