I feel like you're not reading my whole comment vs. picking pieces, or are conflating my responses.
I explicitly said I was responding to both parents, and enumerated my response to each. (To be evenhanded, I could also have been unclear that my responses were distinct)
My response to the post you quoted was '2. The problem, ithkuil, is if the population does not see any other way to effectively fix things. (System capture, pareto distributions, disenfranchisement, etc.)'
The comment you are focusing on, regarding prosecution, was in response to Dragonwriter's earlier post regarding feasibility of prosecution after collapse.
Your final statement implies that you took my statement directed entirely at the US system vs. at a generalized statement (Warning?) on when people see revolution as a legitimate option.
I chewed over and decided to not touch too much more on the US aspect because I think it distracts from the original point I was trying to make, but I will say statements such as: 'The current system works better than any previous system for redress' are apt to my initial warning, as the US is clearly in a period of local retreat, (both as I think you touch on elsewhere in your comment, and not for the first time in history, to be clear) especially if the redress you seek is against political or white-collar crimes, and addressing that requires urgency, awareness, and action, including Voting, as you say, that I worry I don't see with the proactivity that is needed.
That response disregards the thrust of my point, as well as the parallel to the famous quote "war is the continuation of politics by other means."
If a population does not believe they have more productive options, that is what will be left. This is often compounded when the existing powers have an easy time with murder BEFORE collapse, such that any moral prohibition would be hypocritical and self-defeating.
Let me be clear as well: I do not think Nicholas's murder "fixed" russia. I was precise in my wording, it was a form of prosecution previously unavailable to them. My point being that if things get bad enough, people care less about a long-term fix, and more about some semblance of recompense, and in some cases it may truly be the only option available to them to realize any concrete impact.
1. While dragonwriter's point is not entirely wrong, I also wouldn't say I agree either. Czar Nicholas was "prosecuted" quite rapidly after the russian revolution.
2. The problem, ithkuil, is if the population does not see any other way to effectively fix things. (System capture, pareto distributions, disenfranchisement, etc.)
As an aside, I created a new account for this vs. my normal because I've wanted to speak more openly than I can on a work-associated profile for a while now, I will be keeping this account lest anyone thinks it's astroturfing.
I explicitly said I was responding to both parents, and enumerated my response to each. (To be evenhanded, I could also have been unclear that my responses were distinct)
My response to the post you quoted was '2. The problem, ithkuil, is if the population does not see any other way to effectively fix things. (System capture, pareto distributions, disenfranchisement, etc.)'
The comment you are focusing on, regarding prosecution, was in response to Dragonwriter's earlier post regarding feasibility of prosecution after collapse.
Your final statement implies that you took my statement directed entirely at the US system vs. at a generalized statement (Warning?) on when people see revolution as a legitimate option.
I chewed over and decided to not touch too much more on the US aspect because I think it distracts from the original point I was trying to make, but I will say statements such as: 'The current system works better than any previous system for redress' are apt to my initial warning, as the US is clearly in a period of local retreat, (both as I think you touch on elsewhere in your comment, and not for the first time in history, to be clear) especially if the redress you seek is against political or white-collar crimes, and addressing that requires urgency, awareness, and action, including Voting, as you say, that I worry I don't see with the proactivity that is needed.