The Will of the Mob

I recently wrote about the proclivity of Californians to vote on seemingly every issue under the sun, often resulting in rights-violating laws. Unfortunately, rule by the will of the mob is not limited to California. While the rate of infection varies, no state is immune to the toxicity of mob rule. A recent example comes from Ohio, where Republicans spearheaded an effort to make it more difficult to amend the state constitution. While supporters of that effort claimed that it would curtail Progressivism, it was nothing more than a veiled attempt to protect an anti-abortion law already on the books.

We are routinely told that initiatives and referendums are democracy in action. They are the means by which the “will of the people”—the will of the mob can be expressed. These claims are true, but they fail to justify placing the lives of individuals in the hands of a democratic majority.

The fact is, democracy is simply a euphemism for mob rule. In a democracy, the majority may do as it pleases for no reason other than it is the majority. The decisions of the majority are the “will of the people.” Apparently, those in the minority aren’t people. In practice, the minority’s will is irrelevant. The minority can only act as the majority deems appropriate.

The will of the mob is not infallible. As an example, in November 1964, Californians voted by a margin of 66 percent to 33 percent to prohibit cable television in the state. The “will of the people” was clear. The prohibition was eventually overturned by the state’s Supreme Court, but for a brief period the passions of the mob were enacted into law.

The will of the mob is not monolithic. As the vote on cable television illustrates, a third of California voters wanted paid television to be legal. Until the law was overturned, they, along with broadcasters, were prohibited by law from acting on their judgment. They were forced to abide by the demands and dictates of the majority.

Today, most Americans would likely find a prohibition on cable television to be absurd. However, finding such a prohibition absurd is not a rejection of mob rule. It is simply a rejection of one manifestation of the will of the mob.