Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I derive substantial portions of my wealth-building from the military-industrial complex, while living outside of the US insulates me, and my children, from the worst of both America's fractured society AND from the authoritarian overreach that typically disproportionately affects minorities such as myself.

For my family unit, the path through all this chaos of imperial decline involves building up sustainable property ownership and revenue streams in Asia and Africa while winding down our US footprint to a minimum (real estate, social security/military pension/VA benefits).

For me to engage in an insurgency, the government would need to seize our US home, and/or cancel our benefits. Even then I'd need to work out some cost-benefit analysis to determine whether I could maximize my children's wealth by either a) continuing to build wealth outside the US or b) fighting to gain restitution via the new revolutionary government.



I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them.

Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate, going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in that process and would justify brutal reprisals. An unarmed civilian crowd is far more persuasive for wavering troops ordered to fire on it.

In addition, most armed rebellions bring out the worst characters as leaders and lead to dictatorship.


> I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them.

I don't disagree with that. People have to be invested in the cause first. Weapons are just tools there to both 1) discourage the powerful from attempting tyranny 2) ensure the people at least have access to the final arbiter of power: violence.

> Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate

It would be interesting to see the data on this. Peaceful protests didn't work in Syria or Myanmar, for example. Eventual armed rebellion succeeded in Syria...but still hasn't succeeded in Myanmar despite decades of conflict. Peaceful protests in China got rolled over by tanks in the 1980s (Tianamen). The Arab Spring was shut down pretty fiercely in Bahrain despite being unarmed, but I'm not that familiar with the details.

> going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in that process

You go to the seat of power, you kill or overpower the security forces, then you take the people inside who think they can oppress you, drag them out into the street, and shoot them. Show trials are optional but recommended. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae... )

> In addition, most armed rebellions bring out the worst characters as leaders and lead to dictatorship.

"The blade itself incites to deeds of violence." (great book series BTW) In all likelihood the US got really lucky with George Washington and that colors our national mythology, and by extension our perspective on armed rebellion. Because of course a military officer who breaks laws and uses violence against his government will be magnanimous, and not turn into a vicious and brutal druglord ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Guzm%C3%A1n_Decena ).


Thank you for the thoughtful response, it was a pleasure to read.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: