admins maybe you can add your input here? 
can a person be given great power and not have it eventually corrupt them? for example, if tomorrow you became extraordinarily popular, to the point where people would die for you just so they could follow you, and from them you formed an army, and with that army you attacked central asia, and from central asia you spread out over the rest of the globe, conquering cities and enslaving states, much as dictatorships several centuries in the past have done, and at the end of it you were "ruler of the world" in all but name, would that power eventually get to your head?
maybe that's a bad example!
ok another example, say the above happened except instead of by force, people ALLOWED you to take over their countries and towns, and basically handed you the power to do what you with the world, with trade, with armies, with technological progress, with the law; it was all in your hands. and you previously considered yourself a normal, good person. wouldn't you suddenly feel like you HAD to take advantage of the power you've been given, for the betterment of the world? there are plenty of things wrong with the world after all, in pretty much everyone's opinion, and if one single person had the sole power to change it, why wouldn't they? at least at first it would be based on such altruistic reasoning, and then later, when rival groups start opposing your leadership (because they always do), and another extremely popular person is preaching his own version of how the world should be run, maybe you'd feel justified in quietly "removing" that person from sight. it'd be murder, sure, but YOU wouldn't be the one who pulled the trigger, and it would be for the common good, right? slippery slope, eventually you'll be justifying pure theft, torture, genocide, depending on how fickle your followers at the time happen to be, because as quickly as someone can be brought to power, that quickly people can turn against them, and nobody who has power ever wants to lose it. could this wanting to hold on to power form the basis of corruption in leadership?
or even if the possibility of the endless authority of one man existed, then wouldn't your morals eventually give way to pure animalistic impulse, driven by the lack of negative consequences should you choose to do the "wrong" thing? related question - are people inherently good? or are we good because the consequences of being bad are so unpleasant? WHAT is the incentive for leaders to be good, if people continue to give them power?
(if you've read all that I SALUTE you, honestly, i write these posts without knowing where exactly i'm going, and half the time i worry that they make no sense. if you like you can ignore the post and answer only the initial question - which is, does power always corrupt? because i don't think i explained it well here, and the idea itself is extremely intriguing and what i'd actually like to hear about. thanks everyone!)
can a person be given great power and not have it eventually corrupt them? for example, if tomorrow you became extraordinarily popular, to the point where people would die for you just so they could follow you, and from them you formed an army, and with that army you attacked central asia, and from central asia you spread out over the rest of the globe, conquering cities and enslaving states, much as dictatorships several centuries in the past have done, and at the end of it you were "ruler of the world" in all but name, would that power eventually get to your head?
maybe that's a bad example!
ok another example, say the above happened except instead of by force, people ALLOWED you to take over their countries and towns, and basically handed you the power to do what you with the world, with trade, with armies, with technological progress, with the law; it was all in your hands. and you previously considered yourself a normal, good person. wouldn't you suddenly feel like you HAD to take advantage of the power you've been given, for the betterment of the world? there are plenty of things wrong with the world after all, in pretty much everyone's opinion, and if one single person had the sole power to change it, why wouldn't they? at least at first it would be based on such altruistic reasoning, and then later, when rival groups start opposing your leadership (because they always do), and another extremely popular person is preaching his own version of how the world should be run, maybe you'd feel justified in quietly "removing" that person from sight. it'd be murder, sure, but YOU wouldn't be the one who pulled the trigger, and it would be for the common good, right? slippery slope, eventually you'll be justifying pure theft, torture, genocide, depending on how fickle your followers at the time happen to be, because as quickly as someone can be brought to power, that quickly people can turn against them, and nobody who has power ever wants to lose it. could this wanting to hold on to power form the basis of corruption in leadership?
or even if the possibility of the endless authority of one man existed, then wouldn't your morals eventually give way to pure animalistic impulse, driven by the lack of negative consequences should you choose to do the "wrong" thing? related question - are people inherently good? or are we good because the consequences of being bad are so unpleasant? WHAT is the incentive for leaders to be good, if people continue to give them power?
(if you've read all that I SALUTE you, honestly, i write these posts without knowing where exactly i'm going, and half the time i worry that they make no sense. if you like you can ignore the post and answer only the initial question - which is, does power always corrupt? because i don't think i explained it well here, and the idea itself is extremely intriguing and what i'd actually like to hear about. thanks everyone!)
