When has this not "currently" been the case? This is exactly the problem. You are always going to be under financial and day-to-day stress. Aaron is the only person I'm aware of whose reaction to the removal of everyday stress was to get more involved in politics and not become a venture capitalist.

There is time today, tomorrow, next week, and next month - not _only_ tomorrow, next week, and next month. The latter mode of thinking yields an infinite number of "todays" with no time for doing anything.

Do something! You can! Start small. Talk to a stranger about an issue of concern, and stop crying in the choir chamber.

Listen.

Last month my personal account was overdrawn by $400 (people don't pay their invoices in December). It typically hovers well under $1000. Would you like screenshots, would that be satisfying in any way to you? I bust my ass all week long for an awful lot of other people and businesses in my area, including non-profits like Habitat For Humanity. I've been doing this for several years now. And somehow I still find the time and resources to be involved in other ways -- in my community.

And I'm not alone. A huge number of people are struggling really bad right now. It's been a frequent topic of journalism the last few years, maybe you missed it.

Aaron? With all due respect to Aaron, he had a family that I didn't have, that was financially well enough off to support him in whatever he wanted to do, and then he cashed out of a startup with more damn money than I expect I'll ever see in my life -- money that gave him the luxury of pursuing whatever subject interested him.

Good for him. I respect what he did, I do. But you deserve a punch in the face for trying to make someone else feel bad for not doing the same, especially when you can't even bother yourself to get to know anything about them.

You've still got a bit to learn about encouraging other people to take up a cause.

Maybe you could start with your Instagram profile, it makes you look a bit of a hypocrite.

I used to believe this was the case, but now I wrestle with it. I'm not sure what people think any more, but I find that a core problem is that too many don't tend to think critically or independently and are thus far too easily led.

It's partly implicit in the other points of your comment (e.g. the way the narrative around Mr. Swartz redirected away from the relevant discussion), but the whole of it is difficult to explain. It's very Matrix-like in that they seem to want to be misled, bury their heads in the sand, and pretend that everything is OK.

Maybe this is why people spend an inordinate amount of time on utter distraction, and seem to prefer that to addressing real matters, even when those matters directly affect them.

Not surprisingly this is the core principle behind governing, a few who are willing to spend their time doing the work of leading while the rest just follow along.

The tricky bit though, is that the people need a choice of leaders. So it becomes incumbent on people who do think critically and independently to offer themselves up as leaders so that if they have a constituency that was looking for them, they might be found.

>a few who are willing to spend their time doing the work of leading while the rest just follow along

That's the theory! And, it works, as long as the critical-thinking leaders are well-intentioned, are acting in an environment that allows them to effect change, and are acting in the interest of a better future for all; rather than a narrower set of interests for a few.

>The tricky bit though, is that the people need a choice of leaders. So it becomes incumbent on people who do think critically and independently to offer themselves up as leaders

I think it's trickier than that!

Of course, there are would-be leaders who are eager to capitalize on this human shortcoming for their own gain. Entire systems (including our two-party political system here) are devised and manipulated to leverage the tendency of the masses not to engage in critical-thinking. The current "leaders" aren't so much leading the masses to a better future as promoting an agenda that tends to serve the relatively few constituents who paid their freight.

So, there's a bit of chicken-and-egg here. Those leaders who truly want to implement change rely upon the masses to buck the well-heeled narrower interests and push it through. But, those masses are distracted and not engaged sufficiently in critical-thinking.

In other words, there's a minimum level of thought and engagement required on the part of the masses. Otherwise, they are just as easily led (or misled) by the critical thinking "leaders" who have in mind their own self-interest as by those who want to lead them to a better future.

I go a couple two protests or demonstrations each year (fewer than I should), but not one every day, which is what I'd have to do to hit every issue I care about.

If we had a single issue in this country/world, I think people would be dealing with it. But we have hundreds.