Forum Post: Angry Mobs are Bad in Any Century

James Madison was a smart, smart man. In Federalist No. 10:

"In the most striking and original of The Federalist Papers (Number 10), Madison addressed... the need "to break and control the violence of faction," by which he meant political parties, and which he regarded as the greatest danger to popular government: "I understand a number of citizens ... are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."" Citation: http://alturl.com/y94jz

It's amazing. These Occupy Wall Street protesters -- mad, uncultured and uncivilized people -- are exactly the sort of mob that Madison et al were warning about. People who allege to represent 99% of the population and who want to take away rights from the other 1% because they're rich. As if.

Yes, even when an angry mob chooses its words carefully -- which OWS does not -- it is bad for the country. Of course, this is part of the reason the Framers agreed on a bicameral legislature. They, of course, had seen angry mobs.

The lack of clear thought. Every other post is a strawman argument.

How many times have you read a poster on this very website accusing a wall street banker of stealing from them, but the person isn't able to name a single wall street banker who did so?

Every country that has actually adopted the ideas of these people is SUBSTANTIALLY worse off for doing so. The Soviet Union, Venezuela, Vietnam, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Zimbabwe. And China? How many millions had to die so they could have economic "stability?"

Americans will be better served by a Republican government, but more to the point, Americans would even be better served by a mediocre bunch of liberals than to be run by a an angry mob that hates everything. And all of you know that I'm right.