• umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    it depends on the issue at hand. if we are talking about climate change, its everyone.

    decaying infrastructure on a given country? its inhabitants.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Well it’s not everyone, both those things effect people differently. Even if I live in a country with decaying infrastructure- if I barely go outside it doesn’t effect me that much. Or, I may value infrastructure or the climate differently than you.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        it does. if you barely get out of the house you still need that infrastructure to get food, energy and sewer service delivered to you, regardless of how important you judge it to be. society is a big web of interconnected people and services.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          There are plenty of people who homestead. Are they at least out of the we? And I never disagreed that most people rely on each other. Instead I disagree that that mutual reliance makes a collective of people with the same desires, interests, and goals.

          • umbrella@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            im not really saying they have all common interests, but that they overlap.

            someone who is completely off the grid will also get affected by the rest of the world’s industrial and energy policy due to climate change and polution too.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Being effected doesn’t mean there is a “we” that is justified in making decisions for others

              • umbrella@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                no one person is single handedly making decisions for everyone else on a given subject. not on a system closer to the ideal.

                on our current system, yes, a few rich people are deciding most stuff for everyone else.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  no one person is single handedly making decisions for everyone else on a given subject.

                  No, as I said, the best you can get when you have a unrestricted democratic government is the majority making decisions for the minority. That’s still not good.