The root cause is always the people. People choose their govenments in any situation.

From the ones that allow the most freedom to the most restrictive dictatorships - those being governed are always in control because they always outnumber those in charge and if necessary they can rise up en masse and change it.

The reason they don't is because life isn't bad enough for them to want to personally risk dying to do so.

The point of war used to be to get the people in a country to decide that life was now so difficult that they should - in fact - change that government.

Now we do our best to make sure that those who allowed that government to exist in the first place are shielded from the effects of their decisions.

Correct hunger is one of the main driving forces behind civil wars. With the amount of free stuff the USG gives out that won't happen for a long time. Other countries because of their strict gun control policies can keep the population under control.

Just ask the tyrant dictators of the 20th century, gun control works. Over 200 million people were the victims of democide. More than all the wars combined.

Sure but not even the US government - with the most advanced military in the modern era (or maybe ever) - could withstand the sheer will of just 40% of the population, armed or not, rising up and deciding that their own personal lives and fortunes were not as important as changing that government.

Governments get away with the things they get away with because the people they govern allow it.

The People chose Maduro? I think not

People - through either action or inaction - always choose their government. Dictators may force their way into power, but their government endures because the people allow it.

As I said above, if the people of any nation truly want to get rid of a dictator, all they need to do is rise up en masse against them. Will some of them die? Most assuredly. The fact that they don't do it means life under that government hasn't gotten bad enough.

Think about what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in the Gulag Archipelago: "What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand?"

Make life miserable enough and dangerous enough for the "security forces" and they will change the government for you.

Again its a lot easier to get rid of tyrants with a well armed citizenry. Hence the 2nd amendment.

Easier? Yes. But even without guns it's not impossible. Change hearts and minds. Like Solzhenitsyn said: Make the "little guys" responsible for the grunt work afraid they might not make it home when they go to work. Attack them where ever they are...using whatever means necessary. Eventually they will tire of it and turn on their leaders.

The bottom line - and my point - is that people always choose their governments.


Btw in most of the middle east the population is disarmed but they obviously find ways to get them. It just makes it that much more difficult. Also if dicktasters fear their citizens it will act as somewhat of a restraint on the govt.

So how would you come up with a system that would make people believe they can change their government, maybe they believe they actually do change it every 4 years or so, but in the end, they actually don't change much of anything?

The system the founders originally designed was probably the closest to a "perfect" system you could get.

Please note, I'm not referring to what we have now - which is basically an illusion that the people have some sort of control.

In reality if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.

This is why Thomas Jefferson said a revolution should occur every twenty years (once per generation) and Lysander Spooner said (accurately) that no contract entered into between two people or a group of people can bind their children.


Yes we have the best govt money can buy. I am still waiting to see if Trump fulfils his checklist items the major one of which is to drain the swamp and get rid of the corrupt hierarchy in politics. Corruption is pervasive from local to state to the federal systems. These guys are only interested in catering to their special interests.

The government we have is the government you get when you expect them to "protect" you from things.

Govenments should protect from invasion and secure the rights of their governed by mediating disputes and punishing actual crimes with actual victims.

Notice I didn't mention "preventing" crime. It isn't a government's job to prevent crime. Their job is to investigate, clean up, and then arrest, convict, and incarcerate the perp(s).


Surperbly said DBG, it is rare to see objectively these in times of moral righteousness, and responsibility deflection. The buck always stop with some else else attitude eventually leads to stupidity that we see today, however.....this too shall pass...humanity is never lost.......this too shall pass

My limited knowledge of the revolutions were that their govt became so intolerable corrupt and tyrannical that communism appeared to be a good alternative. But the end result is meet the new boss same as the old boss.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. It has nothing to do with history and everything to do with psychology.

People may not "choose" to have a government. It may be thrust upon them. However, refusal to act to change that government becomes implied consent - therefore they are "choosing" that government. And in the process, people get the government they deserve.

Re-read the Solzhenitsyn quote - about the very Russians you speak of and their Bolshevik governement. It may have been thrust upon them by revolution, but they had the choice to fight it. They could have - had they been willing to fight and die - waited in ambush for the security services and as Solzhenitsyn said - made them dread going to work every day. Would that have changed things? Who knows - they didn't try - that's the point. They chose not to be willing to fight and die therefore they - by implied consent - chose that government.

Same thing applies to the Chinese. Same thing applies to any government. If the people want to change it, they will - even if it means they have to fight and die. If they won't, they are choosing that government instead of another.

As for the Bolsheviks, the horns were always there, the people simply chose not to see them in the beginning. Any form of government (in this case socialism) that implies it is okay to take from the labor of one and give to another - by force - has horns. If they can take your labor at the point of a gun, they can take anything you have including your life.