The legitimacy of power.
Do those who take power have the right to take it and wield it?
History is strewn with the work of those who took power, death and destruction, but also growth and security.
We seem to be entering what many regard as “populism” in politics. People see Trump as the emergence of the demagogue. The same fears of the past re-emerge; jackboots in the White House.
Most people alive today have grown up with the idea of consensus. The emergence of The United Nations, social democrats, local government or school committees.
But it seems to me that what emerged out of the past, railways, cities, industries, even government, was driven and built by those who took power and wielded it. Through their own individual desires and the power held by them they created the foundations of the world today. They did not work from consensus except to consult those they employed. Though not everyone would agree whether that was a benefit or not.
According to Foucault though there are other benefits. “ ... power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge; on the other hand, power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions.[3] Power (re-) creates its own fields of exercise through knowledge.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-knowledge.
I can’t help thinking that we’re not getting much out of consensus, that we’re not growing. It seems to me that collective power is compromised by consensus. More get what they want but everything is a watered down version of their objectives. All around the world governments appear to be ineffective in dealing with their nation’s problems. What we get are watered down policies that add up to nothing more than stop gaps or feel good messages.
So should we be afraid of the person who seizes power? Is it legitimate? If they can hold onto it then do they deserve it? And vice versa. Could it be the better choice for the future? Is the time long gone for collective decisions that take time and achieve only a small part of their objectives?
Machiavellian criticises the “moralistic view of authority in his best-known treatise, The Prince. For Machiavelli, there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. Rather, authority and power are essentially coequal: whoever has power has the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power and the good person has no more authority by virtue of being good. Thus, in direct opposition to a moralistic theory of politics, Machiavelli says that the only real concern of the political ruler is the acquisition and maintenance of power (although he talks less about power per se than about “maintaining the state”.) In this sense, Machiavelli presents a trenchant criticism of the concept of authority by arguing that the notion of legitimate rights of rulership adds nothing to the actual possession of power. The Prince purports to reflect the self-conscious political realism of an author who is fully aware—on the basis of direct experience with the Florentine government—that goodness and right are not sufficient to win and maintain political office. Machiavelli thus seeks to learn and teach the rules of political power. For Machiavelli, power characteristically defines political activity, and hence it is necessary for any successful ruler to know how power is to be used. Only by means of the proper application of power, Machiavelli believes, can individuals be brought to obey and will the ruler be able to maintain the state in safety and security.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#PrinAnalPowe
There was a recent OP about leaders and whether there should be a learning institution to learn from. Part of the conversation was whether people need a leader at all and the nature of people in a society which prevents them from simply going about their day-to-day lives without any leader.
But leaders exist and those who take power exist in society on all levels. Those artists who rise to the top take that position, as do writers and actors. They don’t wait for that laurel wreath to be delivered. Those in the work place who rise through the ranks actively take part in office politics and use their skills to get what they want. They rise to the top because they create benefits for others along the way.
There’s nothing new in this. The grab for power exists as an integral part of nature, unconsciously or not. The most powerful animal successfully passes on his genes, the smartest survives the politics of the tribe. Alpha males in primates or pack animals control behaviour through domination with mutual benefits to both dominant and subordinate members.
Are those who take power the best, the hero who “ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
Is it legitimate for someone to take power in their own interests? For why else would someone seize power if it was not going to be applied in their interests. Sometimes those interests may serve the interests of others, like the tribal chief or the alpha male of a band of gorillas. Without benefits the power maker fails.
The power the mythical hero takes and wields in such a way that benefits accrue, that contributes knowledge and inspires others, is a power where you live and die by what you create.
“Now primitive peoples, as we have seen, sometimes believe that their safety and even that of the world is bound up with the life of one of these god-men or human incarnations of the divinity. Naturally, therefore, they take the utmost care of his life, out of a regard for their own. But no amount of care and precaution will prevent the man-god from growing old and feeble and at last dying. His worshippers have to lay their account with this sad necessity and to meet it as best they can. The danger is a formidable one; for if the course of nature is dependent on the man-god's life, what catastrophes may not be expected from the gradual enfeeblement of his powers and their final extinction in death? There is only one way of averting these dangers. The man-god must be killed as soon as he shows symptoms that his powers are beginning to fail, and his soul must be transferred to a vigorous successor before it has been seriously impaired by the threatened decay.” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough/The_Killing_of_the_Divine_King
Is Trump the Picasso of politics? Has he changed the game that allows others to follow? Has he revealed something about the relationship between ourselves and power? This is not about Trump but about power and whether we should look at how it works more closely and overcome our fear of it, about whether power can be wielded morally or whether there are benefits in the idea of power.
History is strewn with the work of those who took power, death and destruction, but also growth and security.
We seem to be entering what many regard as “populism” in politics. People see Trump as the emergence of the demagogue. The same fears of the past re-emerge; jackboots in the White House.
Most people alive today have grown up with the idea of consensus. The emergence of The United Nations, social democrats, local government or school committees.
But it seems to me that what emerged out of the past, railways, cities, industries, even government, was driven and built by those who took power and wielded it. Through their own individual desires and the power held by them they created the foundations of the world today. They did not work from consensus except to consult those they employed. Though not everyone would agree whether that was a benefit or not.
According to Foucault though there are other benefits. “ ... power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge; on the other hand, power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions.[3] Power (re-) creates its own fields of exercise through knowledge.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-knowledge.
I can’t help thinking that we’re not getting much out of consensus, that we’re not growing. It seems to me that collective power is compromised by consensus. More get what they want but everything is a watered down version of their objectives. All around the world governments appear to be ineffective in dealing with their nation’s problems. What we get are watered down policies that add up to nothing more than stop gaps or feel good messages.
So should we be afraid of the person who seizes power? Is it legitimate? If they can hold onto it then do they deserve it? And vice versa. Could it be the better choice for the future? Is the time long gone for collective decisions that take time and achieve only a small part of their objectives?
Machiavellian criticises the “moralistic view of authority in his best-known treatise, The Prince. For Machiavelli, there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. Rather, authority and power are essentially coequal: whoever has power has the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power and the good person has no more authority by virtue of being good. Thus, in direct opposition to a moralistic theory of politics, Machiavelli says that the only real concern of the political ruler is the acquisition and maintenance of power (although he talks less about power per se than about “maintaining the state”.) In this sense, Machiavelli presents a trenchant criticism of the concept of authority by arguing that the notion of legitimate rights of rulership adds nothing to the actual possession of power. The Prince purports to reflect the self-conscious political realism of an author who is fully aware—on the basis of direct experience with the Florentine government—that goodness and right are not sufficient to win and maintain political office. Machiavelli thus seeks to learn and teach the rules of political power. For Machiavelli, power characteristically defines political activity, and hence it is necessary for any successful ruler to know how power is to be used. Only by means of the proper application of power, Machiavelli believes, can individuals be brought to obey and will the ruler be able to maintain the state in safety and security.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#PrinAnalPowe
There was a recent OP about leaders and whether there should be a learning institution to learn from. Part of the conversation was whether people need a leader at all and the nature of people in a society which prevents them from simply going about their day-to-day lives without any leader.
But leaders exist and those who take power exist in society on all levels. Those artists who rise to the top take that position, as do writers and actors. They don’t wait for that laurel wreath to be delivered. Those in the work place who rise through the ranks actively take part in office politics and use their skills to get what they want. They rise to the top because they create benefits for others along the way.
There’s nothing new in this. The grab for power exists as an integral part of nature, unconsciously or not. The most powerful animal successfully passes on his genes, the smartest survives the politics of the tribe. Alpha males in primates or pack animals control behaviour through domination with mutual benefits to both dominant and subordinate members.
Are those who take power the best, the hero who “ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
Is it legitimate for someone to take power in their own interests? For why else would someone seize power if it was not going to be applied in their interests. Sometimes those interests may serve the interests of others, like the tribal chief or the alpha male of a band of gorillas. Without benefits the power maker fails.
The power the mythical hero takes and wields in such a way that benefits accrue, that contributes knowledge and inspires others, is a power where you live and die by what you create.
“Now primitive peoples, as we have seen, sometimes believe that their safety and even that of the world is bound up with the life of one of these god-men or human incarnations of the divinity. Naturally, therefore, they take the utmost care of his life, out of a regard for their own. But no amount of care and precaution will prevent the man-god from growing old and feeble and at last dying. His worshippers have to lay their account with this sad necessity and to meet it as best they can. The danger is a formidable one; for if the course of nature is dependent on the man-god's life, what catastrophes may not be expected from the gradual enfeeblement of his powers and their final extinction in death? There is only one way of averting these dangers. The man-god must be killed as soon as he shows symptoms that his powers are beginning to fail, and his soul must be transferred to a vigorous successor before it has been seriously impaired by the threatened decay.” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough/The_Killing_of_the_Divine_King
Is Trump the Picasso of politics? Has he changed the game that allows others to follow? Has he revealed something about the relationship between ourselves and power? This is not about Trump but about power and whether we should look at how it works more closely and overcome our fear of it, about whether power can be wielded morally or whether there are benefits in the idea of power.
Comments (76)
The only power we, as innermost being, have is truth.
This is potentially just historicism. You've no alternative history of consensus-run groups during the same era to compare with. You could equally say that the greatest growth in industry was during the era when everyone wore hats, so we should bring back hat-wearing. Unless you have a control group of non-hat- wearing industrialists who didn't do so well, you can't draw any conclusions.
Quoting Brett
Again, it's a real stretch to link this to consensus. The industrial revolution - which drove the original stage of growth - was always unsustainable. People really wanted cars, washing machines, trainlines etc. Those were really useful things. But we have them now. Not quite so many people really want a toaster that turns on when you speak to it, or a toothbrush that plays the Marseilles while you brush. We're running out of stuff people need, we're having to make the stuff people do need deliberately badly so that it needs replacing sooner. Then there's raw materials, environmental degradation...I won't go into all that and derail your thread. The point is there's a lot more going on than increases in consensus politics. Singling out one aspect to blame when others are much closer in the causal chain is mistaken.
Quoting Isaac
Yes you’re right, but only because things were not done by consensus. Obviously I would have to prove that and it would take more effort than I feel like. But we do know how things were done and we can measure the results.
Quoting Isaac
But you do seem to be leaning towards the idea that there is an increase in consensus in politics.
What else might you suggest is behind what I’m calling a watered down version of people’s expectations.
I guess this is the crux of part of the OP, does consensus contribute to the sad state of affairs in politics?
In my view people's expectations have been watered down by advertising and the media. As I said, no-one really wants a speaking toaster, or a razor that shaves 'even closer still'. You'd have to be stupid to think that the fridge you buy nowadays, that lasts a few years is better than the one you just replaced that was 25 years old. The door broke on my oven the other day, I complained about it and they said they'd send me a new oven, but that the "mechanisms can't be expected to last for ever". It was four years old. My Rayburn door was made in 1969, it's still going strong.
High expectations among your customers is just not good business. Its cheaper to manipulate the customer base to expect less than it is to actually provide more.
The consequences of this process just leach over into politics.
It's also not very good economics to have your customer base look after each other, be frugal, be charitable, intelligently analyse things... All these effects leach over into other areas of life.
Quoting Isaac
But I don’t see that behind the state of affairs in politics. In fact here in Australia Prime Ministers can lose their position as a result of poor polling. One of the consequences is consensus, trying to keep as many people as possible happy with broad middle of the road policies that deliver nothing.
I consider that immoral, thus any government that utilizes such a principle I consider illegitimate.
Why do you think that is?Is it a complete coincidence that people are so easily swayed by something as rhetorical as polling and this just happens to make extremely profitable consumer base? What would happen in the opposite case to modern manufacturing companies. If people actually spent time investigating the qualities of things and critically examining their claims. How many people would buy the razor that 'shaves even closer still' if they actually critically examined claims which are made in the media?
The reason why we have middle of the road policies at all is because it's easier to sell things to people in distinct ideological groups (though preferably as few of these as possible, two is ideal) than it is to sell to an amorphous mass whose ideas cannot easily be predicted.
Quoting Tzeentch
You might think that for the benefit of your position but there’s more to it than that.
“In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others. The term "authority" is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust. This sort of primitive exercise of power is historically endemic to humans; however, as social beings, the same concept is seen as good and as something inherited or given for exercising humanistic objectives that will help, move, and empower others as well ... The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force (coercion). An example of using power without oppression is the concept "soft power," as compared to hard power.
Much of the recent sociological debate about power revolves around the issue of its means to enable – in other words, power as a means to make social actions possible as much as it may constrain or prevent them. The philosopher Michel Foucault saw power as a structural expression of "a complex strategic situation in a given social setting"[2] that requires both constraint and enablement.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
Quoting Isaac
It’s the politicians who are swayed by polling. But I don’t see the connection between this and business anyway.
Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying, you're looking at this the other way round. I think you're missing a couple of steps in your thinking. Politicians are swayed by polling because we live in a democracy and so what most people appear to want is what gets them elected, right? so your connection between that and watered down policies which don't make any real progress is only valid if {what most people want} results in a watered down policy which makes no real progress. After all, if everyone stood up and with one voice declared that we should try to get to Mars above all else, you can guarantee we'd be working on little else but trying to get to Mars.
So the politicians doing what they do is not really the point, they're just the photographer, they take a snapshot of the way society is at the time of the election (minus all the bribery, vote-rigging and gerrymandering which actually does sway things a bit). So, by and large, it's the views of society to blame for whatever lack of progress you're identifying. the politicians are just reflecting it, they can do no else, otherwise they would simply be removed from office next election.
So if we're to follow your 'consensus waters down progress' theory - lets' presume you're right for the minute - then the question you need to ask is why society is divided into such opposing groups that the consensus between them ends up nothing. Why do one group pull left, the other right so that we end up going nowhere?
To answer this you'd have to follow the trend of increasing polarization and identity signalling in group dynamics. There's loads of really good work been done in this area (some of it by me! But I'm not about to break the beauty of anonymity by making any recommendations), but I suspect academic texts aren't really what you're after anyway.
Generally, increasing globalisation makes groups more fluid, people don't like fluid groups because their place in the social hierarchy is important to them and it's difficult to identify in a group with fluid identity boundaries. There's a niche there which advertisers and media companies make use of to draw artificial boundaries around groups, thus satisfying an urge people had. Profits, however, are made on economies of scale, so it doesn't pay to create more groups than are strictly necessary to satisfy this urge.
There's a massive amount of complexity (and disagreement) in there which I've not said, but the upshot is a small number of groups for whom it is in their best interests to strongly declare the extent to which they are opposed to the other groups.
Isn't thereby a government that exercises power imposing its will upon others?
Quoting Brett
Soft power is not "power without oppression". Soft power includes things like the use of media, which is capable of being and often is a tool of oppression.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent
A more fitting definition of soft power would be "Imposing one's will upon another, without the other noticing it."
Not a bit less immoral, as far as I am concerned.
I used to think like that, but in the meanwhile, I have corrected my point of view. As far as I am concerned, you are allowed to "impose your will upon another" on the condition that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.
Hence, the person in power can choose the time and the place to do that, but he should never complain if "his target" chooses the next time and place to take revenge on him, because in that case, this person in power is just a bad loser.
In that sense, the problem of power abuse is mostly caused by people who refuse to take revenge, and in that way encourage the power abuse. That is why I utterly despise people who fail to ambush back. Even if you don't do it for yourself, i.e. to carry out vengeful reprisals, you should at least have the conscience to do it for others and for society at large.
Quoting Isaac
In the situation I’m talking about the party has already formed a government. As time goes by their popularity is polled, usually on the popularity of the Prime Minister. If the PM’s ratings slide, probably because of particular issues and responses by the PM, then the machine-men in the party look to toppling him and replacing him. Of course polls are notoriously unreliable but they still act on them. So it doesn’t necessarily mean the voters want the PM gone, they’re just not very happy with what’s happening. Consequently it’s a risky move to take a clear position on issues, better to talk around it, seek out some “consensus” and never actually take a chance on what you believe is the right and necessary thing to do. As a result you get ” a watered down policy which makes no real progress.[/quote]”
As to why one group pulls in the opposite direction than another, I think that just takes me down a side road away from the topic. Whether consensus is responsible for the state of affairs doesn’t really matter. Very few people are happy with the state of affairs. Something’s behind it and I don’t think it’s because “a small number of groups for whom it is in their best interests to strongly declare the extent to which they are opposed to the other groups”. It’s the response that’s the problem.
Quoting Tzeentch
Of course it is. That’s why they were elected, to enact the policies they were voted in on. To not do so would be a betrayal of the majority.
Your position is a moral one. But your position isn’t clear to me. Your definition of “soft power” doesn’t explore anything about power. You talk about oppression even under democratic process. You mix up authority and power. I’m talking about people who take power without compromise, know what they want, what needs to be done and how to do it.
An example might be Winston Churchill during the war years. He knew what had to be done and lived with it. He didn’t seek consensus because there was no place for that. He understood power and wielded it in a effective way. He didn’t ask what should be done but told the people what had to be done. Maybe some actions were immoral. In that case I refer you to Machiavelli.
Modern society has decided that revenge is immoral and hinders the function of society. This change has not just been western culture. Revenge was part of the Samurai way of life, and yet it was outlawed almost immediately after the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate. Modern society doesn't function with revenge killings.
"Revenge" is a very weak concept morally anyway. I don't need "revenge" for my feelings, I need to stop this person before she kills someone else's family.
Quoting alcontali
Well of course it is allowed...what is god going to reach down and stop you? Who or what would not allow it? You are really saying it is morally admirable to force your will onto others. Good luck selling that.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I don’t think it necessarily means it’s morally admirable. But what’s wrong with it? Maybe we need to really parse that sentence.
Fair, that is likely me putting my perspective into things. Morals aren't right or wrong, they are admirable or frowned upon (my perspective).
I don't mind seeking a more universal wording. If he (or very unlikely, she) is just saying morally acceptable, not morally admirable, then I don't see the point. If we are just discussing things that are neither good nor bad (neither admirable nor deplorable), then I am not sure "moral" has a whole lot to do with it??
If I am not saying anything along the lines of what you were thinking, feel free to change the direction of things.
One way of imposing your will on another is to argue with their point of view and convince them that they’re wrong. I don’t see anything wrong with that on any level. And if someone was morally contemptible, a paedophile for instance, then why wouldn’t anyone try to impose their will on that person?
Quoting Brett
For me, "impose" means "forced" (or at least includes "forced"). I am not sure I agree that convincing is ever "forced"...? (I just looked up the definition and it has a "forced" aspect...but I can also see different potential interpretations...I am going to continue to argue in relation to "forced"...but know that I know that is not the only way that "impose" can be understood).
Quoting Brett
Once people are harming society, they have given up their right to not be imposed upon. Yes, all people in jail were imposed upon....and I am sure I agree that many of them should be in jail for the protection of the rest of us. However, America is a good example of improper imposing. Many of our prisoners are non-violent and never harmed a soul other than themselves (drugs are the most common reason we put people in jail).
And generally, those truly imposing their will are breaking the law. Another interesting side thought...once we have created the rule of law...are we imposing our will or just carrying out policy? (if anyone'e "will" is being imposed, they are often long dead??)
If trickery or violence (or the threat of) is used, then a will has been imposed. If someone knowingly changes their mind, I think I just presented some information that allowed them to change their mind. (I would also point out that the libertarian non-aggression principle would be totally fine with trickery...I disagree...but just mentioning it as a philosophy that would ONLY see violent methods as "imposing will").
I may have to run soon, but will certainly respond over the next couple days.
There are situations in which 'imposing one's will on another' is in the best interest of the other. I do think that individuals can therefore under certain circumstances do this without it being immoral. A parent raising a child, for example.
However, I do not believe a government could realistically match the criteria required for the imposing to be considered moral, mainly due to the fact that the number of people they deal with are too large. For example, is a government willing to "risk its life" for its subjects?
I could go into further detail about what criteria I'm talking about, but I think you get the idea.
So, what about the minority that didn't elect them?
A case could be made that the power a government has over the people who voted for it is legitimate.
However, as long as there are dissidents, the government is imposing its will on people who do not wish it. What possible moral basis could there be for this? (in the context of government)
When there are no dissidents, there is consensus and therefore (broadly speaking) no imposing of will upon others.
Quoting Brett
Forcing people to do things they do not want to do is immoral.
On the individual level sometimes exceptions can be made for this rule, however I do not believe governments can realistically match these criteria. I could go into those criteria if you wish, but I don't think it's that relevant to our current discussion.
Quoting Wikipedia on the Qisas
I do not particularly care about the undocumented views of so-called "modern society" on the matter, if only, because I do not consider the lack of documentation to be anything to aspire to. The way in which morality works in so-called "modern society" is rather something for an illiterate society. Things become simply too easy when you do not have to supply any form of justification for what you say. Therefore, I reject all undocumented opinions on morality as manipulative and deceptive.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
That is a very undocumented view on the matter. Everybody and their little sister could say that kind of things, but there is no reason to believe that it properly fits in any serious formal system of morality.
I do not reject your opinion because it would be wrong or right. I reject it because it is clearly undocumented and because it makes no reference to any documented formal system of morality.
What prevents anybody else from just inventing that kind of views on the fly?
Rights are afforded to humans... by humans; to animals... by humans.
Power over people is acquired in only one of two ways. It is either given by consent, or it is usurped. To which method of acquisition are you referring?
I like to force people to leave others alone sometimes... dunno 'bout you. I would not call such action immoral. Yet, on pains of coherence or special pleading, you must.
:brow:
I think your notion of what counts as"immoral" needs a whetstone(at a minimum)...
Like I said, there are exceptions on the individual level, however the criteria that need to be checked will not realisitically apply to governments.
OK, so the first thing you'd need is some evidence of this. What is the 'progress' you'd like to see (what is the real-world measure of it) and why are other measures of change (because the world certainly is changing) not counted as 'progress' for you?
Quoting Brett
So what exactly are you wanting to discuss here? Are you just going to repeat your theory until someone says "yes, you're right". If you're just going to dismiss any contrary theory on the grounds that you don't 'reckon' it's right then what's the point in writing what you think on a public forum?
Quoting Tzeentch
If the people have taken part in an election run along democratic ideas then by voting they’re taking part in a process where they hope to win. But it’s understood that they may lose and become the minority. If you want to call those unhappy with results as dissidents then do so. But it’s a big leap to go from being those who lost an election to thinking of themselves as dissidents.
However if they reject the system of government, in this case representative democracy, then you could regard them as dissidents. In that case they would be hoping for another form of government. However, the government is still imposing itself on the dissidents on behalf of the people that elected them. So the imposing is still legitimate. What else could it be, unless you reject representative democracy, and then you’re imposing your view on others. And I assume you’d feel justified.
Quoting creativesoul
By consent.
Your absolutely right. Consensus is avoidance of responsibility. Those with power, who make decisions, must absolutely have skin in the game.
Quoting Isaac
If you’re happy with the state of politics, the quality of life for people, then of course you won’t accept any of my evidence to the contrary.
Quoting Isaac
Power is the subject. You were the one that focused on consensus because you disagreed with me. I’m not after anyone agreeing with me. I’m interested in responses and ideas. If you think disagreement is dismissal then I can’t help you. I don’t feel dismissed because you disagreed with me over consensus.
The use of the word power immediately sets up problems about what it means.
“In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others. The term "authority" is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust. This sort of primitive exercise of power is historically endemic to humans; however, as social beings, the same concept is seen as good and as something inherited or given for exercising humanistic objectives that will help, move, and empower others as well. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
The power of an individual. This could just as well mean authority as well. But not in terms of those who apply the law or rules or have a legal power over others. For me these words mean a person who possesses authority, who possesses a commanding manner or has a sense of power in the way they behave, has confidence in themselves or is influential in their relationship with others. Such people are very influential, very persuasive and they tend to lead or inspire people to act in a similar way.
Because of this, and maybe because of our social or tribal nature, they create followers or people who put their faith in them. We could probably make a list of such people and we may have even met such people.
These people have always existed and they also exist in the animal kingdom, primarily in primates. It does not necessarily mean they are bad or tyrannical. They could not exist without the cooperation of others. Nor would those others cooperate if there was no benefit to them. These figures are ancient and, if successful, primarily responsible for the success and longevity of tribes and societies.
Not everyone has this power. Because of that they’re almost an elite group. In a way they’re Machiavellian. But they get things done, they make things happen. Their ways might be considered irregular, unconventional or even disruptive. Because of this, their method, we have to consider whether it’s a legitimate power.
The idea of such a person is not mythical or a modern idea designed to control others. But the idea of letting go of power, passing it on to this person, is something that probably frightens us, we have good cause to feel that way. But look at what we have: The United Nations, the EU, top heavy governments all over the world, vast bureaucratic systems, and very little to show for it. Could you be any more of a victim?
Quoting alcontali
How so?
Where exactly is modern society's morality documented?
One reason why such society does not want to document it, is because they want to keep changing it as it suits them. The lack of of documentation points to its fundamentally deceptive and manipulative nature.
Quoting alcontali
Why would it be documented?
Quoting alcontali
How do you expect it to be documented? What form would you imagine it taking?
And you suggest this is a collective effort.
I wasn't asking for evidence that politics and life were not in a good state. I was asking for evidence that watered-down policies make no 'progress'. If what you actually mean is that watered-down policies are one which you don't like, then just say so. What you're trying to argue is that watered down policies are actually stalling 'progress'. that's a different claim to them just not being your preferred policy.
Quoting Brett
The issue is whether pampering to consensus stifles progress. To establish that you have to establish that progress could be made if the consensus were ignored. Since we live in a democracy, to establish this you'd have to establish that leaders who ignored consensus would be likely to remain in power. To establish this you need to know something about the likely voting behaviour of the electorate. I talked about some of the leading theories regarding what this voting behaviour might be, and what causes it. You decided that since it didn't fit with your preconceptions you'd ignore it.
This is all moot, however, as I now realise that this is just another boring right-wing moan. You guys are always trying to dress up your basic unexamined conservatism in some higher sounding philosophical rhetoric - "it's all about liberty", "it's about free speech", "there's a good logical basis for private property, but I'm just not going to tell you at the moment", "consensus stifles progress", "some rights are meaningful, others aren't (they just so happen to be the ones that help me offend minorities and make lots of money, but that's just coincidence, they're logical really)"
It's such a transparent tactic.
You just don't like left-wing concessions and you're trying to present that as some kind of philosophical insight.
If we had a strong leader who, in defiance of consensus, banned heterosexual relationships, forced us all to use the pronoun "xhe" and abolished all heavy industry in favour of local "healing gardens" would you be happy with that?
Quoting Isaac
Ahh, I see. You can’t handle exploration of uncomfortable ideas.
If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind.
Quoting Isaac
Hopefully I’ll never see any grumbling or dissatisfaction from you about the state of things in the world because you’re happy with the results and decisions made by governments, the progress.
Just out of interest, where does Fidel Castro fit into your position?
It's not an 'exploration/ though, is it? It's a manifesto. An exploration takes evidence and reason from both sides to try and draw conclusions. You're ignoring all the evidence that doesn't support what you've decided to promote.
Quoting Brett
What evidence do you have to support that conclusion? Could you cite some enthongraphies which detail the extent to which chiefs in nomadic hunter-gatherer communities ignored consensus to dictate what would happen. Or is 'evidence' just another one of those things which gets in the way of 'progress'?
Quoting Brett
On the contrary. I just don't try to blame governments for the faults of the people who put them in power.
Quoting Brett
He doesn't. In the grand scheme of things, it is the masses who hold the power, not the individuals Castro maintained power whilst he had mass support. When mass support wanes, dictators get toppled. That's not to say that there isn't loads to be done in the interim, removing and fighting against dictators and unpopular leaders who are clinging on to power despite popular opinion. Such situations can last many years and people suffer needlessly under it. But the trend overall (which is what we're interested in here) is that what the populace wants, the populace gets.
First, there are the first principles of morality. These basic rules allow us to reason from first principles, and discover theorems in the formal system of morality, i.e. the moral theory. These theorems are syntactic entailments that necessarily follow from other theorems or from the first principles.
The enormous advantage of formal systems is that the derivation of their theorems can (conceivably) be verified mechanically. For me, this is very important, because I do not believe in conclusions for which the derivation cannot be verified mechanically.
As a matter of fact, there are no functioning formal systems for morality besides Islamic jurisprudence:
Quoting The epistemology of Islamic jurisprudence
Pretty much every alternative for determining morality turns out not to be a formal system and simply does not allow for axiomatic derivation. I really do not need those alternatives, and I completely reject them, because I insist on the possibility of objective, mechanical verification of the theorems' derivation paperwork.
Quoting Isaac
My actual post;
“If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind”.
“A World On the Wane”. C. Levi. Strauss, 1961.
Men, Women and Chiefs. ( p. 303)
“He it is who organises their departure, chooses their itinerary, and decrees where and for how long they will stop. He decides on the expeditions - hunting, fishing, collecting, scavenging ... He determines the time and the place for the sedentary life. He supervises the gardens and says what crops are to be planted.”
Is power a thing based on what is right or wrong?
We may strive for a moral justification for power, we may accept it as necessary for organization of our society, but those are moral points of view.
When nobody anymore challenges their power, then those in power have the power. We either accept their holding of power by a) agreeing that they hold power or b) being unable to challenge their power.
1. Anthropologists Paul Aspelin and David Price tried to replicate Lévi-Strauss's findings on the Nabikwara and found that he hadn't identified their subsistence ecology correctly, so they may not have been nomadic, certainly aren't now.
2. Literally on the page before, Lévi-Strauss talks about how fragile the chief's position is, how if if takes too much or fails in any of his tasks his authority is taken away.
3. The page after he talks about how the chief's decision on a successor, like all his other decisions, are ultimately held to account by the tribe. "consent lies at the origin of power and consent is what confers legitimacy on that power" later "the chief has no powers of coercion"
All this egalitarianism is corroborated by a number subsequent anthropologists such as Price.
But by all means do continue to cherry-pick paragraphs from 60 year old texts to support your preconceptions, I can see actual investigation is not going get in the way.
I must learn to ignore your posts, they serve no purpose at all.
This is my original post.
“If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind”.
You’ve gone and revised my quote and then tried to make me defend that.
Here’s your post.
“Could you cite some enthongraphies which detail the extent to which chiefs in nomadic hunter-gatherer communities ignored consensus to dictate what would happen.”
I didn’t say the chief ignores consensus in the tribe.
Then in your first point you question the validity of Levi’s finding, as if that might make my point invalid.
Then when it suits you go and use Levi’s findings to support your points, #2and #3.
Finally your posts confirm what I’d already said, that the chief in his position of power only holds it by the benefits the tribe gains.
Which is largely my point about power that I made in the OP.
As to your hysterical rant about the right and left, and this being
Quoting Isaac
let me remind you that these power figures occur just as much, if not more, in leftist states.
Good OP - broad topic. There's a lot we can say about power.
The older I get the more I tend to see power as something personal, or more like the assertion of one's personal will over, say, systemic rules or procedure. A very clear example of this would be when Hitler declared a state of emergency upon being elected and suspended the Constitution because there was some supposed existential threat facing the state and in turn he destroyed the institutional, democratic procedures present under the Weimar Republic that would have constrained executive power.
It can also be more crafty and subtle, like when FDR interpreted the neutrality acts in kind of his own personal, unusual way to allow the US to fund China against Japanese aggression by not defining the conflict as a "war." Here FDR didn't destroy the system like Hitler did, but his interpretation of the neutrality acts was basically just him pushing his agenda within a democracy.
It's important not to confuse "power" with simply it's enforcement. For instance, in the US military an enlisted member is required to salute an officer. If he does not, the officer is required to reprimand him. An outsider might see an officer reprimanding an enlisted individual and see it as the officer imposing power, when the officer in reality is required by procedure to do what he is doing. No one is free in this interaction.
Centralized power is always something to be feared, at least on some level. The more centralized and powerful it is the more you should fear it.
Feel free to get a discussion going here and offer your feedback or ask something else. There wasn't much I staunchly disagreed with in your OP so I just thought I'd add a few points.
Quoting Brett
I don’t think society wants to keep changing morality. There are people who have a relativist views of morality, but strangely enough it doesn’t seem to change their behaviour which we might tie to morality. It’s not as if everyone out there is suddenly choosing to behave like Raskolnikov.
And anyway we document laws and those laws can be changed or removed over time. So it’s not as if, as a society, we don’t document things so that we can change them as we want. And you might find our morality actually documented in our laws, which are punishable if broken.
I think it’s interesting that as a species we did live under this idea of power figures. Somewhere along the way things changed. There are obviously reasons for that change, and I’m presuming they didn’t happen overnight. Because of that we might tend to look on the idea of power figures as primitive and savage and so reject any consideration of them. You can see how the very mention of the word power sends people spinning off into rants about right wing ideology.
Power is personal and it’s about the individual. So it seems a little odd in these times of individuality and diversity that we shy away from this. What’s the point of the strength and autonomy of the individual if power isn’t going to be part of it. If individuals can’t rise up through the masses, to aspire to all sorts of unknown potential, then what’s the point of believing in the individual. And is the opposite worth it in terms of progress and success in survival.
Or is it as I suggested just fear of the individual?
I think we can both agree that it is reasonable to be fearful of power. It is also reasonable to fearful of very large power imbalances.
Centralized power residing in, say, a government or a tribe can work out well especially in times of war.That's not really in dispute. But there is always an enormous risk inherent in that. What happens after the threat is gone? What happens after the reforms have been done? Who is there to check them?
There's nothing wrong with people seeking, say, positions of power insofar as they wish to govern fairly and recognize that their actions have serious consequences. If someone is just seeking power for the sake of imposing their will that person is dangerous and not ready to lead.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
A example of that might be Churchill during the war years. When the war was over he was voted out. In terms of leadership he was what was no longer needed, he’d served his purpose.
Historically centralised power has not worked. And these power figures seem to be associated with centralised power. But I’m not sure that if we looked at things more carefully we might find that there are examples where power figures didn’t necessarily pivot towards some of the horrors we’ve seen.
Your point about someone seeking power for the sake of it and imposing their will is worth considering. The populace still require something in return for that person to hold on to their position.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Hitler and Germany is complicated, but still it’s generally referred to as an example of the power figure and the dire consequences. But in fact there was an existential threat to the state and that was Communism. It’s very possible if it had not been for the aggression of Hitler and the right that the Communists might have won the day. So as I say, complicated.
Here in Australia there was a referendum on becoming a Republic. The public rejected the Republican idea because they wanted to be able to chose the President and the referendum did not allow for that. My point here is that I’m looking at the idea of power figures within a democratic process. Can they achieve things in that system, does it work against them, and can they destroy and usurp it?
As a matter of interest.
Kissinger picks the seven most powerful people in history.
“In order to list the seven most powerful people in history, it is necessary to define the term "power." I use it here in the sense of a vision of the future coupled with a capacity to bring it about. Vision without power is an intellectual exercise. Power without vision often turns on itself. For this reason, I have excluded religious figures whose power is spiritual, not military. With these qualifications, here is my list.”
Julius Caesar, Qin Shi Huang, Peter the Great, Mahatma Gandhi, Napoleon Bonaparte, Theodore Roosevelt, The American president since 1945.
https://www.forbes.com/2009/11/09/kissinger-roosevelt-gandhi-leadership-power-09-history_slide.html#4960a7e46585
This makes no sense to me.
Imposing one's will upon another is, in my opinion, illegitimate, whether one does it on behalf of other people or not.
My point is that governments have no right to rule over people who do not want to be ruled by it.
Quoting Brett
Rejecting something does not equal imposing it on others.
Quoting Tzeentch
So what form of government would you prefer instead?
Quoting Tzeentch
If you reject one form of government than you must presumably have another preference in mind. You can’t just rid yourself of a government you don’t like and exist in a vacuum. So unless 100% of the population supported your new government how would you deal with those who didn’t want your form of government?
So explain to me the logic of your argument from the disputed post. You said
Quoting Brett
Clearly implying that I didn't already have it in my 'overheated mind'.
You're writing a piece about how pampering to consensus waters down progress. I'm disputing that proposition by suggesting that 'progress' to you just means 'things I want to be the case' - so pampering to consensus doesn't water down progress, it just means the more extreme preferences don't get met.
You retort to that with the above quote. That even socialist or collective societies had a leader who called the shots.
I can't take that to mean that you agree with me - that progress is indeed made with consensus, it's just progress in socialist or collective societies (not what you want, but progress nonetheless) that would just prove my point, that it's about your personal preferences, not 'progress' in general. Since you implied that I didn't already know this, I must presume you raise this point in opposition to my view.
So you must be say either;
a) "Look at past societies who made progress - they had strong leaders who ignored consensus" (thus proving your point that progress is only made my strong leaders who ignore consensus).
or
b) "Look at past societies who had leaders who sought consensus, they all failed to make any progress at all" (thus proving your point that no progress is made by leaders who seek consensus).
or
c) "Look at past societies who had leaders who sought consensus, they all failed to make the kind of progress I'd like to see" (thus proving my point that 'progress' is just 'stuff you want').
Since (b) is ridiculous, and you're claiming (c) isn't the case, I presumed you meant (a) and thus I presented evidence to the contrary - these leaders did not ignore consensus, the relied on it even more heavily that our do nowadays.
Now you're saying that you knew that all along. My apologies for mistaking your position. You must, then, have meant either (b) - that tribal, socialist and collective societies made no progress because their leaders sought consensus, or (c) that these societies just didn't make the kind of progress you want to see, but that just supports my original argument - that 'progress' to you is just 'stuff you want to be the case'. Otherwise, how are you supporting an argument that these societies made 'no progress'?
Either your central thesis is wrong because tribal societies did make progress despite having leaders who sought consensus, or you need to make an argument that these societies did not progress even by their own definition of 'progress', or you have to concede that we're not talking about objective 'progress' at all, but just the direction you'd like society to go in.
Which is it?
Our discussion is not about what I prefer, but about what is legitimate.
Quoting Brett
I can't?
Couldn't I theoretically move to some desolate place where no government has a say over me, without bothering anyone else?
I'm not advocating to impose my preferences on anyone else. That's the exact thing I take issue with.
Quoting Tzeentch
Theoretically you can do anything you want, including living in a vacuum.
First of all I would need to know if you know what theoretically means.
Well how do you theoretically move to some desolate place where government has no say over you?
But it might be easier than that. If stops paying taxes and has no permanent place of residence, you'd disappear off most government's radars as well.
It seems these options reject government without imposing anything on others, no?
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that article. I enjoy reading Kissinger, his book Diplomacy is one of - if not the greatest - work on the history of diplomacy ever written.
There's a lot I could respond to in your post. I'll just focus on the last question to keep things focused.
Democracy can absolutely be destroyed and usurped. In the case of Hitler he took power through democratic means, but he used the Constitution to basically exploit a loophole and placed Germany in a state or emergency or a "state of exception" if we're going by the German translation from 1933-1945. There are plenty of other examples throughout history but this one strikes me probably the most blatant in modern memory. Hitler basically hacked Democracy.
There's plenty of other examples. If an activist judge doesn't consider or isn't concerned with legal precedent in establishing their rulings and instead pass down a ruling based on personal judgment or beliefs I think that's basically an act of power.
Putin and Medvedev switch on and off between President and Prime Minister because of some rule on term limits intended to curb the use of individual power but they've found a way to get around it and are now just working on changing that law.
I would generally say that "power" involves going outside of codified institutional norms and this can still be accomplished in a democracy because those rules can either be hacked or worked around or interpreted strangely so we always need to be on guard for this.
EDIT: In terms of declaring a "state of emergency" or a "state of exception" it's a difficult area because it seems to escape legal precedent or established procedures.... It's not a matter of whether there's "really" a threat facing us, only that a threat is perceived. Someone could declare a state of emergency on account of climate change if that clause was still in a Constitution. With Hitler, if it wasn't the Communists it could have been the Jews or bolshevist cosmopolitanism or whatever. If you don't recognize the threat that's on you.
And in practice, non-governmental social institutions can act in ways of this nature.
This OP has got me thinking about power figures and conformity. Power figures are individualists, maybe you could call them rebels, anyway they chose to work outside of orthodox practice. We rarely see this today. It’s like the individual has been smothered, as if there’s some perceived threat in their personality.
There seems to be an incredible conformity to things now. Individuals thrive where they’re allowed to, like sports or the arts, but they’re still performing within a system that controls the effects of their individuality. Theres no way they could actually transform the environment they perform in, and perform is the operative word, so maybe they’re not individuals just roll models.
I think there’s something very frightening about these power figures and I don’t think it’s just because of Hitler or Stalin. I’m beginning to think we’ve become a very homogenised culture, more so than ever before, and any sign of the individuals is jumped on. The last really powerful individual I can think of was Martin Luther King. I’d be interested if anyone can think of others.
This goes back to my point about consensus. Real change, progress, isn’t made by committees, it’s made by individuals who push through to their objectives. They might push the envelope as far as they can, they may break the rules, they may change the rules, but something will happen, and it seems to me that’s history itself. This was also my point about the gains of consensus. Are they real gains? Has our progress slowed down? Have we become fearful of risk?
The millennials have grown up under this homogenisation, this conformity. They believe they’re individuals but that’s just marketing. Sheeple is the right term for them. So someone like Trump us very frightening to them, they’ve never seen this before and they believe power figures are Hitler and Stalin, but Martin Luther King is not. Despite cries for diversity and the rights of the individual this could be the most conformist and fearful age we’ve ever had.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
It is a risky business, and in some ways a democracy is the only place to give power figures a bit of free reign because of those checks and balances. American society, for instance, is nothing like Germany and The USSR. America has always been a democratic state. It’s never been riddled with the same tensions that existed in the USSR or Germany. It’s the very environment that can handle power figures because the individual is the cornerstone of that success, it can and has absorbed the shock of the new.
I'm generally not in favor of giving power figures "free reign" even inside a functioning democracy like the US, and I think things generally work better if everyone just stays in their lane. I'm personally more a small government, classical liberal kind of guy. That said, at critical events in US history like the Civil War or the Depression/WWII these "power figures" (in a more modified American sense) or "centralizers" did step up and expand the state and we generally look upon Lincoln and FDR favorably even though they were undoubtedly centralizers who took considerable executive privilege.
Interesting, that could be something which naturally tends to happen when there is a major war.
Quoting IvoryBlackBishop
Or it could happen in a moment of history when a dynamic action moving forward is required to avoid degeneration.
Edit: degeneration; I don’t think that’s the best word choice.
Use vegetate.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Does that suggest they are essential figures in history or culturally?
And you have a standing army, btw. Not just basically an enlarged National Guard. The point of defense is typically the issue which even the most hardcore libertarian big-government hater accepts that in this 'special' case centralization works.
If the military is the example that small-government libertarians are OK with, then it opens a door to many issues. How about infrastructure? If the question is the legitimacy of power, the first question is how centralized power ought to be: when are things decided by the individual, when by the collective and when, to make matters function well, by a single person?
How about building something like the interstate highway system? People might take care of the road leading to their house with a neighbor, but how do you organize the planning, funding and building of a system of that proportions? Especially when it genuinely is a life and death decisions for towns and small cities just where the junctions of an interstate highway system are? The vast majority of city mayors would definitely want that their city to be linked in the most convenient way to other cities by highways. Yet you can't please everyone.
This comes back to power. The question isn't just about worrying that some evil guy will take power. The issue is that when there isn't centralized power, the lack of this can have a lot of consequences. And the military isn't the only example. The people who decide just where the highway close hold a lot of power in their field. And simply assuming that "anybody can build an interstate highway system and the best option wins by market mechanism" is the wrong utopian answer. In reality that won't happen. Without a central authority the most prosperous cities will have some form of fast highways/motorways, but on some point when the highway comes too far from the big city to a poor community, it will turn into a normal two lane road. And the result is that the prosperity simply won't appear: the lagging infrastructure will decrease economic growth.
Or just take zoning and city planning. At first, you might argue that in a free country, anybody ought to have the right to build anything they want on their land. Or who cares who owns it, it's problematic. Again the end result is quite a mush. The anarchic way some Third World countries grow is the perfect example how things go without central planning, without functioning institutions.
(Streets and roads, who needs them?)
Yes, especially in the case of a war which poses an existential risk to the state.
I'm not entire sure what you mean by that, but Lincoln and FDR are among the most influential and favored Presidents in the US.
Yes, and a lot of more small-gov't types are fine with the roads and some of that major infrastructure being left to the government. Of course centralization has played a huge role in the development of this country, but in modern times we're at a unique point where technology has developed to potentially give us better solutions.
For the past 10 years we've had a decentralized currency not tied to any state. The average lifespan of a currency is something like 27 years. It is immune from hyper-inflation (or even inflation) and it is impossible to seize/confiscate (of course you can always hold a gun to someone's head and do it but you can't just close their account like you could a bank and cut them off from their money.) You can send it to anyone else in the world and it's immune from interception.
We're seeing more tech like this. Our economy is increasingly becoming peer to peer with the rise of Uber and Airbnb, and with this tech we're pushing the envelope even further with the possibility of cutting out the company entirely and going directly peer to peer with basically no fees going to the middleman. We're really seeing a boom in this space and it's exciting.
I understand that in the 1950s we needed a centralizer to build the highways. But it's 2020 now. The world is increasingly digital, and governments and intelligence agencies are well aware of this and have used to it further centralize power and keep tabs on their citizens like never before. The banks and the intelligence communities here in the US work hand in hand so any debit or credit card you use has a data trail which does not belong to you, the user. Your own internet use belongs to your internet service provider which, again, is not yours.
We're just at a neat point in history where the pendulum is starting to swing the other way towards decentralization after around 150 years of it swinging towards centralization beginning with the industrial revolution.
Why desperately cling for the old ways?
Actually, the middlemen are there. They aren't just so visibile. For example, you still need:
a) secure and reliable internet connections
b) a working global payment system
c) all agreements between sovereign states and laws that make the above possible.
In the 15th Century the Medici's and the Fuggers could handle international transactions simply by sending a family member to foreign countries to serve as the trustworthy banker there.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Oh, you think there aren't equivalent investments anymore of need of similar centralization? Or think that the financial system will take care of it by itself?
How about tackling climate change?
Centralization of power isn't only about control and supervision of the citizens. It is to make otherwise extremely costly investments. It is to create an emphasis on certain issues. And many of them even international endeavours: the ISS, CERN, ITER etc.
Would there have been an interested billionaire that would have made them?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm not sure we are swinging into decentralization. Might be the opposite.
Surveillance of the masses is now totally possible with ever more detail that was unheard of earlier. Control is getting easier. The great film Lives of Others depicts quite well the fundamental problem that police states have had in history: to survey just few people you have had to have also a few people that listened or observed, at least looked through vast amounts of useless data when surveying people when defining them to be an "enemy of the state" or not. With more intelligent AI's, that limiting personnel problem won't be a problem anymore. A computer can listen to all the telephone calls, read through all emails, tweets and text messages and every word you ever have put to facebook or this forum. I gather that from all 'big data' on you specifically a cunning computer program can answer questions of "yes" or "no" to questions the government (or an employer) will want to ask of you.
That of course leads to a society where you simply don't talk politics to anyone. Or perhaps only to your friends in a safe environment. Which is more or less the way it was in the Soviet Union.
It actually is possible to send bitcoin without an internet connection. The technical side of it is beyond me, but people have sent bitcoin transactions through high frequency radios, mesh networks, and satellite. Bitcoin is the global payment system. It is a currency and a network. There is no agreement between governments that needs to make this possible.
You need to read what I was actually saying earlier. I never said that the era of all that is centralized is over. I didn't make that claim. I just said that in the past decade exciting opportunities involving decentralization are in development and some are in active use. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution society has been geared towards centralization, how could you not be excited for a new paradigm potentially emerging? I'm not saying everything is going to be decentralized, but lets just keep our minds open. Decentralization offers many advantages and acts as a hedge against totalitarianism.
We are potentially swinging into decentralization, but this is an ongoing battle as governments and corporations attempt to further centralize power and use technology to monitor citizens. I don't know who will win: maybe government, maybe corporations, or maybe the people.
Absolutely.
I agree.
Except they allow bitcoin to be used. And there's a multitude of laws and regulations on it.
For example, The EU and bitcoin:
And some countries view it as illegal: Algeria, Egypt, Bolivia, Nepal, Pakistan for starters. Others have banking bans on bitcoin.
Just as with alcohol, drugs or automatic weapons, you can surely have them and use them, but is it legal or illegal depends on the sovereign state you are in. And that will have consequences.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Well, that may be a too simplified juxtaposition of people being on the one side and governments and corporations being on the other. Governments and corporations are made of people too. The real power of a government institutions comes from the fact that people also support them and obey the rules. And then "the people" aren't as unified as many want to depict them.
I'd say that there are worrying phenomena, these kinds of vicious circles in society going around without a clear culprit or a designer / mastermind behind them. We can blame some actor for them and create this elaborate nefarious plan they have, but very seldom is there any kind of true conspiracy.
I understand countries have policies towards bitcoin, but enforcement is an entirely different issue. Strictly speaking, bitcoin doesn't require governments to sign off on it. Someone can send a transaction from Pakistan to Nepal (despite both countries banning it) because the transaction never relies on the governments or banks or anything to "approve" or sign off on it. This is huge. The transaction cannot be reversed or intercepted either.
Governments can shut down bank accounts. They can de-bank you or limit where your money is allowed to flow. They can reverse transactions between bank accounts even if the transaction somehow went through. Governments can also shut down brokerage accounts and go after companies that provide these services.
I am talking about the common good of humanity. If you support 24/7 surveillance and believe that "only wrong-doers need to be worried" then you're just not on the side of 'the people.' I understand that governments are made of people, but this isn't the sense that I mean it. I'm not speaking strictly literally.
You're going to need to be a little more specific because I'm not sure what you're talking about here.