CHOMSKY IS CONTROLLED. NO DOUBT IN MY MIND. Read the published email correspondence between him and Kevin Barrett regarding arrangements to appear on his radio program. Its a long read but worth it. Chomsky's evasiveness and willful ignorance is overwhelming.
As far as individual rights go, there should be no laws that limit ones choice, that is true freedom. The rule of law comes in when people organize to deny someone else their rights. In a society based on human free will, the only law should be that you cannot infringe upon that free will, whether you are a governmental system or a corporate system, infringing on someones rights should be unacceptable.
@fiveoclockpunk how would you explain the obviously valid law against murder? or does that fall into the rule of not infringing others' freedom? coz if i wanted to kill, is it not infringing my freedom to do it if theres a law against murder?
It is not within your rights to deny someone their right to live. it isnt infringing on your rights because you never had the right to deny someone their right to live in the first place.
What I don't get about Anarchism is if there's no authority, who's stopping people from becoming authoritarians?
I mean, you can say "I don't think authoritarians should exist", but how are you actually going stop them from existing without being authoritarian yourself?
You could argue that we have anarchy right now, and that the government is just a huge organization, which is all it really is.
I guess it's more of an ideal world philosophy than an actual political philosophy.
It's sad that the pro-capitalists are trying to destroy tenure by changing schools into charter schools and other tricks so they can fire people simply for their socioeconomic opinions. For every great alternative thinker like Chomsky there are a lot more conservative professors at a given school, but even one radical voice in a school is too much for these people. Right-wing phony "libertarians" hate freedom of speech when it isn't pro-capitalist.
@ProgLiberty I'm a pro-capitalists and I don't hate free speech. to be honest I'm rather fond of Anarcho-socialist and Communists....voluntary sharing of resources and knowledge is key to society. really the thing about anarchism is that it isn't strict in operation like a state, some people will trade, some people will share...what matters is nobody is stealing, killing, lying or destroying. am I right?
Well to be for capitalism and voluntary socialism isn't mutually exclusive.
Capitalism just dictates what the goverment should force us to do, while voluntary socialism is individuals choosing to do that with their money, so you can have both.
@heatbucspies55 that's just it. capitalism is just a system of private property and exchange, something you don't need a state to maintain. people can mutually agree to recognize property as well as exchange. what you speak of is mercantilism.
@Ravengaurd6 You need a public or private state to have private property. That's the whole point. It's a constant state of war and strife, without any workers rights or organization or control, and without any regulations.
@Ravengaurd6 The problem is that its only been recently that capitalists have tried to claim to be anarchist and trying to sneak under the door to rewrite history. Capitalism isn't anything peaceful or anything comparable with anarchism... its just that a bunch of right wingers spread propaganda claiming it was. We who work for capitalists know that capitalism isnt libertarian.
@ProgLiberty technically strife over lands is a completely state driven or authorized process.
anarcho-capitalism is just like anarcho-synacalism in that they are both unprecedented and are built upon voluntarism. people can join or leave. the thing is about anarchy is that doesn't build itself around strict organization. regardless it'll be part capitalist part syndicalist, a system of property will arise, a system of exchange will arise and a system of labor will arise.period
I don't think that's a historical certainty, any more than "things find their level" is a scientific principle any more (in fact, it's an appeal to tradition). There was no historical basis for women voting during the suffrage movement, but there were no catastrophic consequences either. Should workers vote for managers and sell products, they can dictate that they only cost the average labour value to produce them, so no room for profiteering.
@gamerunknown no room? It's going to anarchy. people will be very quick to organize their relations,skills and labor in a way that will improve their well being.There's always room for profiteering. As long as no force, fraud, usury or larceny is involved, no one else in the communities going mind it either. In fact they might might join in. humans having self interests in all.since anarchical society works when people have to cooperate, goals are achieved in spite of intentions.
To answer, "whence profit?" we must ask "whence wealth?". If wealth is the result of labour, then profit is benefiting from the labour of another individual. Anarcho-syndaclists think benefiting from another person's labour through rent (means of production or property) is immoral, anarcho-capitalists hold that it is immoral when done through taxation. Reselling products for profit can be consented to when there are two rational actors involved...
However, the aim of the capitalist is historically to provide an information disparity: essentially, to defraud their customer (and sometimes even their shareholders) as to their business practices. When was the last McDonalds adwhich informed customers as to their actions in rainforests, the work of leading nutritionists, the number of Americans that die from coronary disease, the existence of their competitors or double blind taste tests? We are irrational actors.
@gamerunknown irrational consumer theory? really? if that's what your worried about occurring in a voluntarist society, you probably don't the philosophy of anarchism very seriously. in a voluntarist society, every outcome is judged on performance and information pretty much doubles as a currency. and since governance is publicly distributed information is safe from hoarding. it'll be anarchical, where no firm has protections to shut out consumers since information has demand.
I'm arguing precisely the opposite: in a capitalist society, capitalists rely on people lacking information in order for them to buy their products. This practice will not be sustained in an anarchical society, so their ability to profit will be hampered. Anarcho-capitalists seek to abolish the state since it puts a limit on property, syndicalists because politics is the shadow business casts over society. Businesses run on feudal hierarchical principles.
@gamerunknown that's not very common among businessmen. you assume people gain through pure bullshit, but that's only in politics. ultimately business have to deliver on their statements in order to survive. it's just that when information is withheld that they save themselves from delivering as well as they could or should be.
Actually, corporations can obtain unaccountable powers comparable to governments. Nestlé for example sold baby formula to countries with dirty water and advertised heavily in those regions, causing deaths of infants from dysentery. Wal-Mart enters regions with prices below costs of production, than rapidly hikes prices up when local competitors go out of business. Where is the choice a rational actor is meant to have in those scenarios?
@gamerunknown The very phenomenon of the corporation is result of a government licensed amalgamation of parties into a single entity with a directing authority and a system of displaced liability.
as far as people being destroyed by their own decisions by participating in business with such entities it's understandable that it was a failure of their civil society to take uniform stances against such behaviors from those businesses.they should boycott Walmart and not use the water.
Just world hypothesis: bad things happen to bad people. Corporations are inherently undemocratic institutions. The guys at the top have been selected since birth for adherence to the doctrine of class warfare. They believe that it is right that a certain class of people are redundant and that the majority of the rest of society serves their interests. They think that anyone that is incapable of producing value surplus to their own means of subsistence should starve.
Not voluntary interactions... that's the detail. What are the odds for someone to own a business and that it's practically doable -- how many people can maintain that in financially realistic way? Very few: social mobility is very low.
So, it's not voluntary actions at all in the first place: it's a systematic necessity that is pretty rigid. They are working under threat of starvation, poverty, etc.
@KrugmanTheKing The threat of starvation and poverty exist where people are not resigned to work for others. under that argument the subsistence farmer is technically enslaved to the earth. natural necessity is inescapable. it is what I call "the heterotroph's dilemma". as animals we have to perform functions to obtain and make use of the resources around us. As humans cooperate and co-opt technology more efficiency brings more resources and growth,but the growth demands more....
Actually, under that very same argument, as Marx noted, men emancipate themselves from nature through the production that constitutes their work. The problem is the direction of that work: it should be the worker's own possession, if not all he has left to do is to sell his workforce to someone who owns the means of production -- that's where the argument actually leads. Basically, it says you virtually no choice to live this way in that system.
@KrugmanTheKing In that way, people will be forced to work together, but so far as subverting working FOR one another, that will be something that a society will have to ingrain into it's structure. It's the issue of reformatting the meaning of authority or eliminating it all together. for Chomsky the anarchist pursuit is that of question all authority on its legitimacy; overthrowing it when it cannot be proven. for building a society not on control but effective cooperation.
But, I agree with you on that last take: it is a work in progress. We cannot simply put everything to the ground and hope that to be better... we risk, in doing so, to create even worst structures. I think we should literally follow it as Tocqueville explained it, with a strong civil society, a far more integrated approach -- changing the system from bellow at the same time we start to put in place the basic outlines of the structures we would need.
Read Tocqueville in his second book Of Democracy in America, second section, 20th Chapter -- he explains how division of labor belittle workers and give rise to a class of owners; he even answer your comment pretty directly:
"Each of them fills the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave; the one is continually, closely, and necessarily dependent upon the other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to command. What is this but aristocracy?"
But, upfront, the whole structure is unjustifiable since, essentially, some people in it use others are tools to achieve their ends -- you may argue in favor of it, but then you have to argue against freedom.
All philosophers from Rousseau to Marx will answer you the same thing on that: it's making men into machines. They're all very specifically attributing to human nature his character as a worker, as a creative person -- which is the reason they give to support freedom.
It's inherently a contradiction to promote the primacy of freedom while sustaining authority in any form at all... I know what's the argument and it has always been the same: we ought to place them for their greater good under the benevolent, useful or efficient authority of some better, more competent person.
Meanwhile, history proved it a failure and a source of atrocities.
@ProgLiberty yes well i am libertarian communist, or socialist, whatever doesnt matter. anyways i like Ron Paul for instance even though he is a conservative libertarian he really does stand for the Constitution. but i think that it should be more heavily ratified.
@TheRedRussian10 Sorry but it wont work. It's a known fact that right-wingers are being paid to post to forums all over the web claiming they are liberals or left wingers that support right-wing crazies like Ron Paul.
@ProgLiberty No like, I know what you're saying. The Constitution is outdated and capitalistic at its base, and Ron Paul is a bit crazy... some of his views are great, some aren't... so I don't know. I don't think we have a good candidate yet. Maybe we need a revolutionary instead. haha.
In a mere 30 years, deregulation has taken 80% of the chinese population off farms, raised they salaries and standard of livings, and have done more than all the policies the left could have thrown at it. These so called 'intelectuals' ideas are becoming moot, and they are being shoved aside in lieu of actual intellectuals.
Chomsky's message: Create a zero incentive policy for individuals to invest and open businesses, crash every bank in the process, steal all private income producing property (business assets), turn them into democratically run co-ops, run them into bankruptcy, and crash the whole economy...
I'll stay away from linguistics if Chomsky keeps his libertarian-socialism anarcho-syndicalist worker ran democratic utoian fantasy economics to himself...
@USTreasuryBond Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. He does not envision any kind of organization of social life that includes businesses and private property, or the economy in the modern capitalist sense.
If you want to be a good capitalist twit and troll Chomsky videos, at least research first. Because you-- like most capitalists and fake libertarian flakes that troll on anarchist and socialist videos-- are just making an ass out of yourself.
@USTreasuryBond All you're saying is humans aren't motivated without a gun to their backs (capitalism) .. if that's the case then theres no reason not to have a social democratic society like in Scandinavia... a capitalist society without regulations or any rights for workers to organize is a tyranny of its own kind, where people are "allowed" to die instead of murdered outright.
@USTreasuryBond lol, yea, I mean he's a professor at MIT, so he probably is a joke. Silly intellectuals, arent they bringing america down? like really.
@235RB Yea, ya know, academia la la land has a lot to do with business experience in the real world, running real firms that produce...please, that is why congress is so bad at managing money, a majority of them are lawyers and political science majors. They are not intellectuals, they are pseudo-intellectuals and old school thinkers like marx. Chomsky isn't even chomskyish, practicing linguistics at non-syndicalist MIT for 47 years. The man even admits that he is an economic illiterate.
@USTreasuryBond The sad thing is that all your right wing capitalist heroes like Friedman wont "admit" that they don't knwo whats best for the workers.. they know whats best.. they expect capitalism, backed up by guns, police, armies, and prisons.. a private or public state, its all the same. Chomsky doesn't need a certificate to point out the obvious. Workers suffering is real. Not having the right to organize is real. The "Economists" job is to lie and say things are fine.
@235RB It has nothing to do with the ivory tower status of someone. Elitist economists wouldnt know any better. What is important here is whether what Chomsky says is true and is backed up by the facts and attitudes of people. When Chomsky talks about capitalism, he's comparing it to a society where workers have freedom. When peopel like friedman or rothbard or heinlein or rand talk about capitalism, they are always comparing it to a straw man USSR.
i hear Mr Chomsky but wtf is with the coke heads in the background, i know that sniff and it is from an influx or deflation of cocaine. I have been there and know the sounds of a coke head as opposed to an allergy sufferer.
Chomsky's performance as a political thinker has always been lackluster at best IMO. While he seems to advocate anarchism in principle, I have never seen him actually fucking explain how he would handle the issues (i.e. mass transport, food distribution). Thats why I think the guys' supposed views are a farce, because apparently he can neither explain nor rationlize them in front of a cogent audience. I have never seen him do so.
He is a well spoken idiot. Go slowly, listen, he blathers on for 5 minutes about the RULES of ANARCHY. M.I.T. pays him 650,000 dollars a year plus full pension to blather. He expedites his logical frames to the Stalinist portraits he claims are invalid. Socialism is bankrupt, evil, defunct and as a soft scientist Herr Chompsky knows that, but the 60's, the workers global revolt, Jefferson star-ship records, are all crap.
@bradfkluck Hahaha...what? The workers global revolt is all crap? Can you explain why? How do you see the current global socio-economic paradigm we live under? What solutions would you like to present to end mass poverty, hunger, consolidation of capital and power in the hands of the few, ineffective, stagnant plutocratic republics posing as representative democracies, the subsidization of war, murder Inc., essentially, power. What would you do to fix these problems?
The world ALREADY IS anarchist, you fools. Do you really think authority is real?!? The world is people doing whatever they want. There's no divine laws, rules, or happenings in this world! People do whatever they want! The police don't uphold every law, decisions aren't ours, nobody is entitled to love, you'll die on the fucking street if you're not on top of your game. Please.
He simply described the social contract in the first few minutes, which the fore-fathers of the US ascribed to; funny how we have now embraced unwavering servility to the government, yay.
The worst, most destructive expansion of government occured under Bush/Cheney. They destroyed any last vestiges of freedom in this country under the patriot act and homeland security act. The far right are the world's worst hypocrites and have proven themselves to be the enemies of all things good and decent.. Every dipshit right winger in american now has the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents on their hands with the immoral wars they started. I hope vengeance is terrible upon them.
@heartfire451 yes the wars are stupids. But you think Bush is a far right? LOL His wife, his daughter, are pro-abortion and gay activists. Bush have many muslim friends, he is not islamophobic (word made by leftists). No, republicans are moderate liberals. Leftists are the extremists.
@trifulquita15 muslims friends are actually business partners. the bush family anf the bin laden family have very intimate business relationships. mainly regarding oil. coincedence huh/
@DanReborn a real Christian don't make business with muslims or chinese. I wish the next president of U.S. could cut relations with the Islamic World n stop buying their filthy oil
@trifulquita15 OMG, that is uber-stupid! :) This was the god of stupidity comming out of your mouth :P You haven't read the bible if you speak things like this! correct me if I'm wrong ;)
@MedievalAmbient And...? It's slowly growing more and more towards acceptance. The percentage of Americans who accepted them 50 years ago would probably be less than 15%. And whether or not people accept them, taking them out of Europe won't do anything. It's freedom. People have the freedom to think what they want and love who they want. Just because you, as a Christian, don't accept that doesn't mean we should tear down people's freedoms.
@trifulquita15 I am from Europe and I don't think that it is more immoral than America, or something else. BTW, what's wrong with LGBT and why is that immoral? Besides they didn't made anarchism and anarchism can not be made, it can only be achieved by the rise of the human conscience.
@lilhavanaboys As Jesus said, the law is made for the men, not the men for the law. That was a teaching, we can't go to shopping every time (like modern girls). I can use few dozens of clothes, is not a sin.
Only a satanic works on saturday when God says do not work on saturday.
Now, we can work on saturday, because Jesus gave us the New testament
@trifulquita15 God isn't real. And you just made a major contradiction. You are talking about objective morality and then pass along and change it to subjective because "God" made a new testament which contradicted his last. Thus, his old morals were no longer in use, thus objective morality is useless even to the eyes of "God." Homosexuals are human beings. Stop pushing your crap down our throats.
@trifulquita15 I knew it! You haven't read the Bible!!! :)
"Only a satanic works on saturday when God says do not work on saturday."
Look at John "5:15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 5:16 Therefore the Jews started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath. 5:17 But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is still working, and I also am working.’" Does this makes Jesus a satanic? It's not about holidays dude, it's about the deeds!
Chomsky says:"There's far more consiousness of structures of domination..." NO KIDDING; SINCE THERE ARE FAR MORE "STRUCTURES OF DOMINATION" You libs. LOVE BIG GOVERNENT and you have it at all levels today! He says:"They were bringing in factory girls..." YES THEY WERE HANDCUFFED AND DRAGGED. These leftists love to abuse and twist language and hope they don't get caught. Please read some Hilaire Belloc and learn about wage slavery and why entertaining anarchism is ridiculous!
Chomsky says:"There's far more consiousness of structures of domination..." NO KIDDING; SINCE THERE ARE FAR MORE "STRUCTURES OF DOMINATION" You libs. LOVE BIG GOVERNENT and you have it at all levels today! He says:"They were bringing in factory girls..." YES THEY WERE HANDCUFFED AND DRAGGED. These leftists love to abuse and twist language and hope they don't get caught. Please read some Hilaire Belloc and learn about wage slavery and why entertaining anarchism is ridiculous!
You do not want Liberty - You want to be governed - Anyone who does not want to be free is a fucked up total idiot - People choose beween Anarchism which is being free or government which is being ruled - You are not alone though, the whole world is so fucked up that they dont want to live at Liberty either
I created my channel to give anybody who wants to know what Anarchism is a full and comprehensive understanding of it - starting with my title video all anyone has to do to understand Anarchism is watch back the videos - The infomation is now there so its just a case of if people can be bothered enough to want to know - this has been my contribution to humanity giving the understanding of being free
I made a video on this because people did not understand the difference between rules and ruling - type or copy and paste this code into the search box
Do not confuse rules with being ruled - culture is a set of rules, ways of doing things that benifit the people but there is no loss of liberty being born into culture - the loss of liberty is when you are born into a ruled society with rule of law as now you have other people ruling your life under threat of violence and authority of the rulers - in (A) free society your not under the ruling and authority of others and the people work out their own rules amongst themselves
Good question - Because Anarchism which is not being ruled by definition means being free and if you are in wage slavery/working for money your not free - if you work for anything other than your own free will you are a slave to whatever it is you are working for - with wage slavery you are a slave to the money and whoever is paying you. once you give up your own will &work for money instead whoever controls the money supply controls you
In this talk when he mentions wage labor is slavery and industrial system is illegitimate, he doesn't attempt to explain why. Why isn't wage labor voluntary association and compatible with anarchism?
So do not be ridiculas and speak of laws in an Anarchist society or it would not be an Anarchist society
Once educated you choose between anarchism which is not being ruled (rule of law) and statism which is being ruled - the choice of if you want to be free or not !!
@godkingofthepunks In practice it's impossible to have no rules in an anarchism. Laws are rigid and inflexible. Rules are there to be changed and broken. In practice, anarchist communities and societies have minimal preventative rules and regulations in order to keep organisation intact. However, these rules are written by those who are directly affected by these same rules.
No, Anarchism is not being ruled. In the dictionary will be either society without rule or society without government or law - It means by definition to be free - without it you will be ruled - rule of law....sadly people dont want to be free though -it was made almost like a bad word so that the rulers who control society dont lose their job and power - its sad though that people just dont want to live at liberty which is being free and Anarchy
wagelabour wasnt common 200y ago in the rural societies, so that when it came in the form to distinguish the workers from the owners in broad scale factories, of course it was met with hesitation, and of course u loose ur culture and way of life, if u leave the town and go into the city where u mainly work and sleep
Please show your support for the protest for a free country now in its 908 th day by sharing and supporting my title video - The world has the right to this infomation
You want to be ruled (rule of law) the rest of us want to be free - In this country we've got
rulers and we've got rules so its a ruled country - I am protesting for a free country.....do not try to make an argument against a free country you idiot
Can someone tell me why Nim Chimpsky (the linguist) is trying to act like he is an authority on political philosophy? Why does anyone listen to this lying prick?
Have any of you right-wingers even heard of anarchist catalonia or the ukraine free territory? The Paris commune (not really anarchist, but close)? You need to learn about the history of anarchy in the real world before you go around talking about how terrible it would be.
@psychedellic420 LOL...i do not feel as if he understands what his beliefs imply. now that is scary! but then again, his beliefs are probably somebody else's beliefs.
@psychedellic420 Notice the key words: "I do not feel" as to indicate personal feelings, opinions, whatever; "probably" as to indicate something indefinite, not precise or vague......
@psychedellic420 in some cases, assumptions can, in fact, be true. aside from that, an assumption is something taken for granted or true, thus sure my feelings and opinions could be assumptions while at other times they are not ;D
@psychedellic420 yeah, but aside from the relative truth, there is definitely a non-personal truth, an underlying truth or a general truth that's constant; unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "relative" truth?
@tonyfalca yes, truth is always relative to the individual. Definitions are only defined by the definer. Everybody socially constructs what things mean to them. One persons trash is anothers gold, ones god is anothers satan, so on so forth. The only absolute truth is life. Any immaterial 'truths' (ie opinions, feelings) are only true to you yourself, and others can share them as well but it doesn not mean they are true to everyone, cause they arent. That does not make them any less true, however
@psychedellic420 That was really well put, well said good sir... Personally, I feel as if there is an underlying constant, or life in itself as you've already mentioned; whereby, our IN-constant point of view is the constant within the constant of life. Just as life is known and understood to be a fractal. With that being said, the only NON-relative truth is that, no matter what, there is a constant within a constant within a constant, so on and so forth. What do you think about that?
@tonyfalca interesting- elaborated Darwinian logic, basically stated and reworded by saying- everyone here is a variation of something varied before them; no two variations are the same, so while nothing is absolute, that in itself IS absolute. trippy, similar logic in Stephen Hawkings recent theory of the origins of the universe
@psychedellic420 That wasn't so much what I was getting at, but those theories still sounds interesting. It was more along the lines of as 'as above, so below; as below, so above'. It's more like everything is a constant within a constant on a scale of infinite. Each constant is a different degree of awareness. Change is only apparent because one is transcending, ascending or descending, betwn degrees, betwn constants, betwn levels of awareness. What we view never changes, just our pov or awrnss
@tonyfalca change only happens from the perspective from the person viewing the purposed 'change'. kind of a taoist philosophy in a way, everything is connected and the same yet a different perspective.
@psychedellic420 Yes, exactly. Everything (including nothing) is constant, everything (including nothing) is potential. Everything once was; while it's important to note, that your point of view is a focused and limited representation of what once was. Thus, your point of view is now a false representation of what was, your point of view is an in-constant constant. If that makes any sense?
which demonstrates the implication that, apparently, you can affect what your viewing; while in essence, your not affecting any change whatsoever to what you're viewing, you're only affecting how you view what already is.
I just recently found out that the idea I'm trying to get at is called 'indirect realism' or an interpretation or representation of what is real. Jean Baudrillard talks about it in his book "Simulacra and Simulation", except I take it one step further by assuming what appears to be real, or the truth, that which we perceive is constant infinite potential. Thus, things of matter or material don't actually change form, but instead our awareness that affects 'how' we c whtvr may b.
I guess we can affect our awareness, but nothing else. Yet by affecting our awareness, one could assume that we are indeed affecting everything else. It's kind of paradoxical like everything is nothing as nothing is everything. Nothing or zero x 2 = infinite 00. Maybe nothing is the square root of infinite or two wrongs make a right? who knows lol but I like to think about these things :)
@tonyfalca yes and even awareness is relative....lol. It is arguable that everything is aware but only aware to itself. As for the two wrongs that make a right....hmm.....gets back to personal ethics which are only ethical to the definer of ethics who is of course YOU. You decide what is ethical....but is there any universal ethics? that is the question. Universal morality. Religion kind of fails at answering this question.
@psychedellic420 Yes, objective awareness and our points of view are subjective or relative. I believe religion, in general, fails at more than just answering that question. But then again, religion is subjective too, so religion succeeds for some where it fails for others. I believe, personally, as if there's an objective truth that we all subjectively admire and chase.
@tonyfalca yes yes, religion generally fails at most things. And the objective truth you are talking about, could it simply be purpose? could it be that with our culture the way it is today, people arent happy with just being alive, so they turn to something that tells them what they are meant to do? Religion, specifically christianity, seems to succeed best for those who arent happy with who they are, and feel like they need to be something else based on standards others hold them to.
@psychedellic420 you're right, the religions of today are predominant because they are used mostly to fill voids caused by our world, culture, etc. But the objective or non-personal truth that connects us all is beyond any purpose that we may attribute to it; the non-personal truth would be what is real compared to each of our personal interpretations of it. Though, I feel like we've finally reached a time where ppl are questioning all of our ways now because of the reasons you've mentioned
@tonyfalca yes, I really like your point about what is real compared to what we perceive to be real. religion has always answered questions for you that you havent even asked yet, and if your brought up being told the answer to 2+2=6, then thats what you believe. i see so many people who accept these things without even asking why or finding out for themselves, and it saddens me. Have you ever heard of alan watts?
the true freedom, political freedom is freedom from compulsion, not freedom from having to earn a living or freedom to dispose with others as you please!
@AtheistTower no, those are left wingers who vote for bigger government. ive never met a real anarchist who told me that they voted. how many anarchist canidates are there?
The problem with this talk is that 95% of people do not talk like this and do not interact with others in these terms. That is why I talk to people in regular terms and try to relate to them in ways that speak to their lives. This just seems unrealistic and not accessible, though Chomsky is amazing!
anarchist (mostly middle class,educated kids) would be the first who would get beaten and robbed by the poor, testosterone guys. than anarchist would turn to be the first who ask for a strong rule. keep dreaming guys, see the world, than believe in anarchy
@TheParadoxWithin Did you ever stop wonder that just maybe these rapists and gangsters are affected by the present external stimuli of the world. People, killers, rapists, gangsters, et cetera are all somewhat products of their environment, the current structure, or system. I am twenty-two years old, and since birth up until the present day, poverty and war have never been addressed effectively. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."
@spenceruwyo But what if the die roll happens to be made during a monopoly game, and you land on... say... a chance square? All of a sudden *one* of those die rolls has a lot of multiple results. None of which can be relied upon to come to pass over any others. Some let you move straight to Go - or even to Mayfair.
It's difficult to definitively predict a result. Depending on where the roll's made, the results can be immensely different.
Possibilities aren't necessarily the same as outcomes.
@TheParadoxWithin most gang violence is a product of the continuing illegality of drugs and poverty exacerbated by regulations and laws that destroy businesses in poor neighborhoods. And don't get me started on government housing.
Pro-anarchists do not even pay attention to the cons of anarchy. Have fun with no law enforcement when someone's holding you at gunpoint or raping your sister. :P
@TheParadoxWithin funny thing is Law enforcement only comes in AFTER the fact. when have the police actually been there to save someone. I don't wait for shit. I get my gun. law enforcement only works to secure certain areas.
@TheParadoxWithin What's with the fanatical paranoia? Did you watch the video? "Any structure of authority and domination has to justify itself...whether individual relations or international affairs..." That means that law enforcement must justify its actions/presence just as much as a gangster or rapist or multinational corporation. Like the authoritarian action of holding a child back from running into the street, there is justification for keeping the peace in Anarchism. <3 Chomsky!
In this country we've got rulers and we've got rules so its a ruled country right ??
I am fighting for a free country - all of you who argue against a free country are just the insane and nobody other than the insane will take any notice of your arguments against a free country you fucked up lunatics - when we achieve a free country feel free to come to the south london streets and try to attack me and see how long you last you cowardly little fuck
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
Its sad that people are brain-washed by their rulers propaganda to think that a free country would be a bad idea - its all that they can do to try and prevent a free society
by making it sound chaos
so they dont lose power - their is no argument against a free society - it is right to be free - you should be protesting for a free country and not the insanity of trying to argue
This has been flagged as spam show
CHOMSKY IS CONTROLLED. NO DOUBT IN MY MIND. Read the published email correspondence between him and Kevin Barrett regarding arrangements to appear on his radio program. Its a long read but worth it. Chomsky's evasiveness and willful ignorance is overwhelming.
bassefa1984 1 week ago
69 ppl who disliked this are CEOś of Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, Apple ....
balkiprasanna1984 2 weeks ago
As far as individual rights go, there should be no laws that limit ones choice, that is true freedom. The rule of law comes in when people organize to deny someone else their rights. In a society based on human free will, the only law should be that you cannot infringe upon that free will, whether you are a governmental system or a corporate system, infringing on someones rights should be unacceptable.
fiveoclockpunk 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@fiveoclockpunk how would you explain the obviously valid law against murder? or does that fall into the rule of not infringing others' freedom? coz if i wanted to kill, is it not infringing my freedom to do it if theres a law against murder?
OracleUndone 1 month ago
@OracleUndone
It is not within your rights to deny someone their right to live. it isnt infringing on your rights because you never had the right to deny someone their right to live in the first place.
fiveoclockpunk 2 weeks ago
What I don't get about Anarchism is if there's no authority, who's stopping people from becoming authoritarians?
I mean, you can say "I don't think authoritarians should exist", but how are you actually going stop them from existing without being authoritarian yourself?
You could argue that we have anarchy right now, and that the government is just a huge organization, which is all it really is.
I guess it's more of an ideal world philosophy than an actual political philosophy.
heatbucspies55 1 month ago
My left ear enjoyed this.
SupermarketsRevil 1 month ago 25
@SupermarketsRevil earphones broke?
OracleUndone 1 month ago
It's sad that the pro-capitalists are trying to destroy tenure by changing schools into charter schools and other tricks so they can fire people simply for their socioeconomic opinions. For every great alternative thinker like Chomsky there are a lot more conservative professors at a given school, but even one radical voice in a school is too much for these people. Right-wing phony "libertarians" hate freedom of speech when it isn't pro-capitalist.
ProgLiberty 1 month ago 2
@ProgLiberty If schools offer a professor tenure, why would they want to fire them for their opinions?
AccumulatedKnowledge 1 month ago
@ProgLiberty I'm a pro-capitalists and I don't hate free speech. to be honest I'm rather fond of Anarcho-socialist and Communists....voluntary sharing of resources and knowledge is key to society. really the thing about anarchism is that it isn't strict in operation like a state, some people will trade, some people will share...what matters is nobody is stealing, killing, lying or destroying. am I right?
Ravengaurd6 1 month ago
@Ravengaurd6
Well to be for capitalism and voluntary socialism isn't mutually exclusive.
Capitalism just dictates what the goverment should force us to do, while voluntary socialism is individuals choosing to do that with their money, so you can have both.
heatbucspies55 1 month ago
@heatbucspies55 that's just it. capitalism is just a system of private property and exchange, something you don't need a state to maintain. people can mutually agree to recognize property as well as exchange. what you speak of is mercantilism.
Ravengaurd6 1 month ago
@Ravengaurd6 You need a public or private state to have private property. That's the whole point. It's a constant state of war and strife, without any workers rights or organization or control, and without any regulations.
ProgLiberty 3 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6 The problem is that its only been recently that capitalists have tried to claim to be anarchist and trying to sneak under the door to rewrite history. Capitalism isn't anything peaceful or anything comparable with anarchism... its just that a bunch of right wingers spread propaganda claiming it was. We who work for capitalists know that capitalism isnt libertarian.
ProgLiberty 3 weeks ago
@ProgLiberty technically strife over lands is a completely state driven or authorized process.
anarcho-capitalism is just like anarcho-synacalism in that they are both unprecedented and are built upon voluntarism. people can join or leave. the thing is about anarchy is that doesn't build itself around strict organization. regardless it'll be part capitalist part syndicalist, a system of property will arise, a system of exchange will arise and a system of labor will arise.period
Ravengaurd6 3 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6
I don't think that's a historical certainty, any more than "things find their level" is a scientific principle any more (in fact, it's an appeal to tradition). There was no historical basis for women voting during the suffrage movement, but there were no catastrophic consequences either. Should workers vote for managers and sell products, they can dictate that they only cost the average labour value to produce them, so no room for profiteering.
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown no room? It's going to anarchy. people will be very quick to organize their relations,skills and labor in a way that will improve their well being.There's always room for profiteering. As long as no force, fraud, usury or larceny is involved, no one else in the communities going mind it either. In fact they might might join in. humans having self interests in all.since anarchical society works when people have to cooperate, goals are achieved in spite of intentions.
Ravengaurd6 3 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6
To answer, "whence profit?" we must ask "whence wealth?". If wealth is the result of labour, then profit is benefiting from the labour of another individual. Anarcho-syndaclists think benefiting from another person's labour through rent (means of production or property) is immoral, anarcho-capitalists hold that it is immoral when done through taxation. Reselling products for profit can be consented to when there are two rational actors involved...
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6
However, the aim of the capitalist is historically to provide an information disparity: essentially, to defraud their customer (and sometimes even their shareholders) as to their business practices. When was the last McDonalds adwhich informed customers as to their actions in rainforests, the work of leading nutritionists, the number of Americans that die from coronary disease, the existence of their competitors or double blind taste tests? We are irrational actors.
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown irrational consumer theory? really? if that's what your worried about occurring in a voluntarist society, you probably don't the philosophy of anarchism very seriously. in a voluntarist society, every outcome is judged on performance and information pretty much doubles as a currency. and since governance is publicly distributed information is safe from hoarding. it'll be anarchical, where no firm has protections to shut out consumers since information has demand.
Ravengaurd6 3 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6
I'm arguing precisely the opposite: in a capitalist society, capitalists rely on people lacking information in order for them to buy their products. This practice will not be sustained in an anarchical society, so their ability to profit will be hampered. Anarcho-capitalists seek to abolish the state since it puts a limit on property, syndicalists because politics is the shadow business casts over society. Businesses run on feudal hierarchical principles.
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown that's not very common among businessmen. you assume people gain through pure bullshit, but that's only in politics. ultimately business have to deliver on their statements in order to survive. it's just that when information is withheld that they save themselves from delivering as well as they could or should be.
Ravengaurd6 3 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6
Actually, corporations can obtain unaccountable powers comparable to governments. Nestlé for example sold baby formula to countries with dirty water and advertised heavily in those regions, causing deaths of infants from dysentery. Wal-Mart enters regions with prices below costs of production, than rapidly hikes prices up when local competitors go out of business. Where is the choice a rational actor is meant to have in those scenarios?
gamerunknown 3 weeks ago
@gamerunknown The very phenomenon of the corporation is result of a government licensed amalgamation of parties into a single entity with a directing authority and a system of displaced liability.
as far as people being destroyed by their own decisions by participating in business with such entities it's understandable that it was a failure of their civil society to take uniform stances against such behaviors from those businesses.they should boycott Walmart and not use the water.
Ravengaurd6 2 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6
Just world hypothesis: bad things happen to bad people. Corporations are inherently undemocratic institutions. The guys at the top have been selected since birth for adherence to the doctrine of class warfare. They believe that it is right that a certain class of people are redundant and that the majority of the rest of society serves their interests. They think that anyone that is incapable of producing value surplus to their own means of subsistence should starve.
gamerunknown 2 weeks ago
@gamerunknown
just world = ontological nature that coincides with human morality(that's pretty out there)
Corporations are undemocratic up to the executive board.however they arise and are fed MOSTLY by voluntary interaction.
as for the rest of your statements: I say it depends...certainty is untrappable.
Ravengaurd6 2 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6
Not voluntary interactions... that's the detail. What are the odds for someone to own a business and that it's practically doable -- how many people can maintain that in financially realistic way? Very few: social mobility is very low.
So, it's not voluntary actions at all in the first place: it's a systematic necessity that is pretty rigid. They are working under threat of starvation, poverty, etc.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@KrugmanTheKing The threat of starvation and poverty exist where people are not resigned to work for others. under that argument the subsistence farmer is technically enslaved to the earth. natural necessity is inescapable. it is what I call "the heterotroph's dilemma". as animals we have to perform functions to obtain and make use of the resources around us. As humans cooperate and co-opt technology more efficiency brings more resources and growth,but the growth demands more....
Ravengaurd6 1 week ago
@Ravengaurd6
Actually, under that very same argument, as Marx noted, men emancipate themselves from nature through the production that constitutes their work. The problem is the direction of that work: it should be the worker's own possession, if not all he has left to do is to sell his workforce to someone who owns the means of production -- that's where the argument actually leads. Basically, it says you virtually no choice to live this way in that system.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@KrugmanTheKing In that way, people will be forced to work together, but so far as subverting working FOR one another, that will be something that a society will have to ingrain into it's structure. It's the issue of reformatting the meaning of authority or eliminating it all together. for Chomsky the anarchist pursuit is that of question all authority on its legitimacy; overthrowing it when it cannot be proven. for building a society not on control but effective cooperation.
Ravengaurd6 1 week ago
@Ravengaurd6
But, I agree with you on that last take: it is a work in progress. We cannot simply put everything to the ground and hope that to be better... we risk, in doing so, to create even worst structures. I think we should literally follow it as Tocqueville explained it, with a strong civil society, a far more integrated approach -- changing the system from bellow at the same time we start to put in place the basic outlines of the structures we would need.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@Ravengaurd6
Read Tocqueville in his second book Of Democracy in America, second section, 20th Chapter -- he explains how division of labor belittle workers and give rise to a class of owners; he even answer your comment pretty directly:
"Each of them fills the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave; the one is continually, closely, and necessarily dependent upon the other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to command. What is this but aristocracy?"
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@Ravengaurd6
But, upfront, the whole structure is unjustifiable since, essentially, some people in it use others are tools to achieve their ends -- you may argue in favor of it, but then you have to argue against freedom.
All philosophers from Rousseau to Marx will answer you the same thing on that: it's making men into machines. They're all very specifically attributing to human nature his character as a worker, as a creative person -- which is the reason they give to support freedom.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@Ravengaurd6
It's inherently a contradiction to promote the primacy of freedom while sustaining authority in any form at all... I know what's the argument and it has always been the same: we ought to place them for their greater good under the benevolent, useful or efficient authority of some better, more competent person.
Meanwhile, history proved it a failure and a source of atrocities.
KrugmanTheKing 1 week ago
@ProgLiberty yes well i am libertarian communist, or socialist, whatever doesnt matter. anyways i like Ron Paul for instance even though he is a conservative libertarian he really does stand for the Constitution. but i think that it should be more heavily ratified.
TheRedRussian10 1 month ago
@TheRedRussian10 Sorry but it wont work. It's a known fact that right-wingers are being paid to post to forums all over the web claiming they are liberals or left wingers that support right-wing crazies like Ron Paul.
ProgLiberty 3 weeks ago
@ProgLiberty No like, I know what you're saying. The Constitution is outdated and capitalistic at its base, and Ron Paul is a bit crazy... some of his views are great, some aren't... so I don't know. I don't think we have a good candidate yet. Maybe we need a revolutionary instead. haha.
TheRedRussian10 3 weeks ago
In a mere 30 years, deregulation has taken 80% of the chinese population off farms, raised they salaries and standard of livings, and have done more than all the policies the left could have thrown at it. These so called 'intelectuals' ideas are becoming moot, and they are being shoved aside in lieu of actual intellectuals.
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
Chomsky's message: Create a zero incentive policy for individuals to invest and open businesses, crash every bank in the process, steal all private income producing property (business assets), turn them into democratically run co-ops, run them into bankruptcy, and crash the whole economy...
I'll stay away from linguistics if Chomsky keeps his libertarian-socialism anarcho-syndicalist worker ran democratic utoian fantasy economics to himself...
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
@USTreasuryBond Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. He does not envision any kind of organization of social life that includes businesses and private property, or the economy in the modern capitalist sense.
If you want to be a good capitalist twit and troll Chomsky videos, at least research first. Because you-- like most capitalists and fake libertarian flakes that troll on anarchist and socialist videos-- are just making an ass out of yourself.
agapeiron 2 months ago 10
@USTreasuryBond All you're saying is humans aren't motivated without a gun to their backs (capitalism) .. if that's the case then theres no reason not to have a social democratic society like in Scandinavia... a capitalist society without regulations or any rights for workers to organize is a tyranny of its own kind, where people are "allowed" to die instead of murdered outright.
ProgLiberty 3 weeks ago
check out a channel called Stefbot
ykui1 2 months ago
a couch in front of a fire escape is anarchism 101.
VanitaRagazza 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
VanitaRagazza 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Syndicalism is so absurd that nobody has came out writing clearly in its favor. Just admit it Chumpsky, you're a Marxist...
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
Comment removed
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this man is a MORON
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
@USTreasuryBond and you probably admire people like Sarah Palin.
235RB 2 months ago
@235RB No..not at all...But Chumpsky is a joke
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
@USTreasuryBond lol, yea, I mean he's a professor at MIT, so he probably is a joke. Silly intellectuals, arent they bringing america down? like really.
235RB 2 months ago
@235RB Yea, ya know, academia la la land has a lot to do with business experience in the real world, running real firms that produce...please, that is why congress is so bad at managing money, a majority of them are lawyers and political science majors. They are not intellectuals, they are pseudo-intellectuals and old school thinkers like marx. Chomsky isn't even chomskyish, practicing linguistics at non-syndicalist MIT for 47 years. The man even admits that he is an economic illiterate.
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
@USTreasuryBond The sad thing is that all your right wing capitalist heroes like Friedman wont "admit" that they don't knwo whats best for the workers.. they know whats best.. they expect capitalism, backed up by guns, police, armies, and prisons.. a private or public state, its all the same. Chomsky doesn't need a certificate to point out the obvious. Workers suffering is real. Not having the right to organize is real. The "Economists" job is to lie and say things are fine.
ProgLiberty 3 weeks ago
@235RB It has nothing to do with the ivory tower status of someone. Elitist economists wouldnt know any better. What is important here is whether what Chomsky says is true and is backed up by the facts and attitudes of people. When Chomsky talks about capitalism, he's comparing it to a society where workers have freedom. When peopel like friedman or rothbard or heinlein or rand talk about capitalism, they are always comparing it to a straw man USSR.
ProgLiberty 3 weeks ago
i hear Mr Chomsky but wtf is with the coke heads in the background, i know that sniff and it is from an influx or deflation of cocaine. I have been there and know the sounds of a coke head as opposed to an allergy sufferer.
vkiansarg 2 months ago
@vkiansarg lolllll
kittycatcarley 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky's performance as a political thinker has always been lackluster at best IMO. While he seems to advocate anarchism in principle, I have never seen him actually fucking explain how he would handle the issues (i.e. mass transport, food distribution). Thats why I think the guys' supposed views are a farce, because apparently he can neither explain nor rationlize them in front of a cogent audience. I have never seen him do so.
e12gregjockca 2 months ago
Comment removed
e12gregjockca 2 months ago
Noam Chomsky is perhaps the only Jew i like... even with his Jew nose i still like him!
vietorkorean 2 months ago
@vietorkorean haha i like your comment.
VanitaRagazza 2 months ago
It is not a perfect place this world and I greatly respects your thoughts and concerns, BUT
a sociopathic academic can never write the right pamphlet to even scratch the surface of real problems.
He is not a credible critic of the human condition.
He is a tautologist lost in a maze of his own vast imagination. I'll take Thomas Edison, thank you.
I do appreciate your comment, thanks.
bradfkluck 2 months ago
I've already started. Thinking for myself seems to work well.
Media reports of the end of the world are greatly exaggerated.
In order, history's top three killers:
Disease
Socialism
War
bradfkluck 2 months ago
He's a well spoken idiot. Turrettes of leftist facsism.
The old man needs Damon's pool house, oh wait Zinn died there. R.I.P. the Great "pass and fail" prof of BU. the comm ave commie
bradfkluck 2 months ago
He is a well spoken idiot. Go slowly, listen, he blathers on for 5 minutes about the RULES of ANARCHY. M.I.T. pays him 650,000 dollars a year plus full pension to blather. He expedites his logical frames to the Stalinist portraits he claims are invalid. Socialism is bankrupt, evil, defunct and as a soft scientist Herr Chompsky knows that, but the 60's, the workers global revolt, Jefferson star-ship records, are all crap.
bradfkluck 2 months ago
@bradfkluck Hahaha...what? The workers global revolt is all crap? Can you explain why? How do you see the current global socio-economic paradigm we live under? What solutions would you like to present to end mass poverty, hunger, consolidation of capital and power in the hands of the few, ineffective, stagnant plutocratic republics posing as representative democracies, the subsidization of war, murder Inc., essentially, power. What would you do to fix these problems?
wspsaves 2 months ago
I am starting to believe that it is possible to have rules without rulers.
connerjd 2 months ago
Cartesian common sense. Most folks can see through the ideological net that they're ensnared in. But, they must make an effort.
Bodhidharma1986 3 months ago
The world ALREADY IS anarchist, you fools. Do you really think authority is real?!? The world is people doing whatever they want. There's no divine laws, rules, or happenings in this world! People do whatever they want! The police don't uphold every law, decisions aren't ours, nobody is entitled to love, you'll die on the fucking street if you're not on top of your game. Please.
goodbeerfinder100 3 months ago
@goodbeerfinder100 Most people want to believe that authority is real. They want somebody to tell them what to do.
lecterer 3 months ago
@lecterer Most people believe that authority is necessary to keep people in line.
connerjd 2 months ago
dammit it's mono.
psalm1501 3 months ago
He simply described the social contract in the first few minutes, which the fore-fathers of the US ascribed to; funny how we have now embraced unwavering servility to the government, yay.
nickrohn93 3 months ago
something wrong with the sound
tangoturb 3 months ago
What a strange place to put a couch.
imnotjoe 4 months ago 30
@imnotjoe I just scrolled down to say that.. then I read your comment ahhaa great minds think alike eh?
Dopemop 3 months ago
The worst, most destructive expansion of government occured under Bush/Cheney. They destroyed any last vestiges of freedom in this country under the patriot act and homeland security act. The far right are the world's worst hypocrites and have proven themselves to be the enemies of all things good and decent.. Every dipshit right winger in american now has the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents on their hands with the immoral wars they started. I hope vengeance is terrible upon them.
heartfire451 4 months ago
@heartfire451 yes the wars are stupids. But you think Bush is a far right? LOL His wife, his daughter, are pro-abortion and gay activists. Bush have many muslim friends, he is not islamophobic (word made by leftists). No, republicans are moderate liberals. Leftists are the extremists.
trifulquita15 4 months ago
@trifulquita15 muslims friends are actually business partners. the bush family anf the bin laden family have very intimate business relationships. mainly regarding oil. coincedence huh/
DanReborn 3 months ago
@DanReborn a real Christian don't make business with muslims or chinese. I wish the next president of U.S. could cut relations with the Islamic World n stop buying their filthy oil
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 OMG, that is uber-stupid! :) This was the god of stupidity comming out of your mouth :P You haven't read the bible if you speak things like this! correct me if I'm wrong ;)
Boharhija 3 months ago
@Boharhija yes, u are wrong. Cut ties with the chinese and muslims is not stupidity, is common sense.
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 yeah right... That's 'cos the white race is above all, right?
Boharhija 3 months ago
@Boharhija no, look Europe, decadent, immorality, full of gay/lesbians, they r above in pervertion, they made anarchism
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 YOUR opinions aren't going to influence government. People have come to accept homosexuality because it really doesn't matter.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient America is politically divided bewteen people who accept homosexuality, and those who are against
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient And...? It's slowly growing more and more towards acceptance. The percentage of Americans who accepted them 50 years ago would probably be less than 15%. And whether or not people accept them, taking them out of Europe won't do anything. It's freedom. People have the freedom to think what they want and love who they want. Just because you, as a Christian, don't accept that doesn't mean we should tear down people's freedoms.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 I am from Europe and I don't think that it is more immoral than America, or something else. BTW, what's wrong with LGBT and why is that immoral? Besides they didn't made anarchism and anarchism can not be made, it can only be achieved by the rise of the human conscience.
Boharhija 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 If you are a "real Christian" you can't wear more than two cloths. Says so in the bible.
It also says to stone anyone to death who works in the weekends.
lilhavanaboys 3 months ago
@lilhavanaboys As Jesus said, the law is made for the men, not the men for the law. That was a teaching, we can't go to shopping every time (like modern girls). I can use few dozens of clothes, is not a sin.
Only a satanic works on saturday when God says do not work on saturday.
Now, we can work on saturday, because Jesus gave us the New testament
trifulquita15 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 God isn't real. And you just made a major contradiction. You are talking about objective morality and then pass along and change it to subjective because "God" made a new testament which contradicted his last. Thus, his old morals were no longer in use, thus objective morality is useless even to the eyes of "God." Homosexuals are human beings. Stop pushing your crap down our throats.
lilhavanaboys 3 months ago
@trifulquita15 I knew it! You haven't read the Bible!!! :)
"Only a satanic works on saturday when God says do not work on saturday."
Look at John "5:15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 5:16 Therefore the Jews started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath. 5:17 But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is still working, and I also am working.’" Does this makes Jesus a satanic? It's not about holidays dude, it's about the deeds!
Boharhija 3 months ago
Comment removed
trifulquita15 4 months ago
Comment removed
trifulquita15 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky says:"There's far more consiousness of structures of domination..." NO KIDDING; SINCE THERE ARE FAR MORE "STRUCTURES OF DOMINATION" You libs. LOVE BIG GOVERNENT and you have it at all levels today! He says:"They were bringing in factory girls..." YES THEY WERE HANDCUFFED AND DRAGGED. These leftists love to abuse and twist language and hope they don't get caught. Please read some Hilaire Belloc and learn about wage slavery and why entertaining anarchism is ridiculous!
LiveItLiveNow 4 months ago
Chomsky says:"There's far more consiousness of structures of domination..." NO KIDDING; SINCE THERE ARE FAR MORE "STRUCTURES OF DOMINATION" You libs. LOVE BIG GOVERNENT and you have it at all levels today! He says:"They were bringing in factory girls..." YES THEY WERE HANDCUFFED AND DRAGGED. These leftists love to abuse and twist language and hope they don't get caught. Please read some Hilaire Belloc and learn about wage slavery and why entertaining anarchism is ridiculous!
LiveItLiveNow 4 months ago
that couch is a fire hazard
Movieman47 4 months ago
Being free should be a right, not a privilege for the elite few (a.k.a G8/G20)
euhphil 4 months ago
Couch in front of fire escape? Take that authority!
InThisStyle 4 months ago 50
@InThisStyle atleast they left the seat open
jorn1233 2 months ago
You do not want Liberty - You want to be governed - Anyone who does not want to be free is a fucked up total idiot - People choose beween Anarchism which is being free or government which is being ruled - You are not alone though, the whole world is so fucked up that they dont want to live at Liberty either
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
I created my channel to give anybody who wants to know what Anarchism is a full and comprehensive understanding of it - starting with my title video all anyone has to do to understand Anarchism is watch back the videos - The infomation is now there so its just a case of if people can be bothered enough to want to know - this has been my contribution to humanity giving the understanding of being free
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
@ minimovies inc
I made a video on this because people did not understand the difference between rules and ruling - type or copy and paste this code into the search box
v=Gp4Pi3fLfdm
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
Do not confuse rules with being ruled - culture is a set of rules, ways of doing things that benifit the people but there is no loss of liberty being born into culture - the loss of liberty is when you are born into a ruled society with rule of law as now you have other people ruling your life under threat of violence and authority of the rulers - in (A) free society your not under the ruling and authority of others and the people work out their own rules amongst themselves
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
@ furyofbongos
Good question - Because Anarchism which is not being ruled by definition means being free and if you are in wage slavery/working for money your not free - if you work for anything other than your own free will you are a slave to whatever it is you are working for - with wage slavery you are a slave to the money and whoever is paying you. once you give up your own will &work for money instead whoever controls the money supply controls you
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
In this talk when he mentions wage labor is slavery and industrial system is illegitimate, he doesn't attempt to explain why. Why isn't wage labor voluntary association and compatible with anarchism?
furyofbongos 4 months ago
1) Anarchy ; society without being ruled
2) Anarchy ; society without government or law
3) Anarchy ; society without rulers or rules
So do not be ridiculas and speak of laws in an Anarchist society or it would not be an Anarchist society
Once educated you choose between anarchism which is not being ruled (rule of law) and statism which is being ruled - the choice of if you want to be free or not !!
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
@godkingofthepunks In practice it's impossible to have no rules in an anarchism. Laws are rigid and inflexible. Rules are there to be changed and broken. In practice, anarchist communities and societies have minimal preventative rules and regulations in order to keep organisation intact. However, these rules are written by those who are directly affected by these same rules.
MinimoviesInc 4 months ago
No, Anarchism is not being ruled. In the dictionary will be either society without rule or society without government or law - It means by definition to be free - without it you will be ruled - rule of law....sadly people dont want to be free though -it was made almost like a bad word so that the rulers who control society dont lose their job and power - its sad though that people just dont want to live at liberty which is being free and Anarchy
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
wagelabour wasnt common 200y ago in the rural societies, so that when it came in the form to distinguish the workers from the owners in broad scale factories, of course it was met with hesitation, and of course u loose ur culture and way of life, if u leave the town and go into the city where u mainly work and sleep
3waybar 4 months ago
Please show your support for the protest for a free country now in its 908 th day by sharing and supporting my title video - The world has the right to this infomation
v=MKjHzmrAYkI
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
You want to be ruled (rule of law) the rest of us want to be free - In this country we've got
rulers and we've got rules so its a ruled country - I am protesting for a free country.....do not try to make an argument against a free country you idiot
godkingofthepunks 4 months ago
this guy has alot of people fooled
assman255 4 months ago
why is he wearing a yamukah?
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 4 months ago
Can someone tell me why Nim Chimpsky (the linguist) is trying to act like he is an authority on political philosophy? Why does anyone listen to this lying prick?
WHY? I want to know.
KingDingaLing090 4 months ago
Have any of you right-wingers even heard of anarchist catalonia or the ukraine free territory? The Paris commune (not really anarchist, but close)? You need to learn about the history of anarchy in the real world before you go around talking about how terrible it would be.
bananamankiller777 4 months ago
@bananamankiller777 what is this catalonia or the ukraine free territory that you speak of?
tonyfalca 4 months ago
false christ comes first
bullenchris18 5 months ago
WHAT A BUNCH OF BUBBLE-HEADED NONSENSE
raykaelin 5 months ago
nothing is free, you idiots
HristoYKovachev 5 months ago
@HristoYKovachev thats the problem....
psychedellic420 5 months ago
@psychedellic420 LOL...i do not feel as if he understands what his beliefs imply. now that is scary! but then again, his beliefs are probably somebody else's beliefs.
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca you assume quite a bit there
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 Notice the key words: "I do not feel" as to indicate personal feelings, opinions, whatever; "probably" as to indicate something indefinite, not precise or vague......
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca an assumption is indefinite and in reality is just a feeling
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 in some cases, assumptions can, in fact, be true. aside from that, an assumption is something taken for granted or true, thus sure my feelings and opinions could be assumptions while at other times they are not ;D
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca indeed. truth is relative anyways.
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 yeah, but aside from the relative truth, there is definitely a non-personal truth, an underlying truth or a general truth that's constant; unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "relative" truth?
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca yes, truth is always relative to the individual. Definitions are only defined by the definer. Everybody socially constructs what things mean to them. One persons trash is anothers gold, ones god is anothers satan, so on so forth. The only absolute truth is life. Any immaterial 'truths' (ie opinions, feelings) are only true to you yourself, and others can share them as well but it doesn not mean they are true to everyone, cause they arent. That does not make them any less true, however
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 That was really well put, well said good sir... Personally, I feel as if there is an underlying constant, or life in itself as you've already mentioned; whereby, our IN-constant point of view is the constant within the constant of life. Just as life is known and understood to be a fractal. With that being said, the only NON-relative truth is that, no matter what, there is a constant within a constant within a constant, so on and so forth. What do you think about that?
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca interesting- elaborated Darwinian logic, basically stated and reworded by saying- everyone here is a variation of something varied before them; no two variations are the same, so while nothing is absolute, that in itself IS absolute. trippy, similar logic in Stephen Hawkings recent theory of the origins of the universe
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 That wasn't so much what I was getting at, but those theories still sounds interesting. It was more along the lines of as 'as above, so below; as below, so above'. It's more like everything is a constant within a constant on a scale of infinite. Each constant is a different degree of awareness. Change is only apparent because one is transcending, ascending or descending, betwn degrees, betwn constants, betwn levels of awareness. What we view never changes, just our pov or awrnss
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca change only happens from the perspective from the person viewing the purposed 'change'. kind of a taoist philosophy in a way, everything is connected and the same yet a different perspective.
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 Yes, exactly. Everything (including nothing) is constant, everything (including nothing) is potential. Everything once was; while it's important to note, that your point of view is a focused and limited representation of what once was. Thus, your point of view is now a false representation of what was, your point of view is an in-constant constant. If that makes any sense?
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca
which demonstrates the implication that, apparently, you can affect what your viewing; while in essence, your not affecting any change whatsoever to what you're viewing, you're only affecting how you view what already is.
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca everything that was still is and will be, just different forms. yup yup, one of the most important but hardest things to get in my opinion
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420
I just recently found out that the idea I'm trying to get at is called 'indirect realism' or an interpretation or representation of what is real. Jean Baudrillard talks about it in his book "Simulacra and Simulation", except I take it one step further by assuming what appears to be real, or the truth, that which we perceive is constant infinite potential. Thus, things of matter or material don't actually change form, but instead our awareness that affects 'how' we c whtvr may b.
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@psychedellic420
I guess we can affect our awareness, but nothing else. Yet by affecting our awareness, one could assume that we are indeed affecting everything else. It's kind of paradoxical like everything is nothing as nothing is everything. Nothing or zero x 2 = infinite 00. Maybe nothing is the square root of infinite or two wrongs make a right? who knows lol but I like to think about these things :)
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca yes and even awareness is relative....lol. It is arguable that everything is aware but only aware to itself. As for the two wrongs that make a right....hmm.....gets back to personal ethics which are only ethical to the definer of ethics who is of course YOU. You decide what is ethical....but is there any universal ethics? that is the question. Universal morality. Religion kind of fails at answering this question.
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 Yes, objective awareness and our points of view are subjective or relative. I believe religion, in general, fails at more than just answering that question. But then again, religion is subjective too, so religion succeeds for some where it fails for others. I believe, personally, as if there's an objective truth that we all subjectively admire and chase.
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca yes yes, religion generally fails at most things. And the objective truth you are talking about, could it simply be purpose? could it be that with our culture the way it is today, people arent happy with just being alive, so they turn to something that tells them what they are meant to do? Religion, specifically christianity, seems to succeed best for those who arent happy with who they are, and feel like they need to be something else based on standards others hold them to.
psychedellic420 4 months ago
@psychedellic420 you're right, the religions of today are predominant because they are used mostly to fill voids caused by our world, culture, etc. But the objective or non-personal truth that connects us all is beyond any purpose that we may attribute to it; the non-personal truth would be what is real compared to each of our personal interpretations of it. Though, I feel like we've finally reached a time where ppl are questioning all of our ways now because of the reasons you've mentioned
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca those are my personal feelings.
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca yes, I really like your point about what is real compared to what we perceive to be real. religion has always answered questions for you that you havent even asked yet, and if your brought up being told the answer to 2+2=6, then thats what you believe. i see so many people who accept these things without even asking why or finding out for themselves, and it saddens me. Have you ever heard of alan watts?
psychedellic420 4 months ago
the true freedom, political freedom is freedom from compulsion, not freedom from having to earn a living or freedom to dispose with others as you please!
nomed187 5 months ago
@nomed187 true freedom is freedom from compulsion, impulsion, AND free from waged labor.
tonyfalca 4 months ago
I find it so ironic that 'anarchists' are often actually left wingers that always vote for bigger government.
AtheistTower 5 months ago
@AtheistTower no, those are left wingers who vote for bigger government. ive never met a real anarchist who told me that they voted. how many anarchist canidates are there?
psychedellic420 5 months ago
The problem with this talk is that 95% of people do not talk like this and do not interact with others in these terms. That is why I talk to people in regular terms and try to relate to them in ways that speak to their lives. This just seems unrealistic and not accessible, though Chomsky is amazing!
jbro81 5 months ago
anarchist (mostly middle class,educated kids) would be the first who would get beaten and robbed by the poor, testosterone guys. than anarchist would turn to be the first who ask for a strong rule. keep dreaming guys, see the world, than believe in anarchy
kavkaz7kavkaz 5 months ago
Free society with anarchism?
More like uncivil chaotic society...
TheParadoxWithin 5 months ago
@TheParadoxWithin Did you ever stop wonder that just maybe these rapists and gangsters are affected by the present external stimuli of the world. People, killers, rapists, gangsters, et cetera are all somewhat products of their environment, the current structure, or system. I am twenty-two years old, and since birth up until the present day, poverty and war have never been addressed effectively. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@tonyfalca "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."
Which is *exactly* why a 6 sided die will always show the same number whenever you roll it. =P
jaieet 4 months ago
@jaieet i always bet on rolling a seven with the 6 sides die. it works everytime, trust me
tonyfalca 4 months ago
@jaieet
you can predict the outcome, it will be 1-6. thus, always the same outcome(s)
spenceruwyo 4 months ago
@spenceruwyo But what if the die roll happens to be made during a monopoly game, and you land on... say... a chance square? All of a sudden *one* of those die rolls has a lot of multiple results. None of which can be relied upon to come to pass over any others. Some let you move straight to Go - or even to Mayfair.
It's difficult to definitively predict a result. Depending on where the roll's made, the results can be immensely different.
Possibilities aren't necessarily the same as outcomes.
jaieet 4 months ago
Or when your child just happens to be the victim of a many days drive-by shootings.
TheParadoxWithin 5 months ago
@TheParadoxWithin most gang violence is a product of the continuing illegality of drugs and poverty exacerbated by regulations and laws that destroy businesses in poor neighborhoods. And don't get me started on government housing.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago 14
Pro-anarchists do not even pay attention to the cons of anarchy. Have fun with no law enforcement when someone's holding you at gunpoint or raping your sister. :P
TheParadoxWithin 5 months ago
@TheParadoxWithin funny thing is Law enforcement only comes in AFTER the fact. when have the police actually been there to save someone. I don't wait for shit. I get my gun. law enforcement only works to secure certain areas.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago 10
@TheParadoxWithin What's with the fanatical paranoia? Did you watch the video? "Any structure of authority and domination has to justify itself...whether individual relations or international affairs..." That means that law enforcement must justify its actions/presence just as much as a gangster or rapist or multinational corporation. Like the authoritarian action of holding a child back from running into the street, there is justification for keeping the peace in Anarchism. <3 Chomsky!
lucash1980 5 months ago 3
@TheParadoxWithin
Paranoic and hysterical nonsense.
People get held up by gunpoint and sisters get raped all the time. How did law enforcement stop those from happening?
jpbb1976 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can't stand this fuckin jewboy.
sdflksdfkfh 5 months ago
In this country we've got rulers and we've got rules so its a ruled country right ??
I am fighting for a free country - all of you who argue against a free country are just the insane and nobody other than the insane will take any notice of your arguments against a free country you fucked up lunatics - when we achieve a free country feel free to come to the south london streets and try to attack me and see how long you last you cowardly little fuck
godkingofthepunks 5 months ago
Do not try to put together an argument against a free country you fucking moron !!!
godkingofthepunks 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do not argue against a free country - WE WILL NOT BE RULED !!
godkingofthepunks 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 5 months ago
I mean doesnt a free country just sound right to you ? How can you possibly argue against a free country ?? Your just making yourself look a fool.
Please support the protest for a free country by rating and sharing this video
v=1ussy40M9uE
godkingofthepunks 6 months ago
Its sad that people are brain-washed by their rulers propaganda to think that a free country would be a bad idea - its all that they can do to try and prevent a free society
by making it sound chaos
so they dont lose power - their is no argument against a free society - it is right to be free - you should be protesting for a free country and not the insanity of trying to argue
against being free
godkingofthepunks 6 months ago
In this country we've got rulers and we've got rules so its a ruled country
PROTESTING FOR A FREE COUNTRY
Its impossible to protest for a free country without finding yourself protesting for Anarchy because without Anarchy it will always be a ruled country
godkingofthepunks 6 months ago
The words of "men" that want to be governed
Do you want to be governed ?
If you do not want to be governed you are by definition an Anarchist
Law is the means by which you are governed
Anarchy ; society