Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The **exact same** problem exists when arguing, "Historically, there are 
> a lot of examples of people resisting governments." Yes, there are, but 
> most of them haven't been governments with access to nearly limitless 
> high technology.

So, you mean the fact that the USA hasn't actually accomplished very many of 
our military goals doesn't count? Viet Nam wasn't up against nearly 
limitless high technology? Bin Laden isn't up against nearly limitless high 
technology?

> its fairly rare for *enlightened* people to be doing the resisting. 

Ignoring, you mean, China and Egypt, say?

It always amazes me when you make these arguments ignoring what's in the 
headlines world-wide even as you type them.  It makes it hard to have any 
sort of reasonable discussion with you, when you start saying things like 
"you'll never see a spontaneous revolution against a dictatorship clamoring 
for democracy" while an entire country is, even as we speak, doing exactly that.

(You did the same thing with an argument about a national fiat currency 
never collapsing even as Iceland was starving because their fiat currency 
had just collapsed.)

> do so tend not to be someone who wants to create/defend a democracy. 

> basically little more than an Oligarchy, with pretenses at universal 
> distribution of goods and services. 

You really should ask some chinese people what they think of Mao.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message