American Revolution

So really, what are the chances of an uprising in modern day America?  Not only do you have police everywhere, along with National Guard/Reserves and regular military bases throughout the country, but anyone that dares to fight  is an automatic criminal/militia/fanatic/terrorist.  Of course that means you're judged by the very rules you're trying to overthrow... but what chance is there that someone could overthrow the country's entire rule system and start from scatch, or even have the support of the majority of the people who watch TV and see everything thtrough a filtered media that puts negative spin in order to dissuade the efforts of a revolution?  The problem is the majority of the population is content and complacent.  Revolutions occur when the majority is poor, pissed off, and tired of the current system.  It would require people to have no access to their books, television, movies, computers, video games, or anything else to distract them.  It would require wealth to diminish to nothing, houses to lose their value, and utilities and public programs to become completely ineffective.  I don't see any of this happening unless the US is assraped by the Middle East or communist Asia.   

>>36
>The idea that "people are poor because they're lazy" isn't usually the case.
It isn't, people who are poor are usually stupid. Should they be penalized for that with lower income even though they work just as hard as other people? I don't know. It's at least as unfair as making people with more money pay more than people with less.

>These people who are being "immorally" penalized for succeeding probably got to their position through "immoral" practices and exploitation.
You can't make such broad generalizations. But anyway, do note that I am only talking theoretically. As I said, even such a "moral" solution such as making everybody pay the same amount of tax is flawed. The current system is flawed, but it's probably the best we can come up with without making it incredibly complicated and bureaucratic. Christ, it's already terribly bureaucratic as it is.

>Not a chance. Think of how much electricity a large office building requires as opposed to a single family home. An executive jet and several high class cars as opposed to the family van. See where I'm going with this?
Nowhere. That was a very poor argument. Electricity is not given away freely, it is paid for, so it doesn't matter who uses up more or who uses less, because everyone in theory pays as much in compensation as they use up. The jet and cars are the same: they are paid for by the person, they're not bought from government money. You could even say that the person who buys them (buys more than the one with less money) is doing society good, because he is creating job opportunities. Someone who buys 10 cars vs. someone who buys just one pours back more money into the economy, theoretically benefitting more people.