History is full of this attitude. It typically revolves around actions which are backed by some form of power.

Actions taken against those who cannot stop it is often justified by one means or another by those who have the power to initiate such actions.

The actions are still acts of aggression, and depending upon the scenario and situation you are discussing they may be acts of war.

Yet the term war does not typically arise until someone with sufficient power opposes the actions of another. They invariably will be like vortices that draw in groups of those with lesser power around them. It is this that we will typically call a war.

There are some things that often arise within these power imbalances when no one bothers to counter the potentially oppressive actions that another power wields on those who cannot stop them.

They can say pretty much any justification they want to back their use of power, for there is no LAW or AUTHORITY that can stop them. They could say "I am doing it because I didn't like the color of the sky today". They could also try to take a moral or ethical stance and state some reason based upon such concepts. Yet, when that statement may be found to be contradictory to their actions, or previous things they have stated (aka hypocrisy) they can always fall back on "because I can, and the sky was not blue enough today".

If there is no entity or power that can oppose them then it truly does not matter their excuse. They could literally say NOTHING if they so chose.

Now you may think I am speaking about activities that occur on steemit, yet that was really just an inspiration for the thought. This type of activity occurs anywhere that power is present.

It can sometimes be countered by masses of those with lesser power joining forces until they have sufficient power to oppose the individual with larger power. It could also be opposed by the ultimate power, death. Historically the people that abuse their power with impunity for longest either get away with it and die of old age, they are countered by another power, they are somehow convinced with reason to change their ways, or somehow they end up dead before their time. This is a fine dance when it comes to oppression. It largely depends upon the mental state of the oppressed and how important an impact the use of power is having upon them. Does it cause an unstable person to snap? Unstable may not mean stupid, so there is always a danger of an unstable person snapping that is intelligent and becoming an unknown danger to the power. The concept of the Riddler as portrayed in the Gotham series comes to mind as I am contemplating such an individual. So exercising power in an oppressive fashion always has some potential for physical danger to the oppressor. It all depends upon that snapping point, and the danger the person that snapped might present.

Recall the historical Brutus and what transpired with Caesar

I am not an advocate for such results. I will try to use my words and reason to my dying breath unless my life is at risk. Yet I am not everyone, and someone violently dealing with an oppressor has happened often in history. Therefore I mention it as it is relevant to the context of this discussion and it is always a risk when someone chooses to oppress others.

How did history deal with this idea?

Well you see this idea has been around as long as recorded history. It has resulted in wars, death, and many other things. It has also resulted in atrocities committed by those in power that were not challenged. The list of such things is vast...

Yet out of such things arose concepts we are familiar with...

Things such as the Golden Rule...

Golden Rule

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

The concept here was to treat people as you want to be treated. The problem with a power imbalance is that the person oppressing others through power may be fine with this if the people he is oppressing doing a similar action has little to no effect on them. Then that skews this golden rule. They can claim to be practicing it. "If other people want to do what I am doing then they should be able to". When the hypocrisy tends to arise is when someone that CAN impact them in a similar matter does the action upon them then suddenly it is unacceptable.

Though the Golden Rule is an interesting thing... It has been around for far longer than Christianity and has had many different forms. Some of the other phrasings might offer different approaches to this problem.

"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" - early Egyptian Papyrus

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." - Confucius

"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself" - Mozi (400 BC)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." - Laozi (500 BC)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing" - Thales (624 BC – 546 BC)

"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." - Isocrates (436 - 338 BC)

Then there is the Wiccan variant...

"And it hurt none, do as thou will"

Meaning, if you are not hurting anyone do what you want. Yet hurt can be subjective, especially when viewed through the lense of greater power. The powerful may not deem what they are doing as hurt. This becomes a problem. Historically it is not one we have solved.

History Repeats

The fact that these issues have existed for so long and we still have not actually solved or eliminated them shows just how vast and difficult of a problem this is to solve. In fact, physics, and science are a far easier task than this one that arises from the mixed and varied non-consistent variables that are called human nature.

Parting words on war zones

Tourists and the average consumers tend to avoid areas where warfare is occurring. Those that consider themselves a soldier, or a journalist seeking a scoop, or a humanitarian trying to stop the damage of the war might enter the conflict zone. The average person will not. If you are creating an economic venture and you are not a profiteer in the form of supplying weapons, or rebuilding of damaged infrastructure then conflict zones are bad for business. The only people that benefit economically from such events are those who profit from supplying it goods or services required to power the conflict.

Next time you encounter war like events, whether they are physical, or whether they are conceptual in such places as a social media site. Consider this? Are you only interested in attracting people who profit from a war economy?

Steem On!