My post the other day about the moral revolution that has taken place in America — indeed, in the entire Western world — evoked a passionate response. Today, I’d like to move on and explain that at the very heart of this moral revolution was the shift from the sacrosanct belief in individual rights to a belief in lynch-mob rule (a.k.a. “majority rule”).

In other words, “right” became whatever the most powerful alliance of people at any given time said it was. In a democracy, this concept is defended on the grounds that it guarantees “that which is best for the greatest number of people.”

In point of fact, however, the notion that one group of people has a right to commit aggression against another group, based simply on the premise that “the majority is always right,” is morally without merit.

In early America, this procedure was correctly referred to as “lynching.” If one group of people decided it wanted to impose its will on another group, it simply used brute force to do so. Such action was, of course, illegal, because it was done without government sanction.

And that is what became the the key to the legalization of lynching: the granting of sanction powers to the government. It gave the green light to lynch-mob rule, or so called majority rule, which displaced individual sovereignty as the moral underpinning of Western Civilization.

The practical problem with “majority rule” is that a political democracy is too fragile to withstand the avarice and envy of human beings. Inevitably, avaricious and envious people — both voters and politicians — began to figure out how to use this device to their advantage.

Voters tested the waters and found, much to their delight, that they could plunder their neighbors simply by voting to change the laws that were originally set up to PROTECT their lives and property. And politicians figured out relatively early that they could achieve political longevity by appealing to the basest instincts in voters. It was a marriage made in hell for two separate groups of immoral people.

In the early stages of the moral revolution, only hard-core non-producers (politicians, thieves, and the terminally shiftless) fully understood the possible implications of a political democracy. With each passing year, however, more and more producers caught on to the game and went the way of the non-producers, giving in to their human weaknesses and electing to fulfill their desires through the ballot box instead of through productive labor.

This caused a natural acceleration in the moral revolution that brought us where we are today. As more and more people surrendered to their ignoble instincts, they increasingly fought one another for control of the lynching apparatus (i.e., the legislative process). This, in turn, whetted the politician’s appetite for power, because he could see that the promise to use his legislative machinery to perform legal lynchings would bring him the votes he needed to attain and hold public office.

It was then but a small step to the next revolutionary plateau: the “anything goes society,” which is where we are today.

… to be continued.