3 ms·

Yeah. People are scared. There are alternatives to another French Revolution, which no one wants. (Well, no one other than the tyrants waiting in the wings who

Yeah. People are scared. There are alternatives to another French Revolution, which no one wants. (Well, no one other than the tyrants waiting in the wings who want to be the global elite.) Why are people too scared to challenge the global élites? Because they don't acknowledge those alternatives. In my experience, it boils down to being fearful of being ruled by the people who want to be the global élites. Which would be even worse. And, hey, if I'm being honest, they're probably right about that. Thing is, that fear is blinding them to the other completely reasonable alternatives that people are putting forth. We just need to make more noise about these other, really very low risk options. Options like taxes. Options like strengthening unions. Even out of the box options like thinking about coop type business structures. Etc. There's more than one way to skin a cat, but we're in the happy position of not even having to skin the cat to get what we want. We just have to get people past that fear of, "Woah! look at those looneys who want to replace the élites! Better the Devil we know!".

anigbrowl 7y ago
Incrementalist low risk solutions have their place, but they are not the whole story. If you found a fire in the kitchen of your home you wouldn't just make a mental note to purchase a new fire extinguisher. Incrementalism works great in periods of relative stability. In other contexts it can be dangerous and inhibit necessary action.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Wow, I agree and disagree. How to know when the kitchen is on fire? Most revolutions of the past 200 years have been a disaster. We live in a constitutional democracy that supports incremental improvement. The alternative is almost certainly, probabilistically, worse. Entropy and all that.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Well if you look into the kitchen and see smoke and flames then you have a fire in your kitchen...I cannot understand why you think this a difficult decision to make. Where do you get the idea that most revolutions have been a a disaster? Your concept that only incremental improvement is valid seems counterfactual and naive. You are just dismissing anything that you do not understand out of hand without even considering it.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      I think the point people are trying to make is that while revolutions can be good, most of the time they have been bad. Very bad. From the Reign of Terror, to the November Revolution, to Pinochet, to the Khmer Rouge, to Rwandans in central Africa, life has not been good for commoners during and after revolutions. (And I'm being kind by not listing the really bad ones.) Add to all this the fact that they fail with alarming regularity, and America's collective lack of enthusiasm for that option is perfectly understandable. I mean, historically speaking, for the average person, revolutions either failed, and you were worse off. Or revolutions succeeded, and you were worse off. It's so bad that, again, people are even a bit skeptical even of low risk options like tax reform and stronger unions. Right now, people seem to view anything that even appears to move away from the status quo as dangerous because of the admittedly horrid track record of revolutions, combined with the off the wall proclamations and actions of certain groups opposed to the élites. (Believe it or not, you don't allay peoples' fears of a reign of terror by shooting up churches and Walmarts for instance.)

anigbrowl 7y ago

Incrementalist low risk solutions have their place, but they are not the whole story. If you found a fire in the kitchen of your home you wouldn't just make a mental note to purchase a new fire extinguisher. Incrementalism works great in periods of relative stability. In other contexts it can be dangerous and inhibit necessary action.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
Wow, I agree and disagree. How to know when the kitchen is on fire? Most revolutions of the past 200 years have been a disaster. We live in a constitutional democracy that supports incremental improvement. The alternative is almost certainly, probabilistically, worse. Entropy and all that.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Well if you look into the kitchen and see smoke and flames then you have a fire in your kitchen...I cannot understand why you think this a difficult decision to make. Where do you get the idea that most revolutions have been a a disaster? Your concept that only incremental improvement is valid seems counterfactual and naive. You are just dismissing anything that you do not understand out of hand without even considering it.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    I think the point people are trying to make is that while revolutions can be good, most of the time they have been bad. Very bad. From the Reign of Terror, to the November Revolution, to Pinochet, to the Khmer Rouge, to Rwandans in central Africa, life has not been good for commoners during and after revolutions. (And I'm being kind by not listing the really bad ones.) Add to all this the fact that they fail with alarming regularity, and America's collective lack of enthusiasm for that option is perfectly understandable. I mean, historically speaking, for the average person, revolutions either failed, and you were worse off. Or revolutions succeeded, and you were worse off. It's so bad that, again, people are even a bit skeptical even of low risk options like tax reform and stronger unions. Right now, people seem to view anything that even appears to move away from the status quo as dangerous because of the admittedly horrid track record of revolutions, combined with the off the wall proclamations and actions of certain groups opposed to the élites. (Believe it or not, you don't allay peoples' fears of a reign of terror by shooting up churches and Walmarts for instance.)