If by social power you mean "individual liberty" - then yes, this is the answer which best fits my position.
It is the individual which does and should hold the power over their own lives, not society and certainly not govt. An individual should never be forced to think, act - live for the "good of society" OR govt.
We as individuals do the most good when we choose on our own and act in our own interest, those actions often create positive effects for others as well. But the individual should NEVER be subordinated to the whims, will wishes of anyone other than themselves. That is the only way freedom can ever exist.
Which Statement About the Relationship Between Social Power and Political Power do You Most Agree With?
The Bantam Seditioner
2012/05/05 19:02:38
|
|
|||||
|
13 votes
|
|
25% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
24 votes
|
|
46% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
9 votes
|
|
17% | |||
On the surface, it seems like kind of an esoteric or strange question, but if you look at it a bit deeper, this central question seems to be at the very heart of most if not all political disagreements.
Some people believe that government can be, and often is, the prime catalyst for social betterment and human advancement. They see government as the originator of most things that are "good" and "right", and individuals in their social capacity to be mostly unimportant to that grand design.
Others see and admire man's social advancement, but come to the conclusion that these changes happened *in spite of* - not because of - the often calamitous bumblings of an inefficient, archaic, and coercive central authority. These people see individuals and their great talent for invention and adaptability as the prime mover of social progress, with the political machinery as a redundant - and often downright destructive - component of the equation.
This question was inspired by the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer,
and the American social commentator Albert Jay Nock, to whom I and many
others owe a great intellectual debt.
Some people believe that government can be, and often is, the prime catalyst for social betterment and human advancement. They see government as the originator of most things that are "good" and "right", and individuals in their social capacity to be mostly unimportant to that grand design.
Others see and admire man's social advancement, but come to the conclusion that these changes happened *in spite of* - not because of - the often calamitous bumblings of an inefficient, archaic, and coercive central authority. These people see individuals and their great talent for invention and adaptability as the prime mover of social progress, with the political machinery as a redundant - and often downright destructive - component of the equation.
This question was inspired by the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer,
and the American social commentator Albert Jay Nock, to whom I and many
others owe a great intellectual debt.
Government PRETENDS to be a prime catalyst for social betterment, but reality is they would rather every citizen was solely dependent on them. When we are dependent, we are more easily controlled.
http://dictionary.reference.c...
Now the first four definitions have nothing to do with power they have to do with being polite and friendly to others and that means no power.
It is the fifth (5th) definition that would need to be addressed when understanding the term Social Power.
of or pertaining to human society, especially as a body divided into classes according to status: social rank.
You will see that they talk about society as a body and not the individual then they talk about how that body is divided into classes according to rank. This is just how most governments or political powers are setup according to class and rank.
I notice that there is no place really for Individual Rights in most social or political structures you either go by what the majority or those in a higher rank say or they try to put your head on a chopping block.
An I do not see where you owe a debt to any socialist thinker. They are constantly thinking at odds against your Individual Rights.
Sam Cook was a great singer. He chose many acts that became greats themselves. He said the way to tell a good singer, was to close your eyes and listen... People should do the same with political candidates. Forget the labels, the suits with flag pins on the lapels, the baby kissing and the 'winning team quarterback smiles'.. And listen to their words, and hold them to their past words. See how many are consistent.
”It was people all along...”
If this is true, then social and political power are identical.
So remember your INDIVIDUALISM and its RIGHTS come not from any part of society or in other words political group but from YOUR creator.
Also you might want to think upon the term THE BODY POLITIC and understand what it means.
I'm definitely one of these people.
there is no "zero sum" equation between these two things and they are not connected except by coincidence.
are you an anarchist?.. you talk like one.
And no, I'm not an anarchist, I'm a Constitutional conservative and a Libertarian.
its impossible to communicate with someone who holds their own secret definition of terms important to the debate.
you seem to be one of those persons.... perhaps that is your entire goal.... to talk in circles for your own self aggrandizement.