The way the question is formulated suggests that the answer is neither. Sometimes the powerful can be right, and sometimes they can be wrong. Likewise, the right decisions can lead to power, but wrong decisions can also result in power. This is because the question includes the word "always." For the powerful to always be right or the right to always be powerful, both concepts would need to have the same meaning—which they do not.

However, my answer would be different if the question were phrased as: "Do the powerful tend to be right, or do the right tend to become powerful?" If we define "the right" as those who act according to the truths of nature, then they will naturally tend to become powerful. This is because they rely on models that allow them to predict the outcomes of their actions effectively. On the other hand, if the powerful do not follow models that align with the reality of nature (i.e., they are not "right"), they will eventually accumulate enough miscalculations and mistakes to lose their power.

A clear example of this can be seen in the Flat Earth phenomenon. Throughout history, people who believed in a flat Earth have held varying degrees of power. However, no one using a flat Earth model would be able to build a functional satellite system capable of improving global communications, unlike those who use a spherical Earth model. No matter how powerful the flat Earth movement becomes, its influence will be limited by its inability to accurately predict and interact with the natural world.

As long as humans seek power, those who use better models of reality—the right ones—will have higher chances of gaining control over nature and, consequently, more power. So, if we set aside short-term fluctuations, the long-term trend suggests that the right will eventually become the new powerful.

Dear Alvaro Costa-Garcia,

What exactly is the concept of 'right' that you are talking about here and is it a universal value?

Sincerely,

Dear Şeyda Bostancı,

Thank you for your thoughtful question.

Initially, I defined "right" as something that aligns with a given set of laws. However, before we can apply this definition, we must first determine which laws we are referencing. There are different types of laws—natural laws, legal systems established by countries, moral principles, religious doctrines, and so on.

In the context of legal systems, "right" refers to what is considered legal versus illegal. Within moral frameworks, it distinguishes between moral and immoral actions. However, when people use "right" in the sense of "justice," the concept becomes more complex. Throughout history, power structures have attempted to associate justice with compliance with their own rules.

Governments, for example, often claim that justice is served when someone is punished according to the laws they have enacted. Religious institutions do the same with their respective doctrines. Even individuals, based on their personal moral principles, may perceive justice as the enforcement of what they believe to be right or wrong.

However, laws created by societies—whether legal, religious, or moral—are not universally standardized, nor should they be. Since these rules are shaped by cultural, historical, and personal perspectives, they cannot provide a universal definition of what is "right." What is considered just in one society or belief system may not be seen the same way in another.

Natural laws, however, are different. As far as we know, they remain constant and exist independently of human influence. We cannot change them; we can only seek to understand them and use that knowledge to our advantage. Unlike political, religious, or moral laws, natural laws are not subject to ideological or cultural interpretations.

Before even discussing your initial question, we would first need to establish which rules we are referring to. However, given the diversity of perspectives shaped by different life experiences, it is unlikely that we would fully agree on those ground rules if they were human-made. Even if we did, other readers might not. For this reason, when answering, I used "right" in the sense of being in accordance with the laws of nature. This was the most universal definition I could think of.

Sincerely, Alvaro Costa-Garcia