Yes, Mommy: A Well-Regulated State

Fred on Everything ^ | 15 September 2002 | Fred Reed

[Neckbone]

Revolutionary change occurs when people are desperate

I absolutely agree with this statement, however I feel quite strongly that change resulting from a revolution born of starvation does not decrease the power or scope of the State, it just makes that power change hands. Historical revolutions changed government from a monarchy (because for all intents and purposes that's all there was) to something else, right? Which revolutions that occurred during times of hardship resulted in a government based in the liberties of the individual? The American Revolution was not born of starvarion, but of oppression. But how about others?

It seems to my unqualified eye that most result in some form of collective- what appears to be the "safest" form at the time. To each according to his need puts bread on the plate, but it's getting from each his ability that proves to be the tricky part. In the end, the State becomes even bigger and more powerful than the pre-revolutionary one.

[WindMinstrel]

In the end, the State becomes even bigger and more powerful than the pre-revolutionary one.

I'd suggest that's the nature of government. It always grows.

[Steve0113]

the real enemy of liberty is prosperity.

Agree. People become self-indulgent and lose their edge; let their guard down.

I wish I could remember who it was that wrote (long ago), "Mankind cannot long endure prosperity."

[Neckbone]

I would suggest that it doesn't matter how focused you are because of the stupidity of the populace.

You have addressed the very root of the problem. The vast majority of the world population are sheep, that is true. The focus of which I spoke is the focus of talented, like-minded individuals to affect change. This is the hard part.

But what changes do you suggest? What method of governance are you suggesting is free of beaurocracy, and above all the petty crap that results from the human ego? As soon as someone has power, one of their first acts is to abuse it. What will change that?

[Neckbone]

I'd suggest that's the nature of government. It always grows.

Of course it does. That is the nature government, and I think it ultimately comes down to a matter of weighing advantages. We here in the US of A have a huge, plodding, inefficient beaurocracy that has for the past 226 some-odd years been churning out what has proven to be the best system of government of its size in the world. Could it be better? Hell, yes! Could it be worse? Hell, yes!

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Which revolutions that occurred during times of hardship resulted in a government based in the liberties of the individual? The American Revolution was not born of starvarion, but of oppression. But how about others?

Of the big four (British, American, French, and Russian), I'd say 3 at least in theory eventually resulted in a government based on the liberties of the individual. But each was precipitated by one or more of the following forms of oppression or dischord:

- The inability of government to raise money or collect taxes
- An inept government making stupid mistakes---too much administration, favoring one economic course over another
- A shift of allegiance by the intellectuals
- A loss of self-confidence by the "ruling" elites (sympathy for the rebels, convinced system is bad/improper/converted to rebellious causes)
- A separation of political and economic power
- A rift in a system of meritocracy
- Social antagonism

The Davies J-Curve theory of revolutions descibed so that it sounds like a Public Image Ltd. song goes like this: people will accept a modest gap between "what they want" and "what they get." When the gap gest too out of whack, that's when stuff goes down. You could argue--and I certainly could---that we're approaching the Davies J-Curve point of no return in the United States today.

Also, historically most revolutions start from the left, go to the right, and then swing back to the "center." I believe an American revolution would come from the right this time.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You have addressed the very root of the problem. The vast majority of the world population are sheep, that is true. The focus of which I spoke is the focus of talented, like-minded individuals to affect change. This is the hard part.

It's a fact of life that the people who have it worst are generally the ones who won't revolt: they're too busy trying to survive. Revolutionaries come from the social elite.

[philman_36]

We are the obedient people.
Pavlovian dogs seems as appropriate and applicable as obedient people.
Some hear the bells and whistles and immediately start to drool, knowing the meal is ready for the feasting.
What feasts and what famines? Control feasts and liberty famines.

Yeah, Fred did it up right. What a dish.