MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc(NOT ron paul)
and the fundamental thing which divides the left libertarians from the right libertarians is that the left like chomsky trusts government only if if is pure democracy, not centralized control. the far right distrusts government regardless of which form it takes on, because all government, even pure democracy, is eventually exploited by the elite and turned into a mechanism of centralized control
Switzerland's democracy is excellent, it allows much better participation of the people and is not centralised, and big decisions are made with referenda. I think part of the reason people fear/despise government is due to inefficiencies with tax payer money, where things like junkets,pork barrel and so on simply make peoepl disillusioned that the government is actually serving their interests.
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc NOT ron paul
Some alien force ie from out of the state, or the government. How about a quasi-government institution such as the federal reserve. In the lack of a democracy like in the US.
Wikopedia, history of welfare says: Welfar in the USA started in the 1930s. See, that is an example of citing a source other than my own opinions. Now, don't attack my source. Cite a better one. Otherwise I will not respond again, because I simply don't have to time to converse with somebody who, even in the internet age, when citing a source is so easy, can not be bothered to do so.
I would much rather live with regulated Capitalism than unregulated Capitalism. The welfare system was created by FDR because he saw that without it, Depression era America would go either fascist or capitalist. Welfare was ceated to protect the rich. Yet I can not opose it, because it has the side effect of keeping the poor from starving to death.
@milascave2 When losing an argument, the best thing to do is quickly run away. You've learned that lesson well.
There is no argument over semantics. FDR clearly did not support the concept of welfare. All of his welfare-esque programs promoted labor as their primary objective. That's WORKFARE, the concept of temporary relief and not WELFARE, entitlement programs.
@cheeriozkitty fdr started social welfare in the 1930's along with his bad ass new deal initiative. Reagan started corporate welfare... this is sociology 101, come on guys.
@ACDC7369 thats true... it all ultimately benefited corporations more. im just saying it was known for creating the beginning of social welfare programs.
CHOMSKY IS OUTDATED!DEMS=REPS LEFTS =RIGHT!THE LEFT FAILURE IS EXACTLY LACK OF KNOWING THAT ITS ALL ABOUT BIG CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT THAT THESE DAYS ARE CORRUPTED INVOLVED W/GLOBALIZATION &FINANCIERS OF WALL STREET THAT DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT TRANSFER MONEY GOVERNMENT OUR DAYS ARE SLAVE OF THESE NWO ELITE BANKSTERS TYPES &DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE 99%WE MUST RETURN TO REGIONALISM & SOVEREIGNTY LIKE RON PAUL SAID SMALL GOVERNANCE !!WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE IN A GLOBALIZED SOCIETY!
Libertarianism isn't apart of the right. It's the center. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (i.e. the way the Constitution says). Both conservatives (neo-cons, republicans, social conservatives) and liberals (neo-liberals, democrats, socialists) both believe that the state (government) is the answer, but for different things. Statism is wrong and immoral. Why? Because the initiation of force is immoral. Taxation, war, etc is immoral.
im all for ron paul and what i see the basis of his idealogy being is less government more freedom in a time when the government is introducing legislature like NDAA and SOPA. I'm a democrat and i think everyone should be equal etc. i just don't think the government (which at this point really is an outside entity not the collective will of the people) should be the one to provide or facilitate this. the power should be in the hands of the people. im ready to be responsible for myself and others
I love what Chomsky says here about common ground. But I understand the skepticism when each side remembers faults of the past, like M. Friedman happily being an advisor to the CIA-installed dictatorship of Pinochet (ignoring the conflict this presents with libertarians' avowed abhorence for top-down rule). Right-wing libs remember things like the left's paranoia of 2nd Amendment rights, despite Castro's, Zapitistas', Sandinistas', Blk Panthers' need for guns. But I think people are learning!
One area that unites Noam Chomsky progressives with Ron Paul libertarians is foreign policy. Libertarains and progressives alike understand that the United State's foreign policy is one of the biggest threats facing the nation right now. 9/11 was a consequence of blowback related to the United State's interventionist policy in the Middle East. Progressives and libertarians need to fight to end the destructive foreign policy our nation currently holds.
@LibertyMike1 I hate it when you presuppose that Ron Paul is libertarian and Noam Chomsky is not. We are libertarian socialists, so we are libertarians. Even though I agree with Ron Paul and you on many things (no doubt about that!), I still at large think you are rather propertarians than libertarians, when the talk is on money and economy. That part is definitely not libertarian of the socalled "Libertarian" movement.
@RSFO Exactly. The Libertarian Party coopted the word "Libertarian" and claimed that they are "reither left nor right." In fact there are right and left libertarians, and they are right libertarians, and there are still plenty of left Libertarians. These are the ones of whom Lenin said "left wing socialism is an infantile disorder." In other words, we are to the left of Lenin (and Marx.)
@milascave2 I even think Marx and also Adam Smith would be considered "left libertarian". It is Lenin who was out of line with mainstream Marxism. The latest Marx writings (after The Communist Manifesto) about peasants in Russia were quite "anarchist". No wonder that people like Antonie Pannekoek and Rosa Luxembourg are just as good inspiration as Bakunin or Emma Goldman to a libertarian.
But I for one do actually not describe myself in left-right terms btw.
@RSFO On left and right: I actually think we should get rid of the left-right talk, because it has no meaning anymore. I claim that everything comes down to the scientific method in the Peircean sense "wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself." quoted off from Wikipedia. How could it be false? I guess you could also call it intellectual honesty. Something Chomsky has plenty of. =)
I do not agree with the interviewers view on RP libertarians, are they cynical? Thats what I used to think about them as well, but now Im practically all for Ron Paul (not living in USA though), understanding the extreme danger of a centralized government. Why is the left so upset with the thought of voluntary actions instead of government intervention?
@rwoz Because the government should reflect the will of the people and tax payers. From the point of view of a proper government,our taxes go directly to services for social life, and anyone who uses them would find their utility. If we deregulate the accountability of companies, for example, to the taxpayers, then we allow government to be displaced by private tyrannies, which do not represent the will of the people. Thing is, we could afford all this if we reduced military spending.
@CadaverSplatter The thing with regulation is that it mostly is for the big businesses interest. If you have a government with a lot of power to regulate it will only make it hard for smaller companies, since they dont have as much to say by means of lobbying. And I think you are wrong, it isnt enough to just cut military spending since a centrally planned medical sector has made it very inefficient economically. People should listen more to Ron Paul, he makes a lot of sense.
Capital Flight to the Cayman Islands and Industrial flight to China is bleeding the English speaking world to death. America became an industrial giant in the 20th Century through a combination of social democracy, liberalism and protectionism. Without industrial might the constitution isn't worth the paper its written on - a little like the UN Charter in regards to Palestine - Ron Paul and groups like the Burke Society are unwittingly or deliberately preparing the way for globalization.
All you Ron Paul people, look up what Chomsky has to say on free market capitalism. Its another version of totalitarianism. The poor are enslaved to the capitalists. One of the ways to help this is through entitlements, wealth redistribution, the policies you hate, which have made capitalism at least tolerable for many of us. Chomsky is being too kind to you.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
I'm George Washington & I approve this message! ;-)
Respond to this video... Unless, of course, government was protecting the interests of the slave owning elite - in this respect, government interference was just fine and dandy.
@32peartree The "Slave owning Founders" argument is commonly used by those who need a reason to disregard the issue.
There were many arguments among the founders about the hypocrisy of slavery in a free republic. I'd say it was, respectably, their biggest & only mistake. Few today consider the era & the underlying issues with slavery. Slaves were property & slavery was common place. Attempting to free slaves would have cause a huge division in a newly established & somewhat unstable union.
@applejelly2 I personally find this glorification of libertarians dangerous - government isn't the root of all tyranny - freedom itself can be tyranny. To paraphrase Marx - what America calls freedom is just exposure to chance.
@32peartree That's one area where I happen to agree with Marx. However, his implications are false. "Chance" leads to personal responsibility & liability. Liberty enables an environment where creativity & tranquillity blossom & the human spirit may expand.
The theories of such folks as Marx, Keynes, & Chomsky catalyze force & inevitably result in poverty.
Government has no right neither under God law or nature to dictate chance nor to take ones property by force.
@applejelly2 You sound like an anarchist in that sense - believing in a weak emasculated state - I don't think you libertarians are aware you are being used by the Globalists because the inevitable consequences of the rolling back the state will just soften up America for globalization. This, in my opinion, is the reason why either anarchistic ideas on the left and libertarian concepts on the right are being propagated.
@32peartree I'm for CONSTITUTIONAL governance & nonintervention. Open trade & free markets.
The FedGov has a very limited scope of power, legally speaking. They've cast off the chains & taken upon themselves authority not vested in them. They've positioned themselves as a tool for the corp. elite's at the expense of their oath, the constitution & the welfare of the people. All the while the corp. elite's use THEIR media to divert public attention away from the reality of what's happening.
@32peartree Though my ideas aren't original, they are well thought through, well studied & they are mine.
Returning to constitutional governance is IMHO the only path back to sanity. There are many political systems & philosophies to choose from. ALL but 1 put the governed 2nd. That 1 exception is the U.S. Constitutional Republic (in it's correct form).
If the FedGov was forced back into the boundaries of the constitution this country could experience freedom never know before in history.
A man purchases a lion. Though the lion was raised in captivity the person selling the lion repeatedly stresses the importance of the man NEVER turning his back on the animal. He warns lions are BY NATURE predators & can turn vicious at any moment.
The man heeds the warning at 1st, but over time grows more & more comfortable around the animal. 1 day the man is in the cats cage & the lion turns & devours the man.
Americas Founders WARNED of the volitive nature of Government, ESPECIALLY THIS 1!!
Chomsky is, by all means, a genius! But then again, so was Hitler & Marx!......?
Chomsky, in all his arrogance, thinks he knows better that Americas Framers. He's so certain of the structure of semantics that he's built around himself that he's completely dismissed the most common detriment in human nature. The desire & the lengths in which one will go to for absolute power!
He assumes that the separation of powers & an ill-informed public can maintain the virtues of liberty.
I watch GOP debates, where the "Establishment media" refuses to give Ron Paul equal airtime. In a "Democratic society" the establishment doesn't pick political winners & losers. In a "Democratic society" the candidate who the people want isn't purposely & blatantly shut out, in order to keep his message buried. There is no "Democracy" here, this IS soft totalitarianism!!!
The left doesn't need to reach US, WE need to WAKE UP the sheep within the left/right paradigm, themz the facts!
There he goes again - never a good for word for socialism but he relates to Ron Paul. The reason why - because both are libertarian anarchists who see 'the government as the enemy' and both hate socialism. Chomsky his an total ideologue every thing he says backs up the rich anarchists who run wall street. E.g. why does he talk about Bolivia and Haiti all the time - does he know how ridiculous he sounds - Ron Paul fans are really gonna be won over by those examples of democracy.
@leland61 The mask of anarchy is slipping - we are now seeing a anarcho/libertarian conglomeration enveloping the US body politic. Weather its the Paleo Conservatives, the Tea Party, the Neo Cons on the right or neo liberals, occupy wall street, anonymous on the left - they all share two things in common - they all hate big government and they despise socialism.
I never agreed to pay taxes, nobody even asked if I wanted to pay taxes. Pay us our share of your labors or go to prison. That in the libertarian sense is an act of aggression. Taxes don't benefit me, they benefit foreign nations, they benefit corporations (bailouts) whose market shares are protected by the government who is lobbied to write regulations that prevent us from having a free-market. Government has time and again failed, why should I continue to support them at my detriment?
Yep agreed. The other thing that everyone should remember is that the income tax was originally ruled unconstitutional and even when they did put it in, it was under the assumption that it would never go higher than 3%.
WHY SHOULD I BE HAPPY ABOUT PAYING MY TAXES WHEN MY GOVERNMENT SQUANDERS MUCH OF IT BOMBING COUNTRIES WITH WHOM I HAVE NO BEEF??
Why do my tax dollars go toward securing Iraq's borders, but not my own? Why do i have to pay to rebuild bridges that my tax dollars helped destroy, on the whims of the special interests and war profiteers that perpetuate this nonsense? Why *shouldn't* i be cynical?
I don't trust the government because it is corrupt and self-serving-- not because of any "propaganda"
We don't live in a democracy or republic. The corporations own and guide the politicians. They just back the politicians they think will be most beneficial to them, give them a shit load of money then get the advantage when they get in power. We need to stop lobbying of any kind and give every person running for election a set amount of money.
Chomsky forgot the most important detail!!!!we are not living in a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY but in a TOTALLITARIAN country!!!Where taxes are used to BAIL OUT BANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are good reasons for progressives to support Ron Paul, the main one being we will never have sufficient funds to build a peaceful green economy until the military industrial catastrophe of empire building and maintenance is de-funded.
Chomsky is in this video sort of defending the US government, like if the US government was some sort of Jesus Christ that can be trusted 100%. In a way the anti-government and anti-tax people of USA are very right, in that the US government is a zionist kleptocratic plutocracy, and paying taxes to a government that will steal our taxes, and give them to bankers, Israel and spend it on wars is not rational
@tophu1021 Please understand, that in a strict majority rules Democracy, if 51 percent of the population votes to enslave the other 49 percent, that measure will pass.
A government powerful enough to give you everything you ask, is powerful enough to take everything you have. That is why our founding documents are littered with the word "Republic" instead of "Democracy."
You're absolutely right, whereas today if 51 percent of the 535 congresspeople vote for the 51 percent of the population to enslave the other 49 pecent, that measure will also pass... The fact that you put your faith in congresspeople who take money from lobbyists and special interests other than the entire population of people, is a bit insane...
@tophu1021 The difference is, a pure Democracy operates necessarily under the assumption that any action is desirable, so long as the majority of our populace favors it.
But in a system of government with limited power through representation (ie a Republic) the powers of our representatives are by their very nature, limited.
Basically we agree, I'm just splitting hairs with you. Because if your life was subject to the whims of public prejudice, your opinion would differ, believe me.
@VotePaineJefferson But in a system of government where the people is said to be represented but not necessarily is (ie. Republic), who knows who those representatives are representing. Corporations? The people? The shadowy figure underneath the capitol building? Because of this "Representative Democracy", our nation has slowly crept into what some would call a Plutocracy... And possibly will end up into Fascism... Just saying.
@tophu1021 You're right. That is one of the criticisms of a constitutional form of government with limited government power. Constitutions don't enforce themselves.
Yeah sure but 51% vs 49 would certainly entice a revolution of which the outcome would be a drivers race. And any country who has over half the population intent on enslaving the other would have to be a supremely sociopathic one. It's much easier to just let a few hundred representatives rule you and make your choices, command your army etc.. much preferable to a silly democracy. You're such a noob at evil engineering man
You never learned how to read. Don't bother reading the political difference between a Republic and a Democracy. That political distinction must exist for absolutely no reason, right?
Again, you don't understand English. Don't bother with history, law or philosophy.
In short, I'd agree that market libertarianism may hastily afford us more freedoms (for a time) but it is just a lesser of evils. I don't want to settle for that, no matter how improbable the unbeaten path may be the road to hell is always the one of least resistance. So bring on utopia on earth
@thenoorys My point is, pure socialism cannot generate wealth; all it can do is consume it. Almost every innovation by man has come from an individual, not by a collective. There is no collective mind, only individual minds. Like I said before, I have no problem with socialism as long as it's voluntary. But eliminating capitalism or the free market will not bring about utopia, you NEED the free market in order to have utopia. Pure socialsim only leads to stagnation, leaving no room for progress.
@dksilentbob That is of course bs. Capitalism has been around and in practice on a wide scale for what 200 years at best? are you saying that all great individual achievements are intrinsic to a market ideology based on individualism? what does capitalism have to do with the philosophies of Kant or the empirical studies of Newton? You have an undeveloped view of socialism only as an economic system. That is of course a classic blunder of market liberals, everything is based on the market
@thenoorys And capitalism, as described by guys like Adam Smith or Keynes or Murray Rothbard etc., as we know it today, has been around since the 17th century. Before that, you had systems with similar elements like mercantilism and feudalism. There have almost always been markets were gold or bartered goods have been traded for goods and services, so in a way, capitalism is as old as civilization. And I'm assuming at least some people have to work in your society in order to providefor the rest
@dksilentbob You are right, we have about 3000 years or more of capitalism. The history of the world is really the history of the capitalist system but with different names (Monarchies, feudalism,oligarchic tyrannies, republican-democracies (Today), only socialism which will be a temporary phase, and anarchist-communism can save this world
@maxistsocialist There is a difference between modern capitalism and the economic systems that preceded it. The difference is that now, the common man can actually own land and property. Before that, such things were relegated only to the noble class, the state or the church. It is only by abolishing the state, the monopoly on force, when we become truly free. Property is not theft. Property is liberty.
@maxistsocialist This statement is laughable african societies have had a REAL "socialistic/communistic" system for millenia. The reason that capatalism, democracy, communism, socialism, technocracy, and all other forms of government won't work is because trapped in the ethos of caucasians is an infantile, unevolved, method of creating governments with inequities like capitalism or ones that on paper don't have inequities like socialism but turn bad anyway.
@chloeluvzjonet Republics are one of the worst form of government. Representation is 500 wolves in congress and the senate on the pay roll of the wealthiest individuals leading 300,0000 americans into slavery.
I know that I have passionately read Chomsky and believe in his deductions. And yet I have this year increasingly gotten passionately involved in the Ron Paul movement. Ron Paul's words ring true to me.
How these two can be contradictory in the broad strokes of their outlook I don't see.
I feel that the two are on the same highway, they just get off at different exits. By the way can someone answer me this: why does chomsky seem to dismiss Paul's anti-war views? 'Cuz they want to stay richer?' Yeah thats one reason, its a drain on the economy but it doesn't matter what your reason is if it hits the same target....DUDE
Chomsky and Ron Paul have lots of common views. Non-intervention is the big one. Distrust of centralized states. Sure Chomsky is a collectivist but that doesn;t stop him from seeing the good in Ron Paul's stances.
@RationalBullets They are not "95%" similar. Ron Paul is a "constitutionalist" and a "federalist". He believes in the intrinsic superiority of the "state" on a federal level. Chomsky is for massive popular democracy unhindered by any statist idea whatsoever. This is an important difference. Chomsky is a libertarian of the modern age; Ron Paul is a libertarian of an 18th century agricultural age.
It's petty and irrelevant, but I can't help but notice how awkward Chomsky is at ending interviews/talks/lectures/conversations. He either just whispers "thanks" or mumbles something incoherent. Just something I noticed. Can't complain, though: the content of his discussion is brilliant.
@fdalkjfdsalkj I think he's just extremely humble. He's admitted himself he's not an amazing orator and he likes it that way, I remember hearing him say in one interview he wants people to be drawn to his message not his person.
First off, how could ANYBODY in his right mind call Ron Paul "ultra right wing." That one comment was enough to make me completely disregard anything else that dude said.
@1019079 That may hold true if you consider liberatarianism ultra right. To me that would be someone who is a social-conservative, who wishes we could go back to "good ole days," and who favors big business and corporate welfare for the supposed prosperity of our country. To my knowledge he advocates none of these things. Perhaps it's just a semantic point...
@1019079 My point exactly. He is none of those things which I previously mentioned. I think I was a little unclear in my last post. What I meant was that someone who is ultra right wing, is reactionary, socially conservative, and favors big business at the expense of free enterprise. Someone who has no problem growing government as long as it helps out bug business. Dr. Paul would rather let the free market work for itself, without the help of government.
@1019079 I find that most republicans and especially nationalistic and believe in strong government intervention also. Dr. Paul is much more of an isolationist. Free markets aren't exactly what republicans are all about. There is a difference between capitalism (free markets) and corporatism, which is giving favor to huge corporations for the supposed benefit of the country.
@mightyafrowhitey just for the record, Ron Paul is considered a Non-interventionist, not an "Isolationist", and he is also against government welfare for Corporation's/Corporatism.
I follow Libertarian ideology, but I see a lot of common ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism and they both seek the same basic ends. The means, however, are hijacked by those who play the political game and moderate their actions to appeal to the median voters - those that are too misinformed to take a position on the issues that affect them. We will all be enslaved by the system until apathy is cured.
@bassawash1 They don't essentially seek the same ends as you say. It's taught that capitalism is good because competition and the freemarket create wealth. But if the competitive spirit is intrinsic to the design then the competitors will always rally to buy the state and if there is none they will create it, competition is only good to an extent when it becomes a matter of the well being of the world the wrecklessness it promotes is purely negative.
In todays system getting certain people not to vote can be the same thing as getting a vote for the other guy.. We have a two party system with a third party that never gets attention.. Most people who support Noam's ideas are against big government and its attrocities.. If you can somehow convince all those people not to vote guess whoes going to vote? Really dumb people.. Ron Paul actions and policies completely contradict big government.. Seems like this would be an obvious stepping stone.
@thirdshift47 He said that tea-partiers think that the present govt is their enemy because of induced right-wing propaganda. And I'm saying that's very untrue. They are angry for very legitimate reasons which I pointed out before. Most pressing of which is the skyrocketing debt which no side wishes to address but simply just lump it on the next generation to pay for
I personally like Noam but he's a bit naive here if he thinks ppl are angry at govt just because of some right-wing propaganda. Ppl are angry for very legitimate reasons. Warrantless wiretapping, Banker Bailouts, Direct Devaluation of the Currency(Federal Reserve), Massive Indebtedness, etc.
Yup Noam. There is a lot of reason to be angry with King Washington D.C
You're a bit naive if you actually believe that Chomsky thinks that US citizens hate gov't simply because of right-wing propaganda(you've obviously never listened to his comments on Tea Party outrage.)
Indeed,your present-day reasons for anxiety over the state pale infinitely in comparison to the innumerabe reasons Chomsky has written about regarding the insidious nature of the US gov't---from its very inception.
Chomsky simply doesn't ascribe to antistate essentialism.
The question is who's side are you on? Are you for freedom of the individual or freedom of the collective? Would you rather have collectives that can squash bourgeois individual enterprise for the benefit of the whole or would you rather a society of the individual where sink or swim and leaving the "too dumb to disregard others" crowd to their own devices?
I'm for a collective because I know that unchecked power of the individual will always end in fascism or dictatorship.
@dksilentbob That's true. But a direct democracy is still preferable to a wealth hoarding tyrant. Collectives can be corrupted but it's much harder to do so because in a direct democracy when things get ugly the good and bad crowds will divide noticed. individualists society's promote narrow minded views and liberty will stagnate because the wealthiest anarcho-capitalist will eventually own the media, force and economy and thus the minds of the people.
@thenoorys Democracy is a flawed theory. Majority rule doesn't necessarily equate to freedom. As far as these "wealth hoarding tyrants" are concerned, these entities are never built on a system of open and free markets, but rather on a cycle of lobbying and subsidization and other forms of government control, such as the state's use of licensing rackets. And when collectives do get corrupted, they're also much harder to break apart than an individual's tyranny.
@dksilentbob So what is less flawed. Representation?? The word itself oozes of corruption. Wealth hoarding tyrant's don't operate on their own don't be mistaken. As long as a system is based on competition and the economy based on the standardized monetary medium the wealthiest will always dictate we see it today now. Of course we don't have "open and free markets" because that's not the end goal of a capitalist, domineering is always the end goal, so called free markets are just a phase
@thenoorys Without a government to constantly bail them out, they ultimately answer to their workforce, their customer base, and their competition. I think capitalism is basically good. I think an individual being able to generate wealth is good. I think entrepeneurs and technoligical innovators are good. I think businesses are basically good. I have nothing against socialism as long as it's voluntary; I think unions are basically good as well. Individual soveriegnty is better than democracy.
@dksilentbob I agree with your first sentiment. That's why I ultimately don't mind anarcho-capitalist sentiment because with no state the workers will get their way eventually. The part that I don't like is the psychology behind individualism and competition, to say competition on the market level is natural is to over look the fact that socialism is natural, hence the family unit. Did your father charge you at a profit when he fed you? No. When we unite and realize we're all family it works out
@dksilentbob Now you may say that unity on a global scale is improbable and you'd be right for the most part. But the pessimistic psychosis behind anarcho individualism is only impeding that process and forever will. No, states, no borders, no money, no bosses, no masters. Then and only then will we all experience pure freedom.
@thenoorys Except that you are proposing a master: the collective. What I choose to do should not be impeded by anyone, neither individual nor collective, minority nor majority. Ridding the world of capitalism entirely will not do any good. Capitalism has generally allowed people to have higher standards of living, and I'm not just talking about the top 1%. Even socialist countries like China and Cuba have realized this, and have become more capitalist as time goes by.
@dksilentbob you are proposing a master. the boss, the ceo, the private owner of production. who else but the state (monopoly on force) recognizes the bosses assets as all of his? as you said, there is no collective mind and such there can be no collective master as you say. it is economic coercion by a necessity of means. it's as voluntary for a poor man to work under a boss as it is voluntary to breathe air. you don't have to but if you don't you die
@thenoorys Who else would recognize the boss' assets besides the state? Well I would assume the boss himself, and most likely his friends and family. I'm not sure I like what you are proposing. What makes you think you are entitled to the fruits of their success? If you want more prosperity, get a higher paying job, move up the ladder, form your own business, or in your case, start a co-op or join a commune. If you don't want to work for someone else, fine. Nobody's gonna stop you.
@thenoorys The future and survival of the human race rests on the cooperation of the human race as a whole, as a collective, to achieve great things in regards to science, technology, and innovation. The individualist's slogan is "gain wealth, forget all but self." This is a childish notion. Of course we need to find a good balance between individual liberty and collective prosperity but the balance should tilt overwhelmingly towards the collective.
The government is our enemy Noam. It used to stand for protecting people's lives, protecting their personal freedom, and protecting their private property. It has betrayed all of these things! What he is saying is that because the majority wills somethings, it is therefore righteous. We are individuals with individual rights. There is no such thing as collective rights.
I don't know of any libertarian who has said the government is 'the enemy.' I have heard they are 'the problem' however. And to think that if we all payed our income taxes that we would have a functioning democracy? By what means? Social Security has failed like most government implemented programs throughout our history. "Alien force?" Why not advocate donating or income tax voluntarily rather than through government force. Economic intervention and mil. intervent are indeed the same.
¨Great, it´s April 15th we´re going to implement the plans we jointly decided on for the benefit of all of us¨ So.... according to Chomsky´s logic, he´s happy about paying taxes to a government that spends his money on wars he hates, spying on Americans, ethanol subsidies, corporate welfare, nuclear weapons making laws like the Patriot Act. Problem with Noam´s logic is that we don´t all agree on where the money should be spent. Plus, we´re NOT a democracy. We´re a republic. Big difference.
@NLMF2011 Actually we're a democratic republic which is the worst kind. Noam is talking about a direct democracy. A republic is a horrid thing, it's practically begging for masters and rulers and if Plato were alive today I'd smack him in the face for it.
Now at the core of your logic you're arguing that the majority rule is not truly free because we all have differing opinions. This is where the freedom paradox comes into play and you basically have two schools of thought on this.
@thenoorys On both extreme ends of the spectrum you have "market-anarchism" which is the holly grail of the free market ideology and "anarcho-collectivism" which is the holy grail of democratic anarchism. A market anarchist and or market liberal/libertarian would argue that true freedom is of the individual, on the other hand a theme which is common in collectivist anarchism is that "I am only as free as my neighbor". Collective anarchism can be seen as not entirely free because *continue*
@thenoorys the collective can oust a corporate mega monopoly based soley on a democratic vote. On the other hand market libertarianism can also be seen as not entirely free when an individual or corporate entity has unchecked power and "freedom" to exploit thus continuing wage slavery and other such monetary power other over others.
Anarchist syndicalism is a pipedream;simply because you refuse to except the fact that its a prefered mode of production in parts of the developed world.
But since i'm a gentleman,i'll give you the opportunity to prove that anarchist capitalism is far superior in regard to 'ensuring freedom and prosperity..."
Yeah,there so lumatic that they not only work but even outperformed their mainstream economies ability to sufficiently allocate not only aggregate wealth,but values that markets don't account for like dignity and community empowerment.
What do you suggest as a solution--putting the power in the hands of the government and voting for Ron Paul?lmao
What in the world does the Argentine and Spanish(or the military in the case of Spain)states have to do with the efforts of those citizen's movements that arose as outgrowths of their respective catastrophes(not the causes of 'em?)
Your points are down-right bizarre to say the least,much less completely inane.
Ofcourse Argentina would be a basketcase after a decades worth of market devastation under the Menem regime;they're struggle still involves major challenges even for the coopts.
1)The very rich history of anarchist syndicalism throughout Europe in the twentieth century all the way up to the present-day occupied factory movement in Argentina totally explodes that assumption about price mechanisms and coersion.
Infact,read up on what brought an end to the anarchist municipalities of 1936 Spain.Hint--it wasn't economic calculation.
2.)Austrian econ' heros & laissez-faire pioneers the physiocrats(as well as private property pioneer John Locke)also ascribed to the LTV.How in the hell could Marx work forward(from marginal utility I presume)when Neoclassical value theory wasn't even in vogue yet?Secondly,it's not true that Marx had a total disdain for capitalism anymore than he had a disdain for the state.He simply considered them to be institutions that would be exhausted through social evolution.
3.)"one is an impressive system of government,the other is grounded in natural rights."
Observations such as those are precisely why Austrian politics & economics continue to remain on the fringe of popular movements and find most of its supprot amongst right-wing think tanks in the US and internet intellects.
Yeah,but what is capitalism(or communism for that matter?)
As a self-identifying libertarian socialist myself it never ceases to amaze the extent to which people are even still wrapped up in a cold war debate between two ideologies that on a national scale and in pure application have never come remotely close to existing.
I mean--why are Americans even talking about socialism?
Who are the socialists?The market-fundamentalist Democrats?The Keynesian progressives?Social liberals?lol
1.)The anarchist syndicalism of Rudolf Rucker,the IWW,The CNT/FAI,ect.,should hardly be confused with the syndicalism of Fascist Italty & Franco's Falangist Party alike.They were diametrically opposed groups in practice.
2.)Marx,way before Hayek & Roth',was supremely prescient in his analysis of capitalism,esp.,as it continues to consumate itself through the financialization of the world order.
3.)1 man's childish worship of 'democracy' is another's childish worship of 'liberty'.
[T]here developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies … one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order…. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right,"
@AUSM92 i think we're on the same page. see my vid favorites. i'd consider myself an 'Austrian' also, even though i dislike taking on an 'ism' to identify myself.
chomsky and ron paul, both good thinkers, mostly chomsky, but both carry behind them a following of personality cultists, the only time i ever see ron paul insulted on the internet is when he is seen disagreeing with chomsky, and vice versa...
another massive hole with chomsky, he speaks of tax as opposite to bad in a democracy. This is untrue, and infinitely untrue when in a democracy where 300 million individuals decide the fate of 300 million as a whole. even experts cannot evalute that many people, and it is set-up for abuse.
i am far more sympathetic to a very low level democracy on the scale of 100s, where by you actually know who you're voting for.
chomsky of all people knows how democracy gets taken advange of :/
probably the best article for anyone interested in this supposed dichotamy. It will clear a lot of things up
w w w . fff . org / freedom / fd0706b . asp
but when chomsky speaks skepitaclly about how ron paul supporters think 'the government is stealing our money' yes, this is exactly what is occuring, and not only through tax, but an unnaccountable fiat currency
why doesn't chomksy ever attack the federal reserve?
i do think chomsky is sincere, but i disagree with his overall perspective :/
Chomsky is far from an Anarchist. Democratic-socialism or anarcho-communism both require force on the individual to fund itself. Whatever Chomsky wants to see happen, it would require government force. He's scared of a totally free society. How can he believe arbitration and protection services wouldn't exist without a state and call himself an anarchist?
Yet he says American's have perverted the term libertarian! This coming from an "anarchist" who is pro-statism!
Cytherlynx? Have you ever ask yourself about the commonality of the left and the right as exercised today. They both use government force to exercise their political ideologies - not liberty. It is simply put, opposite poles of the same side of the coin. "Freedom"requires liberty of both social and economic actions. There is very little common ground between Socialist force based ideology and freedom non force based ideology. Chomsky is clearly force based when exercised by a government..
@papacap727 Democracy and Republicanism are intimately intertwined. Republicanism as it was intended was basically representative democracy, the Congresspeople/presidents weren't meant to take no notice of the will of the people, instead the people voted for a myriad of issues in their congressional representatives, who in turn represented their area. It's not direct democracy, but it takes a lot from it
I really don't get the people who act that Republicanism excludes all remnants of democracy
@SirPwn4lot Good points. I think the reason is that the right libertarians are basically opposed to democracy, because they don't believe "the government" has the right to do anything. So if the public democratically elects to regulate product safety, the right libertarians view it as unconstitutional and a violation of the basic freedoms of the corporations being regulated. Right libertarians are totally opposed to all forms of government power, leaving unchallenged private power alone.
@Z200a Well said. In my view the government is just the master corporation as it today stands, with one defining difference: it makes the rules
The government being turned from a totalitarian institution to a democratic one is a process we should mirror in corporations. What is a state other than several people meeting together for a common interest: corporations are essentially small states, without the right to create legislation (supposedly, arguably they can through donations to candidates)
@Z200a but 'we' are also opposed to the private power that government gives corporations.
for 1, corporations require special legislation to exist, but that aside, they also require legislation, regulation to protect them, which is why there are so few, and so big.
another pet peeve for me is that people on the left take 'the west' at present to be an example of capitalism's failings. which it is not, it is a corporatist system. Marx similarly was attacking mercantilism, not free-markets
[T]here developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies … one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order…. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right,"
This has been flagged as spam show
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc(NOT ron paul)
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 6 days ago
and the fundamental thing which divides the left libertarians from the right libertarians is that the left like chomsky trusts government only if if is pure democracy, not centralized control. the far right distrusts government regardless of which form it takes on, because all government, even pure democracy, is eventually exploited by the elite and turned into a mechanism of centralized control
ACDC7369 1 week ago
Switzerland's democracy is excellent, it allows much better participation of the people and is not centralised, and big decisions are made with referenda. I think part of the reason people fear/despise government is due to inefficiencies with tax payer money, where things like junkets,pork barrel and so on simply make peoepl disillusioned that the government is actually serving their interests.
weeny25 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc NOT ron paul
EndWesternTyranny 3 weeks ago
Some alien force ie from out of the state, or the government. How about a quasi-government institution such as the federal reserve. In the lack of a democracy like in the US.
donpengin 3 weeks ago
Yawn.
OK< one more time.
You syill have not cited a source, so I will.
Wikopedia, history of welfare says: Welfar in the USA started in the 1930s. See, that is an example of citing a source other than my own opinions. Now, don't attack my source. Cite a better one. Otherwise I will not respond again, because I simply don't have to time to converse with somebody who, even in the internet age, when citing a source is so easy, can not be bothered to do so.
I have a life.
Good night.
milascave2 3 weeks ago
LOL Chomsky's criticism of libertarians actually applies to leftists instead.
It's amazing how such an intelligent man can be so blinded by ideology.
truevoice08 1 month ago
I would much rather live with regulated Capitalism than unregulated Capitalism. The welfare system was created by FDR because he saw that without it, Depression era America would go either fascist or capitalist. Welfare was ceated to protect the rich. Yet I can not opose it, because it has the side effect of keeping the poor from starving to death.
milascave2 1 month ago
@milascave2 FDR did not create welfare, or support it in ANY form. FDR made it clear he was opposed to welfare actually.
Shut the fuck up and research things before you post them...even on youtube.
cheeriozkitty 3 weeks ago
@cheeriozkitty Sorry if I don't meet the scholarly standards of youtube posters.
And, nothing commands more repsect than the totaly gratuitouse use of obscenitys.
And, I think you are wrong. So, cite your sources or, to paraphrase the great historian cheeriozkitty, STFU.
milascave2 3 weeks ago
@milascave2 My source is the fact that welfare didn't exist until LBJ's Great Society reforms. That's my fucking source, moron.
cheeriozkitty 3 weeks ago
@cheeriozkitty Always a pleasure to debate with a great mind.
I think this biols down to a semantic point, how do you define "welfare."
By the way, you gave another opinion, you did not cite a source.
To learn what the difference is, ask one of you high schol (or perhaps Junior High school) teacher.
Oh, and FYI, I am done with talking to you, and will not respond to any further comments.
Love ya.
milascave2 3 weeks ago
@milascave2 When losing an argument, the best thing to do is quickly run away. You've learned that lesson well.
There is no argument over semantics. FDR clearly did not support the concept of welfare. All of his welfare-esque programs promoted labor as their primary objective. That's WORKFARE, the concept of temporary relief and not WELFARE, entitlement programs.
cheeriozkitty 3 weeks ago
@cheeriozkitty fdr started social welfare in the 1930's along with his bad ass new deal initiative. Reagan started corporate welfare... this is sociology 101, come on guys.
devinthrash 3 weeks ago
@devinthrash what do you think the New Deal was? It was massive, massive amounts of corporate welfare
ACDC7369 1 week ago
@ACDC7369 thats true... it all ultimately benefited corporations more. im just saying it was known for creating the beginning of social welfare programs.
devinthrash 1 week ago
CHOMSKY IS OUTDATED!DEMS=REPS LEFTS =RIGHT!THE LEFT FAILURE IS EXACTLY LACK OF KNOWING THAT ITS ALL ABOUT BIG CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT THAT THESE DAYS ARE CORRUPTED INVOLVED W/GLOBALIZATION &FINANCIERS OF WALL STREET THAT DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT TRANSFER MONEY GOVERNMENT OUR DAYS ARE SLAVE OF THESE NWO ELITE BANKSTERS TYPES &DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE 99%WE MUST RETURN TO REGIONALISM & SOVEREIGNTY LIKE RON PAUL SAID SMALL GOVERNANCE !!WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE IN A GLOBALIZED SOCIETY!
klarekerry 1 month ago
Libertarianism isn't apart of the right. It's the center. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (i.e. the way the Constitution says). Both conservatives (neo-cons, republicans, social conservatives) and liberals (neo-liberals, democrats, socialists) both believe that the state (government) is the answer, but for different things. Statism is wrong and immoral. Why? Because the initiation of force is immoral. Taxation, war, etc is immoral.
ownagenumba1 1 month ago
im all for ron paul and what i see the basis of his idealogy being is less government more freedom in a time when the government is introducing legislature like NDAA and SOPA. I'm a democrat and i think everyone should be equal etc. i just don't think the government (which at this point really is an outside entity not the collective will of the people) should be the one to provide or facilitate this. the power should be in the hands of the people. im ready to be responsible for myself and others
juanmora19910209 1 month ago
I love what Chomsky says here about common ground. But I understand the skepticism when each side remembers faults of the past, like M. Friedman happily being an advisor to the CIA-installed dictatorship of Pinochet (ignoring the conflict this presents with libertarians' avowed abhorence for top-down rule). Right-wing libs remember things like the left's paranoia of 2nd Amendment rights, despite Castro's, Zapitistas', Sandinistas', Blk Panthers' need for guns. But I think people are learning!
feelytouchy67 1 month ago
We musnt generalize Ron Paul supporters.
fedorov28 1 month ago
One area that unites Noam Chomsky progressives with Ron Paul libertarians is foreign policy. Libertarains and progressives alike understand that the United State's foreign policy is one of the biggest threats facing the nation right now. 9/11 was a consequence of blowback related to the United State's interventionist policy in the Middle East. Progressives and libertarians need to fight to end the destructive foreign policy our nation currently holds.
LibertyMike1 1 month ago
@LibertyMike1 I hate it when you presuppose that Ron Paul is libertarian and Noam Chomsky is not. We are libertarian socialists, so we are libertarians. Even though I agree with Ron Paul and you on many things (no doubt about that!), I still at large think you are rather propertarians than libertarians, when the talk is on money and economy. That part is definitely not libertarian of the socalled "Libertarian" movement.
RSFO 1 month ago 2
@RSFO Exactly. The Libertarian Party coopted the word "Libertarian" and claimed that they are "reither left nor right." In fact there are right and left libertarians, and they are right libertarians, and there are still plenty of left Libertarians. These are the ones of whom Lenin said "left wing socialism is an infantile disorder." In other words, we are to the left of Lenin (and Marx.)
milascave2 1 month ago
@milascave2 I even think Marx and also Adam Smith would be considered "left libertarian". It is Lenin who was out of line with mainstream Marxism. The latest Marx writings (after The Communist Manifesto) about peasants in Russia were quite "anarchist". No wonder that people like Antonie Pannekoek and Rosa Luxembourg are just as good inspiration as Bakunin or Emma Goldman to a libertarian.
But I for one do actually not describe myself in left-right terms btw.
RSFO 1 month ago
@RSFO On left and right: I actually think we should get rid of the left-right talk, because it has no meaning anymore. I claim that everything comes down to the scientific method in the Peircean sense "wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself." quoted off from Wikipedia. How could it be false? I guess you could also call it intellectual honesty. Something Chomsky has plenty of. =)
RSFO 1 month ago
I do not agree with the interviewers view on RP libertarians, are they cynical? Thats what I used to think about them as well, but now Im practically all for Ron Paul (not living in USA though), understanding the extreme danger of a centralized government. Why is the left so upset with the thought of voluntary actions instead of government intervention?
rwoz 1 month ago 5
@rwoz Because the government should reflect the will of the people and tax payers. From the point of view of a proper government,our taxes go directly to services for social life, and anyone who uses them would find their utility. If we deregulate the accountability of companies, for example, to the taxpayers, then we allow government to be displaced by private tyrannies, which do not represent the will of the people. Thing is, we could afford all this if we reduced military spending.
CadaverSplatter 1 month ago
@CadaverSplatter This way you wouldnt have to worry about going bankrupt for going to the hospital.
CadaverSplatter 1 month ago
@CadaverSplatter The thing with regulation is that it mostly is for the big businesses interest. If you have a government with a lot of power to regulate it will only make it hard for smaller companies, since they dont have as much to say by means of lobbying. And I think you are wrong, it isnt enough to just cut military spending since a centrally planned medical sector has made it very inefficient economically. People should listen more to Ron Paul, he makes a lot of sense.
rwoz 1 month ago
Noam gave an interview to Emo Phillips?
polymath7 1 month ago
Capital Flight to the Cayman Islands and Industrial flight to China is bleeding the English speaking world to death. America became an industrial giant in the 20th Century through a combination of social democracy, liberalism and protectionism. Without industrial might the constitution isn't worth the paper its written on - a little like the UN Charter in regards to Palestine - Ron Paul and groups like the Burke Society are unwittingly or deliberately preparing the way for globalization.
32peartree 2 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@n8artwork lol.
Libertarians apparently don't know about philosophical fallacies, because I see this type of shit all the time.
overman926 2 months ago
@n8artwork lol.
Libertarians apparently don't know about philosophical fallacies, because I see this type of shit all the time.
overman926 2 months ago
All you Ron Paul people, look up what Chomsky has to say on free market capitalism. Its another version of totalitarianism. The poor are enslaved to the capitalists. One of the ways to help this is through entitlements, wealth redistribution, the policies you hate, which have made capitalism at least tolerable for many of us. Chomsky is being too kind to you.
athabascka 2 months ago
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
I'm George Washington & I approve this message! ;-)
applejelly2 2 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 2 months ago
Respond to this video... Unless, of course, government was protecting the interests of the slave owning elite - in this respect, government interference was just fine and dandy.
32peartree 2 months ago
@32peartree The "Slave owning Founders" argument is commonly used by those who need a reason to disregard the issue.
There were many arguments among the founders about the hypocrisy of slavery in a free republic. I'd say it was, respectably, their biggest & only mistake. Few today consider the era & the underlying issues with slavery. Slaves were property & slavery was common place. Attempting to free slaves would have cause a huge division in a newly established & somewhat unstable union.
applejelly2 2 months ago
@applejelly2 I personally find this glorification of libertarians dangerous - government isn't the root of all tyranny - freedom itself can be tyranny. To paraphrase Marx - what America calls freedom is just exposure to chance.
32peartree 2 months ago
@32peartree That's one area where I happen to agree with Marx. However, his implications are false. "Chance" leads to personal responsibility & liability. Liberty enables an environment where creativity & tranquillity blossom & the human spirit may expand.
The theories of such folks as Marx, Keynes, & Chomsky catalyze force & inevitably result in poverty.
Government has no right neither under God law or nature to dictate chance nor to take ones property by force.
applejelly2 2 months ago
@applejelly2 You sound like an anarchist in that sense - believing in a weak emasculated state - I don't think you libertarians are aware you are being used by the Globalists because the inevitable consequences of the rolling back the state will just soften up America for globalization. This, in my opinion, is the reason why either anarchistic ideas on the left and libertarian concepts on the right are being propagated.
32peartree 2 months ago
@32peartree I'm for CONSTITUTIONAL governance & nonintervention. Open trade & free markets.
The FedGov has a very limited scope of power, legally speaking. They've cast off the chains & taken upon themselves authority not vested in them. They've positioned themselves as a tool for the corp. elite's at the expense of their oath, the constitution & the welfare of the people. All the while the corp. elite's use THEIR media to divert public attention away from the reality of what's happening.
applejelly2 2 months ago
@32peartree Though my ideas aren't original, they are well thought through, well studied & they are mine.
Returning to constitutional governance is IMHO the only path back to sanity. There are many political systems & philosophies to choose from. ALL but 1 put the governed 2nd. That 1 exception is the U.S. Constitutional Republic (in it's correct form).
If the FedGov was forced back into the boundaries of the constitution this country could experience freedom never know before in history.
applejelly2 2 months ago
A man purchases a lion. Though the lion was raised in captivity the person selling the lion repeatedly stresses the importance of the man NEVER turning his back on the animal. He warns lions are BY NATURE predators & can turn vicious at any moment.
The man heeds the warning at 1st, but over time grows more & more comfortable around the animal. 1 day the man is in the cats cage & the lion turns & devours the man.
Americas Founders WARNED of the volitive nature of Government, ESPECIALLY THIS 1!!
applejelly2 2 months ago
@applejelly2 This analogy could just as easily be told substituting corperations for government.
And at this point, corperations and government are pretty much one and the same.
milascave2 1 month ago
Chomsky is, by all means, a genius! But then again, so was Hitler & Marx!......?
Chomsky, in all his arrogance, thinks he knows better that Americas Framers. He's so certain of the structure of semantics that he's built around himself that he's completely dismissed the most common detriment in human nature. The desire & the lengths in which one will go to for absolute power!
He assumes that the separation of powers & an ill-informed public can maintain the virtues of liberty.
How very naive!
applejelly2 2 months ago
I watch GOP debates, where the "Establishment media" refuses to give Ron Paul equal airtime. In a "Democratic society" the establishment doesn't pick political winners & losers. In a "Democratic society" the candidate who the people want isn't purposely & blatantly shut out, in order to keep his message buried. There is no "Democracy" here, this IS soft totalitarianism!!!
The left doesn't need to reach US, WE need to WAKE UP the sheep within the left/right paradigm, themz the facts!
applejelly2 2 months ago
There he goes again - never a good for word for socialism but he relates to Ron Paul. The reason why - because both are libertarian anarchists who see 'the government as the enemy' and both hate socialism. Chomsky his an total ideologue every thing he says backs up the rich anarchists who run wall street. E.g. why does he talk about Bolivia and Haiti all the time - does he know how ridiculous he sounds - Ron Paul fans are really gonna be won over by those examples of democracy.
32peartree 2 months ago
@32peartree Sorry but Chomsky is a supporter of Anarcho-syndicalism. Look it up.
leland61 2 months ago
@leland61 The mask of anarchy is slipping - we are now seeing a anarcho/libertarian conglomeration enveloping the US body politic. Weather its the Paleo Conservatives, the Tea Party, the Neo Cons on the right or neo liberals, occupy wall street, anonymous on the left - they all share two things in common - they all hate big government and they despise socialism.
32peartree 2 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 2 months ago
'Ultra right wing' okayyyy
Samsgarden 2 months ago
noam is a complete fool in his assessment of government. its not propaganda you old fool.....its corruption, its tryanny, its imprisonment.....
goodness.....
crazynurse69 2 months ago
@crazynurse69 He's an anarchist.
HammerOvThor 2 months ago
I never agreed to pay taxes, nobody even asked if I wanted to pay taxes. Pay us our share of your labors or go to prison. That in the libertarian sense is an act of aggression. Taxes don't benefit me, they benefit foreign nations, they benefit corporations (bailouts) whose market shares are protected by the government who is lobbied to write regulations that prevent us from having a free-market. Government has time and again failed, why should I continue to support them at my detriment?
DeepCoverInsurgent 3 months ago
@DeepCoverInsurgent
Yep agreed. The other thing that everyone should remember is that the income tax was originally ruled unconstitutional and even when they did put it in, it was under the assumption that it would never go higher than 3%.
rmccay88 3 months ago
get a haircut
inbredagogo 4 months ago
WHY SHOULD I BE HAPPY ABOUT PAYING MY TAXES WHEN MY GOVERNMENT SQUANDERS MUCH OF IT BOMBING COUNTRIES WITH WHOM I HAVE NO BEEF??
Why do my tax dollars go toward securing Iraq's borders, but not my own? Why do i have to pay to rebuild bridges that my tax dollars helped destroy, on the whims of the special interests and war profiteers that perpetuate this nonsense? Why *shouldn't* i be cynical?
I don't trust the government because it is corrupt and self-serving-- not because of any "propaganda"
bobshenix 4 months ago
We don't live in a democracy or republic. The corporations own and guide the politicians. They just back the politicians they think will be most beneficial to them, give them a shit load of money then get the advantage when they get in power. We need to stop lobbying of any kind and give every person running for election a set amount of money.
ymmit1988 4 months ago
You will not get unchecked individual power in a society that has strong antitrust laws, which is supposed to be the U.S.
Otzmatron 4 months ago
Rothbard on Chomsky:
notreason.co m/2009/06/08/murray-rothbard-on-chomsky-left-anarchists/
Samsgarden 4 months ago
"Ultra right wing libertarians?"
Is this kid is proned to generlisations or what?
Samsgarden 4 months ago
Chomsky forgot the most important detail!!!!we are not living in a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY but in a TOTALLITARIAN country!!!Where taxes are used to BAIL OUT BANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
klarekerry 4 months ago
Chomsky: We are the borg. Lower your shields. Resistance is futile.
Ron Paul: Don't tread on me, bro!
VotePaineJefferson 4 months ago
Where does Chomsky get the idea that democracy "works for all of us"?
Trimbler00 4 months ago
There are good reasons for progressives to support Ron Paul, the main one being we will never have sufficient funds to build a peaceful green economy until the military industrial catastrophe of empire building and maintenance is de-funded.
CorneliusBrantleyJr 4 months ago
Chomsky is in this video sort of defending the US government, like if the US government was some sort of Jesus Christ that can be trusted 100%. In a way the anti-government and anti-tax people of USA are very right, in that the US government is a zionist kleptocratic plutocracy, and paying taxes to a government that will steal our taxes, and give them to bankers, Israel and spend it on wars is not rational
maxistsocialist 5 months ago
What's terrifying to me is the "Democracy is bad" campaign from the right.
"We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic".
"If we lived in a Democracy, our Republic would be destroyed"
Absolutely terrifying.
tophu1021 5 months ago
@tophu1021 Please understand, that in a strict majority rules Democracy, if 51 percent of the population votes to enslave the other 49 percent, that measure will pass.
A government powerful enough to give you everything you ask, is powerful enough to take everything you have. That is why our founding documents are littered with the word "Republic" instead of "Democracy."
VotePaineJefferson 4 months ago
@VotePaineJefferson
You're absolutely right, whereas today if 51 percent of the 535 congresspeople vote for the 51 percent of the population to enslave the other 49 pecent, that measure will also pass... The fact that you put your faith in congresspeople who take money from lobbyists and special interests other than the entire population of people, is a bit insane...
tophu1021 4 months ago 8
@tophu1021 The difference is, a pure Democracy operates necessarily under the assumption that any action is desirable, so long as the majority of our populace favors it.
But in a system of government with limited power through representation (ie a Republic) the powers of our representatives are by their very nature, limited.
Basically we agree, I'm just splitting hairs with you. Because if your life was subject to the whims of public prejudice, your opinion would differ, believe me.
VotePaineJefferson 4 months ago
@VotePaineJefferson But in a system of government where the people is said to be represented but not necessarily is (ie. Republic), who knows who those representatives are representing. Corporations? The people? The shadowy figure underneath the capitol building? Because of this "Representative Democracy", our nation has slowly crept into what some would call a Plutocracy... And possibly will end up into Fascism... Just saying.
tophu1021 4 months ago
@tophu1021 You're right. That is one of the criticisms of a constitutional form of government with limited government power. Constitutions don't enforce themselves.
I'm not happy about that either.
VotePaineJefferson 4 months ago
@VotePaineJefferson
Yeah sure but 51% vs 49 would certainly entice a revolution of which the outcome would be a drivers race. And any country who has over half the population intent on enslaving the other would have to be a supremely sociopathic one. It's much easier to just let a few hundred representatives rule you and make your choices, command your army etc.. much preferable to a silly democracy. You're such a noob at evil engineering man
thenoorys 4 months ago
@tophu1021 I know man i hate that.
thenoorys 4 months ago
@tophu1021
You're terrified because you don't understand basic English, not to mention history, law or philosophy.
A Republic is a nation of laws which protects minorities.
A Democracy is a nation of opinions where minorities are not protected.
You probably don't understand this distinction, which is not surprising.
To think that laws do not define political systems demonstrates your ignorance more than anything else.
CRAPCANNONS 4 months ago
@CRAPCANNONS
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.
tophu1021 4 months ago
@tophu1021
"That is the dumbest thing I have ever read."
That is not surprising at all. You might want to ask your boyfriend if he can find you an English dictionary.
CRAPCANNONS 4 months ago
@CRAPCANNONS
How in the hell did you miss the part when your 3rd grade teacher told you minorities were NOT protected by our Republic. Remember slavery?! Dipshit.
tophu1021 4 months ago
@tophu1021
You never learned how to read. Don't bother reading the political difference between a Republic and a Democracy. That political distinction must exist for absolutely no reason, right?
Again, you don't understand English. Don't bother with history, law or philosophy.
CRAPCANNONS 4 months ago
Comment removed
tophu1021 4 months ago
Comment removed
tophu1021 4 months ago
Comment removed
tophu1021 4 months ago
In short, I'd agree that market libertarianism may hastily afford us more freedoms (for a time) but it is just a lesser of evils. I don't want to settle for that, no matter how improbable the unbeaten path may be the road to hell is always the one of least resistance. So bring on utopia on earth
thenoorys 5 months ago
@thenoorys My point is, pure socialism cannot generate wealth; all it can do is consume it. Almost every innovation by man has come from an individual, not by a collective. There is no collective mind, only individual minds. Like I said before, I have no problem with socialism as long as it's voluntary. But eliminating capitalism or the free market will not bring about utopia, you NEED the free market in order to have utopia. Pure socialsim only leads to stagnation, leaving no room for progress.
dksilentbob 5 months ago
@dksilentbob That is of course bs. Capitalism has been around and in practice on a wide scale for what 200 years at best? are you saying that all great individual achievements are intrinsic to a market ideology based on individualism? what does capitalism have to do with the philosophies of Kant or the empirical studies of Newton? You have an undeveloped view of socialism only as an economic system. That is of course a classic blunder of market liberals, everything is based on the market
thenoorys 5 months ago
@thenoorys And capitalism, as described by guys like Adam Smith or Keynes or Murray Rothbard etc., as we know it today, has been around since the 17th century. Before that, you had systems with similar elements like mercantilism and feudalism. There have almost always been markets were gold or bartered goods have been traded for goods and services, so in a way, capitalism is as old as civilization. And I'm assuming at least some people have to work in your society in order to providefor the rest
dksilentbob 5 months ago
@dksilentbob You are right, we have about 3000 years or more of capitalism. The history of the world is really the history of the capitalist system but with different names (Monarchies, feudalism,oligarchic tyrannies, republican-democracies (Today), only socialism which will be a temporary phase, and anarchist-communism can save this world
maxistsocialist 5 months ago
@maxistsocialist There is a difference between modern capitalism and the economic systems that preceded it. The difference is that now, the common man can actually own land and property. Before that, such things were relegated only to the noble class, the state or the church. It is only by abolishing the state, the monopoly on force, when we become truly free. Property is not theft. Property is liberty.
dksilentbob 5 months ago
@maxistsocialist This statement is laughable african societies have had a REAL "socialistic/communistic" system for millenia. The reason that capatalism, democracy, communism, socialism, technocracy, and all other forms of government won't work is because trapped in the ethos of caucasians is an infantile, unevolved, method of creating governments with inequities like capitalism or ones that on paper don't have inequities like socialism but turn bad anyway.
kingmu1 4 months ago
If you like Chomsky's views on things you need to vote for RP, Obama is a neocon.
IcyScythe 5 months ago
Libertarianism is like 2 mathematical formulations fighting over a potato
inhalefarts 5 months ago
Democracy is the WORST form of government. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
chloeluvzjonet 5 months ago
@chloeluvzjonet Republics are one of the worst form of government. Representation is 500 wolves in congress and the senate on the pay roll of the wealthiest individuals leading 300,0000 americans into slavery.
thenoorys 5 months ago
I know that I have passionately read Chomsky and believe in his deductions. And yet I have this year increasingly gotten passionately involved in the Ron Paul movement. Ron Paul's words ring true to me.
How these two can be contradictory in the broad strokes of their outlook I don't see.
iankyoko 5 months ago
I feel that the two are on the same highway, they just get off at different exits. By the way can someone answer me this: why does chomsky seem to dismiss Paul's anti-war views? 'Cuz they want to stay richer?' Yeah thats one reason, its a drain on the economy but it doesn't matter what your reason is if it hits the same target....DUDE
rebreh1029 5 months ago
I feel that the two are on the same highway, they just get off at different exits.
rebreh1029 5 months ago
Chomsky should vote for Ron Paul.
VotePaineJefferson 5 months ago
Chomsky and Ron Paul have lots of common views. Non-intervention is the big one. Distrust of centralized states. Sure Chomsky is a collectivist but that doesn;t stop him from seeing the good in Ron Paul's stances.
augerrusty 5 months ago
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" G. Edward Griffin,
"Tragedy and Hope" Dr. Carroll Quigley,
"The Law" Claude Frédéric Bastiat,
read em and live a new life. Thank me later. No more "left" or "right"
phlather 5 months ago
@RationalBullets They are not "95%" similar. Ron Paul is a "constitutionalist" and a "federalist". He believes in the intrinsic superiority of the "state" on a federal level. Chomsky is for massive popular democracy unhindered by any statist idea whatsoever. This is an important difference. Chomsky is a libertarian of the modern age; Ron Paul is a libertarian of an 18th century agricultural age.
Ermal8711 5 months ago
@Ermal8711 Actually, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.
BrooklynRedLeg 5 months ago
It's petty and irrelevant, but I can't help but notice how awkward Chomsky is at ending interviews/talks/lectures/conversations. He either just whispers "thanks" or mumbles something incoherent. Just something I noticed. Can't complain, though: the content of his discussion is brilliant.
fdalkjfdsalkj 5 months ago
@fdalkjfdsalkj I think he's just extremely humble. He's admitted himself he's not an amazing orator and he likes it that way, I remember hearing him say in one interview he wants people to be drawn to his message not his person.
IcyScythe 5 months ago
First off, how could ANYBODY in his right mind call Ron Paul "ultra right wing." That one comment was enough to make me completely disregard anything else that dude said.
mightyafrowhitey 6 months ago
@mightyafrowhitey ron pauls the biggest free marketer in the government. I'd call that ultra right.
1019079 5 months ago
@1019079 That may hold true if you consider liberatarianism ultra right. To me that would be someone who is a social-conservative, who wishes we could go back to "good ole days," and who favors big business and corporate welfare for the supposed prosperity of our country. To my knowledge he advocates none of these things. Perhaps it's just a semantic point...
mightyafrowhitey 5 months ago
@mightyafrowhitey ron paul isn't social conservative though. Not with his stances on defense of marriage act, drugs, prostitution etc
1019079 5 months ago
@1019079 My point exactly. He is none of those things which I previously mentioned. I think I was a little unclear in my last post. What I meant was that someone who is ultra right wing, is reactionary, socially conservative, and favors big business at the expense of free enterprise. Someone who has no problem growing government as long as it helps out bug business. Dr. Paul would rather let the free market work for itself, without the help of government.
mightyafrowhitey 5 months ago
@1019079 I find that most republicans and especially nationalistic and believe in strong government intervention also. Dr. Paul is much more of an isolationist. Free markets aren't exactly what republicans are all about. There is a difference between capitalism (free markets) and corporatism, which is giving favor to huge corporations for the supposed benefit of the country.
mightyafrowhitey 5 months ago
@mightyafrowhitey just for the record, Ron Paul is considered a Non-interventionist, not an "Isolationist", and he is also against government welfare for Corporation's/Corporatism.
2ruthfox82 5 months ago
I follow Libertarian ideology, but I see a lot of common ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism and they both seek the same basic ends. The means, however, are hijacked by those who play the political game and moderate their actions to appeal to the median voters - those that are too misinformed to take a position on the issues that affect them. We will all be enslaved by the system until apathy is cured.
bassawash1 6 months ago
@bassawash1 They don't essentially seek the same ends as you say. It's taught that capitalism is good because competition and the freemarket create wealth. But if the competitive spirit is intrinsic to the design then the competitors will always rally to buy the state and if there is none they will create it, competition is only good to an extent when it becomes a matter of the well being of the world the wrecklessness it promotes is purely negative.
thenoorys 5 months ago
In todays system getting certain people not to vote can be the same thing as getting a vote for the other guy.. We have a two party system with a third party that never gets attention.. Most people who support Noam's ideas are against big government and its attrocities.. If you can somehow convince all those people not to vote guess whoes going to vote? Really dumb people.. Ron Paul actions and policies completely contradict big government.. Seems like this would be an obvious stepping stone.
clarkygorny 6 months ago
@thirdshift47 He said that tea-partiers think that the present govt is their enemy because of induced right-wing propaganda. And I'm saying that's very untrue. They are angry for very legitimate reasons which I pointed out before. Most pressing of which is the skyrocketing debt which no side wishes to address but simply just lump it on the next generation to pay for
shotsky94 6 months ago
I personally like Noam but he's a bit naive here if he thinks ppl are angry at govt just because of some right-wing propaganda. Ppl are angry for very legitimate reasons. Warrantless wiretapping, Banker Bailouts, Direct Devaluation of the Currency(Federal Reserve), Massive Indebtedness, etc.
Yup Noam. There is a lot of reason to be angry with King Washington D.C
shotsky94 6 months ago
@shotsky94
You're a bit naive if you actually believe that Chomsky thinks that US citizens hate gov't simply because of right-wing propaganda(you've obviously never listened to his comments on Tea Party outrage.)
Indeed,your present-day reasons for anxiety over the state pale infinitely in comparison to the innumerabe reasons Chomsky has written about regarding the insidious nature of the US gov't---from its very inception.
Chomsky simply doesn't ascribe to antistate essentialism.
thirdshift47 6 months ago
The question is who's side are you on? Are you for freedom of the individual or freedom of the collective? Would you rather have collectives that can squash bourgeois individual enterprise for the benefit of the whole or would you rather a society of the individual where sink or swim and leaving the "too dumb to disregard others" crowd to their own devices?
I'm for a collective because I know that unchecked power of the individual will always end in fascism or dictatorship.
thenoorys 7 months ago 11
@thenoorys collectives can be just as coercive, if not more so, than any individual.
dksilentbob 5 months ago
@dksilentbob That's true. But a direct democracy is still preferable to a wealth hoarding tyrant. Collectives can be corrupted but it's much harder to do so because in a direct democracy when things get ugly the good and bad crowds will divide noticed. individualists society's promote narrow minded views and liberty will stagnate because the wealthiest anarcho-capitalist will eventually own the media, force and economy and thus the minds of the people.
thenoorys 5 months ago
@thenoorys Democracy is a flawed theory. Majority rule doesn't necessarily equate to freedom. As far as these "wealth hoarding tyrants" are concerned, these entities are never built on a system of open and free markets, but rather on a cycle of lobbying and subsidization and other forms of government control, such as the state's use of licensing rackets. And when collectives do get corrupted, they're also much harder to break apart than an individual's tyranny.
dksilentbob 5 months ago
@dksilentbob So what is less flawed. Representation?? The word itself oozes of corruption. Wealth hoarding tyrant's don't operate on their own don't be mistaken. As long as a system is based on competition and the economy based on the standardized monetary medium the wealthiest will always dictate we see it today now. Of course we don't have "open and free markets" because that's not the end goal of a capitalist, domineering is always the end goal, so called free markets are just a phase
thenoorys 5 months ago
@thenoorys Without a government to constantly bail them out, they ultimately answer to their workforce, their customer base, and their competition. I think capitalism is basically good. I think an individual being able to generate wealth is good. I think entrepeneurs and technoligical innovators are good. I think businesses are basically good. I have nothing against socialism as long as it's voluntary; I think unions are basically good as well. Individual soveriegnty is better than democracy.
dksilentbob 5 months ago
@dksilentbob I agree with your first sentiment. That's why I ultimately don't mind anarcho-capitalist sentiment because with no state the workers will get their way eventually. The part that I don't like is the psychology behind individualism and competition, to say competition on the market level is natural is to over look the fact that socialism is natural, hence the family unit. Did your father charge you at a profit when he fed you? No. When we unite and realize we're all family it works out
thenoorys 5 months ago
@dksilentbob Now you may say that unity on a global scale is improbable and you'd be right for the most part. But the pessimistic psychosis behind anarcho individualism is only impeding that process and forever will. No, states, no borders, no money, no bosses, no masters. Then and only then will we all experience pure freedom.
thenoorys 5 months ago
@thenoorys Except that you are proposing a master: the collective. What I choose to do should not be impeded by anyone, neither individual nor collective, minority nor majority. Ridding the world of capitalism entirely will not do any good. Capitalism has generally allowed people to have higher standards of living, and I'm not just talking about the top 1%. Even socialist countries like China and Cuba have realized this, and have become more capitalist as time goes by.
dksilentbob 5 months ago
@dksilentbob you are proposing a master. the boss, the ceo, the private owner of production. who else but the state (monopoly on force) recognizes the bosses assets as all of his? as you said, there is no collective mind and such there can be no collective master as you say. it is economic coercion by a necessity of means. it's as voluntary for a poor man to work under a boss as it is voluntary to breathe air. you don't have to but if you don't you die
thenoorys 5 months ago
@thenoorys Who else would recognize the boss' assets besides the state? Well I would assume the boss himself, and most likely his friends and family. I'm not sure I like what you are proposing. What makes you think you are entitled to the fruits of their success? If you want more prosperity, get a higher paying job, move up the ladder, form your own business, or in your case, start a co-op or join a commune. If you don't want to work for someone else, fine. Nobody's gonna stop you.
dksilentbob 5 months ago
@thenoorys The future and survival of the human race rests on the cooperation of the human race as a whole, as a collective, to achieve great things in regards to science, technology, and innovation. The individualist's slogan is "gain wealth, forget all but self." This is a childish notion. Of course we need to find a good balance between individual liberty and collective prosperity but the balance should tilt overwhelmingly towards the collective.
andyx1205 4 months ago
The government is our enemy Noam. It used to stand for protecting people's lives, protecting their personal freedom, and protecting their private property. It has betrayed all of these things! What he is saying is that because the majority wills somethings, it is therefore righteous. We are individuals with individual rights. There is no such thing as collective rights.
RON. PAUL.
JoeJC 7 months ago
Ron Paul being hard core right wing?? More like hard core logical
baihbalm 8 months ago
I don't know of any libertarian who has said the government is 'the enemy.' I have heard they are 'the problem' however. And to think that if we all payed our income taxes that we would have a functioning democracy? By what means? Social Security has failed like most government implemented programs throughout our history. "Alien force?" Why not advocate donating or income tax voluntarily rather than through government force. Economic intervention and mil. intervent are indeed the same.
rjksoccer06 8 months ago
¨Great, it´s April 15th we´re going to implement the plans we jointly decided on for the benefit of all of us¨ So.... according to Chomsky´s logic, he´s happy about paying taxes to a government that spends his money on wars he hates, spying on Americans, ethanol subsidies, corporate welfare, nuclear weapons making laws like the Patriot Act. Problem with Noam´s logic is that we don´t all agree on where the money should be spent. Plus, we´re NOT a democracy. We´re a republic. Big difference.
NLMF2011 8 months ago
@NLMF2011 He was saying that in a true democracy he would be happy to pay tax.
davidbeast123 8 months ago
@NLMF2011 Actually we're a democratic republic which is the worst kind. Noam is talking about a direct democracy. A republic is a horrid thing, it's practically begging for masters and rulers and if Plato were alive today I'd smack him in the face for it.
Now at the core of your logic you're arguing that the majority rule is not truly free because we all have differing opinions. This is where the freedom paradox comes into play and you basically have two schools of thought on this.
thenoorys 7 months ago
@thenoorys On both extreme ends of the spectrum you have "market-anarchism" which is the holly grail of the free market ideology and "anarcho-collectivism" which is the holy grail of democratic anarchism. A market anarchist and or market liberal/libertarian would argue that true freedom is of the individual, on the other hand a theme which is common in collectivist anarchism is that "I am only as free as my neighbor". Collective anarchism can be seen as not entirely free because *continue*
thenoorys 7 months ago
@thenoorys the collective can oust a corporate mega monopoly based soley on a democratic vote. On the other hand market libertarianism can also be seen as not entirely free when an individual or corporate entity has unchecked power and "freedom" to exploit thus continuing wage slavery and other such monetary power other over others.
thenoorys 7 months ago
Dude needs to put on some pants and get a freakin haricut......
growing some balls wouldnt be bad as well
bobj7515 8 months ago
ron paul? right wing? ROFL nice one, i laughed at that
poopguypenis2 8 months ago
@AUSM92
Yeah.
Anarchist syndicalism is a pipedream;simply because you refuse to except the fact that its a prefered mode of production in parts of the developed world.
But since i'm a gentleman,i'll give you the opportunity to prove that anarchist capitalism is far superior in regard to 'ensuring freedom and prosperity..."
That means concrete,real world examples.
thirdshift47 8 months ago
@AUSM92
Yeah,there so lumatic that they not only work but even outperformed their mainstream economies ability to sufficiently allocate not only aggregate wealth,but values that markets don't account for like dignity and community empowerment.
What do you suggest as a solution--putting the power in the hands of the government and voting for Ron Paul?lmao
thirdshift47 8 months ago
@AUSM92
What in the world does the Argentine and Spanish(or the military in the case of Spain)states have to do with the efforts of those citizen's movements that arose as outgrowths of their respective catastrophes(not the causes of 'em?)
Your points are down-right bizarre to say the least,much less completely inane.
Ofcourse Argentina would be a basketcase after a decades worth of market devastation under the Menem regime;they're struggle still involves major challenges even for the coopts.
thirdshift47 8 months ago
@AUS
1)The very rich history of anarchist syndicalism throughout Europe in the twentieth century all the way up to the present-day occupied factory movement in Argentina totally explodes that assumption about price mechanisms and coersion.
Infact,read up on what brought an end to the anarchist municipalities of 1936 Spain.Hint--it wasn't economic calculation.
thirdshift47 8 months ago
@thirdshift47
2.)Austrian econ' heros & laissez-faire pioneers the physiocrats(as well as private property pioneer John Locke)also ascribed to the LTV.How in the hell could Marx work forward(from marginal utility I presume)when Neoclassical value theory wasn't even in vogue yet?Secondly,it's not true that Marx had a total disdain for capitalism anymore than he had a disdain for the state.He simply considered them to be institutions that would be exhausted through social evolution.
thirdshift47 8 months ago
@thirdshift47
3.)"one is an impressive system of government,the other is grounded in natural rights."
Observations such as those are precisely why Austrian politics & economics continue to remain on the fringe of popular movements and find most of its supprot amongst right-wing think tanks in the US and internet intellects.
thirdshift47 8 months ago
@AUSM92
Yeah,but what is capitalism(or communism for that matter?)
As a self-identifying libertarian socialist myself it never ceases to amaze the extent to which people are even still wrapped up in a cold war debate between two ideologies that on a national scale and in pure application have never come remotely close to existing.
I mean--why are Americans even talking about socialism?
Who are the socialists?The market-fundamentalist Democrats?The Keynesian progressives?Social liberals?lol
thirdshift47 8 months ago
@AUSM92
1.)The anarchist syndicalism of Rudolf Rucker,the IWW,The CNT/FAI,ect.,should hardly be confused with the syndicalism of Fascist Italty & Franco's Falangist Party alike.They were diametrically opposed groups in practice.
2.)Marx,way before Hayek & Roth',was supremely prescient in his analysis of capitalism,esp.,as it continues to consumate itself through the financialization of the world order.
3.)1 man's childish worship of 'democracy' is another's childish worship of 'liberty'.
thirdshift47 8 months ago
And how is Chomsky's Propaganda any different?
saltydog78 8 months ago
[T]here developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies … one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order…. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right,"
- Rothbard
100CommonCents 8 months ago
@AUSM92 i think we're on the same page. see my vid favorites. i'd consider myself an 'Austrian' also, even though i dislike taking on an 'ism' to identify myself.
100CommonCents 8 months ago
chomsky and ron paul, both good thinkers, mostly chomsky, but both carry behind them a following of personality cultists, the only time i ever see ron paul insulted on the internet is when he is seen disagreeing with chomsky, and vice versa...
mortacrify 9 months ago
Ron Paul is not ultra right wing. Bad interviewer.
peoman2 9 months ago
@peoman2
That was literally the very first thought that came to my head.
rmccay88 9 months ago
ugh, that interviewer is a fucking retard.
Sivels 10 months ago
another massive hole with chomsky, he speaks of tax as opposite to bad in a democracy. This is untrue, and infinitely untrue when in a democracy where 300 million individuals decide the fate of 300 million as a whole. even experts cannot evalute that many people, and it is set-up for abuse.
i am far more sympathetic to a very low level democracy on the scale of 100s, where by you actually know who you're voting for.
chomsky of all people knows how democracy gets taken advange of :/
100CommonCents 10 months ago
probably the best article for anyone interested in this supposed dichotamy. It will clear a lot of things up
w w w . fff . org / freedom / fd0706b . asp
but when chomsky speaks skepitaclly about how ron paul supporters think 'the government is stealing our money' yes, this is exactly what is occuring, and not only through tax, but an unnaccountable fiat currency
why doesn't chomksy ever attack the federal reserve?
i do think chomsky is sincere, but i disagree with his overall perspective :/
100CommonCents 10 months ago
Paying taxes is contributing? Taxation = donation? Noam Chomsky is delusional.
Sivels 10 months ago
Chomsky is far from an Anarchist. Democratic-socialism or anarcho-communism both require force on the individual to fund itself. Whatever Chomsky wants to see happen, it would require government force. He's scared of a totally free society. How can he believe arbitration and protection services wouldn't exist without a state and call himself an anarchist?
Yet he says American's have perverted the term libertarian! This coming from an "anarchist" who is pro-statism!
VictoryCough 10 months ago
Cytherlynx? Have you ever ask yourself about the commonality of the left and the right as exercised today. They both use government force to exercise their political ideologies - not liberty. It is simply put, opposite poles of the same side of the coin. "Freedom"requires liberty of both social and economic actions. There is very little common ground between Socialist force based ideology and freedom non force based ideology. Chomsky is clearly force based when exercised by a government..
jpollard117 1 year ago
glad to see chomsky does not understand the difference between Democracy and Republic. the founding fathers perfered the latter.
" A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%"- Thomas Jefferson.
papacap727 1 year ago
@papacap727 Democracy and Republicanism are intimately intertwined. Republicanism as it was intended was basically representative democracy, the Congresspeople/presidents weren't meant to take no notice of the will of the people, instead the people voted for a myriad of issues in their congressional representatives, who in turn represented their area. It's not direct democracy, but it takes a lot from it
I really don't get the people who act that Republicanism excludes all remnants of democracy
SirPwn4lot 11 months ago
@SirPwn4lot Good points. I think the reason is that the right libertarians are basically opposed to democracy, because they don't believe "the government" has the right to do anything. So if the public democratically elects to regulate product safety, the right libertarians view it as unconstitutional and a violation of the basic freedoms of the corporations being regulated. Right libertarians are totally opposed to all forms of government power, leaving unchallenged private power alone.
Z200a 11 months ago
@Z200a Well said. In my view the government is just the master corporation as it today stands, with one defining difference: it makes the rules
The government being turned from a totalitarian institution to a democratic one is a process we should mirror in corporations. What is a state other than several people meeting together for a common interest: corporations are essentially small states, without the right to create legislation (supposedly, arguably they can through donations to candidates)
SirPwn4lot 11 months ago
@Z200a but 'we' are also opposed to the private power that government gives corporations.
for 1, corporations require special legislation to exist, but that aside, they also require legislation, regulation to protect them, which is why there are so few, and so big.
another pet peeve for me is that people on the left take 'the west' at present to be an example of capitalism's failings. which it is not, it is a corporatist system. Marx similarly was attacking mercantilism, not free-markets
100CommonCents 10 months ago
[T]here developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies … one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order…. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right,"
- Rothbard
CytherLynx 1 year ago
I'm not really a fan of either Chomsky or Paul, but I'd pay to see them go head-to-head in a debate.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago