St. Gregori
member
I began this reply in the "Is a Second Revolution in America possible" thread, but it applies outside of that context to an even greater extent.
Any country is less than two weeks from a revolution at any given moment, including this one.
Most cities have at best a 2 or 3 day supply of essentials such as water, food, and fuel. A disruption in that supply for more than a week would create chaos as people who have failed to stock (for whatever reason) run out and others begin to hoard in response. Police and military forces are not sufficient to quell large scale violence/chaos, as evidenced by race riots (Rodney King) and natural disasters such as Katrina. History has made it abundantly obvious that the quickest way to start a revolution is to have a starving population. The only governments that have survived that situation have done so using brutal methods over very short time periods (no more than the lifetime of a single dictator and perhaps one successor).
The only response that could prevent a revolution would be one that brought these essentials back, otherwise de-facto control over the country would revert to whatever group controlled these resources. As our country has unfortunately failed to grasp despite numerous examples, a democracy that cannot secure the fundamental right of it's citizens to live is not a democracy. The premise of a democracy is that power is distributed (more or less) evenly throughout the citizenry, an idea that is fundamentally at odds with a situation where one group of people holds the power of life and death over another. Regardless of the outward trappings of democracy, a government that operates this way is (or will soon become) an authoritarian state. This is the fundamental flaw in trying to create a democracy in order to create a prosperous state. A democracy requires prosperity, not the other way around.
For the second part, Fear is the ultimate negative motivator. An epidemic, WMD attack, or natural disaster alone would be unable to materially affect the ability of this country to distribute essential services. The danger comes when people begin to isolate themselves as a response to threats, and hoard essentials in response to those same threats. One this panic reaction begins, the only rational course of action left for the individual would be to respond in kind or be left without. The fear reaction therefore causes the shortages in essentials that so easily spark revolution.
Look at South America for some excellent examples of fear response, shortage of essentials, and the demise of fledgeling democracies. Far more so than Africa (where many famines have been a result of actual food shortages) starvation and revolution have been a result of breakdowns in civil order.
Why is this on a gun forum? Because firepower trumps morality, every time. The ultimate authority in any given situation is the ability to use force, whether through your personal actions or by involving an outside authority (police, courts) that is able to use force on your behalf. It is not enough for the citizens of a democracy to have power over life and death, they must be able to keep that power. If you have food, and the BG has a gun, shortly thereafter the BG will have both food and a gun. There are as many examples of revolutions where the power of the gun has resulted in the creation of food "shortages" as there are examples of countries where the starvation came first.
JMO, as always.
Any country is less than two weeks from a revolution at any given moment, including this one.
Most cities have at best a 2 or 3 day supply of essentials such as water, food, and fuel. A disruption in that supply for more than a week would create chaos as people who have failed to stock (for whatever reason) run out and others begin to hoard in response. Police and military forces are not sufficient to quell large scale violence/chaos, as evidenced by race riots (Rodney King) and natural disasters such as Katrina. History has made it abundantly obvious that the quickest way to start a revolution is to have a starving population. The only governments that have survived that situation have done so using brutal methods over very short time periods (no more than the lifetime of a single dictator and perhaps one successor).
The only response that could prevent a revolution would be one that brought these essentials back, otherwise de-facto control over the country would revert to whatever group controlled these resources. As our country has unfortunately failed to grasp despite numerous examples, a democracy that cannot secure the fundamental right of it's citizens to live is not a democracy. The premise of a democracy is that power is distributed (more or less) evenly throughout the citizenry, an idea that is fundamentally at odds with a situation where one group of people holds the power of life and death over another. Regardless of the outward trappings of democracy, a government that operates this way is (or will soon become) an authoritarian state. This is the fundamental flaw in trying to create a democracy in order to create a prosperous state. A democracy requires prosperity, not the other way around.
For the second part, Fear is the ultimate negative motivator. An epidemic, WMD attack, or natural disaster alone would be unable to materially affect the ability of this country to distribute essential services. The danger comes when people begin to isolate themselves as a response to threats, and hoard essentials in response to those same threats. One this panic reaction begins, the only rational course of action left for the individual would be to respond in kind or be left without. The fear reaction therefore causes the shortages in essentials that so easily spark revolution.
Look at South America for some excellent examples of fear response, shortage of essentials, and the demise of fledgeling democracies. Far more so than Africa (where many famines have been a result of actual food shortages) starvation and revolution have been a result of breakdowns in civil order.
Why is this on a gun forum? Because firepower trumps morality, every time. The ultimate authority in any given situation is the ability to use force, whether through your personal actions or by involving an outside authority (police, courts) that is able to use force on your behalf. It is not enough for the citizens of a democracy to have power over life and death, they must be able to keep that power. If you have food, and the BG has a gun, shortly thereafter the BG will have both food and a gun. There are as many examples of revolutions where the power of the gun has resulted in the creation of food "shortages" as there are examples of countries where the starvation came first.
JMO, as always.
