What is happening is a REVOLUTION in the same sense as the first American Revolution - only in reverse. Revolution occurs when social power overcomes state power, or, conversely when state power overcomes social power.

In that sense, we opt for revolution with every election. The 'problem' with that democratic process is that it will ALWAYS lead to a revolution that favors state power over social power. There is NO peaceful reversal of fortune for social power because state power IS the use of force - submission.





"What the State fears above all, of course, is any fundamental threat to its own power and its own existence. The death of a State can come about in two major ways: (a) through conquest by another State, or (b) through revolutionary overthrow by its own subjects— in short, by war or revolution. War and revolution, as the two basic threats, invariably arouse in the State rulers their maximum efforts and maximum propaganda among the people. As stated above, any way must always be used to mobilize the people to come to the State's defense in the belief that they are defending themselves. The fallacy of the idea becomes evident when conscription is wielded against those who refuse to "defend" themselves and are, therefore, forced into joining the State's military band: needless to add, no "defense" is permitted them against this act of "their own" State." - Rothbard, 'Anatomy of the State'



Not only is this an apt description of revolution, but also clearly distiguishes the term 'patriot' as one who works to secure social power over state power - that is, devotion to the principle of social power as a means to peace and prosperity in society.

Webster's definition applies if his perspective of 'nation' and 'country' is that of social cooperation - social power. It is not appropriate if his perspective is regarded as looking to state power to seure peace and liberty. Both theory and history demonstrate that state power is ever and always opposed to social power.