Absolute power corrupts absolutely because there are those who have the power and those who desire power. Those who have absolute power may misuse their power in a means of doing bad, while they may also use their power for doing good. Having power that is controlled is a good thing, but having too much power surely will corrupt you.
No, not every leader was bad but their was a lot of leaders who was. People with a lot of power misuse their power. People with a lot of power tend to be self-center or selfish. One example of a leader misusing their power id Adolph Hitler. He killed Jews when he was in power. Another example is Ivan the Terrible. He killed his son so he could continue to be in control. People with a whole lot of power is most likely going to be corrupt.
Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bpan bla blas ba bl abl abla bla bla bla bla bla bla bl abl b la bl a bl a bkla bla bla bla bla bla bla bl abl abla bla bla bla bla bla bnlb balb bla blab bla
Where as I think some people truly do gain power and use it to help others I think that ABSOLUTE power tends to bring out the worst in people because they get to use to getting everything they want. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown", I say Heavy is the burden of the demons inside when you wear a crown.
Idk i just reckon because it does. Idk. Maybe? Im not sure i think so? It just does corrupt because of power lol i dont know thats just my opinion hehe lol idk lol idk absolute power does corrupt absolutlly just because it wants too haha lol hehe idk lol
We are the modern society....... . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead they fall into the narcissism that is inseparable from absolute power and see themselves as gods among men – if everyone and everything affirms this, then surely it must be so? Absolute power corrupts absolutely because most people can no longer set their morals objectively when in the face of total praise and a complete lack of accountability, or criticism that can actually do harm. Moral are set based on experience in the world around them – if that world affirms everything they think all while praising how perfect they are, then they will likely see themselves as fundamentally superior to everyone else. In such an incredibly unnatural situation, the human ego is just too weak to losing itself in the total self-obsession that absolute power necessitates. It is possible that an extraordinarily upstanding and strong individual can wield absolute power without falling into its vices – but most people, without accountability to check them or any powerful critic to threaten them, will fall into this narcissistic spiral.
Yes power does corrupt. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said Lord Acton (1832-1902). He followed it by saying “Great men are almost always bad men.” And not only in leadership, also in businesses. Power corrupts when multiple companies control the market. But when one power controls the market that company corrupts absolutely. Because your frontal lobe when you have power doesn't seem to function normally. It's almost like power is a disease. Now imagine you have power or even better remember a situation that you had the upper hand. You probably enforced your power. There was the Stanford prison experiment. They gave to simple people power over the "prisoners" (which were all in the retirement and not prisoners.) The guards made the prisoners turn on each other which is common place practice in prisons. They made the prisons defecate in buckets. And one experimenter did't want to participate no more. And it took them more then 30 hours to release. It's like they forgot it was an experiment.
When someone has absolute power, they soon will realize the real power that they have, which will lead to corruption in the government because then the person with absolute power will take advantage of the power which will make that person focus more on his/herself than on running an efficient government.
Also, if someone has absolute power, then they make every single decision with no care of what others have to say about the decision.
The Russian revolution is a good example of this. The revolutionaries took over and a sole person took over making the conditions just as bad as it was before and worse. This example is in the book "Animal Farm".
Egypt is another example of this. America went into the war in Egypt a few years ago and put a new person in charge, but the guy in charge turned out to be just as bad as the first guy or worse.
Absolute Implosion is a country turning in against them selves and destroying them selves.
There are cases of rulers who ruled well and justly. What was the common thread? Was it that that they had advisors? A legislative branch? Were elected? No, I am talking about hereditary kings and queens. Most of the decent ones didn't want to be king in the first place, Either being drafted into it (again, Heredity) or took power specifically because they could see their kingdom crumbling under other leaders.
On the other hand, I can think of a few elected presidents in our own history that were a sorry bunch, And the common theme here is that they were elected (yay for the governed picking the people) but ultimately, They ran, Meaning they were the most ambitious. Arrogant. Domineering. They were people who WANTED to lord over others.
And advisers and check-and-balances aren't really any help. This allows a tyranny of the masses, Where a few snobs get to ignore the rest of the governed because, Well, They don't have to pay those taxes they proposed.
I prefer absolute monarchy. As good or bad as the king is, Without advisors, There's a chance that his children (if he has any) will see the wreck the state has become. Whereas with advisors, You have people pulling the king like puppets, Able to rule without taking the responsibility. Whereas a kind will be in power because they have to is more likely to be a decent leader than one with a worm in their ear.
If you ask me, They ought to do away with the mandate to have a cabinet of advisors, All of the schedulers, All the little weasels and just let the president invite his friends as (unpaid and unofficed) advisors. Such advice should not come with any real power, As it should be understand they serve as friends not officials. That's step one. Step two is removing ambition from the equation by not allowing people to choose the political office of president. It should be drawn (yes, Like jury duty) from employed professionals like doctors, Farmers, Engineers, And plumbers, Not predominantly lawyers. We don't need people to know the laws and make more. We need law-abiding citizens who have insight on how to improve farming, Or how to bring clean water to struggling areas, And most importantly not snobs that are grasping for power while being out of touch. I didn't vote for Hillary (was considering it) when I read about how she never does her own shopping having an assistant do it for her.
Lastly, All political offices should be volunteer for room and board. Nothing else. These officials should NOT be making money from taxpayers. President gets a small stipend for his trouble (unlike the others, He was drafted), But he is here to govern not to be paid.
It is easy to point out the numerous leaders who have become corrupt following their assumption of power, But why would you write about a leader who just did their job. It all depends on the person, Not the position. People who seek to do good things will not become corrupt due to power, But people who seek to deceive and lie and steal will take advantage of their power.
. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . .
I don't believe that absolute power corrupts as I believe that corruption is merely a way of how our psychology works and so think that if we as people were open to being corrupt in the first place, then no force such as the absence of 'absolute power' could stop us, therefore showing to us that absolute power would not be a cause of corruption as even with the absence of power if our psychology was open enough, we'd become corrupted.
The existence of powerful leaders who misused their power, does not prove all powerful leaders would do the same. The deeds of the Corrupt are put into history textbooks so as to not repeat their mistakes, textbooks read by each generation to follow. The deeds of the Just have a lesser impact in the academic world, often summarized into a single paragraph or foot note. Those who may of handled absolute power well are or would be drowned out by those who did not.
We've only had so many examples of people with ABSOLUTE power. In the few that we have seen, we've seen a mixed bag of corrupt and just. Depending on those in power, the leader may manage to keep the greater good of those he is in command of in mind.
Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. It all depends on who is in power and what that person intends to do with the power. We have witnessed throughout history that there are people who do the right thing, but for the most part they are corrupt. From time to time, there will be a person with absolute power who will do the right thing, but absolute power should never be given to someone.
I do not believe absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think the examples we have in history indicate that absolutely power leads to a single person trying to control everything and that simply isn't manageable. I think when this is realized problems arise that create chaos and it eventually devolves into corruption. It doesn't have to be that way, there's just an extremely high probability that it will.