Ochlocracy, Mobocracy, or mob rule is the unfortunate state after which governing institutions have lost power – or Anarchy. After the legitimacy of the former governments has been eradicated by whatever populist or terrorist force, some group or groups then take control by pure force. These groups then disseminate rules of their own to the now-obeying populous, create governing rules within their commanding ranks, and execute plans to maintain or gain control over other competing groups. These groups can be of resistance ideologically, territorial rivals, or purely based on obtaining resources. So it seems that in this process of Anarchy-to-mob rule-to-competing groups, we will have come full circle once again. The state has returned, and after the many years that follow this competition amongst small groups for resources and territory the question then becomes: what is the best way to govern or disseminate resources to those that need them? From there, political science takes shape and more sophisticated groups and systems emerge until they fall into Anarchy once again… So the point in all of the human nature hoopla mentioned above? – We have never gotten out of Mob Rule and never will… If the definition of mob rule is the intimidation of the majority or a pure democracy by numbers, than is that not what we have now? As the masses being governed by the few, we have the power at any time to essentially rule as we see fit by any means necessary. And in turn, the legitimate political powers rule necessarily by force in order to keep order and protect all under their laws. Force is the key here. If they rule buy force or coercion as all governments must do in order to maintain their power, how are they any different than the small competing groups that form during a mob rule mentioned earlier? We are the mob and the established groups. Power in numbers has always been the only ruling system. In a sense, there is no political system that can every truly escape the fact that groups that have established power will always be in competition with one another over resources and influence. Just because they have grown to become more sophisticated in technology, dealing with the masses and militarization does not mean that this core principle of force with intimidation has changed or can ever change. No one state has ever had total control over the actions of all groups and individuals; and these groups have always been in competition in some way. To say that one established governing body embraces freedom more than the other is just another way that a government has decided to handle the people under its force. Sure, in some representative democracies people have a voice in how the coercion will be applied or just how much coercion is applied. How can any established system ever really claim “control” if the people under its control always have the choice to act? They cannot. Perhaps the only way out is during the momentary stage of Anarchy before the majorities or coercing groups have taken power. That brief moment where no authority has been established and everything is up for grabs. Or even Panarchy, the system which proposes that all types of governing styles can coexist along side each other, as long as they adhere to one universal rule – which is to allow their citizens to freely Choose the system they wish to be governed by.