It might be unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe that Inefficiencies in the bureaucracy is a good thing considering alternatives. It acts like a buffer, redundancies are in effect acting like checks and balances, and it’s way harder to break or subvert than the one without redundancy.
And money that spent on it are such a minuscule percentage of overall spendings, it worth it in the end
Looking at some other governmental examples, I am happy to take this drawback. I think stopping another Trump or Putin is more important than improving. It’s obviously important to do both, but if there is a choice…
To be honest, looking at everything that is happening in the world, we have a uniary choice of being happy that fascism is sometimes slow.
I am not even remotely optimistic fornthe future
That’s just nihilist defeatism. There’s always something we can do, and it doesn’t have to be super radical either. It just takes a lot of people not playing the rigged game.
It already took a bunch of people “not playing the rigged game” to allow those who played to win by default. Now we’re fucked and can only mitigate the disaster, and since we can’t aggree on how anyway, we can’t do even that. The arc of the moral whatever is slow but it bends towards the destruction if civilization.
The point of it being a rigged game, is that those would win by default either way. We were fucked so long as people are expecting parliamentary democracy to fix systemic issues and do nothing else to directly improve their situations.
We don’t have to all agree on how to fix things, we just have to do direct action to fix things for ourselves and those close to us, and it incidentally tends to fix the system as well.
Nihilistic apathy just leads to more suffering but it’s incidentally exactly what the system expects of you, which is why parliamentarism is set up the way it is.
It might be unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe that Inefficiencies in the bureaucracy is a good thing considering alternatives. It acts like a buffer, redundancies are in effect acting like checks and balances, and it’s way harder to break or subvert than the one without redundancy.
And money that spent on it are such a minuscule percentage of overall spendings, it worth it in the end
While it may act as a buffer for reactionaries sometimes, it also serves as a way to stymie progressive politics for the same reasons.
Looking at some other governmental examples, I am happy to take this drawback. I think stopping another Trump or Putin is more important than improving. It’s obviously important to do both, but if there is a choice…
Yeah it’s not a binary choice. We don’t have to accept either stagnation (i.e. slow cooking towards fascism) or fascism speedrun.
To be honest, looking at everything that is happening in the world, we have a uniary choice of being happy that fascism is sometimes slow.
I am not even remotely optimistic fornthe future
That’s just nihilist defeatism. There’s always something we can do, and it doesn’t have to be super radical either. It just takes a lot of people not playing the rigged game.
It already took a bunch of people “not playing the rigged game” to allow those who played to win by default. Now we’re fucked and can only mitigate the disaster, and since we can’t aggree on how anyway, we can’t do even that. The arc of the moral whatever is slow but it bends towards the destruction if civilization.
The point of it being a rigged game, is that those would win by default either way. We were fucked so long as people are expecting parliamentary democracy to fix systemic issues and do nothing else to directly improve their situations.
We don’t have to all agree on how to fix things, we just have to do direct action to fix things for ourselves and those close to us, and it incidentally tends to fix the system as well.
Nihilistic apathy just leads to more suffering but it’s incidentally exactly what the system expects of you, which is why parliamentarism is set up the way it is.