• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I mean, the greater evil would presumably have gotten us worse. And in a system that is set up so as to inevitably produce two viable parties, and where “good” is not on the ballot from either, what else do you expect people to do?

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      change it, naturally.

      contrary to popular belief, this system only lasts as long as we allow it to last.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        “just change the system” is easier said than done, which I suspect you realize of course, since if it were so easy, you’d have changed it yourself already. The difficulty in such change is that it requires a very large number of people to act in unison, which is quite rare, especially when most people aren’t literally starving, and have different ideas over what they want the system to be, some of which might be better, but some of which might be as bad or worse. It’s a bit like how libertarian types sometimes remark that, if everyone stopped paying taxes, the government would run out of money and be unable to enforce them anymore: technically true, but requires humans to act with uncharacteristic unity towards a singular goal, against pushback from established power. Not to say that it never happens, but it does not seem to happen reliably or in a way that can be readily forced to occur.