“Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is an aphorism believed invariably, without question of its validity, as if the truism were in fact some kind of divine decree and not the words of a man—John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, in this case. Likewise, the natural implications of this claim—therein being that moderate power would corrupt moderately and therefore that power itself is a necessarily corrupting force, or, in other words, that power itself is a source of evil—are taken at face value. But what if one were to peer behind that yellow mask and bear witness to truth’s horrific façade? He would, brave man that he must be to dare such a feat, learn that power does not corrupt. He would learn that all moral wisdom in regard to power is worse than mere hackery, that the inverse of common belief is truer to reality. He would discover that power is mankind’s only saving grace, his only protection from the spirits of envy, deception, destruction, and revenge. For it is humanity in which corruption spawns, expands, and festers, and only by discipline, competence, and power of will—or as Nietzsche proposed, a Will to Power—that man carries himself to a higher moral being.

But first, as not to follow in the mistakes of such fools like Foucault, let us define our terms, namely power: the capacity to exert one’s will over oneself as well as the external world, including other creatures, the environment, and the creatures and environment that are to come. More simply, power is the ability to do what one intends despite obstacles, adversity, or direct resistance. What about corruption? This is trickier to define, though vaguely it must mean that some one or thing has taken on some aspect that could be described as immoral. A begging question, what then is immoral? To do justice answering this would require an argument of its own. Instead, one would do better for this adventure to entertain the notion that immorality is the sacrifice of the greater for the lesser. More specifically it is the pillaging of the potential of oneself or others for the sake of some immediate relief that shall necessarily vanish with the passing of time. It is the offering of the preferable future for a preferable, transient, enfeebling present. Corruption thereby is that which makes the world into a weaker, slower, less efficient, more degenerate, destitute, and depraved place.

“How then is it possible,” one must be asking, “that power does not corrupt—never minding the ludicrous proposition that the opposite is true. Does not one man’s power over another enable him to torture, to rob, and to subjugate? Does not the pursuit of such power drive men deeper and deeper into the depths of depravity? Would it not be more just and good and fair that all power were spread equally among mankind? How could it be otherwise?”

How so indeed is the question at hand, and the answer? That a man’s will to corrupt action is motivated by his lack of power. The impotent, the incompetent, the weak, the lethargic, and the cowardly are the only kinds of men who desire to abuse others. They are the only types of human beings with the motivation. For it is the lowly who benefits from the cutting down of the tall; it is the inept who stands to gain from the enterprise of theft and fraudulence; no one save for the self-loathing, the insecure, or the vengeful have motive to lord over or to torture. After all, the man who is powerful—read, whose power is generated from within himself—has no need to rule or steal or act cruelly to others. He who is powerful is, by definition, already master of himself. He can obtain his ends without need to pillage. And what good would it do him to bring another low when he sits already at the apex of his potential? None.

And it was asked whether power is what drives men deeper into depravity. A clever wit has already read the answer, but for those who’ve yet to follow: no. The drive downwards is an act of desperation. To prove this one need only ask himself the question, “Would one steal if his desired goods were obtainable otherwise?” Make any variance of this question and the answer remains negative. It is only when a desired end is out of reach that a person resorts to theft, to assault, to rape, or to murder. Even the psychopath, who has no regard for society or ethics, will not go out of his way to commit immoral actions if he can obtain what he wants of his own power. Therefore, it is weakness that makes men into depraved criminals. It is their impotence combined with their belief in their impotence which convinces them, like a little devil on their shoulders, to offer up their souls and the souls of their friends and enemies—read, their future selves and the potentials of others. It is their lack of power which ultimately corrupts them, and only those with power over themselves and thus their ability to affect the world who are protected.

This is why it would not be better for all power to be spread equally, because the truth is that most humans, lacking innate, self-generated power through self-mastery and development of skill, have already succumbed to the disease of moral corruption. To spread power evenly would mean to gather the weak into mobs as to seize the production of the strong. It would mean the collectivizing of the corrupt, together possessed by their envy, so that they might outnumber the few who have risen above their own personal demons. Give power to a person who has not earned it, and he will use it for nothing more than to take vengeance on the world he has make-believed has damned him.

Power does not corrupt but reveals corruption when it is given rather than earned. Weakness corrupts. It is weakness which incubates envy and envy which births malevolence. Likewise, it is weakness which permits evil to accrue like a pathogen in a petri dish—and only power, generated from mastery over oneself, enables one to staunch the spread of bad actors. So when one hears, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” if he can be said to be certain of anything, it is the corruption lurking like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.