Power infers power over others does it not?

Categorised in:

In theory the acquisition of power could be part of the freedom, however invariably in human societies the acquisition of power results in the suppression on one level or another of a second or third group or party. We can see the overthrowing of one dominant group by another group as emergence of a new suppressive force, regardless of the groups intensions. By its nature political systems marginalise and suppress another party, its just the way it works. Margaret Mead clearly hasn't thought about what the previous groups position in society will now be! We can see the attainment of power as the manifestation of ideology through the individuals perpetuating that ideology. So in a sense the superstructures are the result of a clash of ideologies and the emergence of a winner for the time being.

If you want to perceive freedom as a limited mechanism for the ruling power ideological machine, then that is your perogative. But for me freedom is a difficult chasm to cross because if we look at the idea of freedom in its semantic logic it is the freedom to do as we please regardless of the consequences for others, this in itself mirrors power mechanism in my opinion, so with complete freedom can come complete suppression of others. Your idea of freedom as human rights and humanitarianism is not really freedom but a limited and manipulated perception of a freedom based upon John Stuart Mills limited attempts at a universalisation of rights without the prior scientific certainty to make such a claim, it is easily refuted on the basis that it is a posteriori proposition that disregards the uncertaintly at the a priori level of epistemological knowledge about freedom and ethics. Which I might add you were unable to refute, and have since ignored my propositions instead of trying to refute them, or work with my propositions scope. You have talked about ethics and natural morality as though my refutation of its relevance to the debate did not take place. My refutation of the argument for ethical nihilism is just as much a refutation of natural rights as relevant. The uncertainty of the situation means we have to ignore claims of epistemologically certain statements about morality on a universal level, which is why I chose utilitarianism, namely because it does not make grandiose refutable propositions, and stays in plain sight with its pragmatic approach. 

The idea that complacency has anything to do with oppression on the ground. Certainly not in the sense that it is the fault of the complacent party. You might argue from the position of ignorance, but it remains in the best interests of the powerful to suppress knowledge acquisition among the many. Particularly the proposition that "it remains in the best interests of the powerful to suppress knowledge acquisition among the many." Such perceptions are liberating, and I place the ignorance of people largely down to the state. Parents apathy and complacency are inherited culturally, so the cycle perpetuates, that cycle can be broken by the state but it makes pitiful attempts to do so, I believe this is part of the power machanism in existence. In your statement about all men adhering to a moral position it seems clear you have a nieve understanding of the complexity of human ethics. Ethics seem to not be universal on the ground, which is why adhering to the moral relativism is so compelling. It also fits in with a view that crime is a consequence of different thinking and psychology not a consequence of some evil. Even so it is not a certainty, and without that certainty we need something like Utilitarianism because certainty is irrelevant for it. 

In your next paragraph you suggest the "Any intention to oppress most effectively eludes the soon-to-be-oppressed by donning the garb of altruism." I agree that subversive manipulation by semantic means and careful psychological means is one method of suppression, and I would certainly call it a devious method, but I see no reason to suppose that it is any more or less suppressive than more direct methods. Propoganda is endemic in society at some level, perceptions of what morality is is such an instance. The language used on the radio and TV would suggest certainty, but ethics is far from a precision instrument. That for me is the most worrying enemy of freedom in this society, the suppression of knowledge and truth about the limitations of our knowledge in the social and ethical spheres. For example surely ethics and philosophy should be taught as standard in schools. 

The idea that false altruism is responsible for suppression is I suppose plausible, I think there is little evidence of altrusim in parliament except token jestures at times of requirement for media appeasement is that what you refer to? If I am honest I think altruism is a learnt behaviour that is effective for appearing superior to another human being in the face of certain circumstances. Its based on 19th century ideology. Humanitarianism has limited scope, because it is an ideology not a human behaviour or psychology. For me its a chosen philosophy chosen by the individual and passed of as inherrently within their character or moral being. I find this as false as the chambers of parliament. Marx may have been correct when he suggested that the nature of the system moulds the nature of the individual. But I prefer to think that it creates a false perception within the individual of whom they are. 

I think the idea of a bill of rights is acceptable, as long as it is made clear through education that it is a limited document. I have a distate for hypocrocy and dogma. Both of which seem endemic in society. Your proposition is in a sense flawed though because you don't know who your enemies are, and in fact there are so many variations on perceptions of liberty that I think a bill of rights would only end up supporting one ideological movement, it would therefore not be universal and not apply to all parties, and therefore it is a suppressive power mechanism, and freedom for only those that agree with its ideology.