Skip to content

Desert Island Democracy

© Ruben Bolling

Question: what’s the difference between democracy and mob rule?



  1. Richard wrote:

    Fantastic, couldn’t be any clearer although for some it won’t be clear enough. Sigh.

    Saturday, August 14, 2010 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
  2. Morrius wrote:

    Ever heard of the tax on left-handed people? The majority of the public is in favor of it, so it must be a good idea. Vox populi, vox dei.

    Sunday, August 15, 2010 at 6:59 am | Permalink
  3. patriotsgt wrote:

    Yes, very clear and to the point. Now, where the most problems come are deciding or discerning which are rights and which are priviledges. The other issue is just because it’s a right does not mean it’s ok if it infringes on the rights of others. Ie. you can listen to any kind of music you want, but I don’t have to be subjected to it. Another, the WBC can spew it anti-gay rhetoric amd display it’s vulgar signs and intentionally cause mental anguish and painm because it’s their 1st amendment right, but is it right? The Muslim Imam has the right to build a community center 21 blocks from the 911 site, but is it the best choice? Gov’t can ban salt or trans fat or mcdonalds happy meals, or is that infringing on personal rights or priviledges?

    Just something to think about.

    Sunday, August 15, 2010 at 4:44 pm | Permalink
  4. patriotsgt wrote:

    Sorry for the multitude od typos and poor sentence structure, I was doing 2 things at once. Guys should not attempt that, at least this one.

    Sunday, August 15, 2010 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
  5. Falkelord wrote:

    The difference is democracy is recognized as more civilized, even when it may not be.

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 8:27 am | Permalink
  6. Iron Knee wrote:

    PatriotSgt, excellent point. Even our most cherished freedoms have limits. You cannot exercise your right to free speech by yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. I am a supporter of 2nd amendment rights, but I am always surprised by people who think any gun law is unconstitutional (like a law that requires a check for felony convictions before you buy a gun).

    As for happy meals, I think people should be able to eat any thing they like, but I’d support a law that requires restaurant chains to provide basic information about the food they serve (like printing calorie/fat/nutrition info on their menus).

    And the whole “ground zero mosque” thing has been pumped up for political gain. I’d rather ignore it. We have more serious problems.

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 10:13 am | Permalink
  7. patriotsgt wrote:

    I agree on the 2nd amendment issue IK. Absolutely, there should be a criminal background check for any gun purchase, hand gun, long gun, whatever. There are some localities however that create so much red tape as to impose restriction, which is equally wrong.
    The happy meals issue (Where else, but San Fran), which is so maddening that the Gov’t thinks it must legislate because parents can’t say no. No is not a dirty word. Nanny State laws are in my opinion ridiculous and taking over the duty off parents. I’d rather see mandatory parenting classes then restricting the freedoms of everyone because of a few slackers. When we legislate in this way we do not empower people to make good decisions, we enable them to continue making poor decisions and the cycle goes on. It does not work in the long term.

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 2:29 pm | Permalink