Not having read the religious texts of all of the religions of the world, I cannot claim to be 100% certain on this point, however to the best of my knowledge there is not a single religion or creed which states that the powerful should be imbued with the right to impose their will on the weak (might is right), yet this simple idea seems to be one of the guiding principles of life on this planet – possibly the only one.

Power (might ) can manifest in any number of forms, most evidently in physical violence or armed conflict.  One of these forms however, is the exercising of financial muscle: by purchasing something that somebody else wants you can deny them that item, by offering them money you can try to induce them to act in your interests… etc.  In this model, the more money you have, the more power you have.  The imbalance of power can even be such that it is not necessary to ever spend the money to gain the power, you can simply threaten to spend the money – thus it becomes possible to exercise that power without diminishing that power.  This is a concern, but becomes of even greater concern when such power is used to defend the principle that ‘Might is Right’ – effectively when those with power say “I choose –  because I have power, not because I am right”.

The argument ‘Might is Right’ holds that irrespective of reason, irrespective of logic and evidence, the correctness of any belief or action can be determined by might.  It ultimately condones the forced subjugation of another person or viewpoint, seeking the suppression of contrary argument rather than embracing and being challenged by it.  The drowning out of, or refusal to hear an opposing view however, is not the same thing as the opposing view being incorrect.  In order for a course of action or opinion to be adjudged correct it is necessary that it be put through some form of validation and review; be that the arrival at a consensus through argument or via verification through testing.  In this way, I would argue that unless you are prepared to accept that you are wrong (by virtue of submitting your beliefs to review) you cannot be proven to be right.  I would contend therefore, that the practice of ‘Might is Right’ is an admittance of defeat; it is tantamount to saying to your opponent “I am incapable or unwilling to meet you on any valid terms, so I will use my superiority to avoid the question.”  It is a cowardly approach; one which replaces a potentially valid test with an entirely unrelated struggle.

The willingness to use such argumentation was demonstrated very clearly at the end of 2017 when the United States of America, faced with a vote going against them in the United Nations publicly declared that they would be “…taking names…” of those countries that voted against them, backed by the threat of withdrawing financial aid from those countries.  (The United States did in fact reduce their contribution to the UN budget by 10% immediately following the vote.)  This attempt to coerce nations into following a course of action dictated by a single country is a text-book example of the abuse of power and the belief that might is right.  In this specific example, it is bribery; an offering of money as a persuasion.  Bribery is something which at an individual, corporate or national level, is recognised as an abuse of power and is legislated against – it is considered a crime for example, under Title 18 the United States Code, which relates to Crimes and Criminal Procedure.  This judgement however, clearly doesn’t apply at a supra-national level!

The problem inherent in seeking to validate something outside of any relevant domain, is that the domain of validation used can then be called into question.  This leaves the door open for the result to be questioned by any and all interested parties.  A common consensus can only be achieved if all parties agree to the terms of validation, thus there is no point at all in seeking validation on your own terms – since all you can do is prove to yourself what you already believe. The US therefore, bribing nations to vote with them in the UN does not indicate that those nations agree with the US (even though they might), it only means that they were bribed to vote that way.  The whole conclusion is thus undermined by the methods used!

Any conclusion drawn through this method therefore is invalid: the playing field is fixed even if only the active participants are aware of it.  So where is the value in such an approach?  Other than the pampering of insecure egos, there can I think be only one thing of value in this method; and that is the hoodwinking of an unwitting audience.  The use of military might is evident to all who look, but the insidious nature of using financial might means that to those not in the know, the result can appear to be fair and final.  Thus if the bribes for votes are behind closed doors, it is possible that the public may not suspect any chicanery and could believe the result.  All of which makes it all the more incredulous that the United States is sufficiently stupid as to publicly threaten the UN nations to vote in their favour rather than doing things more quietly.  Their only purpose can be that they wish to have a ‘show of strength’…

Of course, the entire process is never-ending.  As one party’s power diminishes and another increases the balance changes and by definition, what is right changes also: you suddenly become wrong by virtue of the fact that you are no longer the strongest.