3 ms·

> Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. And yet, nobody votes. Everyone is apparently so willing to participate in violent revolution (w

> Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. And yet, nobody votes. Everyone is apparently so willing to participate in violent revolution (which typically ends badly, if you read history), but nobody wants to head over to a church or school on a Tuesday in August. Nobody wants to go to city council meetings. Nobody wants to run for one of the many uncontested local elections in their area. By the time you need your guns, you’ve already lost. It’s much easier, and much more likely, to change the system slowly and deliberately. That’s not to say you shouldn’t protest, or even strike, but there is so much unseized political power in America, and too much of it is simply because of apathy.

logfromblammo 9y ago
If it ever came down to it, I think I lack the sangfroid to actually kill someone over a political disagreement. But I'd definitely throw him in an oubliette for a while and take his best stuff, especially if he got all his stuff by killing people or throwing them in oubliettes. Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Think about how blatantly unfair gerrymandering is, how unpopular it is, and how prevalent it remains in spite of that. It's almost as if the system is designed to capture the energy of passionate dissidents and dissipate it, such that it cannot be used to perform useful work. The wild goose chase and the snipe hunt are revered traditions for tiring people out and redirecting their energy into useless effort. It's not entirely apathy. It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. The money follows the power that follows the money. Your side isn't going to win unless you can use your energy efficiently. You're metaphorically taking on the role of the casino complaining that fewer people want to play the games that give you a 5% house advantage, instead of the ones that only give you a 0.5% house advantage. Nobody wants to play a game they can't win in the long run. They pick up the gun to say "this game is over, let's play another." If the game were actually fair, it could go on forever without permanent winners or losers.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  > Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Yes, that's called "human organizations" and it happens wherever there are three or more people trying to do a thing. :) Politicking is messy and difficult because humans are messy and difficult. To be honest, it's amazing we've made it this far. > It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. And my argument is that people who think that we'd be better off with a "full rewrite" (and I know several of them) are ignorant of history and the civic structures that exist around them that are absolutely available to anyone willing to participate. It's not hard to get on a school board, or become a county commissioner. Those things aren't necessarily easy like microwaving a burrito is easy, but they're not necessarily difficult like getting a PhD is difficult. That is to say, yes, politicking takes work, but that shouldn't be unexpected or surprising. > You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. It all depends on what you're trying to do. Zoning changes are probably better handled by voting for better city council members and attending meetings, for example; a strike won't particularly help there. And yes, part of democracy means losing. Sometimes you lose a whole hell of a lot. I think what people (particularly the left, as of late) tend to forget is that sometimes when you lose it's because the people in your city, district, etc. actually have a different enough point of view that they can get their changes enacted. In other words, it IS possible to lose fair and square. That's obviously super abstract, and the real world is messy, but it's easy to interpret every failed election as a sign that the system is broken, when in reality, you just couldn't convince enough people that you're right. I guess my overall point is: at this point in time, I don't think it's fair to say "the system doesn't work, so I'm not going to participate". I think that is an unfair characterization of the hundreds of thousands of available political offices in the United States, and other various ways of getting involved civically. I once door-knocked for a city clerk candidate and one of my neighbors said that he'd vote for the guy just because he heard his name from me and that he'd remember my quick spiel. It doesn't take much to make a difference, and it's better than just shooting him. That doesn't mean the system is perfect, because it certainly isn't, but I don't think it's nearly to the point where we should scrap the entire thing (if we could even survive) and start over.
bfrog 9y ago
Its difficult to see the point in voting for a lot people when the districts and elections are more or less heavily weighted, by those (party/individual) being elected, in their favor. Have you seen voting districts drawn on maps? No sensible meaning whatsoever.

logfromblammo 9y ago

If it ever came down to it, I think I lack the sangfroid to actually kill someone over a political disagreement. But I'd definitely throw him in an oubliette for a while and take his best stuff, especially if he got all his stuff by killing people or throwing them in oubliettes. Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Think about how blatantly unfair gerrymandering is, how unpopular it is, and how prevalent it remains in spite of that. It's almost as if the system is designed to capture the energy of passionate dissidents and dissipate it, such that it cannot be used to perform useful work. The wild goose chase and the snipe hunt are revered traditions for tiring people out and redirecting their energy into useless effort. It's not entirely apathy. It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. The money follows the power that follows the money. Your side isn't going to win unless you can use your energy efficiently. You're metaphorically taking on the role of the casino complaining that fewer people want to play the games that give you a 5% house advantage, instead of the ones that only give you a 0.5% house advantage. Nobody wants to play a game they can't win in the long run. They pick up the gun to say "this game is over, let's play another." If the game were actually fair, it could go on forever without permanent winners or losers.

tachyoff 9y ago
> Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Yes, that's called "human organizations" and it happens wherever there are three or more people trying to do a thing. :) Politicking is messy and difficult because humans are messy and difficult. To be honest, it's amazing we've made it this far. > It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. And my argument is that people who think that we'd be better off with a "full rewrite" (and I know several of them) are ignorant of history and the civic structures that exist around them that are absolutely available to anyone willing to participate. It's not hard to get on a school board, or become a county commissioner. Those things aren't necessarily easy like microwaving a burrito is easy, but they're not necessarily difficult like getting a PhD is difficult. That is to say, yes, politicking takes work, but that shouldn't be unexpected or surprising. > You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. It all depends on what you're trying to do. Zoning changes are probably better handled by voting for better city council members and attending meetings, for example; a strike won't particularly help there. And yes, part of democracy means losing. Sometimes you lose a whole hell of a lot. I think what people (particularly the left, as of late) tend to forget is that sometimes when you lose it's because the people in your city, district, etc. actually have a different enough point of view that they can get their changes enacted. In other words, it IS possible to lose fair and square. That's obviously super abstract, and the real world is messy, but it's easy to interpret every failed election as a sign that the system is broken, when in reality, you just couldn't convince enough people that you're right. I guess my overall point is: at this point in time, I don't think it's fair to say "the system doesn't work, so I'm not going to participate". I think that is an unfair characterization of the hundreds of thousands of available political offices in the United States, and other various ways of getting involved civically. I once door-knocked for a city clerk candidate and one of my neighbors said that he'd vote for the guy just because he heard his name from me and that he'd remember my quick spiel. It doesn't take much to make a difference, and it's better than just shooting him. That doesn't mean the system is perfect, because it certainly isn't, but I don't think it's nearly to the point where we should scrap the entire thing (if we could even survive) and start over.

bfrog 9y ago

Its difficult to see the point in voting for a lot people when the districts and elections are more or less heavily weighted, by those (party/individual) being elected, in their favor. Have you seen voting districts drawn on maps? No sensible meaning whatsoever.