And THAT, sports fan is why Obama is way behind the curve.
Individuals with big mouths make Mr. Obama and exceedingly upset, and nervous person.
We’ve heard it otherwise expressed as 1 man, 1 vote, 1 time.
Ochlocracy as a wise apostate individual pointed out, is NOT what we conceive of as democracy.
Mr. Obama is not nervous with the idea of a mob, mass, momentary approval of the obnoxious if it might be for what he conceives of as ‘social justice’ (code) so he cannot help but try to encourage this in some backhanded way while appearing not to, while also appearing to avoid stomping any US ally who is inconvenient to this movement. To him such movement is PROGRESSIVE. It IS if you believe that the many have have the rights they can arrogate (away) of the few and the one (yes, I know, - Spock). It is if you believe the many can COMPEL, by vote, intimidation and state coercion as the absolute vision of ‘democracy’.
The problem is as he has here, it is INDIVIDUALS who want something OTHER than what the mob wants that give him the heebie jeebies. It is the inconvenient INDIVIDUAL that asserts his or her rights that the MB wants to ostracize, and export or worse.
Individual rights usually NEED a democracy to exist, but are not necessary to have the functioning of a society which runs on majority intimidation (can anyone say Copt, Bahai, Ahmadiya), especially a society which has a religious majority of 90%, 90% of whom WANT that religion as the major factor in govt.
Yet a society in which a scrupulous adherence to the will of the majority alone defines policy, would look very little like ours.
Or our revolution.
Or our founders’ ideas.
Beginning with the so called hero of human rights, J Carter, every US president should have been banging the drum of the rights of individuals because they would have been doing so for a constitutional republic with SOME kind of Bill of Rights guarantees.
If it is not democracy (Ochlocracy) but THIS KIND OF GOVERNMENT which is an anathema to Islamic majorities FINE, let’s hear about it.
It MAY be too late for Egypt. It may be impossible in Islamic majority nations (and if so the sooner we know the better), but someone in the USA in leadership or potential leadership positions had better speak up so that we have a 30 second sound byte as to the difference between a mob intimidation rule of the masses, and a democracy whose PURPOSE is the protection of the individual while having majority rule.
8 comments:
Very astute observations. Unfortunately, we have been morally unable to defend the rights of man since the dawn of the progressive era in the early 20th century.
Progressives deftly supplanted the founders' vision with a tyranny of the ruling class backed by appeal to mob democracy fueled by lock-step conformism and handing out of goodies funded by fellow citizens.
Few truer things have been written, in a more concise way, that the first sentence of this post.
Well done.
Excellent. We need to constantly point out the differences between what the left defines with what we really mean.
Looks like the term 'Democracy' is going the way of once decent words like Liberal and Progressive.
We can only pray we have time to right our ship. He is so obvious about what he has in mind for our country.
Epaminondas,
The truth is that a society can only have a government that truly respects human liberty, if a majority of its people support liberty. In other words, genuine liberal democracies can only exist in civilized societies, where most people respect the rule of law, and other people's property rights, and the overwhelming majority of people find the idea of punishing someone simply for disagreeing them to be morally abhorrent.
Definitely Damien. I was commenting on that story that Avi Green brought our attention to about "Nightpissrunner" and a lot of us were saying some nasty, but totally true things about pisslam, and one guy said "I'm French too, and I'm glad to live in a country where people like you can be put on trial for saying publicly racist comments like you just did."
I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe he actually believes people should be prosecuted for something they said, no matter how hateful, no matter how racist, no matter how sexist, no matter how distasteful, ... no one should ever be censored or punished for saying or writing or, the next step, *thinking* anything. So yes, what a vast gulf there is between Westerners and pisslamers. Authoritarianism and submission are bred in them from birth. There are no individuals in pisslam.
American Rose,
Good point. lets expand on it. Take the issue of Holocaust denial for example, even ignoring anything else, couldn't simply banning stating that the Holocaust never happened, simply reinforce the belief in the eyes of those who already believe it, and create doubt in those ignorant enough not to know any better? Also, as disgusting as Holocaust denial is, isn't outright banning it, basically banning a thought? Isn't arresting someone for Holocaust denial, arresting someone for a thought crime? I know that the Holocaust happened, and it was heinous crime, but there are much better ways of combating it, than trying to force people to accept the fact that it happened by threatening them with punishment. The first Amendment to the US constitution is suppose to protect more than just popular speech, its supposed to protect unpopular speech, even if it is morally abhorrent. I think that anyone who thinks that people should be prosecuted for hate speech needs to understand, that the same principal could be turned around and used against them someday. At one time things were reversed, not being racist was frowned upon, by the majority.
Post a Comment