I find one of my ideas illustrated: Power does not corrupt, it only gives corruption a means to express itself.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

 

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Perhaps people scuffing at a denial that power corrupts is really a reflection of what they'd do with power.

 

Or it is just a different perspective. However, using ocam's razor, I find it a superior, more streamlined, structure in my perspective.

[Eudaimonic]

It would depend on what you're defining as power.

If one has the power to initiate force against others and uses it, he becomes corrupt because there's no way to initiate force without committing an evil act. If he has the power to, but doesn't use it, then, effectively, he doesn't have power. This why power always corrupts.

If power is defined differently, then maybe. Power over oneself doesn't lead to corruption, for example.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Well, hypothetically, a King who technically wields ultimate martial power can decide to not use it, not collect taxes but instead form a donation system, and be consistent with the people subscribing voluntarily to his stated reason as to why he's maintaining an army. 

He'd no longer be a King in the traditional sense, but he'd still wield great power since his ability to tell his men what to do and expect it done means he can "change his mind" and go back to robbing people to maintain his mafia. He could also choose to keep it a voluntary system. The problem is if the soldiers are willing to obey him like a dictator...then for how long can this be sustained? His monopoly on force would have to be broken alongside the faith in his power in order to make this model sustainable without regression.

However, without the faith and loyalty of his soldiers and the monopoly of force, he no longer wields ultimate power. 

Therefore while a good man can wield ultimate power, he cannot sustain it because to remain good he must inevitably take actions that would reduce it.