What does one think of when mobacracy enters a conversation? Idealistically, I think of a surrounding population governing their own local issues. Realistically, however, I think of the grim French Revolution and prehistoric political structures, where mobs hunted for food and punished the belligerents.
How can a mobacracy be refined so that it can be used in a sophisticated manner to solve judicial problems in an state-free population? How did the French go wrong with their system, or was it just the misfortune of living in radical European times?
The system itself isn’t savage, the reputation of the people who have used it in the past are savage. If the system was used in times of stability and peace, I think it could have pleasant effects.
However, it in no way reverberates libertarianism. More like a local anarch-communism.
As am I, it’s most definitely the way to go. Nietzsche would be proud.
But not all people find comfort in individualism. Being a part of a team, a chain in a link, a finger on a hand, gives inspiration and comfort to some (although I fail to find fulfillment in it). I bet some would love being part of a small collective group with a common goal in mind, even if it meant giving up their own identity in exchange for part in a group identity.
It is not the group that gives the mob its power. It is its ability to commit acts of violence and aggression against defenseless individuals without the fear of retribution. Even a mob is afraid of an armed victim. It is government removing the ability of the victims to defend themselves that gives the mob power over individuals outside the mob.
So there is nothing wrong with being in a group, in fact many people do their best work in groups. With the ability of victims to defend themselves, the group never turns into a mob. Without the ability of self defense on the part of the victims, the group finds that it can use violence without retribution, the group rationalizes their aggression, the dissention is eliminated and a mob forms.