jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (11 posts)

Power

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago

    For consistent libertarians, I have an honest question.  I am pleading that anyone who responds pay attention to what I am actually going to claim, and not go off on rabbit trails.

    Money is power.  It isn't only power, but it is power.  If I have 5 billion dollars, and civilization breaks down, I can hire a private army to protect myself, whereas someone who has little or no money would literally be unable.  This would result in one person having a vast amount of power over all who are not wealthy, just based on their income.

    So since libertarians are rightfully suspicious of a government that is too powerful, how do they deal with the fact that massive accumulations of money for a small percentage of the business population poses a risk of absolute power just as dangerous as an unchecked government?

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Massive accumulations of money only works for as long as society remains intact. As soon as society breaks down, money would become worthless. In a society where there is no law, only chaos, people will just take what they want.

    2. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Occupy Wall Street / USA

    3. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My hub on the Power of Money would agree with a part of the above statement.

      Money itself has power. That power needs to be respected and understood. If you understand the power of money, then you will learn to respect it.

      Money itself IS only a tool. It's a very powerful motivational tool. What motivation it provides? Well, it could be positive or negative, depending solely on the character of the individual.

      A person of low character, will become corrupted by greed and not know it's happening, which will result in abusive use of power obtained from using the tool.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Every human being is susceptible to the trappings of power.   The founders understood this, and that's why they divided the government into three separate branches.

        It doesn't make someone a bad person, but too much concentrated power has a corrupting influence.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That depends.
          It's understood why there are 3 branches. This is not in doubt.
          Again, that depends solely on the character of the individual. Every person is accountable for their own individual character. Actions will dictate what their character is/reveals.

          Yes, if there is a concentration of people who have low character but are in positions of power, then these peoples' actions should be doing the talking.

          If you want to apply that to the US government, then feel free. I'm not going to say anything about it, but agree. The government has been over-stepping it's authority for more than 20+ years, if not for 200 years.

  2. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    Probably more dangerous than an unchecked government.

  3. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Libertarians are the most imaginative in politics. But they don't seem capable of imagining that there are families more powerful than government. And or
    they refuse to recognize class supremacy.

  4. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    Money keeps some people out of trouble. Money gets some people in trouble.

    And this concludes paradigmsearch's profound statement of the day.

  5. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 5 years ago

    Your question is: "So since libertarians are rightfully suspicious of a government that is too powerful, how do they deal with the fact that massive accumulations of money for a small percentage of the business population poses a risk of absolute power just as dangerous as an unchecked government?"

    First, libertarians have to be aware that what you stated is a fact. In order to do that they have to be educated to that fact. For the sake of discussion let's call "the massive accumulations of money for a small percentage of business population."(moneyed interests).

    Educating people to the facts is becoming increasingly more difficult, because those moneyed interest are producing very effective propaganda that makes people including libertarins to vote against their own best interests, thus giving the moneyed interests more control.  The people and organizations that can see through the propaganda do not have the money or the resources to combat the moneyed interests.

    As they say might is right and in this case might is the big moneyed interests. My point is they don't see anything wrong with it because the big moneyed interest have brain washed the populus into thinking there is a separation of government and the big moneyed interest when in fact, there is not. So the reason the government is unchecked is because of the big moneyed interests. It's almost circular reasoning.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are correct that big business has engaged in very effective propaganda in order to persuade the populace that their billions are legitimate.

      However, libertarians object on the grounds of liberty.  They assert that people like you and me are literally stealing from the wealthy through a socially acceptable means; and this includes anyone's money, regardless of income, that is used on anything other than a small military, police, courts, and a very modest national government.   I don't know if libertarians believe the taxes to pay for these items should be the same for all people or not though.   You'd have to ask one of them.

      I even read one libertarian who said that the Articles of Confederation was how things should be.  According to him, the Constitution gave the government TOO much power.  Interesting view no doubt.  The fellow's name is Albert Jay Nock if you are interested.

      I'm simply wondering whether the healthy skepticism they have of government power comes into play when business power is also substantial, and exactly what they would do to solve the problem.

 
working