Why is a two-party system considered democratic?
You're only able to choose two options, how is that democracy? I thought democracy was about being able to choose anyone you think is suitable to be a leader, not one of two pre-selected people. At that point, it's not much different to a one-party system, just with two people rather than only one person.
Do you notice how what you just said is not a conversation starter or even a joke? What's your goal here, just to talk shit? What's your ideal outcome for leaving this remark, exactly? Do you even have one.
Calling out dangerously foolish rhetoric is a civic duty.
Calling out disinformation takes effort. If I'm wrong and you give a shit, talk to me. I'm a regular person who is generally pleasant, maybe you can be too.
Well, this is a bit of a tangent, but the effectiveness of calling out disinformation actually correlates inversely with effort imo. It's the typical sealion asymmetrical warfare thing. It's a lot easier to say a lie than it is to disprove one. Mocking and insulting a disinfo statement is far more effective. Parity of effort.
In terms of "the purpose of a system is what it does", I'm not quite sure how to start. Believing such a statement requires a level of disassociation with reality that makes intelligible discussion difficult. You're flatly disallowing the entire possibility of someone setting up a system with a purpose, and the system failing to achieve that purpose.
The dangerous part of the theory though, is the implied malevolent intent. It's like the evil inverse of religious "everything happens for a reason". If a scientist comes up with a new strain of drought-resistant corn, and the corn develops a previously unknown mutation and crops fail and millions starve, well clearly that evil scientist intended to kill millions of innocent people. It's absurd.
Thanks for taking the effort. I know that it's a losing battle when you're dealing with people spreading disinfo in bad faith and you're trying to counter everything. The worst part is that it makes conversations far harder to have, so I really do value that olive branch of trust.
I can't speak to what others are thinking when they talk about "the system" in this way, but I'll try to explain where I'm at. I do have to allow that it's a bad rationale to ascribe any overt intent to the incredibly vast and dynamic nature of "the system". We're talking about a single sentence that is broadly gesturing at not just centuries of continually changing case law, but also the ongoing interactions of massive regulatory, financial, and legal systems run by many thousands of people and is also constantly changing. That is too wide a swath to cut. To equivocate further in your favor, it is also wrong by what it fails to account for - failed systems.
The main takeaway I would hope people get from the idea (one that I heard from a forgotten source and then began using in the light of my own understanding I have to confess) is that we are living under a system that has been disproportionately and consistently shaped over much of its history by moneyed interests in various ways for the specific aim of winning the class war for the wealthy. That's what the system is doing, that is its purpose.
In the future to avoid raising anyone's hackles (at least those whose hackles don't deserve raising) I should be more specific and speak of the 1971 Powell memorandum and how we are essentially living in the aftermath of its victory. Would that be more acceptable?
I agree with the point you're making about moneyed interests influencing the system we live in. All I take issue with is the philosophical idea that every bad thing that happens was explicitly intended to happen by some evil "them".
Sometimes that's true (prison industrial complex, for example) but more often it's not. Often it's bad actors undermining a system set up to do good, or taking advantage of a system that arose organically without anyone designing it.
Basically, I think the phrase "the purpose of a system is what it does" is both objectively wrong in almost every case, and a dangerous thought-terminating philosophy. Any time I see it, I call it out. If you can be convinced that "they" are intentionally harming you through some nebulous, nefarious means...it's only a couple more steps to convince you who "they" are. Jews, immigrants, "terrorists".
That's reasonable. In trying to clarify my stance I've basically talked myself over to your way of thinking.
The main takeaway I would hope people get from the idea (one that I heard from a forgotten source and then began using in the light of my own understanding I have to confess) is that we are living under a system that has been disproportionately and consistently shaped over much of its history by moneyed interests in various ways for the specific aim of winning the class war for the wealthy. That's what the system is doing, that is its purpose.
Another objection to “the purpose of a system is what it does” is that it implies that systems have purposes in the first place. Many systems don’t have a purpose because they were never designed. Ecosystems are the biggest example of this.
Talking more specifically about our political and economic systems, I think the ecosystem view is helpful. Believing that an elite have conspired over centuries to create a system which entrenches their interests is dangerous, conspiratorial thinking which most importantly does not lead in any positive direction.
Violent revolutions rarely work, yet Americans have a peculiar affinity toward them, perhaps due to their history. It’s a particular sort of societal sickness which I believe leads to perfectionist, radical thinking and shuns graassroots, reform-oriented work.
The original topic of discussion (for this thread) was voting systems and two party systems. Grassroots political work can and has been proven to work at solving problems like this. There are many cases around the world where such voting systems have been changed thanks to the efforts of grassroots politics.
Violent revolutions rarely work..
Are we ignoring nearly all of history? Take some time and see how man revolutions were possible without violence vs how many were. You have all of human history at your finger tips, for now at least.
History doesn't repeat but it certainly rhymes. If you're real and this is your true belief then you are not ready for what is coming.
The main takeaway I would hope people get from the idea (one that I heard from a forgotten source and then began using in the light of my own understanding I have to confess) is that we are living under a system that has been disproportionately and consistently shaped over much of its history by moneyed interests in various ways for the specific aim of winning the class war for the wealthy. That's what the system is doing, that is its purpose.
Another objection to “the purpose of a system is what it does” is that it implies that systems have purposes in the first place. Many systems don’t have a purpose because they were never designed. Ecosystems are the biggest example of this.
Talking more specifically about our political and economic systems, I think the ecosystem view is helpful. Believing that an elite have conspired over centuries to create a system which entrenches their interests is dangerous, conspiratorial thinking which most importantly does not lead in any positive direction.
It's not a conspiracy though. Political think tanks, lobbiests, SuperPACs all exist to shape politics and have more influence than any person. And they are all controlled by those with wealth. They've literally been shaping the country for themselves for decades.
Oh I don’t doubt that another violent revolution is coming. But each violent revolution proves the failure of the one that came before. Violence begets more violence.
Building a stable system that works for everyone is much more difficult. It takes many years of careful work. Flipping the table never gets you there. Table-flippers love to take all the credit, however.
As for your premise on “non-violent versus violent revolutions”, I reject it entirely. I’m an advocate for careful reforms, not revolutions.
I disagree slightly (maybe pedantically) about our political system. That was explicitly designed by men we can name. It has since been influenced by other forces, and much of its original intent has been subverted. But it didn't spring into being all by itself.
Economics I agree. While there are and have been forces attempting to guide and influence the economy, it's always been generally out of the control of any person or group of people, short of command economies.
Both cases put the lie to the phrase, "the purpose of a system is what it does".
A few of the things were explicitly designed (such as the rules for elections, the composition of parliament) but a great deal of it evolved (English common law system, electoral districting/Gerrymandering, and many decades of legislative processes by many different people).
That last one I want to highlight because it seems like it is something explicitly designed. It is not. It’s like a soup pot many chefs walk past and add their own ingredients to. The fact that the soup is not very good can’t be blamed on one particular chef. Thus there is no real designer of our body of laws.
I also want to further point out that laws are not systems, they’re just words on paper. The system is the combined effect of all the people in society acting to produce an outcome. This outcome may be strongly informed by society’s laws (and also by social norms such as respect for the rule of law) but it’s not determined by them the way a computer’s actions are determined by its programming.
One need look no further than the Trump administration which has severely undermined the rule of law in the US. Without the rule of law the system turns into chaos. But that is also an outcome of the system itself, since social norms are the product of social forces (which are themselves highly chaotic).