I don't know about that? France, the United States, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Philippines, Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania, the fall of the Romanovs in Russia were all a thing.
Besides which, I think that you are missing my point. Success isn't guaranteed in Revolution, that's why I included 1905. I was talking about tipping points that lead to revolution. What happens next can go either way.
The wet fart bit is that you just used Hati to disprove a point that I never made in the first place.
I've got no advice to give. Just making a historical observation.
Over time patterns in human societies emerge. Pointing them out doesn't constitute advice, nor the promotion of events. Sadly, we can be prisoners of those events, mostly events that are beyond any individual's control.
Spotting smoke on a far distant ridgeline doesn't cause the fire that comes roaring down towards your house.
In my long study of history there is always a tipping point. 1789, 1840, 1905, 1917 - people just took power back, or made a serious effort to do the same. Not that it was perfect either. The history of humanity is one of struggle against the elites.
In the case of the US, corporations being recognised as actual living, breathing human beings only made revolution a certainty. The only question is when? I'm an old fart, so I hopefully won't be around to see the inevitable chaos.
His early work was exceptionally good. Tommy knockers, Needful Things, Salem's Lot, Misery, Stand By Me, were all pretty good. Not a fan of some of his latest stuff.
He was extremely coked out of his mind during those years.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug...
I like your nuanced position, but I completely disagree with it, and have already articulated as to why.
I don't believe that you are a stereotypical American, but the whole "freedom thing" is a stereotypical American thing. I'm Australian and I believe that I have many more freedoms than most Americans. For instance, your country puts traval restrictions on you that we would never tolerate. I can travel to Cuba, or just about any country in the world freely. Same as most other Western countries. But we don't claim to have special freedom privileges. On the other hand, Australia has one of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the world. Lots of red tape and lots of regulation. However, by and large nobody minds because the trade-off is a mostly one of safety. The US has a gun homicide rate of about 50 times more than Australia, per capita. The US has 17 times Australia's gun deaths over all. So, trading off some freedoms has a community benefit and we believe it is worth it. No Australian government has ever won office with a policy of undoing gun laws. Some freedoms are just not worth it. As to your seatbelt example, you deciding not to wear one might impact upon people other than yourself. Someone has to endure the trauma of scraping your body off the road. Someone has to cart your broken arse off to hospital. Someone might have to care for you for years. Possibly forever. Your freedom to not wear a seatbelt will probably impact on others freedom not to have to deal with your silly decision. And so it goes. As I said, the only country in the world who constantly bangs on about freedom, forbids what can be read in so many schools, the right of women to control their bodies, how a president who fails to garner a majority of the popular votes can still get 'elected', and so many more anti-freedoms. Your country also imposes it's will on so many other countries. That's freedom US style.
To me the Libertarian position is fundamentally selfish. It pretends to be one of freedom, but if you live in a society one must tolerate restrictions, large and small. Or, go live a hermit existence somewhere so whatever folly you choose to celebrate has zero impact upon your fellow citizens.
That's just my opinion, of course, you are free to disagree.
I dunno man. You may be some flavour of libertarian, but not me. I am aware of the libertarian philosophy, and it is particularly an American following.
Freedom has many meanings to many people. But a free society also imposes restrictions on people's freedom. You just can't kill someone who annoys you. You need a proper licence in order to drive on public thoroughfares. You can't take something that doesn't belong to you, just because you want it. Living in a free society also imposes obligations. Other people must be taken into consideration.
In the case of vapes, and other poisons, it's not good enough to just yell freedom and allow corporations to to sell dangerous products. Kids consume these products and their health can be affected. In a free society public health considerations will probably impact on people's freedom. After all, seatbelts continue to save thousands and thousands of lives despite some folks feeling salty about wearing them. At least they are breathing and feeling salty.
None of this will convince you, and that's ok. I don't have skin in your game anyway because I don't live in your country and therefore accept normal restrictions. If I want to live in a society and change the rules, I'll vote for a person who will do that. Gerrymandering is illegal in my country and fair voting is the norm. I'm also glad that I don't live in a community where individuals get to decide what rules they should follow on the basis of some nebulous concept of personal freedom.
Thanks for the discussion, by the way.
I guess that you have to live outside the US to see what a scary man-baby it is. If a country has all the power in the world, and then decides that rules don't apply to them, it quite a short step to wishing that they would fail and leave the rest of us alone. The delusion is that they have adopted the world cop role. The reality is that they are the world bully.
Defending addiction in the name of freedom is a silly hill to die on.
How about killing off gerrymandering in the name of freedom?
Bullet proof moo-moo?
I take that point. I also make the point that at the beginning of most revolutions the outcome is unknown. Entrenchment of a new regime can only be understood once the outcome has been decided. To make your argument you are permitted to accept or discount revolutions according to your whim.
My entire point was about historical tipping points. In this very simple concept I have been misunderstood. One person accused me of encouraging revolt. You seem to think that my argument doesn't work because a great many revolutions fail. You are right. A great many do. But I'm not advocating for revolts nor suggesting that they always work. I'm saying that when conditions reach a certain point, they are almost inevitable. Not always even then. North Korea is a case in point.