Since I posted my previous post about 'power corrupts', I figured that I could add a few things to justify this position. I realized that this is a non intuitive position so I'm going to have to add a few examples to let people know why I hold this position.
First of all, is it really true that power corrupts? To put it another way, is it true that evil men in power started out to be saints or at least good people who were corrupted by the power that they hold?
Let's look at the most hated man in modern history: Adolf Hitler. Everyone knows of his crimes so I won't rehash it here. Instead I want to look at whether or not Hitler was corrupted by power. Well, the answer is no. Just read his book Main Kampf. All of his racist philosophies which paved the way for the Holocaust was there in his book.
And when did Hitler wrote Mein Kampf? Sometime between 1924 and 1930. In fact, he started writing this book in prison! I think it's safe to say that Hitler did not have power at this point in time. In fact, he wouldn't have power over Germany until 1933 when he was appointed chancellor of Germany.
Hitler was merely one example of what I'm talking about. Go look at other tyrants in history: Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and so on. Chances are you'd find "corrupted" people who were seeking power rather than good men who was simply "corrupted" by power.
Now let's look at the other side of the coin. If power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely), wouldn't that mean that there wouldn't be any un-corrupted men in power? No, there wouldn't be. Is that what history had shown us?
The answer no. Logically speaking, that in itself should discount Lord Acton's aphorism. He did said 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' which means that any exceptions to the rule would automatically falsify his position. That being said, I will try to justify my position with examples.
I will start with the ancient history in the figure of King David of Ancient Israel. For all his faults, he was known as a "man who after God's own heart." I wouldn't call him a corrupt man.
Then I will skip a few thousand years forward to 13th century AD. King Louis IX of France, also known as St. Louis IX to Catholics was known for his just rule and saintliness. Catholics today may pray for his intercession. I wouldn't call him a corrupt man.
Let's skip a few more centuries to the modern era. The last Tsar of Russia, Nicholas II was known to be humble, patient, and meek. Of course, the communists back then had been tireless in defaming his name. They needed to justify the murder of him and his family, but I digress. The Russian Orthodox Church had canonized Nicholas II and his family as martyrs. Once gain, I wouldn't call him a corrupt man.
Now this is where I'm going to stop. I hope I made my point perfectly clear. Not only were the "corrupted" men in power not corrupted by power (absolute or otherwise), but we can see that there had been good and and just people in power (who may or may not have held absolute power).
Lord Acton's aphorism of "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" sounds good at first glance. However, it doesn't hold water upon closer inspection. History had that shown Acton (and the people who quoted him) pretty much got it all backwards.
