I concur with Fedako’s views, especially with regard to the importance of ideas, the need to influence the public, and the responsibility for the individual to participate. So to do my part, I digress with the following:

HOW TO INFLUENCE THE PUBLIC

Why should we want to influence the public? Isn’t the world run by the powerful, or by economic factors? I submit that the world operates by the beliefs of the mass, albeit influenced by the intelligentsia. Étienne de la Boétie noted long ago, that leaders gain and hold power by popular acceptance. It is analogous to the dependence of the market upon the consumer, where over time, only those products survive that people want to buy. The worldly process then is that beliefs are proposed, but are accepted only when internalized by the public. Leaders gain and hold power by appealing to those beliefs, and by doing so better than do their competitors. This is aided by promulgators who act as advertisers. However, none of this has lasting import except those that are accepted by the mass. So the final determinant, is neither the intelligentsia, the leadership, nor their promulgators, but the beliefs of their audience.

Let us place aside the role of the intelligentsia, and start with the beliefs of the mass as given. How then do they arrive at political decisions? Clearly they cannot adequately understand the avowed basis of policies, but can only decide in terms of what they prefer. Consider their acceptance of Kenesianism. Few (including economists) can understand its meaning or derivation, yet the public hears that the greedy capitalists are the cause of economic disasters, and we (or the needy) shall receive money to spend. Thus they conclude that there is a moral aim that is personally beneficial. Then they rationalize about technical particulars and selective data, to justify their position. Now it is necessary to provide a proper economic analysis, but this cannot suffice unless it provides a contrary view of morality and personal benefit. Here, I do not mean what I consider moral or of self-interest, but rather how it is viewed by the individuals themselves. This is subjective, and meant to include whatever an individual thinks ought to be, and whatever he thinks he wants. Of course, there are emotional appeals as well. For example, global warming advocates will show pictures of drowning baby polar bears, which cannot be countered by the fact that there are more polar bears, and the weather has cooled. However, one can show films of polar bears eating from garbage containers, and chasing children, as a consequence of their expansion into human habitats.

Institutions are motivated to grow, and their representatives are selected and rewarded by doing so. Although there is illegal corruption, the primary corruption is where an institution violates its mission. One illustration is the educational institution, which doesn’t improve education, but vastly increases its funding. Another is where the Federal Reserve doesn’t maintain solvency or the value of the dollar, but continues to grow. Still another is the Federal government, which doesn’t protect our rights, but gets us into bankruptcy, yet is continually rewarded. Such corruption cannot be countered by the government, for it goes against their interests (as when a fox manages the chicken coop). It can only be restrained by a public that rewards performance and punishes irresponsibility.

Yet how can the public ascertain what the situation is, and where their interests fall? Just as a customer will not purchase a product unless the seller explains its value, so should the citizen reject any government policy that is not rendered understandable. Thus any lengthy or esoteric justification must be rejected. Only that which meets the requirements of the moral judgment and common sense of the reader should be honored. This is not a matter of being democratic, but of subordinating government to the sovereign individual.

In sum:
The public’s beliefs (through their aims and actions) are the primary determinant of a country’s history;
People decide upon policies on the basis of their beliefs on morality and self-interest;
Propose and require policies that are understandable to the sovereign individual.

Cybertarian,

The state came about and exists partially because they are very good at providing effective offense and defense. In case you haven’t heard, the Tamil Tigers got wiped out by the government.

I don’t recommend armed conflict because the governments will kick your butt. The best way to change the system is to remove its legitimacy by showing people things can be different and by spreading these ideas.