It's not mob rule. The government seized the property and shut it down. I'm not saying the mob should govern, I'm saying (as with all cases of civil disobedience), the governments legitimacy and authority is projection tolerated by the people themselves. The moment the people chose not to participate in the illusion, the state must be forced to re-asses how it asserts it's legitimacy.
Put this in the form of coutner-insurgency. The Americans in Iraq normally tried to avoid enforcing rules and regulations whereever possible on the Iraqis. The US military was not a law enforcement structure. When the Americans made silly proclamations, like the Coalitional Provitional Authority's new Iraqi Flag. The CPA's proclamations were simply rejected, mocked, and dismissed by the people. In order to maintain any authority over a fairly weak foot-hold in Iraq; coalition forces would never defy open & popular rejection of certain laws and policies. Attempting to enforce such wildly unpopular policies would both damage the legitimacy of American troops (what little there was), and inspire parallel governing bodies to govern without any influence.
This is true in every environment. When the state attempts to enforce it's will with security forces, security forces are left with only 2 bad options: overwhelming violence (which would delegitimize the security forces), or acquiescence (which would delegitimize the political forces if and only if they maintained a unwelcomed position. American forces routinely deferred to local governance in order to maintain their own authority, particularly when the Iraqi Government was either an illegitimate occupation government, or a legitimate but weak democratic one.
There is a very significant difference between a mob asserting authority over others; and the population, even a mob, rejecting the authority of the state. Rejecting authority isn't violent, or even coercive. Asserting authority commonly is.
Telling someone 'no' is only violent to an authoritarian, that's why they escalate uses of force to gain compliance.
The state, even it's security forces, must be repeatedly told 'no' until they are back in compliance with the social contract and the general will of the population. If they do, they will actually regain their legitimacy and authority. If they refuse, it will only cause them to be further de-legitimized.
It's not mob rule. The government seized the property and shut it down. I'm not saying the mob should govern, I'm saying (as with all cases of civil disobedience), the governments legitimacy and authority is projection tolerated by the people themselves. The moment the people chose not to participate in the illusion, the state must be forced to re-asses how it asserts it's legitimacy.
Put this in the form of coutner-insurgency. The Americans in Iraq normally tried to avoid enforcing rules and regulations whereever possible on the Iraqis. The US military was not a law enforcement structure. When the Americans made silly proclamations, like the Coalitional Provitional Authority's new Iraqi Flag. The CPA's proclamations were simply rejected, mocked, and dismissed by the people. In order to maintain any authority over a fairly weak foot-hold in Iraq; coalition forces would never defy open & popular rejection of certain laws and policies. Attempting to enforce such wildly unpopular policies would both damage the legitimacy of American troops (what little there was), and inspire parallel governing bodies to govern without any influence.
This is true in every environment. When the state attempts to enforce it's will with security forces, security forces are left with only 2 bad options: overwhelming violence (which would delegitimize the security forces), or acquiescence (which would delegitimize the political forces if and only if they maintained a unwelcomed position. American forces routinely deferred to local governance in order to maintain their own authority, particularly when the Iraqi Government was either an illegitimate occupation government, or a legitimate but weak democratic one.
There is a very significant difference between a mob asserting authority over others; and the population, even a mob, rejecting the authority of the state. Rejecting authority isn't violent, or even coercive. Asserting authority commonly is.
Telling someone 'no' is only violent to an authoritarian, that's why they escalate uses of force to gain compliance.
The state, even it's security forces, must be repeatedly told 'no' until they are back in compliance with the social contract and the general will of the population. If they do, they will actually regain their legitimacy and authority. If they refuse, it will only cause them to be further de-legitimized.