Why does the Wikipedia article on politics only talk about power, without mentioning right/authority...

Why does the Wikipedia article on politics only talk about power, without mentioning right/authority? Isn't politics just as much about the right or authority to rule, as the power to rule? In fact, to me it would seem that politics is /especially/ about authority or right above power; it seems to me that the science which deals primarily with power is warfare.

The only right that the article talks about is the "divine right of kings", which it just glosses over as saying it is something that the French Revolution "put an end to", and the "right to property", but it more or less admits that the "right to property" is just something that the State invents and enforces with its power, i.e. power over authority, once again.

Doesn't this prove that modern politicians are essentially Machiavellians who believe that "might makes right", if the most popular page on politics essentially implies the same?

But OP politics is literally just about power and nothing else, "right/authority" is just used as a convenient excuse after said power is secured.
Do you even Machiavelli?

>Doesn't this prove that modern politicians are essentially Machiavellians who believe that "might makes right", if the most popular page on politics essentially implies the same?

Or, rather, that modern political science rests upon that Machiavellian principle, that all right or authority proceeds from power.

That's precisely my question. Doesn't this show that modern political science rests upon Machiavellian premises?

Personally, no, I am not a Machiavellian. I prefer Aristotle. I think right/authority is something that exists separately from power. For example, a man has the right to property (not to have his property stolen) and a woman a right to dignity (not to be raped), even if the State does not even claim that they have these rights. I believe in the natural law as something existing prior to civil law, and which endows men with right or authority by nature.

>a man has the right to property (not to have his property stolen) and a woman a right to dignity (not to be raped)
>I believe in the natural law

Everyone look at this user, look at him and laugh.

Another example of where right is used above power is when a people try to overthrow their government on the grounds that they have the RIGHT to overthrow a tyrant. If this right does not exist, then tyrants are free to do as they please. If you say that politics is purely about power, you destroy the basis for civic virtue and loyalty to the king or to the republic, and make politics the field of ambition and tyranny.

Why should anyone laugh at me? If you think that all your rights proceed from the state, you admit that you are a complete cuck of the state and are totally dependent upon it like a dog.

>implying you have the righr to anything unless the most powerful structure in your area says you do

How naive do ya gotta be?

Indeed, if you think that all your rights proceed from the State, you belong intellectually more to the Communist government of China than to any western government, because traditionally western government has been based on the idea of right/authority, not raw power solely.

> If this right does not exist, then tyrants are free to do as they please.

I actually cannot believe that there are people who genuinely think this way. Holy shit. You DO realize "rights" are just abstractions about what people think would be nice, right? The people don't need a "right" to overthrow a government anymore than they "need" a "right" to do anything. If the people are capable of overthrowing a government by force what fucking matter does it make if they had the "right" to do so? Its like a person about staring down the barrel of a gun and saying "b-but you don't have the RIGHT to take my life!" and and then spending his last moments in total confusion, bleeding to death on the ground.

I mean holy shit this is legitimately how a child thinks, what the fuck

Just because a powerful man can deny my rights does not mean I don't have them in fact.

It's not that we want our rights to derive from the state (or whatever powerful institution), it's just the simple fact that it does.

Literally every "right" you think you have is a set of political rights which is granted by whomever controls the monopoly of violence.

Yes it does. He doesn't like what youre doing and then he prevents you from doing so through imprisonment, coercion or death. Whatever you think you deserve no longer matters.

Let me ask you a question. If every government in the world enforced the idea that 2+2=5 or that the moon is made of cheese, would that make these statements true? Do you think any truth exists independently of power?

Right is not the same as ability. Consult a dictionary. No one doesn't realize people can ignore right. It's a question of the consequences.

>its another "college sophomore just read Animal Farm/1984 for the first time and can't wait to tell everyone about his opinions" episode

It would change the perception of truth, sure. But I think yours is a weak comparison to make. The idea of "natural law" or intrinsic rights is just garbage and the amount of violations incurred against them proves that they really hold little water apart from sentimentality.

If you'd like a great book on the shift in thinking on human rights I'd suggest Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt.

But user, what about when your rights conflict with someone else's rights? Settling that issue issue is a matter of politics; government policy will determine which right is more important. The more and more we create various rights, the more and more these conflicts happen .

Rights are a made up concept to try and encourage people to live in harmony. The cult around them is only created to make later generations think it a horrendous taboo to violate them.

>The idea of "natural law" or intrinsic rights is just garbage and the amount of violations incurred against them proves that they really hold little water apart from sentimentality.

Actually, natural law is upheld far, far more than it is violated. A child has an inborn sense of justice. When the child sees his brother get fewer gifts than his brother, he feels wronged. We have a natural sense of ownership, and when someone takes away our property we feel wronged. Now, this natural sense of ownership is respected almost universally; thieves are the exception, not the rule. And the fact that we do not go around stealing other people's property is not just because we fear the punishment of the law, but because we have a sense of justice, a sense that if we have the right to take somebody else's property without asking, then they have the right to take our property without asking, so that if I want my property to be respected, I must respect everybody else's. Again, this is not created in a vacuum by the state. If you raised two children in the jungle, they would naturally form the idea of ownership, and they would naturally form the idea of a right to what they own, and a sense of wrong if the other child took what was theirs.

Another example is rape. This law is upheld far more often that is violated. Most men don't immediately rape a woman as soon as they feel an attraction to her, most men control themselves. Rapists are the exception, not the rule. This is because we know by nature that we shouldn't violently rape a woman.

This idea of right is what separates a civilized man from a barbarian. If you think that there is only power, and no right, then you are essentially a barbarian. Actually, most men in civilized countries do have the concept of right. If someone raped you, your thought wouldn't just turn to wanting him punished by the law, it would first turn to the notion that you've been wronged, that something you had a right to was taken away.

>The idea of "natural law" or intrinsic rights is just garbage

I want marxists to die.

This...IS supposed to be a history board, right?
Meaning everyone who posts here is expected to have a basic understanding of history...

...because...that's what this is, right? A history board?

I have the right to disagree. Which "hidden power structure" invented by some french marxist faggot whose semen you readily gulp is responsible for that right?

>This idea of right is what separates a civilized man from a barbarian. If you think that there is only power, and no right, then you are essentially a barbarian. Actually, most men in civilized countries do have the concept of right. If someone raped you, your thought wouldn't just turn to wanting him punished by the law, it would first turn to the notion that you've been wronged, that something you had a right to was taken away.

And this is why you people who talk about right being the fabrication of power are intellectually barbarians, but not so in your way of life. You have a sense of personhood, a sense of dignity, i.e. a sense of right. You don't see the world just in terms of power, who can conquer who. That is the mentality of a barbarian, or a sociopath.

If you think that right doesn't exist, and there is only power, you should be sent to the gulag and left to waste away. You have no right to exist in a civilized society if you think right doesn't exist. You should be crushed by the state, and you would have no grounds on which to protest your being crushed. I don't say this vindictively, I say it because you who say that there is no natural right or authority are an absolute menace to the state, because you expose it directly to lawlessness and tyranny.

...I can't even... I'm literally shaking right now...

If you read history, you'd know how important the concept of right/authority is in the history of civilization.

>If you think that right doesn't exist, and there is only power, you should be sent to the gulag and left to waste away.

I have never seen a person so confused with themselves.

No no no everything is subjective there is no right or wrong.

Except for racism, islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia, which are demonstrably, objectively evil. And capitalism.

>But I think yours is a weak comparison to make. The idea of "natural law" or intrinsic rights is just garbage and the amount of violations incurred against them proves that they really hold little water apart from sentimentality.

Is right such that ignoring it proves it doesn't exist? You are assuming it is. Most people disagreeing with you would not say so. You are assuming right to be something obviously ridiculous. It seems inconceivable that anyone could believe such a thing, doesn't it? Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means. We all see the fluctuations in power you point out. And that right without power is without power. What are the consequences of this or that fluctuation of power? If you don't care and are interested only in the fact that there are fluctuations of power, continue as you are. Notice I'm trying to simplify but talking about right and not rights. No need to multiply or complicate what we are inquiring into the existence of.

>ITT Americans so accustomed to their echo-chamber of a country that they think only Marxists could ever possibly disagree with them

Burn everything, start over

Stop shitposting from your cuckshed.

Explain.

What I just said does not violate the natural law. The natural law proposes something called the "common good". This is why societies have the right to imprison or even execute criminals, in order to safeguard the common good. People who deny that the natural law exists, and say that law is just the invention of powerful men, are the most dangerous criminals in the state by far, because they undermine the very basis of law and society. They are traitors in the literal sense. Therefore, they should be punished with the harshest possible sentence.

bump