> > This is a very real and the very oldest form of power. Such power is
>quite natural, so natural in fact that it might not even occur to us to
>see it in that light. But when the baby cries out in the night, it is not
>only a plea, it is a command backed by real power.
>
>===================
>
>This seems like projection to me.
Projection of what?
> A baby crying for milk has no command
>capabilities. It is we [some of us anyway] who choose to see it as a
>command.
The baby has the power that its parent's love gives. Of course its parents are free not to give in to their love. So they do have choice, but the existence of choice does not mean no power exists.
> Of course one can easily slip to a legalistic/sociologistic frame
>and say the baby's crying is a command backed by the sanction of the state
>that it not be denied being fed and hence we have laws to prevent
>infanticide and the like,
No, that wasn't the point at all. The point was about the power of love, not the power of the state.
> but isn't the whole point the fact that the
>overwhelming number of parents want to feed and love and cherish their
>baby, despite when they have bad hair days?
That's right. but you are confusing lack of choice with power. You can choose not to go to work tomorrow, but that doesn't mean your employer has no power over you. I can choose not to feed and clothe my kids, but because i love them it isn't a very attractive choice. Far less attractive than not going to work.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas