You have a very good point here that definitely sounds like an accurate paraphrasing from memory.

"You know what you've said in the past: power is inherently corrupting or some such."

Artificially aquired power does.

To declare that power imbalances are inevitable in any relationship is just to admit that no two people are alike. Invariably one will have more knowledge in one area and the other party will have more knowledge in theirs. Must people inevitably exploit that power? I doubt it because they did nothing to seek it and if they're in love, they didn't seek out a relationship that is inherently about control.

Political power is a cudgel. It isn't about persuasion. It offers the power to compel those you cannot persuade. And it isn't sought by those who don't believe that the "stick" is unnecessary. Further, sovereignty means that those who seek the power to compel others through politics don't even seek a trump card in some argument over limited civilian powers, they seek the power to do to others things that the other is not permitted to do back.

Being "ends oriented" means that most folks are basically the kind of hypocrite who declaims the imperial presidency as a bad thing when the other party has it, but who believes that in the hands of "our guys" with good intentions, that what was once bad is now good.

I am means oriented since most of the promised ends have never been delivered ( if they were ever intended to be. ) And I believe that some methods are bad regardless of who is doing it or what they proclaim they're doing it for. Ferinstance, torture is always bad. At this point torture's supporters have to proclaim it to have features all data denies in order to argue that it has "good" uses.

Political power corrupts. Its not original to me. When arguing otherwise you take objection to Lord Acton and everyone who has agreed with him for over a century.

Even advocates of the State argue that it is a "necessary evil."

I just don't believe that it is necessary. Nor that it mitigates more or greater evils than it creates.

And unlike you, while I think that most people are decent enough ( and I include myself ) I want a world in which those who agree with me have no political power whatsoever. I believe in removing the cudgel from civil discourse, even for my allies --- especially for my allies since they're arguing that its wrong for others.

I believe that since "society" is nothing more than individuals, we need to come up with a single ethical standard that humans would wish to live by, not all manner of double standards.

The party asking to live under a political ruler doesn't want a single standard, they want someone who has powers they wouldn't wish their enemies to have.

The problem is that there is no "weapon" created for a good cause that hasn't found its way to enemy hands. Edward Snowden realized this when he realized that he was helping create the greatest tool for tyranny that the world had yet seen. He believed that no such tool should exist.

Political power imbalances are not natural, they are artifacts invented by societies. People will always have inherent unsought differences. Whether they exploit this or not is up to their basic decency.

But political power is not inherent, always sought and is necessarily exploitive even when people deem it necessary. How can it not attract those who seek to abuse it?

Comparing that to those who "sought" their gender in order to exploit greater upper body strength is absurd. One is power as we understand it, and the other is just the necessary observation that individuals vary.

As such you may requote Lord Acton as someone whose opinion I agree with any time you wish.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ( From which many paraphrasers have removed the word "tends" since Acton never spoke of a proportionate relationship whereby some political power was "small" enough to be immune from this observation. )

Dante