You're viewing a single thread.
Imagine a society where those setting the regulations are wealthy in such a way that they face no money related consequences. If they stuff up, or get into a tight spot with money, they'll be a subsidy, or bailout, or sweet deal with a bank loan, or a wealthy relative, or they sell a property or a stock holding, or a mega yatch, or they'll just declare that shell company bankrupt. They'll never have a monetary problem that can't be immediately resolved.
...this class of people - those with essentially no financial consequences in life, are expected to make empathetic and caring laws, systems, and regulations for the rest of us, for whom money is behind literally everything consequential. For whom a small or temporary lack of money drastically changes us and our quality of life immediately and often with no real resolution.
We have all the consequences they do not, they have all the power we do not. Nothing about this system makes sense, and it's enough to say we live in a kind of Capitalist Monarchy, posing as a democracy of, by, and for the people.
Maybe vote against it?
Here's a whole video about why that doesn't work:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&list=PLrttDbiWQ1XO1iHAszAsPobYSoR0uQg_1&pp=iAQB
Basically all governments are required to keep certain groups happy to even consider getting into power, and some of that involves.... Certain kinds of payoffs and deals being made.
You can only vote for people who have already acquised to the system in order to get on the ballot.
You can vote for people who promise some slightly more progressive version of the status quo, but that's as radical as the system is allowed to get by design.
Videos like these are meant to keep you down, or in your couch
You can get on a ballot. You just need enough people to support you
Not voting or voting against those who would change the system is what keeps these dorks in power
You just need enough people to support you
I don't like people enough to want that
Did no one watch Game of Thrones and wonder "why is named that?"
Voting alone is insufficient, because in captive systems where a limited number of parties hold all political capital, you can only vote for complicit parties.
Individual people have to run for office, and there has to be movements to get them elected, and those movements need to be more powerful than the existing parties who will attempt to suppress them.
Honestly, at the level of organization that would be required, you'd probably just be better off ignoring the democratic process entirely, because it would take tens of millions.
It does take tens of millions, that's the point
I'm not saying you should only vote, but rioting while letting your opposition win every election sure isn't going to work
Maybe support causes that oppose it?
Think about all the money we funnel to twitch streamers and other influencers.
I remember back in like 2010s people trying to crowd source their election and it just falls flat.
Then you hear about pewdiepie buying his own private island or some shit and it's dumb founding.
It's so gross when I spit piss at the DNC I get heckled to hell but if we took the time dismantle that machine we could effectively build something that easily out preforms it.
Voting is the least we can do besides doing nothing. Which makes it pretty disappointing that so many people will be all like "oh voting doesn't do anything, we should tear down the government instead" and then they proceed to do neither of those things.