3 ms·
Blaming the dictator doesn't solve the problem. Sure, you could try to overthrow a dictator, but you can also try to fix a system, by talking to any of the peop
by gowld 7y ago
Blaming the dictator doesn't solve the problem. Sure, you could try to overthrow a dictator, but you can also try to fix a system, by talking to any of the people involved in it (or if there are no people involved, try to modify the system yourself, since there's no one to stop you).
- derefr 7y agoThis is the Fallacy of Gray. Just because neither option is perfect, doesn’t mean that one option isn’t better. It’s clearly easier for a bloc of concerned citizens to solve problems in dictator-land than in bureaucracy-land: in dictator-land, you just have to remove one (probably very unpopular) guy, while in bureaucracy-land, you have to... um...
- JoshuaDavid 7y agoIn dictator-land, you first have to remove the dictator. You still have to actually solve the problem after removing the dictator. It's easy to say "the dictator is bad" but historically getting rid of dictators without a specific and concrete plan for what to do afterwards has not turned out so well.
- DanielBMarkham 7y agoIn doctor-land, you are trying to solve a particular problem with a particular patient, the assumption being that once that problem is solved, the patient will remain self-regulating. In political-theory-land, you assume all actors are bad, are at least will become bad at some point in the future. The question then becomes *how can we organize our political structures so that if we can't prevent dying, can we at least provide guidance to the next government that follows?" It naturally follows that the real goal is not solving problems: it is providing problems and solutions that people can accept. If nothing else, providing problems and solutions in terms that future generations can reason about.