> How about we just stop electing people who are going to use power against their own citizens?

Well sure, but for that you've got quite a road. Elections were precisely designed to extract power from the citizens into the hands of the few. If you truly want freedom and equality then you need to build power from the bottom up and never let anyone "represent" an entire population... because noone ever can represent millions of people faithfully.

I mean, you could take the 500 brightest and nicest people on Earth and put them in a parliament and you would still get widespread injustice and misery. We need to abolish the Nation States and empower people and communities to organize (anarchism).

The state suggests that people cannot play nicely en masse without violent control, but doesn’t actually back this assertion up with anything. Maybe I’m a conspiratorial nutcase, but my relationship with the state consistently feels like interacting with the world’s biggest protection racket.

Some authors clearly analyzed/described many facets of this: Leopold Kohr (the breakdown of nations), Mancur Olson, James C. Scott (Zomia), Jacques Ellul...

I too believe that the path in which we progress towards peace and prosperity involves dissolving the Nation State and creating mechanisms that empowers the peaceful, good faith people, and prevents the Nation State from coming back.

> How about we just stop electing people who are going to use power against their own citizens?

You have too much faith in humanity.

> If you think that's impossible, then how about we change the system such that it is.

Because that's impossible too?

It's like buttered butter. The system is made of humans.

> If you think that's impossible, then how about we change the system such that it is.

Who is "we"? The people who can change the system are those in elected offices of power. Your suggestion means convincing them to change it so that most of them will not get reelected and will lose all power. That can never happen, human nature.

> Your suggestion means convincing them to change it so that most of them will not get reelected and will lose all power. That can never happen, human nature.

That can happen, and has happened throughout history. It tends to be a bloody ordeal though.

There are other ways of changing a system than working within it or resorting to violence.

A parallel society is such a way.

https://youtu.be/wJr7awWGWAo

A long time back I had see the video. Not the best points in the video, a little like how to make a million bucks. The concept is sound but the execution is hard. Most independent thinkers cannot even conceive of a parallel society. For the few that do, the numbers are really tiny, to the point that bumping into each other is near impossible. Either that, or they are so off radar that it's impossible to find them.

>How about we just stop electing people who are going to use power against their own citizens? If you think that's impossible, then how about we change the system such that it is.

How would that go? Who would ask you or me how to run the system? And who we should alternatively elect, given that the elections system is a rigged game with a couple of mostly-agreeing between them horses alternating in power in most countries?

you really drank that democratic kool aid. unless you have more money or bigger guns you don't get to decide anything.

furthermore the internet has show really why democracy doesn't work at scale. it's so easy to manipulate the unwashed masses.

you think if fox made up a smear campaign on you, there wouldn't be hoards of people at your door with pitchforks the next day.

>How about we just stop electing people who are going to use power against their own citizens? If you think that's impossible, then how about we change the system such that it is.

Neither of it is possible the average Joe/Jill buys into all the bs sprouted by the powers.

As the others have said, the electorate wants power used against fellow members of the electorate.