I would ask you to consider that the nature of this problem is folks picking sides. Once you have picked your side, the restrictions in freedom your side proposes seem okay -- or at least tolerable -- while the other side is always draconian and worthy of disdain, protest, and rebellion.
That's what I mean by systemic. Everybody is ready to jump up and go fight for truth and justice -- as long as what they are really doing is sticking it to the other side. When it's their guys doing the same thing? Suddenly it's bad, but not that bad. Hey, maybe it's bad, but they mean well.
I'll never forget after our current president got elected. A reporter went to talk to some demonstrators outside the White House. These guys were very upset about the killing of civilians, the police state, scanning records, and all of that. But -- guess what? They were all packing up and going home.
The reporter asked "But aren't all these things continuing to happen?"
I'll never forget the guy. He said, "Yes, but we have a new president now, and I think we should give him a chance."
Here's a guy screaming about killing babies one day. The next day, we're still killing babies, but hey, gotta let the new guy get a feel for the job. No fewer people got killed -- he was no closer to the goals he himself identified -- but his protest wasn't worth it any more.
I can't say this enough: it's not one side or the other. Thinking in terms of good guys and bad guys is a critical part of this problem: it's the engine that allows the system itself to continue to ratchet down on freedoms. We have met the enemy, and he is us. A systemic problem is a problem where everybody is acting for a good cause, working as intelligently as they can, and yet the outcome is still poor. Many times a facet or an exacerbator of these problems is the creation of groups of people who blame other groups for being the "real" cause of the problem. [Insert long discussion about evolutionary nature of us-versus-them reasoning and clan formation]
That's what I mean by systemic. Everybody is ready to jump up and go fight for truth and justice -- as long as what they are really doing is sticking it to the other side. When it's their guys doing the same thing? Suddenly it's bad, but not that bad. Hey, maybe it's bad, but they mean well.
I'll never forget after our current president got elected. A reporter went to talk to some demonstrators outside the White House. These guys were very upset about the killing of civilians, the police state, scanning records, and all of that. But -- guess what? They were all packing up and going home.
The reporter asked "But aren't all these things continuing to happen?"
I'll never forget the guy. He said, "Yes, but we have a new president now, and I think we should give him a chance."
Here's a guy screaming about killing babies one day. The next day, we're still killing babies, but hey, gotta let the new guy get a feel for the job. No fewer people got killed -- he was no closer to the goals he himself identified -- but his protest wasn't worth it any more.
I can't say this enough: it's not one side or the other. Thinking in terms of good guys and bad guys is a critical part of this problem: it's the engine that allows the system itself to continue to ratchet down on freedoms. We have met the enemy, and he is us. A systemic problem is a problem where everybody is acting for a good cause, working as intelligently as they can, and yet the outcome is still poor. Many times a facet or an exacerbator of these problems is the creation of groups of people who blame other groups for being the "real" cause of the problem. [Insert long discussion about evolutionary nature of us-versus-them reasoning and clan formation]