>This is a terrible and impractical idea. Nearly all insurgencies fail. And among the few that succeed, the new rulers are often as bad as or worse than the old

>This is a terrible and impractical idea. Nearly all insurgencies fail. And among the few that succeed, the new rulers are often as bad as or worse than the old. This is an unfortunate perspective which seems to rule out any possibility of real qualitative change, and it's downright ridiculous to see when the people themselves are formally disenfranchised by the law to make semi-meaningful change, i.e the most change Western democracies allow. In other words, for the sake of freedom, "it's worth a shot" should be the perspective, not "let's not try". The fact is that we can learn from our mistakes. As it happens, despite your claims of nearly all insurgencies failing (failing in what respect? not succeeding? or succeeding but being worse?), the ones that have succeeded and live on to this day generally aren't that bad. The French, American and German revolutions, and with some qualification the Russian revolution were great.