If the definition of mob rule is the intimidation of the majority or a pure democracy by numbers, than is that not what we have now? As the masses being governed by the few, we have the power at any time to essentially rule as we see fit by any means necessary. And in turn, the legitimate political powers rule necessarily by force in order to keep order and protect all under their laws. Force is the key here. If they rule buy force or coercion as all governments must do in order to maintain their power, how are they any different than the small competing groups that form during a mob rule mentioned earlier?
We are the mob and the established groups. Power in numbers has always been the only ruling system. In a sense, there is no political system that can every truly escape the fact that groups that have established power will always be in competition with one another over resources and influence. Just because they have grown to become more sophisticated in technology, dealing with the masses and militarization does not mean that this core principle of force with intimidation has changed or can ever change. No one state has ever had total control over the actions of all groups and individuals; and these groups have always been in competition in some way.
We are the mob and the established groups. Power in numbers has always been the only ruling system. In a sense, there is no political system that can every truly escape the fact that groups that have established power will always be in competition with one another over resources and influence. Just because they have grown to become more sophisticated in technology, dealing with the masses and militarization does not mean that this core principle of force with intimidation has changed or can ever change. No one state has ever had total control over the actions of all groups and individuals; and these groups have always been in competition in some way.
