A little too stable

Max Weber postulated well over a century ago that the State is defined as the monopoly of force within defined territorial boundaries. Nobody has come up with a better definition yet.

As long as they have plenty of force, dictatorial states have no problem maintaining power. Democratic states have a harder time but since they are operating under a consensus, need less force. When consensus is no longer possible, democratic states have two options. Find a new consensus or become dictatorial states. We have frequent elections, here in America. This is our mechanism for maintaining consensus.

The left is afraid that the right will foment a military coupe or subvert the electoral process and thereby remain in power indefinitely. The right is afraid that the left will make voting mandatory among the general population, knowing that the larger percentage of the non-voting underclass will support the left's more liberal social entitlements.

What's going to happen, instead, is that the governmental establishment will co-opt the political establishment, of the right and left, so that it doesn't really matter who gets elected. Things will pretty much continue on, the same.

Voila, dictatorial state. Take a close look at your elected representatives in Washington and tell me it isn't true. Look at the front runners for the next Presidential election. If they were any more dumbed down they'd need feeding tubes. Can you think of one real change in policy thats happened in the last several years? The only thing that's changed about our government is more.

More power. More money. More control. MORE FORCE.

The last thing we need to worry about is the stability of our government. Unless you think it's a little too stable.