4 ms·

A common logical fallacy is the false dichotomy of government vs. corporation. In modernity, there is no meaningful difference between the two. Power is a zero-

A common logical fallacy is the false dichotomy of government vs. corporation. In modernity, there is no meaningful difference between the two. Power is a zero-sum game. Both groups must increase its own power by decreasing the power of the individual it encounters. Both consume power from people in the form of money, labor, information, abstract freedom, and civil liberties. Ultimately both groups can become most successful by being hostile to humanity (as opposed to "promoting human progress"). Welcome to the Kali Yuga! The age in which down is up.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
"Power is a zero-sum game" doesn't sound right. You inspire people to do something, they create something. You chill their spirit so they are dissolute, you lose something. Definitely possible to create and destroy power.
- dalecooper 12y ago
  That's an excellent point. It would appear that the sum total of power ebbs and flows. In terms of power as expressed through its ostensible components (e.g. wealth, political strength, mechanical energy, etc.) this is certainly the case. However, power is a transferable abstract (like currency). If you frighten a population into paralysis, then you may appear to lose creativity, motivation, economic wealth, etc. However, those losses simply become the "cost" of "buying" different forms of power.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    'However, those losses simply become the "cost" of "buying" different forms of power.' I don't think we can assume those are equal (or even of the same magnitude).
pcrh 12y ago
Not quite. Corporations don't have the power to imprison (or in the US, execute) you.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I find this unpersuasive. The typical person is justified in believing that the government has no interest in imprisoning or executing them. They are entirely justified in having a greater fear of private parties.
  - pcrh 12y ago
    Governments imprison people for minor perceived infractions of the law every day of the week.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      At least in the U.S., you have to pretty clearly violate the law in order to be imprisoned. You may think the law is stupid, but that's a different matter. You have less margin if you're a racial or political minority, but by definition that's not something the typical person has to worry about.[1] Indeed, in the U.S., the law adjusts pretty rapidly to what the typical person thinks should be acceptable. E.g. in the last couple of years we've gone from a majority of people thinking marijuana should be illegal to a (slight) majority thinking it should be legal (http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports...), and lo, there has been a wave of legalization activity around the country in the same time frame. [1] I don't think people have the correct perception of how oppression works in a democracy. The line between the FBI trying to get MLK to commit suicide and the FBI imprisoning random middle-class white Americans is a lot bolder than people assume. I think the misunderstanding stems from a failure to appreciate the nature of oppressive government actions within a democracy. It's not like oppression of civil rights leaders in the 1950's and 1960's was the result of a self-contained entity within government, who could turn its attention to ordinary people at a whim. Instead, it was a classic case of the majority oppressing the minority, acting through government. Oppression of the majority requires an inversion of that power dynamic, and I think is harder to achieve than people assume. This is all, of course, not to justify oppression of the minority. Rather, it's to point out that your typical person is quite justified in assuming the government has little reason to oppress him.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

"Power is a zero-sum game" doesn't sound right. You inspire people to do something, they create something. You chill their spirit so they are dissolute, you lose something. Definitely possible to create and destroy power.

dalecooper 12y ago
That's an excellent point. It would appear that the sum total of power ebbs and flows. In terms of power as expressed through its ostensible components (e.g. wealth, political strength, mechanical energy, etc.) this is certainly the case. However, power is a transferable abstract (like currency). If you frighten a population into paralysis, then you may appear to lose creativity, motivation, economic wealth, etc. However, those losses simply become the "cost" of "buying" different forms of power.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  'However, those losses simply become the "cost" of "buying" different forms of power.' I don't think we can assume those are equal (or even of the same magnitude).

pcrh 12y ago

Not quite. Corporations don't have the power to imprison (or in the US, execute) you.

rayiner 12y ago
I find this unpersuasive. The typical person is justified in believing that the government has no interest in imprisoning or executing them. They are entirely justified in having a greater fear of private parties.
- pcrh 12y ago
  Governments imprison people for minor perceived infractions of the law every day of the week.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    At least in the U.S., you have to pretty clearly violate the law in order to be imprisoned. You may think the law is stupid, but that's a different matter. You have less margin if you're a racial or political minority, but by definition that's not something the typical person has to worry about.[1] Indeed, in the U.S., the law adjusts pretty rapidly to what the typical person thinks should be acceptable. E.g. in the last couple of years we've gone from a majority of people thinking marijuana should be illegal to a (slight) majority thinking it should be legal (http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports...), and lo, there has been a wave of legalization activity around the country in the same time frame. [1] I don't think people have the correct perception of how oppression works in a democracy. The line between the FBI trying to get MLK to commit suicide and the FBI imprisoning random middle-class white Americans is a lot bolder than people assume. I think the misunderstanding stems from a failure to appreciate the nature of oppressive government actions within a democracy. It's not like oppression of civil rights leaders in the 1950's and 1960's was the result of a self-contained entity within government, who could turn its attention to ordinary people at a whim. Instead, it was a classic case of the majority oppressing the minority, acting through government. Oppression of the majority requires an inversion of that power dynamic, and I think is harder to achieve than people assume. This is all, of course, not to justify oppression of the minority. Rather, it's to point out that your typical person is quite justified in assuming the government has little reason to oppress him.