Strategic dissent is what matters. I doubt things would have been improved if targeted groups in Germany had violently rioted and smashed Mercedes, Benzs, and Volkswagens (or whatever the main rides were at the time). I mean, the Reichstag Fire was the perfect excuse to accelerate the tyranny (and it was probably an inside job!). Just the same, smashing cars probably won’t endear the generally-docile public to the cause. I would say most people (i.e. the support force necessary for widespread change) don’t want to be associated with violence. It might win some over, but it’ll polarize others, exacerbating the situation and possibly creating Rittenhouse militias to evolve into gestapos.
Sure, once the ruling evil exists in earnest and the rule of law is declared fully dead, clandestine resistance saboteurs may be necessary, but they’ll aim for strategic targets with a high gain of hurt laid upon the tyrannical regime. They won’t expose themselves to frivolous targets like individual electric cars. If anything, they’ll target infrastructure and try to make it look like government incompetence to incite people against those in power.
This gray time is confusing and scary, by design. Extreme action just probably won’t elicit the desired effect right now. Figuring out a way to inceptually make The People attribute their various pains and grievances to the actions and personalities in power should be the goal.
Just the same, smashing cars probably won’t endear the generally-docile public to the cause. I would say most people (i.e. the support force necessary for widespread change) don’t want to be associated with violence.
Which is why we should be considering the real possibility that these are false flag attacks. Want to turn the general populace against peaceful protesters? Engineer false flag attacks that make the protesters appear violent. Now you can arrest peaceful protesters and the general populace will turn and look the other way.
Pretty sure property damage is one of the options to attack a tyrannical government. Assassinations too. At least its options people have used, not sure exactly how effective it was but the nazis lost in the end.
I’m having trouble thinking of an example where a tyrant dictator was assassinated and displaced by a democratic leader and not just another dictator. I don’t think Hitler is a great example. Maybe Hussein? I’m apologetically ignorant on the current state of Iraq’s political system.
Democratic norms seem to be more successfully implemented when a ruler is facing bankruptcy and has no easy source of funds (e.g. natural resource extraction, sponsorship from foreign sources), and therefore has no other option but to expand freedoms and public goods to empower citizens to be more educated to work more profitably (and be reliable tax payers). A fairly recent example is the shift Jerry John Rawlings performed in Ghana in the 90s, which is explained succinctly in The Dictator’s Handbook (Bueno de Mesquita and Smith).
A general strike could be an effective means to force the hand of a ruler dependent on national productivity to keep his coalition’s insiders/influentials happy enough to retain their support.
lol ok, bet doing nothing will work. Maybe try appeasement?
Strategic dissent is what matters. I doubt things would have been improved if targeted groups in Germany had violently rioted and smashed Mercedes, Benzs, and Volkswagens (or whatever the main rides were at the time). I mean, the Reichstag Fire was the perfect excuse to accelerate the tyranny (and it was probably an inside job!). Just the same, smashing cars probably won’t endear the generally-docile public to the cause. I would say most people (i.e. the support force necessary for widespread change) don’t want to be associated with violence. It might win some over, but it’ll polarize others, exacerbating the situation and possibly creating Rittenhouse militias to evolve into gestapos.
Sure, once the ruling evil exists in earnest and the rule of law is declared fully dead, clandestine resistance saboteurs may be necessary, but they’ll aim for strategic targets with a high gain of hurt laid upon the tyrannical regime. They won’t expose themselves to frivolous targets like individual electric cars. If anything, they’ll target infrastructure and try to make it look like government incompetence to incite people against those in power.
This gray time is confusing and scary, by design. Extreme action just probably won’t elicit the desired effect right now. Figuring out a way to inceptually make The People attribute their various pains and grievances to the actions and personalities in power should be the goal.
Which is why we should be considering the real possibility that these are false flag attacks. Want to turn the general populace against peaceful protesters? Engineer false flag attacks that make the protesters appear violent. Now you can arrest peaceful protesters and the general populace will turn and look the other way.
Maybe we can all give Trump all our money and he’ll just go away! Yay!
Pretty sure property damage is one of the options to attack a tyrannical government. Assassinations too. At least its options people have used, not sure exactly how effective it was but the nazis lost in the end.
I’m having trouble thinking of an example where a tyrant dictator was assassinated and displaced by a democratic leader and not just another dictator. I don’t think Hitler is a great example. Maybe Hussein? I’m apologetically ignorant on the current state of Iraq’s political system.
Democratic norms seem to be more successfully implemented when a ruler is facing bankruptcy and has no easy source of funds (e.g. natural resource extraction, sponsorship from foreign sources), and therefore has no other option but to expand freedoms and public goods to empower citizens to be more educated to work more profitably (and be reliable tax payers). A fairly recent example is the shift Jerry John Rawlings performed in Ghana in the 90s, which is explained succinctly in The Dictator’s Handbook (Bueno de Mesquita and Smith).
A general strike could be an effective means to force the hand of a ruler dependent on national productivity to keep his coalition’s insiders/influentials happy enough to retain their support.