RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O)

RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/24/2007 1:26:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Still, making an enterance for agendas into an otherwise abstract presentation seems to be a likely defect. Curious; For heavens sake man/women, life is difficult enough without having to try to understand what things like this mean.

Bobkgin -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/24/2007 10:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Perhaps a flawed approach, to bring up something considered controversial to explain an abstract concept. I do like the abortion topic very much. It highlights an area where a slight deviation of opinion on a basic concept can yield powerful differences of opinions between individuals. Still, making an enterance for agendas into an otherwise abstract presentation seems to be a likely defect. Actually, I thought it an excellent example/dilemma. On the one hand you have the helpless fetus. On the other hand there are people who would make a woman helpless for the sake of her fetus. Either way, someone exercises absolute power: mother over fetus or society over mother's body. There is no win/win here. So the issue becomes who do you grant that power to and why. Well chosen.

Bobkgin -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/24/2007 10:33:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: ThinkingKitten Ya know, for some reason I always think of Margaret Thatcher when I see that statement (the thread title)...........[:D] You ought to try thinking a bit harder then MsTK, if anyone did have absolute power the very last thing he/she would permit was to be voted out of office. lol By definition no one would even be voting. In any meaningful way. Not that voting in western democracies achieves much in the short term.. The "people" are only likely to get what they want if what the establishment wants goes so badly wrong that some change becomes inevitable. Even then the "people" might have to wait 10/15 years. As we all know and can see daily on this Off Topic section what the "people" want has no clear definition anyway so it just seems a bit of a SNAFU to me that allows those who "serve" the "people" to do what they want. For a few years....then we get the other lot.. In most (if not all) parliamentary systems we elect a dictatorship for the term of office, then we get to elect another dictatorship. This is assuming we elect what is called a "majority government" where one party holds the most seats in the House of Commons. As there is no level of executive government above the House, implementation of it's decisions cannot be avoided. Rarely (at least here in Canada and in England) we elect what is called a "Minority Government" where no one party holds the majority of seats. This type of government can be a lot closer to the wishes of the people in its actions, as any unpopular legislation is a good reason for the opposing parties to vote out the one that currently runs the government. And at least here in Canada we have no right of recall where we could terminate the tenure of a member of parliament. Were this possible we could, in fact, un-elect a government (assuming enough ridings recalled their members of parliament). In America, the equivalent to a parliamentary "Majority Government" would be one party controlling all three branches of government (such as the GOP had been doing before the mid-term elections). So suggesting Thatcher had absolute power is not far off the mark. Most Prime Ministers of Majority Governments wield enormous power.

seeksfemslave -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/24/2007 11:28:09 AM)
quote: Bobkgin So suggesting Thatcher had absolute power is not far off the mark. Come off it Bob, most Brit PMs for example complain bitterly about the decisions of the Judges. Cant think of an example for MrsT but Blair complained regularly about the Human Rights interpretations of the courts particularly with regard to failed asylum seekers, but he couldn't do much about it. As an absolute despot he would have no problems whatsoever in making things "go his way" lol quote: Most Prime Ministers of Majority Governments wield enormous power. I agree....BUT enormous power is NOT absolute power.

Bobkgin -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/24/2007 1:08:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: Bobkgin So suggesting Thatcher had absolute power is not far off the mark. Come off it Bob, most Brit PMs for example complain bitterly about the decisions of the Judges. Cant think of an example for MrsT but Blair complained regularly about the Human Rights interpretations of the courts particularly with regard to failed asylum seekers, but he couldn't do much about it. As an absolute despot he would have no problems whatsoever in making things "go his way" lol In Canada we have something called "The Notwithstanding Clause" in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This allows any federal or provincial government to pass a law that contravenes the Charter and will prevent the courts from ruling on the validity of the law itself. It has been used in the province of Quebec to deny citizens the right to use their own language (unless their language is French) on posted signs. This may have changed, as I stopped following this after a few years. But initially it clearly denied the Charter's language rights of Canadian citizens in Quebec. The same clause can be used to deny anyone their rights. We also have the War Measures Act which can (and has) been used to suspend civil liberties (last used in the '70s during the FLQ crisis). During WWII Churchill and his government were granted unlimited power over people and property. My point is the power is there. That it is not exercised isn't the point I was making. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: Most Prime Ministers of Majority Governments wield enormous power. I agree....BUT enormous power is NOT absolute power. In Canada it would take but one piece of legislation to change that. Any majority government could pass such legislation. In theory, a provincial government could also do it. Not sure how that would work out in the long run, but the Charter would permit it should it occur.

seeksfemslave -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/24/2007 3:56:28 PM)
If I understand the point you are making then it seems to me what you are impliciltly calling for is a strong difficult to violate CONSTITUTION. Farglebargle regularly tells us where for example US governments do in fact circumvent the US constition. lol So even there difficulties exist.

Bobkgin -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/24/2007 5:33:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave If I understand the point you are making then it seems to me what you are impliciltly calling for is a strong difficult to violate CONSTITUTION. Farglebargle regularly tells us where for example US governments do in fact circumvent the US constition. lol So even there difficulties exist. Seems to me if we are to have the courage of our convictions the charter/constitution should be impossible to break. Instead what we have are politicians who say "well, we think this democracy-thing will work, but we want to be able to go straight to dictatorship if it doesn't" In other words, if the people get uppity, the government can slap us down.

NorthernGent -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/25/2007 2:42:56 PM)
Power corrupts in not a "truism"; it's an opinion/idea. Some people in power have actually served the public interest.....is your education self-made?

Sinergy -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/25/2007 6:28:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin How do you avoid the manifestations of this truism? I personally fully read what a person posts and think about it, and attempt to avoid jumping to the conclusion that the person was personally attacking me with their post. I then try to avoid going into attack mode with my inflated sense of self, legend in my own mind bruised ego in charge of my typing fingers. Additionally, I realize that while I myself may have some amount of power, there are others, like Moderators, who have more power than I do. Accordingly, I avoid making snide comments or outright attacks on them to avoid being pimp-slapped into (awaiting approval). To me, it is not whether or not one has power that defines the individual, it is what the individual chooses to do with the power they have. This is, like always, just me and I could be wrong. Sinergy

NeedToUseYou -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/25/2007 8:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin How do you avoid the manifestations of this truism? It is simple you don't encourage a situation wherein power is compressed in a few hands but rather "true" power is dispersed that is all a individual can do. But I'm not sure the premise is even correct, using the "corruption" word implies a known state of malevolent intention. As in "I know this is wrong, and I say that it is wrong, but I do it anyway". My view on the dangers of power, is that power allows people to do what they think is right, that is way more dangerous. And obviously a person or organization with to much power will not feel remorse, or sympathy for those it is targeting it's power against. At least a corrupt individual would have some chance of remorse or repittance, a power obsessed "do gooder" will never remorse. Why should it? It is doing good, according to their definition. It's the conviction mixed with power, that is awesomely dangerous, the corrupt pale in comparison. If any of that makes sense.

NorthernGent -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/26/2007 2:13:43 AM)
Reply to no one in particular: A discussion around power leading inevitably to corruption and tyranny is usually followed by The Soviet Union as an example, but what about other examples of people in a position of power serving the public interest: such as advancements in education, in the numbers of people voting, in the provision of affordable housing for those struggling to make ends meet etc. Some people do actually marvel at being part of a wider movement than that which exists outside of the individual's sphere of existence. The notion that power inevitably leads to corruption, serves a particular political agenda: it's not a truism.

Alumbrado -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/26/2007 6:49:52 AM)
Technically, it is a dictum, cited as being proven by history, and it was an observation on Papal power, IIRC. Close enough to a truism for many. (And the author using the example of the Soviet Union would have been pretty much impossible, absent a really nifty time machine.)

NorthernGent -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/26/2007 6:57:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado cited as being proven by history........Close enough to a truism for many. It's nowhere near close enough for me, nor is it proven by history. quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado absent a really nifty time machine. Any old excuse eh.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375