Mob rule. How very democratic. I think it was this type of majority vote that kept gays from marrying in California. And the exposure of it served as a beacon for gloating for all the "winners"... as in, "ha ha, look at them gays thinking they're regular people like us."

I vote a very strong nay. If site rules are clear, then there's no reason for us to drag it out in public. Nothing good shall come.

Good points. Let me think about that. I agree with everything you said, except I think that your blanket definition of "collectivism" is misguided, but then we start stepping into semantics and I'd rather avoid that for now, but maybe that's the only way to approach it.

My idea of collectivism is a lot like collaboration.

Your idea of collectivism is a lot like mob rule.

I need to think about this for a while, get it ironed out in my head. Both are group efforts, but one is working together to make things better for the group, and the other is a group effort (not always the majority I might add) to enforce their rules on other people.

That's a significant difference between the two, and I think that the use of one word to define both is misleading.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I suppose this is a better explanation: http://www.videosift.com/talk/Saturday-morning-cartoons-taught-you-collectivism?loadcomm=1#comment-945608

I am more than okay with teamwork and doing what we can communally to coexist. That, to me, is not the hallmark of collectivism. To me, it's about generating uber-citizens that believe in the right of group might instead of the right of individuals.

Did you know the marriage license in this country started as a way to keep blacks from marrying whites? You see, the large collection of whites thought that was bad, and they were the majority. I wouldn't give a shit if they decided to band together as a team to raise a barn. I do, however, care when they decide what is best for everyone and use law and violence to do so.

Are you tired of Republicans chanting "USA! USA! USA!" at every tea party? Me too. That's collectivist behavior which is exactly what lead us into the Middle East and every other nation with brown people the US wants to bomb. How would you feel if Christians passed a law in the US that says the only recognized religion is Christianity and all children must be taught it in public school? Does that seem like harmless "teamwork" to you?

Here's the staple response you can expect from them: "Hey man, we're just working together to accomplish a common goal. This is what the majority wanted. If you have a problem with it, you should get involved in the political process and work to change it."

Think about that. When a group takes the rights away from an individual, you always hear the apologists asking for those who disagree to get involved in the political process if they want to change it. How about that arrogance? I suppose the blacks who were hung weren't getting involved enough in that process. Or the ones who were on the other end of the high pressure hoses. Or the ones who drank from the colored water fountain. Think about it. Collectivism is immoral for that reason alone.

In reply to this comment by rougy:

On a more serious note, I stand by my position from back when I moved to abandon it. I require two things before I can support a reinstatement:
1. Change the name. 'Siftbunal' or something might work.
2. It needs more checks and balances, along xxovercastxx's thoughts. The free-for-all mob rule is a horrible basis for a judicial system.

>> ^dgandhi:
My take is that no democracy should allow the banning of specific religious symbols, banning all religiously themed towers(steeples,minarets,christmas trees > 5m), sure, only Muslim ones, not good.
We have fallen too far into the belief that democracy = right, which is plainly false. Sometimes, even often, democracy is wrong, that's why we have constitutional democracies, to protect minorities, and limit the destructive force of mob rule. It clearly didn't work here.


Couldn't have said it better.

On the one hand, we all talk about how stupid people in the world are...

On the other hand, we place so much faith in "the people."

>> ^dgandhi:
My take is that no democracy should allow the banning of specific religious symbols, banning all religiously themed towers(steeples,minarets,christmas trees > 5m), sure, only Muslim ones, not good.
We have fallen too far into the belief that democracy = right, which is plainly false. Sometimes, even often, democracy is wrong, that's why we have constitutional democracies, to protect minorities, and limit the destructive force of mob rule. It clearly didn't work here.


This is something I have conflicting opinions about. In principle, I think people should be able to live exactly as they please - racists shouldn't be forced to live with people they don't want to live with, for example. Unrestricted democracy is great, provided you also have complete freedom of association. Unfortunately the reality for most of us is that you're born into a society so large that you can't possibly expect to agree with everyone even on the most fundamental of principles. And you can't expect to fix that by moving elsewhere, either, since pretty much all societies are too large to allow for a large degree of individual autonomy. You don't get to choose the people you share a society with, which is, in my opinion, the real problem.

My take is that no democracy should allow the banning of specific religious symbols, banning all religiously themed towers(steeples,minarets,christmas trees > 5m), sure, only Muslim ones, not good.

We have fallen too far into the belief that democracy = right, which is plainly false. Sometimes, even often, democracy is wrong, that's why we have constitutional democracies, to protect minorities, and limit the destructive force of mob rule. It clearly didn't work here.

ObamaCare and many other schemes like it are unconstitutional. So are Medicare, Social Security and government schools. Whether social programs are worth their salt is debatable, but they are unconstitutional. The joke on those who say otherwise is none of it will be perpetually solvent or affordable in the next 20 years. There never has been, or will be, a free lunch.

The Constitution is a negative document that LIMITS government power. Communist Obama thinks it means the opposite, one of many reasons why he's dangerous.

If the "welfare clause" meant what liberals claim it does, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have bothered to carefully enumerate the few but important legitimate powers of government.

The paradox of the Constitution is the very fools that constantly make government bigger, more intrusive and more dangerous to liberty are the ones entrusted to willfully limit government power. Any semblance of balance between the federal leviathan and the States died with States' Rights.

Liberals and now a great many fakeservatives believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch...a few shakes and twists of the knobs and any popular entitlement the mob wants is now a 'right'.

"A Democracy (aka mob rule) cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy." --source unknown

Legitimate arguments? Like the Government of Canada being a tyrannical government?

Logical space? Like equating health care reform with mob rule?

Trying to have a conversation with you is like arguing with a dining room table.

I don't think impose means what you think it means.

Impose : to establish or apply by authority

Not having something done at the point of a gun isn't imposing something, it is simply not having it. More over, that doesn't prohibit it from happening out of voluntary free will. Example, there are free clinics and hospitals in the US provided by various charities. I am not quite sure why there hasn't been a non-profit insurance company ever emerge yet, I would sure like to see it happen, the market is ripe for it. I only ever bank at credit unions on the same kind of logic.

Have been considering it lately in the current climate, how many actuaries would you need for such a thing? Maybe the time is now to make it happen
Only people, you and me, can put the care in health care.

And the basis of the social contract is reason, not tyranny. We both benefit from the knowledge that we are not going to knock each other over the head in the night and make off with each others booty (heheh I said booty). Classical liberalism and civil liberties were the cure for dictatorships and mob rule, I see moving back to this as foolish and not something you actually want to live in. What might be the dominate trend today will be the victim tomorrow...is that really a place you want to live in? The "majority good" will nearly always come back to haunt you at some point, and it flies in the face of the ideals of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.


Freedom is the right to live as we wish.
Epictetus

In other words, yes, mob rule is tyranny. Read up on some Plato and Socrates.

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.

Plato

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Guess who I just quoted there.

Actually I think he's saying they will protect themselves from continuing to be robbed by majority vote (mob rule/democratic process) and by the multiple laws that already steal from them.

I'm glad a stand is being made. It should've been made years ago.

Democracy is 51% of the people telling the other 49% what to do.

Democracy is the terrorist when it steals and murders and starts wars in the name of the majority.

The statists' "choice" when confronted with libertarian principles is a claim that anything outside the padded walls of nanny state socialism/soft tyranny is "anarchy". Rubbish!

It's not a stretch to say (elected) American leftists circa 2009 have completely abandoned the Constitution in favor of mob rule and a single cult of personality who has no clue what he's doing. There's no rule of law behind any of The One's decisions, and his actions do not represent a leader concerned with individual freedom, God-given rights (to humor you atheists, no matter where you say natural rights come from it's never from government) or the time-proven strategies leading to economic recovery instead of crushing debt.

Elected Repubicans may not be much better in following the Constitution than liberals, but the difference is enough to matter. Compared to Bush, NOBODY trusts or believes this government, except the libmedia.

Freedom: 1776--2008.

2009 and beyond: total crap shoot.

>> ^Mashiki:
>> ^Drax:
If you're thinking of becoming a cop, take a moment to ask yourself, "Am I complete asshat?".

Apparently I'm a complete asshat. By the way, if a officer yells at you to get your ass on the ground. Do it, you won't end up with your face being bounced off a wall. Pretty simple stuff isn't it?
Don't raise your hands, don't smile and look pretty. Just drop to the ground, saving yourself the problem. If you're innocent great. If you're not, you're saving yourself, and the cops the trouble of having to chase you down. Probable cause is just that, while I'm sure there's some idiots here who don't understand the term, or how it relates to an incident like this. I really do feel bad for you, because once it's gone. Might as well go back to mob rule.
Then again if the need hadn't been so high, and the qualifications so low in a lot of states several years ago, you might have a higher quality and standard of officers.
Man that whole active listening, and following instructions thing is pretty hard some days.

You're missing one pretty major detail. We're animals. Sometimes we react with our instincts (ever heard of fight or flight). This kid probably didn't sit there and think "should I run or should I not". He probably was in a rough area and saw 2 people running after him and reacted. Even if he did recognize them as cops, if he was scared he might run without discrimination. It's hardwired into our heads. You can't punish somebody for instinct. Now he's in a coma. Furthermore, You can't put the law above somebody's safety and well-being, Judge Dredd.

>> ^rottenseed:
Well the police are human. The suspect tried to run over one of their brothers. I think you would do the same. I would. IMO, it's got nothing to do with black or white.


The whole reason we have laws and people to enforce them in the first place. Without the dispassionate enforcement of the law, we have mob rule.