In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by definition, the most extreme position of "might is right". The principle text on which is attributed to one "Ragnar Redbeard" [1].
The philosophy is simple. I may rob you, rape you, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill, for the one simple reason that I am stronger and you are the weaker. And the "rule of law" (insofar as it can exist) must recognise that as my legitimate right. It is obviously an infantile fantasy. Yet I see it echoed in various forms within these pages.
First of all, it is something that nobody of sound mind believes, other than as a pose. It is an anchor point, a strawman from which to develop real ethical positions.
But most of all, it's a fantasy we occasionally wish as true, because if it were, these so-called "powerful corporations" would be reduced to dust and ruin within days by those the real powers in this world who exercise patient restraint.
- domain names should be distributed based on some measurement of "utility" - the Nissan company is bigger than the Nissan person, therefore they have a higher utility - domain names control should be changed outside of one's control
There is no perfect way to assign domain names. As you say, first come first serve has its downsides. But I don't like the idea of big capitalistic companies taking over domain names just because more people know them; in fact that's yet another demonstration of capitalism accumulating even more resources at the expense of someone less.
There's plenty of cases where this kind of reasoning fails, because it doesn't care about ethics, but in this exact situation there no ethical question at stakes, especially since Uzi Nissan bought this domain name in good faith. It's just a matter of how much the two companies value their respective utility for this scarce resource.
(+ insert rant here about how all capitalists love is crony capitalism and how much they hate markets)
Of course, that assumes Mr. Nissan would have been willing to trade at all. Some people aren't motivated by money, which certainly increases the complexity of the "markets solve all things" hypothesis.
Fundamental flaw of the system, because just like physical real estate, whoever got there first has an enormous advantage.
Nobody is arguing on my behalf to kick my landlord to the curb, though.
Though you are correct that very few people argue for eminent domain against their own land holdings.
There is codified in the Constitution of the United States recognition that some will always seek to subjugate others. And an enshrined recognition that this is morally wrong is the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms. Many of the founding fathers of the United States made statements to the affect that a well armed citizenry was the only method by which true tyranny could be removed.
And true tyranny is the living example of "might makes right".
The appeal to "something better" than our base instinct to crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their women is distinct to Christian morality. No other religion or political ideology makes this appeal.
This is why the United States -- with its distinctly Christian moral foundation -- is unique in the world. The founders recognized first the right of association and speech, and second the right to personal autonomy; to bear arms and kill those who would subjugate or kill you.
In case of the former: the crusades, any of the millions of athiest or non-christian pacifists, and... I can't believe this needs stating, but shooting someone in the face with an assault rifle is an exercise of "might".
Their complete misunderstanding of the history of both this country's founding and Christianity really help cement that assumption as accurate, though.
It's unfortunate to see that the US education system has regressed so poorly.
The point is self defense in the face of people who would dominate you, tell you to do things you don't want to do or know are not morally right.
Before they recognized either, they recognized the ownership of human beings as property and specially allocated those human properties as fractional humans.
I would suggest you actually read about the strategy behind the 3/5ths clause; everyone that invokes that as invective merely signals his/her ignorance of that context.
What!!
I've occasionally wondered, is that not reality for all of us? Even us living in democratic nations? Is democracy at its core not a "might" (through a greater cardinality) makes right of sorts?
The tyranny of the majority? Absolutely. The trajectory along which many ethical arguments about power roll is to start with the 'Redbeard' straw-man and then offer up increasingly diluted forms, social contracts and so on, until an acceptable proxy is found for universalisable systematic violence [1] in kind.
[1] This may not be a literal violence at all. The point at which it passes under an acceptable threshold, as sublimated power, says a lot about each culture. For example, acceptance of brutal inequality may be taken as such a sublime violence - the measure of a civilisation is how it treats its weakest members.
You might wonder if we do enough, for example making sure commercial entities are kept under control. Democracy is work, it is not a guarantee you will keep having it. You can lose it, and many entities are fine with destroying it too further their own self interest. You don´t have it because of how exceptional you think you are. So take an active role to protect it.
In actual democratic systems, the stronger great majority (eg the 75% or 90%) can do anything they want to with a weak minority. There are many prominent examples of democratic systems being used to implement might makes right via majority abuse of the minority.
You have to intentionally neuter democratic systems with strict constitutions that protect individual rights, to prevent might makes right from always taking over democratic systems. You have to put very strong constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for the protection of the minority.
Protecting rights is more a consequence of the rule of law, and equality under the law.
Some horrid people defend the massacring by Putin by defending the might makes right mindset. They even might think of themselves as independent or critical thinkers. They are not. Might makes right is the doctrine of fascism, and it is good you call out this type of thinking when you see it.
Germany's evil ideology of conquest and might makes right, which was rife in their culture throughout the 18th, 19th and part of the 20th century, was definitely not limited to the first half of the 20th century (not that you were necessarily claiming such). The Nazi ideology was entirely ripped off from existing cultural beliefs that were common in Germany and the greater region at that time and had been for centuries. Hitler was about as non-original as you could get, he simply took common ideas from the culture and swirled them together. Bismarck and Hindenberg were also monsters, Hitler was just worse and was the natural end of their failed, vile culture during those centuries.
It took thousands of years for the Europeans to figure out they needed to banish might makes right.
Both are bad, but might-makes-right culture of imperialism is waaay worse in its downstream effects. E.g. the Holocaust and Japanese war crimes in China.
I’m dumbfounded when the observation is made. On the one hand, if it’s just common sense that large corporations will do what they want to anyone at any time, isn’t our need to fight them on it similarly common? The second part is always left out. Probably rarely on purpose, but always to the benefit of the aggressor.
Of course and "we" do fight them as a matter of routine, and "we" win frequently too.
If that weren't the case, the EPA wouldn't exist, OSHA wouldn't exist, the FDA wouldn't exist, the FAA wouldn't exist, the 40 hour work week wouldn't exist, automobiles wouldn't have a vast number of legally mandated safety requirements, building codes wouldn't exist, and so on and so forth.
It's worth pointing out that the recent Supreme Court case [1] may have changed this back to what large corporations and Republicans have wanted; the precendent that the case sets may then enable Republicans to dismantle the rest of the agencies you mentioned [2]
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530#writin...
It’s not comparable, we rarely win. I’m not sure why you surround “we” in quotes, because the people benefiting from this arrangement represent an extremely small number and it’s unlikely you’re among them.
No, it's an observation that's almost tautological; if you can't do what you want, you're not mighty.
If you require reality to conform to your innate sense of justice, you'll distort your perceptions of the world and react to things ineffectively.
I have to disagree. There are many mighty and powerful people who do not want to rob, rape, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill.
> If you require reality to conform to your innate sense of justice, you'll distort your perceptions of the world and react to things ineffectively.
Natural Law has its merits, however, innate or otherwise that's precisely what justice is. All governance modes of societies have criminal justice systems which in addition to incarceration and rehabilitation aim to deter/prevent. Yes, that requires a fair society, but to the extent that exists people do not want or need to rob, rape, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill. They are powerful, benevolent and satisfied.
The only distortion of reality I see is supposing a zero-sum world of schadenfreude and jealousy in which only relative power counts and you can't feel good about your power unless it comes at someone else's expense.
