Political Crossfire Forums

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

Does a rich man have power?

Q: What is power?

A: The ability to act as one wishes; self sufficiency and power are thus one and the same. To act without self sufficiency is to act as a slave.

Q: Is a rich man powerful?

A: No; the rich man must rely entirely on others: bankers, guards, family, peers in business. He is completely dependent, and this affords him nothing but fear.

Also, Though he may seem to act with a certain impunity afforded him by his wealth, he only does so because he has an obligation to protect it. This obligation extends from the nature of his relationship with others, which is necessarily one of wealth; the rich man loses his wealth, and he loses himself. Therefore, the rich man has no power; he acts under the glittering auspices of something outside himself. He is not self sufficient, but a slave.

He may be able to grind you under his heel, or construct towers that scrape the heavens, but all that he has fickle fortune can strip bare, so he is ever under the long shadow of fear. Therefore, he does not have freedom, and he does not have power. In seeking a fortune, he gives himself over to a life of base self-preservation and mechanical function. This is the life of the wealthy.

(Thank you Boethius)

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21226 Location: Minnesota

If you believe the above, then stop demanding more from the slaves and leave the slaves alone. You are clearly morally superior to the slaves so just let them be, to slave away in their houses of gold while you are free to eat trash from their garbage dumps.

Of course, the rich man owns property and only with property can you be free. So.... I disagree with this above position. Moreoever it is alturism that is slaving yourself for others willingly, and is rather disgusting, IMO, while living for yourself is being a slave to no one and nothing.

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

Power isn't self-sufficiency. Noone is self-sufficient.

Power is the ability to control or influence others-- and money is definitely a form of power.

THEXRATED · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2848 Location: Tuonelan Virrat

I would not define power as you did Cato, but more towards an ability to influence and control other people lives.

Most of us can be defined as slaves to something or to someone, regardless whether those are abstract concepts or not.

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

THEXRATED wrote: I would not define power as you did Cato, but more towards an ability to influence and control other people lives.

Most of us can be defined as slaves to something or to someone, regardless whether those are abstract concepts or not.
Crap, that mean's I'm a slave to Oxygen?

Da**it, I thought that I was doing so well. I'm off drugs, done with sex, I don't watch TV (now that I think about it, I'm going to have to shut this computer off now also), I don't drive, don't go outside. Now I have to find a way not to be a slave to everything else...

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6332

I dunno

If I were really rich, I could hire people to do all my stuff--cooking, cleaning, etc, so I could concentrate on doing the stuff I like. I could also pay for all my friends so we could spend our entire lives partying and going on extravagant vacations. That sounds pretty sweet to me.

In my opinion--self sufficiency=slavery.

I hate doing most of the chores that I am forced to do. I hate cooking and I hate cleaning. The more time I waste on these things, the less time I have to do what I REALLY want to do. I feel like I am enslaved by the limits of self-sufficiency. I look forward to one day in the future when I can make some money and be free of this bondage.

So no, self-sufficiency is not freedom. Self-sufficiency is a terrible state of being.

As far as power goes--power is NOT necessarily being able to control others. Power is simply being able to do what you want. If you want to control others, then power means controlling others. But it doesn't have to be that. To me, power means being able to do the things that you want to do when you want to do them and not having to do things that you don't want to do. That is TRUE power.

I don't see how you can say a rich man is a slave. If I won the lottery, I would buy a house in the alps and go skiing every day. I love to ski. That would be my dream life. Slavery is having to work for a living. Slavery is having to buy food, to clean it, to cook it, to do the laundry, to goto the gym, to go shopping for mundane stuff, to have to take out the garbage. Any time that you're doing one thing when you'd rather be doing something else, that's slavery. Money will set you free.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:54 am Post subject:

ieatfood wrote: Money will set you free.

Yes Ieatfood, yes it will. Money is wonderfu, money is freedom. I don't agree with Cato's position.

In fact, this reminds me of another thread I forgot about and let slip away with him. I shall revive it, and fell his position. It was over money and happiness.

Money can be a means to happiness. Definately. Money can buy happiness.

Luigidel · Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 149

I would definitely have to agree.

JackarooSundown · Joined: 29 Oct 2005 Posts: 433 Location: Three thirty.

"No; the rich man must rely entirely on others: bankers, guards, family, peers in business. He is completely dependent, and this affords him nothing but fear."

True, if I bought you and kept you as a slave in some respect I would rely on you to do my bidding. But if I have the power to 'remove' you because I am so amazingly rich and buy another slave...who am I dependent on? I would have no fear, because if the economy fails, sure as hell the poor people are gonna be in a lot more trouble than I would be.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6332

JackarooSundown wrote: "No; the rich man must rely entirely on others: bankers, guards, family, peers in business. He is completely dependent, and this affords him nothing but fear."

True, if I bought you and kept you as a slave in some respect I would rely on you to do my bidding. But if I have the power to 'remove' you because I am so amazingly rich and buy another slave...who am I dependent on? I would have no fear, because if the economy fails, sure as hell the poor people are gonna be in a lot more trouble than I would be.

I think he's arguing for a world where there is NO economy. Where we lived like cavemen and picked our own berries and crap. TO him, that is being free. TO me, that is living the life of a slave.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: True, if I bought you and kept you as a slave in some respect I would rely on you to do my bidding. But if I have the power to 'remove' you because I am so amazingly rich and buy another slave...who am I dependent on? I would have no fear, because if the economy fails, sure as hell the poor people are gonna be in a lot more trouble than I would be.

This difference is one of legality. A slave is legally bound to a master, but a customer/worker is not.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: The ability to act as one wishes; self sufficiency and power are thus one and the same. To act without self sufficiency is to act as a slave.

If that where true then ol' willy the wino down on the corner must be the most powerful man in America.

anselfir · Joined: 16 Apr 2005 Posts: 22919 Location: ZzZzZzZz

power is a facet of freedom, namely the freedom to alter your environment, other peoples included. so yes, a rich man exerts influence on others, but only by the others' consent.

Doc Holiday · Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 150

I think it was Marx who first pointed out the fact that he who has money can buy guns, and hence become a man with physical power.

The fact that the rich man might or not be subordinate in someway to others, is irrelevant, the only reason those entities may have power over the rich man is because they have money, either in larger sums or placed correctly.

Does a rich man have chores or things that bother him? Sure! With great power comes great responsibility, but never the less, it is great power.

If we are to believe that true freedom and power comes from being self sufficient, then we must blind ourselves from the reality in which we live, self sufficient people, if such a term even exists fully, are not the people running the world today.

CaptainDankNuggets · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 137 Location: Highland, Usa

In some sense yes and some sense no, I mean you have power even when ur not rich so its pretty much a win , win situation because you dont have to be rich to be powerful

Doc Holiday · Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 150

Would you mind explaining HOW can you have power with out money or cash equivalents?

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

Doc Holiday wrote: Would you mind explaining HOW can you have power with out money or cash equivalents?

By having the support of a mass of people because of your beliefs, ideas, or values. It's amazing to me that many forget the leaders of mankind who were virtually peniless. Jesus Christ (okay, skip to the next example of you are an athiest) was one. So was Ghandi. So was Hitler (at the beggining). Go figure, these people gained power, not because of entitlement assumed from wealth, but because the people they represented supported them with their feelings, voices, and actions.

social · Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject:

John Galt wrote: If you believe the above, then stop demanding more from the slaves and leave the slaves alone. You are clearly morally superior to the slaves so just let them be, to slave away in their houses of gold while you are free to eat trash from their garbage dumps.

Of course, the rich man owns property and only with property can you be free. So.... I disagree with this above position. Moreoever it is alturism that is slaving yourself for others willingly, and is rather disgusting, IMO, while living for yourself is being a slave to no one and nothing.

The point Cato is making, which you and the rest of the Right seem utterly unable to grasp, is that the rich man has to rely on those who, as you so eloquently put it, 'eat trash from thier garbage dumps.' Without those trash-eating blue collars, your average rich man wouldn't be rich. In fact, he couldn't be rich, since his wealth is, ultimately, derived from the labour of others (the trash-eaters).

As for property=freedom, excuse my language but what a load of b/s. I find it fatously far-fetched that you and the rest of the 'I beleive in the American dream' crowd could assert that material comforts lead to some form of meaningful existence and, to that end, to a sense of freedom of body and mind. Having a house may give you the freedom to take out a loan, having a car may give you the freedom to travel, but they certainly don't give you freedom from society, from yourself, and from the relationships you share with other human beings. To achieve that, you might as well go and live under a rock and pray you never meet someone ever again.

social · Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: Is a rich man powerful?

Cato wrote: Does a rich man have power?

Q: What is power?

A: The ability to act as one wishes; self sufficiency and power are thus one and the same. To act without self sufficiency is to act as a slave.

Q: Is a rich man powerful?

A: No; the rich man must rely entirely on others: bankers, guards, family, peers in business. He is completely dependent, and this affords him nothing but fear.

Also, Though he may seem to act with a certain impunity afforded him by his wealth, he only does so because he has an obligation to protect it. This obligation extends from the nature of his relationship with others, which is necessarily one of wealth; the rich man loses his wealth, and he loses himself. Therefore, the rich man has no power; he acts under the glittering auspices of something outside himself. He is not self sufficient, but a slave.

He may be able to grind you under his heel, or construct towers that scrape the heavens, but all that he has fickle fortune can strip bare, so he is ever under the long shadow of fear. Therefore, he does not have freedom, and he does not have power. In seeking a fortune, he gives himself over to a life of base self-preservation and mechanical function. This is the life of the wealthy.

(Thank you Boethius)

I think there are many different forms of power which humans can excercise and that, with some of them, the rich man is very proficient and therefore powerful, and with others he is particularly incompetetant and therefore unpowerful. Gramci's concept of hegemony proves particualrly useful in this repsect, since he stresses the nature of a particualr type of political power as both a combination of force (coersion) and consent (acquiescence). Focault's ideas on power are also intersting, though I know far too little about the man's ideas to even consider writing about them!

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Doc Holiday wrote: Would you mind explaining HOW can you have power with out money or cash equivalents?

Those people don't have power because they are rich, they are rich because they have power (of course there are plenty of exceptions, but most dynasties start because of a certain attitude a person had that enabled them to gain wealth).

Look at the way very powerful people train their children. They teach them to wield power.