N. was a fantasist. As a 'philosopher' he did nothing but state the obvious--though in extravagantly colorful language, to be sure. His 'analysis' of power is confined to a zero-sum game, in which anyone's gain must be someone else's loss. In general, life is not really like that.

A far more insightful analysis of power comes from Warren J. Samuels, who examined "social power" as the ability to effect choices, i.e., choose among perceived alternatives and take action to bring that choice to fruition. In that analysis 'fairness' is achieved when a competition for any end is determined only by relevant sources of social power that people competing for that end possess, which can include personal attributes such as determination, i.e., strength of will, etc., but cannot include killing, harming, coercing, stealing, or manipulating (which includes lying, cheating, etc.). Those 'morals' arise out of the 'nature of life', not any arbitrary claims asserted by any person or group.