Power = Responsibility. But to who?

[Kal'Stang]

Do those with power have a responsibility to society as a whole? Or do they only have a responsibility to themselves? For both questions, why?

 

[Daktoria]

Do those with power have a responsibility to society as a whole? Or do they only have a responsibility to themselves? For both questions, why?

The root word of responsibility is "response".

If society was the source of that power, then yes.

If society was not the source of that power, then no.

This is the beauty of the free market. The free market responds at the time of transaction by exchanging stores of value right away. There are no leftovers.

The only people who believe there are leftovers are those who refuse to think before they act. Nobody is responsible to think for anyone else.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The root word of responsibility is "response".

It doesn't matter what the root word is. What matters is what the word "responsibility" means NOW, not yesteryear.

If society was the source of that power, then yes.

If society was not the source of that power, then no.

How can society not be a source of that power? Whether it is directly or indirectly everyone is affected by society in one form or another.

This is the beauty of the free market. The free market responds at the time of transaction by exchanging stores of value right away. There are no leftovers.

This only applies to money and doesn't take into account anything else. For example would Wal-Mart have been so successful if everyone that had shopped at that very first store had decided to NOT shop at that store? There is more to society than just money, and much more thinking required for this subject.

The only people who believe there are leftovers are those who refuse to think before they act. Nobody is responsible to think for anyone else.

No one that I know of has ever suggested that anyone is responsible for thinking for others. (Unless that person is mentally handicapped..but thats a whole different ball of wax) Could you give an example of this?

 

[OneMale]

Do those with power have a responsibility to society as a whole? Or do they only have a responsibility to themselves? For both questions, why?

What power? Power of suggestion? Power of reason? Power of deduction? Power to create a fostering opinion nobody knows themselves philosophically?
The problem with your first question is you set the notion society is everything.

Life owes the lifetimes nothing. But each lifetime within plant and animal lifetimes instinctively operating between predator and prey behavior using the male/female means to reproduce a next generation of added results in the compounding of details already here. Your argument is philsoophical about how and why physical things exist. Theory and theology are just projections of maybe to how and why things are existing together through time changing everything.

That is where humanity has gone off balance within the eternity of this compounding instant changes added to molecular migration in fixed locations humans call the ever expanding universe. The only thing expanding is the details not the substance.

Earth is a self contained mass of molecular results constantly changing now. Add compounded combination of inceptions conceiving the conceivers of yet another compounded set of ancestry to that which was already here and that makes genetic migration running parallel to molecular migration of everything together.

Vernacular tribalism has destroyed the human species. Now humans are faced with can the remaining male and female population get prepared for what is really going on they haven't faced in couple hundred generations added to now's results of destroying instinctive reasonng for something to believe in rather than understand the self evident now is forever here to each lifetime passing trough as a sole result of how and why society is just management of beliefs not learning what is real.

Now this just put the ruling class into the middle of what created society's adopted issues blocking resolution to problems that never go away, but the rule of law gets more tilted each act of legislation separating the few defining the many as they deem necessary. The 4 P's Politicians, Priests, Philanthropists, Professors of ideology and educators of vernacular tribalism.

The uniqueness of raindrops, snowflakes, and human fingerprints can only exist when now is forever here and lifetimes are results of investments/ancestral genetic paths, by conception of whole ancestors being half of the next generation arriving now as usual and nobody knows because every body was edcucated to follow orders without questioning the authority of language arts and proper grammar in the rule of law enforcing subjectivity, objectivity, and making faith relative comparisons of incomplete information making every fact of debate inaccurate but law of the land.

Eternity has but one rule and it is enforced by one result, extinction of the entire species out of control without supernatural entities other than it's own governing philosophies. Live and learn or just make a career out of social identity. One way brings humanity back in balance, the other just makes self fulfilling prophecy come true while the population doesn't have a clue why or how it came to be.

 

[Daktoria]

It doesn't matter what the root word is. What matters is what the word "responsibility" means NOW, not yesteryear.

If words are always time sensitive, then it's impossible to know if what you believed 2 seconds ago is what you still believe.

Until you change this attitude, you're impossible to talk with reliably.

(This presentism is actually the problem with the rest of your post. I'll explain once you change your attitude here.)

 

[OneMale]

Daktoria, don't hold your breath, He is an apprentice to becoming a disciple in the ruling class of character matters here. Being human isn't enough.

 

[Daktoria]

OMH, I agree with you, but there's still some fun to be had with him.

It's up to him whether he's willing to play along or continue to imbue struggle.

 

[OneMale]

OMH, I agree with you, but there's still some fun to be had with him.

It's up to him whether he's willing to play along or continue to imbue struggle.

This isn't a game, Dak and it isn't fun. Now do I enjoy blowing the crap(imploding) out of the ruling classes means to manage reality, yes. but at the same instant I know I have bet my life on the symbolism remaining a value that has become 1/10 of what it used to be because of the psychological games played politically, economically, and spiritually.

I am trying to do it with every body being able to keep their own ideology with a governance in understanding real not comparing realities against each other that created this out of control ruling reality of malcontents in charge of the language.

 

[KevinKohler]

The holder of power has a responsibility to whoever or whatever grants that power.

In other words, a man goes out and gets a gun...his responsibility for that new found power, is to the state, and the people, as they are the ones that allow him to purchase, and own that gun.

 

[OneMale]

The holder of power has a responsibility to whoever or whatever grants that power.

In other words, a man goes out and gets a gun...his responsibility for that new found power, is to the state, and the people, as they are the ones that allow him to purchase, and own that gun.

Ideas are more deadly than one man with a gun, as it was an idea he needed a gun to defend is liberty in the first place from society's children demanding their staged present identity has more value than his sole lifetime as a single gender of the whole human species.

A gun is a tool not power. A gun doesn't move by itself or is created within it's own species as it is metal not cellular adaptations adopting notions of national identity to create a more perfect union of fooled agains buying a reality.

The midas touch and the goose that lays golden eggs metaphor. Edcuate symbolism so no body has a desire to understand the real moment. That is the weapon of mass destruction and it only exists in language arts.

 

[Daktoria]

This isn't a game, Dak and it isn't fun. Now do I enjoy blowing the crap(imploding) out of the ruling classes means to manage reality, yes. but at the same instant I know I have bet my life on the symbolism remaining a value that has become 1/10 of what it used to be because of the psychological games played politically, economically, and spiritually.

I am trying to do it with every body being able to keep their own ideology with a governance in understanding real not comparing realities against each other that created this out of control ruling reality of malcontents in charge of the language.

No, no, no. You got me (and it) all wrong.

THIS isn't the game. The point is if he understands what's really going on, THEN there's fun to be had.

Kal'Stang isn't as far down the road as most people. You'll notice his OP wasn't about economics. It wasn't until I threw economics onto the stage that he reacted.

If he really cares about "society" he'll see (and admit) there's more than economics at stake.

 

[OneMale]

No, no, no. You got me (and it) all wrong.

THIS isn't the game. The point is if he understands what's really going on, THEN there's fun to be had.

.

Reality is completely incomplete by design in the societal evolution within the humanities of being human, I didn't get you all wrong, just the part open to interpretation. I like a lot of what you write but there is always one little disclaimer that outshines what was said. That is subliminal and it maybe so deep your character doesn't see it. That doesn't mean I still have uncovered all those buried within me either.

Maybe together we can find each others and have civil discussions like this to correct ourselves with. Oh, I do not keep a friends list so my friends are never a target.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

They're responsible to themselves. They're the ones who have to live in the world they've made.

 

[Kal'Stang]

OneMale and Daktoria,

This is a politcial debate forum and this section of it specifically is about general politics. This is not a philosophical discussion that talks about the birds and the bees and the plants etc etc etc. If it was to be about philisophical discussion then I would have put this question in the philosophical discussion section on DP. Not the General Politics section. When talking about politics one usually has the criteria that includes politics. Having power over the plants and animals is not included in this. It is also quite acceptable to focus on one aspect of life without having to include every single part of it.

Now it is obvious from the placement of this thread that I am talking about politicians and those people that are, within the social ranks, powerful. Be it because of money, elections, or of good social standing due to actions. So please keep the discussion to these points.

 

[Kal'Stang]

They're responsible to themselves. They're the ones who have to live in the world they've made.

This is contradictory. If they have to live in the world that they've made wouldn't they be responsible for the world that they've made? After all if they are to be responsible to themselves surely having a hostile environment and leaving it as such be a detriment to themselves?

 

[Daktoria]

OneMale and Daktoria,

This is a politcial debate forum and this section of it specifically is about general politics. This is not a philosophical discussion that talks about the birds and the bees and the plants etc etc etc. If it was to be about philisophical discussion then I would have put this question in the philosophical discussion section on DP. Not the General Politics section. When talking about politics one usually has the criteria that includes politics. Having power over the plants and animals is not included in this. It is also quite acceptable to focus on one aspect of life without having to include every single part of it.

Now it is obvious from the placement of this thread that I am talking about politicians and those people that are, within the social ranks, powerful. Be it because of money, elections, or of good social standing due to actions. So please keep the discussion to these points.

Tell that to environmentalists.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Tell that to environmentalists.

I don't care about tree huggers.

 

[Daktoria]

I don't care about tree huggers.

Oh really?

What were you trying to say here?

How can society not be a source of that power? Whether it is directly or indirectly everyone is affected by society in one form or another.

 

[American]

Do those with power have a responsibility to society as a whole? Or do they only have a responsibility to themselves? For both questions, why?

They represent the people who elected them on issues of combined interest as specified in the Constitution.

 

[Kal'Stang]

They represent the people who elected them on issues of combined interest as specified in the Constitution.

What about the people that didn't elect them? Do they not have a responsibility to them also?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh really?

What were you trying to say here?

Put it within the context that I gave you.

 

[OneMale]

OneMale and Daktoria,

This is a politcial debate forum and this section of it specifically is about general politics. This is not a philosophical discussion that talks about the birds and the bees and the plants etc etc etc. If it was to be about philisophical discussion then I would have put this question in the philosophical discussion section on DP. Not the General Politics section. When talking about politics one usually has the criteria that includes politics. Having power over the plants and animals is not included in this. It is also quite acceptable to focus on one aspect of life without having to include every single part of it.

Now it is obvious from the placement of this thread that I am talking about politicians and those people that are, within the social ranks, powerful. Be it because of money, elections, or of good social standing due to actions. So please keep the discussion to these points.

Politic is involved with everything reality is to being real. Money is a symbolism in exchange for a substance the same as a social identity is for a sole gendered lifetime as well as social justification to believe in a soul of character value once dead.
So when this is a general political debate the politics of substituting symbolic values for real substance spans the spectrum of made to believe vernaculars creating ideologies of social identiity. Philosophy and politics might define separate things but the are directly related to politics in economics, governments, spiritual beleifs, and governance.
All arbitrary because they all spawn from conceptual agreements to beleive not to jointly seek out common ties.

So your attempt to say we are off topic is a direct attempt to misdirect the subject of how politics is exponentially tied together with the other two axioms of power, wealth, and fame to societal evolution ruling the genetic migration of ancestry here in the moment through rule of law written by humans to define humanity's next citizens separate from the ancestry conceiving them to become conceptual society's children.

That isn't a philosophy that is governance. Governance is the building block of governments to mind and spirit to body and heart of sole lifetimes passing through this moment balanced between contracting results and expanding details of the same elements reshaped and reformed in compounding fashion consistant with everything living on this planet.
This covers inside out, outside in, left and right, front and back, top and bottom of rank has it's privileges in political theaters of sociology where metaphysical scinces of psychiatry and psychology do their selling of societal philosophies of character's rights superceding gender liberty.

That is why the U.S. Constitution is under assault for representing real not reality and humanity wants to take that ideology out of reality once and for all time now jkeeps the human species in as conceived and contrived to follow orders without questioning the value of the words.

What governance grants to character's rights governments can take back from genders not playing by the rules. Thank you for showing every body which side of survival of the species you chose to save. Shame reality isn't completely balanced with natural balances in this adapt or become exinct moment the whole food chain is governed by naturally.

Choice is a powerful thing, When not given everything considered those misleading the misguided all go together in every franchise of humanity.
Again, I am talking about the physical moment working as always, not a philosophy wrapped in theory or theology. Real is self evident, reality isn't.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Politic is involved with everything reality is to being real. Money is a symbolism in exchange for a substance the same as a social identity is for a sole gendered lifetime as well as social justification to believe in a soul of character value once dead.

Either talk within the context that I have given or go away. I'm not playing your game.

 

[OneMale]

What about the people that didn't elect them? Do they not have a responsibility to them also?

See what happens when characters have rights over genders being sole results of ancestry. When party takes precedence no body human has rights because society takes liberties away for the greater tgood of reality's theatrical performances of unwitting participants schooled like fish to act like sheep and never complain about being herded like cattle.

The politics of time management is what reality has always been about in every avenue of societal evolution through edcuated conflicts between church and state rule of laws. the church establishes the faith in character, and state of mind makes sure nobody wants to remain a sole result of ancestry so far.
The governances of symbolism over substance values with you better mind because your body doesn't matter to those in charge of saving humanity's greater good intention. that is philosophy in every chain of command defining humanity.

 

[OneMale]

And I am not being trapped by yours. I have come into your topic but not from just one side or one fraction of the whole to everything involved. It is called having an open mind.