MORAL POWER VS IMMORAL POWER Power: the ability to coerce others in order to alt

MORAL POWER VS IMMORAL POWER

Power: the ability to coerce others in order to alter the probability of outcomes.

There are three forms of coercion available to man:

1 – advocacy-information / shaming-deception

2 – payment for productivity / payment for corruption/parasitism

3 – violence for property rights / violence for parasitism

And two directions:

1 – privatization of commons

— vs —

2 – contribution to commons(socialization)

All three forms of coercion can be put to constructive or destructive ends. And one can target privatization or socialization.

I prefer operational names. not quite sure how to square this with De Jouvenel, but I assume one can use the ability to coerce (power) to contribute to commons (‘power’) or to siphon (parasitism) from them.

I’ll also stay on message, and repeat that Aristocracy = Sovereignty. And that Sovereignty is only possible under rule of law, under natural law, with universal standing and application. And so we can say that Rule of Law will naturally produce a natural aristocracy just as natural aristocracy must naturally produce rule of law. Two sides of the same coin.

IN SUMMARY

1) Sovereignty (property)

…. –(Requires)–

2) Rule of Law under Natural Law

…. –(that results in)–

3) Natural Aristocracy (production of commons by the most able)

Power, in the forms of Gossip, Remuneration, and Violence is in and of itself neutral. We can put power to moral or immoral ends.