Abuse and misuse of Power

[Teiwaz]

It's strange, the majority of people that I hear with serious complaints about the abuse of power by those who have it are Americans. Citizens of the country that threw off the yoke of English oppression and instigated a system of laws in a democratic framework to negate tyranny and give the people freedoms and rights second to none in the world. Admittedly, I am not in daily contact with Pakistani women, or religious/tribal minorities in Iran, but the frequency of complaints from the people of the great free nation of the world seems ironic - you level them at your politicians and corporate leaders typically, and it seems like they are tinged with jealousy. The have nots accusing the haves of rigging the system to attain or maintain their positions of wealth and priveledge.

The real abusers of power to me seem to be more Robert Mugabe-esk than Bush or Gates-like. More Eastern-Europe organised crime than cigar puffing old boys.

Isn't it a common conspiracy theory that there is an "inside club" or range of secret societies that exclusively enhance and protect their elite inside circles of super-wealthy power brokers and exploit and exclude the plebs?

[The_Man]

Teiwaz,
I am glad that you brought this up. In fact it is one of the main reasons that I stay politically affiliated with the Republican Party. The inclination to blame America first cry seems to be expounded by the leadership on the Left all to often these days. To use ones position on the world stage to make political pokes at your opponents just to try and rile up your political base without taking in to account how the rest of the world might perceive them is to me an abuse or misuse of power. An even greater abuse would be if the intended result were to bring speculation from the rest of the world.
Your observation as an outsider so to speak looking in pretty much confirms my suspicions.

[Freethinker]

It's an interesting observation. I haven't thought of it in those terms, but the evidence seems to be there. I'll give it more thought.

["shazbat"]

"Secret Societies" and other "boy's clubs" are only visible manifestations and trappings of power and wealth. In and of them themselves they mean little.

That and politics aside it is human nature for those with power and wealth to seek to maintain and increase power and wealth. The means are only a vehicle and not particularly relavent to the primal urges and motivations that spark the actions and deeds.

It is only the societal moral compass that decides whether ones strategy is heinous butchery or just "board room manipulations".

In the end it's the winners that write the history but a rat bastard is still that whatever the glossing over.

[Sonrisa]

I think this is on topic. If not just kick over to where it belongs. I will ask the question the only way I know how.......

Abuse of power aside, which it appears to me runs through both the right and left wing -- power is power -- and that is after all part of human nature, sad to say....we are all indeed very unevolved......still quite primitive. all sides seem very manipulative and dole out what they want us to know or hear a drop at a time, and leaves me wondering you would ever know the truth if you heard it.

I force myself to listen to the right and try to be as open-minded as I can, but yes, I am DRAWN to the left...not as an intellectual exercise....it is my basic nature to be more like that, it appears.....but even though I have read "Johnny Got His Gun", by Dalton Trumbo, "Consent and Civil Disobedience" by Abe Fortas, watch movies like "Roger and Me" and Fahrenheit 911" and find myself nodding energetically, I have questions.

Such as:

The state of the economy in the US - with the huge influx of plants and businesses to 3rd world countries and the shambles it is leaving in its wake...when the reason is given such as, "We have to do this to stay competitive and stay in business"....how were we so prosperous years ago? Is the difference that the third world countries actually did not have much of an economy at all dependent on the same things we have here, i.e., textiles, steel, auto mfr, etc.?

Are we in the beginning of a new business revolution comparable to the industrial revolution where millions of people were swept under the carpet because they could not keep up with the times.

Is it fair or realistic to expect people in their 50's, 60's and even older to just run out and get a new skill, especially if they are not that well educated to begin with.

I can see from a business viewpoint that maybe they are all regarded as collateral damage, but is that really what we are all about? I don't know. It appears that way to me. Am I missing something major. There seems to be something I'm missing, and it IS very easy to dismiss the entire right wing as all of the things that were stated above. Is it at all possible for business to co-exist with some humane values, or is it strictly 100% cut-throat dog eat dog. Am I being naive, stupid and childish? Are there any real solutions offered to the American worker?

Is it the true middle, not upper-middle classes fault for being so passive and taking it on the chin without a major uprising? In spite of all my name calling at the TV and occasionally a little throwing of objects that will not shatter, I honestly do want to know. I don't think of myself as unusually stupid, but I just don't understand it and it bothers me greatly. I am embarrassed that I know so little about business, but it has never been the focus of my life. Plese explain it or tell me what to read, as I hate feeling this way about our country and our government. It is making me quite ill literally. As for the Russians, those poor bastards have never caught a break as far back in history as I've read, but that doesn't mean I want to live like that. Was the former US the way it always appeared to me, clean, shiny new and workable or was that all an illusion like Leave It to Beaver? Just asking....Sonrisa

[Sonrisa]

P.S. I also read and thought a lot about "Libertarianism" by John Hospers years ago. A lot of the ideas I really liked, but it was not clear to me how all that would work in "the real world". Certainly the personal civil and property rights aspects were appealing. How does that philosophy translate into present day economics and global interaction with other countries? It does appear to me though that the present Libertarian party bears little resemblance to the book and the party seems to have been "hijacked" by various off-centre groups with personal axes to grind. Just the way it APPEARS (very deceptive isn't it) to me.

Sonrisa

[The_Man]

It is only the societal moral compass that decides whether ones strategy is heinous butchery or just "board room manipulations".

In the end it's the winners that write the history but a rat bastard is still that whatever the glossing over.

A truer statement I have not heard!!

Only wish I had made it.

[nelson]

"Secret Societies" and other "boy's clubs" are only visible manifestations and trappings of power and wealth. In and of them themselves they mean little.

That and politics aside it is human nature for those with power and wealth to seek to maintain and increase power and wealth. The means are only a vehicle and not particularly relavent to the primal urges and motivations that spark the actions and deeds.

It is only the societal moral compass that decides whether ones strategy is heinous butchery or just "board room manipulations".

In the end it's the winners that write the history but a rat bastard is still that whatever the glossing over.Great insight and very well said, shazbat.

[nelson]

It's strange, the majority of people that I hear with serious complaints about the abuse of power by those who have it are Americans. Citizens of the country that threw off the yoke of English oppression and instigated a system of laws in a democratic framework to negate tyranny and give the people freedoms and rights second to none in the world. Admittedly, I am not in daily contact with Pakistani women, or religious/tribal minorities in Iran, but the frequency of complaints from the people of the great free nation of the world seems ironic - you level them at your politicians and corporate leaders typically, and it seems like they are tinged with jealousy. The have nots accusing the haves of rigging the system to attain or maintain their positions of wealth and priveledge.

The real abusers of power to me seem to be more Robert Mugabe-esk than Bush or Gates-like. More Eastern-Europe organised crime than cigar puffing old boys.Teiwaz, if only every US citizen had such a clear vision of this matter as you have demonstrated.

[Teiwaz]

"Secret Societies" and other "boy's clubs" are only visible manifestations and trappings of power and wealth. In and of them themselves they mean little.

That and politics aside it is human nature for those with power and wealth to seek to maintain and increase power and wealth. The means are only a vehicle and not particularly relavent to the primal urges and motivations that spark the actions and deeds.

It is only the societal moral compass that decides whether ones strategy is heinous butchery or just "board room manipulations".

In the end it's the winners that write the history but a rat bastard is still that whatever the glossing over.

It is also human nature for people to challenge those with power and wealth, and if they have the ability, to either share it or wrest it from those seeking to retain it. The establishment is always being challenged, and mankind has shown throughout history yhe difficulty of maintaing an empire. This constant churn is, to my mind, like a tectonic plate being abducted into the mantle while another is reborn as new material rises.

And I don't think it is merely a societal social compass that decides whether something is heinous butchery or board room manipulations. There are basic standards that are evident, and while they evolve, and whilst there are grey areas, it is an oversimplification to say that the winners can recharacterise extremes of conduct as neatly as you suggest. Things deemed horrendous now were common place say, in the 16th century, but our current state of affairs was arrived at by constant change over that period as society developed and became more sophisticated. A moral compass suggests the ability to swing 360 degrees, and I just don't see hanging drawing and quartering, or pre Geneva Convention rules of warfare becoming the accepted norms again.

[Sonrisa]

You may very well be right, but I find it disconcerting that we fall back on "not as bad as other countries" as a sort of collective attaboy.

Why not just strive for better. It seems we are all, after all, very primitive under a thinly disguised veil of civilization. I wish we could do better, but as my old chemistry teacher used to say, "Wishing doesn't make it so".

Sonrisa