is "mob rule" good or bad?

[IGIT]

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.

hi IDL,

the collapse of Manchin/Toomey (which enjoyed huge, bi-partisan support) at hands of the gun lobby would be a good example of the activism you're talking about.

- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

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

That's inconsistent reasoning IGIT.

Nothing in the US Federal government can be considered "mob rule". It's a republic and a republic is drastically different than a direct democracy. Additionally, there are checks and balances on the people that are elected. We have a judiciary, we have state governments, and we have a relatively strong belief in the concept of natural and individual rights.

Supposedly the government is also constrained by precedent and the US Constitution.

Mob rule is akin to dragging someone from their home and lynching them and looting their house. Or a group of people following a strong man and running amok.

 

[OldGoat]

hiya and good morning IDL,



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

- IGIT

You'd be crazy or naive to put the freedom of press, assembly, religion, speech into the hands of the power hungry, corrupt bastards in Washington. Or any other government power center.

 

[AgentOrange24]

Democracy is almost by definition the rule of the mob.

There's a reason Aristotle hated it so much.

Fortunately, we don't have a democracy, we have a republic.

 

[IGIT]

That's inconsistent reasoning IGIT.

Nothing in the US Federal government can be considered "mob rule". It's a republic and a republic is drastically different than a direct democracy. Additionally, there are checks and balances on the people that are elected. We have a judiciary, we have state governments, and we have a relatively strong belief in the concept of natural and individual rights.

hi OldGoat,

i'm curious why so many are mentioning that the US is a republic, as if that's some kind of news bulletin or a rebuttal of the OP? it's not. the idea of a direct democracy in a country as huge as ours in 2014 is goofy, too...no one has suggested that is a feasible concept.

also, any political system claims to have checks and balances, so what? it's a blanket assertion that everyone makes, it doesn't matter if you're in Russia, the United States or China. they all claim to have checks and balances, lol.

none of this has anything to do with the OP.

Supposedly the government is also constrained by precedent and the US Constitution.

i wish people would stop repeating this chestnut, because it's farcical and ridiculous. the framers DID NOT WANT TO LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, that was not their purpose or intent. i don't know where you picked up that piece of fiction, OldGoat.

just because Ron Paul said it, doesn't make it true.

there was no "Federal Government" in 1787. at the time, congress was weak, almost powerless. the Confederation Congress couldn't levy taxes, couldn't pay it's debts, couldn't fulfill it's treaties with other nations, oversee commerce - in short, it had no power.

the country was dysfunctional because congress was too weak.

In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)

Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States."

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/constitution/1784/jay2.html

just stop with this whole, "the framers intended for the power to flow to the states and wanted to limit the power of the Federal Government", because it's just a fairy tale. utterly untrue.

do you actually believe this malarkey that the framers got together in Philadelphia and said, "lets limit the power of the Federal Government"? the country was in danger of falling apart at the time, lol.

jesus.

Mob rule is akin to dragging someone from their home and lynching them and looting their house. Or a group of people following a strong man and running amok.

that's rather dramatic, OldGoat. would mob rule also be super monied entities buying our senators and house members in order to curry favor and have legislation written that favors their interests? or is mob rule only for the unwashed masses in the streets?

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Democracy is almost by definition the rule of the mob.

There's a reason Aristotle hated it so much.

Fortunately, we don't have a democracy, we have a republic.

hi Orange,

lol.

yes, i know this. i hope everyone knows this. are you saying that in a republic, mob rule is impossible?

- IGIT

 

[AgentOrange24]

Quoting the Founding Fathers is a useless exercise most of the time.

Madison was a noted original Federalist, and that idea didn't get much traction at the Continental Congress.

They obviously wanted to limit federal power, given that the Bill of Rights ONLY limited the federal government, and the list of prohibitions against the states were far fewer in number.

Also, Igit, based on your responses, you don't know what mob rule is. It's rule by the masses where they use their numbers to rule unjustly, nothing more. If we agree that just rule is better than unjust rule, then mob rule is, indeed, inherently bad.

 

[OldGoat]

hi OldGoat,

i'm curious why so many are mentioning that the US is a republic, as if that's some kind of news bulletin or a rebuttal of the OP? it's not. the idea of a direct democracy in a country as huge as ours in 2014 is goofy, too...no one has suggested that is a feasible concept.

also, any political system claims to have checks and balances, so what? it's a blanket assertion that everyone makes, it doesn't matter if you're in Russia, the United States or China. they all claim to have checks and balances, lol.

none of this has anything to do with the OP.



i wish people would stop repeating this chestnut, because it's farcical and ridiculous. the framers DID NOT WANT TO LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, that was not their purpose or intent. i don't know where you picked up that piece of fiction, OldGoat.

just because Ron Paul said it, doesn't make it true.

there was no "Federal Government" in 1787. at the time, congress was weak, almost powerless. the Confederation Congress couldn't levy taxes, couldn't pay it's debts, couldn't fulfill it's treaties with other nations, oversee commerce - in short, it had no power.

the country was dysfunctional because congress was too weak.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/constitution/1784/jay2.html

just stop with this whole, "the framers intended for the power to flow to the states and wanted to limit the power of the Federal Government", because it's just a fairy tale. utterly untrue.

do you actually believe this malarkey that the framers got together in Philadelphia and said, "lets limit the power of the Federal Government"? the country was in danger of falling apart at the time, lol.

jesus.



that's rather dramatic, OldGoat. would mob rule also be super monied entities buying our senators and house members in order to curry favor and have legislation written that favors their interests? or is mob rule only for the unwashed masses in the streets?

- IGIT

Darn IGIT, the above is so filled with revisionist history I don't know where to begin. The WHOLE point of a Constitution was to limit the power of government. GW didn't just quit after 2 terms because he wanted to be the head of an all powerful state.

The 10th amendment is a real part of the Constitution. There was a huge debate about the redundancy of the Bill of Rights.

But back to the "mob rule". A circle and a triangle are both shapes. That doesn't mean they share every property. A constrained republic is MUCH different than a mob or a direct democracy even though they share some properties.

BTW, what's the point of your question? Why the perversion of normal English words? You on the Supreme Court now? Because to me it seems you are arguing for the morality of a "might makes right" society. Which while that is true in this world in many parts of the world people have evolved a bit more civility.

 

[IGIT]

hi Agent,

Quoting the Founding Fathers is a useless exercise most of the time.

Madison was a noted original Federalist, and that idea didn't get much traction at the Continental Congress.

They obviously wanted to limit federal power, given that the Bill of Rights ONLY limited the federal government, and the list of prohibitions against the states were far fewer in number.

the listed prohibitions against the states was not some minor thing, though.

also, articles 1 and 8 gave the congress vast powers; "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

again, in 1787 the United States hadn't beaten Japan and Germany in WW2 on its ascent to being a top-of-the-food-chain world power - that happens later - it was in danger of falling apart.

Also, Igit, based on your responses, you don't know what mob rule is. It's rule by the masses where they use their numbers to rule unjustly, nothing more. If we agree that just rule is better than unjust rule, then mob rule is, indeed, inherently bad.

me?

actually, i know the difference.

let me ask you a question, i'm curious of your response - take a look at these two issues;

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the U.S. Senate should have passed a measure to expand gun-purchase background checks compared with 29 percent who agreed with the chamber

 

[AgentOrange24]

I've already defined to you what mob rule is.

It's unjust rule by the majority.

Neither of those examples were unjust rule by the majority, so they were not examples of mob rule.

In neither case was a "mob" even involved. One involved, literally, only 9 people.

 

[IGIT]

hi Goat,

Darn IGIT, the above is so filled with revisionist history I don't know where to begin. The WHOLE point of a Constitution was to limit the power of government. GW didn't just quit after 2 terms because he wanted to be the head of an all powerful state.

The 10th amendment is a real part of the Constitution. There was a huge debate about the redundancy of the Bill of Rights.

it's accurate, it's not revisionist.

i think it's sort of funny to hear certain entities telling me that the framers were worried about big government (as defined by white, aging wingnuts living on social security and medicare in 2014) back in the mid 1700's. it's not true...but really, that's another topic for a different thread.

But back to the "mob rule". A circle and a triangle are both shapes. That doesn't mean they share every property. A constrained republic is MUCH different than a mob or a direct democracy even though they share some properties.

i know the difference between a direct democracy and a republic. it just doesn't have much to do with the OP.

BTW, what's the point of your question? Why the perversion of normal English words? You on the Supreme Court now? Because to me it seems you are arguing for the morality of a "might makes right" society. Which while that is true in this world in many parts of the world people have evolved a bit more civility.

i was thinking about an exchange i had with a poster on the recent SCOTUS ruling (McCutcheon vs the Federal Election Committee) and i'd mentioned that four out of five americans support campaign finance limits and his response was, "that's just mob rule"...and i was thinking, "so what?".

if eighty percent of americans favor this kind of legislation or that - isn't that enough?

take this out of the realm of the theoretical and apply it to your own life. is four out five people enough of a consensus for you to act on a measure for you? if four out of five people support the idea of conceal and carry permits being valid from coast to coast across state lines, shouldn't such a measure pass?

or should the one dissenter be able to block the passage of the Universal Conceal and Carry Reciprocity Act?

what is your opinion?

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

You'd be crazy or naive to put the freedom of press, assembly, religion, speech into the hands of the power hungry, corrupt bastards in Washington. Or any other government power center.

hi Goat,

we were talking, i think, about the media.

also, the power of the media does not rest in DC. it rests in massively wealthy, fortune 500 companies. i'm talking about Viacom....CBS....News Corp...Time Warner, places like that. your fears are unfounded, my friend.

relax.

- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

hi Goat,

we were talking, i think, about the media.

also, the power of the media does not rest in DC. it rests in massively wealthy, fortune 500 companies. i'm talking about Viacom....CBS....News Corp...Time Warner, places like that. your fears are unfounded, my friend.

relax.

- IGIT

Well, I don't worry about Viacom or CBS. Oh no, another Fruit Loops commercial. What I worry about are the power hungry crackheads in Washington that have the power of drone assassinations, IRS, and a book full of other tools to ruin or end your life.

But yeah, I am supposed to be concerned that random Corp X can give an extra couple thousand per year.

And yes, your history is revisionist. There is NO doubt that the whole point of a constitution and system of government such as ours was intended to be constrained. It takes a willful misreading to see it any other way.

On the subject of consensus, let's say you and four of your flunkies are in MY house and you decide to take my TV. How do you think that will go?

 

[IGIT]

hi Agent,

I've already defined to you what mob rule is.

It's unjust rule by the majority.

that is not the definition of mob rule, lol. do you know what it means?

Neither of those examples were unjust rule by the majority, so they were not examples of mob rule.

In neither case was a "mob" even involved. One involved, literally, only 9 people.

i see.

so you're ok with a kind of minority rule then, philosophically speaking? i mean, as long as its constitutional, you're ok with it, yes?

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

hiya Goat,

a final bit, and then i gotta go for now.

Well, I don't worry about Viacom or CBS. Oh no, another Fruit Loops commercial. What I worry about are the power hungry crackheads in Washington that have the power of drone assassinations, IRS, and a book full of other tools to ruin or end your life.

But yeah, I am supposed to be concerned that random Corp X can give an extra couple thousand per year.

it all depends.

if you buy into the premise that money buys influence and thus also believe that a great deal of money can buy a great deal of influence, then yes, you should be concerned.

lets say you like to hunt and fish (sportsmen are some of the greatest conservationists that this country has) and you're just an OldGoat whose net worth is a pittance. well, i'm Duke Power and i want to dump coal ash into your rivers and lakes....and i can give a boatload of money to Governor Pat McCrory and get legislation passed that allows me to pollute with impunity.

this is not a hypothetical. this is happening, right now, in North Carolina.

would this worry you? if it doesn't, then you're good with the way things are, man, and all is sunshine and rainbows for you.

And yes, your history is revisionist. There is NO doubt that the whole point of a constitution and system of government such as ours was intended to be constrained. It takes a willful misreading to see it any other way.

no, lol. i'll leave it at that.

On the subject of consensus, let's say you and four of your flunkies are in MY house and you decide to take my TV. How do you think that will go?

i think you'd probably be out one television, Goat. but i would never do such a thing, i think you're a good guy.

- IGIT

 

[AgentOrange24]

If mob rule isn't the unjust rule of the masses, then what is it?

Is a mob not a mass of people? If it was good to be ruled by the mob, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[IDL]

Democracy is almost by definition the rule of the mob.

There's a reason Aristotle hated it so much.

Fortunately, we don't have a democracy, we have a republic.

What if you could figure out a way for the masses to think they were in charge, when they actually weren't? Best of both worlds? That is the type of system that I think Aristotle could appreciate.

 

[IGIT]

If mob rule isn't the unjust rule of the masses, then what is it?

Is a mob not a mass of people? If it was good to be ruled by the mob, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

heya Agent,

sorry for the delay in responding, i had to step out for work.

Definition of mob rule in English:
mob rule

Syllabification: mob rule
noun

Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/mob-rule

it really doesn't have much to do with a majority. you can have a small minority inflicting mob rule, too.

to repeat my other question; you're comfortable with minority rule, right? i mean, as long as its constitutional and lawful, its ok with you?

- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

heya Agent,

sorry for the delay in responding, i had to step out for work.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/mob-rule

it really doesn't have much to do with a majority. you can have a small minority inflicting mob rule, too.

to repeat my other question; you're comfortable with minority rule, right? i mean, as long as its constitutional and lawful, its ok with you?

- IGIT

Are you going to need a proper definition of each word? What you really want to know is what is the basis of governing and law. Well that can fill volumes and you won't get the answer you want on a message board.

Suffice to say, yes constitutional and lawful are a good START for a society. But it also helps to have a form of morality.

 

[IGIT]

Are you going to need a proper definition of each word? What you really want to know is what is the basis of governing and law. Well that can fill volumes and you won't get the answer you want on a message board.

Suffice to say, yes constitutional and lawful are a good START for a society. But it also helps to have a form of morality.

hi OldGoat,

if four out of five people support the idea of conceal and carry permits being valid from coast to coast across state lines, shouldn't such a measure pass?

if 80% of the nation supports the Universal Conceal and Carry Reciprocity Act, do you agree that 20% of the nation should be able to block it?

what is your opinion?

- IGIT