Discussion Does absolute power ALWAYS corrupt absolutely?

[Zhendou]

Yes or no? Explain your answer.

In my opinion, it does. So many people had changed when they had absolute power. Napoleon had changed for example. He was a great leader at first but developed a complex (get it?).

Also, Revolution leaders had taken down the dictators only to become dictators themselves. For example, Castro from Cuba. But it could also be argued that he could had been planning that from the beginning.

Money changes people too. Money=Power. Absolute power always corrupts, whether it is slowly or swiftly. It only takes time. This is why there has to be checks and balances. Without them, dictatorship.

Now it is your turn. What is your answer?

 

[Agon321]

If I gained a lot of power, I would definitely change.
Appetite grows with eating and I want more and more.
There is something addictive about power and a sense of superiority.
In my opinion, it is difficult to remain modest in such a scenario.

That is one of the reasons why I do not trust any politician.
I do not trust because I know how I would behave in their place.
We humans are not as different from each other as we would like.

I fuck the people who currently rule us, but I totally understand them.

Of course, I've simplified it all a lot.

 

[DarkRange55]

I think
@Blurry_Buildings
@Forever Sleep
@noname223
@Myforevercharlie
@Dr Iron Arc
@Pluto

Can give you some answers!

 

[astr4]

first exception that popped into my brain is someone with moral ocd. they simply wouldn't be inclined to be corrupted, ha.

 

[wCvML2]

no single human should have so much power in their hands to influence others' lives, not only because of fear of corruption but also because of the mere sways of mood that could affect anyone on any given day. it makes sense to have a parliament make a vote for every decision in law making.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Well I'm not always a fan of absolutes but I'm sure if it was possible for power to not lead to corruption, we would have seen it by now and time and time again it's been shown that the incorruptible simply don't make it high enough to have meaningful power in the first place. I can promise that if I were given power I would absolutely abuse it in all the worst ways. I already cause so much harm with barely any influence or power.

I suppose hypothetically if you had someone who somehow:

1) Was born and raised in the humblest and most desolate of circumstances so that they can understand what struggle is
2) Managed to endure these circumstances without developing even the slightest hint of bitterness or resentment or other negative emotions from their upbringing
3) Was catapulted to their top position of absolute power instantly without having any attachments from peers or party members or family that would hold them back and cause them to waver in making decisions that would be good for everyone as a whole

Even then, this hypothetical person could still wind up being corrupted for like, some other reason that I can't think about. And that's assuming this person doesn't just get killed or imprisoned or something by those who are more easily corrupted. The Dark Knight movie was right: You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think
@Blurry_Buildings
@Forever Sleep
@noname223
@Myforevercharlie
@Dr Iron Arc
@Pluto

Can give you some answers!

I imagine your knowledge of history/politics is far better than mine. I imagine most people's is to be honest!

Interesting question though... Are those seeking that much power all that good to begin with? Maybe. Maybe it starts off as some noble ambition to improve the lives of their people.

To want that much power though- that's more of a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Isn't it slightly corrupt to think only you know what's best for everyone? I'd say even the initial quest for absolute power and intention to solely hold it is questionable from the start. Perhaps it doesn't corrupt them. Maybe it just shows them for who they were from the start.

 

[Downdraft]

Power doesn't always corrupt, most people were already shitty. Now they just have an excuse to show their true colors.

Non-greedy people in high positions have existed. It's just that the idea that humans are born kind and the world corrupts them is a delusional worldview. Don't give an asshole a reason to be one.

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

I think
@Blurry_Buildings
@Forever Sleep
@noname223
@Myforevercharlie
@Dr Iron Arc
@Pluto

Can give you some answers!

and @DarkRange55! xD

I voted no, because I think there are some exceptions, and many examples of people who receive power and are corrupted, but are not corrupted as much as they could have been.

It's a hard thing to measure even subjectively, and it probably depends what you define corruption as, but I believe that most people who gain absolute power in politics genuinely want to do what they consider the right thing by doing whatever it takes to advance their ideology for the people they rule over. Maybe they become an authoritarian dictator, jail or execute their opposition, and line their own pockets, but they more often than not stick to the principles and ideologies they intially held before coming to power, even in situations where it isn't neccessary. Some might call that ideological consistency self-preservation, but to me it doesn't explain the thousands of dictators who instead of selling out at the last moment and ensuring their safety and personal wealth went down fighting in a figurative and often literal "blaze of glory".

If you think about it in another way, some people argue that the wealthiest amongst us are the most powerful. Wealthy people can often influence bureaucratic regulations, buy politicians, regular people, organizations, businesses, and any materialistic possesions available to be owned. A wealthy person can go anywhere there are people and demand a service. As long as the wealthy person is paying, they'll find people willing to serve their every whim. Despite this massive amount of power, some wealthy people willingly choose to let go of most of it. Warren Buffet could exert control over massive corporations (not just holding investments), bribe politicians, live on super yachts in fabulous luxury, and create his own cult to carry on his will, but instead he lives in the exact same small house he bought 70(ish?) years ago and donates large portions of his money to charity, while trying to convince other billionaires to do the same. Buffet knows he'll have a mixed legacy whether he continues to donate or not, and he knows that his legacy won't make a difference either way after he's dead, but he continues to live a modest lifestlye, especially for one of the world's richest people, and donates towards the causes he believes in, because he wants to do what he believes is the right thing to do.

 

[Pluto]

There are very rare exceptions only. Generally, the same type of person who would grab and consolidate power at any cost will be motivated by narcissistic tendencies that leave a trail of destruction in their wake. But there are occasionally good ones.

Qaboos bin Said was Sultan of Oman for 50 years, ending in 2020. He modernised the country and improved standards of living. Oman remains a functional and healthy society to this day.

Across the border in Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh embezzled tens of billions of dollars, leaving the country the divided, war-torn ruin that it is today.

 

[Adûnâi]

It's a meaningless Christcucked truism. Define "corruption". It's like those cringelords saying that heterosexual porn is gonna lead to homosexual porn with a slippry slope argument. Maybe for some, but not all.

 

[yellowjester]

No, not always. There's plenty of historal examples showing that it's possible to rule over millions of people and still be a good person that works towards the common good (Frederic the Great, Julius Caesar, FDR, to name a few). It's just that most ordinary people -- and make no mistake, most rulers in history were ordinary people -- don't have enough self-control to brible their passions and keep their vices in check when they have that much room to express themselves. Also it's much easier to climb that ladder if you're a corrupt and deceitful person, especially in a capitalist system, where you are essentially punished for caring about other human beings.

 

[Adûnâi]

Julius Caesar

Was a ruthless dictator who genocided more people than Hitler (percentage-wise)?

 

[yellowjester]

Was a ruthless dictator who genocided more people than Hitler (percentage-wise)?

Caesar was a hero of the working class; I don't know what soyboy history books you're reading. Obviously he was a child of his time, obviously he waged wars, but I don't see how that makes him a bad person. That's just how things worked back then, that's how you brought order into world if you lived in a pre-modern age.

 

[Ironborn]

Give me enough power I'll make Chairman Mao look like Uncle Roger.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

No. It doesn't corrupt people. It makes people show their true selves. People are naturally shitty but they only pretend to be nice because there are consequences to not being nice. With absolute power, they have no reason to be nice anymore as they are above the law and can do whatever they want