Harvard writer: Free speech threatens liberalism and must be destroyed

Not all the others rectum. A republic works pretty well. We used to have one here in the states. Small central governments with "localized democracy" also works well.
We used to do some of that too.

 

Which is why the Framers gave us a "Republic"... governed by "rule of law", not "rule of the majority = mob rule".

 

ABSOFRICKINLUTELY!

Look at Venezuela, China, Cuba, Russia, N. Korea.... if you dissent from the State-ist doctrine, your life and property are at risk. So, you keep your trap shut!

Once freedom of speech is silenced, totalitarian rule ensues.

Our parasite class is not only greedy... THEY'RE FUCKING STUPID!

 

Totalitarian regimes are governed by law, too.

 

ABSOFRICKINLUTELY!

Look at Venezuela, China, Cuba, Russia, N. Korea.... if you dissent from the State-ist doctrine, your life and property are at risk. So, you keep your trap shut!

Once freedom of speech is silenced, totalitarian rule ensues. Whatever happened to "Give me liberty or give me death"?

 

This kind of ridiculous statement goes no where. There are better ways you can do government.

 

+1

 

Yes, with the exception that Totalitarianism seeks to control the public and private aspect of a citizen's life, whereas a Republic does not. But you know this, and are only responding like this in order to get your daily "work out" trolling in.

 

Prosperity threatens liberalism and must be destroyed.

 

+ 2