The real challenge faced by those advocating 'exit' is that Leviathan will not tolerate satraps that are not loyal to it. If underthrow had a shot at being successful, would it not inevitably face being utterly shut down with every means available...? I view this, therefore, as at least as great a problem as your complaint that 'voice' requires an idealised view of governors, which I appreciate but think is less fatal than you do.
I have always believed that if you can win the conceptual battle on any issue, getting politicians to behave is easy, since they are natural cowards and align with public opinion readily if it lets them keep their seats. But we don't approach politics this way, and the intentional playing of the red and blue team against each other in the US seems designed to prevent it - an argument that you yourself have advanced very clearly and effectively elsewhere.
Finally, I hope you don't mind that the majority of my comments here are going to be arguing against you. The points we agree upon - such as the necessity of opposing authoritarianism - don't offer much basis for conversation beyond 'here here!' and it is not in my nature to leave discourse at a pat on the back. The stakes are too high for us not to attempt discourse on the issues that matter.
Of course, I welcome any critical comments. My only caveat is that one's criticism is tempered by presenting constructive alternatives. In other words, "here here" is only slightly better than "nuh uh." So of course commenters are more than welcome to express skepticism. But skepticism with constructive alternatives are far more valuable to readers.
Just so you know, as perhaps it's not expressed fully here, voice and exit are a yes/and, not an either/or. Indeed, the whole point of doing a Substack is the exercise of voice. People involved in politics, policy, and punditry are a bulwark against power. My hope is that more people explore the vectors of creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation, as well.
Hey Max,
The real challenge faced by those advocating 'exit' is that Leviathan will not tolerate satraps that are not loyal to it. If underthrow had a shot at being successful, would it not inevitably face being utterly shut down with every means available...? I view this, therefore, as at least as great a problem as your complaint that 'voice' requires an idealised view of governors, which I appreciate but think is less fatal than you do.
I have always believed that if you can win the conceptual battle on any issue, getting politicians to behave is easy, since they are natural cowards and align with public opinion readily if it lets them keep their seats. But we don't approach politics this way, and the intentional playing of the red and blue team against each other in the US seems designed to prevent it - an argument that you yourself have advanced very clearly and effectively elsewhere.
Finally, I hope you don't mind that the majority of my comments here are going to be arguing against you. The points we agree upon - such as the necessity of opposing authoritarianism - don't offer much basis for conversation beyond 'here here!' and it is not in my nature to leave discourse at a pat on the back. The stakes are too high for us not to attempt discourse on the issues that matter.
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
Of course, I welcome any critical comments. My only caveat is that one's criticism is tempered by presenting constructive alternatives. In other words, "here here" is only slightly better than "nuh uh." So of course commenters are more than welcome to express skepticism. But skepticism with constructive alternatives are far more valuable to readers.
Just so you know, as perhaps it's not expressed fully here, voice and exit are a yes/and, not an either/or. Indeed, the whole point of doing a Substack is the exercise of voice. People involved in politics, policy, and punditry are a bulwark against power. My hope is that more people explore the vectors of creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation, as well.