I was in a political theory class last spring, and we studied a bit of Freud, and some things he had to say about Le Bon. One of the points we looked at is the difference between a herd (what Le Bon focused on) and a horde (what Freud focused on). In a herd, the uniting factor is not clear, and there may or may not be a leader. They are tied together by a desire to be together, a fear of isolation, and they want to be like or follow others. In a horde, the emphasis is on the leader, and it's all about ties to the leader and submission to the leader.
So, what are you a part of?
I think in general that a high school student (in stereotype) is a good example of a member of herd. Everybody following trends, trying to fit in with each other, clinging in groups, and the worst fear of all is to be isolated from the group. And a good example of a horde is the members of a religion or cult (again, in stereotype. i want no comments defending your religion, because i'm not attacking it). The members are all together solely because of their submission to their leader (which could be whatever god/supreme being they are worshipping, and/or the actual person leading them).
The question, I think, is in general, which is better for the person. For example, if I'm part of a horde, and we're following one single person, then my life is pretty much being controlled by that person. So, you better hope that's a pretty darn good person that you're following. This is my problem with a lot of religions (not faiths, religions). Because if you get one corrupt person in a high position, they can really screw up a lot of people who are really doing nothing wrong at all. One bad priest holds the lives and credibilities of a lot of people in his hands.
On the flip side, a horde at least has direction and focus. In a herd...well, not really at all. For example, I'm sure you have all experienced this. When I was in high school, my friends and I would walk to the local fast food restaurants for lunch, and they were all in a row on the same street. We'd leave the school in a group, talking, and we wouldn't have decided where exactly to eat just yet. So we'd start walking. We'd each assume that someone in the group knew where we were going, and we'd all follow each other. Very quickly, we'd find ourselves at the end of the road, with no food, because we were all following each other, and no one really knew where we were going. So the problem with a herd is exactly what defines it: it's lack of a leader. If you're part of a herd, you can be sure that nothing will be accomplished, and that you will not be part of anything that has any sort of focus or direction. The other problem is this whole idea that everyone else must know what's going on, even though you personally don't. Chances are, you're all following each other, and no one knows anything. Herds just go in circles. But, you as an individual can have some degree of influence in a herd, since to some level, someone is following you too.
The other question is what is better for the group. In the end, I think the horde is better, because it is the only way anything can ever be accomplished. Everyone can go in circles and never get better at all, or everyone can take a risk on one person, and either suffer severely or benefit a lot. The individual only has hope in a herd, but it's a very, very small hope, especially for a very big herd.
And here we are, at government. I guess this is the central question of government. Do you let the group lead itself, or do you take control and lead it? What's better for the group? What's better for the individuals of the group? What's better for you?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
