May 03, 2006

The use of power - Or Wither the Corrupt?

There's a difference of goals in this case. The maximum priority of NOW is to gain power, presumably justified because with power then they can initiate "change". But in reality, that's not a very good plan for governance or policy.

Power can be used for many things, and the thing is, it takes a lot of wisdom to use power well for certain things. Sledghamming a cookie batter to form cookies is... counter-productive. Too much power, you get a blow up, too little and you get nothing but waste products.

NOW's maximum priority should be the safety of women, and all their planning and assets should be diverted towards that goal. This is not an idealistic suggestion, it is a realistic analysis of problem solving. If you want power, then naturally you will try to solve the problem of not having power. What happens when protecting women is part of the reason you don't have power, because you won't support dictators that rape women for sport? Then it is logical to go for the dictators, to get power, and then reinvert it and say with power we can protect women. Does that seem ethical to you? Perhaps not, but it is logical.

Thus assuming NOW isn't full of incompetent 70 IQ retards, they should see the logic as well, and will follow it (does follow).

The ends justify the means. To dissasemble that, it means basically that certain goals require certain means to produce, and certain goals require that certain means not be used. For example, the classic save the village by destroying it could be an example of a goal you want to do by a means you cannot use to do the goal with. It can also go the other way, sometimes the goal requires you to destroy the village to save it.

It depends upon what your specific goal is. If your goal is to save the village from a nuclear strike, then if bombing it will help, that is a way to save the village by destroying it. If your goal is to save the village from war and what not, then bombing it is perhaps counter-productive.

If NOW's ends are women's rights, then anything that violates women's rights they must not do and anything that supports women's rights, freedoms, and life should be supported (Bush) as Book pointed out.

So to follow the logic, and one must always follow the logic down the yellow brick road to its ultimate conclusion, NOW's ends are not women's rights. Analytically speaking, NOW's ends are power, unbridled power. Because theirs is not a means to an end, it is not the power given to the President to safeguard the Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic and to protect the American people. It is a power onto itself, an end onto itself philosophically speaking. The end justifies itself, and is not justified by any means other than itself.

If you wanted to free the oppressed people of Afghanistan, the power of the American military is thus bridled by the goal itself. The purpose of that power is to free the oppressed people of Afghanistan. What is the purpose of the power of NOW? To what goals, conditions, and limitations is NOW's power restricted by? What is NOW not willing to do in the pursuit of power?

Ruthlessness is defined by me as seeking and accomplishing all or any means in order to accomplish your Goal, whatever your goal may be. Thus ruthlessness is not a virtue, so much as it is a strength of character. Thus even villains have strengths, and weaknesses. The Democratic Party and NOW are quite ruthless, that is why I believe they won't let much of anything stand in their way.

The Founding Fathers faced a similar problem. How do you give government power and make sure the government uses that power for the purpose you intended it to use it for, instead of abusing power and using it to create a tyranny?

One of their solutions is to put most of the power into the hands of the people, where it is diffused, and allows minorities as much protection as the majority. If the people have the guns and the knowledge/wisdom in how to use them, then the government will have a hard time abusing the power the people has given them. Guns is not a power the people will relegate as a government monopoly, therefore the government must show its madness to take the guns to take ultimate power, yet it can't take ultimate power without showing its teeth in taking the guns. And if they show their teeth early on, their chances for ultimate success is not good. Catch 22.

NOW and the Democrat Party's pursuit of power is tempered by the fact that violence is not their mainstay. Democracy is a disease that infects the trait of pacifism and decadence into its practitioners. Trading strength for stability, vitality for wisdom, etc. (Democracy works for Iraq because it's balancing the Ph) All you have to do to know what NOW and the Democrat party can become, is to look at the Muslim Jihad grassroots movement by the mullahs. Politically very powerful. Very good organization skills. They have a mandate from the people, they have a list of their policies, Shariah Law. They believe their righteousness to be just. Their effectiveness? Quite effective given that the press bows down to their desires and demands.

The Founding Fathers were always faced by this problem. To get good governance and to protect people, you must organize. But if you organize, you run into the problems with leaders in that organization setting goals that are INCOMPATIBLE with the aims of democracy and the rights of the people. (Ceos found company, his successor ruins it)

It is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers said government was a necessary evil. Evil is defined by choice, and people in leadership positions will always, ALWAYS, choose something that is evil in one way or another. NOW's simply a lite version of that fact.

People don't truely understand why power corrupts. Power corrupts simply because to do anything, you need power. So it is very easy to say that if you can get ALL power, then you can do Anything. Not true, but that doesn't stop people like the Democrats and NOW from trying.

Power is the same as military force, in a broader guise. The military requires intelligence and wisdom to win wars, not just brute force. Power mandates the same thing, if you are to use power to accomplish any of your goals. The same problem arises. If you seek the brute force approach, as the Democrats, Mullahs, iranians, and NOW seeks, then you will always always believe that a bigger military hammer of force will solve your problems.

Some might decry the humanitarian problems of war and brute force violence, but the real problem is that it doesn't work. (bigger hammer approach) When things don't work, there is such a thing as Chaos being birthed. Chaos kills more people than any focus directed beam of destruction or power. (Vietnam boat people)

That's about it.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home