Robert Reich on Governance, majority rule vs. limited government
Posted by admin on September 5th, 2010
Robert Reich on Governance, majority rule vs. limited government
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Freedom, how long will it last?
Freedom, politics, and how we are losing it.
About Me
I am neither Democrat nor Republican I have no political affiliation. The way I see it there is no good side there both the same. I just express my comments based on the way I feel. Follow us on twitter!
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- 2012 THE END OF USA BILL OF RIGHTS|NEW WORLD ORDER PEOPLE WAKE UP VOTE RON PAUL
- Henk Bleker, choose FREEDOM
- Montreal Protests: Anti-Protest Bill 78 Passes ‘worst law’ since War Measures Act
- Azerbaijan Forced Evictions — Violation of Property Rights
- RAW 10000 Montreal Students Defy Anti-Protest Law Bill 78
- NDAA ANONYMOUS TAKE OUR RIGHTS BACK
- Obama Attacks Religious Freedom – McConnel on Contraception Coverage
- John Stossel – Economic Freedom in Free Fall
- Civil Rights – Eyes on the Prize 5 – Lynch Emmett
- America : Freedom to Fascism
Meta
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Statist pig Reich, always full of himself. There is no such thing as a society. Only individuals exist. Therefore there cannot be a social contract with society.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
I had to shut it off after this lying asshole said he was a proponent of Locke and Burke. I have no hip waders and the bullshit coming out of my speakers was already getting too deep.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
audio problems, i had to turn the volume all the way up, but it was worth it. this is the same guy who said “I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs [hopefully being created by government spending] not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers.”
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Reich is a rational person. He is also wrong. His beliefs are at odds with human nature and reality.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
How often do we have to repeat this: We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. There is a difference.
Reich believes in the Constitution – ROFL. He needs to read it. He would never be a ‘humanist’ if really knew what he was saying when he starts talking about natural law.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
there are a lot of out there antisemites out there
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Natural law is NOT an appeal to individual conscience. It means the requirements nature places on keeping human life. It was America’s moral philosopher, Ayn Rand, who identified what those requirements are and showed them as the first consideration of an objective morality and the purpose of government. As natural facts, they are less variable than individual consciences.
Read Rand, learn what’s real, enjoy life !
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Can’t hear well but it sounds like tiresome debate.
Get focused.
Ask about the clear violations of our constitution.
Ask about exemptions to laws for gov and “special”entities.
Ask about the power of the federal gov to control us.
Ask about the constitutional and moral right of citizens to abolish/change their government when it fails to serve the people and to follow the constitution.
Ask, “what do we do when it’s clear the rule of law has been replaced by rule of men?”
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
I hate this guy as much as you, but why all the Jewish smears? He is a horrible little man, but his religion has nothing to do with it.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
The reason why democracy is the best system is because even though a majority COULD vote to re-introduce slavery (or kill the first-born, or send minorities to gas chambers etc), in practise, they don’t. These things tend to occur in undemocratic states directed by ‘principles’.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Sound quality is very poor, but the basic concept of democracy is that a majority rule determines how the country is ran. That doesn’t mean the majority is morally right. Slavery is wrong. But if a majority vote for parties who support it and it is carried through legitimately, then it should be the law of the land-but it’s still wrong.
I think at that point, you would have reasonable grounds for questioning the legitimacy of the state.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
No he doesn’t. Put him on cable news surrounded by big government journalists and democratic party strategists and he will inevitably lead the pack with confidence.
He only looks scared because Jan is challenging his moral foundation. Cable news will never challenge his moral foundation because theirs is equally flawed. The basic flaw is they believe that societies can aggregate rights such that the majority has more rights than the minority.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
3:50 the “appeal” to Natural law. This is what progressives do. They don’t believe in natural law yet they try to put the feel good wrapper of appealing to natural law which gives them some moral camouflage. They will tell you one thing but then act another and justify it by we know best.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Reich knows the truth – the freudian slips and outright gaffs indict all these parasite elites that TV rating owner’s pay off.
Violating the rights of some in the name of humanity, fiat money, and four major constitutional clauses empowering govt at the expense of the peoples rights by standing those clauses on their heads to rob the people’s purse/w while stuffing their OWN pockets is how much longer endurable? The police state advances every self created emergency. Next our swords. Then?
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
As a condition of joining, the society can make certain demands upon them…
“Noone knows exactly what natural law is?” Not so. This is a well-researched question. “What do I do with my moral objection?” …You join the abolitionists! You join Lysander Spooner, Frederick Douglass, and John Brown…
Or in the case of today, you join Harry Browne, Jacob Sullum, Vin Suprynowicz, and Wayne Root. You stop supporting evil. You start supporting the appeal to natural rights.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
he always looks scared. its just his thing
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
too much background noise
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
A lot of politicians claim to be what this guy claims to be, but the problem is that none of them vote NO on Bills. There’s too much politics at risk, in other words.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
The answer is so simple, if something violates the rights of another it is wrong.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
I think he saw a glimps of the truth but did not fully know what it was.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
A long time ago it was considered the role of all three branches of the federal government to interpret the constitution and no one branch had absolute authority over its interpretation. Even state governments could disagree with the interpretation. Bringing this back might take away some of the court’s power and destroy judicial activism.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Their is no such thing as a “society”, their are only individuals.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Robert Reich looks scared.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
I can’t believe that Reich is actually claiming that he’s a Classical Liberal! Locke!? John Locke would reach out of his grave and choke this guy if he could. He’s turning Social Contract into Totalitarianism. Locke’s role for gov was limited to protecting individual rights.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:33 am
why do Jews hate republics so much… Rome, Weimar, the US…