Empowering

[RWStanding]

Empower – Empowering: A term which is very popular today and would appear to be a positive emphasis on freedom. People are given the power to do things. As such it is the opposite of slavery or being forbidden anything. It is therefore subject to the same comments as is freedom. It is other values that denote what social assets are obtained. The person or community that is empowered must decide whether it is to move in the direction of cooperative altruism or in the direction of aloof autonomy or independence amongst other independent people and communities.
It no doubt indicates having the power to claim rights. But in doing so the person or community must also agree on the duties or responsibilities it will adopt in relation to its rights. At the very least the duty not to interfere or encroach on others. That is to say, freedom and equality run together.

[Gary Childress]

Power seems to me to always be in relation to another, whether object or human being and it always seems to be a zero sum game. One person's power is at the expense of the one s/he has power over. I also think "empowerment" is generally meant in terms of "empowering" those who lack it which (if it is indeed a zero sum game) means disempowering those who possess it excessively. Would you agree?

[jayjacobus]

Power seems to me to always be in relation to another, whether object or human being and it always seems to be a zero sum game. One person's power is at the expense of the one s/he has power over. I also think "empowerment" is generally meant in terms of "empowering" those who lack it which (if it is indeed a zero sum game) means disempowering those who possess it excessively. Would you agree?

Power has more than one connotation. It can mean ability, competence; dominance and more. Gandhi had the power to persuade as did many other famous people and he did not use his power in a zreo sum game.

You can fight fire with fire or you can fight fire with water. If you don't have fire, you can still try water.

[jayjacobus]

When the massive insurance company, AIG, had severe financial problems in 2008, their reputation was severely damaged and their ability to pay future claims became uncertain. Insurance companies, in order attract new customers and retain old ones, must project financial strength which AIG could not. Many of AIG’s insureds, particularly corporate insureds, would most likely flee to stronger insurance companies.

AIG, to counter this effect, turned to Berkshire Hathaway for assistance. For a price, and a relatively large one, Berkshire Hathaway gave AIG an agreement known as a reinsurance contract where Berkshire Hathaway agreed to take over AIG’s claims if AIG failed. The clause that provided AIG’s customer with this sense of security when dealing with AIG, is called a Cut Through Endorsement.

AIG did survive and is now financially strong.

But the point of this article, is not to talk insurance, but to consider the principle of a Cut Through in other situations. In the case of slander, for example, it may apply when the slanderer is unknown. This can occur when a newspaper “reports” the claims of an unidentified source. If the claim is false and the damage is significant, then the person who is harmed will Cut Through anonymous slanderers to the newspaper that enabled the slander. And if the newspaper is virtual, the enabler, by default, may be the person or company that owns the newspaper. Now you know where to make your demand for restitution.

If the slanderer thinks he is empowered, guess again. The newspaper will reveal who he is if the the newspaper understands my point.

And its 7 days until Sunday.