> If one, or a group, or a nation or whatever..does not have power, then they only have freedom granted to them by actual power. That is not actual freedom, it is dependence on the benevolence of the powerful.
That's stretching the definition of freedom to absolute levels. So no one is truly free unless you have control of powerful armies. That would mean that throughout history only the very powerful have been truly free (which would be a bit cynical). I think that's not the case and I would claim that modern first-world countries have been consistently moving towards more freedom, and not just for the most powerful.
Power can be decentralized away from individuals into groups of people and institutions. Throughout history civilizations have constantly evolved in the direction of more decentralization of power, from dictators and kings to representative republics. Sure even now the power is concentrated at the top, but we could be close to another political breakthrough because of technology, which would further decentralize power, and allow more freedom.
> It is good to be powerful. It is bad to be weak.
By definition not everyone can be powerful at the same time, since power is measured by exerting it on someone else. This means that thinking it's all about power is the same as saying "the ends justify the means", since power is the end and everything else is determined by it.
> Often times one does have to apply power against other people, do you disagree?
Sure like in self-defense.
> But rules and laws and principles are broken all the time.. by whom? The powerful of course.
In today's day and age, it's usually the corrupt. We're supposed to know better, and we should have laws that prevent certain things, but of course there are always corrupt people trying to game the system. Power tends to corrupt, which is why decentralizing tends to help.
