[rabbyte]

I agree with everything except that first point because legitimacy isn't the problem worth solving. Striking the right balance in governing tools and keeping interdependent systems interoperable as they mature are problems worth solving which this works toward. Arguing on grounds of legitimacy would have failed to see Wikipedia as a citable source or Facebook as an election debate host 15 years ago. So the time from no credibility to global legitimacy is at least faster than a generation can reach the age to vote.

edit- Also, keep in mind there are billions of new humans coming behind you that have no deep feelings about any of the things you think about. Good or bad. They hold none of the complexity of this world in their minds that you use to navigate now with minimal effort ("How does a bill become a law?"). Some revolutions are born from the generations that see leap frogging as an easier and better way forward than repairing the old model built for a world that doesn't exist anymore.

[vinceguidry]

Wikipedia has its legitimacy problems like any other political entity. It's legitimate as an informational resource mostly for lack of real alternatives. It fills a need that no other resource does.

And political evolution is not political revolution. Sure, the 100th generation after ours won't care how a bill becomes a law, but that doesn't mean the underlying political truths are going to become obsolete.

Revolutions don't really change anything, they just shuffle things around on the surface. Things might evolve after the revolution, but it's by no means sure.

[rabbyte]

I'm not sure if you're responding to me or just adding your perspective but each of those points can be summarized as "not necessarily" and ya, this is complex stuff, lots of possibility.

[sebastianconcpt]

True and if there is a multigenerational cultural war that has this in mind, then you have a case for a slow preparation for revolution. The cold war never ended.