Measuring Power Inequality (vs e.g. Wealth or Income Inequality)

Have people tried to measure "power inequality". What would we define "power" as? (I'd even prefer the term: "Inequalities in Force" (I try to think of power as something "positive" and about the ability to have things come into existence through consent in the absence of force – be that physical or financial).

I think the power / force distinction is important. A simplistic definition of power as e.g. "access to people's attention" or "to have people follow your ideas or instructions" could make inequality the simple result of some people having better things to say! Some people are more worth listening to than others. That said, we could argue we could aspire to a world where everyone is equally worth listening to.

We can think of certain metrics:

• Ability to be heard (to be listened to)
• Ability to "get what you want"
• Ability to have or obtain resources
• Ability to "have things happen" (all of the above)

To distinguish power from force we say that Force (Power) is:

the ability to have things happen according to one's desires – and in particular to have others to do what you deisre – irrespective of what they (truly) want.

True wants: what someone would do in the absence of outside influence and after thorough and mindful reflection.

Comment: true is added to address the fact that the most insidious form of force (e.g. advertising, echo-chambers) operates by changing what we think we want or believe.

Question:

• How has force power inequality changed over time – is it getting better or worse
  • You can imagine that this has differed substantially from simple wealth. A dictator has not only much wealth but power of life and death over his subjects. A medieval king could wield similar power – or a medieval lord might have the right to sleep with the wife of one of his peasants on their wedding night!
• How does force power systematically vary from simple wealth

Context: One reason I thought about this: Zuckerberg's "Global Community" manifesto. People – including me – read and paid attention to it not because of its quality content but because it is written by someone who has a lot of power. Zuckerberg has that power because he gets to control the largest social network on the planet.¹ Because of that that power, what he thinks matters: his control of the monopoly social network means he has the power to affect my life whether I like it or not – both directly because I need to use Facebook, and everyone I know now lives in the newfeed, and indirectly through its role in shaping the society around me. (I want distinguish power from wealth here – he's also rich but his power is greater than his simple wealth because of his position and voting control at Facebook and the position of Facebook as the monopoly provider of the newsfeed – and social connection).

Footnotes

1. A role he has largely by historical accident – and certainly not through any moral or intellectual quality that would merit this exalted position. ↩