How, or why is Neal Boortz's point -- "A lynch mob is a democracy." -- a basically valid
point? Even if it be granted, for the sake of debate, that a democracy can or could
conduct itself improperly as a lynch mob conducts itself, can we say that only a social
democracy can behave in the manner of a lynch mob?  To simply assert that a lynch
mob is a democracy, seems to imply that lynch mob behavior is somehow unique to
democracy. Is this assertion a convincing, or accurate claim against democracy? For
example, can it be said that an aristocracy is not, or never has been, or never could
be a lynch mob form of government? Can it be argued that a lynch mob rule cannot
be a plutocratic government?

Can it be said that a lynch mob is a defective or fallacious democracy, an unprincipled
and spurious democracy? Can it be said that a libertarian form of republican capitalism
is a lynch mob, given that every libertarian holds that to initiate force and violence is anti-
libertarian in both principle and practice? Why is a lynch mob equivalent to a democratic
commonwealth if lynch mob justice is so opposed to every principle advocated by social
democratic apologists?  If a principled libertarian regards lynch mob violence as
anti-libertarian, then a policy of lynch mob violence would and could be taken as indicating
the absence of a libertarian practice.  Also, if a principled social-democrat regards lynch
mob violence as anti-democratic, then any carrying out of lynch mob violence would and
could be taken as demonstrating a severe lack of democracy.





Why do anti-democrats believe that a democracy is a form of government in which an
accidental or incidental democratic majority, in some electoral decision, has some
ethical right to coercively and oppressively impose its democratically expressed will
on a dissenting numerical minority?  There is, in every mature democratic theory, every
right of dissent, and every freedom of dissenters to withdraw and withhold participation
in any project, program, policy, plan, or proposal that has the support of the majority.
Also, there is, in every modern democratic doctrine, the restrictive proviso, the modifying
and limiting stipulation, that private decisions and personal choices which do not affect,
concern, or alter the community's life are not in the public purview, are not in the public
realm or domain, and are therefore not political concerns, not the business of democratic
government or of legislative authority.

What decision would a democratic majority adopt, that could then be coercively and
forcibly imposed on a protestant minority? Or, is this kind of argument, often used
against democracy, so abstract and so abstruse that it simply does not connect with,
or pertain to a genuine and integral democratic polity?





I have heard it said that Nazi Germany exemplifies or illustrates the vagary which says
that "A lynch mob is a democracy". But, was the Nazi régime a democracy?  Was the
Weimar Republic a strong and mature democracy?

How do we know that the majority of the population, in the antebellum American south,
believed that chattel slavery is natural or agreeable? Besides, people have believed a
lot of silly and beastly things in the past. Every advocate of democracy has always
believed in the importance of a better educated public, and in the advantages of a
morally civilized population, as the pre-condition and pre-requisite for a workable and
virtuous democracy, a credible and stable democracy.





If we grant, for the purpose of discussion, that a democracy is a form of government that
gives a majority the right, and the power, to impose its democratically expressed will on
everyone living within its territory and jurisdiction, then I ask:  What form of government,
other than a democracy, does not give the government a constitutional right, and a lawful
power, to impose the will of the state on every citizen living within its national dominion?

What form of government is better than democracy?  What form of government avoids all
the alleged and asserted dangers of a democratic polity?





The so-called social contract is a mythical covenant. It is plainly and clearly written
nowhere on paper.  It is coherently and lucidly written nowhere on the collective
consciousness of the people. 

So, what is being referred to when people talk about the social contract?

If there ever could be, or will be, a social contract, then it would need to be a democratic
and modifiable constitution.





What value for freedom does a private contract have that a social contract cannot also
have?





Government actions being conducted here in the United States are not the actions of
a truly democratic government; and, they are not actions of government sanctioned by
a democratic majority. 





"The more laws the more offenders."
-- Thomas Fuller