Hacker News Reader

Comment by epmaybe | Hacker News Reader

A mentor of mine who used to work for a government agency once told me something that I hadn't really appreciated until recently. To paraphrase, sometimes the best way to change a system that is flawed is to work from within. It's harder, sure, since it takes time to get enough power to make effective change, but it's an idea nonetheless.

View on HN

This is a sane advice on face value.

Yet following it in an heavily corrupt organization means you find yourself doing very dirty stuff to get recognized by your peers, oversee and facilitate corruption to get buy in from your superiors, and crush weaker people to stand on top where you’ll get more power.

In the event you yourself get crushed in this process, the only trace you’ll leave in the world will be dirty things you didn’t agree with in the first place and actually strived to change.

I wonder how much that approach bares fruits when it comes to really shitty organizations.

I think it can work, but it requires some kind of laser focus on the "true goal". I also tend to fear what else our (hypothetical) protagonist may do when the ends are (much) more important than the means.

If you did enough dirty work to get to the top of a corrupt organisation you can be quickly removed if you try to challenge the status quo. After all, all your peers have a ton of dirt on you.

The best way to change a flawed system is unrelenting public pressure. As others have said, once you're inside the system, you can either stand up for what should be done and be sidelined, or you can shove aside your idealism in order to gain power before trying to make changes. More often than not, that idealism never returns.

I've thought about this more in the political realm, so it may not apply as cleanly in the justice system. We know that public pressure works in politics because they depend on voters to keep voting them in. The only way to stave off a slide into conformity is to hold people accountable for behaving the way they said they would during a campaign. It's not an easy answer since it requires a lot more public participation, but I think we have been lulled into believing that these institutions are self-maintaining once set up, and that is clearly not the case. A few honest and caring people just entering the justice system are going to have a hard time of it. Millions of people outside the system shouting loudly and unceasingly about its abuses have a better shot at causing changes.

Obligatory New Yorker cartoon: https://condenaststore.com/featured/he-feels-he-can-do-more-...

Out of curiosity, are there good examples of fundamental/systemic flaws -- where it's not that the system needs to be fixed, it's that a new system is needed -- being fixed by people working within the system? The success rate of violent, armed revolution is low, but it has produced some concrete successes (e.g., the existence of the US and more generally the fall of monarchy).

That cartoon made my day.

The US is a weird example of an armed revolution because it was a colonial revolt largely by people who already had power and were part of the colonial governments. The layer of government that was being scraped off was relatively thin, locally. For example, both Washington and Jefferson were in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and they're just the first two I googled to find out the details of their pre-Revolutionary political careers.

If the Confederacy had succeeded in seceding, it would have been a very similar revolution - the state governments on down would remain intact, with just a little bit at the top being rearranged. I'm not sure I could name a third, similar armed revolution off the top of my head; most of the ones I'm familiar with involve charismatic outsiders burning down the existing institutions and starting over fresh.

That's a good point - the leaders of the American Revolution were already "working within the system," they just also led a violent revolt. I think there's a good point to be made that that's one of the best ways to make sure that you can successfully burn the existing system down and put what you want in place.

The problem is that the bad behavior of these systems is emergent. For this strategy to work, your ability to disregard your own self interest (plus others like you) has to outweigh the self-interest of everyone else making up that system. From what I've seen, most people get tired, succumb to their own self-interest, yet continue telling themselves the altruistic narrative.

> A mentor of mine who used to work for a government agency once told me something that I hadn't really appreciated until recently. To paraphrase, sometimes the best way to change a system that is flawed is to work from within. It's harder, sure, since it takes time to get enough power to make effective change, but it's an idea nonetheless.

I believe this is formally called the "SLC Punk Maneuver"

Or, publicly shame them.

There's a reason judges impose gag orders which violate people's right to free speech. They're OK with violating peoples constitutional rights to serve their own self interests.

Who bells the cat?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com