is "mob rule" good or bad?

[IDL]

edt

 

[IGIT]

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.

hiya IDL,

i don't know what you wrote means, IDL.

the New York Times is mob rule? learning geometry and physics in high school is an example of mob rule?

- IGIT

 

[Bay Area]

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

Which is why we have a constitution with laws. Hanging people is against the law, no matter who wants it, or how many people favor it. Hanging people is a violation of our basic rights as citizens. We are supposed to be a constitutional republic, and NOT a democracy, or majority rule. Politicians are supposed to be protecting the constitution, not catering to corporate lobby groups, like what we have today

 

[IDL]

hiya IDL,

i don't know what you wrote means, IDL.

the New York Times is mob rule? learning geometry and physics in high school is an example of mob rule?

- IGIT

The new York times is just one end point of a larger network of media which is consolidated and controlled by very few people.

Physics and Geometry are neutral.

Social studies, history, and anything to do with values is used to shape peoples perception of the world.

More extreme examples of this can be found in communist Russia or Nazi Germany. To think some of the same techniques in forming people into 'good citizens' in Western nations isn't realistic.

 

[IGIT]

Which is why we have a constitution with laws. Hanging people is against the law, no matter who wants it, or how many people favor it. Hanging people is a violation of our basic rights as citizens. We are supposed to be a constitutional republic, and NOT a democracy, or majority rule.

hi Bay Area,

hanging black people, though, wasn't against the law for a long, long time. for a majority of this nation's history, actually.

it wasn't until 1968 when hanging black folks was criminalized in the Civil Rights Act. it wasn't seen as a violation of the basic rights of black americans until rather recently (if you take in the full historical arc of the United States).

it has since become illegal due to "mob rule", ignored were all the desires of the legions of Americans who enjoyed hanging blacks. the lynchers were totally discounted, and there many of them.

was this good or bad?

is mob rule good or bad?

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

hi IDL,

The new York times is just one end point of a larger network of media which is consolidated and controlled by very few people.

the NYT is not like the Disney Corp or Time Warner...it is not part of any "network", it is independently owned by New York Times Company and has been for over a century and a half.

you're right, though, in general. most of the remaining big city broadsheets have been bought out by larger entities and are now, indeed, part of a network. the mighty Wall Street Journal, purchased by Fox Corp's Rupert Murdoch, would be a good example.

Physics and Geometry are neutral.

a creationist would probably disagree that geology...botany...physics...a whole host of sciences, are neutral.

Social studies, history, and anything to do with values is used to shape peoples perception of the world.

ok then, lets just agree that a vast, overhwhelming proportion of curriculum in our public schools is neutral. i assume learning the difference between a noun and a verb is neutral...as is math... and so is science.

you're probably right that most high schools don't teach that FDR secretly plotted for Pearl Harbor to occur, so he could drag our nation into war...or that there were, in fact, six shooters in the grassy knoll that downed JFK in Dallas...and the moon landing was actually filmed in a sound stage in Burbank...but i think the Louisiana Purchase was the Louisiana Purchase and that the Civil War, did, in fact, occur.

i guess they have to teach our kids something in social studies...and there is actually a very small portion of time spent on civics in general.

as i remember it, social studies was kind of bland...and political correctness (we have to try and include all points of view or have none at all, lest we offend) has made it even more vanilla in 2014.

- IGIT

 

[Bay Area]

hi Bay Area,

hanging black people, though, wasn't against the law for a long, long time. for a majority of this nation's history, actually.

it wasn't until 1968 when hanging black folks was criminalized in the Civil Rights Act. it wasn't seen as a violation of the basic rights of black americans until rather recently (if you take in the full historical arc of the United States).

it has since become illegal due to "mob rule", ignored were all the desires of the legions of Americans who enjoyed hanging blacks. the lynchers were totally discounted, and there many of them.

was this good or bad?

is mob rule good or bad?

- IGIT

Well I would say that hanging of blacks was the sort of mob rule we are talking about. Hanging of blacks while practiced, was technically against the constitution since blacks were citizens at the time. And citizens are guaranteed life and liberty. So when this was rectified, we went back to the constitution, and not mob rule. The desires of the lynchers were discounted because the constitution protects citizens.

Mob rule= bad.

 

[IDL]

IGIT another way of putting it, is if you wanted to affect public opinion and shape culture into a desired mold how would you go about doing it?

China does it. Russia does. North Korea does. Do you think the same motives and means could possibly be at play elsewhere?

 

[James Keith]

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

Mob rule is a pejorative description for direct democracy. The house and senate are representative democracy.

Either way rights will be violated unless powers in such systems are restricted.

Lately I'm favoring direct democracy more. Representative democracy is just an incremental improvement on monarchy, just as constitutional monarchy was an improvement on preceding monarchies. Now the king and his nobility are elected rather than born. They proceed to act the same way subsequently however, getting titles for life, trading in the power over their subjects for their own benefit, etc. Time to move on further and eliminate nobility altogether.

 

[IGIT]

Well I would say that hanging of blacks was the sort of mob rule we are talking about. Hanging of blacks while practiced, was technically against the constitution since blacks were citizens at the time. And citizens are guaranteed life and liberty. So when this was rectified, we went back to the constitution, and not mob rule. The desires of the lynchers were discounted because the constitution protects citizens.

Mob rule= bad.

hi Bay Area,

i'm not actually interested in the Constitution, though.

i mean, the thing is, the Constitution (and its amendments) are well and good, but the interpretation of the Constitution changes with time, as do the justices sitting on the bench.

the mob is the general voting populus, and eventually there was a general discomfort with the obvious injustice of blatant racism, thus laws were changed to reflect the mob's opinion. you can see the same thing happening with gay marriage...open intolerance of gay and lesbian couples is increasingly being seen as gauche by the mob, hence, a changing in the laws.

mob rule seems ok, to me.

if, for example, an overwhelming amount of americans want conceal and carry permits to be valid across state lines, then i think the laws should change to reflect that.

by the same token, if enough americans wanted to have a constitutional convention to have the 2nd amendment stricken from the Constitution (and if there were enough votes to pass the measure), i'd be ok with that too.

mob rule.

majority rule.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

IGIT another way of putting it, is if you wanted to affect public opinion and shape culture into a desired mold how would you go about doing it?

China does it. Russia does. North Korea does. Do you think the same motives and means could possibly be at play elsewhere?

hi IDL,

if i wanted a throttlehold on how public opinion is shaped, i'd just do away with the 1st amendment. that is what all tyrannical regimes fear; free speech.

do you have free speech? i know i do. i don't have unlimited funds to broadcast my particular version of free speech (like the Koch Brothers or Mr. Soros do), but i can say what i want.

- IGIT

 

[5H3RD0G]

We need a larger mob the entire nation We the people mob. The current mob skills are fading fast, it's time for plan B-Z as plan A is outdated. :icon_chee

 

[IGIT]

hiya James,

Mob rule is a pejorative description for direct democracy. The house and senate are representative democracy.

yep, no one would debate that mob rule is sort of a pejorative term. the House is a more pure representation of direct, proportional democracy, though...not so much the Senate.

Either way rights will be violated unless powers in such systems are restricted.

any "power", both governmental and private, can violate rights unless there are checks and balances. i don't get what your point is here.

Lately I'm favoring direct democracy more. Representative democracy is just an incremental improvement on monarchy, just as constitutional monarchy was an improvement on preceding monarchies.

i'd favor direct democracy if it was reasonable. most adults i know have their hands full with their wives/husbands, career, children and (in the cases of my older friends) taking care of their aged parents.

it doesn't really seem plausible for someone like that to also be fully briefed on the nuances of free trade with China, the merits of foreign investment as opposed to the cost of armed intervention in some war torn region of Africa, and pros and cons of increased transparency in the derivatives market, etc.
in a modern, busy world, it does appear that what we have (congressmen for sale to the highest bidder representing the people) is the best we can manage.

- IGIT

 

[IDL]

hi IDL,

if i wanted a throttlehold on how public opinion is shaped, i'd just do away with the 1st amendment. that is what all tyrannical regimes fear; free speech.

do you have free speech? i know i do. i don't have unlimited funds to broadcast my particular version of free speech (like the Koch Brothers or Mr. Soros do), but i can say what i want.

- IGIT

Personally I would buy up the media including the entertainment industry. Propaganda is amazingly advanced.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Dictators always seek to control the information that reaches the masses. The beauty in our system is that if it's privately owned, people just assume it isn't being used that way.

I think free speech will be eroded as time goes on. We can ourselves witness the expansion of what is considered politically correct and what isn't. I can only foresee that expanding.
Eventually, everyone will think the same and those who don't will be ostracised (self policing / peer pressure). Fahrenheit 451 illustrated this concept quite well.

Of course, most people agree with it which is why it works so well.

At this present time, revoking the 1st Amendment would cause a big stir. The population isn't quite ready for that yet. Intentionally changing society works far better when the masses don't pick up on it.

 

[Its Me Austin]

Bad.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

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

No they are not. One indicates an actual majority was arrived at when voting, the other does not. What if the mob are in the minority but rule by force? That would be mob rule as well.

Majority rule is when the majority rule, mob rule is ambiguous at best as to whether or not the majority rule.

to put it differently, is a mobster part of a majority or part of a group of other mobsters?

 

[IDL]

No they are not. One indicates an actual majority was arrived at when voting, the other does not. What if the mob are in the minority but rule by force? That would be mob rule as well.

Majority rule is when the majority rule, mob rule is ambiguous at best as to whether or not the majority rule.

to put it differently, is a mobster part of a majority or part of a group of other mobsters?

That's a good point.

An example would be political activism which is pushed by small groups in order to overturn the majority status quo.

 

[James Keith]

hiya James,


yep, no one would debate that mob rule is sort of a pejorative term. the House is a more pure representation of direct, proportional democracy, though...not so much the Senate.

any "power", both governmental and private, can violate rights unless there are checks and balances. i don't get what your point is here.

My point is people presume direct democracy would lead to demagoguery that violates rights and hence prefer a representative system. Whereas we actually need to restrict them either way.

And by power I mean control of the ability to force people, by threats of imprisonment or worse, to do things. Only the govt has such "power", by definition.

The federal govt wasn't supposed to be micromanaging society and so the proportionality of representation of the states in the federal system was not as big a deal when it was set up. The Senate was supposed to be chosen by state govts. Now it is completely pointless except as a more noble version of our nobility class.

 

[IGIT]

hiya and good morning IDL,

Personally I would buy up the media including the entertainment industry. Propaganda is amazingly advanced.

Monkey see, monkey do.

yep, i would try to get the 1st amendment under control...and i'd focus on the media, mostly news media.

hollywood is agnostic, politically, i wouldn't worry about the entertainment industry. you might think that's offbase, since the movie industry (in particular its actors) lean so heavily to the left - but lets face it, the left has populist stances that make for great films.

Erin Brockovitch wouldn't rate well with the mass audience if it was about how a big multinational chemical company succeeded in poisoning and killing hapless citizens.

Avatar wouldn't cause fans to flock to the theaters if it was about how rustic, tree hugging aliens were successfully subjugated by a fortune 500 mining operation, would it?

Sandra Bullock wouldn't have won an oscar for Blind Side if her character had been helping out a white russian immigrant, right?

that doesn't make Hollywood "leftist". it just means that the industry understands what US audiences like to root for.

Dictators always seek to control the information that reaches the masses. The beauty in our system is that if it's privately owned, people just assume it isn't being used that way.

dictators do try to seek control of information that reaches the masses, i'd agree with that, but that isn't what is happening here in the US.

if you want to say that much of the news is homogenized, because it's owned by large, powerful corporate entities (and thus have a certain PoV, no matter what side of the ideological fence they fall on), i'd probably agree with you.

I think free speech will be eroded as time goes on. We can ourselves witness the expansion of what is considered politically correct and what isn't. I can only foresee that expanding.

i don't know about that. i think we very much have free speech in the United States, so i'd have to disagree.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

No they are not. One indicates an actual majority was arrived at when voting, the other does not. What if the mob are in the minority but rule by force? That would be mob rule as well.

Majority rule is when the majority rule, mob rule is ambiguous at best as to whether or not the majority rule.

to put it differently, is a mobster part of a majority or part of a group of other mobsters?

hi Kevin,

i drew my observations mostly by reading posts here in the War Room.

i appreciate you making the distinction here, on this thread, but i've found that people use the term "mob rule" whenever the majority rules in a manner that they object to.

- IGIT