Example, ACA, there’s been no real talk from Dems after “compromising with Republicans” to pass that to try and make it better. To maybe go with the original plan of universal healthcare for all and not health insurance for all.
People get complacent after doing some, it’s always better to do it all than half arse it and promise to come back later.
To some degree, this is correct - people tend to leave behind the passion once they’ve done something about it. But this is a reason to do as much as one canwith the circumstances given, regardless of worrying whether it is ‘too radical’ to last; not a reason to refuse to do anything that doesn’t immediately result in the end-goal of your ideology.
Put another way, this argument could be used to oppose anarchist organizing - after people do a little for the revolution, like organizing, they tend to get complacent. Only immediate and violent action in service to revolution is moral.
Plus it y’know actually stops the suffering rather than prolonging it but lesser.
But it doesn’t stop the suffering until it succeeds, if it succeeds.
Which is the better outcome? Someone wanting to save 10,000 lives, but failing to save anyone’s life; or someone who wants to save 1,000 lives, thinking it’s all they can do (rightly or wrongly), and succeeds in saving 500?
People get complacent after doing some, it’s always better to do it all than half arse it and promise to come back later.
Plus it y’know actually stops the suffering rather than prolonging it but lesser.
Example, ACA, there’s been no real talk from Dems after “compromising with Republicans” to pass that to try and make it better. To maybe go with the original plan of universal healthcare for all and not health insurance for all.
To some degree, this is correct - people tend to leave behind the passion once they’ve done something about it. But this is a reason to do as much as one can with the circumstances given, regardless of worrying whether it is ‘too radical’ to last; not a reason to refuse to do anything that doesn’t immediately result in the end-goal of your ideology.
Put another way, this argument could be used to oppose anarchist organizing - after people do a little for the revolution, like organizing, they tend to get complacent. Only immediate and violent action in service to revolution is moral.
But it doesn’t stop the suffering until it succeeds, if it succeeds.
Which is the better outcome? Someone wanting to save 10,000 lives, but failing to save anyone’s life; or someone who wants to save 1,000 lives, thinking it’s all they can do (rightly or wrongly), and succeeds in saving 500?
It’s almost like reality has nuance and shit.