The Nature and Merit of Powermongering
Let us ponder the concept of enormous power and success at the disposal of one or few.
Are there inherent similarities or differences between the power exhibited by a star Super Bowl quarterback who is “in The Zone”, for example, and that of a military strategist who conquers peoples and lands?
At its various degrees of concentration, power in the hands of self-preserving humans must surely convey equally varied responsibility and risk. Too much freedom to pursue one’s preferred ends, and tyranny may sprout.
Consider this quote attributed to Ghengis Khan, and all the more jaw-dropping for its pointed brevity:
The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms.”
Can an argument be made for the merit of this mentality? Is the occasional bloodlust of tyrants necessary for the emergence of societies like we have today? Can it be said that warfare and extreme displays of power are dirty business, but somebody just has to do it?
In a nutshell, yes.
But like many things on this earth the issue is not so black and white, but rather it’s a constant, never-ending gray scale.
I choose to forego the activist/pacifist discussion – as well as the obvious Iraq/hate-Bush opinion piece – and strike at what I consider to be the heart of the issue: the natural tendencies of man.
One of my very favorite aspects of capitalism is that good comes from the thirst for power. According to our individual self-interest, as a result of spending our dollars we all prosper from a flourishing economy. It’s a natural instinct to put yourself first. Or, when you have a family, to designate them as part of your circle of interest.
What’s best for you and your clan may vary from that of your neighbor. But more often than not you want the same things: food, shelter, safety, luxuries. The trouble is that there’s not always enough, and in some cases, as with luxuries, folks continually thirst for more.
Competition for limited resources has been and always shall remain a constant fact of life.
I can imagine a time when men simply took the resources they wanted. If you had luxuries and I had none, I’d simply pry them from you by force – perhaps from your cold, dead hands. But what if it served my best interest to keep you alive? What if, by allowing you to prosper I could ensure a steady stream of foods or luxuries without having to deal with the “dirty business” of conquest?
So it is. And so it as been. Humans are survivors and adapters, and despite what some would have you believe we do learn from our past. Bloody as it is now, it is relatively bloodless compared to 1200 AD.
Yes, the filthy work continues, largely to protect the free exchange of goods and services. But remember this: When you spend money to obtain a product, you make our present society possible. And if you’re a male there’s up to a 1 in 12 chance that Ghengis Khan made you possible.
The Bruce
March 13, 2008 at 4:59 pm
[...] understood me, considering his next statement was: “We Canadians don’t understand your American bloodthirstiness.” I stared at him, dumb-founded for a moment that this remark had actually come out of his [...]
Glad I’m not a Canadian « The Sagamore Journal
January 22, 2009 at 9:00 am