How and Why to Fight Concentration of Power

Concentration of power, in any form and any place, is dangerous

I read an article recently that got me thinking about my recurring themes. What do I return to again and again? I didn’t really have to think about it, because the answer was obvious.

Concentration of power is my theme. More specifically, my theme is that the concentration of any kind of power is a threat.

A threat to who you may ask? The answer is: to virtually everyone.

We’re in Agreement - Maybe

Many people would likely agree with this. In fact, there are multiple entire movements around this theme.

However, where I think people go loopy around this is that they focus on concentration of power in a single domain. They say it’s bad in one domain, but isn’t bad - or might even be good - in another domain.

For example, Libertarians believe that large government is bad, small government is good. But many Libertarians believe that concentration of power in business is just hunky-dory. So, they understand that the concentration of power in the government is bad, but cede that same toxic concentration of power to businesses.

This is bonkers to me. Concentration of power is the same anywhere. Business is just political power by another name, where the power is exercised via money (including bribes political donations) instead of votes).

And maybe that’s why none of these movements ever gain a firm enough foothold over the larger society to make real change. Because they have blind spots big enough to speed an aircraft carrier through.

Let’s Define the Threat

Let me be clear what I mean. Concentration of power, into the hands of any individual or group, in any domain, is a threat - to literally everyone else.

As I wrote in a Note a while ago, money is a liquid form of power. So, concentration of money is also a threat. This is why wealth inequality is a problem. (But wealth inequality isn’t really the problem; it’s just a symptom).

When a country has a true dictator, that person has the power to be a threat to literally every other person in the country. The dynamics don’t change because the power is exercised by a slightly larger group of people. And it makes no difference if the power is exercised another way, such as via wealth instead of violent force. (After all, wealth can purchase a lot of force).

So, people with power in any form are a threat to literally everyone else who doesn’t have that power. The larger the concentration of power - meaning the smaller the group or the more power they hold - the greater the severity of the threat, and the greater the number of people it’s a threat to.

Sustainability

There’s another more subtle - but ultimately more compelling - reason to avoid concentration of power. Throughout history, the more concentrated the power in a society (country/civilization/etc.) has become, the more unstable that society has become.

Collapse of a civilization or country is the ultimate decentralization event. But since it happens in an explosive fashion, it’s also the ultimate destructive event, doing the most damage to the most people for the longest period of time. (Decades of pain and suffering is kind of the norm for country collapse; civilizational collapse drags that into centuries).

So, I suppose if you really want to tear down everything we have, it might actually make sense to promote concentration of power. Then you can sit around and wait for the glorious destruction.

But for the rest of us who count ourselves among the sane, efforts towards decentralization of power are also efforts towards sustainability. But by this I mean true sustainability, not whatever slogan various power-seeking pols or radical eco-cultists are spouting this week.

So, What’s the Solution?

Unfortunately, decentralization has fallen out of favor with far too many people. Large (or at least very vocal) groups of people are drunk on the idea of having enough power to force the world to conform to their personal beliefs.

What those people just don’t realize (yet) is that it’s basically guaranteed that the power they’re allowing to concentrate will, eventually, be used against them. Concentration serves the few at the expense of the many; so, unless you’re one of the very few at the tippy-top, it will be used against you eventually.

Democracy itself is a form of concentration-busting. At least theoretically, it moves the power to make decisions and allocate resources from the hands of a few (the governors) to the hands of many (the governed).

But the fact that modern democracies are performed via representatives at best just waters down the decentralization of power. And at worst, it actually accelerates concentration of power, while giving those who have the power the ability to deflect and pretend they represent someone other than themselves and their political donors.

Non-Solutions

Before we talk about actual solutions, let’s be clear about some ideas that get bandied about that actually are not solutions. Being clear about why these won’t work will help us be clearer about what might.

Non-Solution 1: Shifting Power to Different Groups

Most supposed solutions to various types of modern power imbalance aren’t really solutions because they don’t actually reduce the concentration of power. Instead, they just shift the concentration of power around an issue from one area to another. It’s a big, loud, expensive shell game for them (and whack-a-mole for the rest of us).

For example, when we regulate business to prevent monopoly abuses or the dumping of toxic waste, we’re shifting the concentration of power from businesses to the government. When we set up an international court where businesses can sue countries for reducing their fictional unrealized profits, we shift power from government to business. (Yes, this abomination which subjugates the sovereignty of nations for corporate gain really is a thing).

And moving the power around ultimately doesn’t change a thing. All it does is change who we’re being threatened by, or how.

Non-Solution 2: Redistribution

Redistribution (of power, money, web traffic, or whatever) is really just another form of power shifting. Because literally by definition, it’s taking power/money from one group and giving it to another.

Let’s clarify that a little more with an example. When we redistribute wealth, what are we doing? We’re taking a concentration of power from one group of people (the wealthy - or whoever we’re targeting with the likely fictional belief that they have more than they should), and giving it to another group of people (the supposedly disadvantaged, or narratively underprivileged, or whatever other justification we’re using at the time). That’s just wealth and power moving around.

“But wait!” I can hear you say. “If the group the power/money is being taken from is smaller than the group the power/money is being given to, then redistribution reduces concentration of power!”

Ah the joys of believing in completely frictionless transactions and perfectly spherical cows. If only that were so. But unfortunately that simplistic view neglects the middle-man in the (forced) exchange.

Redistribution introduces an additional group - the people who get to do the taking and distributing. This third group ultimately has more power than either the “donors” or receivers, because this third group is the one making the decisions about who to take from and who to give to. And of course, these middlemen take their slice of the pie in the process.

So, it’s not a real solution, it’s just a shift. With every form of forced redistribution (including taxes), people in government or business actually end up with far more concentrated power than any of the wealthy/disfavored people they took it from ever had. And think about what kind of power the middlemen now have over those on the receiving end; if those in the middle tell those on the receiving end how they should act, what’s the chance that those on the receiving end will risk their ire (and their handouts) to defy them?

So again, this isn’t a solution, it’s just a power game, where the middleman is the only one who comes out ahead.

The simple truth is this: the only way to reduce concentration of power is to send less of the product of our labors to small groups of people to decide what to do with it. So in truth, redistribution is the diametric opposite of decentralization.

Non-Solution 3: Anarchy

Just to be clear: No, anarchy is not a solution.

Anarchy (or what many people call anarchy) just pushes the I-have-power-over-you dynamic from the organization-vs.-individual level to the individual-vs.-individual (or more likely, gang-vs. individual) level.

Anarchy is thus inferior to even the broken system we have now. Because where democratic processes at least give people a voice (however small) and a process to appeal to, anarchy just makes for strong-arming at whatever level the strong-armer can get away with, with no recourse for those abused.

So, those who want to just burn the whole system to the ground aren’t doing anyone any favors. Well, except the leaders of violent groups who would benefit from a lack of accountability for their violence. (I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider who really benefits - and thus who likely really promotes and supports - the pursuit of anarchy).

So What’s Really the Solution?

OK, no preamble, let’s just dive in.

A Potential Partial Solution: Countervailing Power

When any group concentrates too much power, that power can often be moderated by giving another opposing group enough power to oppose the power-holders.

Bring Back Countervailing Power

I hope it’s obvious, though, that this isn’t a great solution. If it’s not obvious, then just think of the optics alone - we found some people (not us) that have too much power, so we’re going to find some other people (who might, maybe, possibly be us) and give them too much power, too.

Yeah, that’s bound to work out well.

Some people may say that if we form groups of our own, then we’re not giving the power to someone else, we’re taking it back ourselves. But do we really give that power to all the members of the organizations? Or do the leaders of these organizations gain significantly more power than the members - and dilute the power of the individual members in the process?

If you’re not sure of the answer, consider labor unions. Yes, individual union members obviously have more power than they would without the union. But do the union bosses have more power than the union members? How much more? And if the union members don’t like how the union bosses behave, can the members really do much about it?

The Crippling Limitation of Countervailing Power

Here’s the thing. Countervailing power is a very imperfect solution for the simple reason that it requires a balance of power to work. And it’s very easy for that balance to get thrown out of whack.

Consider the three supposedly equal branches of the U.S. government - legislative, executive, and judicial. This structure was explicitly chosen to provide countervailing power.

However, over time, the legislative branch has ceded its authority to the executive branch, to the point where the power is now out of balance. Ridiculous executive orders are the norm in administrations of both major parties.

And even when the courts do their job to quash them, damage is invariably done before that happens. And many millions of dollars (of taxpayer money) are wasted crafting, defending, and partially or fully implementing the orders - and then dismantling them later.

Or consider the balance between the U.S. federal and state governments, and how that’s reflected in federal lawmaking. Originally, Senators were chosen by state governments, and that gave the state governments a strong countervailing power for federal lawmaking, in the form of a Senate that wasn’t beholden to re-election concerns (and thus to political donations).

But the 17th amendment screwed that up, requiring Senators to be chosen by popular vote instead. So now, the Senate is just a more powerful version of the House; which means that those elected to the senate have more concentrated power now than they did when they had a state government to report to.

Senators now have even greater needs for election cash and popularity than members of the House, and are thus even more easily subjected to outside pressure to ignore the needs of the state government. (Yes, the state government is also chosen by the electorate, but the original level of indirection insulated state-chosen Senators from outside influence, and removing that insulation threw the whole thing out of whack).

(As I hinted at above, labor unions are another example of countervailing power getting out of whack. But I’ll leave that discussion, too, as an exercise for the reader).

So, countervailing power is really just a stop-gap. It’s virtually guaranteed that any countervailing power will eventually be thrown out of whack in one direction or another. Which means that eventually either the original power-holders or the countervailing power holders will have enough concentrated power to screw everyone else for their own gain.

Would You Get to the Actual Solution Already?

Hey, stop raining on my doom-and-gloom parade.

Well fine, if you insist. We all know it’s screwed up, how do we really fix it?

A do-over isn’t really an option. At least not one worth considering, since it wouldn’t happen without a war or other major calamity. While creative destruction is downright necessary in small doses, I’m not a fan of it on a grand scale.

This means we need to look at incremental changes. And fortunately or unfortunately, that starts with each of us.

If you’re not impressed with the political will or activity of the average citizen, that may sound a little bleak. It sometimes seems that too many people are happy to allow their power to be siphoned away as long as their bellies are full of the latest sugar-infused processed foods, and they can watch the latest trash reality show reruns.

But you’re reading this, aren’t you? And the growing number of people reading and writing on platforms like Substack show that the silent majority is becoming less silent. I do think the momentum is shifting. And whether it is or not, the more we make it OK to question the status quo, the less the status quo will be eventually accepted, even by the numb masses.

So, let’s talk about what each of us can do.

Step 1: Choose Your Information Sources Carefully

In the past, the mainstream media acted as a partial counter-weight to this accumulation of power. They enforced transparency, did investigations into deeper relationships, and brought opposing views to light.

But that’s when the MSM actually did journalism. Now that they’ve become propaganda arms for rich owners, advertisers, and special interests (not to mention the government itself), they’re less than useless here. (And the current historically low approval ratings for the media reflect this).

However, I think modern technology, in addition to accelerating concentration of power, has also accelerated decentralization of this historical role. There are now more citizen-journalists than at any time in history.

So, platforms like Substack are part of a natural solution to the problem. They allow us plebes to distribute the work of analyzing and pointing out the power-hoarding skullduggery, so no one of us has to keep up with it all.

And as long as these platforms don’t get compromised by people with power and money, they’ll continue to offer the opportunity. (Let’s all hope Substack doesn’t get bought out any time soon by a rich person or company with a self-serving agenda).

Curate your sources. When you find one that provides good information, bookmark it. Even if you find someone with crackpot opinions, but they provide references to useful information that you haven’t found elsewhere, bookmark them; just don’t trust their interpretations of what that information means.

Then look at who your trusted sources recommend, and follow those. If you keep this up over time, you’ll build a list of reliable sources of information. Information you can then use for step 2.

Step 2: Look Deeper/Wider

Even when viewing a trusted information source, never take their information and opinions at face value. Be willing to look deeper. (Well, at least on important things; no one has time to look deeper on more than a fraction of topics).

We all take shortcuts by adopting the opinion of someone we trust about something we haven’t taken the time to dig into ourselves. This is fine - it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s the only way we can even begin to deal with the flood of information we all deal with every single day.

And even if we feel that a subject (like concentration of power) is extremely important, there’s so much money and power being thrown around in our current society that there’s just no way we can keep up with every case of it. This is also fine, because most of these changes are just the current power-holders fighting each other at the margins.

But there are cases where we recognize that what’s happening may have a bigger impact. Or where there’s enough noise being made about an issue - from people we’ve learned to trust - that it makes us sit up and take notice. And when it comes to anything that involves significant changes in power/money concentration, it’s in our best interest to put in a little more effort.

So, how do we do that? There are three parts to it, which I’ll summarize as:

• Research deeply on how power games are played,

• Read widely on the specific problem, and

• Make your own decision on the proposed solution.

First, Learn to Spot the Grift

Become educated about how the power games work. Read a wide range of Substacks (most of which are probably better than this one). And maybe write one yourself. Learn how the power games are played, so you can recognize it as it happens.

Because unfortunately, people who already have power aren’t just good at gaining more of it. They’re also good at hiding the accumulation behind “good causes”, red herrings, and false flags.

So, to spot the grift, we have to learn how the games work so we can spot the patterns. Because, as a certain naughty kitty says, once we’ve seen it, we can’t unsee it; learn the patterns, and you’ll begin to see them being used all around you.

In fact, it’s so prevalent that once you spot the patterns, you may think you’re seeing them where they don’t exist. But you can only believe that if you treat these power grabs as something unusual; when you realize the power grabs are the baseline norms, not the exception, you have arrived; it’s then you realize just how deep we are. These aren’t games to get around the system - they’re the games the system was designed to play.

In fact, the ubiquity is also one of the features power aggregators use to advance their interests. Those with power and wealth can also afford to put in many different proposals. They don’t need them all to succeed; they only need one or two to go through occasionally, and their power will continue to accumulate.

It’s an arms race, and the rest of us can barely keep up. That’s where the next steps come in.

Second, question everyone’s motives

Recognize that everyone has an agenda. I’d say this even applies to people who work for noble causes, but I’ll go further to say it especially applies to them. Anyone publicly working towards some supposedly noble cause is gaining something from that recognition. If we’re lucky, it’s just prestige; if we’re not, it’s straight-up graft.

So, don’t believe a word anyone (especially a public figure) says about what a proposed solution does - or even about what the problem is. Instead, go find other people who’ve defined the problem differently, and analyzed it critically, and proposed other solutions.

Third, evaluate the proposed solutions yourself

When evaluating any proposed solution or policy change, one of the most important questions we can ask is: Who does this give more power to?

The answer at times may be obvious. But most power-seekers are sophisticated enough that they know not to make obvious power grabs. Instead, they tend to make it look like the power is going one place (“it’s for the children!”), while either retaining or further concentrating power somewhere else (“the board would like to thank you for your help, Senator; of course we’ll be happy to support your re-election campaign”).

So, it’s not enough to just think of the first-order effects of the proposed solution. It’s also vitally important to identify the potential second- and third-order effects. Take a hard look at almost any government or social proposal, and you’ll see there’s more to it; the people promoting it will get far more out of it than they let on.

Unfortunately, most people don’t have the time, motivation, or mental habits to look this deeply. But this is a double-whammy, since people who already have power/money can easily afford to employ multiple people full-time to do the analysis, AND to generate “model legislation” which hides their accumulation of power two, three, or four levels deep. (If you think our legislators write our laws, I have a bridge to sell you).

Then, make your own decision

In other words, don’t outsource your decision to some talking head, government PR cutout, or special interest PR drone. Do the thinking yourself.

The most decentralized model possible is when each of us has the power to decide where the fruits of our labor goes each and every time money is spent. That’s obviously impractical. But anything that adds even one step in-between us and the decisions is concentrating power - and it’s concentrating it away from us.

So, anything which proposes to take more of our time, money, or resources and give it to someone else is taking things in the wrong direction. It doesn’t matter what that power (money) is supposedly intended for, and it doesn’t matter who makes the decisions about where it goes. Because once it’s out of our pocket, it’s in someone else’s control, and we can’t get it back.

And this is another double-whammy. Because first, we have no guarantee that the power (money) we just gave away won’t eventually be weaponized against us. And second, it also leaves us with less power (money) to counter that weaponization when it happens.

So, any time there’s a new tax, that’s further concentration of power. Any time there’s a new law or regulation, that’s further concentration of power. Any time we re-elect someone to the same position, that’s also further concentration of power.

(That last one is a sucky truth, by the way. We want to reward effective representatives, and even if we were diligent to always elect new people to represent us, they’d just end up under-powered compared to the lifers elected by others. So, I’m mostly talking principles here - which may not always work in practice within a dysfunctional power-seeking system).

Step 3: Rage Vote Against the Machine

That’s all well and good, but most of us don’t participate in creating solutions. So, what can we as individuals do?

The answer is: vote.

But I’m not just talking about what happens at the voting booth. We also vote with our feet (leaving locations where politicians and bureaucrats abuse us and our tax dollars), with our wallets (choosing where to spend our money), and with our attention (which sites earn advertising dollars for our participation).

It’s rare for any of the real solutions to be implemented in our existing system. That’s because the system is literally designed to promote the accumulation of power. Or at least, that’s how it’s been re-designed over the centuries.

So, practically speaking, all we can realistically do within that system is to resist further concentration of power as best we can. To do that, we have to vote - with our ballots, feet, wallets, and clicks.

Finally, hope for the future

Most changes which involve de-concentration of power that the existing power holders will never allow without a fight. So, I don’t anticipate any major changes without a humongous battle; certainly political, and hopefully not physical. But at least for the time being, we have some limits on what how much we can restrain the world-eaters.

However, I do think there are ways to change the system to work much better. Maybe some time I’ll delve more into some ideas on how to completely revamp democracy to make it more resilient, and to help ensure that power remains with the people it’s supposed to serve.

Until then, the more people we can turn on to uncensored and citizen-led transparency projects like Substack, the better.