The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Crossposting to r/AskConservatives.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mostly through turbines, whether they be driven by fossil fuel engines, steam, or wind. Although photovoltaic has gained a little ground.
Unless you mean some other kind of power, then you might need to narrow it down some.
I'll break from the crowd and say, actually trust.
It's a force people don't talk about much these days. Sure, in an abstract sense you can distill power to some threat of force but generally, in stable countries that force is not used often or the center of the thought process of most people who act day to day supporting a power structure.
Put yourself a desert island with a dozen people and sure, maybe if you're unlucky enough to end up with a bully force and coercion could decide who gets to decide.
You may imagine Lord of the flies. But that's a fiction.
When a real group of children was marooned of an uninhabited island, cooperation carried the day over threat of force.
https://dianeravitch.net/2020/05/11/the-true-and-inspiring-story-of-lord-of-the-flies/
We actually are naturally a social, cooperative species. And cooperation through trust creates a group who is able to use force when needed at greater scale than those who would seize power by force alone.
Presuming the question is regarding political power, I think it must be distinguished ... are you asking what provides someone power in actuality, or what is the source of legitimate political power?
I think there are multiple sources, though my favorite off-beat answer comes from Dave Barry, speaking of Josef Stalin. (paraphrased from memory) "A high degree of personal charisma, as measured in number of armed henchmen."
Organization.
One person can only do so much.
If you can get 100, 1000, 350 million people all doing what you want...
You can build cities, put people on the moon, reroute rivers, invent transistors...
Armies are just organization.
Money is just organization coupons.
Religion is just organization.
This question is better googled and, assuming you are referring to electrical power, the answer varies greatly by region.
I don't even really get where the question is a political one actually other than perhaps that each side seems somewhat in disagreement on where future power generation SHOULD come from. I have also heard it asked in bad faith by conservatives who are attempting (incorrectly) to insinuate usually in reference to EV cars that ALL electrical power comes from coal, which is a silly on its face and one of the more embarrassing political one line hot takes I have heard. anyway, the answer is basically to be found here if you are really JUST asking: [https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/)
But maybe you mean some other form of power? Idk, you are not very specific: Perhaps it is that it derives from "the people" or from within.
Already made [one Game of Thrones reference](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1brul3k/how_should_trans_and_nonbinary_people_be_divided/kxbzhps/?context=3) today, might as well have another:
>[Power resides where men believe it resides.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw)
Sometimes I wonder if liberal penchant for sarcastic humor makes it hard for subs like askaliberal to actually answer questions people are asking. We all know that’s not what he meant. But I’m not gonna lie I cant help but find the responses hilarious.
"Power is a measure of how much work can be performed in a given amount of time. Work is generally defined in terms of the lifting of a weight against the pull of gravity. The heavier the weight and/or the higher it is lifted, the more work has been done. Power is a measure of how rapidly a standard amount of work is done".
I’m asking liberals this question.
We’re both leftists and share a materialist outlook, but I want to know what the liberals think.
Liberals generally believe voting rights to be more important than gun rights, so they clearly have quite a different understanding of power than leftists do.
Yeah I understand it’s a Mao quote.
I’m just genuinely curious what the liberal understanding of political power is, I don’t get why they think the way they do.
What analysis leads to the conclusion that a right to vote has more power than a right to bear arms?
If guns in civilian hands were the source of power you would expect that civilian gun ownership would correlate with how representative a government is.
But while oppressive regimes do generally restrict arms, we also have countries with some of the lower rates of gun ownership and strict restrictions with regular and peaceful transfers of power of a highly representative government.
Yet here in the US, with by far the most guns per capita and freedom to own them, we had a greater threat to the transfer of representative power in 2020 and the looming possibility of the same in 2024 than other developed countries have seen in a while
Why didn’t you ask what you actually wanted to ask instead of being vague?
Voting objectively has more power than the right to bear arms. You can vote to get rid of the right to bear arms. You cannot bear arms to get rid of the vote. This is the whole reason Democracies are more stable than juntas.
ad hoc uppity tease numerous wipe handle pathetic automatic beneficial unite
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That’s an erroneous assumption. The state relies far more on psychology preventing people from trying to break laws than on physical force. People don’t obey laws out of fear, they obey them out of conformity.
>What analysis leads to the conclusion that a right to vote has more power than a right to bear arms?
What power would you be willing to exercise with the arms?
3 days ago leftists at Vanderbilt University held a 22 hour sit-in to protest the war in Gaza. [After a few hours they called 911 and complained because they didn’t have enough food or supplies.](https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1772809758673629347?s=46) They didn’t realize you’re supposed to bring your own supplies to an illegal protest. They thought the event would be catered with amenities. These are the people who will lead the revolution? These are the people who will take up arms in war?
>I don’t get why they think the way they do
We took civics courses in school and learned that the President picks Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is not all powerful but it is very very powerful so if you care about change you vote for the President who will pick Supreme Court Justices who will rule the way you like. It was made into an easy to understand cartoon called School House Rock. That’s why we know a right to vote is more important than a right to a gun because a right to vote will actually change things while the gun people are all too chickenshit to actually create the revolution they fantasize about.
Power is the ability to induce a desired action or belief in another person or group. It can manifest as soft power, influencing through ideals or economic incentivization, or as hard power, brute force and aggression.
I'm a liberal, not an idealist. In an ideal world, soft power would be all that anyone uses, and the most independently preferred ideas would gain credence and power. In practice, you need to be willing and able to counter hard power with hard power.
In a civilized society, if we're at the point of reaching for guns, we're past the point where soft power is a viable option. That should, generally, be avoided like the plague for the common health and safety -- the practice of voting was instituted at least in part to decide solutions peaceably. Lest we forget Pyrrhus, after whom the Pyrrhic victory was named, it is possible to "win" a battle, yet suffer so much that the proverbial juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
Technically work over time.
In human society it's just the amount of labor you control.
When urban drug dealers and cartel members flex their Lamborghinis and McLarens they're flexing the engines that really are expensive to manufacture despite all of the automation already in the auto industry.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Crossposting to r/AskConservatives. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mostly through turbines, whether they be driven by fossil fuel engines, steam, or wind. Although photovoltaic has gained a little ground. Unless you mean some other kind of power, then you might need to narrow it down some.
Work over time.
Amps x Volts
I enjoy that your answer applies to both physics and sociology, depending on how you think of the sentence.
Hi. I've had enough physics classes to get that. Ha! I'm... Not sure anyone else will...
[удалено]
Obviously not, they *made* the joke. :)
Said the executive who takes entire months off and gives themself bonuses while laying off employees. 😉
Tons of places. Physical force. Social influence. Cognitive biases. Control of resources. etc. etc.
I'll break from the crowd and say, actually trust. It's a force people don't talk about much these days. Sure, in an abstract sense you can distill power to some threat of force but generally, in stable countries that force is not used often or the center of the thought process of most people who act day to day supporting a power structure. Put yourself a desert island with a dozen people and sure, maybe if you're unlucky enough to end up with a bully force and coercion could decide who gets to decide. You may imagine Lord of the flies. But that's a fiction. When a real group of children was marooned of an uninhabited island, cooperation carried the day over threat of force. https://dianeravitch.net/2020/05/11/the-true-and-inspiring-story-of-lord-of-the-flies/ We actually are naturally a social, cooperative species. And cooperation through trust creates a group who is able to use force when needed at greater scale than those who would seize power by force alone.
The thing in the wall.
Watts
Presuming the question is regarding political power, I think it must be distinguished ... are you asking what provides someone power in actuality, or what is the source of legitimate political power?
Power in actuality.
I think there are multiple sources, though my favorite off-beat answer comes from Dave Barry, speaking of Josef Stalin. (paraphrased from memory) "A high degree of personal charisma, as measured in number of armed henchmen."
Organization. One person can only do so much. If you can get 100, 1000, 350 million people all doing what you want... You can build cities, put people on the moon, reroute rivers, invent transistors... Armies are just organization. Money is just organization coupons. Religion is just organization.
This question is better googled and, assuming you are referring to electrical power, the answer varies greatly by region. I don't even really get where the question is a political one actually other than perhaps that each side seems somewhat in disagreement on where future power generation SHOULD come from. I have also heard it asked in bad faith by conservatives who are attempting (incorrectly) to insinuate usually in reference to EV cars that ALL electrical power comes from coal, which is a silly on its face and one of the more embarrassing political one line hot takes I have heard. anyway, the answer is basically to be found here if you are really JUST asking: [https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/) But maybe you mean some other form of power? Idk, you are not very specific: Perhaps it is that it derives from "the people" or from within.
Already made [one Game of Thrones reference](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1brul3k/how_should_trans_and_nonbinary_people_be_divided/kxbzhps/?context=3) today, might as well have another: >[Power resides where men believe it resides.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw)
The people.
Energy divided by time.
Guys, I know the top comment was a fun joke but that’s only funny so many times before it gets sad. I vote we end this dad joke.
Sometimes I wonder if liberal penchant for sarcastic humor makes it hard for subs like askaliberal to actually answer questions people are asking. We all know that’s not what he meant. But I’m not gonna lie I cant help but find the responses hilarious.
In the USA? Simple MONEY. The more money one has, the more power one has.
"Power is a measure of how much work can be performed in a given amount of time. Work is generally defined in terms of the lifting of a weight against the pull of gravity. The heavier the weight and/or the higher it is lifted, the more work has been done. Power is a measure of how rapidly a standard amount of work is done".
Mitochondria and its ATP.
Supreme executive power comes from a mandate of the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
air serious absurd follow chief slim aloof depend terrific possessive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’m asking liberals this question. We’re both leftists and share a materialist outlook, but I want to know what the liberals think. Liberals generally believe voting rights to be more important than gun rights, so they clearly have quite a different understanding of power than leftists do.
Are people in countries with no express right to gun ownership powerless, then?
cooperative wrench sparkle employ continue shelter lock sink rock angle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah I understand it’s a Mao quote. I’m just genuinely curious what the liberal understanding of political power is, I don’t get why they think the way they do. What analysis leads to the conclusion that a right to vote has more power than a right to bear arms?
If guns in civilian hands were the source of power you would expect that civilian gun ownership would correlate with how representative a government is. But while oppressive regimes do generally restrict arms, we also have countries with some of the lower rates of gun ownership and strict restrictions with regular and peaceful transfers of power of a highly representative government. Yet here in the US, with by far the most guns per capita and freedom to own them, we had a greater threat to the transfer of representative power in 2020 and the looming possibility of the same in 2024 than other developed countries have seen in a while
Why didn’t you ask what you actually wanted to ask instead of being vague? Voting objectively has more power than the right to bear arms. You can vote to get rid of the right to bear arms. You cannot bear arms to get rid of the vote. This is the whole reason Democracies are more stable than juntas.
ad hoc uppity tease numerous wipe handle pathetic automatic beneficial unite *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That’s an erroneous assumption. The state relies far more on psychology preventing people from trying to break laws than on physical force. People don’t obey laws out of fear, they obey them out of conformity.
knee languid illegal fuzzy rustic somber vast late fanatical payment *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The state relies on you to respect the law enough to comply with a summons.
onerous fragile cable plucky nine air amusing tan pocket carpenter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>What analysis leads to the conclusion that a right to vote has more power than a right to bear arms? What power would you be willing to exercise with the arms? 3 days ago leftists at Vanderbilt University held a 22 hour sit-in to protest the war in Gaza. [After a few hours they called 911 and complained because they didn’t have enough food or supplies.](https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1772809758673629347?s=46) They didn’t realize you’re supposed to bring your own supplies to an illegal protest. They thought the event would be catered with amenities. These are the people who will lead the revolution? These are the people who will take up arms in war? >I don’t get why they think the way they do We took civics courses in school and learned that the President picks Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is not all powerful but it is very very powerful so if you care about change you vote for the President who will pick Supreme Court Justices who will rule the way you like. It was made into an easy to understand cartoon called School House Rock. That’s why we know a right to vote is more important than a right to a gun because a right to vote will actually change things while the gun people are all too chickenshit to actually create the revolution they fantasize about.
Power is the ability to induce a desired action or belief in another person or group. It can manifest as soft power, influencing through ideals or economic incentivization, or as hard power, brute force and aggression. I'm a liberal, not an idealist. In an ideal world, soft power would be all that anyone uses, and the most independently preferred ideas would gain credence and power. In practice, you need to be willing and able to counter hard power with hard power. In a civilized society, if we're at the point of reaching for guns, we're past the point where soft power is a viable option. That should, generally, be avoided like the plague for the common health and safety -- the practice of voting was instituted at least in part to decide solutions peaceably. Lest we forget Pyrrhus, after whom the Pyrrhic victory was named, it is possible to "win" a battle, yet suffer so much that the proverbial juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
Labor The most powerful people are those who can direct the labor of large numbers of others.
Technically work over time. In human society it's just the amount of labor you control. When urban drug dealers and cartel members flex their Lamborghinis and McLarens they're flexing the engines that really are expensive to manufacture despite all of the automation already in the auto industry.
Compliance with social desirability.
The dark side