LibriumArcana.Games

In my social anthropology class we're studying power relations, which brought an interesting question for me.

Do you view power as a good thing or a bad thing? Is it fundamentally good or bad to be powerful? Is power corrupting or not?

I'm gonna ask that for the 1st page (yes I'm being hopeful) you don't start slashing at each other but instead just outline your view and vote. After that consider yourselves at weapons free.

As always I ask your forgiveness for any spelling errors and thank you for your time.

*picks a political position at random and votes for neutral*
Power over people can be used for positive and negative results(I'll avoid the terms good/evil for this discussion).

Because I view both "left" and "right" as two sides of the same coin, I term myself a centralist. Because of that view, I view power as an inherently neutral commodity, in much the same way that drugs and alcohol (for example) are neutral - as long as it is viewed with caution and forethought when used, it can be neutral or even positive. If it is (ab)used, then just like with other common vices (listed above), it can become a true danger to the wielder of that power and those around him/her.

Power is an amplifier. It accentuates the visibility and effect of what you put into it. We say that "Power corrupts" because most people are in some way corrupt (I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds), and when given power, it makes their corrupt aspects more visible (as it does with everything). People's extremes, for good or ill, show up so much more readily when power is applied, like a match thrown into a puddle of gasoline.

People are what they are. Power magnifies them in all their glory and gluttony.

Power does corrupt, which is why democratic political systems, which place restraints and accountability (with varying degrees of success) on their leaders suck much less than other systems. Power is also necessary to succeed at any large scale projects, especially those in the public interest (railroads, health care systems, etcetera). It is therefore both necessary to possess and to watch carefully.

Power in itself is not a good or bad thing, but rather something that enables people to do good or bad things. People themselves have fundamental self-serving natures and when you give them power, they're more likely to act on their impulses.

As others have already assessed, power is neither inherently good nor bad.
The problems start when the wrong people get that power. People are a lot more likely to behave when they DON'T have the means to cover up their misbehaviours.

I don't think the left/right political spectrum is a particularly valid way of measuring the sum of all human opinion, but the tests for it put me as a centrist, so...

I view concentrated power as a general negative. I use the term concentrated because not all power is bad; distributed power, as in a federalist, republican form of government, is a necessity in securing the rights of individuals against anarchy and the tyranny of the majority.

Government power should be a limited thing; it is the function of government to secure the rights of the citizens. A public servant should remember that he is exactly that; his power flows from the citizens and is his to wield in service of those citizens. This is too easily forgotten, so power must be distributed, rather than concentrated in one man or council.

I don't think the left/right political spectrum is a particularly valid way of measuring the sum of all human opinion, but the tests for it put me as a centrist, so...

I'll explain a bit here. While the left/right political spectrum may be fatally flawed it is for the moment what we got. No one has really come up with a better shorthand.

As for why it's in the poll, I want to see if there is any relation between political position and view of power, as a number of writers have suggested. While LA is not representative of the greater population of any nation, it gives me a good place to start.

I consider myself to be left of center overall, and I view power as something which, while very useful, needs safeguards and checks prevent its abuse. In a vacuum, power is neither good nor bad; its goodness or badness comes from its use or abuse.

I went ahead and called power a good thing. Without someone in power, nothing gets done. If individuals don't have some power of their own, nothing gets done. In a world where nothing gets done, life sucks.

I'm extremely liberal, and moderately left wing on most things. (Depending on where you think the center is. For France I'm extremely right wing, for the US I'm a crazy Left winger, for Canada, I'm a liberal ).

As for power, it can serve for "good" and "evil". Governments with great power (USSR, Mao, dictatorships) can cause horrifying damage (Left wing governments have caused more deaths via starvation than the right).
In the right, competent hands power can cause great benefits, but it can cuase even greater damage.

So, despite my love for power, and desire for it, and how much I dream of gaining it, I'll say power is neutral.

I put myself as a centralist who believes that power is neutral.

Politically I hold views that are simultaneously right and left and libertarian and what have you, so it's hard to pin things down. I would probably count as loonie-right in Norway if I tried explaining all my views, but in America I'd be a very liberal Republican or a slightly conservative Democrat.

As for power I think power is neutral, it's not just that it can be used for good and evil, but I don't think power corrupts. I think power magnifies. Simply put many people have serious flaws, most people in fact have qualities that are undesirable. However in a normal person they're not necessarily obvious, because there's little a normal person can do to act on his negative impulses. Likewise the truly good and noble may stand out for being active in the local community, or being a "square dealer" but there's little opportunity for them to act out their ideas either. When you give a man power you magnify him for better or for worse, but you don't change him or corrupt him.

Posting rather than getting B&:

I consider myself left-of-center and on the whole, I view power as a negative quality. Power will always corrupt, because people will always use that power to establish an evolutionary advantage at the expense of others; one can think of power as an extended phenotype.

It's a bit like pinnipeds such as Sea Lions, where one male establishes exclusive mating rights over the group, excluding the others. Power equals survival and reproduction, and those who have slightly less perish (Stalin and Trotsky may be a good example of this too).

I think egalitarianism should be the goal rather than concentration of power for any reason.

First off, let me preface this thing with the following statement: I find it more then a bit ironic that the creator of a thread discussing the corruptive or non-corruptive nature of power in those who hold it used power(actual or percieved, you be the judge) to try to manipulate and influence, not one, but two administrators of this board into doing what he required.

Now, personally I'm neither right nor left as I personally think both of them are wrong and outdated concepts that have hurt this country more in the recent past then helped. So I guess that makes me a centralist though I always vote Cthulhu.

As for the nature of power, it is a corruptive and negative thing, for the most part. Very few people are capable of holding power, real power, and not in some way succumbing to it. Real power, the type of power that lets one change lives and influence great things, leads to things that cause this: Entitlement, an enlarged ego, a newfound sense of invulnerability, amongst others.

Now, remember, I have said that I don't believe that this happens to everyone. Agnes Bojaxhiu proved this. However, it is a very common thing, with varying ranges of effect. For instance, your average CEO, president, VP, high up muckity-muck of Corp X is more likely to cheat on their spouses then middle-management drone Zed. They've risen to the top of their private little work world, and now rest among the 'elite.' They begin to see themselves as untouchable. This, eventually, begins to leak over into their private lives as well. That same bulletproof mentality gives them the belief that they can't be caught or found out with that cute 19 year old secretary from accounting in the hotel room.

Again, this isn't always the case, but it seems to me that those with it throughout history have always become tarnished by holding it in some fashion. Granted, nobody is perfect(except me) and people fuck up, however they seem more inclined to do things they otherwise would never have done once they have that bit of power.

So this leads to a question: are those who are the most succeptible to the corruption and influence of power more likely to rise to obtain it? Why?

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

There is a slight problem in trying to put myself somewhere in the left/right spectrum. Since I do not believe in universal solutions, my specific political beliefs are highly dependent upon the time and place they are being applied to. Things like degree of ethno-cultural homogeneity, size of the State, geo-political situation, socio-economic factors, cultural factors, and resource situation, can make my political views vary dramatically. I could very well promote a decentralized autocracy in one place, and a centralized semi-direct democracy in another. Though there are things that remain constant, for example, I almost always favour government programs that feed and house the poor, and the same for government policies that treat separatists like a plague of undead. I think the sum of it all makes me a leftist more than anything, but, again, it is not the whole story.

As to my thoughts of power, well they aren't particularly developed, but I'll (briefly) share what I have. Firstly, though, I wish to note that I understand "power" to mean a hierarchical structure within a group wherein successively higher steps give people a greater ability to influence the affairs of the whole. Do not take that definition too seriously, I came up with it on the fly. My thoughts on the matter follow.

I see power as something that naturally arises when a human population is too large to function as a commune. How large is too large? More than about 150 people. All social mammals have an 'ideal' group size, which is basically as large as it can get without it collapsing under its own weight, and 150 is ours. When a group grows larger than that, it will inevitably either split or spontaneously form a hierarchical power structure. It is the availability of this second option that makes civilization possible, without it we would still be a few scattered bands of sentient hunter gatherers.

Thus, I am inclined to see power favourably, but I hesitate at assigning moral values to things of nature, whether they be destructive or constructive. And power structures are a natural thing, I cannot conclude otherwise because the world over they never fail to appear given enough people, something in our nature predisposes us toward them. We should all thank the blind watchmaker for it, as they stand only second to our sentience in importance at ensuring the survival of our species.

Well Magi, does this answer your question, or did I go too deep into the fundamentals of things?

I'm some what of a centralist, at least thats what i have to say to keep from going insane. compared with many of my peers in science and biology I find that I lean a little to the right. Yet compared to many other folks here in Tampa as well as several other people i interact with on a day to day basis i find i lean a little more left hence I'm forced to put myself as middle.

As for power, it in and of it's self is not bad some people get a hold of it some times and do a bunch of stupid things with it. Its not necessarily the power that corrupts but sometimes things get worse with power falling into the hands of someone already corrupt, and perhaps uses corruption to gain more power.

I define myself case by case. Most often this means I am leftist, or centrist, or rightist, or in every case: not you.

Oh, you wanted an answer that makes sense to you as well as me?

To translate from TSaI Speak to what the common masses (might) find clear:

I try to hold no lasting opinions (it isn't actually very hard). So if someone asks me about, say, gay marriage I don't automatically have an opinion. I go through a process of thought, listen to other points of view, and then offer a temporary opinion. In this case my opinion has changed at least once (I was once pro gay marriage, now I am against it -- hold yer horses -- but would instead have a type of civil union with all the rights of marriage, call it a secular marriage without the name. The reason is that I don't think the USA as a whole, on a policy-making level, is ready to accept the marriage of gays. But I do think they should have the same rights as anyone else. In case that sounds familiar I got the idea from Obama and have since accepted it as my current temporary opinion).

When I deviate from, say, the rightists it is most often because I don't hold an Abrahamic faith which compels many of them towards certain points of view. When I deviate from the leftists it is often because I don't assume having the government fix our problems is always the first, best solution (it sometimes is, probably, but not always). When I deviate from the centrists it is often because their position is a compromise between entrenched opposite views.

So I go case by case. If you believe that rightist issues are all religious issues then you won't probably think of me as often being conservative, and if you think all liberal positions are socialist ones you won't find me being liberal very often (don't dismiss, some people are black/white like this). If you think that some conservative opinions are independent of religious faith then you'll find me over there some of the time. Why say all this mumbo? Because probably someone will be thinking "well it's all well and good to say you go case by case, but where are you more likely to land?" and I want to point out that while I can measure out an answer according to my world view, or maybe frigid's, I cannot deny the existence of many, many other worldviews by which I can measure the center and where I am in relation. The issue is too complex to boil down into "Right" "Left" and "Center."

As for power... it's a tool. Give it to a bad man and he'll likely abuse it, give it to a good man and he'll likely try to use it right. But all men are fallible, so even a good man may become bad, or be misled by other men, or make a bad call. I think men with power are more likely to worsen than improve, so I could say 'power corrupts', but I would prefer to say 'men are easily corrupted by power' because the former implies something inherent to power and the latter implies a failing of men.

Of course there is the notion that power has more than one definition. Do you think power is inseparable from men as I have been told in the past? If so you might as well say power is inherently bad because men with power are more likely to abuse it than not. Then there is the idea "bad for whom?" If a gun gives a man the power to kill a bear, that power is good for the man. Less good for the bear. So I think it is safer to call it a tool and judge the actions of the wielder.

What we need here is some carefully defined terms. Power qua the ability to get things done is entirely without any sort of normative quality. Without the ability to enact whatever it is you want to do, you are impotent for better or for worse.

I would not agree even that power corrupts per se, or even tends to corrupt. Having the ability to get things done is not what motivates people in general, but rather it is the background things they already want to get done. Everyone is already corrupt to one degree or another, and the ability to get things done is a heady feeling, but it's the desires of the individual in question that are corrupting, not the power.

Now, we only notice those with power, since the rest of us can't make enough of a difference. So, while we blame power, power just is what is making it noticeable.

And for the record, I'm a technocratic transhumanist. That said, I usually just call myself left wing for simplicity's sake.

I'm right wing and view power extremely positively--it has a most salutory effect on people and societies, and without it, the edges of decorum, sanity, and civility, of kindness and unity, inevitably fray.