Forum Post: Choosing Democracy Part 2

    Even before the world had seven billion people in it, minority rule was being challenged. Civilization has held a centuries-long discussion about what constitutes excessive wealth and power, because it has always been a matter of life and death as to how the earth's resources are divided.
The life and death of people and other living things are moral and practical concerns: A potential Einstein might die in poverty, or the last of a plant able to cure cancer could be uprooted. Our survival depends on how goods and services are produced and distributed. We also need to reasonably reward individuals for their work.
The favorite illusion of our age, and the deadliest propaganda, is the idea that anyone can achieve extraordinary wealth. We should ask why anyone would want to have such wealth if this leads to a scorched-earth policy for large parts of the planet.
What is the best means of ending the harmful system now governing human affairs? With 999 out of 1,000 people on one side, change should come quickly and without violence. Though billions could take to the streets, we can imagine the beginning of a new world if only one in seven, a billion people, make their voices heard by taking direct action.
There are about 200 countries. Dividing the billion participants in this "flash revolution" between each capital, there would be an average of 5,000,000 people marching in each location. In fact, using the one-in-seven-people-in-the-street formula, the turnout in the top three countries by population would be:

China, with almost 1.4 billion people: 200,000,000
India, with just over 1.2 billion people: 170,000,000
The United States, with about 312 million: 45,000,000

In addition to putting large numbers of people in the street, there are general strikes, disobeying military and civil orders, blocking the entrances to government buildings, and numerous other acts of civil disobedience.