Well done, David! Thank you! Covered so much and so much one could comment on. I loved seeing that George Washington quote. What a great way to say it..."liberty abused to licentiousness." Appreciate the props to capitalism, too, which has long been gone from "...these united States."
Over the years, I've given thought to the Acton quote, too. I reframed it as, "It is not that power corrupts...it is that the corrupt seek power...over others." And we've all got a bit of that beast in us. It is through self-mastery alone that we keep that impulse in its place.
Hello David, and thanks for the detailed analysis. You say so many good things, like - What works can rightly be called wisdom. But I won't list them all. I am not paid to be a researcher, so I will just share my opinions. I will also repeat some of your quotes, to relate to your article.
1. You don't need a state to have power over others. All you need is an army with better weapons than those around you. And that will back up all your political, economical, technical and financial weapons. The man of European origin, (light skinned) was always a genius at perfecting the next generation of weapons, and thus he was number one at colonizing the world. These European nations, and thus America, were social systems that engendered tyranny over others, for many 100's of years. There wasn't a zone on earth were they didn't work their mastery.
Many of the things you have said in the first few paragraphs sound right and like, that is what we want. But what is right on the micro level, the individual, may not be so ideal on the macro (corporate) level. Conflation between these two is to be avoided.
People confuse a government as an instrument of oppression, but with or without those institutions that we call government, there are the men behind those institutions that tyrannize the population, (and the world). I believe that they can do it more readily without a government, or with one that is stripped to the bare bones. For all intent and purposes there really exists no government; It's a guise, or a curtain to hide the real workings, and there are only those family dynasties that have their fingers in everything. You said it perfectly, "with government, (where the effect is often the polar opposite of the stated intent)."
Therefore libertarians have either a very shallow analysis, have basic assumptions that skip over what is really happening, or they work directly for the oligarchs.
2. You mention two social systems. One is the western capitalist recognition of the right to seek self gain. You did say that things were worse before, in that the vanished past of all nations are dark with many shames, yet there is much for each nation to be proud of. You may have referred to the past, although I think it has devolved much lower than that, even now. I take that from your acknowledgement of Corporate monopolies that unfairly drive out competition, lobby groups looking for special privileges, banking methods that rig the monetary system and allow leverage of assets tantamount to gambling in fractional reserve banking on steroids, government decisions making risk public but profit private, government sponsored enterprises, and un-elected three letter agencies that, under direct supervision and authority of government regulators, are constantly working their magic against the population. You said that the US form of government is designed to prevent the formation of such tyrannies. But since these exact people ARE THE GOVERMENT, The present system is not going to cope.
The US congress cannot change, (by design). I have read a freshman's assessment of what he discovered cannot work in congress. The way committees are locked up for decades, nothing unapproved will be released for a vote. You will never have a position of a decision maker unless you play the congressional game. But more up to date is the Tulsi Gabbard interview with Jordan Peterson. She said at the freshman orientation meetings you are told, no matter what you believe or what is good for your constituents, you must support the party line and vote YES for the bills we submit to you. You must not seek to collaborate with the opposing party, because then they will then get some of the credit for anything good. You must make promises to lobbyists to get them to donate to our party. You don't need to read or present any bills. The rest of your time you can try to raise donations and get yourself reelected.
Then you mention number two;
where the “let live” part is easily forgotten in socialism, and both the “let live” and even the “LIVE” part are discarded in murderous Godless communism . You even give the numbers. (There are also other sources of numbers, each execution with the name and the city of birth), the Soviets were meticulous at recording the details. You also counterpoise self-gain against enforced selflessness, which I don't see as having any historical relevancy. There are many other factors, which would needlessly draw out this comment. I have no love for the Soviets, but I prefer an honest assessment.
Are these the two choices then?
Perhaps this is "real politic"? Is it what is happening on the ground?
Not really.
Excuses are always suspect; That Capitalism is in many respects is fundamentally honest, and that "anomalies are NOT caused by a capitalist republic, but are a perversion of it caused by the love of power over others, and the lack of cultural wisdom. The love of power for the purpose of subjugating others for one’s own ends cannot be removed by any government mandate or system. All harms are caused by the dark side of people."
In other words, Capitalism is distorted by men, but men are not distorted by capitalism? Something to look into for sure.
I suggest that we look at the state of the world today, (I think it is disintegrating, but you may not believe so?), and say;
"This is the result of social system A and social system B cohabiting the planet." Is there any chance that one of these systems will reverse this situation??? Or do we have to innovate something entirely new? If so, there is no sense defending either / or.
3. Back to weapons; For millennia societies were molded by military might. Not seeking power in an immoral way was not part of anyone's formula. In fact, it wasn't held as immoral. Even now, some major western politicians have recently said, " we have all these armaments, why not use them?" I think that it is safe to admit, that Stalin saved the world from nuclear winter, when in 1954, (after his death), the Soviets exploded the hydrogen bomb. We have had 70 years of "deterrence". (Oh, America would never have done that? But they did do it; to prevent Russia from invading Japan. Japan was not allowed to surrender to the Russians, which would have happened pretty quickly with conventional weapons.)
The trouble with deterrence is that if one nuke goes off, IT MUST BE ANSWERED, or deterrence is a sham. Quite a few of our esteemed capitalist leaders state repeatedly that their goal to dismember Russia. (Is that a threat?) President Putin said clearly, "Let them try". Go for it boys! Proxy wars are the most evil action on earth, because such a conflict cannot end. Just pump more bodies into the hopper. Even when those will become NATO bodies, (which will be more just), they'll be European, and not American. So the tyranny goes on.
Now in little over one year there are more military casualties (counting both sides), than America has sustained including the Korean war, from 1950 until 2023. Very likely by the end of this year or next, there will be more military losses than American has had from year 1900 - 2023. This honest capitalism won't be satisfied with anything less.
I doubt sincerely that they can dance around this one though. Then the next article is about China. I think, reading your positive appraisal of our system, Americans want to go for it, they want to "win".
Let them try. I am not out to save the world.
4. About deterrence: It seems that (reckless) western leaders no longer believe in the power of the Atom. It can never happen, because the prevailing meme is that just the first use of nukes would lead to the immediate destruction of planet earth. IS THAT TRUE?
Something funny went off in Beirut, and nobody really gave a damn. They were comfortable with the fable that properly aged-fertilizer goes nuclear in its power. One must look at all the scenarios. Some nuke, somewhere, is bound to go off. That will certainly change the calculus. If it goes off within Russia, some other country will certainly be trashed.
Will a more sober analysis emerge? I think that we will find out within our lifetime.
THIS is why I read a million hours, to find this magnificent, one-day-on-the-path-is-equal-to-a-thousand-lifetimes arrival. For the writer in me, had I been your editor for this immeasurable atonement, I would have offered 2-3 minor typo/punctuation edits and only one tense suggestion but otherwise no word or voice changes. I am immensely grateful to you, David A, for pointing Does Absolute Power Corrupt into the emptiness of unconscious thought, and I will be sharing its radiance henceforth. Be well, friend.
You say, "Some forms of global government are likely inevitable, simply due to how small and interdependent the world now is. "
Have you considered, your medical wellbeing is ensured by an exchange of information between you and your doctor. Your life support, your work is an exchange of your effort and the frozen effort, money, from another productive person, your employer. In today's world, we have really provided a chair for the bureaucrat to sit on while he exercises control over those transaction. he does so because we pay him to with our tax dollars. Stop funding the people that incarcerate, is the first step on the road to freedom.
At inception, the founding idea of the US of A was, those who exercise appropriate self-control needed no outside control. The government was entrusted to bring control over those who either chose not to, or could not, stop from inflicting physical harm on the peaceful members of society.
We don't need controllers as much as we need to recognize that we can control our own actions and have the responsibility to not initiate force on peaceful fellow travelers on this planet. That would make us sovereign individuals, self-made men as Frederick Douglass would say.
Thanks for linking me over here David. You may notice that we play in nearby ballparks if you read my stack material. Most people have category confusion with Capitalism. It is not a political thing, it's an economic thing. The ego is fine, but the lesson to be learned with these events is to see that it's proper role is to serve essential, inherent or authentic self, rather than the other way around as we do now.
Technocrats feel they are in a position to further embed the notion that being precedes consciousness in society. With that further devaluation of inner life is insured. The goal is to stifle introspection and developing better relation to Source, because elite power is dependent on the common persons lack of recognition of his own creative power. Stoked by connection to Source.
Was going to send excerpts to my daughter, who has two little ones & would not have the time nor the attention to read a whole essay, but that proved to be an impossible task — too rich. So, we will have to wait for an opportunity to deliver it whole cloth and keep It safely labeled & filed til then. With many stars!
Great question about power. Lord Acton “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (1887) When I read quote that I simply accepted it as true. Yet, I agree with you that power does not have to be evil. I define evil as the "cause of injury" & good is "free from injury." Not all power causes injury... only some people with power are willing to do evil.
1/3 of the people in the world would lie, cheat, steal & kill if there were no law against it. That seems about right to me and it seems that they are the ones who tend to use power for evil.
You write,
"Those social systems which mostly easily engender tyranny should be rated poorly in their chance of producing a prosperous and happy society."
Yet tyranny is liberty for the tyrant. Tyrants live like the kings that they are. Master/Slave
Well done, David! Thank you! Covered so much and so much one could comment on. I loved seeing that George Washington quote. What a great way to say it..."liberty abused to licentiousness." Appreciate the props to capitalism, too, which has long been gone from "...these united States."
Over the years, I've given thought to the Acton quote, too. I reframed it as, "It is not that power corrupts...it is that the corrupt seek power...over others." And we've all got a bit of that beast in us. It is through self-mastery alone that we keep that impulse in its place.
Is there a difference between power and agency?
Hello David, and thanks for the detailed analysis. You say so many good things, like - What works can rightly be called wisdom. But I won't list them all. I am not paid to be a researcher, so I will just share my opinions. I will also repeat some of your quotes, to relate to your article.
1. You don't need a state to have power over others. All you need is an army with better weapons than those around you. And that will back up all your political, economical, technical and financial weapons. The man of European origin, (light skinned) was always a genius at perfecting the next generation of weapons, and thus he was number one at colonizing the world. These European nations, and thus America, were social systems that engendered tyranny over others, for many 100's of years. There wasn't a zone on earth were they didn't work their mastery.
Many of the things you have said in the first few paragraphs sound right and like, that is what we want. But what is right on the micro level, the individual, may not be so ideal on the macro (corporate) level. Conflation between these two is to be avoided.
People confuse a government as an instrument of oppression, but with or without those institutions that we call government, there are the men behind those institutions that tyrannize the population, (and the world). I believe that they can do it more readily without a government, or with one that is stripped to the bare bones. For all intent and purposes there really exists no government; It's a guise, or a curtain to hide the real workings, and there are only those family dynasties that have their fingers in everything. You said it perfectly, "with government, (where the effect is often the polar opposite of the stated intent)."
Therefore libertarians have either a very shallow analysis, have basic assumptions that skip over what is really happening, or they work directly for the oligarchs.
2. You mention two social systems. One is the western capitalist recognition of the right to seek self gain. You did say that things were worse before, in that the vanished past of all nations are dark with many shames, yet there is much for each nation to be proud of. You may have referred to the past, although I think it has devolved much lower than that, even now. I take that from your acknowledgement of Corporate monopolies that unfairly drive out competition, lobby groups looking for special privileges, banking methods that rig the monetary system and allow leverage of assets tantamount to gambling in fractional reserve banking on steroids, government decisions making risk public but profit private, government sponsored enterprises, and un-elected three letter agencies that, under direct supervision and authority of government regulators, are constantly working their magic against the population. You said that the US form of government is designed to prevent the formation of such tyrannies. But since these exact people ARE THE GOVERMENT, The present system is not going to cope.
The US congress cannot change, (by design). I have read a freshman's assessment of what he discovered cannot work in congress. The way committees are locked up for decades, nothing unapproved will be released for a vote. You will never have a position of a decision maker unless you play the congressional game. But more up to date is the Tulsi Gabbard interview with Jordan Peterson. She said at the freshman orientation meetings you are told, no matter what you believe or what is good for your constituents, you must support the party line and vote YES for the bills we submit to you. You must not seek to collaborate with the opposing party, because then they will then get some of the credit for anything good. You must make promises to lobbyists to get them to donate to our party. You don't need to read or present any bills. The rest of your time you can try to raise donations and get yourself reelected.
Then you mention number two;
where the “let live” part is easily forgotten in socialism, and both the “let live” and even the “LIVE” part are discarded in murderous Godless communism . You even give the numbers. (There are also other sources of numbers, each execution with the name and the city of birth), the Soviets were meticulous at recording the details. You also counterpoise self-gain against enforced selflessness, which I don't see as having any historical relevancy. There are many other factors, which would needlessly draw out this comment. I have no love for the Soviets, but I prefer an honest assessment.
Are these the two choices then?
Perhaps this is "real politic"? Is it what is happening on the ground?
Not really.
Excuses are always suspect; That Capitalism is in many respects is fundamentally honest, and that "anomalies are NOT caused by a capitalist republic, but are a perversion of it caused by the love of power over others, and the lack of cultural wisdom. The love of power for the purpose of subjugating others for one’s own ends cannot be removed by any government mandate or system. All harms are caused by the dark side of people."
In other words, Capitalism is distorted by men, but men are not distorted by capitalism? Something to look into for sure.
I suggest that we look at the state of the world today, (I think it is disintegrating, but you may not believe so?), and say;
"This is the result of social system A and social system B cohabiting the planet." Is there any chance that one of these systems will reverse this situation??? Or do we have to innovate something entirely new? If so, there is no sense defending either / or.
3. Back to weapons; For millennia societies were molded by military might. Not seeking power in an immoral way was not part of anyone's formula. In fact, it wasn't held as immoral. Even now, some major western politicians have recently said, " we have all these armaments, why not use them?" I think that it is safe to admit, that Stalin saved the world from nuclear winter, when in 1954, (after his death), the Soviets exploded the hydrogen bomb. We have had 70 years of "deterrence". (Oh, America would never have done that? But they did do it; to prevent Russia from invading Japan. Japan was not allowed to surrender to the Russians, which would have happened pretty quickly with conventional weapons.)
The trouble with deterrence is that if one nuke goes off, IT MUST BE ANSWERED, or deterrence is a sham. Quite a few of our esteemed capitalist leaders state repeatedly that their goal to dismember Russia. (Is that a threat?) President Putin said clearly, "Let them try". Go for it boys! Proxy wars are the most evil action on earth, because such a conflict cannot end. Just pump more bodies into the hopper. Even when those will become NATO bodies, (which will be more just), they'll be European, and not American. So the tyranny goes on.
Now in little over one year there are more military casualties (counting both sides), than America has sustained including the Korean war, from 1950 until 2023. Very likely by the end of this year or next, there will be more military losses than American has had from year 1900 - 2023. This honest capitalism won't be satisfied with anything less.
I doubt sincerely that they can dance around this one though. Then the next article is about China. I think, reading your positive appraisal of our system, Americans want to go for it, they want to "win".
Let them try. I am not out to save the world.
4. About deterrence: It seems that (reckless) western leaders no longer believe in the power of the Atom. It can never happen, because the prevailing meme is that just the first use of nukes would lead to the immediate destruction of planet earth. IS THAT TRUE?
Something funny went off in Beirut, and nobody really gave a damn. They were comfortable with the fable that properly aged-fertilizer goes nuclear in its power. One must look at all the scenarios. Some nuke, somewhere, is bound to go off. That will certainly change the calculus. If it goes off within Russia, some other country will certainly be trashed.
Will a more sober analysis emerge? I think that we will find out within our lifetime.
.
"Corporate monopolies that unfairly drive out competition."
I agree, from the perspective of a primate who values fairness...
However, where is it stated that monopolies are unfair vis-à-vis Capitalism?
Capitalism is a system, not a game or a sport. Any ideas of fairness are projections of what one thinks it wishes capitalism is.
Are not monopolies but a product of capitalism itself? What is the capitalist mechanism that prevents this result?
Surely you're not saying that all monopolies have been as a result of the dark side of human nature?
THIS is why I read a million hours, to find this magnificent, one-day-on-the-path-is-equal-to-a-thousand-lifetimes arrival. For the writer in me, had I been your editor for this immeasurable atonement, I would have offered 2-3 minor typo/punctuation edits and only one tense suggestion but otherwise no word or voice changes. I am immensely grateful to you, David A, for pointing Does Absolute Power Corrupt into the emptiness of unconscious thought, and I will be sharing its radiance henceforth. Be well, friend.
You say, "Some forms of global government are likely inevitable, simply due to how small and interdependent the world now is. "
Have you considered, your medical wellbeing is ensured by an exchange of information between you and your doctor. Your life support, your work is an exchange of your effort and the frozen effort, money, from another productive person, your employer. In today's world, we have really provided a chair for the bureaucrat to sit on while he exercises control over those transaction. he does so because we pay him to with our tax dollars. Stop funding the people that incarcerate, is the first step on the road to freedom.
At inception, the founding idea of the US of A was, those who exercise appropriate self-control needed no outside control. The government was entrusted to bring control over those who either chose not to, or could not, stop from inflicting physical harm on the peaceful members of society.
We don't need controllers as much as we need to recognize that we can control our own actions and have the responsibility to not initiate force on peaceful fellow travelers on this planet. That would make us sovereign individuals, self-made men as Frederick Douglass would say.
Thanks for linking me over here David. You may notice that we play in nearby ballparks if you read my stack material. Most people have category confusion with Capitalism. It is not a political thing, it's an economic thing. The ego is fine, but the lesson to be learned with these events is to see that it's proper role is to serve essential, inherent or authentic self, rather than the other way around as we do now.
Technocrats feel they are in a position to further embed the notion that being precedes consciousness in society. With that further devaluation of inner life is insured. The goal is to stifle introspection and developing better relation to Source, because elite power is dependent on the common persons lack of recognition of his own creative power. Stoked by connection to Source.
Excellent!
Was going to send excerpts to my daughter, who has two little ones & would not have the time nor the attention to read a whole essay, but that proved to be an impossible task — too rich. So, we will have to wait for an opportunity to deliver it whole cloth and keep It safely labeled & filed til then. With many stars!
Thank you, very much!
Another form of democide is government policies that lead to deaths.
Which is often called social murder.
Abortion - USA 60 million. I would argue this is a delberate democide.
Getting rid of patriots. In generations before making it easy either they raised the chldren or adopted them. Abortion eliminates them.
How many worldwide?
Adn what about drugs like opium, crack cockaine, and fentanyl - the latter of which Biden is allowing to flood into the USA.
Democide.
And this is not to mention C19 jabs, chemotherapy and numerous other sketchy drugs that have been killing us all.
"Original Thesis" could be an answer if people can actually read the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Dianetics-Original-L-Ron-Hubbard/dp/1403144869
I do wish you well, as We are All on this Orb in Space, so Survival would seem to be desirable. :-)
Enjoyed your essay pertaining to 'Absolute Power'. Well researched and thought-through.
Great question about power. Lord Acton “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (1887) When I read quote that I simply accepted it as true. Yet, I agree with you that power does not have to be evil. I define evil as the "cause of injury" & good is "free from injury." Not all power causes injury... only some people with power are willing to do evil.
According to https://sovren.media/c/ron-paul-revolution/235537/5e025eb501ead9fe8c3f3aeb068b5516
1/3 of the people in the world would lie, cheat, steal & kill if there were no law against it. That seems about right to me and it seems that they are the ones who tend to use power for evil.
You write,
"Those social systems which mostly easily engender tyranny should be rated poorly in their chance of producing a prosperous and happy society."
Yet tyranny is liberty for the tyrant. Tyrants live like the kings that they are. Master/Slave