3 ms·

> Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service. Notwithstanding the conclusion, the argument is a bit naïve. It's not like we have third party candid

> Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service. Notwithstanding the conclusion, the argument is a bit naïve. It's not like we have third party candidates winning left and right. There are established players who crush outside competition, regardless of the quality of the candidates. And there's no guarantee that even if you have any influence, you'll see the benefit in your lifetime. The idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in faith, not something you can ground in truth. Pretending that simply being dedicated to a good cause is all it takes to fix a problem entirely misses why people are proposing other paths in the first place.

forapurpose 9y ago
> The idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in faith, not something you can ground in truth. No claim about the future can be grounded in "truth", but I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world. No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world. Isn't there just as much (if not more) history for e.g. autocracies? Couldn't you make the same argument for autocracies a few centuries ago? How is the mere existence of democratic history convincing of anything? > No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity. Wasn't it violent revolution that led to many of these democracies in the first place? And how in the world am I supposed to argue with abstract claims like that? If you'll claim no other means has achieved better, I'll just claim that, actually, other means have achieved better. I'm sure you're convinced now, right?

forapurpose 9y ago

> The idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in faith, not something you can ground in truth. No claim about the future can be grounded in "truth", but I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world. No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity.

throwaway613834 9y ago
> I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world. Isn't there just as much (if not more) history for e.g. autocracies? Couldn't you make the same argument for autocracies a few centuries ago? How is the mere existence of democratic history convincing of anything? > No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity. Wasn't it violent revolution that led to many of these democracies in the first place? And how in the world am I supposed to argue with abstract claims like that? If you'll claim no other means has achieved better, I'll just claim that, actually, other means have achieved better. I'm sure you're convinced now, right?