Whenever one has power over another, that power will be abused. Agree?

[Juxtapose]

Personally I think in the vast majority of cases that is true. Human seem to be unable to hold authority without abusing it but authority is only tolerated because anarchy would lead to chaos and more suffering.

Yes!

Naaaah..

[hahahmm]

This is a trick question. Imagine if your girlfriend/spouse gave you 100% consent to do whatever you wish. And you both live happily that way. Fast forward 10 years & she claims you abused her. The courts and most of society will believe her & you will retroactively be labeled an abuser. Or I can imagine a guy who is a simp doing whatever a woman wants. She will get him to do things that aren't in his best interest. But it's probably not ever going to be called abuse. He will just be labeled stupid.

[Lliam]

Not necessarily. I had bosses who treated me very well and never abused their power.

There are lots of examples of very powerful people in history who didn't abuse their power. But there are more examples of powerful people who behaved as murderers and tyrants.

[TheSpaceGnome]

No, but also yes.

There are people who won't ever abuse power, but we are rare. The problem is it's stupid to give that power when you cannot know ahead of time if any given person will or won't abuse it.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Also, anarchy can't lead to chaos, anarchy requires utopian lifestyles to exist. Utopia is very difficult to achieve and currently out of grasp do to scarcity, assuming it's even possible to achieve at all.

Once a person has power over another, it is no longer an anarchy, its a hierarchy, so it's herarchies that lead to the opposing ends called chaos and order, and anarchy that leads to the middle ground of equality and equity.

[Juxtapose]

Anarchy may as well just another name for "might makes right".

[TheSpaceGnome]

No, you have that backwards.

"Might makes right" is what hierarchy is.

A pride of lions for example, is a hierarchy, with a ruling male who gets to mate with females, and subordinate males who don't. A government is a hierarchy, a military with ranks is a hiearchy, a parent and child dynamic is a hierarchy.

A hierarchy is when 1 is dictating rules for another, or bullying another, either of which can only be enforced through might.

Anarchy is short for lack of hierarchy, the same way atheism is short for lack of theism.

Another name for anarchy is egalitarianism. it means everyone has equal rights from birth, and no one uses might to have power over anyone else ever. Anarchy = utopia, not chaos.

But scarcity and psychotic people make it a pipe dream.

[Juxtapose]

To me anarchy is always whatever happens to humans when you completely free them from government and then see what happens. They will form their own hierarchies so anarchy is impossible.

[TheSpaceGnome]

To most people, dimetrodon and pterodactylus are dinosaurs.

Neither are dinosaurs.

When you do not have a legalized hierarchy (government), natural selection replaces it with with other hierarchies, which just like governments, are based on physical might, intellectual might, and resource might. Even the food chain in ecosystems is a hierarchy.

Anarchy is just a synonym for utopia. Under our current technological capability, it's impossible. People will fight, trade, bicker, overpower, kill, govern, oppress, etc, as long as scarcity exists.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Basically anarchy can't happen in nature, it would have to be constructed once we advance far enough on the kardashev scale (If we ever do).

[TheSpaceGnome]

Or for the tldr version: Anarchy is when you have no government, and the following DOESN'T happen:

"They will form their own hierarchies"

[Lliam]

@thespacegnome. I agree with you about anarchy and hierarchy.

[RealMarek]

There will always be authority. Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. Absolute power without accountability corrupts absolutely. This makes our current oligarchy extremely prone to a descent into abuse.

[Lliam]

A feature of absolute power is lack of accountability.

[RealMarek]

@Lliam Good point. However, I’m thinking of the phrase as its commonly used by mainstream conservatives or American politicians. They usually conflate absolute power with a monarchy or dictatorship. However, the reality is that the autocratic leader has a difficult time avoiding accountability because if he fails everyone knows who to blame and his lifespan tends to be short. An oligarchy like ours allows power to hide much more easily, and thus evade accountability. Who is really in control? Uncle Joe? Nobody believes it. So who? Probably a lot of moneyed interests, many of the names are not household names. But it’s not even that simple. For example, perhaps the most powerful individual in this regime is Victotia Nuland. Her career is one of single-minded dedication to destroying Russia and she has steered policy regardless of the resulting chaos and de-dollarization over the objections of Wall Street and parts of the DoD. Furthermore, our oligarchs inhabit the trappings of democratic republic, which allows them to gaslight the people themselves into thinking if they would just vote harder or if they were more engaged things would have turned out differently. But the reality is that the oligarchy has many defenses against the people and a tight grip on all institutions of importance. When they utter the words “our democracy,” they use “our” to refer to themselves and their supporting non-ruling elites.

[David4358]

Yes and no, some people won't like parents over their kids. But government sure can

[gorydetails]

For sure. Which is why the founding fathers sought to limit that authority.

[KrakenAttackin]

Agreed, which is why a check on power is always needed.

[Exterminatore]

For certain it will be by some people sometimes but certainly not in every case.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Sadly most of the times yes.
Doesn't have to be that way tho. But the one with power also must have integrity and compassion.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yes, the power would be abused.

[Dargil]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.