3 ms·

I think the Law of Power (basically, "might makes right") will run circles around any other "law" concept. Whether even this conforms to some "natural law" unde

I think the Law of Power (basically, "might makes right") will run circles around any other "law" concept. Whether even this conforms to some "natural law" underneath, is secondary IMHO.

lazide 3y ago
Yup. And underlying ‘might makes right’ is another even more basic one, ‘they who survive and reproduce wins’. Everything else gets layered on top, with more and more sophistication. Ethics and morals are attempts to encode various ideas of long term successful strategies for that longer term goal, to help counteract many of the shorter term incentives. But, like most ‘shoulds’, they are often just wishes by those disconnected from the actual reality on the ground or from those that have no ability to make them actually make sense. Local vs Global maxima perhaps? Or ideal vs reality? Or protective delusions? Or wisdom of the ages? Or tools to direct the median? Or longer term goals? For someone wiser than me to decide, I imagine.
- danbruc 3y ago
  The most basic law is the only law that can not be broken, the laws of physics. That is what might makes right is backed by, surviving and reproducing is what you get as the result of being able to inflict more violence on the other side than they can on you.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Eh, might makes right is in one scenario. Poisoning, betrayal, manipulation, propaganda, co-opting often work too. As many ‘strong men’ have learned to their detriment. Underlying it, those who survive will justify however they want, they’ll be the ones writing the history books.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      I meant that in the fundamental sense, that I can do whatever I want and nobody can stop me, as long as I have the most physical - in the sense of physics - power. The only thing that I can not do is force others to do things I want them to do, they can always decide to refuse and die. Poisons are just molecular bullets. Betrayal, manipulation, and propaganda, not sure how they would achieve anything if I have enough power.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Theoretically, sure. Though if you went that route, ultimately you might just be ruling over a pile of ashes no? Practically, how do you propose acquiring that power, or having anyone to rule over, that would not leave you vulnerable to all those other things I listed? As in, whatever power you have being used to serve someone elses interests instead of your own, or even be used to destroy you. Or your own basic needs being sabotaged behind your back to murder you. There is a reason why dictators and kings tend to have somewhat predictable endings, and it's rarely 'passing away peacefully in their sleep at a ripe old age'.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    > surviving and reproducing is what you get as the result of being able to inflict more violence on the other side than they can on you. This is a common misconception. A lot of surviving and reproducing is possible when you work together and cooperate. As King Pyrrhus found out the hard way fighting the Romans. Sure he initially succeeded in defeating a roman army or two. But you know what? Due to their superior organization skills, the Romans could just field another one. And another one. "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined"
    - lazide 3y ago
      Yup. Also the downfall of the Spartans. Excessive control and violence is almost always as losing a battle as excessive permissiveness/peace.
bee_rider 3y ago
“Might makes right” seems more like an observation of a particular instance in the feedback loop of building power. America is for example in a pretty strong position, but maintains power by doing diplomatic stuff. Being in some sense the leader of a big coalition of friendly countries (imagine if we had to force EU countries to accept our bases by violence, it is way cheaper to just be on friendly terms with them and pay a little rent). Being the world’s reserve currency. Setting up and having outsized influence in international organizations. That sort of stuff requires give-and-take diplomacy, cooperation, and setting up a system of international norms and laws that everyone at least pretends to respect. Might might make right, but a complex system of rules, conventions, laws, negotiations, reputations and even person-to-person relationships made quite some might. It’s sorta chicken and egg.
- civilitty 3y ago
  > Might might make right, but a complex system of rules, conventions, laws, negotiations, reputations and even person-to-person relationships made quite some might. It’s sorta chicken and egg. All of those systems are a response to “might makes right” and the history of violence with the ultimate conclusion in the trenches of WWI and WWII. Wars to decide whose might is rightest became so destructive in the modern era that we created all these complex systems of geopolitics - because few of us can stomach destroying a century of industrial progress to prove our might anymore. “Might make right” still dominates the interactions between unequal states.
- bitwize 3y ago
  It's called hegemony. Hegemony is just another form of dominance, as ultimately it's backed up by force of arms. Power flowing from the barrel of a gun and all that.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    The sort of economy required to build a top-tier military nowadays requires international trade and cooperation. If this sort of military force can’t be produced without a bunch of willing allies, then the force is just an intermediary step. It is constrained by the need to keep those allies willing. I’m not saying the world is all butterflies and roses, just pointing out that that constraint is real, and I think it is not really what people think of when they say “might.”

I think the Law of Power (basically, "might makes right") will run circles around any other "law" concept. Whether even this conforms to some "natural law" underneath, is secondary IMHO.

lazide 3y ago

Yup. And underlying ‘might makes right’ is another even more basic one, ‘they who survive and reproduce wins’. Everything else gets layered on top, with more and more sophistication. Ethics and morals are attempts to encode various ideas of long term successful strategies for that longer term goal, to help counteract many of the shorter term incentives. But, like most ‘shoulds’, they are often just wishes by those disconnected from the actual reality on the ground or from those that have no ability to make them actually make sense. Local vs Global maxima perhaps? Or ideal vs reality? Or protective delusions? Or wisdom of the ages? Or tools to direct the median? Or longer term goals? For someone wiser than me to decide, I imagine.

danbruc 3y ago
The most basic law is the only law that can not be broken, the laws of physics. That is what might makes right is backed by, surviving and reproducing is what you get as the result of being able to inflict more violence on the other side than they can on you.
- lazide 3y ago
  Eh, might makes right is in one scenario. Poisoning, betrayal, manipulation, propaganda, co-opting often work too. As many ‘strong men’ have learned to their detriment. Underlying it, those who survive will justify however they want, they’ll be the ones writing the history books.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    I meant that in the fundamental sense, that I can do whatever I want and nobody can stop me, as long as I have the most physical - in the sense of physics - power. The only thing that I can not do is force others to do things I want them to do, they can always decide to refuse and die. Poisons are just molecular bullets. Betrayal, manipulation, and propaganda, not sure how they would achieve anything if I have enough power.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Theoretically, sure. Though if you went that route, ultimately you might just be ruling over a pile of ashes no? Practically, how do you propose acquiring that power, or having anyone to rule over, that would not leave you vulnerable to all those other things I listed? As in, whatever power you have being used to serve someone elses interests instead of your own, or even be used to destroy you. Or your own basic needs being sabotaged behind your back to murder you. There is a reason why dictators and kings tend to have somewhat predictable endings, and it's rarely 'passing away peacefully in their sleep at a ripe old age'.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  > surviving and reproducing is what you get as the result of being able to inflict more violence on the other side than they can on you. This is a common misconception. A lot of surviving and reproducing is possible when you work together and cooperate. As King Pyrrhus found out the hard way fighting the Romans. Sure he initially succeeded in defeating a roman army or two. But you know what? Due to their superior organization skills, the Romans could just field another one. And another one. "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined"
  - lazide 3y ago
    Yup. Also the downfall of the Spartans. Excessive control and violence is almost always as losing a battle as excessive permissiveness/peace.

bee_rider 3y ago

“Might makes right” seems more like an observation of a particular instance in the feedback loop of building power. America is for example in a pretty strong position, but maintains power by doing diplomatic stuff. Being in some sense the leader of a big coalition of friendly countries (imagine if we had to force EU countries to accept our bases by violence, it is way cheaper to just be on friendly terms with them and pay a little rent). Being the world’s reserve currency. Setting up and having outsized influence in international organizations. That sort of stuff requires give-and-take diplomacy, cooperation, and setting up a system of international norms and laws that everyone at least pretends to respect. Might might make right, but a complex system of rules, conventions, laws, negotiations, reputations and even person-to-person relationships made quite some might. It’s sorta chicken and egg.

civilitty 3y ago
> Might might make right, but a complex system of rules, conventions, laws, negotiations, reputations and even person-to-person relationships made quite some might. It’s sorta chicken and egg. All of those systems are a response to “might makes right” and the history of violence with the ultimate conclusion in the trenches of WWI and WWII. Wars to decide whose might is rightest became so destructive in the modern era that we created all these complex systems of geopolitics - because few of us can stomach destroying a century of industrial progress to prove our might anymore. “Might make right” still dominates the interactions between unequal states.
bitwize 3y ago
It's called hegemony. Hegemony is just another form of dominance, as ultimately it's backed up by force of arms. Power flowing from the barrel of a gun and all that.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  The sort of economy required to build a top-tier military nowadays requires international trade and cooperation. If this sort of military force can’t be produced without a bunch of willing allies, then the force is just an intermediary step. It is constrained by the need to keep those allies willing. I’m not saying the world is all butterflies and roses, just pointing out that that constraint is real, and I think it is not really what people think of when they say “might.”