Darkover
Archangel
- Jul 29, 2021
- 5,041
Power over others involves taking power from someone else and using it to prevent them from gaining it, it signifies a hierarchical and often negative dynamic where one person seeks to maintain dominance over another.
restricting all peaceful ways of leaving life behind is a form of control, meaning those in power maintain dominance by preventing individuals from making autonomous choices about their own existence. If someone has the authority to deny people a peaceful exit while forcing them to continue suffering, that's a clear exertion of power over others.
This restriction benefits society's structure, not the individual, as it ensures people remain part of the system—working, consuming, and maintaining the status quo. It's not about genuine concern for well-being but about control, often justified through moral, legal, or economic arguments.
If people had full autonomy over their exit, it could disrupt existing power structures, which is why such options remain heavily restricted or outright banned in most places.
Denying individuals the right to a peaceful exit is not merely a moral or ethical stance; it is a deliberate form of control. By preventing people from making autonomous choices about their own existence, those in power reinforce their dominance. If someone has the authority to deny people a dignified way to end their suffering, that is a clear exertion of power over others. It removes an individual's ultimate agency—the right to decide whether to continue existing—and places it in the hands of the state, religious institutions, or other societal structures.
Many jobs rely on people feeling they have no choice but to continue working. If a true exit were available, it might force improvements in working conditions, wages, and support systems.
restricting all peaceful ways of leaving life behind is a form of control, meaning those in power maintain dominance by preventing individuals from making autonomous choices about their own existence. If someone has the authority to deny people a peaceful exit while forcing them to continue suffering, that's a clear exertion of power over others.
This restriction benefits society's structure, not the individual, as it ensures people remain part of the system—working, consuming, and maintaining the status quo. It's not about genuine concern for well-being but about control, often justified through moral, legal, or economic arguments.
If people had full autonomy over their exit, it could disrupt existing power structures, which is why such options remain heavily restricted or outright banned in most places.
Denying individuals the right to a peaceful exit is not merely a moral or ethical stance; it is a deliberate form of control. By preventing people from making autonomous choices about their own existence, those in power reinforce their dominance. If someone has the authority to deny people a dignified way to end their suffering, that is a clear exertion of power over others. It removes an individual's ultimate agency—the right to decide whether to continue existing—and places it in the hands of the state, religious institutions, or other societal structures.
Many jobs rely on people feeling they have no choice but to continue working. If a true exit were available, it might force improvements in working conditions, wages, and support systems.
