>>>Any revolution will have to be sustained by the power of a new idea. So far, we just have the same old emotions.
>
>My understanding is that dissatisfaction with the status quo is enough to get things going. Once it starts, those who stormed the Bastille weren't contemplating a new order, they were storming the Bastille.


I think history might show that when and where revolts happened, and when they were not based on new ideas, society simply collapsed and dark periods ensued.

Whether it was Marx or Thomas Paine, in cases where there was a distinctly new idea, a road map, an actual hope at things being different, or at the very least, something new to try, things went better.

Otherwise you overthrow a leader and pick a new one who ends up doing the same things.

That's why I see no problem with the 1% existing the way others have problems with them.

I'm not delusional enough to think that picking someone randomly from the 50% will do any better.

(That said, I'd still love to see what happens, maybe with some checks and balances. I'm pro-demarchy :-) I was thinking a 3rd chamber of congress, picked entirely at random.)