Is the US an Ochlocracy? | Hacker News Reader

Is the US an Ochlocracy?

anacyclosis.org

18 pointskilroy12325 comments

Nah. It may be an oligarchy however. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

In case anyone was curious ochlocracy means mob rule.

The important difference between democracy and ochlocracy - while in both cases majority rules - in democracy the rights of minority (of even as small as one individual) are protected thus limiting the power of the majority while in ochlocracy the majority's power is unlimited. Thus preservation rights of minority, even and especially when you don't like those rights being utilized by that minority, like say the free speech right by nazis or requirement that law enforcement gets search warrant before intruding into the private space, physical or virtual, of even obvious criminals, is among the most important actions preserving democracy.

Thank you, that's a good explanation.

> free speech right by nazis

Although this is not a good example since there are lots of democracies where nazis, specifically, don't have free speech rights. Even possibly most democracies. Although I didn't find a list about freedom of nazi speech specifically, here's the countries where nazi symbols are banned or restricted:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial...

And this article has a clear map of countries where holocaust denial specifically is illegal (definitely a talking point for modern day wannabe nazis):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial...

While basic core is about the same, different democracies have different guaranteed rights. And my comment, after living here for 25 years, was naturally US-centric. US guarantees free speech right including the right to deny Holocaust, so even that right to deny Holocaust has to be protected. US also has for example gun rights which also thus have to be protected. Other democracies for example don't have gun rights, and as you correctly noted have slightly different understanding and scope of the free speech.

It's kind of ironic that you're treating the US as the exceptional, canonical example of democracy on an article making the claim that perhaps it shouldn't even be called a democracy at all anymore.

At the very least, I think you have to accept that all these other places which don't guarantee freedom of speech to hateful people have just as much, if not more, claim to being democracies, and that therefore, freedom of speech for all possible minorities is not actually a fundamental part of being a democracy.

>an article making the claim that perhaps it shouldn't even be called a democracy at all anymore.

some of those people here who haven't seen real non-democracies make all sort of such unfounded claims. To anybody making such claim i suggest to visit my old country - Russia - and try to use any rights supposedly guaranteed by Russian "democracy".

>you have to accept that all these other places which don't guarantee freedom of speech to hateful people have just as much, if not more, claim to being democracies

as long as they deliver on their guarantees of rights they are good democracies too. I just personally like US style more. Including how for example Congress is elected - individual elections instead of parties lists (like say in Germany).

> freedom of speech for all possible minorities is not actually a fundamental part of being a democracy.

it is fundamental part of the US democracy because it is guaranteed as such a right here.

> some of those people here who haven't seen real non-democracies make all sort of such unfounded claims. To anybody making such claim i suggest to visit my old country - Russia - and try to use any rights supposedly guaranteed by Russian "democracy".

Well, let's wait and see how it looks at the end of the next four years.

It seems like your experience of countries that calk themselves democracies is the US and Russia? Two extremes for sure, but I don't think either of them provide a good model for what a liberal democracy can be.

In a liberal democracy, nazi are criminals, because they attack minorities. Criminal activity is prohibited.

In a regular democracy, nazi are not criminals (in Germany, they were elected for example).

> in democracy the rights of minority (of even as small as one individual) are protected

It's called «liberal democracy». The major differences between democracy and liberal democracy are 1) protection of minority rights up to individual freedom (one against all), 2) rule of law (law cannot be used to harm minorities), 3) free and fair elections (all people can vote and be elected).

However, do note that freedom of speech for everyone, up to and including nazis, is very much a US thing and not characteristic of all liberal democracies. And even the united states doesn't allow people complete freedom.

> Laws in liberal democracies may limit certain freedoms. The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, democratic governments may impose restrictions on free speech, with examples including Holocaust denial and hate speech. Some discriminatory behavior may be prohibited. For example, public accommodations in the United States may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Ochlo-democracy decided to put Socrates to death.

I'm convinced political parties devolve into corruption by wealth "regulatory capture"-like malignancy in under-regulated, greed-driven, individualistic, low-trust societies.

Sortition is one way out. Throw out the political parties, divide-and-conquer social divisions, distracting team-sport animosities that distract for 1-2 years. Instead, choose functionaries from professional societies at random to fulfill a 2 year term of public administration in roles that would otherwise be hotly-contested. No more political control and chaos driven by the 1% or the 99%. While that would mean an end of the failed democratic experiment generally, it would eschew fascism, kleptocracy, ochlocracy, and oligopoly. Just plain, random persons fulfilling their civic duty to keep basic civic functions going. Feedback from the populace would arrive in the form of comments, suggestions, and petitions that would be taken under advisement. Infinite freedom to choose criminal or actors to abuse power leads to no freedom at all. The so-called "this is the best form of government apart from all others that have been tried" is itself fallacious and a lie without evidence.

I recommend reading The Politics Industry by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter for a thorough (but accessible) systems-first analysis of the American political system + recommendations for reforms.

https://gehlporter.com/

Would sortition be resistant to bribery/lobbying?

Title does not reflect linked content.

It only says that ochlocracy is "mob-rule, perhaps better described as rule by demagogues", which is still too vague of a criteria.

It also seems to me that whenever anyone doesn't win an election, then the competition, the voting process, etc are described as being flawed in some way.

Russia since 1880 went through that full cycle, twice.

Could you expand a bit on that?

Sigh.

Start at Tsar Nicholas II and go through the changes in who was running Russia since. Note the times when one person held absolute power, and the two brief periods of liberal democracy.

The cycle identified by the Greek historian Polybius is monarchy -> tyranny -> aristocracy -> oligarchy -> democracy -> plutocracy -> mob rule (ochlocracy).

If anything, the answer to the headline is "no." We're teetering off the edge of democracy into plutocracy.

There have been episodes recently like Jan 6th, the Occupy movement, BLM protests, and Antifa attacks where people tried to ignore the law and intimidate elected officials.

But they failed, so the US is not an Ochlocracy.

True, and because of the electoral college system, we do not have a popular vote for our most likely monarch, the President, hence a demagogue must win according to a different means than “appealing to the mob.”

I still think the EC should be awarded proportionally according to each state’s vote but that is beside the point and would not compromise this difference.

Can you say more about the EC being awarded proportionally according to each state’s vote? Wouldn't that mean some state's vote won't matter?

None of those are examples of ochlocracy, even if they involve mobs. Mob rule is an "oppressive majoritarian form of government". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule

Elsewhere on that same page, "Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to mob rule or mobocracy", which links to a different definition:

"mobocracy: Rule or control by the mob (or by the mass of ordinary people); a mob as a politically powerful force."

Those movements were certainly mobs as politically powerful forces. Had they succeeded, they would have been examples of control by the mob.

Then there's the history section of the page you linked, where we hear about lynchings and riots as examples of ochlocracy.

So why do you think those movements/riots don't qualify?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com