Comment by dmos62
1 day ago
The answer is not to avoid engaging with a corrupt institution. US is a democracy: vote, be active politically, go into organizations that need change.
1 day ago
The answer is not to avoid engaging with a corrupt institution. US is a democracy: vote, be active politically, go into organizations that need change.
So you are suggesting that you can change the US military industrial complex by.. working for the NSA or Lockheed Martin ?
Also it is quite questionable how much of a democracy the US is nowadays.
Gerrymandering aside, the populace does not get to choose the presidential candidates. And the whole two party thing ? Or the fact that to have a chance you need a super PAC with hundreds of millions ?
This seems like elitocracy..
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. If you feel that the problem is higher up or lower down in the institutional hierarchy, then go higher up or lower down. That's the civil approach, as I understand it.
I think this is utterly infeasible.
Apart from the fact the if you stay true to your morals you will be incapable of rising to a position of power in such corrupt institutions, the degree of institutionalisation necessary to do so will definitely erode your ethics, turning you into another cog.
3 replies →
Edward Snowden did.
Did he? How much change did he enact, and what was the consequence to his person?
6 replies →
I'm probably too focused on the Afghanistan war but I don't think that voting differently would have extended or shortened the war.
Both republicans and democrats wanted the war in Afghanistan back when 9/11 happened and they needed to get revenge on the scapegoat. Meanwhile the end of the war was initiated by Trump, then slowly concluded by Joe Biden.
So both the start and the end of the war had bipartisan support. Nothing against democracy but war doesn't follow the election cycle. It might start in one though.