4 ms·

why do you think so? i don't have strong convictions either way, but i don't think i'd count it out as an impossibility.

icelancer 9y ago
A lot of reasons, but one solid one is that there is a pretty strong anti-pattern in that the ones that desire wealth redistribution the most are the most likely to support gun control and/or the banning of private ownership of weapons.
- atemerev 9y ago
  Wealth inequality is not the only reason for revolutions. There are also dictatorships, human rights abuse, corruption, disregard of laws for the elite, and other fine things that might warrant the direct action.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    While true, those values are highly correlated - at least in Americans, and most of the developed world - with people desiring lower access to guns for the private citizenship. Low access to force multipliers makes it much harder to spark and win a revolution against the state.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
HarryHirsch 9y ago
Looking at the Roman Republic, there was exactly one revolution in 500 years, led by the Elder Gracchus, and that wasn't successful. The Secession of the Plebeians came close (but is semi-legendary), greater success in the Conflict of Orders was had through working within the political system and all of this (Twelve Tables, opening of high office to plebeians) happened in the early republic.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  You are forgetting about Julius Ceasar.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    I'd say that Caesar was a very successful warlord, but there were others before him, Sulla and Marius come to mind. The real revolutionary figure was Augustus, he made conscious choices not to reestablish decisionmaking in the senate.
Numberwang 9y ago
Our sickness is that we have it good enough now. Most people live through sugar watered days of evolutionary affluensa stopping any chance of future revolutions. At most we show our apathy in disapproval. The only way we will improve from now on is through technology which rips apart old structures.
- djohnston 9y ago
  This is my hope for blockchain tech. I know it's becoming a meaningless buzzword but I do hope that it challenges traditional financial/state institutions in a way that gives the average participant more power than they currently hold.

icelancer 9y ago

A lot of reasons, but one solid one is that there is a pretty strong anti-pattern in that the ones that desire wealth redistribution the most are the most likely to support gun control and/or the banning of private ownership of weapons.

atemerev 9y ago
Wealth inequality is not the only reason for revolutions. There are also dictatorships, human rights abuse, corruption, disregard of laws for the elite, and other fine things that might warrant the direct action.
- icelancer 9y ago
  While true, those values are highly correlated - at least in Americans, and most of the developed world - with people desiring lower access to guns for the private citizenship. Low access to force multipliers makes it much harder to spark and win a revolution against the state.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

HarryHirsch 9y ago

Looking at the Roman Republic, there was exactly one revolution in 500 years, led by the Elder Gracchus, and that wasn't successful. The Secession of the Plebeians came close (but is semi-legendary), greater success in the Conflict of Orders was had through working within the political system and all of this (Twelve Tables, opening of high office to plebeians) happened in the early republic.

Spooky23 9y ago
You are forgetting about Julius Ceasar.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  I'd say that Caesar was a very successful warlord, but there were others before him, Sulla and Marius come to mind. The real revolutionary figure was Augustus, he made conscious choices not to reestablish decisionmaking in the senate.

Numberwang 9y ago

Our sickness is that we have it good enough now. Most people live through sugar watered days of evolutionary affluensa stopping any chance of future revolutions. At most we show our apathy in disapproval. The only way we will improve from now on is through technology which rips apart old structures.

djohnston 9y ago
This is my hope for blockchain tech. I know it's becoming a meaningless buzzword but I do hope that it challenges traditional financial/state institutions in a way that gives the average participant more power than they currently hold.