What do you mean? Do you mean that inconsistency is an intransigent trait of humanity? Do you mean people become restless? Do you mean people try to preserve order, but fail?

I mean what I've said. The more people you have, the more time you consider, the more likely that some outliers in that group will seek to exploit the system and game it in their favour. Given that all societies now are quite large, this probability becomes an inevitable certainty; all societies have this problem, so we can generalise and say "people behave this way".

Who would “throw at people” a system?

Peter Thiel has been doing this on private islands. Not that I support that jagoff in any way, but that was the answer that instantly popped into my head.

Are you describing an autocracy, or a foreign occupation?

Any of those. I'm not talking about any specific social structure, just human nature. I'm saying that social structure needs to account for fringe aspects of human behaviour, because once society becomes large enough then these fringe aspects become significantly large also, even if overall they are the minority.

Can people identify a system, or simply organization and practices under which they prefer to live and by which they feel empowered?

Do people seek change that they identify as valuable?

I am not understanding how you are deriving your understanding about how societies occur and evolve.

I'm not talking about how societies evolve, or any specific structure, just a specific aspect of human nature.

Do you sincerely think that most in every society are revolutionaries?

No. I'm talking more about sociopathy, ie those who manipulate others for their own benefit. However, I would say sociopaths are a minority, but when a group of people is large enough the number of sociopaths and their behaviour becomes a significant problem.

Most of what you've been saying here is focused on the system. The argument I'm making is system agnostic; I'm talking about human behaviour, in particular the fringe behaviour that becomes inevitable in large groups of people, ie in modern societies.

It seems like you're speaking in defense of a specific social structure, but you're reluctant to actually talk about that structure or even name it.

I am not sure you understand the meaning of capitalism and communism.

This is kind of a running theme with you. You imply that I'm wrong, but don't offer any counter point in return. This is an incredibly disingenuous way of arguing, you don't really say anything of any substance but expect me to provide your argument for you.

If you want to talk about the merits of communism, or any other system, I'm game, and I'd love to hash out definitions with you so that we're completely on the same page. I think your reluctance stems from the ways in which the terminology is poisoned - much like "retard" was once a technical medical term but since became a slur, "communism" has become something of a dirty word in some circles. That doesn't mean the ideas behind it are wrong, and I'm happy to talk about the ideas using whatever words.