3 ms·

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” ― Margaret Mead (disputed,

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” ― Margaret Mead (disputed, but still catchy) What would be your alternative strategy for positive change? Is desire for change a desire for power, and thus corrupting? How is an individual supposed to make their voice heard?

jstewartmobile 10y ago
If we are all God's children, why would I need to make my voice any louder than anyone else's?
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  ... I think we're working from a different set of assumptions. Edit: To ask "Why should anyone have more power than anyone else?" is missing the point: people clearly DO have different amounts of power in the world. What part in particular of "groups of people supremely competent in certain relevant disciplines — investigators, activists, lawyers, lobbyists, policy experts, political strategists, journalists, and publicists — who could combine their efforts and advocate effectively for any issue, big or small" do you have issue with? Is it that he would be at the head of this group (thus showing his desire for power)? Is it that the group would be made up of experts (and thus presumably elitist?) Is it that people should not form groups and make collective decisions or take collective action? Is it that people shouldn't seek to make change in the world at all, since it's all up to God anyway? Or something else entirely? Please clarify. Thanks! :)
  - jstewartmobile 10y ago
    Look at it from a townie perspective. We all go to the town hall. I say my piece. You say yours. The people decide. If they choose right, great. If they choose wrong, also great. When you start getting into increasingly leveraged situations, that's where it all goes wrong. There's the momentum problem (people mobilized for a once-noble cause carry on long after it ceases to be noble). There's the advocacy problem (right-or-wrong you have to present your side as strongly as possible because it's an adversarial system--no room for compromise or subtlety). And of course there's good old demagoguery where the alpha-dog rides rough-shod over everything else. All of this evolves into a mono-culture problem where they're all reasoning from bogus premises they re-enforce among themselves. Anything that exacerbates the problem of one man having more than one voice is not a step in the right direction.
    - canadian_voter 10y ago
      Okay, so you're advocating for some sort of direct democracy. It sounds lovely, but I'm not sure it's realistic. We sure as hell don't have it, so how do we go about getting it? We live in a world where there are huge imbalances in power. We can say it ought not be that way, that it should be another way, but any sensible individual interested in making change must confront political reality and take it into consideration when deciding how they can best effect change. > Anything that exacerbates the problem of one man having more than one voice is not a step in the right direction. Some people have no voice at all, while others are hugely influential. This isn't about going from some current equality (1:1) to inequality for some group (1:2). This is about going from out state of gross inequality (100:1) to as close to equality (1:1) as we can get. I think we're mostly on the same page, just coming at it from different positions.
      - jstewartmobile 10y ago
        Democracy doesn't even have to figure into it. Until the machines take over, if people would just open their eyes and exercise a little discipline, they would realize they can flip that 100:1 around in record time. Think Bartleby the Scrivener: "I would prefer not to."
  - jstewartmobile 10y ago
    What if we go with the secular equivalent of "all men are created equal"?
    - canadian_voter 10y ago
      "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." --Rousseau (Ties in with my previous point: To ask "Why should anyone have more power than anyone else?" is missing the point: people clearly DO have different amounts of power in the world.)
      - jstewartmobile 10y ago
        Actions speak louder than words. All of these corporate baddies we wring our hands over today could be taken down several pegs with simple boycotts. Cut out a few brands at the grocery store, and bring the Koch brothers to their knees. Switch to a flip-phone and watch Apple ask us all what they can do to "make things right".
        canadian_voter 10y ago
        Now we're talking. That's a prescription for action. I will agree with this. Edit: Although I think there is more we do too. :) (Not defending Aaron's particular actions here.)

jstewartmobile 10y ago

If we are all God's children, why would I need to make my voice any louder than anyone else's?

canadian_voter 10y ago
... I think we're working from a different set of assumptions. Edit: To ask "Why should anyone have more power than anyone else?" is missing the point: people clearly DO have different amounts of power in the world. What part in particular of "groups of people supremely competent in certain relevant disciplines — investigators, activists, lawyers, lobbyists, policy experts, political strategists, journalists, and publicists — who could combine their efforts and advocate effectively for any issue, big or small" do you have issue with? Is it that he would be at the head of this group (thus showing his desire for power)? Is it that the group would be made up of experts (and thus presumably elitist?) Is it that people should not form groups and make collective decisions or take collective action? Is it that people shouldn't seek to make change in the world at all, since it's all up to God anyway? Or something else entirely? Please clarify. Thanks! :)
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  Look at it from a townie perspective. We all go to the town hall. I say my piece. You say yours. The people decide. If they choose right, great. If they choose wrong, also great. When you start getting into increasingly leveraged situations, that's where it all goes wrong. There's the momentum problem (people mobilized for a once-noble cause carry on long after it ceases to be noble). There's the advocacy problem (right-or-wrong you have to present your side as strongly as possible because it's an adversarial system--no room for compromise or subtlety). And of course there's good old demagoguery where the alpha-dog rides rough-shod over everything else. All of this evolves into a mono-culture problem where they're all reasoning from bogus premises they re-enforce among themselves. Anything that exacerbates the problem of one man having more than one voice is not a step in the right direction.
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    Okay, so you're advocating for some sort of direct democracy. It sounds lovely, but I'm not sure it's realistic. We sure as hell don't have it, so how do we go about getting it? We live in a world where there are huge imbalances in power. We can say it ought not be that way, that it should be another way, but any sensible individual interested in making change must confront political reality and take it into consideration when deciding how they can best effect change. > Anything that exacerbates the problem of one man having more than one voice is not a step in the right direction. Some people have no voice at all, while others are hugely influential. This isn't about going from some current equality (1:1) to inequality for some group (1:2). This is about going from out state of gross inequality (100:1) to as close to equality (1:1) as we can get. I think we're mostly on the same page, just coming at it from different positions.
    - jstewartmobile 10y ago
      Democracy doesn't even have to figure into it. Until the machines take over, if people would just open their eyes and exercise a little discipline, they would realize they can flip that 100:1 around in record time. Think Bartleby the Scrivener: "I would prefer not to."
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  What if we go with the secular equivalent of "all men are created equal"?
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." --Rousseau (Ties in with my previous point: To ask "Why should anyone have more power than anyone else?" is missing the point: people clearly DO have different amounts of power in the world.)
    - jstewartmobile 10y ago
      Actions speak louder than words. All of these corporate baddies we wring our hands over today could be taken down several pegs with simple boycotts. Cut out a few brands at the grocery store, and bring the Koch brothers to their knees. Switch to a flip-phone and watch Apple ask us all what they can do to "make things right".
      - canadian_voter 10y ago
        Now we're talking. That's a prescription for action. I will agree with this. Edit: Although I think there is more we do too. :) (Not defending Aaron's particular actions here.)