i can see anger brewing in the depths of the Forum's eyes...
*diffuses situation by throwing special treats out to everyone*
now, everyone just take their medicine and relax
an interestingly Lockean notion of resistance against the sovreign power has just arisen...
but should we really be concerning ourselves with revolution and resistance? no i dont think so, it is simply not reliable, viable or justifiable. so to dwell on it often leads to an attachment to the romanticism of being the 'rebel' and fighter of oppression
most importantly, i think this sentiment is largely irrelevant because it is no longer clear who the sole sovereign power is in Western capitalist countries. is it the government? or is the government driven by a shadow force far more disturbing. something faceless, almost impreceptible. moveable capital and wealth. and if you deal in that, my friend, the governing powers become the associations and organisations that control the
movement of that capital and wealth. the corporations, the MNCs, big business. because of the consumerist material driven society these groups have taken the reigns and they are tugging on them so delicately and masterfully that perhaps even some of them themselves arent aware of the power they wield.
wanna overthrow something? overthrow materialist consumerism, corporate exploitation, MNC manipulation of smaller developing countries (not to mention ownership), plundering of the global natural resources, overthrow consumerist marketing that has been psychologically primed over decades to manipulate the public, remarkably successfully, by appealing to desires they dont know they have.
but please, dont overthrow the government; possibly the one structure that would allow successful inhibition of the power these giants wield.
to follow on from this and address the original question
in the traditional system, as laid down by the founding politico-philosophers of democracy, we should let the sovereign power have enough control so as to ensure the protection of individual life, liberty and property but no more. the sovereign should ensure that individuals who enter into a social contract with it (live and work within its system) are free from the dangers of the 'natural state' (unprompted murder, random beatings, rape). any extension oftheir control justifies their removal and any deficit of theit control again justifies their removal.
unfortunately, you could be pretty extensive and random in your introduction of legislation that supposedly protects either life liberty or property (surveillance that invades ones privacy for anti terrorism, for instance)