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.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If this wisdom was truly internalised by most people, there would be global revolution.
There’s a lot of stupid shit in philosophy, but this is one of the dumber beliefs.
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?
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.