OK, so the first thing you'd need is some evidence of this. — Isaac

If you’re happy with the state of politics, the quality of life for people, then of course you won’t accept any of my evidence to the contrary.

So what exactly are you wanting to discuss here? Are you just going to repeat your theory until someone says "yes, you're right". If you're just going to dismiss any contrary theory on the grounds that you don't 'reckon' it's right then what's the point in writing what you think on a public forum? — Isaac

Power is the subject. You were the one that focused on consensus because you disagreed with me. I’m not after anyone agreeing with me. I’m interested in responses and ideas. If you think disagreement is dismissal then I can’t help you. I don’t feel dismissed because you disagreed with me over consensus.

The use of the word power immediately sets up problems about what it means.

“In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others. The term "authority" is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust. This sort of primitive exercise of power is historically endemic to humans; however, as social beings, the same concept is seen as good and as something inherited or given for exercising humanistic objectives that will help, move, and empower others as well. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)

The power of an individual. This could just as well mean authority as well. But not in terms of those who apply the law or rules or have a legal power over others. For me these words mean a person who possesses authority, who possesses a commanding manner or has a sense of power in the way they behave, has confidence in themselves or is influential in their relationship with others. Such people are very influential, very persuasive and they tend to lead or inspire people to act in a similar way.

Because of this, and maybe because of our social or tribal nature, they create followers or people who put their faith in them. We could probably make a list of such people and we may have even met such people.

These people have always existed and they also exist in the animal kingdom, primarily in primates. It does not necessarily mean they are bad or tyrannical. They could not exist without the cooperation of others. Nor would those others cooperate if there was no benefit to them. These figures are ancient and, if successful, primarily responsible for the success and longevity of tribes and societies.

Not everyone has this power. Because of that they’re almost an elite group. In a way they’re Machiavellian. But they get things done, they make things happen. Their ways might be considered irregular, unconventional or even disruptive. Because of this, their method, we have to consider whether it’s a legitimate power.

The idea of such a person is not mythical or a modern idea designed to control others. But the idea of letting go of power, passing it on to this person, is something that probably frightens us, we have good cause to feel that way. But look at what we have: The United Nations, the EU, top heavy governments all over the world, vast bureaucratic systems, and very little to show for it. Could you be any more of a victim?

The way in which morality works in so-called "modern society" is rather something for an illiterate society. — alcontali

How so?

How so? — Brett

Where exactly is modern society's morality documented?

One reason why such society does not want to document it, is because they want to keep changing it as it suits them. The lack of of documentation points to its fundamentally deceptive and manipulative nature.

Where exactly is modern society's morality documented? — alcontali

Why would it be documented?

One reason why such society does not want to document it, is because they want to keep changing it as it suits them. The lack of of documentation points to its fundamentally deceptive and manipulative nature. — alcontali

How do you expect it to be documented? What form would you imagine it taking?

And you suggest this is a collective effort.

If you’re happy with the state of politics, the quality of life for people, then of course you won’t accept any of my evidence to the contrary. — Brett

I wasn't asking for evidence that politics and life were not in a good state. I was asking for evidence that watered-down policies make no 'progress'. If what you actually mean is that watered-down policies are one which you don't like, then just say so. What you're trying to argue is that watered down policies are actually stalling 'progress'. that's a different claim to them just not being your preferred policy.

Power is the subject. You were the one that focused on consensus because you disagreed with me. — Brett

The issue is whether pampering to consensus stifles progress. To establish that you have to establish that progress could be made if the consensus were ignored. Since we live in a democracy, to establish this you'd have to establish that leaders who ignored consensus would be likely to remain in power. To establish this you need to know something about the likely voting behaviour of the electorate. I talked about some of the leading theories regarding what this voting behaviour might be, and what causes it. You decided that since it didn't fit with your preconceptions you'd ignore it.

This is all moot, however, as I now realise that this is just another boring right-wing moan. You guys are always trying to dress up your basic unexamined conservatism in some higher sounding philosophical rhetoric - "it's all about liberty", "it's about free speech", "there's a good logical basis for private property, but I'm just not going to tell you at the moment", "consensus stifles progress", "some rights are meaningful, others aren't (they just so happen to be the ones that help me offend minorities and make lots of money, but that's just coincidence, they're logical really)"

It's such a transparent tactic.

You just don't like left-wing concessions and you're trying to present that as some kind of philosophical insight.

If we had a strong leader who, in defiance of consensus, banned heterosexual relationships, forced us all to use the pronoun "xhe" and abolished all heavy industry in favour of local "healing gardens" would you be happy with that?

I now realise that this is just another boring right-wing moan. You guys are always trying to dress up your basic unexamined conservatism in some higher sounding philosophical rhetoric — Isaac

Ahh, I see. You can’t handle exploration of uncomfortable ideas.

If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind.

I was asking for evidence that watered-down policies make no 'progress'. If what you actually mean is that watered-down policies are one which you don't like, then just say so. What you're trying to argue is that watered down policies are actually stalling 'progress'. that's a different claim to them just not being your preferred policy. — Isaac

Hopefully I’ll never see any grumbling or dissatisfaction from you about the state of things in the world because you’re happy with the results and decisions made by governments, the progress.

Just out of interest, where does Fidel Castro fit into your position?

You can’t handle exploration of uncomfortable ideas. — Brett

It's not an 'exploration/ though, is it? It's a manifesto. An exploration takes evidence and reason from both sides to try and draw conclusions. You're ignoring all the evidence that doesn't support what you've decided to promote.

If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind. — Brett

What evidence do you have to support that conclusion? Could you cite some enthongraphies which detail the extent to which chiefs in nomadic hunter-gatherer communities ignored consensus to dictate what would happen. Or is 'evidence' just another one of those things which gets in the way of 'progress'?

Hopefully I’ll never see any grumbling or dissatisfaction from you about the state of things in the world because you’re happy with the results and decisions made by governments, the progress. — Brett

On the contrary. I just don't try to blame governments for the faults of the people who put them in power.

Just out of interest, where does Fidel Castro fit into your position? — Brett

He doesn't. In the grand scheme of things, it is the masses who hold the power, not the individuals Castro maintained power whilst he had mass support. When mass support wanes, dictators get toppled. That's not to say that there isn't loads to be done in the interim, removing and fighting against dictators and unpopular leaders who are clinging on to power despite popular opinion. Such situations can last many years and people suffer needlessly under it. But the trend overall (which is what we're interested in here) is that what the populace wants, the populace gets.

How do you expect it to be documented? What form would you imagine it taking? Why would it be documented? — Brett

First, there are the first principles of morality. These basic rules allow us to reason from first principles, and discover theorems in the formal system of morality, i.e. the moral theory. These theorems are syntactic entailments that necessarily follow from other theorems or from the first principles.

The enormous advantage of formal systems is that the derivation of their theorems can (conceivably) be verified mechanically. For me, this is very important, because I do not believe in conclusions for which the derivation cannot be verified mechanically.

As a matter of fact, there are no functioning formal systems for morality besides Islamic jurisprudence:

Principles of Islamic jurisprudence, also known as uṣūl al-fiqh (Arabic: أصول الفقه‎, lit. roots of fiqh), are traditional methodological principles used in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) for deriving the rulings of Islamic law (sharia). — The epistemology of Islamic jurisprudence

Pretty much every alternative for determining morality turns out not to be a formal system and simply does not allow for axiomatic derivation. I really do not need those alternatives, and I completely reject them, because I insist on the possibility of objective, mechanical verification of the theorems' derivation paperwork.

What evidence do you have to support that conclusion? Could you cite some enthongraphies which detail the extent to which chiefs in nomadic hunter-gatherer communities ignored consensus to dictate what would happen. Or is 'evidence' just another one of those things which gets in the way of 'progress'? — Isaac

My actual post;

“If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind”.


“A World On the Wane”. C. Levi. Strauss, 1961.

Men, Women and Chiefs. ( p. 303)

“He it is who organises their departure, chooses their itinerary, and decrees where and for how long they will stop. He decides on the expeditions - hunting, fishing, collecting, scavenging ... He determines the time and the place for the sedentary life. He supervises the gardens and says what crops are to be planted.”

Do those who take power have the right to take it and wield it? — Brett

Is power a thing based on what is right or wrong?

We may strive for a moral justification for power, we may accept it as necessary for organization of our society, but those are moral points of view.

When nobody anymore challenges their power, then those in power have the power. We either accept their holding of power by a) agreeing that they hold power or b) being unable to challenge their power.

1. Anthropologists Paul Aspelin and David Price tried to replicate Lévi-Strauss's findings on the Nabikwara and found that he hadn't identified their subsistence ecology correctly, so they may not have been nomadic, certainly aren't now.

2. Literally on the page before, Lévi-Strauss talks about how fragile the chief's position is, how if if takes too much or fails in any of his tasks his authority is taken away.

3. The page after he talks about how the chief's decision on a successor, like all his other decisions, are ultimately held to account by the tribe. "consent lies at the origin of power and consent is what confers legitimacy on that power" later "the chief has no powers of coercion"

All this egalitarianism is corroborated by a number subsequent anthropologists such as Price.

But by all means do continue to cherry-pick paragraphs from 60 year old texts to support your preconceptions, I can see actual investigation is not going get in the way.

I must learn to ignore your posts, they serve no purpose at all.

This is my original post.

“If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind”.

You’ve gone and revised my quote and then tried to make me defend that.

Here’s your post.

“Could you cite some enthongraphies which detail the extent to which chiefs in nomadic hunter-gatherer communities ignored consensus to dictate what would happen.”

I didn’t say the chief ignores consensus in the tribe.

Then in your first point you question the validity of Levi’s finding, as if that might make my point invalid.

Then when it suits you go and use Levi’s findings to support your points, #2and #3.

Finally your posts confirm what I’d already said, that the chief in his position of power only holds it by the benefits the tribe gains.

Which is largely my point about power that I made in the OP.

As to your hysterical rant about the right and left, and this being

another boring right-wing moan. You guys are always trying to dress up your basic unexamined conservatism in some higher sounding philosophical rhetoric - — Isaac

let me remind you that these power figures occur just as much, if not more, in leftist states.

This is not about Trump but about power and whether we should look at how it works more closely and overcome our fear of it, about whether power can be wielded morally or whether there are benefits in the idea of power.

Good OP - broad topic. There's a lot we can say about power.

The older I get the more I tend to see power as something personal, or more like the assertion of one's personal will over, say, systemic rules or procedure. A very clear example of this would be when Hitler declared a state of emergency upon being elected and suspended the Constitution because there was some supposed existential threat facing the state and in turn he destroyed the institutional, democratic procedures present under the Weimar Republic that would have constrained executive power.

It can also be more crafty and subtle, like when FDR interpreted the neutrality acts in kind of his own personal, unusual way to allow the US to fund China against Japanese aggression by not defining the conflict as a "war." Here FDR didn't destroy the system like Hitler did, but his interpretation of the neutrality acts was basically just him pushing his agenda within a democracy.

It's important not to confuse "power" with simply it's enforcement. For instance, in the US military an enlisted member is required to salute an officer. If he does not, the officer is required to reprimand him. An outsider might see an officer reprimanding an enlisted individual and see it as the officer imposing power, when the officer in reality is required by procedure to do what he is doing. No one is free in this interaction.

Centralized power is always something to be feared, at least on some level. The more centralized and powerful it is the more you should fear it.

Feel free to get a discussion going here and offer your feedback or ask something else. There wasn't much I staunchly disagreed with in your OP so I just thought I'd add a few points.

Where exactly is modern society's morality documented?
— alcontali

Why would it be documented?

One reason why such society does not want to document it, is because they want to keep changing it as it suits them. The lack of of documentation points to its fundamentally deceptive and manipulative nature.
— alcontali — Brett

I don’t think society wants to keep changing morality. There are people who have a relativist views of morality, but strangely enough it doesn’t seem to change their behaviour which we might tie to morality. It’s not as if everyone out there is suddenly choosing to behave like Raskolnikov.

And anyway we document laws and those laws can be changed or removed over time. So it’s not as if, as a society, we don’t document things so that we can change them as we want. And you might find our morality actually documented in our laws, which are punishable if broken.

I think it’s interesting that as a species we did live under this idea of power figures. Somewhere along the way things changed. There are obviously reasons for that change, and I’m presuming they didn’t happen overnight. Because of that we might tend to look on the idea of power figures as primitive and savage and so reject any consideration of them. You can see how the very mention of the word power sends people spinning off into rants about right wing ideology.

Power is personal and it’s about the individual. So it seems a little odd in these times of individuality and diversity that we shy away from this. What’s the point of the strength and autonomy of the individual if power isn’t going to be part of it. If individuals can’t rise up through the masses, to aspire to all sorts of unknown potential, then what’s the point of believing in the individual. And is the opposite worth it in terms of progress and success in survival.

Or is it as I suggested just fear of the individual?

What’s the point of the strength and autonomy of the individual if power isn’t going to be part of it. If individuals can’t rise up through the masses, to aspire to all sorts of unknown potential, then what’s the point of believing in the individual.

I think we can both agree that it is reasonable to be fearful of power. It is also reasonable to fearful of very large power imbalances.

Centralized power residing in, say, a government or a tribe can work out well especially in times of war.That's not really in dispute. But there is always an enormous risk inherent in that. What happens after the threat is gone? What happens after the reforms have been done? Who is there to check them?

There's nothing wrong with people seeking, say, positions of power insofar as they wish to govern fairly and recognize that their actions have serious consequences. If someone is just seeking power for the sake of imposing their will that person is dangerous and not ready to lead.

But there is always an enormous risk inherent in that. What happens after the threat is gone? — BitconnectCarlos

A example of that might be Churchill during the war years. When the war was over he was voted out. In terms of leadership he was what was no longer needed, he’d served his purpose.

Historically centralised power has not worked. And these power figures seem to be associated with centralised power. But I’m not sure that if we looked at things more carefully we might find that there are examples where power figures didn’t necessarily pivot towards some of the horrors we’ve seen.

Your point about someone seeking power for the sake of it and imposing their will is worth considering. The populace still require something in return for that person to hold on to their position.

A very clear example of this would be when Hitler declared a state of emergency upon being elected and suspended the Constitution because there was some supposed existential threat facing the state — BitconnectCarlos

Hitler and Germany is complicated, but still it’s generally referred to as an example of the power figure and the dire consequences. But in fact there was an existential threat to the state and that was Communism. It’s very possible if it had not been for the aggression of Hitler and the right that the Communists might have won the day. So as I say, complicated.

Here in Australia there was a referendum on becoming a Republic. The public rejected the Republican idea because they wanted to be able to chose the President and the referendum did not allow for that. My point here is that I’m looking at the idea of power figures within a democratic process. Can they achieve things in that system, does it work against them, and can they destroy and usurp it?

As a matter of interest.

Kissinger picks the seven most powerful people in history.

“In order to list the seven most powerful people in history, it is necessary to define the term "power." I use it here in the sense of a vision of the future coupled with a capacity to bring it about. Vision without power is an intellectual exercise. Power without vision often turns on itself. For this reason, I have excluded religious figures whose power is spiritual, not military. With these qualifications, here is my list.”

Julius Caesar, Qin Shi Huang, Peter the Great, Mahatma Gandhi, Napoleon Bonaparte, Theodore Roosevelt, The American president since 1945.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/11/09/kissinger-roosevelt-gandhi-leadership-power-09-history_slide.html#4960a7e46585

However if they reject the system of government, in this case representative democracy, then you could regard them as dissidents. In that case they would be hoping for another form of government. However, the government is still imposing itself on the dissidents on behalf of the people that elected them. So the imposing is still legitimate. — Brett

This makes no sense to me.

Imposing one's will upon another is, in my opinion, illegitimate, whether one does it on behalf of other people or not.

My point is that governments have no right to rule over people who do not want to be ruled by it.

What else could it be, unless you reject representative democracy, and then you’re imposing your view on others. And I assume you’d feel justified. — Brett

Rejecting something does not equal imposing it on others.

Imposing one's will upon another is, in my opinion, illegitimate, whether one does it on behalf of other people or not.

My point is that governments have no right to rule over people who do not want to be ruled by it. — Tzeentch

So what form of government would you prefer instead?

What else could it be, unless you reject representative democracy, and then you’re imposing your view on others. And I assume you’d feel justified.
— Brett

Rejecting something does not equal imposing it on others. — Tzeentch

If you reject one form of government than you must presumably have another preference in mind. You can’t just rid yourself of a government you don’t like and exist in a vacuum. So unless 100% of the population supported your new government how would you deal with those who didn’t want your form of government?

So explain to me the logic of your argument from the disputed post. You said

“If you’re really open minded you might consider the idea that though traditional tribal societies were collectives and socialist they still had a chief who called the shots. Try and balance that in your over heated mind”. — Brett

Clearly implying that I didn't already have it in my 'overheated mind'.

You're writing a piece about how pampering to consensus waters down progress. I'm disputing that proposition by suggesting that 'progress' to you just means 'things I want to be the case' - so pampering to consensus doesn't water down progress, it just means the more extreme preferences don't get met.

You retort to that with the above quote. That even socialist or collective societies had a leader who called the shots.

I can't take that to mean that you agree with me - that progress is indeed made with consensus, it's just progress in socialist or collective societies (not what you want, but progress nonetheless) that would just prove my point, that it's about your personal preferences, not 'progress' in general. Since you implied that I didn't already know this, I must presume you raise this point in opposition to my view.

So you must be say either;

a) "Look at past societies who made progress - they had strong leaders who ignored consensus" (thus proving your point that progress is only made my strong leaders who ignore consensus).

or

b) "Look at past societies who had leaders who sought consensus, they all failed to make any progress at all" (thus proving your point that no progress is made by leaders who seek consensus).

or

c) "Look at past societies who had leaders who sought consensus, they all failed to make the kind of progress I'd like to see" (thus proving my point that 'progress' is just 'stuff you want').

Since (b) is ridiculous, and you're claiming (c) isn't the case, I presumed you meant (a) and thus I presented evidence to the contrary - these leaders did not ignore consensus, the relied on it even more heavily that our do nowadays.

Now you're saying that you knew that all along. My apologies for mistaking your position. You must, then, have meant either (b) - that tribal, socialist and collective societies made no progress because their leaders sought consensus, or (c) that these societies just didn't make the kind of progress you want to see, but that just supports my original argument - that 'progress' to you is just 'stuff you want to be the case'. Otherwise, how are you supporting an argument that these societies made 'no progress'?

Either your central thesis is wrong because tribal societies did make progress despite having leaders who sought consensus, or you need to make an argument that these societies did not progress even by their own definition of 'progress', or you have to concede that we're not talking about objective 'progress' at all, but just the direction you'd like society to go in.

Which is it?

So what form of government would you prefer instead? — Brett

Our discussion is not about what I prefer, but about what is legitimate.

If you reject one form of government than you must presumably have another preference in mind. You can’t just rid yourself of a government you don’t like and exist in a vacuum. — Brett

I can't?

Couldn't I theoretically move to some desolate place where no government has a say over me, without bothering anyone else?

I'm not advocating to impose my preferences on anyone else. That's the exact thing I take issue with.

Couldn't I theoretically move to some desolate place where no government has a say over me, without bothering anyone else? — Tzeentch

Theoretically you can do anything you want, including living in a vacuum.

Your point being?

First of all I would need to know if you know what theoretically means.

I'm not interested in playing games.