Comment Re:finally (Score 1) 19
If you'll entertain my ranting for a moment:
If 10 or 100 million people are going to overthrow a government by force, then they'll need to be coordinated. They'll need someone to develop a strategy (even 10-100 million armed people aren't going to achieve anything if they don't agree what to do - and you'll never get consenses with numbers like that). They'll need a leader.
Such a person would wield enormous power. And power corrupts. A person in such a position would be accountable to virtually nobody. They would have an army of 10-100 million, who are willing to wage an armed struggle against the current regime, or more importantly, against anyone who is *perceived* to be part of that regime. The leader could easily stir up hatred among their followers with patriotic-sounding speeches punctuated with emotive calls-to-arms, and hatred can easily blind people to logic and reasoning.
Want to second-guess the leader? You'll be the first against the wall. Only in rare circumstances do armed struggles restore democracy. Most often the sheer level of propeganda destroys it, along with the economy, national infrastructure and the lives of millions. This is *why* we have elections in the developed world - because they're a lot safer in all respects than what went before. I'm sure the revolutions in Russia and China that installed their respective communist regimes started out with good intentions, but look where it got them.
The key to a stable, democractic government is transparency and accoutability, not the threat of rebellion.
If 10 or 100 million people are going to overthrow a government by force, then they'll need to be coordinated. They'll need someone to develop a strategy (even 10-100 million armed people aren't going to achieve anything if they don't agree what to do - and you'll never get consenses with numbers like that). They'll need a leader.
Such a person would wield enormous power. And power corrupts. A person in such a position would be accountable to virtually nobody. They would have an army of 10-100 million, who are willing to wage an armed struggle against the current regime, or more importantly, against anyone who is *perceived* to be part of that regime. The leader could easily stir up hatred among their followers with patriotic-sounding speeches punctuated with emotive calls-to-arms, and hatred can easily blind people to logic and reasoning.
Want to second-guess the leader? You'll be the first against the wall. Only in rare circumstances do armed struggles restore democracy. Most often the sheer level of propeganda destroys it, along with the economy, national infrastructure and the lives of millions. This is *why* we have elections in the developed world - because they're a lot safer in all respects than what went before. I'm sure the revolutions in Russia and China that installed their respective communist regimes started out with good intentions, but look where it got them.
The key to a stable, democractic government is transparency and accoutability, not the threat of rebellion.
