5 ms·
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when you have to read the title "Protecting Your Data From Government...". It highlights the fact that government no longer
by junto 12y ago
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when you have to read the title "Protecting Your Data From Government...".
It highlights the fact that government no longer works for us; that that majority of people either do not care about the issue, or they do care and democracy is a farce.
Of those options, I firmly believe that democracy is a farce.
My 90 year old Gran's father was one of the founder's of the British Labour Party. She says that if someone starts a revolution she she join in. She thinks she is too old to start it, and to be fair she is blind and deaf so she's doing pretty well. We need more people like her.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- junto 12y agoPurely out of interest, why the downvotes? I'm curious as to whether my pessimism about government, or my disillusionment with democracy or my 90 year old Gran's revolutionary tendencies caused offence?
- pjc50 12y agoDunno, I suspect revolutionary socialism is out of fashion as a solution.
- XorNot 12y agoBecause the world doesn't want for examples of what civil wars look like, yet still you advocate for them.
- jnbiche 12y agoRevolutions are not necessarily violent, nor necessarily lead to civil war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_Slobodan_Milo%C5%A...
- XorNot 12y agoIf you're not willing to participate in, and accept the conclusions of, your democracy in the first place, what makes it likely you'd be willing to do so in any other system? Those revolutions were about asserting an effective democracy, not a particular policy platform. The governments they removed were actively rigging elections, not just successfully attracting the majority of the vote and implementing polices you didn't like.
- junto 12y agoJust to play devil's advocate here, what if there were only two parties you could effectively vote for, because the system was rigged in such a way that regardless of which party you voted for, the actual underlying system still penalised the majority whilst benefitting the corporation. To be fair, my use of the word 'revolution' was misleading. I meant fundamental change, and not a violent overthrow of government. I did not realise and was naieve to the fact that many people only see revolution as a word that is both negative and violent.
- XorNot 12y agoIt's too broad of a problem to describe. Different places have different problems. But you're also phrasing the issue in terms of non-participation. Is it impossible to join the political parties and work for change from within them? So long as the vote itself is not rigged (something which gets questionable in the US I'd say) then in many cases its very much a matter of playing well with others, and actually having the support of the populace on your side. There's also more layers of government that are important then just the federal. Local councils have a fair amount of power to influence policy implementation in their areas, states more so and representatives of both have louder voices for broadcasting dissent. You seem to be using revolution to describe "getting enough supporters to vote for you". And if you can do that, then you can get yourself elected into office at some level of government (or someone you feel does represent you) and start effecting change.