4 ms·
>> However, your argument seems to be for a country of passive, ignorant sheep that let whoever is in the White House do whatever they want? My argument is tha
by icelancer 6y ago
>> However, your argument seems to be for a country of passive, ignorant sheep that let whoever is in the White House do whatever they want?
My argument is that people have vanishingly little power as-is anyway, as evidenced by both executive and legislative branches ignoring the popular sentiments and securing their power first and foremost. In which case, time spent in that area is an absurdly low ROI compared to just helping your neighbors with the groceries, volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, or stocking your Little Free Libraries/Pantries near you, rather than worrying what is happening in Tibet.
- phobosanomaly 6y agoI very much agree with you, actually! I disagree in that I believe that states and localities can be an agent of broader change. Sure, the feds won't reform drug laws, but locally our states and localities are simply working around the feds! So we should know what's wrong in a broad sense to push our localities in the right direction. And I believe in keeping tabs on the feds so if we get a chance to nudge them in the right direction, we can. Despite disagreeing with you on that point, I think you are 100% right, and if we were all acting locally to make the world a better place....well, it probably would be.