3 ms·
> you'd absolutely have to collaborate to ever do anything You could also refuse to collaborate to do everything. This would result in an anarchist system wher
by LeifCarrotson 2y ago
> you'd absolutely have to collaborate to ever do anything
You could also refuse to collaborate to do everything. This would result in an anarchist system where power/money has the ability to do whatever they want without regulatory oversight and the public are unable to vote to give themselves any rights they can't take by force.
- somenameforme 2y agoI think that's assuming the status quo of horrible divides. In the past many social bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. For instance the Pure Food and Drug Act [1], which would lead to the FDA, was passed in 1906 by a 90%+ margin in both the House and Senate. I mean who's going to oppose outlawing mislabeled products? In a country that hasn't been trained to hate 'the other side', basically nobody. But in modern times a typical social experiment (of which there are a zillion on YouTube) is to describe some policy passed by a President/party but swap the names to 'the other side.' People's response to the policy will invariably sharply shift. People aren't even thinking about what they think is a good idea anymore, but seeing everything through a hyper-partisan lens. That's obviously not conducive to bipartisan acts, pretty much ever. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act