Rules Based or Power Based

[Higgly]

A lot of the debate on MapleLeafWeb seems to revolve around rules versus power. What do you think?

[bush_cheney2004]

Rules can only survive by sipping from a fountain of power. This is applicable far beyond the tiny world of MLW.

[Higgly]

Rules can only survive by sipping from a fountain of power. This is applicable far beyond the tiny world of MLW.

Rules have their own power.

[bush_cheney2004]

Rules have their own power.

But we are back to the fundamental of "power"....it has always been thus.

[Higgly]

But we are back to the fundamental of "power"....it has always been thus.

Rules are power. I'm glad we agree.

[bush_cheney2004]

Rules are power. I'm glad we agree.

No, rules are not power. Rules are a protcol enforced by power. Law and justice sip from a fountain of power.

Example: Political parties don't compete for rules...they compete for the power to make (and enforce) "rules".

Edited December 1, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[capricorn]

To continue with bc's analogy of political parties, power is vested in an entity. An organization, whatever it may be, is an entity and it must be viewed as different and separate from the members operating within that entity.

For example, MLW is an entity and by its very nature the power is vested in it. In order for MLW members to operate within that entity, they must recognize, acknowledge and accept that power. To a certain extent, members can influence the rules by which that entity operates but they do not necessarily have the final authority in which rules will be accepted, tolerated or applied by MLW.

If you apply that same logic to employers, employees operate under the power of the employer (the entity). The employer enforces rules or policies, yet employees can attempt to influence those rules or policies i.e. collective bargaining in the case of unionized environments. In the case of non-unionized workplaces those negotiations may be exercised through committees with specific objectives, i.e occupational safety, hiring etc.

I would conclude that power precedes the formulation of rules. Power is vested in entities and rules flow from that power.

[August1991]

This thread is confused because the notions of "rules" and "power" are not clear at all. The OP implies that there are "rules" and "power" enforces these rules, or some such. It's as if life were a sports game and "power" is a referee enforcing "rules". This analogy is completely false.

For example:

For example, MLW is an entity and by its very nature the power is vested in it. In order for MLW members to operate within that entity, they must recognize, acknowledge and accept that power. To a certain extent, members can influence the rules by which that entity operates but they do not necessarily have the final authority in which rules will be accepted, tolerated or applied by MLW.

If you apply that same logic to employers, employees operate under the power of the employer (the entity). The employer enforces rules or policies, yet employees can attempt to influence those rules or policies i.e. collective bargaining in the case of unionized environments. In the case of non-unionized workplaces those negotiations may be exercised through committees with specific objectives, i.e occupational safety, hiring etc.

Anyone is free to quit a job and any poster is free to leave MLW. The world is a big place with many employers and many Internet forums. You are free to choose which one is appropriate for you. In such a world, does it make sense to speak of "rules" or "power"? Employers or MLW don't hold "power" any more than you or I do.

Let me give you another, perhaps better analogy. Who decides the "rules" of English grammar? What "power" enforces these rules?

Edited December 2, 2007 by August1991

[Peter F]

The powerless do not make the rules.

BC and Capricorn are right.

[Guest American Woman]

Neither one in and of itself is the answer to solving the world's problems. If you're asking if "might is right" the answer is no, but obviously not everyone is going to respect and abide by rules, so without the power to enforce them they are meaningless. So it's not as simple as 'rules' or 'power' because it has to be a combination of both.

Edited December 2, 2007 by American Woman

[ScottSA]

I posted this on another thread, when Higgy first got the brilliant notion that power and rules are somehow opposing ideas:

Here's a fundamental misunderstanding that shapes the thoughts of many wannabe armchair strategists. The two categories are not mutually exclusive, and in fact one make no sense without the other. "Rules" are merely articulated thoughts. Without coercion they are meaningless, whether in a chatroom, a domestic legal system, or an international arena.

What, for instance stops me calling you a silly passive aggressive little twit? Not rules, that's for sure. It's the enforcement of those rules that ensures I don't call you that. It's the "power" you so disdainfully dismiss. It's Greg. Some people may be able to function without rule enforcement, but certainly neither you nor I can do so.

In domestic law there exists an entire social underbelly who flaunt the rules and spend their years in and out of jail, and then there are those who live so well within the rules that they need never worry about running afoul of the rules. But the vast majority of people live somewhere in between, in varying degrees of compliance, because of enforcement, or "power." That doesn't mean everyone in this group would run out straightaway and rob a bank the second the cops go on strike, but it means there are degrees of compliance to rules they would ignore, were it not for enforcement...from stealing paperclips and jaywalking to egregious rapine and murder.

And it's exactly the same thing in the international system, except that there is no police force, so things work on the posse system. The UN can make rules until they extrude its backside, but no one is going to follow them unless it is in their self-interest, or unless the rules are enforced by someone willing to round up a posse and do the job. Fortunately peace is in the interest of a globalist system and most of the actors in it, so compliance is voluntary and more or less effective on an international level. The exemptions to this rule happen when somebody ("somebody" refering to an unitary actor country) perceives that they have more to gain outside compliance than within it. At that point it decides just how far it is willing to go outside compliance. If it's willing to go far enough, the other actors have to decide how far they are willing to go to maintain compliance to rules.

The long and short of it is that your duality is a false duality.

[Guest American Woman]

I posted this on another thread, when Higgy first got the brilliant notion that power and rules are somehow opposing ideas: ---------

Like I said, I sure don't think "might is right," but to think power isn't necessary is just plain nuts. I don't like the way the U.S. has used its power at times, but at the same time, I think it has kept other would-be-powers in check. So I don't think a lone power is a good thing, but there has to be power in this world. It can't be a void, or someone, somewhere, will fill that void. So those who think the U.S. is nothing but terrible should stop and think what some others may have done if they were the only super power in the world. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Some would do things they proclaim to be beyond their moral compass if only they had the power to do it AND get away with it. And that goes for nations, too.

[August1991]

The powerless do not make the rules.

BC and Capricorn are right.

Really?

Who makes and enforces the rules of grammar? Of pronunciation? Who makes and enforces the rules of music?

If you wish to be understood by others, you have an interest in speaking according to the rules of pronunciation.

Many rules are privately established and we voluntarily accede to them. There is no need for enforcement because we voluntarily respect them ourselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like I said, I sure don't think "might is right," but to think power isn't necessary is just plain nuts. I don't like the way the U.S. has used its power at times, but at the same time, I think it has kept other would-be-powers in check....

Yet it is perfectly acceptable for a woman and society to exert power over an unborn fetus (i.e. baby). Might is right...power is power...at all levels.

[Guest American Woman]

Yet it is perfectly acceptable for a woman and society to exert power over an unborn fetus (i.e. baby). Might is right...power is power...at all levels.

Your constant attempt to bring abortion into every thread/issue is a real bore.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your constant attempt to bring abortion into every thread/issue is a real bore.

Then why don't you just ignore the posts? Power is power...even when you don't like the example.

I support legalized abortions (rules), but I do not pretend it is not killing babies (power).

Edited December 2, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Then why don't you just ignore the posts?

In case you haven't noticed, I have ignored them 99.999999999999% of the time.