is "mob rule" good or bad?

[IGIT]

hi all,

on several threads here in the War Room, the issue of mob rule comes up often - and its usually preceded by ominous intonations...the evils and perils of mob rule.

everytime this debate point comes up, i wonder if mob rule is a bad thing? is consensus and then acting on that consensus evil and inherently stifling to the American ethos of individualism?

when i look at the House of Representatives....that's mob rule. the each state is given an allotment of House members based on the population of the given state, so bigger states get a great deal of members.

the Senate? that is not mob rule. it's a place where a tiny left leaning state like Vermont gets as much say as the great state of Texas.

Presidential elections are also rife with the problem of mob rule. that means when Ronald Reagan absolutely demolished Walter Mondale in 1984, that was mob rule, right?

when civil rights were enacted in the sixties and the early seventies, surely many Americans were horrified with the idea of integrated schooling and anti-discriminatory workplace laws for women, yet it was forced down their throats by "mob rule". so is mob rule, then, a bad thing?

if there are ten of us in a room and need a degree of consensus if we are to co-exist, and nine of us agree on one way of doing things, but there is a lone holdout, should the nine of us bend to the will of the lone individual?

isn't voting on an issue to find the majority consensus inherently immoral, because if that's the route you take, you're also giving in to "mob rule"?

- IGIT

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

They did ok for a while with Vegas.

 

[Uchi Mata]

hi all,

on several threads here in the War Room, the issue of mob rule comes up often - and its usually preceded by ominous intonations...the evils and perils of mob rule.

everytime this debate point comes up, i wonder if mob rule is a bad thing? is consensus and then acting on that consensus evil and inherently stifling to the American ethos of individualism?

when i look at the House of Representatives....that's mob rule. the each state is given an allotment of House members based on the population of the given state, so bigger states get a great deal of members.

the Senate? that is not mob rule. it's a place where a tiny left leaning state like Vermont gets as much say as the great state of Texas.

Presidential elections are also rife with the problem of mob rule. that means when Ronald Reagan absolutely demolished Walter Mondale in 1984, that was mob rule, right?

when civil rights were enacted in the sixties and the early seventies, surely many Americans were horrified with the idea of integrated schooling and anti-discriminatory workplace laws for women, yet it was forced down their throats by "mob rule". so is mob rule, then, a bad thing?

if there are ten of us in a room and need a degree of consensus if we are to co-exist, and nine of us agree on one way of doing things, but there is a lone holdout, should the nine of us bend to the will of the lone individual?

isn't voting on an issue to find the majority consensus inherently immoral, because if that's the route you take, you're also giving in to "mob rule"?

- IGIT

It depends on the circumstances. If you want to kill the 10th guy because he's a different race or religion from you, that's a problem. And it illustrates the main issue with mob rule (or any kind of absolutism) which is a lack of systemic checks and balances. Without checks and balances built into the system governance can oscillate wildly between extremes as power changes hands, and that's not very good for the stability of a society as a whole.

 

[Strychnine]

 

[IGIT]

It depends on the circumstances. If you want to kill the 10th guy because he's a different race or religion from you, that's a problem. And it illustrates the main issue with mob rule (or any kind of absolutism) which is a lack of systemic checks and balances. Without checks and balances built into the system governance can oscillate wildly between extremes as power changes hands, and that's not very good for the stability of a society as a whole.

hi Uchi Mata,

i think any system of government, whether it's mob rule or the opposite (which i suppose would be a monarchy) is no good without checks and balances. in a way, i could turn your position on its head; the individual should be allowed to shoot and kill the majority (to protect the rights of the individual).

we don't want that either, do we?

the thing is, we already have checks and balances - the principle one would be our elections. we also have the Senate, which is antithetical to majority rule.

the question i'm asking is that wouldn't a monarchy or a dictatorship be preferable to a democracy? a democracy is inherently based on majority rule (or mob rule).

- IGIT

 

[Uchi Mata]

hi Uchi Mata,

i think any system of government, whether it's mob rule or the opposite (which i suppose would be a monarchy) is no good without checks and balances. in a way, i could turn your position on its head; the individual should be allowed to shoot and kill the majority (to protect the rights of the individual).

we don't want that either, do we?

the thing is, we already have checks and balances - the principle one would be our elections. we also have the Senate, which is antithetical to majority rule.

the question i'm asking is that wouldn't a monarchy or a dictatorship be preferable to a democracy? a democracy is inherently based on majority rule (or mob rule).

- IGIT

Mob rule and majority rule aren't the same thing. Mob rules implies a lawless state where snap decisions are made by a group of people who then carry those decisions out with no regard to checks and balances. Majority rule implies no such thing. A government by and for the people can put limits on its own power (and should IMO), that doesn't make it less of a democracy. In the US at least a lot of those restrictions government places on itself are around protecting the rights of minorities and the criminally accused against the momentary sentiments of the majority. And thank goodness for that.

 

[PorkPiePusher]

Not really sure that you

 

[weed]

omerta

 

[bdawk]

Mob rule and majority rule aren't the same thing. Mob rules implies a lawless state where snap decisions are made by a group of people who then carry those decisions out with no regard to checks and balances. Majority rule implies no such thing. A government by and for the people can put limits on its own power (and should IMO), that doesn't make it less of a democracy. In the US at least a lot of those restrictions government places on itself are around protecting the rights of minorities and the criminally accused against the momentary sentiments of the majority. And thank goodness for that.

What he ^^ said.

 

[SammyPops]

They did ok for a while with Vegas.

came here to post this.

 

[SammyPops]

omerta

ssshhhhh quiet

you didn't see nothing

 

[Francis Rossi]

The only good kind of mob rule:



Otherwise you sound like you want to bring lynch mobs back...

 

[Bay Area]

if there are ten of us in a room and need a degree of consensus if we are to co-exist, and nine of us agree on one way of doing things, but there is a lone holdout, should the nine of us bend to the will of the lone individual?

More importantly, should the lone individual have to bend to the will of the other 9 people just because there are more of them then him? That is the flaw of a democracy. The constitution is supposed to protect the individual rights of each person. Majority rule is anti constitution, and not what the fore fathers wanted. So in conclusion, we need politicians that follow the constitution to the exact letter, and not go with mob rule, or corporation rule.

 

[Organic Damage]

Was this thread moved from Mayberry or something? Tenor of debate seems off somehow.

 

[IGIT]

Mob rule and majority rule aren't the same thing. Mob rules implies...

hi Uchi,

mob rule and majority rule actually are the same thing, its just a different way of phrasing it.

to put it differently, when one doesn't like how the majority leans and legislates, it's described as "mob rule"....if you approve, it's "majority rule".

they are the same thing.

- IGIT

 

[jmk1502]

Equating majority rule with mob rule is fallacious; mob rule denotes lawless action being taken, while majority rule references adhering to a set of proscribed laws already in place.

 

[IGIT]

Not really sure that you

 

[IGIT]

More importantly, should the lone individual have to bend to the will of the other 9 people just because there are more of them then him?

hi Bay Area,

in a democracy, i would imagine so, yes.

if 9 people find the idea of lynching black people unsavory, and the 1 other person in the room really has a passion for it, i don't know what the fair solution is.

i guess the one guy could continue to hanging black people, but the other nine could refrain from it?

what if one of the nine people happens to be black, though?

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Was this thread moved from Mayberry or something? Tenor of debate seems off somehow.

hi Organic,

maybe it's not literal enough for you?

folks on the right tend to espouse the evils of "mob rule" when it comes to tax policy, foreign policy, campaign finance reform (or lack thereof), immigration policy, gun control policy, hell....any policy.

therefore, i was wondering if democracy is a problem.

- IGIT

 

[IDL]

Is mob rule actually mob rule? I think not

In todays mass media propaganda blitzed society peoples opinions and behaviors are largely not their own. The mob is directed by those who control the media and education systems.