None of those people live in a democracy. We do. If you overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the demos who outnumber you will democratically install a new tyrant. The only way to solve the problem and make it last is by convincing the people, not by fisticuffs.
And then it took another fifteen years for the Rebellion to go from disparate groups that fought each other as much as they fought the Empire to a united front.
It did not work fictionally. Nobody supports rebels in a democracy. They are rooted out of their communities and punished as terrorists. Only when it was no longer a democracy did the rebellion work. The same is true historically. If the people being oppressed can vote for their rulers, violently attacking them instead always fails.
This is the only example you gave of a democratically elected official who was violently overthrown. I said that if you violently overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the majority will simply democratically install a new tyrant. That’s exactly what happened in Bangladesh, with the same party being elected after it was violently removed. Nepal seems to be a vanishingly a rare counterexample. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy.
It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency.
No, if you violently remove a democratically elected official, that official will be democratically replaced with more of the same. Violence doesn’t magically change voters’ minds to agree with you.
None of those people live in a democracy. We do. If you overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the demos who outnumber you will democratically install a new tyrant. The only way to solve the problem and make it last is by convincing the people, not by fisticuffs.
Where are you living where you believe yourself to be living under a democracy?
You need to read/watch Star Wars & The Matrix again. The majority democratically elected a tyrant with thunderous applause.
It ceased to be a democracy when he declared himself emperor for life. https://youtu.be/f2H4AI21tEs
And then it took another fifteen years for the Rebellion to go from disparate groups that fought each other as much as they fought the Empire to a united front.
And it worked, historically, and fictitiously.
You can’t vote your way out imperialism, you need to feverish oppose all forms of oppression. Whether at the ballot, and at a deathcamp.
#Landback when?
It did not work fictionally. Nobody supports rebels in a democracy. They are rooted out of their communities and punished as terrorists. Only when it was no longer a democracy did the rebellion work. The same is true historically. If the people being oppressed can vote for their rulers, violently attacking them instead always fails.
Yet Myanmar , Thailand , Nepal , and Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy.
South Korea kept it’s democracy by taking the tyrant violently .
It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency.
Myanmar wasn’t a democracy.
This prime minister was removed by the court, not by violence.
This is the only example you gave of a democratically elected official who was violently overthrown. I said that if you violently overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the majority will simply democratically install a new tyrant. That’s exactly what happened in Bangladesh, with the same party being elected after it was violently removed. Nepal seems to be a vanishingly a rare counterexample. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Spain also wasn’t a democracy.
Also removed by the court, not by rebel violence.
No, if you violently remove a democratically elected official, that official will be democratically replaced with more of the same. Violence doesn’t magically change voters’ minds to agree with you.