Depending on what you mean by "abject poor," I would argue that they most certainly do engage in revolution, although they are often led by members of more prosperous (and better-educated) strata (including the working class).

I am not arguing against the facts of history. I simply ask you, Who are the rulers and/or leaders post-revolution? Who ruled Russia, China and Mexico after their revolutions? Who gained the most benefit? And where are these societies today? Are they communist societies? The only successful communist society I can think of in existence today is Cuba. Are there others?

I do not argue with the historical record of the desire and commitment of the poor and working poor to fight against oppression. My father told me he believed the unions, as much as they were despised by the ruling classes, saved America from an armed workers' revolution. You mention the Irish and the Luddites. I agree with you on that. I agree as well that are many other examples of the dispossessed fighting for their rights.

What I am saying is that any ideology that strives for a fixed and perfect hierarchy or a perfect group dynamic is doomed to failure.

I read the article and this jumped out at me:

Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs.

Now if those aren't excellent reasons to embrace libertarianism. . . On the other hand, I believe any Democrat worth his or her salt could hold the same or similar opinions.

Here's the libertarian rub. I can't bring myself to accept the possibility that my surgeon, dentist, car mechanic, airplane pilot and pharmacist might have no other claim to their occupational titles than the response, "but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

That's too scary, even for me.

I can't imagine how anyone could govern worse than the current regime of movement conservatives, neocons and Republicans, can you?

I try to read everything that Glenn Greenwald, Juan Cole, Digby and tristero post on their respective blogs. But I come to this blog as much for the comments as for Glenn's posts.

That being said, I have been on my best behavior (believe it or not) when it comes to fighting the urge to rant on the coup posing as our current administration, especially given the 3000 word limit. I despise the way these people have run this country.

I occasionally try to channel my energy in a positive direction by writing poetry about it, but

Each time I try to write a political poem, I almost always end up with the same first sentence: “You no good, lying, hypocritical, black-hearted, evil f* (modified for the children's sake ed.), who the hell do you think you are, stealing from the poor and working class just so you can funnel the loot to your corporate buddies, talking about your family values when the whole time you’re either f* around on your wife with someone else’s wife or daughter or both, or gagging on some male prostitute’s c* while snorting coke from between his shoulder blades, dosing yourself into oblivion with pain pills and alcohol and doing all the same things you accuse your political enemies of doing, never letting up for a minute in public about your democratic and noble purposes when in fact you’re nothing but a hypocritical, carpetbagging, lying, cheating, stealing, raping, murdering, worthless, sold-out sociopath who would steal the change out of a dying man’s pockets, who would sell his own soul for money, who would take the lives of a million innocent people, laughing and joking about it the whole time, because you think it’s funny, that it’s fun to kill people, to watch them suffer, laughing all the way to the bank, etc.” That’s why I don’t write too many political poems. It’s hard to get past the first sentence.

So, thanks for asking, but I'd rather not comment on it.

(Apologies if I offended anyone's sensibilities, but LWM did ask my opinion.)

I, personally, am ready to see America fall, to bottom out, to reap what we have sown. I am beginning to think that only then can we get back on our feet and become what were founded to be, what were were, and what we can be again. -- saltmeat

I appreciate you sentiment, but I think it has already happened. The reason most Americans do not see it is because of the way in which they measure the "rightness" of things. The majority of Americans are hopelessly addicted to their "stuff" and would be happy to live in a fascist state as long as it looked and behaved pretty much the way it looks and behaves now. You can live in a free and open democracy and still have the stock market crash, a world war and all sorts of various and sundry crises. You can live in a corporate capitalist oligarcy and have a nice house, a new car and cable TV.

The next election may turn, not on the rights of citizens, but on mortgage interest rates, gas prices, unemployment and health care costs.

It is important that we not be distracted by economic circumstances (i.e., the vagaries of the market), but keep our eye on the prize. The prize is the restoration of the rights of man (and women and children) as described by the Constitution and international law. Everything we do we must do with that in mind. And we cannot wait for things to get worse. We are forced of necessity to resist the continuance of the "conservative" madness today and every day for the rest of our lives.

In some ways it really sucks, because I have a lot of other things I would rather be doing. But I guess that's just how it is.