[Hemingway's Ghost]

I think that prosperity offers those with the ability the time and tools necessary to affect change.

I disagree. Prosperity hints that change isn't necessary. During times of prosperity, things work. People are satisfied. Nobody's going to risk a full belly, a comfortable lifestyle, and a bright future over fighting arcane and negligable law like the type this article mentions---over something that seems academic. All that rubbish is middle class blues at best, and the middle class blues is real luxury to most people.

Change---especially revolutionary change---only comes when the result of doing nothing is more starvation. Revolutionary change occurs when people are desperate. Well-fed, well-clothed, well-apportioned people are not desperate.

[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.