3 ms·

Also, what is the game theory when an armed faction of the people gain the ability to overthrow a democracy and install a king, or at least, can credibly threat

Also, what is the game theory when an armed faction of the people gain the ability to overthrow a democracy and install a king, or at least, can credibly threaten to do so?

mrangle 3y ago
Or how about overthrow a King and install a democracy? The game theory is that it is likely that most of the time successful Revolutions are backed by powerful opposing States or quasi-States. Any others get squashed, but likely most often don't get off of the ground to begin with.
- analog31 3y ago
  Perhaps a more interesting study is just to look at things more incrementally. For instance is a slightly more heavily armed population likely to enjoy slightly more rights, or fewer? Should I be optimistic about my rights if I move to a more heavily armed state or region?
  - mrangle 3y ago
    That would be interesting. I think you'd have trouble finding enough incrementalism to provide meaningful data. But a place to start might be in European nations that only allow hunting guns.
    - analog31 3y ago
      Indeed, and I think you could get more data by counting countries that "allow" guns by default, simply by being incapable of regulating them.
Geisterde 3y ago
Generally speaking armed revolution ends with the revolutionaries getting the short end of the stick, they were the keys to aquiring some measure of power, but are no longer useful for a régime focused on controlling its new territory. Following that a constitution and new edicts arise that cement state power while providing a thin vernier of legitimacy. As far as an armed group in the united states doing that, I think we are a long way off from that. Although I would say democracy is structurally flawed, so long as the american public believes the foundation myth of their representation holds, no such thing is possible. The easiest way then to prevent an armed revolution, is to provide better transparency to elections. You dont even really need to make the elections fair; for instance im pretty sure republican voters will go on accepting that their civil and economic rights are trampled on; Democratic voters will go on accepting disfunctional criminal justice, healthcare, and education systems; so long as we arent playing games with who and how votes are tallied and what level of transparency we have over that process. Breaking that cycle, where the vast majority would really rather unwittingly vote away prosperity, requires a different type of revolution.

Also, what is the game theory when an armed faction of the people gain the ability to overthrow a democracy and install a king, or at least, can credibly threaten to do so?

mrangle 3y ago

Or how about overthrow a King and install a democracy? The game theory is that it is likely that most of the time successful Revolutions are backed by powerful opposing States or quasi-States. Any others get squashed, but likely most often don't get off of the ground to begin with.

analog31 3y ago
Perhaps a more interesting study is just to look at things more incrementally. For instance is a slightly more heavily armed population likely to enjoy slightly more rights, or fewer? Should I be optimistic about my rights if I move to a more heavily armed state or region?
- mrangle 3y ago
  That would be interesting. I think you'd have trouble finding enough incrementalism to provide meaningful data. But a place to start might be in European nations that only allow hunting guns.
  - analog31 3y ago
    Indeed, and I think you could get more data by counting countries that "allow" guns by default, simply by being incapable of regulating them.

Geisterde 3y ago

Generally speaking armed revolution ends with the revolutionaries getting the short end of the stick, they were the keys to aquiring some measure of power, but are no longer useful for a régime focused on controlling its new territory. Following that a constitution and new edicts arise that cement state power while providing a thin vernier of legitimacy. As far as an armed group in the united states doing that, I think we are a long way off from that. Although I would say democracy is structurally flawed, so long as the american public believes the foundation myth of their representation holds, no such thing is possible. The easiest way then to prevent an armed revolution, is to provide better transparency to elections. You dont even really need to make the elections fair; for instance im pretty sure republican voters will go on accepting that their civil and economic rights are trampled on; Democratic voters will go on accepting disfunctional criminal justice, healthcare, and education systems; so long as we arent playing games with who and how votes are tallied and what level of transparency we have over that process. Breaking that cycle, where the vast majority would really rather unwittingly vote away prosperity, requires a different type of revolution.