i disagree that technology and luxury are required for power

What's the point of being the ruler of the world if you still have to work 16 hours a day out in the field just to grow food for yourself?

louis XIV had more power than anyone alive today could dream of

power is relative. and the ruler would be the only one who doesnt have to work, so thats relatively the best

I'm not saying they're required. I'm saying the power is more useful if they exist

these people would rather be in a techno-aristocracy over a bunch of serfs than democratic leaders of free individuals

@SilentSkies Well that's a mistake

Think of O'Brien in 1984. He had very little additional luxury or technology compared to Winston.

But he had infinitely more power.

Power is relative. You already said that

exactly 1984. the tippy tops had far less than the average person pre-revolution, but more than everyone else presently

So long as their boot is on your face and not the other way around they win.

It still wouldn't be as good as just helping society along and enjoying the luxuries that come along with technological advancement

That being said I'm quite sure they'll be eating foie gras while laughing their asses off at the proles eating maggots.

Today's tech billionaires live better than any king who's ever existed on earth

The eating bugs thing is a dead giveaway. Humiliation those beneath you is pure exercise of power.

not so, a king ruled over all he saw. the elites today have to share

RELATIVELY, yes

and they are accountable for the most part

Relative to their time

Not ours

yes for sure

In absolute terms, people today are far better off than the nobles or kings years ago

If they just wanted to live like kings why don't they just sell their stock and go do so?

They don't even need to do that

They can fly anywhere on the planet, do anything

But at any time they could just give up their responsibilities.

Buy anything, fuck anyone

yeah thats all true

As it stands they have obligations.

They choose their obligations

Ruling over the world (or any arbitrary smaller part of it) is an unnecessary headache

They keep choosing to take on more though. They want more power, more involvement, more control.

Why would they want to do that?

Because they're sociopaths.

If that's your opinion, sure

Not sociopathy, hubris. They want to be the one to save the world, but it doesn't need saving

"The world don't wanna be saved, only left alone"

Elysian Fields, Megadeth, 1994

I don't say the C-Word often...

You're giving these people too much credit. You think Sundar Pichai, or Zuckerberg, or Soros are noble but misguided?