The American Revolution is one of the few outliers in history were such revolutionary action actually lead to such good results (relative to more likely possible alternatives). The cost of a revolution is heavy, and generally the outcome is almost certainly as bad or worse as the states of affairs that sparked it.

I'm a hopeless cynic, but I always find a bit of reluctant optimism about the present after reading a bit of history. Especially the dirtier sides of American history, politics, business, social norms, discrimination, etc. When I do, I can't help but conclude we Americans are living in the best version of America that has ever existed, to date, even with all the shit in front of us. And possibly even one of the least divisive and polarized versions of it as well, even though the popular consensus is just the opposite.

Basically, the system actually seems to kind of... sort of... work. No thanks on the revolution.

There's a strong argument to be made that the American Revolution was successful because it was actually a rebellion. Organized polities broke their ties, but largely preserved themselves and their leadership structures.

Wow, that's a striking point that never occurred to me before. Do you have any source that discusses this viewpoint in greater detail, perhaps with some comparisons to other revolutions?

Today a revolution would be illegal. Not just illegal but even talk of a revolution, or openly espousing that the idea should be considered.

Revolutions are always illegal. The American Revolution was very clearly illegal as far as England was concerned, and the US Civil war was illegal to the Union. Even the Founding Fathers, some of whom certainly believed the right to revolutionary violence was necessary and healthy for a free state, would not have accepted the right of the people to string them up.

But your second sentence isn't accurate. The US is almost unique in the degree to which discussing the violent overthrow of the American government is not only tolerated, but held sacred by many people. From right wing talk radio to the Tea Party to Republican political ads during the Obama administration to NRA rallies, intimating the need for revolution and "Second Amendment solutions" is common enough that it may be the oldest meme in American culture.

Of course, there is a line beyond which it becomes conspiracy to commit murder, and then it becomes illegal, which is to be expected as every state assumes its own legitimacy. But the chilling effect you seem to be trying to suggest doesn't really exist as far as I can tell.

I disagree. Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 I think people have been prosecuted and will continue to be when they speak out against the government and advocate for its overthrow. Whether violent or not, sedition is illegal, and if you make too much notice I believe you will be prosecuted.

Well, the American Revolution was illegal at the time. And it was illegal to plan. So I think that just kind of comes with the territory of having a revolution.

> But as opposed to him, we can actually fulfill these promises.

Man on internet claims that his statements are totally more trustworthy than man on TV.

I'm not disagreeing with you per se - but "fuzzy on the details but this will totally work I promise" is not exactly a radical new line of thought

So you say start the revolution first and then figure out how things will work afterwards?

"tolerance, individual rights, decentralism, and openness" sounds nice, but are not enough alone to bring food on the table, keep the lights on and the warm water running, which is something most people want to be sure of, before they join your revolution ...

Otherwise I am with you on the dreaming part about how a new society could look like. But I think this is something which needs to be much more concrete, before you can start to think about "revolution", unless you want something like a October Revolution, but then count me out ...

Decades of organizing and advocacy against the US War on Drugs got medical marijuana legalized in 29 states, and recreational marijuana legalized in eight states plus DC.

Psilocybe spp are legal nowhere in the US.

Darknet markets have made all drugs available everywhere.

Just sayin'.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Federal government is still trying as much as possible to continue the War on Drugs no matter what the states' laws actually say.

State lawmakers move on to federal lawmakers and generally appear to continue try to please their voters. By starting at the state level we have kicked the legs out from under the thing. It is falling.

That's excellent, no doubt.

True.

But I haven't seen news about mass arrests of buyers after Silk Road got pwned. Not in the US, anyway. I mean, could the courts handle the volume?

>we won't get more freedom without a major rewrite or at least refactoring of society...

correct you are. our problems are too intertwined with the current political system to be solved by them. without exception.

there's no point in waiting for the perfect moment, because it won't ever come. our best bet is to make use of the utter chaos the current administration is causing as an excuse for destroying our moribund institutions and remolding them into something fresh and more useful.

A good time to remember Mencken:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

As someone who has dipped into the libertarian infinity pool of crazy, and flopped right over the side into the freefall insanity of pragmatic anarchism, I am aware that most lasting societal changes have only been accomplished by creating rivers of blood--the Reign of Terror, the Soviet Revolution, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, etc. And I am also aware that the new boss is usually either the same as the old boss, or quite a lot worse.

But nevertheless, after the reset, things often get better for a while--if you survived, that is--before they get worse again.

So you can either screw yourself up to do some bloody murder against those whom you believe to really deserve it, and make a real change, for better or worse (usually worse), or you can parade around making some fake change that lets you feel better about yourselves, but probably won't do any real damage, such as a devastating nuclear winter, or another miserable dark age of terror, brutality, serfdom, and slavery. You can pick out your targets now, and wait for the right time to pull the trigger. Or you can make signs and sing Kum-Bai-Yah. But maybe there's another option, that has never been tried before.

The usual problem is that the masters of the universe have no incentives whatsoever to change their own behavior or give up their own power. But there is a magical, mythical substance in the Illuminatus! trilogy called AUM. This was described as a drug that permanently changed someone from a neophobe into a neophile. It changed minds with one dose. So perhaps, like so many sci-fi speculations later found to have landed near the marks discovered by future science, a cocktail of known hallucinogens and entheogens might be employed to bestow an artificial chemical sense of compassion and empathy upon those who lack one of their own.

In short, black-bag some elites, and shoot them up with a witches brew of MDMA, LSD, DXM, Datura, nicotine, cannabis, salvinorin-A, high fructose corn syrup, fluoride, chemtrail distillate, et cetera (Poe's Law disclosure: the latter three were satire), and see if that can cure them of being selfish assholes. You flip the enemy to your side, and you gain power without killing anyone--or at least without producing dead bodies, as forcibly making permanent changes to someone's brain against their will could be construed as psychological murder.

It's the same problem as eradicating any parasite. If you kill 99% of them, that just leaves the niche open for that remaining 1% to repopulate. So you capture some, sterilize them, and release them back into the wild. Those continue to compete among their own kind, and then die off without progeny, which crashes the whole population enough that it can now be controlled by other means. Just as the parasites subvert others to work for them, you subvert the self-interest of the parasites so that they destroy themselves.

There's a revolution in the US every four to eight years. You just don't remember them /because/ they happen peacefully. And if those don't give you the drastic change your spoiled mind craves, that may just be because most people are happy enough with the status quo that they consider it unlikely that anything better would emerge from chaos–kinda like you don't throw a puzzle in the air if only a few pieces are missing.

1990 would also count as the biggest revolution in our lifetime (assuming there are few WW2 vets on HN). Plus China has changed drastically, without bloody revolutions, and that whole EU thing. Mandela. Gandhi. Venzuela, Turkey, Brexit (for the worse). Iran, Cuba (for the better).

Brexit is TBD. Seriously. The thing hasn't been implemented yet (hardly even an implementation strategy exists), so calling it for the worse is premature.

You may very well be right, but it's too soon to make that judgement rationally unless you want to call it a forecast.

Also, I'd add the Velvet Revolution to your list.

I don't crave any drastic change. I realized long ago that society is not a thing I can fix. So I changed myself, to not get so upset whenever confronted with more evidence that life is not fair. It doesn't really matter to me that the US elected a reality-show host as its President, because "the US" never really belonged to me. The illusion I carried of it in my head was never real. The real US doesn't care one infinitesimal iota for what I think. I'm just a kook, with no valuable insights whatsoever. Historically, the US has been generally content to leave me alone, as long as I pay more than the minimum measure of tribute, and don't stir up trouble. Abandon the illusion, and you lose all the cognitive dissonance that it fuels.

So have yourself a revolution. Or don't. Or rearrange the deck chairs and rename the ship. Do any of those things, but you're still caught up in the shared delusions of tribalism writ large.

Vonnegut said it best: "To find the substance of a granfalloon, just prick the skin of a toy balloon."

Every four to eight years, there is a great heaving shift in what people think they are supposed to be, with little to no fundamental basis in reality. Real wages have been stagnant in the US since the 1970s. Technology is better. Environmental catastrophe looms taller. Younger people agitate, and older people dissipate. Charlatans and con men ply their trade on the unsuspecting. Those who wish to eat must work, even if the work is gratuitous and unnecessary.

What really changes for that middle 80% of Earth's population? They gain freedom of speech? No one is listening. Freedom to own property? They can't afford to buy it. Freedom to cross borders? The available work-for-hire can move away faster than you can chase it. All the while, people like Putin and Trump wield the power to reduce all those people to radioactive dust without care, while meting out lesser (still deadly) consequences at whim, with even less possibility for remorse. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The tsar becomes the party leader. The shah becomes the ayatollah. The king becomes the president. Mr. Machiavelli sidles up, whispers into their ears, and the pigs move in to the farmer's house.

> There's a revolution in the US every four to eight years.

Democracy is a fast-path civil war: "yeah, I guess we could go actually shooting each other but let's just count who has more men and move on".

> In short, black-bag some elites, and shoot them up with a witches brew of MDMA, LSD, DXM, Datura, nicotine, cannabis, salvinorin-A, high fructose corn syrup, fluoride, chemtrail distillate, et cetera (Poe's Law disclosure: the latter three were satire), and see if that can cure them of being selfish assholes.

No, it'll give them a bad trip and they will hang you by your own guts. This (and more) had already been tried fifty years ago, read about project MKULtra and the book "Acid Dreams".

As I recall, the goals of that project were somewhat different.

I am specifically suggesting a cure for antisocial personality disorder. Hallucinogens have been successfully used clinically to treat addiction and other self-destructive behaviors. Anecdotal reports from recreational drug users sometimes include sensations of being connected to everything else on the planet, and coming down with a profound and newfound respect for life. MDMA reportedly enhances natural empathy.

Currently, the only proven, permanent cure for sociopathy is to put a bullet in the sociopath's head and then cremate the body.

While that is effective, it is morally abhorrent to go around murdering people for having a brain defect. And most mind-altering drugs are barred from serious research into peaceful clinical applications, due to being scheduled substances. There may be a banned substance, or some combination of banned substances, that could form the basis of a treatment or cure for antisocial personalities, and particularly for the narcissistic sociopaths.

Alternately, a pacemaker-like device implanted into the brain might work, but that seems dangerous and expensive.

If no cure can be found, and no cure is possible, the logical thing to do would then be to devise an objective test, targeting 0% false positives, to identify sociopaths, and exile them away from all normal humans. Or murder them. But only a sociopath would be able to implement such a solution, so you might see the problem there.

> As I recall, the goals of that project were somewhat different.

There were many, from "truth serum" against captured enemy spies through mind control over the US population (they considered adding psychedelics to tap water) up to "pacification" of Soviet leaders in the exact way you described.

> Hallucinogens have been successfully used clinically to treat addiction and other self-destructive behaviors. Anecdotal reports from recreational drug users sometimes include sensations of being connected to everything else on the planet, and coming down with a profound and newfound respect for life. MDMA reportedly enhances natural empathy.

It only worked that way for people who already wanted it to work for them that way.

Let's not fall into the trap of assuming that since CIA-funded scientists performing secret and unethical experiments to accomplish military-political objectives couldn't make the drugs work, that it couldn't be done above-board by clinicians who genuinely want to cure a bona fide brain defect that is utterly devastating to everyone who would ordinarily be close to the affected individuals.

MK-Ultra wanted to make normal people more biddable by the US government. That's a far cry from attempting to cure the apparent combination of antisocial personality disorder and narcissism that seems prevalent in the behaviors of many of the worst heads of state (and other, less-privileged government officials) known to history.

We know it's possible, because the majority of humans manage to grow a sense of empathy attached to their limbic system that actually makes them feel bad when they hurt other people and feel good when they make other people happy. The human brain naturally develops this capacity when exposed to the correct combination of chemicals and stimuli. So I have to believe that a cure is possible, because otherwise we have no business letting those monsters anywhere near our livelihoods, our relationships, or our institutions. They are currently physiologically incapable of caring whether the rest of us live or die, feel fear or joy, love or hate. They might as well be randomized time bombs strapped to stray cats. If you let them go, you have no idea where or when they will go off.

I believe that a significant fraction of the world's ultra-rich elites are either naturally narcissistic sociopaths, or have conditioned themselves to numb their sense of empathy and their humility. If the dangerous ones can be cured, they don't all have to be indiscriminately thrown under the guillotine next time. Because that often just allows the reserve corps of narcissistic sociopaths, formerly kept in check by the previous top predators, to assume power.

I want to believe in a cure. If I couldn't believe in that, I would have to support committing crimes against people whom I cannot be certain are truly antisocial personalities--in the name of the "greater good", of course--and that would mean that I would be one of the monsters unfit to participate in civilized, cooperative society. I'd have to wonder whether I genuinely wanted to help other people, or whether I was just removing the competition for their future exploitation.

Are you certain it's a problem with their sense of empathy not being properly attached to the limbic system? Because IMO, it seems more likely that bit works just fine even for them, but they use strong cognitive dissonance to hack around it.

Also, you are taking it as a given that the problem is that a lot of high ranking power positions are taken by people with sociopathic and/or narcissist personality disorders. I'm with you on that btw, no need to convince me, but I'm not sure if it's a generally agreed upon fact :)

Also also, AUM worked not just with one dose but also a (near?) 100% success rate. But that was in a work of fiction, specifically, one with the premise of "what if ALL conspiracy theories ever, were true, simultaneously?". It's one of my favourite books for sure, contains a lot of real wisdom as well, but more in a philosophical sense than practical. There's no way even a perfectly researched cocktail of hallucinogenics, MDMA, other drugs and I dunno what else, would attain a practical permanent success rate past 10% even.

I think if it were not a physical problem in the structure of the brain, we would not currently have a 0% cure rate using existing psychiatry.

In a philosophical sense, AUM is not an actual chemical cocktail. It is the basis for a viewpoint wherein a past enemy may become a future friend, and the normal human fear of the unknown is the barrier between them.

So you recite to yourself the Litany Against Fear from Dune and offer to your enemy the opportunity to become less alien to each other. A dose of real-life AUM takes decades, or even generations, to administer.

This is why most wars are preceded by a psychological campaign to dehumanize and alienate the designated enemy.

The problem is not specifically Trump or even throwing out the filibuster in the senate. It's the kind of highly targeted gerrymandering and ad hock messaging based around new technology. Combined with doubts that votes are even being counted that's corrosive to the very idea of democracy.

Of course Obama was going to cause a backlash, just like Bush did and Trump will. But, we have gotten to the point where 'power' and 'the will of the people' have got little to do with each other. And that's not a stable path long term.

EX: We don't talk about it, but several million Americans don't get representation in the house or senate. Sure, that's the way the system is built, but frankly that's not a good enough reason on it's own.

The US was not designed as a direct democracy, though. Bemoaning the design only when 'your side' loses is a problem that should be relegated to young children. I haven't voted for the winner for quite a few elections now but I don't think throwing out the entire system is the right answer because I didn't get my way.

If you want to start movements in individual states changing the first past the post system, I think that's a logical first step. Colorado recently changed their primary system to be more open, so we will see what that impact has on their elections soon. But what I see is people wanting to throw out the entire system and start over, which is the rhetoric that got Trump elected in the first place.

I assume by 'several million Americans' you're talking about the territories and Washington DC. The territories consistently vote to keep themselves territories, so they choose to remain "unrepresented" in Congress. I don't think letting DC have a vote in Congress will help diminish the 'power' and 'will of the people' problem you are concerned about.

Sure, the current system is based on past choices. That does not mean it's a good system. I don't really care about Trump vs Hilary. I do care that because I moved my vote went from token effort to completely pointless.

If you look at the history of US presidential elections the map used to be a lot more fluid. Compare say 1972 with 1964: http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ And compare that with the string from 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016.

That recent trend is not by accident. Both party's have carefully crafted their message to maximize their chances of winning. But, that divide is all about minimizing the power of choice which is inherently corrosive.

My vote could be considered completely pointless every year, because I do not vote for either of the 2 major parties. So should I just give up and quit voting? Should a Republican in New York just give up voting? What about a Democrat in Kansas?

I think the change you should be advocating for is not throwing out the entire electoral college system, rather you should be advocating for small changes over time the system. Small changes might be easier to get through and I think immediate and severe reactions end up being worse than small changes (see the PATRIOT Act among others for examples of immediate action with huge unintended consequences). Citizen ballot initiatives could certainly start changing how delegates are selected, but you don't see (m)any Democrats calling for that in a state like California because it would hurt them overall, just like it would hurt Republicans in Kansas.

As a side note, I would be curious when states started passing laws binding delegates and how that relates to the outcome over time given by your map. I wonder if there is any correlation.

I haven't voted for the winner since 1996. As I don't see my own views or those of the major political parties changing any time soon, my voice is largely ignored in the current system.

And it will likely continue to be ignored until the following happen:

1. Abolish gerrymandering in favor of a strictly algorithmic approach to redistricting that cannot take into account voting data from prior elections or current party affiliations.

2. Abolish first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting, probably using approval voting and some means of apportioning representation that is proportional to approvals.

3. Alter ballot access laws such that no party gets preferential treatment, and the burden is low enough overall that those people wishing to participate in politics are able to do so without quitting their day jobs.

> 2. Abolish first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting, probably using approval voting and some means of apportioning representation that is proportional to approvals.

Approval plus proportional is a bizarre concept; approval, to the extent it makes any sense for public elections (and there are serious problems with it for that purpose) makes sense really only for inherently single-winner elections.

For proportional systems with large bodies elected together, proportionality to first-party votes is probably the most sensible; for bodies small enough that doing that has significant wastage due to the threshold necessary to get one seat, something like STV (possibly modified to drop loser elimination) makes more sense than approval.

(A proportional, STV-like generalization of approval with a form of winner elimination might make sense, but seems intuitively worse than STV itself, even if approval ballots had consistent meanings.)

I only chose approval as an alternative to FPTP because most current ballot-counting machines are capable of handling it with minimal alteration, and it reduces the effects of strategic voting.

It seems obvious to me that any voting system that involves ranking would tend to discourage more open ballot access, as people are more likely to honestly and accurately rank 2 or 3 people than they are to rank 10. If it can handle proportionality almost as well as single transferable vote, without additional complexity to the voter, it may actually be better fro ma practical standpoint.

Approval ballots is just a special case of ranked ballots with only two ranks, so as far as considering and honestly rating a large number of candidates is concerned, it shares any problem ranked ballots have.

While there are some good arguments for allowing ties in ranked ballots (unforced vs. forced preference), I think there are pretty big problems with forcing tied rankings.

> If it can handle proportionality almost as well as single transferable vote

I don't think it can, but because there is no clear mapping between actual preferences (or preferences that would be provided on an unforced preference ballot) and approval ballot (or any other limited-rank-preference ballot) markings, that's a hard empirical question that's not really analytically addressable.

And how, if we try to throw out the entire system, do you expect that to happen when it is clearly against the interest of the two major parties?

That's why I said the push shouldn't be to burn down the whole system, it should be minor changes that both major parties can agree to implement. You can't shoot for the moon if you can't even get a launch pad.

> And how, if we try to throw out the entire system, do you expect that to happen when it is clearly against the interest of the two major parties?

If eliminating the existing system is the goal, the way it is achieved is (as has been the case for many changes which aren't supported initially by the major parties) to first move it by, and in States which have, citizen initiative processes which supercede the preferences of elected partisan politicians.

That was exactly my point. Small changes make larger impacts than asking to nuke everything.

The probability of it happening within the current system is zero. The probability of it happening spontaneously after nuking the current system from orbit is infinitesimal. The expected value calculation from throwing out the current system is strongly negative, whereas the expected value from maintaining the status quo gains at about 2%-4% per year.

Therefore, the likely course of action is clear. Such reforms will never be implemented, and I will essentially be permanently disenfranchised.

I can react to this inevitability with outraged dismay, or with grim resignation. I know what would make me happy, and that it makes sense, and also that it will simply not happen, because this representative democracy is a sham. I can try to ruin things for everyone else because it isn't fair, or I can accept them as they are and take my pathetic, lopsided share of that 2%-4%.

I'll take the latter.

If, however, the status quo implodes on its own, or explodes because someone got rid of it, I'd be all too happy to try to push the new thing that replaces it towards a better direction.