3 ms·

I've been saying this for years: the more power you have the higher standard you should be held in. In most societies on the planet it's the other way around.

colordrops 11mo ago
Everyone agrees with this obviously but it's like saying that we should be able to levitate or live in utopia. It's almost a law of nature that the types that become powerful are not your most savory individuals and will use the power to reinforce their positions.
- tjwebbnorfolk 11mo ago
  This is obviously true, but people will downvote it because they don't like it.
- Ar-Curunir 11mo ago
  You're talking like society hasn't changed power structures over the years. How things are is not some unchangeable physical law.
  - colordrops 11mo ago
    I never said it was a physical law, hence the word "almost". Just saying it's a strong trend. Why is everyone so literal here?
- xmprt 11mo ago
  > It's almost a law of nature We have tons of different systems for accumulating power all over the world. Corporate structures, democracy vs autocracy, etc. In each of those societies, we see different types of leaders on a sliding scale of savoriness. My point is that clearly there are some forms of governance which result in more savory people and so you can argue that it's the systems that define the outcomes rather than any "law of nature".
- martin-t 11mo ago
  It's a law of nature that they will _try_.[0] That's why people should always have ways of defending themselves, whether it's with courts or guns. [0]: This is not a figure of speech - many anti-social traits which result in NPD, ASPD and their subclinical versions[1] are genetic. There is literal evolutionary pressure to exploit others. [1]: Meaning the trait is sufficiently pronounced to be harmful to others but not enough to be harmful to the person having it so it's not diagnosed as a disorder.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  No, not everyone agrees. A LOT a people buy into "oh but they're a really important person, they should be made extra allowances".
logicchains 11mo ago
> In most societies on the planet it's the other way around. Obviously, because the ones with power make the laws.
martin-t 11mo ago
I've been saying this too but lately I think the fundamental notion of power is wrong. There's 2 perspectives which are 2 sides of the same coin: --- All social relationships should be consensual. This means based on _fully-informed_ consent which can be revoked at any time. This already marks employment as exploitative because one side of the negotiation has more information and therefore more bargaining power. Not to mention having more money gives them more power in a myriad of other ways (can spend more on vetting you, can spend more on advertising the position than you can on advertising your skills). Just imagine if people actually had more power than corporations - you'd put up an ad listing your skills, companies would contact you with offers and you'd interview them. Citizenship is also exploitative because you didn't willingly sign a contract exchanging money (taxes) for services (protection, healthcare, roads, ...), in most countries you can't even choose which services you want to pay for. And if you stop paying, they'll send people with guns to attack you. This sounds overdramatic (because it's so normalized) until you realize from first principles that is exactly what it is. _If democracy is supposed to mean people rule themselves, than politicians should be servants which can be fired at any time._ In fact, in a real democracy, people would vote on important laws directly and only outsource the voting to their servants about laws which don't affect them much, or they'd simply abstain. --- Power should come from the majority. This should naturally be true because all real-world power comes from violence and more people can apply more violence (or threaten it, when violence is sufficiently probable to be effective, it usually does not need to be applied, the other side surrenders). But people who are driven to power have been very good at putting together hierarchical power structures where at each level the power differential is sufficiently small that the lower side does not need to revolt against the upper side. But when you look at the ends, the power differential is huge. Not just dictators, "presidents" or presidents but "owners" and "executives" too. You don't truly own something you can't physically defend. When you as a worker finish a product, you literally have it in your hands. You could hand it over to a salesman and you'd both agree on how to split the money from selling it. But instead, you hand it over to the company (by proxy its owner) which sells it and gives you your monthly wage irrespective of how much the product made. The company being free to fire you or stop making the product obviously makes more money then you - it's an exploitative relationship. But why do you hand it over? Because if you don't, they'll tell the state and it'll send people with guns to attack you. --- Bottom line is if people had equal bargaining power ("equality"), then if they chose to temporarily give "power" to someone in one area, they'd obviously take away their "power" is some other area. Why? Because they'd know if they didn't, the more powerful person would use this power differential to get even more power, and so on, starting the runaway loop we have here now.

colordrops 11mo ago

Everyone agrees with this obviously but it's like saying that we should be able to levitate or live in utopia. It's almost a law of nature that the types that become powerful are not your most savory individuals and will use the power to reinforce their positions.

tjwebbnorfolk 11mo ago
This is obviously true, but people will downvote it because they don't like it.
Ar-Curunir 11mo ago
You're talking like society hasn't changed power structures over the years. How things are is not some unchangeable physical law.
- colordrops 11mo ago
  I never said it was a physical law, hence the word "almost". Just saying it's a strong trend. Why is everyone so literal here?
xmprt 11mo ago
> It's almost a law of nature We have tons of different systems for accumulating power all over the world. Corporate structures, democracy vs autocracy, etc. In each of those societies, we see different types of leaders on a sliding scale of savoriness. My point is that clearly there are some forms of governance which result in more savory people and so you can argue that it's the systems that define the outcomes rather than any "law of nature".
martin-t 11mo ago
It's a law of nature that they will _try_.[0] That's why people should always have ways of defending themselves, whether it's with courts or guns. [0]: This is not a figure of speech - many anti-social traits which result in NPD, ASPD and their subclinical versions[1] are genetic. There is literal evolutionary pressure to exploit others. [1]: Meaning the trait is sufficiently pronounced to be harmful to others but not enough to be harmful to the person having it so it's not diagnosed as a disorder.
ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
No, not everyone agrees. A LOT a people buy into "oh but they're a really important person, they should be made extra allowances".

logicchains 11mo ago

> In most societies on the planet it's the other way around. Obviously, because the ones with power make the laws.

martin-t 11mo ago

I've been saying this too but lately I think the fundamental notion of power is wrong. There's 2 perspectives which are 2 sides of the same coin: --- All social relationships should be consensual. This means based on _fully-informed_ consent which can be revoked at any time. This already marks employment as exploitative because one side of the negotiation has more information and therefore more bargaining power. Not to mention having more money gives them more power in a myriad of other ways (can spend more on vetting you, can spend more on advertising the position than you can on advertising your skills). Just imagine if people actually had more power than corporations - you'd put up an ad listing your skills, companies would contact you with offers and you'd interview them. Citizenship is also exploitative because you didn't willingly sign a contract exchanging money (taxes) for services (protection, healthcare, roads, ...), in most countries you can't even choose which services you want to pay for. And if you stop paying, they'll send people with guns to attack you. This sounds overdramatic (because it's so normalized) until you realize from first principles that is exactly what it is. _If democracy is supposed to mean people rule themselves, than politicians should be servants which can be fired at any time._ In fact, in a real democracy, people would vote on important laws directly and only outsource the voting to their servants about laws which don't affect them much, or they'd simply abstain. --- Power should come from the majority. This should naturally be true because all real-world power comes from violence and more people can apply more violence (or threaten it, when violence is sufficiently probable to be effective, it usually does not need to be applied, the other side surrenders). But people who are driven to power have been very good at putting together hierarchical power structures where at each level the power differential is sufficiently small that the lower side does not need to revolt against the upper side. But when you look at the ends, the power differential is huge. Not just dictators, "presidents" or presidents but "owners" and "executives" too. You don't truly own something you can't physically defend. When you as a worker finish a product, you literally have it in your hands. You could hand it over to a salesman and you'd both agree on how to split the money from selling it. But instead, you hand it over to the company (by proxy its owner) which sells it and gives you your monthly wage irrespective of how much the product made. The company being free to fire you or stop making the product obviously makes more money then you - it's an exploitative relationship. But why do you hand it over? Because if you don't, they'll tell the state and it'll send people with guns to attack you. --- Bottom line is if people had equal bargaining power ("equality"), then if they chose to temporarily give "power" to someone in one area, they'd obviously take away their "power" is some other area. Why? Because they'd know if they didn't, the more powerful person would use this power differential to get even more power, and so on, starting the runaway loop we have here now.