People believe (rightly!) that law follows power. I think the Epstein trial and general incuriosity about who among the rich and powerful had committed great crimes led many to this realization. It’s not supposed to be true in a society with rule of law but it does appear to be at least somewhat true in our society.
People notice the kid-gloves treatment he’s been getting in the media (and from congress!!). And people assume that power is not against him, and so people are pessimistic.
I don’t think any of this is unreasonable, although it is incompatible with many beliefs that people often hold dear.
It just seems weird to correlate power with morality. Most people, powerless or not, simply like to cover their asses. The powerful simply use the best means possible for doing this which is following the rules since the law tends to be on the side of the powerful. This also makes me wonder how a mob boss fits into this scheme since such people are considered powerful by most definitions.
I think that's oversimplification. The chase for power and then continued effort to hold one might, but there are very few cases where some perfectly honest individual is suddenly given massive amount of power.
Even inheritance can be argued as the kid was most likely raised by corrupted individual in the first place.
IMO, it's not follow the money, it's follow the power. The power to lock up anybody doing a common thing because you don't like them for some reason is intoxicating. Maybe power is the most dangerous drug of them all.
The expression of power is in who gets to decide the exception to the rules. Real power is rarely beholden to rules. That's why whistleblowers who call out illegal programs are treated like the criminal, because the laws essentially don't matter when dealing with things at that high of level.
Powerful people can lie, cheat, and steal and face zero repercussions. They hold institutional power so groups like the police will protect them regardless of laws being broken. It's not illegal for a corporation to either literally or metaphorically kill someone, because there is no body that will hold them accountable, but it is illegal to assassinate a CEO and systems will pull all stops to hold the assassin accountable.
Its the real reason why Western style democracy ends up being a busybox for people who like rules. The people who can grant endless exceptions have addresses and beds where they rest their heads but people without power cannot decide on an exception to the rules, regardless how dangerous and damaging that person is.
There's two facets to this: one is about privacy and the other is a naïveté about the nature of people with power and how the weak fail to anticipate the powerful's capabilities.
First: Okay, they give me all of your passwords, banking PINs, a list of all of your sexual proclivities, all of your browser histories including porn, and agree to live in a glass house that's live-streamed 24x7 to the internet.
Second: The weak rarely realize the scope of capabilities the powerful can lord over them. One obvious capability is powerful can direct district attorneys/crown prosecutors to look for evidence that a target has committed a crime. One common attack is over-prosecution for technical infractions that the weak volunteer; that this, giving too much information combined with tens of thousands of arcane laws setup the victim for attack. For more on this topic, there's a good book called Three Felonies a Day. Furthermore, sometimes the powerful just make up "crimes" to justify harsh punishments: Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Fred Hampton and Leonard Peltier are just a few that come to mind. (Daniel Ellsberg's freedom is a miracle.) Furthermore, powerful people have powerful friends who have even more capabilities at their disposal. It's not some sort of grand, organized conspiracy theory, it's human nature that people of similar interests help others in a similar station and those at the top have many more sacrificial Random Jobs.
You are powerful -> you take measures to keep that power.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. It's the most natural thing. Did they take it over the top? Yes. Did the DoJ cut them in half for it? Yes. At this point I think it's hipster boys mindless repeating a mantra they haven't even thought about more than 2 minutes in their lives.
Great comment, I think this illustrates a deeper issue- about people misunderstanding what power is and how it works.
Power is a dynamic social thing that involves your ability to influence others behavior. Organizations, laws, governments, titles, positions, even money have no inherent power associated with them, and often reflect vestigial/historical power structures rather than the actual power structures at the present moment.
Why is it that every leader in power seems to forget that they won't stay in that position forever? Let's take his word for it and say the power won't be abused. What of his successors?
If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time. That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.
This is one of the first things I've noticed when looking at political discussions. People (correctly) note the abuse of powers in others, but the moment they get power themselves they see no problem with (ab)using it to attack those who did it before. And then the power relations change again and it starts anew.
Isnt there some "law" about any power than can be abused will be? People love to look down on anyone who points out the potential for abuse in this kind of thing as a "conspiracy theorist" but history has shown it always happens this way
When power reaches a certain level, it isn’t about being seen doing the right or ethical thing. It is about demonstrating that it can and will be used against whoever they want with impunity, even if it’s clearly wrong, and they will get away with it.
It stops a lot of people from even attempting to challenge them, and just do what they want without question, which has many advantages. In some situations, it’s even legitimately necessary. It’s also prone to abuse of course.
In order to keep this kind of power, it’s necessary to demonstrate from time to time this power exists and will be used, since if people start not being afraid of having their lives ruined if they challenge said power legitimately, they also stop going along with demands from those in power unquestioningly. And a lot of the ability to destroy someone for whatever reason (including legitimate ones) depends on that unquestioning compliance.
It all smacks of someone given the power to do something who then has to do that something, even if it is on a pretext. Power is best exercised by restraint, not by action, until there is no other way.
People notice the kid-gloves treatment he’s been getting in the media (and from congress!!). And people assume that power is not against him, and so people are pessimistic.
I don’t think any of this is unreasonable, although it is incompatible with many beliefs that people often hold dear.
reply