Tell that to the guy who was just shot for violating it.
Tell what? An unjust law is no law at all?
Clearly you neither understood what I wrote (read it again). I've never said fixing the problem was easy or simple. Freedom doesn't come for free, it's gained at the cost of security. The security of being able to outsource responsibility and sit on the couch making a contribution no greater than whining. A pre-requisite for positive change is loss of social time, safety, and an investment in education (basically the result of trusting nothing and verifying everything - anytime someone says "but...." it's a cop out). If that's sounds like anarchy without the destruction it's because it is (libertarianism is bullshit).
Yours is a nice sentiment, but the reality has always been that the law is whatever the people with the power to enforce it say it is.
Only when you seek definition of rules from those that set the game. Try reading the context of Augustine's quote.
In a democracy that power is supposed to flow from the people
There's the problem (flawed logic) - you don't live in a democracy. Capitalism (which I support) and democracy are contradictions in terms.
, but if the people lose control of their government then that just becomes a feel-good talking point to distract them.
Kind of, maybe. More accurately "the people who can be bothered voting" - don't make an informed choice or understand the system. The system is simple - "the people" basically pick from two choices. Both choices are lies that don't get called. Neither do the choices get forced on the candidates. Education (not outsourced to institutions) is a pre-requisite to solve all those problems (voting, informed voting, setting the agenda, making candidate responsible for meeting the agenda).
Making an agenda requires understanding how the agenda is set. Each of the major parties want an increased majority. They seek that by looking at the results of the last election and playing lip service to issues that they percieve as votes they lost last time. So an agenda (platform) is influenced by a previous election. Knowing that, the solution is to not for any party that stands a chance of being elected - this forces the agenda. Pick an issue that you support as part of a platform by someone who will not win enough votes to gain power. It has the two-fold result of forcing an agenda for the last election and making the incumbent responsible for failing their mandated position (if they fail to hold or increase their power they are dumped by their financers).
Money wins elections (basically). You can't, as individuals, set an agenda by throwing money at candidates (individual candidates or parties) - only business/groups can do that as individuals do not all want the same thing. But as individuals we can make the major backers investments much less profitable.
Once that happens there are really only three basic options:
- Take back control of the government (lots of strategies to be attempted...)
Only one - which I've briefly outlined above. All others lead to failure via either bloodshed or disapointment. History demonstates this more than adequately. Increase accountability by legislation and you only exacerbate the exisiting problem. Overthrown the oppressors and learn firsthand what they were trying to oppress (trust me - that ain't a pretty revelation (hint: evolution is far from horizontal, many people will only be happy if they get to burn the entire planet to save the tiny backyard that they'll tire of tomorrow)
- Take control of the enforcers (e.g. get the police to identify with their local communities rather than the government that's offering them lots of power and cool toys to play with)
Yes - it's part of "take an active and constant part of change (and requires that pesky self-education - a critical component of which is the ever elusive self-awareness, another is the willingness to sacrifice i.e. security).
Historically that's only every been a short-term option, eventually no one is too small to be insignificant - and the first people the oppressed turn on are their neighbours (notice how poor junkies don't rob the rich?). That short-term option is catered to by big pharma already - like Elderberry in the fable I referenced earlier, their demands (driven by their shareholders) are insatiable. It's one of many closed loops that require increased oppression (both locally and globally) that cannot be fed without increasing the original problem it pretends to solve.
"Dealing with it" (suck it up etc) is the ostrich solution to the threat of rape. Likewise buying a Prius or "making enough to buy self-sufficiency far from the rat-race"
Of course - that's just my opinion. "God" (fundamentalism and conservatism"), Entertainment (ooh shiny thing), and Fantasy (woo, woo), are the most popular ways of "dealing with it". Sadly "thinking" about it (as you are obviously doing) and not (and it is, IMO, the only "begining") - subscribing to a stock opinion is just another form of outsourcing responsibility, which is just as bad as ignoring the problem.
Pushed for time - no edits or proof-reading. Hope it's readable