> Sure you do. You just don't have a society that looks like ours does.

You've skipped a few steps, until you overthrow the government all you have a broken society with a system of governance that's deemed to be illegitimate, therefore its rules and actions are illegitimate.

If you want to tear up the constitution and implement a new system of governance with "less government" then you're effectively advocating for a revolution. Just be honest and don't try to sell this as an incremental policy change.

▲

coldtea 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>You've skipped a few steps, until you overthrow the government all you have a broken society with a system of governance that's deemed to be illegitimate, therefore its rules and actions are illegitimate.

Sure, so? We did that quite a few times in the past, that's how we dont' still have Pharaohs.

>If you want to tear up the constitution and implement a new system of governance with "less government" then you're effectively advocating for a revolution. Just be honest and don't try to sell this as an incremental policy change.

Who said it has to be an incremental policy change? The claim I responded to was:

"That's the constitutional bedrock of our societies. That doesn't mean it's always true but if you denounce that as a legitimate and achievable goal then you don't have a society anymore."

You still get one. It's just not something you get while conveniently sitting on your ass and voting once every few years.

	▲	randallsquared 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Sure, so? We did that quite a few times in the past, that's how we dont' still have Pharaohs. I'm not sure I'd agree. Mostly those in power in the past were overthrown by outside actors or failed gradually without an active "overthrow". The ones we think of as relatively successful are mostly those that are "stop being ruled by someone not local", rather than "change the form of government in place".