|
|
Post by Don on Dec 10, 2017 7:21:14 GMT -5
This goes along with the debacle of Weinstein et al, but seems worthy of a new thread. Rather than pointing fingers, let's look for root causes. I think Tricia Beck-Peter does a nice job here. Bolding mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 10, 2017 11:20:50 GMT -5
This is like asking why do rich men get laid more. Because people are self-interested by nature and only a system of morals, or a very few remarkable individuals, overcome the natural inclination to act predominately out of self interest. That doesn't mean people are "evil," it means that our natural, ingrained instincts, are to choose "me" over "you." And that has nothing whasofuckingever to do with government. Serious question, Don - have you ever read Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed? It's basically about a man from a (truly) anarcho-communist society who goes to visit a capitalist society. (That's a very brief and inadequate description.) LeGuin is pretty Leftist, and the book is pretty old, so she presents the communist world sympathetically and the capitalist world rather harshly, but she still goes a really good job of describing how even in a "stateless" communitarian system, authoritarians find ways to play power games, and how the capitalist system, despite being overtly "unfair," delivers a better quality of life, albeit unevenly distributed. Point being, a Leftist feminist sci-fi author wrote SF novels in the 60s and 70s that do a better job of delving into psychology and the nuances of power relationships than your "gummint ebil" articles do. (And yes, I do think a lot of Heinlein's writings are also on point, though a lot of Heinlein fans think his fiction mapped more closely to his actual beliefs than it probably did.) |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 10, 2017 11:40:48 GMT -5
This is like asking why do rich men get laid more. Because people are self-interested by nature and only a system of morals, or a very few remarkable individuals, overcome the natural inclination to act predominately out of self interest. That doesn't mean people are "evil," it means that our natural, ingrained instincts, are to choose "me" over "you." And that has nothing whasofuckingever to do with government. Serious question, Don - have you ever read Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed? It's basically about a man from a (truly) anarcho-communist society who goes to visit a capitalist society. (That's a very brief and inadequate description.) LeGuin is pretty Leftist, and the book is pretty old, so she presents the communist world sympathetically and the capitalist world rather harshly, but she still goes a really good job of describing how even in a "stateless" communitarian system, authoritarians find ways to play power games, and how the capitalist system, despite being overtly "unfair," delivers a better quality of life, albeit unevenly distributed. Point being, a Leftist feminist sci-fi author wrote SF novels in the 60s and 70s that do a better job of delving into psychology and the nuances of power relationships than your "gummint ebil" articles do. (And yes, I do think a lot of Heinlein's writings are also on point, though a lot of Heinlein fans think his fiction mapped more closely to his actual beliefs than it probably did.) It doesn't have to do specifically with government, as the article made fascinatingly clear. It has to do with power over others. You're the one conflating power and government here. I'll restate the questions from the quote, as they are the same questions I have. Or, in other words, if people are really concerned about the abuse of power, why do so many support the continuing centralization of that very dangerous power? The answer to the abuse of power is to dilute it, not concentrate it, because of the very arguments you made in your first paragraph. You're right in line with Lord Acton, there. Decentralize power at every level, to whatever extent possible, and you reduce the ability of those who naturally abuse such power from gaining ever more of what poisons our society. Arguing for more power for the powerful in the hopes they'll be good to those below them is as ridiculous as buying alcohol for an alcoholic in hopes they'll quit beating their spouse. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 10, 2017 21:09:18 GMT -5
It doesn't have to do specifically with government, as the article made fascinatingly clear. It has to do with power over others. You're the one conflating power and government here. Poppycock. It certainly does have to do specifically with government, as both you and the article made abundantly clear. You contradict yourself below: I'll restate the questions from the quote, as they are the same questions I have. Or, in other words, if people are really concerned about the abuse of power, why do so many support the continuing centralization of that very dangerous power?
My bold. If you're truly arguing that other sorts of "powers" -- like wealth or fame -- are also a problem, I'll eat my hat. (Well. I'll have to buy a hat; then I'll have to eat it.) The answer to the abuse of power is to dilute it, not concentrate it, because of the very arguments you made in your first paragraph. Sure. And how would we dilute the power of, say, wealth? Because wealth is naturally concentrated. Wealth turns into exponentially more wealth in a free society. Decentralize power at every level, to whatever extent possible, and you reduce the ability of those who naturally abuse such power from gaining ever more of what poisons our society. Arguing for more power for the powerful in the hopes they'll be good to those below them is as ridiculous as buying alcohol for an alcoholic in hopes they'll quit beating their spouse. From the standpoint of, e.g., the current GOP and their tax plan, I agree with this sentiment, but I don't think that's what you mean. What I mean is that more money in the form of tax breaks to the wealthy in the hopes that it will "trickle down" to the commoners is just as you describe. The true power, imo, is wealth. Some will sell their souls for it, politicians included. What Amadan is saying is spot on, imo. Where there are no morals, where people act purely out of self-interest, there will be abuse. But the thing is, a lot of people have morals. A lot of people don't act purely out of self interest. Those in government are no different, imo, from the rest of the population. As a "liberal" (I guess), I can even say that many in the GOP are not without morals and are not acting purely in self-interest. A lot of them are just wrong, imo, about what they think is good for the country, but it's not necessarily because they're a greedy, power hungry lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 11, 2017 6:51:11 GMT -5
Of course wealth and fame produce power that gets abused. All gains of power over others are susceptible to that same abuse. I'd dilute the power of wealth by preventing political systems from protecting businesses from competition, not issuing regulations and bailouts that protect them from their mistakes. Kevin Spacey is no politician, but his use of informal power gained from his acting chops, and the natural deference to authority that's ground into everybody during 12 years of institutional incarceration had everybody going along, not rocking the boat, protecting their little piece of the pie. After all, morals are relative, right? Better to abandon principles than lose one's position.
The road to hell is paved, not with good intentions, but with pragmatism.
People who point out the Emperor's lack of clothes generally get hanged. Finally, in the case of sexual abuse of power, that's not happening any more. People are speaking up. That's great. But sex is not the only thing stolen by those with power. When people start to figure that out, there may be hope for individuals to regain some measure of control over their own lives.
Look no farther than Daniel Shaver to understand that most people haven't figured that out yet. Death apparently isn't as big an abuse of power as rape in the collective mind these days. Until that changes, there will always be apologists for those who tell others how they must live, and for those who abuse that power to dictate others' lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 11, 2017 9:42:59 GMT -5
The last paragraph of the essay:
1) The article absolutely IS about political power, as this conclusion makes absolutely clear.
2) That said, I'm pretty sure Don would be first in line to accuse those private individuals who have accrued power via wealth (especially when there's a big corporation involved). So maybe split the difference and Christine can just chew on a visor?
Anyway, I find the article to be fairly shallow and unenlightening. Sorry. It opens and closes by referencing rape, yet is mostly about Moore and Franken, where rape isn't the subject (maybe potential statutory rape, but I don't think so). Moreover, Moore and Franken don't even fit the mold, even if it's about sexual miscondict, because their transgressions don't reflect an application of political power, at all (Conyers is a much better example, in this regard, along with Clinton of course).
So the bases for the essay is kinda flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 11, 2017 10:00:55 GMT -5
People who point out the Emperor's lack of clothes generally get hanged. Finally, in the case of sexual abuse of power, that's not happening any more. People are speaking up. That's great. But sex is not the only thing stolen by those with power. When people start to figure that out, there may be hope for individuals to regain some measure of control over their own lives. Are you serious? People are speaking up, so sexual abuse of power isn't happening any more? Isn't that kind of like saying people are speaking up, so abuse of police power isn't happening any more? Or people are speaking up, so abuse of political power isn't happening any more? What we're seeing right now is a wave of anger that is taking down a few people and making everyone else more cautious, so those who've become accustomed to overt and unapologetic sexual abuses of power will have to be more circumspect in the future. Just like in past scandals, certain forms of political and economic corruption have been forced "underground," hence the truism that lobbyists don't just walk into a Congresman's office with a suitcase full of money any more. That doesn't mean that lobbyists don't still bribe Congressmen, but they have to be cagier about it. It's not a bad thing that the Harvey Weinsteins and Al Frankens of the world have been put on notice and won't be able to be quite as blatant in the future, but that doesn't mean that all the Harvey Weinsteins and Al Frankens of the world have now been taken care of and that problem is solved. My point, Don, is that you are once again seeing everything in the world as a nail because you only have a hammer. In your anarcho-libertarian dream communes, do you think there would be no monkeys playing treehouse games, and no one accumulating social and political capital, in whatever form, as power, and abusing it? |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 11, 2017 10:43:49 GMT -5
My point, Don, is that you are once again seeing everything in the world as a nail because you only have a hammer. In your anarcho-libertarian dream communes, do you think there would be no monkeys playing treehouse games, and no one accumulating social and political capital, in whatever form, as power, and abusing it? Oh, bullshit. There will always be monkeys playing treehouse games, and people trying to accumulate political capital. My argument is that as long as people believe that institutions that centralize power are the answer to these problems, there will be more, not fewer, opportunities for people to be corrupted by the power they manage to accumulate. Not surprisingly, the more powerful the institutions, the more damage a person claiming the coercive power of that institution can cause, and the less likely said individual will ever be brought to justice. Indeed, in many people's minds, the simple assumption of the role is excuse enough to let misdeeds pass. A madman with a gun can kill hundreds, and be brought to justice. A madman with massive power-accumulating institutions at his beck and call, and some level of popular support for such mad man, is necessary to kill millions. The guy down the street who dislikes cannabis is no threat to my health or well-being. The morons in Mordor are. That has everything to do with empowered centralized institutions. And nowhere did I claim that because people are speaking up these things aren't happening again. I'm always amazed when your posts don't burst out in flames. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 11, 2017 12:28:00 GMT -5
Oh, bullshit. There will always be monkeys playing treehouse games, and people trying to accumulate political capital. My argument is that as long as people believe that institutions that centralize power are the answer to these problems, there will be more, not fewer, opportunities for people to be corrupted by the power they manage to accumulate. Not surprisingly, the more powerful the institutions, the more damage a person claiming the coercive power of that institution can cause, and the less likely said individual will ever be brought to justice. Indeed, in many people's minds, the simple assumption of the role is excuse enough to let misdeeds pass. A madman with a gun can kill hundreds, and be brought to justice. A madman with massive power-accumulating institutions at his beck and call, and some level of popular support for such mad man, is necessary to kill millions. The guy down the street who dislikes cannabis is no threat to my health or well-being. The morons in Mordor are. That has everything to do with empowered centralized institutions. And nowhere did I claim that because people are speaking up these things aren't happening again. I'm always amazed when your posts don't burst out in flames. My posts don't have to burst out in flames when I'm just repeating your words back at you. What is bullshit about you seeing everything as a nail? You have never answered any of my questions about how things will work in your anarcho-libertarian fantasy world, because you have to admit, and don't want to, that it would be a low-tech pastoral throwback that almost no one considers an acceptable trade-off for not having a government. To you, any government besides informal agreements with your neighbors is "bowing to Mordor." You're certainly free to believe that, but I'm going to continue to mock it as a purblind religious belief indistinguishable from waiting for the Second Coming. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 11, 2017 12:43:45 GMT -5
Oh, bullshit. There will always be monkeys playing treehouse games, and people trying to accumulate political capital. My argument is that as long as people believe that institutions that centralize power are the answer to these problems, there will be more, not fewer, opportunities for people to be corrupted by the power they manage to accumulate. Not surprisingly, the more powerful the institutions, the more damage a person claiming the coercive power of that institution can cause, and the less likely said individual will ever be brought to justice. Indeed, in many people's minds, the simple assumption of the role is excuse enough to let misdeeds pass. A madman with a gun can kill hundreds, and be brought to justice. A madman with massive power-accumulating institutions at his beck and call, and some level of popular support for such mad man, is necessary to kill millions. The guy down the street who dislikes cannabis is no threat to my health or well-being. The morons in Mordor are. That has everything to do with empowered centralized institutions. And nowhere did I claim that because people are speaking up these things aren't happening again. I'm always amazed when your posts don't burst out in flames. My posts don't have to burst out in flames when I'm just repeating your words back at you. What is bullshit about you seeing everything as a nail? You have never answered any of my questions about how things will work in your anarcho-libertarian fantasy world, because you have to admit, and don't want to, that it would be a low-tech pastoral throwback that almost no one considers an acceptable trade-off for not having a government. To you, any government besides informal agreements with your neighbors is "bowing to Mordor." You're certainly free to believe that, but I'm going to continue to mock it as a purblind religious belief indistinguishable from waiting for the Second Coming. Oh, FFS. At least quote me in context. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 11, 2017 12:50:47 GMT -5
Okay, I read the referent for "that" as being "sexual abuse of power," not "...get hanged." So, grammatical ambiguity.
That said, the rest of my post stands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 11, 2017 19:23:05 GMT -5
The last paragraph of the essay: 1) The article absolutely IS about political power, as this conclusion makes absolutely clear. *victory dance* See my edit. If Don agrees with it, I will indeed split the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 12, 2017 5:14:21 GMT -5
The last paragraph of the essay: 1) The article absolutely IS about political power, as this conclusion makes absolutely clear. *victory dance* See my edit. If Don agrees with it, I will indeed split the difference. Yeah, all my posts should pretty well indicate I'm in agreement with this. Power is the problem; government is just a particularly nasty way to accumulate such power, because most people think "If it's government it's legal, and if it's legal it's moral," and they think no farther than that until some woman points out that a senator grabbed her tits. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 12, 2017 20:16:05 GMT -5
Yeah, all my posts should pretty well indicate I'm in agreement with this. Power is the problem; government is just a particularly nasty way to accumulate such power, because most people think "If it's government it's legal, and if it's legal it's moral," and they think no farther than that until some woman points out that a senator grabbed her tits. Well, all of your posts (like this one) circle back to the corrupt power of government. You also don't seem to think there's anything to be done (outside of eliminating government favors) about the corrupting power of wealth. I can't see how any of this is worth more than a single bite of a bandana, if that.  Also, no, most people don't think "if it's government it's legal/moral." It's has to be the government officials they voted for. Sides matter! |
|
