3 ms·
> Everyone [..] knows that the system that they are living under isn’t working as it is supposed to; that there is a lot of corruption at the top. But whenever
by young_unixer 6y ago
> Everyone [..] knows that the system that they are living under isn’t working as it is supposed to; that there is a lot of corruption at the top. But whenever the journalists point it out, everyone goes “Wow that’s terrible!” and then nothing happens and the system remains the same.
Everyone agrees that the system isn't working as suposed, but we don't agree on how and why it isn't working.
The resulting system is an unappealing mix of all the different values and beliefs we have about the hows and whys. The more different the values, the more unappealing the mix.
- waihtis 6y agoI've found Nassim Taleb's Pricipia Politica to be an interesting suggestion of how to move from abstract universalism to fractal localism. This specifically has the intent of avoiding top-down power structures and the fragility associated with it. https://acataleptico.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/principia_politicasep2019.pdf https://acataleptico.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/principia_p...
- hnick 6y agoGive the population bikesheds to paint, and plunder while they bicker.
- jjk166 6y agoBut if we agree it isn't working, we shouldn't need to agree on how or why to decide to change it. Even if you are reasonably sure that something won't work, it makes more sense to spend a bit of time giving it a try than to stick with what you know for certain doesn't. Even if the proposal might make things worse, the potential downside is bounded by it being temporary. In the absolute worst case scenario where you have tried multiple options and all of them are worse than what you started with, you can always go back to the status quo but now with more knowledge.