Don’t Get Uppity Around David Gergen

BrunoT

Kind of hard to defend the indefensible, eh? Another hired gun who knows what they’re doing is wrong but the system rewards him for endorsing it. As if supporting people who fake disabilities or vote for free this and that gives them some sort of chance in life they didn’t already have.

jf

Jan has a lot of good videos. He has one of Chris Matthews too. Gergen and Matthews are both Bohemian Club members.

Anonymous

Isn’t it amazing how an intellectually bankrupt buffoon can also be a Harvard professor. His arguments are the kind if incoherent drivel you expect from a Harvard freshman. This is the kind of person who influences public opinion and molds the leaders of tomorrow and that is why The Founders Republic is history. We have for all intents and purposes a popular national socialist regime running the country and this detestable fraud is one of the gang. Garet Garrett saw it clearly 70 years ago when he wrote “The Revolution Was”. It all ready happened folks. The rest is just a formality.

Se

You’ve got to be Walter Moderate Block to do that

http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

I’d say the people doing well in the US are the ones *putting* the guns to the heads of everyone else…

And the US is *not* a democracy – it’s a malevolent oligarchy. “Liberty,” “rights,” “democracy,” “republic”… purely rhetorical devices to con the people. And the people are easily conned.

Democracy is based on sortition – not election. No sortition? No democracy. In a democracy, there is no political class, no politicians and no elections. Calling what we have a “democracy” is all part of the subterfuge to keep people compliant and to put a patina of legitimacy on the regime.

And “republic” is based on… nothing! In Latin, res publica means “public thing.” The archetypal Roman republic bore almost no resemblance to our so-called American republic. So what’s a republic? Got me…

http://twitter.com/BongBong BongBong

If you haven’t seen it yet, look up Jan’s latest “walk and talk” interview with Sam Donaldson. Great stuff.

http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Schooler/100003032488972 William Schooler

LOL, this is exactly what I am talking about this is the best ever. Thank you Tom

Its not a right, Life is an existence with capacities which all life has, so no one has any more than the other.

It is funny the unwillingness to have this discussion, I know exactly what that is first hand, LOL.

http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Schooler/100003032488972 William Schooler

Before Rome a Republic was a public participation for the support of the community and was a direct result of prior Rule mentality. Today I call it the Republic way of life because you choose it, you live it and you share with each other the accomplishments of it. Today very few want to have the conversation thus the Republic way is completely out of view. It is a question of honesty to self isn’t it?

http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

Sorry, I don’t follow. A political system has definition – how political power is distributed. Democracy, elective (though just oligarchy really), hereditary, theocracy (maybe), tyranny – all have definite rules by which power is distributed (or *not* as in all cases but true democracy). Meaning everyone knows who has the power and how they got it.

‘Republic’ is literally an empty word… a “public thing.” It doesn’t describe the method by which political power is to be distributed. The Roman republic was a political mashup and in constant state of upheaval and political turmoil. Empire for Rome was not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’…

>> Today very few want to have the conversation thus the Republic way is completely out of view.

People can’t have a meaningful conversation until they know what they’re talking about. Thanks to public schools, people think democracy is about elections, that republic is about elections, that participatory government is about elections, that there is such a thing as “representative democracy”… and that up is down, day is night, in is out and the moon is made of blue cheese. How can an intelligent conversation about political reform be possible in our world today?

The only way to a free humanity is for the few people (libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and anyone who values freedom) who have a clue be early adopters by creating a proto free state somewhere on this planet so that the masses can see what it is and that it works… A proof of concept if you will. I think only then will the masses be responsive to an idea they can’t otherwise comprehend.

http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Schooler/100003032488972 William Schooler

You are absolutely correct

I studied the Spartans and the public ideology before political correctness became the norm. Politic was a citizen and a citizen was part of a community of ideology, a community is where public participate, so a politic was really a public, person in a community as well a participant of this LIFE as life within it.

There is also a difference by the living out these concepts versus the obscured second hand altered information and assumption which most make choices by. We are not here because of clarity my friend its the exact opposite.

Thankfully my history of public schools was short lived, they tried to convince me I had problems and I realized I did, it was their miss information. I have researched and pilfered through hours and hours looking for answers that fit into Life, into Liberty and the Our Pursuit of Happiness. People call these rights I know they are far more and use these daily.

Since all political systems are created (all of them) it becomes important to discover the cause of such a concept. This is where I am in my life, how about you?

So My Republic way of life is simply my creation and by my definition, it means it is a choice or way you choose to live where all actions within it support Life as defined in the Declaration of Independence which I rewrote and signed. It is a way where LIFE participates with all life within the community, assuring any public office is limited by a constitution so clear a politicians will not be able to deny the clarity and will be defined as Liberty (free from the many) where the Pursuit of Happiness will be an act undeterred by any other. This way, this life is decided by all who wish to live in such a manner, its numbers will simply be individual agreement on the concept. It is an accumulation of lessons stamped into our foreheads and all disputes will be for public resolution through discussion and examples where by the solution will show unquestionably the actions will support all life and the community. This is the foundation as stated from the original Declaration of Independence which will be entirely clarified for all reference for all future generations. All lesson learned will be documented and accounted for future reference.

Now you could ask what gives me this pleasure and I will tell you my own discovery of real independence within me is unwavering. Also all life is capable and these capacities can be clearly defined as sole authority by each life where no other may infringe upon by any other. I have actually learned what those in Harvard are unable to because of the limits set by their own curriculum, life having none of these becomes unprecedented opportunity.

I will leave you with that.

libertyclassroomstudent

If you have the time watch all of Jan’s interviews. His one with nancy pelosi is priceless as is the one with Pete stark
Both end with the interviewee enraged

Libertyclassroomstudent

And don’t ask David Gergen about his membership in Bohemian Grove
In this interview with Alex Jones he admits he is a member and gets annoyed when Alex tells him he snuck into one of the meetings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFoUZEjuNM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

beam

Yes, teach us oh Great, about equal justice, because plain justice is not enough, teaach us how to avoid inherent to human condition social phenomena of power vacuum by installing the right kind of power and giving it to right people so that it will never be corrupted! Speak we’re listening …

ToLiberyAndBeyond

At 1:15 – “Eh. ah. uh. [unintelligible] Ron Paul [unintelligible].” Sounds like, “If you want to talk about Ron Paul, we can talk about Ron Paul.”

http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

Visit plenarchist.wordpress.com. Plenty to read there.

koop21

I love how Bergen admits that you’re only allowed to have a debate on taxes within the 2.3 inch spectrum of american political thought

vox

Hey Gergen: Do you have a principle that states when it is permissible for a foreign country to intervene militarily in the United States and when it should not? No, Gergen?
Well then why can the United States do it?

http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Schooler/100003032488972 William Schooler

Interesting, I will have to read some more. I was trying to figure out what the basis really is or the foundation.

Any suggestions?

http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

There are a ton of really great books to read on political theory and philosophy of freedom. I highly recommend Aristotle’s Politics and Machiavelli’s Discourses for basic theory.There are many to be found at Mises of course on economics and philosophy.

An correct understanding of democracy and sortition. Democracy is completely misunderstood and lost in time. Sortition is democracy. It’s the only way I know to maintain the integrity of the state. Here’s a great article by Roderick Long on Athenian democracy… http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long8.html

But no one has resonated with me more than Herbert Spencer. I think he’s the greatest thinker in human history (more so than Darwin and Einstein put together). Hell, even Darwin wrote to Spencer, “Every one with eyes to see and ears to hear (the number I fear are not many) ought to bow their knee to you and I for one do.”

Spencer was a social philosopher who deserves way more credit than he gets. Much of his ideas on freedom predate the more well known names. He was not about natural rights – he was a utilitarian. And while I do accept natural rights (sort of), I think the utilitarian argument of Spencer’s might be much more effective for reaching collectivists.

Spencer can be tedious to read for sure, but oh so worth it. In the “Proper Sphere of Government” he began to formulate his theory of social evolution – I call social Spencerism (opposite to “social Darwinism”). In “Social Statics” he explains the social implications of his theory and his first principle of equal freedom for promoting it. In his “Theory of Population,” he explains how population growth slows and stops with freedom – opposite from Malthus.

This guy is the most unsung and misunderstood thinker I’ve encountered. People are so clueless about him. And yet, I think his ideas are key to saving humanity. He is vilified for “survival of the fittest” and yet Darwin began using that term to describe natural selection. And I think maybe I can count on five fingers the number of people who actually understand it the term…

Roderick Long seems to have a pretty good handle on Spencer but I’m not aware of any true Spencer scholarship happening. He’s just been dropped down the memory hole. Which could have happened to Mises if not for Lew Rockwell. I sense that a body of science (similar to evolutionary biology) could emerge from his theories with enough invested intellectual capital.

And I’m basing my model of plenarchy on his theory of social evolution and principle of equal freedom.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=165&Itemid=28

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/spencer2.html

annoyed

I’m sorry, but am I the only person who thought this video was painful to watch… not just because of Gergen’s responses, but because that was the most ridiculous and disrespectful interview ever. How would any of you like to be asked serious questions about your political philosophy only to be interrupted 5 words into your answer. We shouldn’t be cheering when this just gives the left a way to justify their beliefs. He should have let the man finish his thought and then have deep enough understanding of his position to provide a thoughtful rebuttal. This was just stupid.

beam

Was I asking about something to read? then why are you playing dumb? A politician would answer just that when sensing he is being defeated by his own lack of integrity, faulty logic he displays – like the man above in the interview.

Since now we (readers of this comment section) suspect you believe in power vacuum (therefore “we need government”) and extreme, sort of Marxist egalitarism (thus goofy structures from ancient world) tell me another:
Oh Greate! do children born into supposedly voluntary utopia you’re advocating have to sign any paper to get in, or they are treated as aliens coming from Storkovia, or are they just plain and simple slaves of their parents – meaning parents ownership?

One more: you have to understand you’re not a figure to play ballerina. You have to make me to read what you want me to read here and now via your own writings. If you can’t do this than you’re not making any good to your cause.

SteveRWhite

Hi, annoyed

I had the same thought. Gergen is an utter fraud intellectually but the interviewer was painfully rude and combative in the snip posted here. I rarely see a civil debate/discussion where each person allows the other to fully develop a thought and then proceeds to honestly and openly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their ideas so that both people (and anyone listening) can benefit. It just doesn’t seem to happen any more. I will seek out more of this Jan fellow’s interviews to see if this is the exception or the rule because I suspect I agree with his views but it’s hard to tell from this video. IMHO this combative technique does not further the agenda of freedom.

http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

If you don’t like my ideas, that’s okay with me but I don’t respond to petulant children…

Gamble

The interviewer tried too hard to control the context of
debate and he never let Gergen complete his thoughts. Jan should have let
Gergen talk more, ultimately incriminating himself.

Apparently Buffet, Gergen and others feel they have abundance,
voluntarily give some away outside taxation.
It is called private charity, try it sometime.

Reality is, excessive regulation, taxation and force led to
their fortune in the first place, so there abundance was derived via unjust
means.

Randy S

Many of Jan’s interviews are uncomfortable to watch. Jan tries to get an answer to every question he asks. His questions are designed to expose contradictions in their thinking. Allowing the interviewee to give evasive answers defeats the purpose of this kind of interview. Watch this one, where the interviewee gives fairly direct answers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk ( Jan’s version on his “janhelfeld” channel stops right at the crucial moment, so I reluctantly link to this one instead.)

Gamble

Hi Randy S,

What contradiction? Both popular democracy and the current “Republic”
can and do steal. The entire premise is flawed.

It does not matter what type of government you have if the political
window is not severely limited by an easily interpreted and enforced constitution.

The legislator agreeing to kill all red haired people is no
better than the popular democracy voting to kill all red hair people.

Randy S

The contradiction is this: If it is true that the government should protect all peaceful citizens against other citizens who would use force to take their money, then how can it also be engaged in taxation for redistributive purposes?

Jan also has a recent interview with George Will, who agrees that it would be unlawful and immoral for a group of farmers to descend upon you and force you to pay them. But, Will admits, if those same farmers organize politically and convince lawmakers to pass a law forcing you to pay them money, it somehow becomes lawful and moral because “that’s the way the game is played.” He walks out of the interview rather than be questioned further on the topic.

Gamble

Hi Randy S,

I understand and agree with both of your examples. Simply
put, apply your morals consistently, government shall receive no pardon for behaviors that would otherwise be frowned upon. What a poor excuse for horridbehavior. I suppose government sanctioned rape or a woman is okay?

The problem with Jan is it appears he was harping against popular
election, the converse would be that a “Republic” is the cure all. First of all, what is a Republic? Secondly, did the 17th amendment and direct election of Senators, which ultimately led to Obama, forever destroy the Founding Fathers intentions?

Living in Colorado, direct democracy (citizen’s initiative)
has done a few incredible things such as Constitutionally imposed revenue and expenditure limits (TABOR), Medical Marijuana, and partial marijuana legalization (#64). The
legislator would have NEVER given us these things.

To me, it seems a Constitution which severely limits the
political window must be enforced regardless of government form.

beam

That’s right, call names, because that is so mature (dot) (dot) (dot)

I do not care what your ideas are, I told you that like 17 times already – I do not like you in particular, your gibberish that you spout around here, and that you are strangely sneak undetected by others as an odd one out – which you are. Namely you represent some very bizarre stuff regarding society, politics and philosophy that just isn’t there. They do not exist in reality nor in the realm of concepts because there is no such thing as EQUAL JUSTICE, it is self-contradictory. No such animal. Justice is a point within relationships of all humans – step in whatever direction you may – you are now in the injustice area i.e. someone is getting ripped off.
Now what the hell equal justice is suppose to mean? Is it sister of social justice, which is by it’s very name something else than justice (otherwise there would be no prefix of social, equal) and something else from justice is injustice. Justice is a point.

http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

I understand that I’m promoting radical ideas but I do so because I deeply care about freedom and the future of humanity – so my intentions are honest. I also seek to call out important incorrect beliefs such as Gergen and most people have regarding democracy. I feel it’s important for people to understand that what we call ‘democracy’ isn’t. I don’t promote democracy per se but sortition I think is the means to attaining a state with greater integrity and accountability.

I don’t know what you seem so upset about. I’ve done nothing to you other than point out your rudeness. We are guests on Tom’s blog and should be courteous and respectful towards each other and to Tom.

If you want to have a civil discussion on plenarchy, I’ll try to answer your questions *at my blog* but I ask that you read and honor the rules. I’m not posting any further to this thread and I for one apologize to Tom for this nonsense.