It stops a lot of people from even attempting to challenge them, and just do what they want without question, which has many advantages. In some situations, it’s even legitimately necessary. It’s also prone to abuse of course.
In order to keep this kind of power, it’s necessary to demonstrate from time to time this power exists and will be used, since if people start not being afraid of having their lives ruined if they challenge said power legitimately, they also stop going along with demands from those in power unquestioningly. And a lot of the ability to destroy someone for whatever reason (including legitimate ones) depends on that unquestioning compliance.
You can think of it as a form of ‘bend the knee’.
- Assange: whistleblowers, journalists that embarrass the government will be pursued to the ends of the earth
- Snowden: whistleblowers will not be forgiven and will be abandoned without a home country
- Sacklers: will be protected from prosecution beyond a large fine, albeit smaller than the profits made from the activity that brought the fine
- Wall Street: government funding provided as a bailout after failure due to poor business decisions and no one held accountable or prosecuted.
Absolutely demonstrated where 'the power' exists, and there's no overlap with 'for the people'.
I do not believe that your morals and mine are compatible.
That doesn’t mean I don’t understand it or why it is the way it is.
This kind of power plays are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and, more importantly, with the greater good of humanity.
If we look at the last 2000 years of history this forms of authoritarianism have slowly become more and more unacceptable.
The more people stand up and say ‘No’ - and show it matters - the better for everyone.
It is also a constant ongoing fight that is never truly won.