3 ms·
Well, that's sort of the thing you're missing... the vast majority of people are not the "manager" or "owner" in this situation. But if they were to take respon
by Rury 2y ago
Well, that's sort of the thing you're missing... the vast majority of people are not the "manager" or "owner" in this situation. But if they were to take responsibility, it would mean they'd have to replace the current managers who are. So why doesn't that happen? Simply because, and this may be shocking, but some people don't want that to happen, and rather likes how the current money is being spent, and likes the current managers. The core of politics (and its problems) is a matter of disagreements, not incompetence.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whatshisface 2y agoWe already have the responsibility for letting this stuff go on, that's the problem. I am also very skeptical that anywhere near a majority would support it if they were aware of it and understood.
- Rury 2y agoEven if the majority of people are in agreement of "we dislike the current people running the government", you still have the problem of agreeing on what to do about it. Some people may want to overthrow current government norms and democracy. Other people don't ever want that, and want to uphold formal structures as is. Some people want to replace leader A with leader B, but others want leader C. Some people want abortion rights, others don't want others to even have that right. Some think topic X is a priority issue, whereas Y is a non-issue, and on and on... All said, politics is always ultimately a matter of disagreement. But you're right in that, if we only could be in complete agreement, things would be resolved rather quickly as there would be no opposition.
- whatshisface 2y agoMaking it about the people is how you get disagreement out of agreement. :-)
- Rury 2y agoWho says we're in agreement?