3 ms·
They’ve sedated us. Compared to the past you mention we live long lives, work comfortable jobs, have all we can eat media at our finger tips and therefore aren’
by basisword 5y ago
They’ve sedated us. Compared to the past you mention we live long lives, work comfortable jobs, have all we can eat media at our finger tips and therefore aren’t all that affected by the dodgy dealings of the elite. We’re comfortable enough with too little to gain through uprising. For any change against the elite to take hold you need a large group to rise up against them - and even the poorest amongst us in the west have smartphones and the other trappings of a comfortable enough life. Why risk losing that or facing any discomfort at all when we can just get on with things and ignore the corruption?
- stjohnswarts 5y agowhat's on the other side of taking down a relatively (to the past) well run democracy? Do people actually think there's a utopia in anarchy? It will just be the rise of a different set of elites.
- amelius 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
- ALittleLight 5y agoOne way of thinking is that it's not that bad. The elites have to provide a minimum quality of life for everyone. People will naturally want more and more so that bar will rise over time. So long as elites provide this their reward is corruptly embezzling money and avoiding taxes. Obviously I'd prefer it if they obeyed the laws and faced justice, but that seems not to be the world we live in. I'm not going to risk my comfortable life rebelling against them to make it more likely either. Instead, maybe the right move is to just keep pushing the quality bar higher.