People were literally bombed for wanting better worker's rights a century ago, apparently it's time for that again?
When I say evolve, we're not the apes in 2001 anymore are we?
Notwithstanding the conclusion, the argument is a bit naïve. It's not like we have third party candidates winning left and right. There are established players who crush outside competition, regardless of the quality of the candidates. And there's no guarantee that even if you have any influence, you'll see the benefit in your lifetime. The idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in faith, not something you can ground in truth. Pretending that simply being dedicated to a good cause is all it takes to fix a problem entirely misses why people are proposing other paths in the first place.
No claim about the future can be grounded in "truth", but I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world. No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity.
Isn't there just as much (if not more) history for e.g. autocracies? Couldn't you make the same argument for autocracies a few centuries ago? How is the mere existence of democratic history convincing of anything?
> No other means, including violent revolution, has achieved more positive change for humanity.
Wasn't it violent revolution that led to many of these democracies in the first place?
And how in the world am I supposed to argue with abstract claims like that? If you'll claim no other means has achieved better, I'll just claim that, actually, other means have achieved better. I'm sure you're convinced now, right?
playing by the rules of the game one can play varying game sessions, yet the chess will stay chess and Go will stay Go. Rules define the game. The set of available scenarios under given rules either covers the target outcome or not. In case of the latter the rules change is needed, and the given rules may not allow for the necessary rules change.
>Violence is the lazy and cowardly way out.
if only somebody of that group of lazy cowards applied for the Colonies tea tax collector position 244 years ago... though even if a one applied and was accepted, then what? I'd be really interested to learn your thoughts on that matter.
Btw, interesting that after that violence, a pretty successful rules were written by many the same people - those rules have been working for those 2+ centuries since then allowing for the society to successfully adjust to and frequently lead the changes in our civilization during that time with only one major violence outbreak related to the rules.
We still are and we're getting worse these days.
Voting is obviously better. I was just explaining why those protests in Romania were so effective in contrast to the protests here. I remember the science march, the women's march, occupy, which lasted for a long while. Good things came up from those sure. But there were just not an effective way to make the government listen or do anything, at this point in time, in this particular country because the precondition where not there for it.
Organizing and planning for next elections, having a desirable platform that resonates with voters (in all states, not just on the coasts) is the way to go. Without that things, and focusing on how many scoops of ice-cream Trump had, or how long he shook Macron's hand is also not a valid strategy, and it just sets the stage for a re-election.
Thus the implication seems quite clear - rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now).
(OP here). The other implication is use the rules of the system first. Yeah the system is rigged, there are lobbyists and special interests, and propaganda at work. But that is preferable to violence in the streets.
> rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now).
The point about the violence is that large protests as an effective tool to make the government listen or do anything are not effective in US, but are effective in Romania, for example, and the reason is that there is a collective memory of relatively recent past of what had happened there.
Another point is that the threat of violence has to be implied or imminent. There might be another way to create that belief than killing a leader.
Those groups cannot begin to challenge the government with violence. What you are suggesting is much more likely to end up in an orgy of bloodshed with innocent people being the victims. It's time we evolve.