4 ms·
I've always ended up with, and still reach the conclusion that there are only two tenable options which will work against a corrupt and unethical system. 1. In
by oedmarap 8y ago
I've always ended up with, and still reach the conclusion that there are only two tenable options which will work against a corrupt and unethical system.
1. Infiltrate, subvert, and implode the system from within (that's meant to be as Tzu-esque as it sounds).
2. Using parallel propaganda to get the public to realize that they have the ability to disable the system if they can collectively wield a moral, objective, and ethical compass (with all the McLuhan-esque difficulties that come with it).
I prefer the former. As dangerous as it is, I think it's strategically easier to wield covert action as a tool for effecting change than it is to attempt a unification of the masses. But, maybe a combination of both these approaches would be ideal.
- neilv 8y agoIt's tricky. It's really easy for "I'll change things from within" to be a convenient rationalization for $400K total comp. I considered it once again myself last year, when I talked with a big-name company, and my version that time was "I can do good work on good stuff, promote that over the not-as-good stuff, and generally be a positive citizen of the company". Of course, I was also thinking I could really use the big-corp money. But when they insisted that I'd have to do the new-grad hazing rituals, I decided I was kidding myself that I was being considered for any position where I'd have any input into goodness, and they were really only considering me as a junior frat pledge.
- pedro2 8y agoOption 2 gives the other side time to fight back, with much more resources than you have. Option 3: pick the lesser evil, not the best option. Cut the money/power flow for the incumbent parties. Force them to compete. It is my hope for democracy's purpose - to force competition at governent level.