Let's assume that
a1) We are all just the sum of our base programming
a2) Our programming is adaptive to our environment
b1) Our programming is pruned at the macro level (pruning of genetics)
b2) Our programming works at the micro level (conditioning)
(ie: genetics = function, conditioning = passed variable)
i) rebel against and overthrow the system conditioned
What does rebel mean? We are assuming that a) is correct, so they are not rebels, they are fulfilling their programming. As per a1) and b1), the programming is adapting to new situations in which certain conditions prompt certain responses. As in b1), this pruning takes place once the reaction takes place, meaning latent programming from a1) remains, also meaning that dissenters are not reconditioned at all - they can revert easily as the situation changes. As per b2), similar code can have drastic changes with just a change of environment (from passive to violent within minutes, if not seconds).
That follows into;
ii) once the system has become stable
There is no stable system. The world changes, our programming changes, our conditioning changes. We aren't written in the sense that we are designed to "pick up rocks, put down rocks" where deviancy is obvious. The end effect, no matter what effect it is, comes from our programming - adaptive changing programming.
To put it in perspective, a thousand years ago we fought with spears, while now we can wipe all life from the planet. There is no "stable" - our programming changes the rules, the reactions, our abilities, our conditioning... We have gone from "life is cheap" 500 years ago to "human rights for all!" now... also a change of conditioning. But the code of who we are has barely changed in a thousand years (well, black plague stuff aside).
The system itself is never stable. It changes at all three levels - environment, programming and conditioning. Deviancy could be seen as an evolution of those, or an attempted evolution, at the micro level. IOW, just an adaptation where if the programming fails, it is pruned.
The same goes with conditioning;
iii) dissenters have been conditioned away
Proof of concept: is human rights programmed into our mindset from the beginning? Yes - the golden rule is nearly universal in any time period. But the context is different (tribal, nation, family, etc) Is the concept of "enemy", the "other" also programmed? Yes. It's the frame of reference that changes. "We are always at war with...".
Just ask yourself, 50 years ago - what was the number 1 terrorist group in the world. What would you answer now? Can you isolate conditioning that is the same between the two groups?
Why was there a large scale "moral" failure heading into WW2 in Germany? Because the environment and our programming made it inevitable. Magnification of triggers through media, the breakdown of the Golden rule (unfair treatment post WW1)... the triggering of the other (they were isolated). Same code, same conditioning... leading to a different environment with new conditioning.
Therein lies the question - just how different do you think you are? It can happen here, there... anywhere there are humans, the same conditions can rise. There is no safety net - we are a sum of our environment and our programming.
Every small and large reaction comes from complex code - not direct causation. It's how we self-organise. A city without traffic lights isn't significantly better than one with. The effects are done at the margin... One form of organisation isn't that different than another... the degree of complexity, etc... the tools we use... Everything changes.
It's impossible for these i,ii and iii to be true because the removal of dissenters would be a removal of our core coding. To be adaptive is to have an unstable system - a constant stream of emergent systems, if you will.