What's Worse than a Mob?Blank Out

I'd like to post a few comments in a follow-up piece to Micha's post.

Rand's objection to his argument would be that a mob and a government are not the same. Government, she said, acts (or should act) according to objectively defined laws, whereas a mob acts on an aggregate of whims.

Not so fast, Mrs. Rand. In Our Glorious DemocracyTM, laws are "objectively" defined by a small number of bodies supported by a large number of grasping hands and jealous eyes. We have a Constitution for the purpose of restricting the scope of these laws, but it has proved woefully inadequate. People like Thomas Jefferson and me believe that "[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Panics are conjured by every corner, and all the objective definition appears to do is give the whims a few months' delay.

The "objective" laws can be every bit as bad as the whims of a mob. They could even be worse. A mob must eventually disperse, and often fades in the face of danger. Laws typically remain on the books for years. Germany, I believe, still has Nazi laws in effect (apparently anything that did not specifically mention Jews was acceptable). Mobs are composed of people who more often than not want to save their skins?after the first few are down, the rest do not keep coming. Governments can always muster more firepower than you can. Riotous mob members might regret their actions the next day; I can hardly recall any former member of Congress regretting having enacted too many laws.

Whims or "objectively" defined laws? You decide?this November.

Share this

Anyone who believes law is

Anyone who believes law is objective needs to read "The Myth of the Rule of Law"