[user104658]

Originally Posted by Maru

No, what I mean is move our focus back towards individual responsibility and to step away from this concept where our cultural ideals are enforced by a lynch mob every time a cultural "violation" has occurred. That isn't even helping those negative traits to work itself out of the culture... if anything, may have the opposite effect of further distilling the performance of our culture down to the results (or severity) of these cycles... it doesn't even account for what is going on in terms of improvements at the individual level.

"It Takes a Village", sure... but when that village is anti-social, has a low view of the overall world, an even lower regard for ethics and is extremely corrupt... then maybe it is wrong to expect that this is the place where balance will restore itself.

Yes but if those lynch mobs are entrenched and self-sustaining then HOW do you shift the focus back without enforcing / mandating / legislating against their actions, which are usually based around social movements (such as harassment campaigns or boycotting) rather than anything official.

And if you do then go down that route of enforcement (by like I said, limiting private companies ability to bow to financial pressure applied by the lynch mob) is it not then another removal of freedoms, just from a different angle? Do we selectively advocate the removal of SOME freedoms to protect other more individualistic freedoms?

Again from what I know of the US (and its not extensive by any means) I always get the impression that the people are generally NOT OK with new government rules or legislation, preferring to "pay the price" of allowing businesses full autonomy.