[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

The interesting thing about it is that the signs suggest that 'the rich' are prepping for such an outcome ( you will see occasional article here and there about bunkers being bought ). Naturally, if one was to suggest that maybe we could try working towards some sort of semblance of 'new new deal', they would be called some sort of crazy person, who is a communist and hates democracy ( as opposed to simply trying to save the system from imploding ).

[achierius]

Then why bother? Why not go all the way, try to find a way to a new, better system, rather than gambling that these people who so totally hate you would one day become willing to compromise in order to save the current one (with benefits then most of all, not you)?

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Because, in real life, power re-alignment of that magnitude tends to be.. chaotic. I like my life. I also like my kid to survive long enough to fend for itself. Both of these become a big gamble if we do not work within the existing system.

I am saying this as a person who had a front seat to a something similar as a kid. It was relatively peaceful and it still managed to upend lives of millions ( because, at the end of the day, people don't really change ).

[actionfromafar]

Yes, and, not only chaotic, power re-alignment almost always results in a reshuffling within the elites. When there truly is a new system, it will likely look like Cambodia did, i.e. pure shit.

[bigbadfeline]

> Both of these become a big gamble if we do not work within the existing system.

I guess, by "changing the system", achierius did mean going Marxist or another silliness of that sort, but generally speaking, the system can be changed by working within the system too.

Observe how we are now moving towards a system that isn't based on the Constitution but on some weird mixture of libertarian dogma, excuses for oppression and a cult of personality. It could easily go into a full fledged dictatorship entirely from within, and why not, the top players don't hide their love for it.

> I am saying this as a person who had a front seat to a something similar as a kid. It was relatively peaceful and it still managed to upend lives of millions

Weather you noticed or not, the system was changed from above, by people "within the system"... So you're OK to let that happen again but in a worse direction?

> in real life, power re-alignment of that magnitude tends to be.. chaotic.

Interestingly enough, you may want to reexamine your experience as a child to make sure there was some sort of "power re-alignment". Looking at the facts, I don't see it but I do see how chaos can be useful to those within the system.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< you may want to reexamine your experience as a child to make sure there was some sort of "power re-alignment"

I can understand every word in this sentence and yet I am having a difficult time parsing it. Is it that I did not provide vivid enough details? Is it that the experience is dismissed as that of a child? Is it merely a stepping stone to the next sentence and actually has no other meaning in your response?

It is an internet forum. I did not give any major details though my posting history is readily available for digging.

I guess what I am really saying is:

I am confused by your answer. Care to elaborate?