Originally posted by Suzianne "...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made (see "reductio ad Hitlerum" ), the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law."
Originally posted by whodey Among chickens, lions, deer, and gorillas it pays to be powerful because in these societies powerful males have (almost) exclusive access to females and thus all the offspring in the group are theirs – a considerable genetic advantage. Thus, there is a lot to gain by having power and therefore there is fierce competition among the males for such positions.
A common misunderstanding of evolution is to assume (without warrant) that genetic advantage is a good thing.
As for the overall post, I would say that how you measure power depends on context. In many ways Obama is not the most powerful person in the world. By other measurements money = power so the wealthier people are the most powerful (and Obama is not particularly wealthy). Wealth means more choice over how you live your life. Obama's life is actually very constrained.
I must point out that some African leaders have many wives / girlfriends and many many children, so here, political power can result in genetic advantages. I still don't think that genetic advantage is necessarily a good thing, and the most prolific breeders tend to be the poorest people.
Originally posted by whodey My corruption meter is broken?
Would you say that FDR's corruption meter was broken when he jailed innocent Japanese Americans and then tried to pack SCOTUS with stooge justices in order to pass his legislation? Oh, that's right, FDR was a Prog saint. My bad.
How did the Constitution and checks and balances help the Japanese Americans Suzy?
This argument is absurd.
This item about the incarceration of Japanese Americans during WW2 is a dark spot in our nations history, and no one today disputes this. This doesn't instantly make everything Roosevelt did to save this country suspect. That is patently ridiculous. And to offer that Roosevelt did this out of "corruption" is even more ridiculous.
As is this thing about "and then tried to pack SCOTUS with stooge justices in order to pass his legislation". Every president selects Supreme Court justices which, in his view, support his ideals and policies. The nominees must then be vetted and approved by Congress. Both the nomination and approval of Supreme Court justices follows the mandates set forth in the US Constitution. Except so far this year, as the SC still sits at 8 justices, because we have leaders in the Senate who are acting like children.
Originally posted by whodey Ok, how about Stalin? How about Moa? How about all the fabulous power hungry collectivists over the years? Are they off limits as well Suzy?
It's Suzi, with an "i", if you please.
Rail on about "collectivists" all you want, Ms. Rand.
I doubt if we've ever had a "collectivist" (regardless of Ms. Rand's definitions) in the White House.
Originally posted by KellyJay I do not believe power brings corruption, I do believe it reveals it.
No, not even that.
I'm sure you're familiar with this quote: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." -- 1 Timothy 6:10, KJV
Notice it says "the love of money", not simply "money". Similarly, power does not bring corruption. It is "the desire for power" which brings corruption. Actually being in power does not naturally bring corruption unless one simply desires more power. What brings corruption is not just having power, but wanting it.
Power: Good or bad?
05 Sep '16 14:06
Back to Top