|
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranc3
Right but the great thing about a Republic like the one in America is the fact that we are allowed to be of the opinion that our opinions should be forced onto others. Don't you see that by restricting that kind of talk (i.e. politically incorrect things), you're only chipping away from one of the best freedoms America has?
Sure it's a constitutional threat, but as Locke said (paraphrased - I can't remember his exact wording), if enough people believe the government is doing a crappy job, then it is their duty to overthrow it. In such cases mob rule is a good thing - let's say the German citizens of WW2 decided that their government wasn't being very nice to humanity in general, and because of it, they decide to overthrow it. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but does mob rule not seem better in this case? Sure you're getting rid of the established government, but if people think it's worth their lives to change the order of life, then there must be either:
1) The largest, most successful brainwashing/PR/Marketing campaign in history has just gone underway
or
2) There must be some validity to the reason(s) for so many people risking their lives to overthrow their government.
Looking at the two scenarios, the more likely one is the second one.
What I suppose I'm trying to say is I believe humanity will not overthrow their current government for nazi-ish reasons. When your own life is on the line, you tend to think very, very carefully about what you're about to do. |
good points, but what i had more in mind was the fact that because this guy perceives the majority to be in the right and his views to reflect that of the majority, he feels the justification of his actions are unnecessary due to it reflecting the logic of the majority. and what happens when the logic of mob rule falters, and the majority is faced with a crisis? they can either reform if individuals have the strength to change their path and deviate from the mob, or they can (and at times often do) react violently to assertive challenges to their strength. your example is one in which the majority acts in a conscientious manner and prevents horrible things from occuring; tragically, we both know that it didnt turn out that way and it was instead the leaders of a mob who were orchestrating a war and other things. the danger of the mob exists and thats why challenges to the majority need to be met in a political forum in which all (including, if noted by a representative sample) are represented equally, and thats why when madison wrote about threats to the constitutional republic, he actually targeted political parties as the machine for doing not-so-good (this was in the Federalist papers, i dont remember which one though).
And with regards to the social contract and locke's bit, you are right that the people have the right to end the social contract by force if necessary if the gov't isnt holding up its end of the bargain, unfortunately the practicality of such events is not always applicable, although I can think of a few historical examples in which it has been done. Today, the dominance of the political machine and the right of equal representation by law and protected by the statutes laid down by both the majority and the minority is whats needed to guarantee that the mob wont get caught up and commit acts of desperation and terror before they realize what they are doing is wrong, all of which would be committed in the name of the "majority, who has a right to rule because we rule" etc.
|
My first reaction was to punch that guy in the face, and I'm still standing by it!
They should make people do that on Fear Factor 
