The common description of power is based on control of valuable resources which are unequally distributed. This "power" is wielded to affect conduct of others, by threats or real use of rewards and punishments. This parallels the common belief of elites and masses or the power wielders and the powerless.
I'm not sure if I know what the true nature of "power" is or what even is "power"?
It is useful in this type of discussion to point out legitimacy in power and ideology.
Thoughts?
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Power is the ability to do something.
Authority is the legitimacy in using power.
Aggression is the use of power without the corresponding authority.
I have the power to aggress against my neighbor. I only have the authority to aggress in response to aggression.
I have the power of my own faculties wherever I go. I only have the authority to use them when on my own property or when (explicitly or implicitly) granted that authority by the owner of property I am on. If that authority is completely withheld from me, I have no right to be on that property. Authority is only justly alienable when given up by an action that one has the power, but not the authority, to do, and only in proportion to that aggression.
I did some digging myself and didn't really get what I was looking for but it is still interesting...
The Progressive Conversion of Social Power into State Power (http://mises.org/daily/4748)
If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact: namely, a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price fixing, wage fixing, inflation, political banking, "agricultural adjustment," and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing, which is an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power. It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power. -Albert Jay Nock
Matticus Rex:Power is the ability to do something. Authority is the legitimacy in using power. Aggression is the use of power without the corresponding authority. I have the power to aggress against my neighbor. I only have the authority to aggress in response to aggression. I have the power of my own faculties wherever I go. I only have the authority to use them when on my own property or when (explicitly or implicitly) granted that authority by the owner of property I am on. If that authority is completely withheld from me, I have no right to be on that property. Authority is only justly alienable when given up by an action that one has the power, but not the authority, to do, and only in proportion to that aggression.
Thanks for the input, I liked the breakdown you gave. Maybe 'power' can be broken up into two generalizations; might power and market power.
What of the common saying is 'knowledge is power'?
Here is Mises on might: http://mises.org/humanaction/chap9sec3.asp
If we hypostatize or anthropomorphize the notion of ideology, we may say that ideologies have might over men. Might is the faculty or power of directing actions. As a rule one says only of a man or of groups of men that they are mighty. Then the definition of might is: might is the power to direct other people's actions. He who is mighty, owes his might to an ideology. Only ideologies can convey to a man the power to influence other people's choices and conduct. One can become a leader only if one is supported by an ideology which makes other people tractable and accommodating. Might is thus not a physical and tangible thing, but a moral and spiritual phenomenon. A king's might rests upon the recognition of the monarchical ideology on the part of his subjects. He who uses his might to run the state, i.e., the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, rules. Rule is the exercise of might in [p. 189] the political body. Rule is always based upon might, i.e., the power to direct other people's actions.
Knowledge "is" power really means knowledge "increases your" power [=ability to do stuff]. But it sounds more impressive using "is".
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave:Knowledge "is" power really means knowledge "increases your" power [=ability to do stuff]. But it sounds more impressive using "is".
Fair enough.
Although I can hear the bleeding hearts now; in order to "increase your ability to do something" you need "power" in the first place. It becomes circular in their perception. The powerless are left in a permant state of repression.
Defining power of the state as might and the power of the market as something completely different is a truthful distinction.
Power of the state is power without authority. Power of the market is power with the authority to use that power (the just ownership of property, and therefore the just ability to do things with that property). It's still the same animal.
The "powerless" are not powerless at all. They have the power of their own faculties and the authority to do anything non-aggressive with their justly-acquired property. That's all the power that one needs to succeed in a society without government intervention. "Permanent states of repression" are a product of coercion, which is usually only unchecked when perpetrated by a government.
I agree wholeheartedly, thanks for getting my mental ducks in a row.
This seems to be what I'm looking for. There is even a section entitled 'The Nature of Power'.
The Metaphysics of Power (http://mises.org/daily/4030)
http://mises.org/store/On-Power-The-Natural-History-of-Its-Growth-P245C0.aspx?utm_source=Mises_Daily&utm_medium=Embedded_Link&utm_campaign=Item_in_Daily
Does anyone recommend this? According to the Mises Daily the book has some significant faults.
This was made for you.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Matticus Rex:Power is the ability to do something. Authority is the legitimacy in using power. Aggression is the use of power without the corresponding authority. I have the power to aggress against my neighbor. I only have the authority to aggress in response to aggression.
Your last sentence is contradictory. With your definitions of "power', "authority", and "aggression", the idea of "authority to aggress" translates to "legitimacy in using power illegitimately". That is a clear and simple contradiction.
It might be a quibble, but I think logical consistency is extremely important, so I felt the need to point it out.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Good point. I was freehanding the definitions last night.
Redefinition: Aggression is the violation of another's authority. The authority to aggress is only present in response to the use of illegitimate aggression, and in proportion thereto.
Stranger:This was made for you.
Thanks for the link, Stranger.
One thing I'd like your feedback on is, I don't feel ultimate power is always maintained by stricly egalitarianism. Ideology (besides that of of a "all humans are equal" philosophy) plays a significant role I feel.
I don't have time to give a thoughtful response, figured I shoot you a quick reply.
Edit: Take for example monarchy. The autocrat has ultimate power by the ideological support of his aristocracy and clergy.
Take for example monarchy. The autocrat has ultimate power by the ideological support of his aristocracy and clergy.
Actually, it is the destruction of the aristocracy and clergy by the monarchy, through an appeal to egalitarianism, that produces an autocratic monarch. This is the reason behind the civil wars in Europe during the 17th century,
Stranger:Actually, it is the destruction of the aristocracy and clergy by the monarchy, through an appeal to egalitarianism, that produces an autocratic monarch. This is the reason behind the civil wars in Europe during the 17th century,
I'll admit, I was grasping at straws, heh. I didn't know this, as my history from that era is weak. You recommend any source material on this topic elaborated out? Or maybe just a good anti-state history text?
Also, you don't think it is possible then for ultimate power via force disequilibrium to be possible without egalitarianism? Hypothetically speaking, you don't believe a king/superior/dictator, whatever it may be, promoting the ideology that he and his accomplices are the gifted and all else are subservients (therefore not egalitarianism) is possible at achieving ultimate power?
Thanks Stranger
Matticus Rex:Good point. I was freehanding the definitions last night.
No problem. Glad I could help. :)
Matticus Rex:Redefinition: Aggression is the violation of another's authority. The authority to aggress is only present in response to the use of illegitimate aggression, and in proportion thereto.
If you take my car without my permission, I think we agree that you're violating my authority (i.e. legitimate power) over the car. However, if I then take my car back from you, what authority over the car do you have for me to violate?
Yet neither the aristocracy nor the clergy was destroyed in the areas where absolute monarchs arose. They were merely politically neutralized (at least in relative terms).
I daresay that the real key to the rise of absolute monarchism was the de facto adoption of legal positivism over natural law. Hence the concept of "the divine right of kings" went from "I am king by the grace of God and must obey His law like everyone else" to "I was anointed king by God and therefore can do whatever I want".
Autolykos: If you take my car without my permission, I think we agree that you're violating my authority (i.e. legitimate power) over the car. However, if I then take my car back from you, what authority over the car do you have for me to violate?
Power over goods stolen from a legitimate owner cannot be legitimized. You must stay within proportion to my crime (best determined through a judge), but you may also seek damages. Even without a judge, you have absolute right to retrieve the car. You may also take what you feel are correct damages, but if I feel they were excessive I may sue you for theft, at which point arbitration would be necessary.
Bertrand de Jouvenel covers this if I recall correctly.
Matticus Rex:Power over goods stolen from a legitimate owner cannot be legitimized. You must stay within proportion to my crime (best determined through a judge), but you may also seek damages. Even without a judge, you have absolute right to retrieve the car. You may also take what you feel are correct damages, but if I feel they were excessive I may sue you for theft, at which point arbitration would be necessary.
My point was that, given your definitions of "power", "authority", and "aggression", my taking my car back from you cannot be considered aggression, as you have no authority (again, legitimate power) over my car. So the phrase "authority to aggress" must be considered an oxymoron.
Obviously, the clergy and nobility, which had always held the king to the law, would disagree with that.
Autolykos: My point was that, given your definitions of "power", "authority", and "aggression", my taking my car back from you cannot be considered aggression, as you have no authority (again, legitimate power) over my car. So the phrase "authority to aggress" must be considered an oxymoron.
But if you punch me in the face, thereby violating my authority over my person, I have the authority to violate your person proportionately (the authority to aggress).
Matticus Rex:But if you punch me in the face, thereby violating my authority over my person, I have the authority to violate your person proportionately (the authority to aggress).
I don't see it this way. What I'd say is that, by punching you in the face, I have therefore lost that portion of authority over my person with respect to you. So again, I don't think it's aggression if you punch me back.
I'm willing to concede that, but it would require a praxeological proof of legal theory/proportionality.
For practical life, however, the term would need to be preserved in both contexts as, if one were not careful, it would be easy to overstep the bounds of proportionality when not advised by courts.