The Distribution of Power

re: The Distribution of Power

Odin — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:31:40 GMT

I think that the process of concentration of power is indeed natural, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be prevented. All we need to do is learn from history, learn from a state which was best in suppressing the creation of oligarchy, a state which was (or more precisely allegedly was) a precursor to modern political systems.

Athens. If the old Athenians looked at today's states, they would consider them undemocratic. If you think about it, most people today equal democracy with free elections, when in fact nothing could be further from truth. Elections were considered undemocratic, because they naturally supported oligarchy, and in fact proposal to change the political system in Athens to include elections were always struck down as undemocratic.

I think we have much to learn from old Athens ...

For more information please see

libertariannation.org/.../f41l1.html

re: The Distribution of Power

nyob — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:54:17 GMT

coul you like put it in smaller details dang

re: The Distribution of Power

scottyokim — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:37:39 GMT

People are born with different capabilities and maybe more importantly, different levels of aggressiveness (ESTJ's, say). These differences quickly foster great disparities in wealth, power, fame, etc. In fact, the greater the pool of available capital, the faster these disparities can occur.

Those with the greatest wealth can then find each other (via the fame resulting from their wealth), and pool their wealth to create not only more wealth but also corporations that create situations much like company towns. (Of course, some company towns might be more benign than others, but it's still control by a few.)

This scenario has played out many times in many places throughout history. Assuming that human nature is going to remain constant over at least the next hundred years, I presume it will happen many times in the next century.

I'm not making an argument for or against government, I just think disparities in power arise naturally and these disparities will become larger and larger over time. Just like wealth in an economy.

re: The Distribution of Power

Nitroadict — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:48:52 GMT

"Do we crave predictability, or relish surprise?", to quote Virginia Postrel.

It's absolutely comical to argue that the way things as they are currently will always be that way, otherwise, I don't think we would've arrived at our current attempt at an improvement (representative democracy, albeit, it's still a form of oligarchy).

Why didn't we stick to a tribal society? A caste society? Or a feudal one, for that matter? It could be argued we still have such elements (especially with regards to neo-feudalism), but change still occurred, regardless.

The face-off between stasis & dynamism, in my view, invalidates such an assumption that oligarchies are inevitable, and the interplay between the two throughout history more or less confirms this.

re: The Distribution of Power

Brainpolice — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:20:06 GMT

Scottyokim: even accepting such a premise, such oligarchies then form into governments over time. So why endorse an argument that eventually leads to a legitimization of the rise of the state?

In either case, there is no good reason to suppose that the MASSIVE wealth and power disparaties that we see today is an inevitable "natural order". If it is, we should all give up on this silly liberty thing and become traditional conservatives.

re: The Distribution of Power

Nitroadict — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:03:53 GMT

Since individuals naturally have unequal power, oligarchies will grow over time even without "government."

In the present maybe, but what makes individuals unequal? Would the lack of knowledge concerning how oligarchies develop make certain individuals less equal than others? Would not spreading the knowledge, education, & information on said processes enable more individuals to avoid from encouraging such developments?

Or perhaps would you take the argument that because it's always been that way (oligarchies will grow over time even without government, etc.), it will always be that way and there is no point in fighting it; this is more or less what I gathered from your post.

Unequal power needs to be defined in this context, methinks.

re: The Distribution of Power

scottyokim — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:01:37 GMT

Since individuals naturally have unequal power, oligarchies will grow over time even without "government." Those naturally more powerful will pool their power (is there a Ricardo's Law for power?) and oligarchies result. So talking about a "true balance of power" is probably just as academic an exercise as talking about markets in equilibrium.

Is there a "political dual" to Mises's Human Action?