> Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service.
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.
> 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.
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.
> I can give a very strong factual basis to peaceful change: Centuries of history, in all the democracies in the world.
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?
The only problem is that immediate and imminate repercussion has more immediate effects. Governments should be held accoubtable just as people are. If you knew I could steal 1 billion dollars and that somewhere along the line a kid is gonna grow up, go to high school, go to college, become a judge eventually and then try me for my crime after any number of years then I cant help but wonder how many would not go ahead and do it. Just based on the fact that they could be dead before they are even held accountable. However, if you knew you would be caught and challenged in less than a week I think that number would drop significantly.
>Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service.
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.
People were literally bombed for wanting better worker's rights a century ago, apparently it's time for that again?