My thoughts on this topic are immature at best, but I hope that I aspire to ground myself in some of the ideas that I will ponder upon today.
Power - What is it? Is it acceptable to say that, for better or worse, it is the very thread from which the fabric of human history is made? Is there any inherent justification for power? Is there any benefit to the greater masses to submit to power? Is it simply a consequence of the natural order of things.
Whatever I read of history, I find the same pattern, and the same question. How is it that history is the story of so few? The story of many following a few, to death, to greatness, etc. How did this come to be? When was nobility conceived? Was it on the basis of wisdom or might? Of aggression or kindness? If I were to make conjecture, I would say nobility must have had its birth in military might. A family or group of individuals that protected, or perhaps a group that pillaged. But either way, the threat of violence is central.
Hypothesis: Violence is central to our history.
This is not that far fetched to believe, since, this is clearly the natural order of things. Nature is violent, that is in its mechanisms there is little room for the frail misgiving of human kindness. Just the clockwork of survival. So building on this hypothesis, we can also assume that, at least, in part, our beginnings were inspired by fear of violence. The agents of violence could have been nature itself or other humans. Whatever may have transpired seems to have lead to the result that many agreed to the dominance of few. And eventually this lead to the notion of ownership of land. Land as the primary resource must have only become important in terms of the produce. So in providing protection, the leaders of men must have felt a natural sense of ownership to the realm they had control over.
So a natural affinity to family groups and ownership of land must have led to the first distinction of the first noble family. But was it rational to think that the protection provided by the previous generation would be held intact by the next. Or did the mantle of leadership pass fluidly to the next best protector/pillager? Which brings us to the another question? What would those in power do to retain power? I mean they already clearly proficient in the crafts of violence. Political strife aka the struggle to retain/ or assume power is also therefore a function of violence. (TBC)
