I don't think it's the study of history which made you cynical.
As for what would happen in an uprising, the gov't is going to do what it always does, say the uprising is rebellion.
Barring a complete break (a la the CSA) the uprising will be quelled.
At present there isn't the territorial unnity to cause such a break to have traction, without borders the only things that can happen are devolution (and the result of the civil war in Lebanon was anarchy, which was my point, anarchy is only present in absence of gov't, and not something people actually want, but rather something they endure, it leads to Hobbes war of all against all, and Tennyson's "nature, red in tooth and claw) or quelling.
Given the rhetoric on the right, should they actually try to kill all the "liberals" the result will be Stalin, or Lebanon. In either case they shant get what they expect, and a lot of blood will be shed, on all sides.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-13 06:50 am (UTC)As for what would happen in an uprising, the gov't is going to do what it always does, say the uprising is rebellion.
Barring a complete break (a la the CSA) the uprising will be quelled.
At present there isn't the territorial unnity to cause such a break to have traction, without borders the only things that can happen are devolution (and the result of the civil war in Lebanon was anarchy, which was my point, anarchy is only present in absence of gov't, and not something people actually want, but rather something they endure, it leads to Hobbes war of all against all, and Tennyson's "nature, red in tooth and claw) or quelling.
Given the rhetoric on the right, should they actually try to kill all the "liberals" the result will be Stalin, or Lebanon. In either case they shant get what they expect, and a lot of blood will be shed, on all sides.
TK