Okay, just so that I understand you and in those terms, are you saying you need literally billions of people - in this case - protesting publically in order to evoke some kind of major change? Just so that I understand you correctly.
If you want to claim a democratic mandate, you need a majority view. If you want to claim a worldwide democratic mandate, you'd need to have a significant number of people supporting your position.
I wouldn't tar the majority or protestors with the select few who use it as an excuse for commiting violence. The same way I wouldn't class football supporters hooligans simply because a select few like to cause trouble at matches.
If it's only a select view, why does it happen at practically every major left wing protest? And why do the many keep giving the few the opportunity?
I feel the point is they're highlighting the issues and problems with the current system; it's upto the people/nations/world to come together to work on solutions to this. That's the key; it's the 'people' who are the ones in charge (or should be) and who call the shots. I'm not saying getting to that point would be easy or happen all at once but it would go a long way in preventing corruption and greed from the select few controlling the majority.
And yet there's nothing concrete proposed as an alternative. I don't think anyone is saying that what we have now is perfect and couldn't be changed, but we need details to determine whether what a small minority wants to change to is actually a good idea.
Thanks for the link. I had a quick look and from what I saw I agree with that list; I don't feel equality for all and ending world poverty is 'waffle and crap' though. But by no means is this going to happen overnight. It would take a big shift in (most) people's collective perspectives and views as to what's important I.E. caring for all rather than just themselves and family/friends; I'm not sure if we're upto that...
Yet! (but I live in hope)
It is when you haven't defined any of it. Are we talking, for example, about equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Are we talking about ending absolute or relative poverty? These things matter if you actually want people to take your views seriously, especially as some of the variants can only be achieved through massive application of state force.
I don't agree, but we're all entitled to our opinions.
That's cool, I'm glad you're happy. Personally I feel we are capable of so much more in terms of cooperation and goals in life, but that's an entirely other topic in itself and would perhaps derail this topic and get shot down in flames from the majority here.
Thanks for the response.
We are capable of more, of course we are. The question is whether the ideas behind this protest will actually achieve more, or make things worse? They aren't giving enough details to decide properly, which always makes me suspicious.
I believe people thrive through freedom, but equality of outcome and the elimination of 'relative' poverty cannot be achieved through freedom, only through force.
I suspect that the difference between our positions isn't what we want end up with, but how we think is best to get there.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
