When people find themselves blaming demands of a system to excuse omissions it's time to take a close look at that system. When the informed insight of people cannot be implemented to improve conditions of life in a country because imagined doctrinal rules would be broken, so disadvantages and deprivations remain though there is knowledge, skill and prosperity enough to remedy them, then the rule of humankind itself has been circumvented by procedure. This is not democracy. This is not some form of democracy. This is governance by dogma. This is a rule that can be held as self-evident. However, this is a condition the last decades of the great capitalist experiment have caused to exist. No one foresaw the extended conditions capitalism would create when it was understandably embraced at the close of the 18th century. Over the course of two and a half centuries using capitalism has demonstrated the potential to make unimaginably wealthy a small percentage of people and while in the process of doing this make impoverished or deprived by comparison the overwhelming majority of the rest of the population.
Each time great difficulties for the population arose economists who were inspired and enamored with this new method for organizing human enterprise said to give it time. The population gave it time, yet the disasters did not abate. Rather, they increased in frequency and magnitude. Economists then said it was "the business cycle." They said economies naturally go up and down, and they were going to engineer a way to make the downs less down, but the highs higher. The population believed them and gave them time. Now, it's more than two-hundred years later and they've managed to create a system that is beneficial to less than five percent of the population, where 75 percent has no access to speak of. The rest do the work to make the luxury for that upper percentile. They've had enough time. It's time to act, or surrender the notion that we are autonomous beings capable of ruling ourselves; surrender to being led by a system designed to use us but not reward us. No, this is not a clarion call for Marxism. Marxism only arose to address the inequities and immoralities of the Capitalists. This is to state the need to develop the third way; an alternative that has never been sought, so never studied.
Economists will say there is no such thing. They will say the only possible economic systems have already been discovered and capitalism is the best, or they'll say the best of all evils in order to pacify the population. But, it must be remembered, economists have for centuries now specialized in extracting wealth from the system in place. They have not as a pseudo-science attempted to fully explore the concepts and principals of economics, and therefore have not led any exploration into possible alternatives. They don't know if there is an alternative, or not. It is in the interest of their desire for gain to keep the system now in place. Therefore, they cannot be trusted. Responsible and capable citizens must make this judgement and go from there. What is known for certain is this system in place will never have equity as a goal. The ones who have over time gained the greatest wealth, and thus power to control it, will never relinquish their distorted share of the benefits from the population's labors in order to allow the population to have a more equitable portion. No more time need be spent waiting to see if this is true. There is now ample evidence.
There are neither legal, nor moral obligations to adhere to this proved to be faulty system. No form of government mandates what economic system shall be employed. Besides, under constitutional democracies the voting public can mandate whatever it wishes by exercising the vote. This present is not beholden to any traditions of the past, or any overt agreements creating bonds to this system. In fact, the population feels constrained to practice it not because of anything they know as a people, but because of the centuries-long propaganda campaign targeted at them by the ones who control this system. They would have the citizenry believe it would be a crime against nature to even consider an alternative. The citizenry must realize they say and do this because in a new system, if it were actually fair, they'd be in the same position as the rest of them. They would not be perversely wealthy as they are now. They would condemn the population to corruption and distortion rather than give up their ill-gotten gains. They will say anything. They will even do anything, including trying to use the citizenry's own military against it. At present they have succeeded in using the civil police forces against the citizens. Albeit this was allowed by the complacency of the members of a voting democracy. This complacency, understandably, is a reaction to the realization that forces beyond them control their lives, giving them a sense of anything but autonomous control. With a vote that can be changed as well.
At the very least an alternative, with the intention of transitioning into one, must be seriously and academically explored. Those trusted with this exploration must be understood to have no financial stake in the present system, and to be dedicated to the advancement of humankind; the evolution of our organizational processes. This could take years, yet they are years which need to be spent for the flaws in our current system are irrevocably leading us into destitution. It takes one event and we're there. That very well could be the next downturn of a "natural business cycle" in this present system. The population cannot say it is too late in addressing this as that would be surrendering despite evolution. The effort must be made. Those who would oppose it must be moved aside for the good of the greater whole. It may well be citizens must (euphemistically) pay a price for their negligence in allowing the unscrupulous and pathologically selfish to gain control of the enterprise of humankind. They must be willing to pay that price if it does mean a certain amount of sacrifice, because if they don't they may well be sacrificing their very own existence, an intolerable consequence that far outweighs inconveniences corrective measures may require. Even if the citizenry doesn't judge it as so today, history will certainly judge it that way in the future should future generations manage to come into being.
They will want to know why no one acted. They will want to know why, even while holding the power of the ballot, the unscrupulous and psychologically perverted people were allowed to gain control of humanity's enterprise, relegate it to subsistence, and take an obscene amount of the value of its work for their own personal possession. They will want to know why, with the signs of this all around, as the population victimized one another and pretended it was natural to do, as it fought one another for the crumbs this perverted class of people would leave for them, as they sacrificed their young adults to wars for the profit of this same perverse minority, did the citizenry not exercise the democratic prerogative and correct this situation? Why did it give up its duties and condemn its future generations to economic servitude? Of course, it will be they, the future generations, looking back at this present population with such scorn for allowing their lives to be fraught with this malady not giving them a chance to register their view on the matter. Who is anyone to do this to any future? Rather, the idea of having a duty to future generations is ridiculed. This is what things have come to. This should be evidence enough that it must be replaced.