Free Market Fantasies by Noam Chomsky 3/5

[TheRacistsMustDie]

I just realized one possible translation for deregulation in Dutch is "ontregeling" which can also mean disruption.

[DystopianEmpire01]

Unions are devolving into a welfare system for underperfoming labor.

[musicalidea]

@DystopianEmpire01 Corporations have developed a welfare system for underperforming capital: the US Government and the Federal Reserve.

[DystopianEmpire01]

@musicalidea I agree, there is also more than a trillion in TARP money unspent i've heard, and it can't be spent for any other use.

[quinnjin2]

@DystopianEmpire01 what a crock of shit, you brainwashed moron. wake the fuck and smell the coffee, you ancestors didnt die fighting for your right not to get fucked over so you could piss all over it with your ignorant bullshit.

[DystopianEmpire01]

So corporate farms are public services? Bull.

[irishjuwan]

@5:11------------- love the sarcasm... it happens to destroy everybodys life, but that doesnt really matter... INDISPUTABLE

[zeperf88]

The assembly people in Mexico would not otherwise have jobs though. There are no domestic car manufacturers that are being squashed. Also, Mexico is free to pass labor laws. Chomsky is incredibly smart, business does have too big a hand in government, but capitalism does not inherently require special exemptions to businesses.

[MillionthUsername]

So Chomsky doesn't call a subsidy a subsidy? It depends on who gets it?

Why do people say that this man is an "anarchist"? He's constantly talking about how great "public" spending is and bemoaning cutbacks and such. Why? Isn't he supposed to be against the state and it's coercive powers to steal from us?

It doesn't seem that way to me. He even said to vote for Obama!

As far as I know, anarchists don't laud the state and don't vote for establishment warmongering lying creeps.

[newmind1]

@MillionthUsername

He's a social anarchist also know as a Libertarian socialist.. You should read more about it to better help your form your argument. Where ever you stand on the political or philosophical spectrum understanding Chomsky is crucial. Keynes, Mises, Marx and even Rand are all people one should understand even if the views are completely different form your own. He's written some great books on media and propaganda. I bet you would enjoy them.

[MillionthUsername]

I'm fully aware of what he claims to be, as well as fully aware of Keynes, Mises, Marx and Rand.

Is it your claim that "anarchists" advocate for big gov't and the throttling of human rights like Chomsky does?

His words don't match his claims. If he is an anarchist, then I don't understand how his anarchism differs from state socialism or communism.

And regardless of labels, I find that he lacks

either knowledge or integrity. I don't know which.

[newmind1]

It's funny how some people call people "anarchists" and others not. Like how could we call Ron Paul an "anarchist" or even a liberterian when he voted for the war in Afganistan. I thought "anarchists" were supposed to be against government/corporate wars not endorse them.

cheers

[MillionthUsername]

Are you saying that anarchists and libertarians must be pacifists?

We were all told that "Al-Qaeda" had planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11 which killed over 2000 people. Then we were told that Osama and Al-Qaeda conducted this attack from bases in Afghanistan and that the Taliban refused to extradite.

Are you saying that people can kill thousands at will with impunity from libertarians?

[MillionthUsername]

Go look at Ron Paul's record. He is constantly voting against these wars. He does not endorse "corporate wars".

Afghanistan was sold to all of us as self-defense. It's like you're saying that if thousands of people are indeed killed by a group of terrorists who have a refuge in a foreign country that no one is justified doing

anything about it.

Paul did not vote for anything but going after

the supposed killers. You ought to know that.

What would Chomsky do? Send flowers?

[newmind1]

I've looked at Ron Paul's record. I saw how he voted to invade Afganistan. This war is a extreme case of big brother government. The people that flew the aircrafts in the buildings were from Saudi Arabia any ways not afganistan.  This is how much the war has cost us (that's tax payers' money )252,009,946,608. I'm well aware of how the war "was sold to us" Wars are always sold to us that way. Anarchists don't vote to send troops to war.

[MillionthUsername]

Oh, so you're aware of how wars are sold. That's great. So what do you do when you are really attacked by real people from a foreign base?

Since "anarchists don't vote to send troops to war," I suppose your answer is "nothing."

That's funny because the "anarchists" in Spain didn't act that way. So I guess one must be a pacifist in order to be an anarchist.

Fine, if that's your opinion. I can only imagine there a just a handful of such people though. Most people approve of self-defense.

[newmind1]

We went to war for the same reasons we used to invade Iraq. The propaganda machine scaring us about alqueda and how its in our national security interest to go blow ups some country that can barely feed its own citizens.

[MillionthUsername]

No kidding. Of course there was propaganda. There are also real attacks by real terrorists/states that kill real people. Do you deny that people have the right to self-defense?

I looked this up and it just seems to be a resolution. It isn't even legislation. It was 3 days after 9/11 and it just says that the president has constitutional authority to use force against the perpetrators and co-conspirators and such. Do you deny that?

If so, then you could never appeal to state powers at all.

[newmind1]

We were giving theTaliban money up until we decided to use them as scapegoat. Our Military trained them. Regan Financed their military to fight wars for his oligarchy. There were terrorist training camps in Germany, Suadi Arabia, and Spain. We didnt bomb any of them? The evidence that Afghanistan harbored Osama Ben laden is insane. We need to get out of there and stop creating puppet governments. your hero Ron Paul would agree with me now too.

[MillionthUsername]

"your hero Ron Paul would agree with me now too"

Can you read? Seems you're arguing with someone other than me or even Ron Paul. You're talking about things which are extraneous to the point you brought up about the 9/14 resolution. Try to focus.

What is with "your hero"??? I never said that.

You can review RP's decades long stance against intervention if you want to. Unless you're just a complete troll, you know where he stands. Saying he supports "corporate wars" is simply false.

[MillionthUsername]

A few more points.

1) If RP is "for corporate wars," then why did he vote against the invasion of Iraq?

2) Does RP even claim to be an anarchist? He says he supports the constitution in his official capacity (but he probably is a philosophical anarchist).

3) Even the state (though illegitimate) is acting morally when it punishes those who commit what are universally recognized as crimes even by anarchists (eg, murder). Rejecting this forces us to appeal only to vigilantism to fight crime.

[newmind1]

Man..

what are you talking about with "the right to self defense" read what I wrote man. If you go kill the wrong people in the name of self defense then it's not self defense. We've been in that stupid war for 9 years now, because people fell for the self defense propoganda. Of course I'm for self defense, but killing the wrong people in the name of self defense is insane and unconstutional. RP voted for the Afaganistan resolution to give W complete powerto bomb Afganistan.

[MillionthUsername]

"If you go kill the wrong people in the name of self defense then it's not self defense. "

No kidding.

"Of course I'm for self defense."

Then you agree with Ron Paul.

"RP voted for the Afaganistan resolution to give W complete powerto bomb Afganistan."

Totally false.

It's a House resolution which states that the president already has constitutional authority to use force for self-defense against the terrorists. Period.

The rest you are making up in your head. Read the damn thing.

[newmind1]

He wants us out of the war now....which is wonderful.

Why did you supporte the Afgan war when everybody admits the reason we went in was complete BS. Even the Libertarian think tank the kayto institute admits its an extreme case of big gov. and that we were lied to about the reasons to go in. How do you think we pay for these wars you support? Through stealing money from citizens to kill the wrong people. Turn of fox news man.

[MillionthUsername]

"Why did you supporte the Afgan war"

I didn't.

"He wants us out of the war now"

More like as soon as he saw they weren't going after Osama and "al-qaeda".

I just told you he introduced legislation for "letters of marque and reprisal" in 2002 and also 2007 which he feels are constitutional methods for dealing with non-state terrorists.

It just goes after perpetrators, like a bounty.

Do you understand English?

Are you capable of making distinctions?

Please do so then.

[newmind1]

on the iraq subject.

126 democrates congress men, 21 democrate senators, and one independent voted AGAINST the war. while only 6 republican (those that say they believe in small gov) congressmen and 1 senator voted against it.

The party of limited gov. sure does cost us a lot of money.  Propoganda

[MillionthUsername]

They are not the "party of limited gov't" at all. I'm not a republican, so save your outrage against that party and Fox News for people who actually believe in them.

And where the hell are all those democrats now that Obomba is carrying on the mass murder? Not a peep. Code Pink? Anti-war rallies? No, you can hear a pin drop. None of those people are principled either, except for a handful - certainly none of the dem politicians.

Hey, but it's ok for Chomsky to say to vote for Obomba, right?

[newmind1]

Ron Paul supported and told people to vote for Regan (who doubled the national debt and lead a secret war and arms trade)

yes so Chomsky said if you have to vote for MCcain or Obama. Obama would be a better choice but he is still very critical of his administration. Maybe much like RP and Regan....god Regan should have been imprisoned.

As far as fox news. I can tell you watch John Stossel. I can hear him in your writing. He's on Fox news. Yes I speak english.

cheers

[MillionthUsername]

I haven't seen any of John Stossel on Fox, but if you think he sounds like me then he must be doing a good job. : )

[MillionthUsername]

"I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan but, lo & behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today." Ron Paul, Iowa Straw Poll debate

He voted against HR 3994 in 2002 which was for "military assistance" to Afghanistan.

He introduced HR 3216 for "letters of marque and reprisal" against terrorists, NOT nations.

[Pussychka]

might. One Roman empire was enough (though the trappings of democracy would surely survive to a larger degree than in ancient rome). A simple solution would be to ensure by law that all corporations must give... 25? yeah, 25% of their shares, equally distributed, to all their employees. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a battle that can be won in America. Any mention of socialism scares those folk to death.

[jrjones529]

well put.

[sadhusuman]

Very Very True...You see that in Health Care Debate

[Pussychka]

idea, the necessary thing for freedom of people and their competence as voters (rather than mere votebots), and continuation of liberal democracies, is maintenance of the middle class of capitalist owners. While I am a liberal-democrat-socialist, and do not believe in possibility of Chomsky's anarchistic ideas, and value private property as the prerequisite for freedom, I cannot but be frightened by the prospect of a completely elite dominated empire like USA, willing to extend it's military ...

[Pussychka]

intervention has a tendency to "gravitate" towards more capital, until there is an immense population of those forced to live solely by selling their labour, and those who have more wealth then they could possibly require. Socialism is a continuation of classical liberalism; because modern lib-dem states (like Germany, France, even USA - which actually served as a prototype) were formed by the victory of a large and powerful middlewealth bourgeoisie, and not because lib-dem was a wonderful...

[Pussychka]

"because I live in a nation where I am free to sell my mouse trap" - if the state through it's apparatus didn't provide for the business-able enviroment, there would be no way to safely enter contracts. But do not mistake the capitalist rentiers for the ingenious enterpreneurs who make life better for everyone else. They live on rent (no really rent) of capital which had been through generations accumulated into the hands of the narrow elite. Free market capitalism, even without state inter...

[nightpotato]

Thats a pretty good strawman of anarcho-capitalism, but not a very good criticism.

[nightpotato]

Chomsky is great at criticizing state capitalism. Less great at criticizing real capitalism.

[ReX342]

He hardly ever does it, but when he does he's very succinct and effective. He points out that anarcho-capitalists are rather consistent. Although the lives you'd live in this system is still brutal and harsh (disorderly anarchy, not anarchism as it were). You would be in constant conflict with those around you (instead of entering social constructs from which you're free to leave -and enter-) and so on.

[donkey69donkey69]

love ya noam.

[bornbillsmith]

By the way is your name Chuck.

[bornbillsmith]

This has been fun.

Have no more time today but I can continue this next week.

[bornbillsmith]

If I bought that hammer and the nails and material then the chair is mine.

If this chair was needed by the country, and to encourage me to put together this chair to ensure this chair was built, an agreement was made that the chair is mine then the chair is mine.

Why should I care if the money was stolen.

I wasn't the one who stole it.

If I invented this mousetrap, you do remember,

I said that, then china does not have the right to build this mousetrap without my permission.

[bornbillsmith]

You assume that the only market for this mouse trap is the government.

Not true.

Are you saying that because I live in a nation where I am free to sell my mouse trap then in return for this freedom I have the obligation to share the benefits I get from the fruits of my labor.

I've heard this argument before.

I don't owe the nation a share of my profits for the privilege of doing business.

Have you read the book "Animal Farm"

[bornbillsmith]

You seem to think that only the government has credit for this environment you speak of.

Do you think that the government would be able to provide for this environment without help from the private sector.

Do you think the government could function without this environment.

Tell me, who owes who, if the two parties are both dependent and are responsible for this environment.

[Pussychka]

You're right about the chair. You paid for it: it's yours. But. You're wrong about the enviroment. Private sector doesn't have a choice (or has it less than the government) because they're in the business of survival. The government provides the safety for doing business; it also provides a baton in case someone wants to default on the contract. For it's very existance government requires taxation. Therefore, unless you're anarcho-capitalist, you cannot object to taxation in principle.

[eftekhar2006]

And as far as that FDA example goes. I have two questions for you. Seems like you wouldn't mind FDA buying your mousetraps. You do know that FDA is buying your mousetraps with tax money. right? But I thought you said, tax money is stolen money! so you don't mind someone buying your mousetraps with stolen money just as long as you benefit from the loot.

[eftekhar2006]

and number 2, you don't have any experience in making mousetraps. surely FDA can find other vendors, better probably cheaper, may be in China. the only reason FDA is buying them from you, is that you had a friend in FDA ( some quasi-Dick Cheney for some quasi-halliburton ) that recommended you. now you get to become big and talk about how good free marker is. Taxing people is bad, while you are not the one who benefits from it.

[bornbillsmith]

I guess taxing is good unless you are the one who has to pay it.

[eftekhar2006]

bornbillsmith,(bbs) says my numbers about rates of success in businesses are wrong. They are not. they are official numbers. BBS does not know enough about how economy and businesses work and his definition of ownership and private property is narrow-minded and simplistic.

[eftekhar2006]

If somebody gives you a hammer a nail and a saw and a few pieces of wood. you might be able to build a chair. However although You build the chair, you don't wholly own the chair. you share the ownership with the one who provided you with hammer, nail and wood, without them, you wouldn't have been able to own it.

[eftekhar2006]

If somebody gives you a hammer a nail and a saw and a few pieces of wood. you might be able to build a chair. However although You build the chair, you don't wholly own the chair. you share the ownership with the one who provided you with hammer, nail and wood, without them, you wouldn't have owned it.

[eftekhar2006]

Governments in general and US government in particular heavily subsidize businesses, governments do that with public money, taking away from middle income level and giving them to corporations. The reason that government tax people is not to feed the poor out of the pocket of rich, is that No body would be able to be rich without government creating an environment in which people can enrich themselves. That is costly and the public pays for it. BBS obviously doesn't understand.

[bornbillsmith]

You still haven't responded to my points.

Calling it unsophisticated doesn't make it so.

Not responding to my arguments and just giving me platitudes is what I would describe as being childish.

If you think I'm in error please tell me where I have not understood your message.

Do you feel that because you are schooling other people, as you put it, everything you say is beyond approach.

[bornbillsmith]

If you have something and I take it it's stealing, EVEN IF I USE IT TO BUY FOOD.

Robin Hood was a thief.

Not taking from the rich is not equivalent to giving welfare.

The dictionary definition of giving IS NOT THE ABSENTS OF TAKING. You have no concept of private property.

I know more about P.A then you will ever know.

I AM ONE OF THOSE WORKERS, AND I CAN SPEAK FOR THE OTHER WORKERS WHEN I SAY YOU HAVE NO CLUE.

If you feel so embarrassed you should leave.

I won't miss you.

[Marly61]

That is hilarious, have you ever seen something called a book? Have you ever critically analyzed anything? I see you can type but is that all? I am not trying to be a smart ass but please, everything you wrote scars. By the way Corporate Welfare comes from the taxes of the average man which is stolen by the wealthy.

[bornbillsmith]

Do you know the definition of stolen.

Where I come from, there is something called private property.

Property could mean land or some form of asset

like money.

Why do you assume if I have more then you, I must have taken it from someone else.

Why do you think if I have more then you, you have the right to take it from me.

You still haven't explained how if as a rich person I pay more then a person not rich, in taxes, you could possibly say I stole from them.

[Marly61]

HOw old are you? Your presentation has the sophisication level of an teenager.

[bornbillsmith]

I don't see you actually analyzing the subject.

And if my presentation is lacks sophistication, it's because you seem not to understand what I am saying and therefore I'm trying to make it simple , so even you could understand.

You still haven't responded to my any of the points I have made.

To respond to my actual points would be communication.

All I hear from you are platitudes.

[Marly61]

What i understood was the childish attempt to atribute your statements onto a position of mine that you created. That is what is done in schools yards and politics - very unsophisicated. I am actually schooling other people on John Pilger's Empire Part 1 on u tube.

[bornbillsmith]

I think taxing is like high way robbery.

Makes as much sence as what Chomsky is saying.

He shows a complete lack of the understanding of economics.

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor went out with Robin Hood.

[GrassAndRocks]

Enlighten us with your oh so prodigious understanding of economics, then.

[eftekhar2006]

where did the rich get their money? Business

is hard, every one who has had a small one knows. People can't become billionairs if there isn't some sort of mechanism that enables them to make obscene amount of profit. these mechanisms are always government supported most often indirectly and hiddenly. Government doesn't make money it taxes people. so it is reverse Robin hood that he is talking against, not Robin hood that you think he is talking for.

[bornbillsmith]

First, what gives you the right to use the word obscene to describe the amount of profits that can be made.

You come up with an idea, lets say a better mouse trap.

People want to get rid of mice, so they give you money so they can make use of this mouse trap.

So many people love this mouse trap that you make a billion dollars.

How is that obscene.

[eftekhar2006]

let's say you come up with a better mouse trap. How are you going to mass produce it, how are you going to advertise for it? you need hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions, to take this idea to the market. This is a risky investment.

[eftekhar2006]

No one is going to give you money to do it, because no one takes the risk. so if you come up with a better mouse trap, in all likelihood, You won't be able to make a billion dollars, You won't be able to make a dime. According to established statistics 95% of new businesses fail within one year, 99% of new businesses fail within 5 years.

[eftekhar2006]

Obviously you think making a billion dollars is as easy as coming up with a new and improved mouse trap. Well, now let's see how it becomes obscene. let's say, FDA decides to take the risk for your business loan. they co-sign your business loan, then FDA signs a contract with you to buy the first 100,0000 units and puts it in all of its facilities.

[eftekhar2006]

you then will amass the capital, who has paid? the public through my tax money. When my tax money is used to leverage, in fact to eliminate the risk of business but I am rubbed from the benefits, I call it obscene.

[eftekhar2006]

Do you know how aircraft industry started? who was the first customer of aircrafts?. It was Navy. and they couldn't fly them to the naval base, because they even didn't have enough range to fly from factory to the naval base. They put them on a train or something. Why would US Navy buy such a junk with the public money? Because that's how obscene profit is made.

[bornbillsmith]

I call that compensation.

[bornbillsmith]

Even if what you say is true, which it's not, what is wrong with that.

If in exchange for my expertise, I provide a product that the FDA needs and is unable to to obtain in any other way, why am I am not allowed to gain from that transaction.

[bornbillsmith]

Don't assume so much.

Your numbers are wrong, unless you are equating businesses started by incompetents with ones started by people who know what they are doing.

I bet you, you will find the rate of failure among people who know what they are doing is much less.

[bornbillsmith]

Don't worry.

I'll take that risk.

What are you risking.

[HegelianDialectic]

Yep, thats how it works. By "coming up with" you mean spending years and billions of tax dollars, basically spending public funds to develop the mouse trap you will sell back to them

[bornbillsmith]

First the first people who were the customer of aircraft as you put it was the post office

and second it was the EUROPEANS WHO FIRST USED THE AIRPLANE FOR THE MILITARY.

GET YOUR FAX RIGHT.

[bornbillsmith]

If I use my own private resources how is that spending tax dollars unless you are saying I have no right to spend my own money and that there is no such thing as private resources.

[Marly61]

It is obvisiously dramatically obscene for corporations to hoard such resources through OBSCENE profits when the children of these corporations, just by birth, are deciding on what color luxury boat their parents should by when a child I know of died from a tooth-ache because no doctor would see him because he had no health insurance. Have you every heard of Christianity (the gospel not evil Constantian Christianity which most americans follow, Judaism or Islam?

[Marly61]

So,if taxing for the purpose of allowing a young child in school to visit a doctor saves his, I assume you are against that? Taxes pay for the streets on drive your car on, so I assume you are against that? Taxes, pay the salaries of the police, fire department, scientific research, started the internet, etc...all things I assume you are against? It is not taxes that are the problem,americans are ridiculously progandanized for the purpose of lower taxes on the rich at the expense of themselves.

[bornbillsmith]

Being Fairly taxed to pay for needed services is of coarse O.k.

Taxing the rich because they are rich for the purpose of spreading the wealth is just like stealing.

You said "for the purpose of lower taxes"

Do you mean by "lower" do you mean they pay less then you do. I think not. The rich even with the reduced taxes you speak of still pay a hell lot more then you will.

So what do you mean by lower.

[Marly61]

Corporate Welfare is far larger than Public Welfare. In my city welfare workers and agents get so angry at people like you who are so clueless. In my city a person on welfare gets only $200 cash in assistance with food stamps maximum. Almost none of the recipients want it becuase they would rather work for it.I am embarassed to live in a country like that.

[masoncitywidow]

No, because Ford just might be creating the conditions in Mexico that force people to work for cheap labor (supporting abusive governments, destroying the economy). The conditions in a factory are dehumanizing, and the payoff is barely enough. They're not getting our lifestyle in return (which isn't even that great to begin with). When South American countries have successfully ridden themselves of US corporate interests, they are usually immediately better off.

[ProFreeSpeech]

I guess that`s a reply to oliviathecanadian...

[oliviathecanadian]

when ford goes to mexico and sets up jobs for people isnt this a good thing since poor people now have money to feed their children

[JasonPartyPants]

Not if you are an American working at an American car company.

[ProFreeSpeech]

I agree...