How would you explain, as an example, a system in which certain individuals would acquire and would hold power, other than by presenting the negative traits such as the ones you mention?
The motive of my comment was to prompt critical reflection on the more basic essence of power, not just particular expressions of power.
Under almost any system, those traits are somewhat advantageous when it comes to power, but few if any countries reward them as thoroughly or do as little to rein them in as the US.
Very few if any other democracies have systems written by and for the already rich and powerful to anywhere near the degree of the US.
None other that I have heard of explicitly allows bribery by law (as long as you’re not stupid enough to say “I’m bribing you right now to do this specific thing”), even going so far as considering it a necessity to gain and retain public office.
CERTAINLY not while loudly pretending to be one of the least corrupt and most democratic countries in the world. Even going so far as to claim absolute social mobility when there’s almost none for those at the bottom.
Regardless of your position, the question I asked seems entirely natural and fitting, and also straightforward, given the preceding context.
Your response reveals you have innaccurately extrapolated one particular motive for the question.
You have hinted toward a favorable solution to an agreed problem, yet you now antagonize someone, and return an evasion, simply for suggesting politely that you might elucidate your own position.
There remains an unresolved tension in your argumentation thus far.
You have agreed that problems for those who are disempowered are exacerbated by the conditions of one small group holding power.
Yet, you have also tacitly defended, as the form of system you most prefer, a system in which one small group holds power.
More, you have avoided offering any conception of how power itself may be reproduced by activity you regard as favorable.
Under almost any system , those traits are somewhat advantageous when it comes to power
I agree.
For such reasons, as well as others, I would defend the assertion that problems for those who are disempowered are exacerbated by the conditions of one small group holding power.
Very few if any other democracies…
…when there’s almost none for those at the bottom.
I can reach no understanding of how any of it is related to assuaging problems that have been exacerbated by conditions of one small group holding power.
Yet, you have also tacitly defended, as the form of system you most prefer, a system in which one small group holds power.
I’ve done no such thing. Which small group are you imagining I’m advocating for being in charge of everything?
issues identified as consequent of one small group holding power.
Identified by your own faulty logic. It’s extremely reductive to pretend that how many people have power is in itself the only problem rather than for example how that power is (ab)used and how little is done to hold those people accountable.
The lack of social mobility for poor and otherwise marginalised people is one of the main reasons for the concentration of power. That and people like you ignoring any part of the problem that isn’t directly related to a tiny portion of the causality.
I’ve done no such thing. Which small group are you imagining I’m advocating for being in charge of everything?
You clarified the various kinds of processes you consider as more versus less favorable for how individuals would enter into positions of power.
If processes exist for how individuals may enter into positions of power, then the individuals who have entered into positions of power, by such processes, constitute a group who holds power over society, and that, compared to the whole mass of society, is small.
Therefore, you have tacitly defended a system in which one small group holds power over the rest of society.
It’s extremely reductive to pretend that how many…
You are distorting my language, simply to make it assert what you feel inclined to negate.
The challenge, which you have avoided, is to consider critically the benefit, if any, that one group having power over another confers to the group that is disempowered.
There may be a more direct path toward identifying the essence of disagreement.
Let’s make it simple.
Considered abstractly, a system may take any one of three forms…
One group holds power, and the group holding power exacerbates problems for those who are disempowered.
One group holds power, and the group holding power does not exacerbate problems for those who are disempowered.
Power is not held by a particular group.
You seem to have implied two assertions…
The preferred system is (2).
Among those systems that are in fact possible is (2).
Would you please justify one or both of the assertions that you seem to have insinuated?
No. You’re either not arguing in good faith or showing yourself incapable of appreciating vital complexities. Either way, it’s not worth my time and effort to continue down this road. Have the day you deserve.
Is a good faith argument dismissing any idea with which you disagree, by invoking a single word, and then declining to provide the counterargument you have implied is trivial?
Which vital complexity am I incapable of appreciating?
Is a good faith argument a response based on an ad hominem?
How would you explain, as an example, a system in which certain individuals would acquire and would hold power, other than by presenting the negative traits such as the ones you mention?
The motive of my comment was to prompt critical reflection on the more basic essence of power, not just particular expressions of power.
That’s a disingenuous way to frame it.
Under almost any system, those traits are somewhat advantageous when it comes to power, but few if any countries reward them as thoroughly or do as little to rein them in as the US.
Very few if any other democracies have systems written by and for the already rich and powerful to anywhere near the degree of the US.
None other that I have heard of explicitly allows bribery by law (as long as you’re not stupid enough to say “I’m bribing you right now to do this specific thing”), even going so far as considering it a necessity to gain and retain public office.
CERTAINLY not while loudly pretending to be one of the least corrupt and most democratic countries in the world. Even going so far as to claim absolute social mobility when there’s almost none for those at the bottom.
Regardless of your position, the question I asked seems entirely natural and fitting, and also straightforward, given the preceding context.
Your response reveals you have innaccurately extrapolated one particular motive for the question.
You have hinted toward a favorable solution to an agreed problem, yet you now antagonize someone, and return an evasion, simply for suggesting politely that you might elucidate your own position.
There remains an unresolved tension in your argumentation thus far.
You have agreed that problems for those who are disempowered are exacerbated by the conditions of one small group holding power.
Yet, you have also tacitly defended, as the form of system you most prefer, a system in which one small group holds power.
More, you have avoided offering any conception of how power itself may be reproduced by activity you regard as favorable.
I agree.
For such reasons, as well as others, I would defend the assertion that problems for those who are disempowered are exacerbated by the conditions of one small group holding power.
I can reach no understanding of how any of it is related to assuaging problems that have been exacerbated by conditions of one small group holding power.
I’ve done no such thing. Which small group are you imagining I’m advocating for being in charge of everything?
Identified by your own faulty logic. It’s extremely reductive to pretend that how many people have power is in itself the only problem rather than for example how that power is (ab)used and how little is done to hold those people accountable.
The lack of social mobility for poor and otherwise marginalised people is one of the main reasons for the concentration of power. That and people like you ignoring any part of the problem that isn’t directly related to a tiny portion of the causality.
Seems about true.
You clarified the various kinds of processes you consider as more versus less favorable for how individuals would enter into positions of power.
If processes exist for how individuals may enter into positions of power, then the individuals who have entered into positions of power, by such processes, constitute a group who holds power over society, and that, compared to the whole mass of society, is small.
Therefore, you have tacitly defended a system in which one small group holds power over the rest of society.
You are distorting my language, simply to make it assert what you feel inclined to negate.
The challenge, which you have avoided, is to consider critically the benefit, if any, that one group having power over another confers to the group that is disempowered.
There may be a more direct path toward identifying the essence of disagreement.
Let’s make it simple.
Considered abstractly, a system may take any one of three forms…
You seem to have implied two assertions…
Would you please justify one or both of the assertions that you seem to have insinuated?
No, let’s not. Oversimplification was your mistake from the start.
Ridiculous.
Nope, because I never claimed either thing. I’m not going to validate your strawman argument by acting as if it’s logically sound.
You’re a more patient man than me. I would have stopped acknowledging that guy like two replies ago.
You say patient, I say impulse control issues making me bad at not replying when it’s clearly not worth the time and effort any more 😄
deleted by creator
If so, then it should be trivial for you to show an alternative.
Please do so.
No. You’re either not arguing in good faith or showing yourself incapable of appreciating vital complexities. Either way, it’s not worth my time and effort to continue down this road. Have the day you deserve.
Is a good faith argument dismissing any idea with which you disagree, by invoking a single word, and then declining to provide the counterargument you have implied is trivial?
Which vital complexity am I incapable of appreciating?
Is a good faith argument a response based on an ad hominem?
You are being immensely hypocritical.