What brings more change running for office or revolutionary

[zacb]

Entrepreneurship? I am kind of on the fence about this. On one hand, at least with fiscal issues and avoiding some things, it seems like revolutionary entrepreneurship (aka agorism) (ex. bitcoins, tor, wikileaks, etc.) does really well. But with things such as zoning and investing regulation, they are kind of hard to avoid. So would it be better to run for office, or take direct action?

[zboy1]

Only a revolution will clean up the corrupt system in the West. I see it already happening in Europe, where people are starting to rise up and demand change through riots and protest. Eventually, when the political course of action fails (as it will), Europeans will have said enough and take over. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the U.S., where most Americans are still too dumbed-down or stupid to notice what's going on around them. Either that, or as the Occupy and Tea Party protestors found out, the movement either gets co-opted like the Tea Party or gets viciously beaten down by the police state/military industrial complex.

[zacb]

I am not talking about direct action in the traditional sense, but more agorism. Basically the idea is to take the "above board" economy down , increase the black market, and thus lowering if not eliminating the source of income for most governments. Its kind of like you can't beat Leviathan with one little sword. You have to take away it's food source. But the problem is that in certain areas that can only go so far. Like zoning. Should you intervene in situations like that or allow them to use eminent domain and such to zone unfavorable groups out of business? So basically should it be vanilla direct action all the way, or in situations like zoning intervene?

[zacb]

And also I guess I should ask, what results do we want to bring about? For me personally, I want a society that allow people to interact voluntarily with little or no government interference.

[pitbul]

it's sad how people think that democracy works. do you know why the u.s regime pushes democracy so hard on countries, usually with violence? because democracies are easier to control by rich people. theres only a handful of democracies that actually work, and none of them are english speaking countries. all english speaking countries have long been bought and paid for by corporations. western countries have politicians that are prechosen like france. both hollande, and sarkozy have the blessing of the finance oligarchs, and thats the only way they have a chance. those unaproved of by the oligarchs will suffer the fate of dominique straus khan. the only way to bring about any real change in a western country is revolution, because voting simply doesnt work when your choices are prechosen. after you overthrow your government, imprison all ceo's of multinational corporations, members of the media, and investment bankers