Many ppl confuse hillbilly with redneck, not the same type of person, hillbillies and rednecks, in alot of ways. Not the same. Same goes with southern and counrty.
"Watch out for the word REFORM---it's a change you're supposed to like." Indeed the word goes back to the first Euro-colonists, the Puritans, who were "reforming" everything life-loving out of English culture and promised to "reform" the Irish and American Indians until they "progressed" into worshipping property and the Bible. ANCIENT LIGHTS dot o-r-g
@neonaction Unfortunately, you can't really blame Reagan. Chances are, he didn't even know what half of the policies he was enacting were. It's the administration that's really at fault. Reagan literally was a trained actor, and a terrible one at that.
@joezuu So you can't blame Mao and Stalin then right? Cause in reality Mao and Stalin didn't really know all the policies as well, they can't possibly know- they managed like half the world's land mass and population.
the REAL libertarians are of the Frederick Bastiat kind. yes, the left were the true libertarians, but they were for Laissez-faire CAPITALISM and minimal to no government!
please read 'The Law'. it is only 52 pages long and written in 1850.
However, seeing as many are lazy, please read
w w w . fff . org / freedom / fd0706b . asp
(copy to URL and delete the spaces)
if Bastiat were alive, he'd certainly be an Austrian economist
@nomis101uk I agree with you, but then again 'why' will always be an open question. As long as we can come to some certain agreement on 'what' is happening, then we can begin to start making the right decisions for ourselves.
I think Chomsky's analysis of WHAT's happening in our society is almost always accurate, but sometimes when he throws out the WHY, I start scratching my head. For instance: on putting people in prison. He comes out with accurate facts about crime levels and jail population which makes a point in itself. But then, with absolutely nothing to back him up, just comes out and says 'its cos "they" want to get rid of the useless people'. I wish he would back up these kinds of "why's" with evidence.
@nomis101uk There is plenty of evidence. The fact that the rich just don't want to fulfill their end of the social contract is evidence. The fact that we have to even argue the existence of the welfare state is evidence. The fact that the bourgeoisie come up with all kinds of BS reasons and distort human nature to justify their vulgar economics is evidence.... Does Chomsky have to think for you too? lol
I don't quite understand what your reply has to do with my comment. I was simply stating that, if you're going to say something as extraordinary as "there's a high prison population because the elite wants to get rid of useless people", then you need to actually produce real evidence if you expect anyone to believe it; because such a statement implies design - A particular causation for which evidence should exist if it were real.
@nomis101uk --> Well, you are asking for too much, because it is common knowledge that legislation always carries a nominal veneer of STATED purpose, which conceals lobby motives. YOU KNOW THIS. Neo-cons and other conservatives are traditionally authoritarian, and so it is reasonable to psychoanalyze their lobby, i.e. to dig into their motives to guess intelligently at their intentions with regard to elements in society that are not authoritarian. Yes they are capable of demonizing sectors.
Expecting evidence is to much to ask? Well unfortunately I prefer to base my beliefs on evidence. The reality is that often in politics the stated motives ARE the real motives. This occurs when there is no need for concealment. So in this instance the stated motives are entirely consistant with the zero-tolerence, "tough-on-crime" ethos that the RIght has and prefers to rehab and social justice approaches. All other explanations are surplus to requirement and unsupported by evidence.
@nomis101uk --> Fair enough. I agree that pure conspiracy paranoia is unwise, but political blocs should be scrutinized at least enough to dissuade or mitigate self serving PR. You may be right that stated purposes are often real. But a discerning public cannot rely on that. Finally, it's entirely possible that Chomsky crosses the line by attributing to hypothetical motives too much from the outcomes. That would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy without further justification.
@nomis101uk --> Sorry not that fallacy, but the fallacy of attributing specific intentions to a party on the basis of the results. The reason I give Chomsky leeway on that interpretation of neo-cons is because their anti-crime and other "tough love" policies have the direct and obvious effect of severely marginalizing/alienating social dissidents and outsiders. The related ambiance of elitist hyper competitiveness, in the business world, is infectious and very authoritarian, fear-generating.
so if these are free market fantasies (of which i agree) and examples of the power of "private" tyrannies (power derived from the state) - when does Noam talk about the truth of free markets and the true definition of "private" means?
If you eliminate all regulations to business, that's great for the business, not for the people, it can mean they can get raped, whereas when the government instead protects the people,then teabaggers get enraged by it. This is called masochism.
@nammoo: Can you at least LISTEN to this video and all parts and actually ASSIMILIATE what Chomsky is saying instead of just arguing without counterarguments to what is being said, for the sake of arguing?
It cuts both ways, regulation doesn`t just control business, it enables business to control consumers(for instance the state confiscates the fruits of the citizens labor, so that products can be bought from the business sector for the "common good")/competition(licenses/state endorsed monopolies etc). So my point is that it would be better with a society where no one can use the governments right to/monopoly on initiating violence/coercion etc, i.e. that the governments only job, should be to
There seems to be some misunderstanding here about Chomsky's intent. Whether the state controls industry (as in China and the old USSR) or industry controls the state (as in the USA), democracy is severely compromised when people become passive spectators rather than active participants in the decisions that most deeply affect their lives. Thus, Noam Chomsky urges us to question and challenge any sort of power or authority structure rather than arbitrarily yielding to it with passive consent.
"Noam Chomsky urges us to question and challenge any sort of power or authority structure rather than arbitrarily yielding to it with passive consent. "
Good. That's exactly why I oppose Chomsky.
He supports state control of our lives through a medical dictatorship.
The problem with people like you is that you would question any sort of authority structure as long as it exclusively refers to government or public ones, but you don't question institutions that are not necessarily part of the government that are are stronger than the laws(who control the laws and lawmaking process because of this unlimited concentration of power, that enables them to buy decisions) and the nation itself, and you give consent to a small group of businessmen.
You don't know me at all, and what you are saying about me is totally false.
Chomsky is every bit as evil for advocating control of my life as is Big Pharma for buying politicians as are politicians for writing laws as are those bureaucrats and officers who enforce the unjust laws.
I never gave my consent to the state nor to those who rig markets via the state. But "the problem with people like you" is that you can't be bothered either to make proper distinctions or reasoned arguments.
Facism is not laissez-faire capitalism, how does corporations gain power without the aid of the government, and when they are at the mercy of the consumer?
Why can`t people take active part in cooperating with eachother, independantly of people who are not taking part in that particular transaction, i.e. only the ones taking part in the transaction, take an active part?
Chomsky critiques the state and calls it "capitalism" and "free market". Unreal.
I'm going to critique Hitler and call him Chomsky. That's how the principle works, right? You talk about one thing but call it something else? I got it. I'm a quick learner.
Perfect competition is a fundamental prerequisite for any "free market" which is conspicuously missing from the monopoly conditions of global capitalism. Chomsky's extensively researched and typically well cited critique suggests that the state tends to be a coercive instrument in the maintenance and advancement of those dysfunctional conditions.
Chomsky repeatedly blames the "free market" for actions of the state.
He also claims in one video clip that the reason health care costs are high is because services are privately provided, which is completely false.
I don't believe he is so ignorant of economics and the nature of the state. I think, rather, that he says whatever will further his own agenda, which seems to be communism.
Chomsky actually considers himself an anarcho-syndicalist, not a communist. Meanwhile, the market forces of supply and demand fail to establish either price or quantity for health care because demand is price-inelastic. In other words, sellers control the price absolutely and buyers have little or no choice but to engage. Thus, health care professionals draw greater incomes by forcing more and more consumers out of the market while charging higher prices to those who are able and willing to pay.
Government protects the market from you/interests of the commons=
tax cuts for the most wealthy individuals, subsidies to the most powerful and profitable businesses, deregulation that undermines the possibility of fair trade and free exchange, the development of technology in the state sector (publicly funded) which is sold to private entities, and let us also make note of the billions of dollars in public wealth (tax revenue) that was just last year given to the wealthiest banks in the world.
I don't understand how what you are saying relates to me nor to the fact that the state is an evil and corrupt institution which denies human rights, takes our liberties, drives up costs, and creates conflict.
Are you agreeing with me or challenging me?
Please state exactly what you are challenging me about if that is what you are trying to get across because I don't understand what "you" (meaning me?) means in this context. I have nothing to do with the gov't and don't support it.
"Do you pay taxes? I assume you do, and if so that is involvement in government wether you agree with it or not. "
Another example of flawless logic there. And if I were beheaded by a gang of escaped homicidal maniacs, that would prove my involvement with homicidal maniacs whether I wanted to get beheaded or not.
Ok, I see where you're going with this. Now what's the next step in your argument?
Your fear of big government is played upon to slander the notion that democracy is a powerful tool against the destructive narrow interests of the economic elites. Democratic participation in government is a tantamount fear of the ruling class. It becomes evident that there is much to gain by convincing people that the only tyranny in the world is taxes and that participating in government is a waste of time.
So here you are arguing for big gov't? And democracy too? You are not against ruling others by force? You think mob rule is "a powerful tool"? So you're a statist then, right?
Can you tell me whether you are trying to defend what you think Chomsky's views are or your own?
I believe in any complex industrial society, organization is an obvious requirement for its basic functioning and problem solving. I reject the idea that people need to be forced at all to look out for their common interests. That's actually rather instinctual.
The market has deflected massive amounts of public animosity & outrage and successfully diverted that anger to the political sphere, which is inherently defective because it can be affected by popular movements and democratic participation— you have witnessed a wonderfully executed diversionary tactic of the economic elites to redirect popular disposition away from themselves. A brilliant maneuver I will be the first to admit.
You seem to be following Chomsky by calling things by different names than what they are. I'm afraid if you do that you will not gain any insight into anything. You should start off by being clear, accurate, and honest. Otherwise, the rest of what you say is confused and very misleading to say the least!
By market I am referring to an oppressive system of economic exchange and it's brokers. I am referring to the industrial capitalist market. I am claiming that the market is constructed to maintain a privileged minority in direct conflict with the interests of the individuals that produce that system's tangible wealth. It wins by using the tentacles of the state for it's own ends; tentacles that are in fact by their very design, open to public involvement in the decision making process.
My original point was about how gov't intervention in the health care market has created skyrocketing costs. In a market free of such control people can buy and sell services as they please. But when gov't uses force to create barriers to entry and imposes mandates and such on providers, the consumers suffer from higher prices and fewer choices.
The answer is more liberty, not less as Chomsky advocates.
The abolition of slavery in 1865 was one of the most severe intrusions of government into the marketplace by all of the standards you just provided. Would you argue for less regulation in regards to owning slaves, as this would certainly increase choices in the marketplace and, of course, lower prices.
The point being made is how do you draw the line? You want complete liberty in the marketplace with no restrictions? Then follow your premise through to the end. It is not unbelievable. It is the historical fact that the capitalist system has enslaved human beings through labour and consumption. I think we are done here. Thank you for your time brother.
Not really. So why is that the US consistently ranks below most western industrialized nations in terms of health care, yet the health care industry is less regulated than say Germany?
I dont understand why our form of state control vis-a-vis health care, results in poorer standards than our western counterparts, yet we have a less regulated system than say Germany for example. Are ALL state control devices , rules and regulations bad?
I don't know about Germany specifically or what "poorer standards" means with respect to their state run system. What exactly do you mean?
"Are ALL state control devices , rules and regulations bad?"
Of course! Because they restrain our liberties and prevent us from acting on our own. And on the economic level, it creates a cartelized system which is essentially a monopoly.
Monopolies raise prices and reduce quality because people have no choice but to buy the monopolists' services.
Christ almighty do you live under a rock?? The lesser/lower/poorer standards and results are ours, when compared with other western industrialized countries. Other western industrialized countries (Germany as an example and a cultural peer) have BETTER health care systems with MORE governmental regulatory devices than we do. Following your idealogical opinions they should have a WORSE health care system than we do. But they dont. Explain.
Writing "BETTER" doesn't tell me what you mean. You might think that gulags are better than beachfront condos. How the hell do I know? That's why I asked the question. I even said, "what exactly do you mean".
I geuss we do! So..I'm supposed to prove something to you. Admittedly there isnt one single reason you need to take my word for anything. SO... What do you need to know? Better? Will WHO ranking be enough? Infant mortality rates? Percentage of insured? Longevity? What?
The US health care system is heavily regulated, I doubt anyone are a proponent of the current US HC-system, people are in favour of a non-regulated health care market, i.e. service providers and customers coming to an agreement among themselves without bringing the government into the equation.
Fascism is when private hands become the biggest institution in a country, stronger than the laws and the will of the majority of people. This is what I see happens in the US and in many countries influenced by it. Fascism is not necessarily communism, in fact it has little to do with it, fascism is when you have state capitalism and that has little to do with socialism. If you mention Islamism, you can also mention Christianity and Judaism. Collectivism is why roads, highways, etc are built.
A scarcity of doctors is at least one reason the cost of health care is steadily climbing in the United States. If more sellers were able to "rush in to take market share by offering lower prices", then health care would be more effectively marketed by the forces of supply and demand. But by restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians, giving its members monopoly power to charge above-market prices.
Absolutely. You have barriers to entry on the supply side and then you have the gov't creating a situation on the demand side where the high costs are subsidized by transfer payments via the entitlement programs and mandates for insurance coverage, etc.
The gov't now pays about half of all medical costs I think. Insurance probably pays a significant portion of the other half. Therefore the buyers and sellers don't even relate to each other economically most of the time. It's really messed up.
Your critique is a standard argument in favor of single payer health care, which extends Medicare "entitlements" to every US citizen regardless of age or income, eradicates the financial interference of insurance corporations, and restores the direct relationship between buyers and sellers. By injecting the system with needed purchasing power, single payer also facilitates increased entry of new health care professionals and fosters competition, where the "free market" has historically failed.
How is the critique of a rigged market an "argument in favor of single payer"? It's a refutation of it.
You are contradicting yourself when you mention "purchasing power" and "direct relationship between buyers and sellers" and "fosters competition" within the context of a monopoly of force.
You need to understand that "single payer" is a euphemism for coercion. Do you understand that? It's the very opposite of a free market. That's why it's bad in the first place. I thought you agreed.
Any market that can be "rigged" is a market failure. Since it inherently doesn't respond to the "free market" signals of supply and demand to establish price, health care is easily impacted by artificial forces. The Office of Health Economics provides an indepth analysis of why health care is a market failure:
oheschools:
Economics of health care
Please explain who is coerced and what is monopolized by democratic control of public utilities like health care, police and fire departments.
Assuming you don't, let's say that you are a carpenter and you would like to build houses in order to make a living. As long as you and other builders are free to build and buyers are free to hire you to build, there is a free market.
Now if a gang comes to town and says that only people who pay $50,000 for a license to build can build, then the prices of houses will go up while potential builders will be shut out since they can't afford the bribe.
From your perspective, "free" means laissez-faire, or no intervention, which presupposes conditions of perfect competition that health care inherently fails to meet. Since its demand curve is not downward sloping, the market will never reach equilibrium price without intervention. So the question is not whether intervention is needed, but what kind of intervention is most appropriate; profit-driven insurance agencies or nonprofit government agencies? This brings us back to my previous question.
You sent me utterly absurd contradictions. You are claiming that coercive monopolies are better than free markets. You ask me who will be a better controller for your coercive medical dictatorship as if that's even a legitimate question.
I don't know. I guess it depends on what the punishments are for free people exchanging health services. If monopoly A puts you in jail for 5 years for hiring a doctor, that's probably better than monopoly B who punishes by execution.
I have suggested that democratic control is better than private control of public utilities, and that "free markets" exist primarily in theory under real-world conditions of wage-slavery.
Meanwhile, I asked you a direct question about your own claims which you have twice evaded. Duck it again, and this discussion is over.
Please explain who is coerced and what is monopolized by democratic control of public utilities like health care, police and fire departments.
I have no idea since, for you, "coerced" probably means "to have lovely flowers strewn about one's feet."
Since your definition of "freedom" is control and your definition of "market" is monopoly. perhaps you should consult Orwell in order to find you a proper definition of "coercion," comrade. He understood you people. I don't.
"I have no idea" is obviously not an answer to my question, and neither is putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. Once again, if that's the best argument you can summon, then you obviously have a lot of homework to do. Meanwhile, as promised, our discussion is now over. Best wishes and good day.
What is democratic control, is it 10 % of the population calling the shots, or 20 %, or 30 %, or 40 %, or 50 %, or 60 %, or 70 %, or 80 %, or 90 %, or 100 % of the population calling the shots, and is it unanimous? I.e. who will be in power, who control the money system, will it be one centrally planned money system, will it be one centrally planned health care system, will the democratic authority have the right to initiate violence on behalf of the common good/majority(whatever that means)?
What do you mean by; perfect competition that health care inherently fails to meet?
What kind of health care is necessary?
Who decides what is necessary, the majority/special interests/individual?
Who will call the shots, when profit-driven insurance agencies or nonprofit government agencies call the shots, will the former have the right to initiate violence, like the latter usually does(I`m not refering to the profit-driven insurance agencies as fascist government backed, but private)?
what is your point? i'm assuming you are saying that since it didn't show up in search that it must not exist and if it doesn't exist chomsky is wrong and if chomsky is wrong free market fundamentalism is still the perfect utopia for all of us naturally self interested individuals, no?
Sounds like a more like a description then the actual name of the group. "National Council - Co-chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and composed of leading citizens, the National Council draws on members' deep understanding of UN issues to bolster the nationwide advocacy and outreach of UNA-USA." If that is not good enough go on Znet and ask him about it.
New Zealand also has a highly free market system incorporated into its economy , and it doesn't have a high prison population. capitalism->high prison population=fail
We should post links to these on all Ron Paul videos =). If for nothing else, then to piss them off =). I used to be a libertarian (it was a fad, for a month or two), until I went back to liberal capitalism, and then I started reading Marx. Which I recommend to everyone. If nothing else, then from wikipedia. It's a good start to socialism of any sort. And puts capitalism in a new perspective; I actually found it combines neatly with what I knew from liberals or libertarians, like Hayek.
Prison population is UP because of the draconian drug laws in the United states. Do a quick google search and you will find that half the people in prison are because of drug related crimes. A true proponent of laissez faire capitalism want for people to be able to freely be able to consume any drug they desire and be able to sell any drug to whomever they wish too. Capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with the prison population.
It's prison capitalism that has created such a huge prison population. The prison guards unions was the second biggest contributor to Schwarzennegers election. The USA has a 10 times higher prison population then Japan per million citizens. By the way: Holland is a capitalist country and soft drugs are legal and less people consume soft drugs there then in the USA.
I told you why the US has such a high prison population. And I am not against the legalization of drugs. I was only arguing that capitalism has nothing to do with the high prison population we have in this country, Like mr. Chomsky seems to be implying that their is a causation; hell, their isn't even a correlation. New Zealand and Luxember don't have a high prison population and their economy is more capitalistic than ours
the population of New Zealand and Luxemberg together isn't even 5 million people. There are more people in the state of Maryland than those two combined. thus your statement is retarded.
To use your words, there isn't even a correlation.
The Laws of Supply & Demand have been empirically proven and one of the founding Principles is that of Self-Interest. They are natural laws like gravity. Attempt to deny gravity, jump off a cliff you still die. Same for Laws of Supply & Demand. Humans are born a capitalists, self-interest is why we took our first breath. Self-interest motivates humans to drink water rather then die of thirst. DECEPTION IS MENTAL KRYPTONITE, it never allows identifying CORRUPTION as the true problem.
Yes, "corporations" have influence over governements simply because people want governements. Left and right, both extremes, they ALL want governements, which plays right into the hands of poeple you're talking about.
Doesnt that kind of kill the whole idea of anarchism if everyone wants governments? I completely disagree with this reactionary statement. I've already stated as to what I believe people all want, which is attainable without governments.
"Doesnt that kind of kill the whole idea of anarchism if everyone wants governments? I completely disagree with this reactionary statement. I've already stated as to what I believe people all want, which is attainable without governments."
Doesn't really kill the idea, but yeah, shows people aren't ready for it just about now. But if you think you can convince people that private property is bad therefore changing their moral values without involving governement policies, more power to you.
And apparently you don't believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that there are corporations who profit from war or disasters--purposefully, or if they do, once the governments that fine them for doing such will disappear, corporations will magically stop doing it.
Why yes, many business profit from war. But tell me about a war that wasn't financed by taxpayers money. Basically, the Lockheed Martins, BAE, Raytheon's of this world are just governement front companies; wouldn't exist without taxation. Or if they would, they'd produce something that you and I actually would be interested in buying.
I dont disagree with this. But the thing is is that war in first place is caused by the accumulation of private property. As dictionary(dot)com describes competition: "rivalry between two or more persons or groups for an object desired in common, usually resulting in a victor and a loser but not necessarily involving the destruction of the latter." Find me a war that doesn't fit this mold.
You're not going to get an argument from me rationalizing war. But what I look at, is the enabling element. To wage a war, governements needs to confiscate, steal and destroy lots of private property. If private property is causing wars, why is there plenty of it destroyed by design in all wars ?
I never said anything about rationalizing war, what I said was to find me a war that wasn't fought over private property. And to answer your question, governments don't need ever last inch of the globe to be accumulated or destroyed because wars arent fought over every inch of the earth (i.e. my backyard).
Wars are fought for private property, but not as the endgame strategic goal. Wars are created to transfer wealth (taxes) from people's pocket (you and me) to others.
So basically what you are suggesting is; to hell with private property and leave governements in place ?
So Hitler's invasion of Poland was all about taxes eh? And I've already stated I'm an anarchist, and yes private property is theft (not personal property).
"So Hitler's invasion of Poland was all about taxes eh?"
I'm sure it partly was in the game plan. After all, Hitler needed people in foreign countries to work for Germany's national socialism. The only theft I can think of is when someone doesn't get what is stated on a contract, or when extortion trough violence is involved.
As an anarcho-capitalist, I somewhat agree with Chomsky on some parts of this essay.
He's not really dissing free market, he's saying the world isn't one. Which is right on target.
His definition of libertarians is somewhat wrong though. You can't have subsidies with real libertarianism since you don't have taxes in the first place.
He doesnt define libertarians as such, he is subtly mocking the politician for running as a libertarian and then proceeding to engage in the practice of subsidization of private industry. He is well aware of the tenets of libertarianism, its a joke.
Corporations are protected by the nanny state, and they like it that way, all these economists and such talking of "free markets" are just PR campaigns to make you believe this is the final stage of societal development. And anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion is the most utopian idea, even more so than Leninism. I agree with Chomsky in that if things like anarcho-capitalism were enacted it would wreak havoc on the world.
I'm an anarchist, as it has been classically understood to be (meaning on the libertarian left.) And there has been moves toward socialism in the past and all thats all they were: capitalism (i.e. Leninism--Bolshevism). Capitalism is just as coercive as the state, and both by nature form a pyramid of hierarchal authority.
That's just typical of left leaning people. They had the product of socialistic policies demonstrated through all the 20th century, yet, will call it something different. It's very common with these people (ie: "There were _some_ problems with the USSR BUT yada yada yada...") Capitalism isn't coercive, I don't recall the last time I've had a gun pointed at my head to buy something, but had guns pointed at it many times so I pay my taxes.
(1 of ) Actually, the current Left Marxists of Lenin's time (Lenin was a right-wing orthodox Marxist) disagreed with his version of socialism (i.e., Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Pannekoek, etc.), in fact Leon Trotsky himself said that Soviet Union was founded on state capitalism, and he agreed with it. Just take a look at this:
(2 of 5) Trotsky's opinion on the basis of communist structure is that the "workers state" in its first steps, cannot yet abide by "[each] according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and that "in order to increase the productive forces, it is necessary to resort to the customary norms of wage payment." Trotsky's use of the term "workers state" implies that the state has acquired [owns] and controls the means of production.
(3 of 5) If the means of production are owned and controlled by the state and it is necessary to "resort to the customary norms of wage payment" it is only logically concluded that Trotsky is referring to state capitalism. This is important to note because of what Trotsky states in the paragraph following his conceptualization of communist structure.
(4 of 5) "Marx named this (Trotsky is referring to the Soviet Union "in its first steps") first state of the new society 'the lowest stage of communism'" and that "the present official Soviet doctrine" reads "we have already achieved socialism--that is, the lowest stage of communism." In other words, Trotsky's claim to adopt wage payment in the workers state (essentially state capitalism) is socialism according to "official Soviet doctrine". He has no objection to this either.
(5 of 5)My conclusion on Trotsky's conception of socialism is from page 34 of the 2004 publication of The Revolution Betrayed published by Dover Publications Inc.
Whatever the flavour of socialism you're talking about, it's all statist violence anyways. And if you think having to sell your labour is a problem, why not become an IntelligentHobbo? :P
It wasn't socialism, as I proved; Trotsky called it state-capitalism--and approved of it--which it was. I'm not defending the Soviet Union anyway. The Bolsheviks crushed the soviets even before the Civil War. You haven't heard any of this because it would undermine the NSC68, which was the basically thee official Cold War doctrine.
The Soviet Union was socialism according to who? A commissar or an American politician? Both claimed that it was; for different ideological reasons, and both were wrong.
And again, there is a gun in a sense; I have no choice but to sell my labor to survive. Anyone who can fight their way out of a paper bag can figure that out.
"Nobody will force you to sell your labour, as long as you don't expect something in return."
So I have 2 choices really: sell labor and live, dont sell labor and dont live. How is that no coercive? Again I got apples and oranges and nothing but fruit.
"sell labor and live, dont sell labor and dont live"
That "coertion" you're talking about is human nature of working for something, for what they deem as worthy private property. The only way you can get rid of it (believe me THAT was tried and failed) is having the governement trying to enforce an anti-private property ideology.
Who says I have to work for something on a competitive basis? Or for what I "deem as worthy private property"? If everyone wants be healthy, have liberty and well-being then why wouldnt people work in cooperation to attain these goals? The answer is because we have different interests; say I want to buy a hat, I want to buy it as cheaply as I can--the capitalist looks to profit as much as he can. Slave societies were also regarded as being the natural human existence, look what happened to them.
Corporations don't need guns to coerce, coercing people by force wont work, thats why public relations industries were started, and thats why you are bombarded every day with propaganda (post-WWI the term was dropped for "advertising"). How can a bureaucracy such as corporations, which naturally exist as a hierarchal, top-down authority not be coercive? And there is a gun in a sense; I have no choice but to sell my labor to survive.
Advertising isn't propaganda. Both are different. Advertising tries to sell you something that you haven't invested in yet, and propaganda is making you believe what the governement extorted from you was good and moral (after the fact that it did). ie: governement takes your taxes, goes to war, then tells you how good it is.
Many ppl confuse hillbilly with redneck, not the same type of person, hillbillies and rednecks, in alot of ways. Not the same. Same goes with southern and counrty.
DystopianEmpire01 9 months ago
I love how he slams hillbilly thinking. Truly I do.
KraussHelmut 10 months ago
"Watch out for the word REFORM---it's a change you're supposed to like." Indeed the word goes back to the first Euro-colonists, the Puritans, who were "reforming" everything life-loving out of English culture and promised to "reform" the Irish and American Indians until they "progressed" into worshipping property and the Bible. ANCIENT LIGHTS dot o-r-g
37Dionysos 10 months ago
@37Dionysos
Great point.
We all know how welfare 'reform' and even health care 'reform' are turning out.
Another word to watch out for is 'Modernization.'
thirdshift47 10 months ago
Reagan is a shame to our country. He kisses the ass of rich people and screws the poor
neonaction 11 months ago 8
@neonaction Unfortunately, you can't really blame Reagan. Chances are, he didn't even know what half of the policies he was enacting were. It's the administration that's really at fault. Reagan literally was a trained actor, and a terrible one at that.
joezuu 4 months ago
@joezuu So you can't blame Mao and Stalin then right? Cause in reality Mao and Stalin didn't really know all the policies as well, they can't possibly know- they managed like half the world's land mass and population.
Mao and Stalin are great actors as well.
neonaction 3 months ago
US has the highest prison population in the World, 50% higher than China (who have 3 times the population).
pvisserandorra 1 year ago 4
To all Chomsky fans.
the REAL libertarians are of the Frederick Bastiat kind. yes, the left were the true libertarians, but they were for Laissez-faire CAPITALISM and minimal to no government!
please read 'The Law'. it is only 52 pages long and written in 1850.
However, seeing as many are lazy, please read
w w w . fff . org / freedom / fd0706b . asp
(copy to URL and delete the spaces)
if Bastiat were alive, he'd certainly be an Austrian economist
CytherLynx 1 year ago
there are no problems, only solutions
mntlPurple 1 year ago
@nomis101uk I agree with you, but then again 'why' will always be an open question. As long as we can come to some certain agreement on 'what' is happening, then we can begin to start making the right decisions for ourselves.
talgkjertel 1 year ago
I think Chomsky's analysis of WHAT's happening in our society is almost always accurate, but sometimes when he throws out the WHY, I start scratching my head. For instance: on putting people in prison. He comes out with accurate facts about crime levels and jail population which makes a point in itself. But then, with absolutely nothing to back him up, just comes out and says 'its cos "they" want to get rid of the useless people'. I wish he would back up these kinds of "why's" with evidence.
nomis101uk 1 year ago
@nomis101uk There is plenty of evidence. The fact that the rich just don't want to fulfill their end of the social contract is evidence. The fact that we have to even argue the existence of the welfare state is evidence. The fact that the bourgeoisie come up with all kinds of BS reasons and distort human nature to justify their vulgar economics is evidence.... Does Chomsky have to think for you too? lol
Tougemaster06 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06
I don't quite understand what your reply has to do with my comment. I was simply stating that, if you're going to say something as extraordinary as "there's a high prison population because the elite wants to get rid of useless people", then you need to actually produce real evidence if you expect anyone to believe it; because such a statement implies design - A particular causation for which evidence should exist if it were real.
nomis101uk 1 year ago
@nomis101uk --> Well, you are asking for too much, because it is common knowledge that legislation always carries a nominal veneer of STATED purpose, which conceals lobby motives. YOU KNOW THIS. Neo-cons and other conservatives are traditionally authoritarian, and so it is reasonable to psychoanalyze their lobby, i.e. to dig into their motives to guess intelligently at their intentions with regard to elements in society that are not authoritarian. Yes they are capable of demonizing sectors.
johnuio 1 year ago
@johnuio
Expecting evidence is to much to ask? Well unfortunately I prefer to base my beliefs on evidence. The reality is that often in politics the stated motives ARE the real motives. This occurs when there is no need for concealment. So in this instance the stated motives are entirely consistant with the zero-tolerence, "tough-on-crime" ethos that the RIght has and prefers to rehab and social justice approaches. All other explanations are surplus to requirement and unsupported by evidence.
nomis101uk 1 year ago
@nomis101uk --> Fair enough. I agree that pure conspiracy paranoia is unwise, but political blocs should be scrutinized at least enough to dissuade or mitigate self serving PR. You may be right that stated purposes are often real. But a discerning public cannot rely on that. Finally, it's entirely possible that Chomsky crosses the line by attributing to hypothetical motives too much from the outcomes. That would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy without further justification.
johnuio 1 year ago
@johnuio I'm simply applying Occam's razor here
nomis101uk 1 year ago
@nomis101uk --> Sorry not that fallacy, but the fallacy of attributing specific intentions to a party on the basis of the results. The reason I give Chomsky leeway on that interpretation of neo-cons is because their anti-crime and other "tough love" policies have the direct and obvious effect of severely marginalizing/alienating social dissidents and outsiders. The related ambiance of elitist hyper competitiveness, in the business world, is infectious and very authoritarian, fear-generating.
johnuio 1 year ago
Personally I like to call the so-called "free-market" by what is really is "MARKET FASCISM" great video :)
alternatehistorypt 1 year ago
3:20 Raising children isn't work...figuring out scams for investment firms is. Classic.
pazusheeta 1 year ago
@pazusheeta
i.ro.ny
1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect
comrademessenger 1 year ago
@comrademessenger
Yes...I was praising his use of it.
pazusheeta 1 year ago
so if these are free market fantasies (of which i agree) and examples of the power of "private" tyrannies (power derived from the state) - when does Noam talk about the truth of free markets and the true definition of "private" means?
thisisbunk 1 year ago
If you eliminate all regulations to business, that's great for the business, not for the people, it can mean they can get raped, whereas when the government instead protects the people,then teabaggers get enraged by it. This is called masochism.
@nammoo: Can you at least LISTEN to this video and all parts and actually ASSIMILIATE what Chomsky is saying instead of just arguing without counterarguments to what is being said, for the sake of arguing?
libertits 2 years ago
It cuts both ways, regulation doesn`t just control business, it enables business to control consumers(for instance the state confiscates the fruits of the citizens labor, so that products can be bought from the business sector for the "common good")/competition(licenses/state endorsed monopolies etc). So my point is that it would be better with a society where no one can use the governments right to/monopoly on initiating violence/coercion etc, i.e. that the governments only job, should be to
nammoo89 2 years ago
Continuation!
...intervene when someone initiates violoence/force upon someone else, in order to force their will upon their victims.
I`m not commenting on what Chomsky is saying, I`m commenting on the comments!
nammoo89 2 years ago
Comment removed
libertits 2 years ago
There seems to be some misunderstanding here about Chomsky's intent. Whether the state controls industry (as in China and the old USSR) or industry controls the state (as in the USA), democracy is severely compromised when people become passive spectators rather than active participants in the decisions that most deeply affect their lives. Thus, Noam Chomsky urges us to question and challenge any sort of power or authority structure rather than arbitrarily yielding to it with passive consent.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
"Noam Chomsky urges us to question and challenge any sort of power or authority structure rather than arbitrarily yielding to it with passive consent. "
Good. That's exactly why I oppose Chomsky.
He supports state control of our lives through a medical dictatorship.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
The problem with people like you is that you would question any sort of authority structure as long as it exclusively refers to government or public ones, but you don't question institutions that are not necessarily part of the government that are are stronger than the laws(who control the laws and lawmaking process because of this unlimited concentration of power, that enables them to buy decisions) and the nation itself, and you give consent to a small group of businessmen.
libertits 2 years ago
You don't know me at all, and what you are saying about me is totally false.
Chomsky is every bit as evil for advocating control of my life as is Big Pharma for buying politicians as are politicians for writing laws as are those bureaucrats and officers who enforce the unjust laws.
I never gave my consent to the state nor to those who rig markets via the state. But "the problem with people like you" is that you can't be bothered either to make proper distinctions or reasoned arguments.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Facism is not laissez-faire capitalism, how does corporations gain power without the aid of the government, and when they are at the mercy of the consumer?
nammoo89 2 years ago
So, the least you can admit is that as long as there is government, no matter how reduced it is, companies will always be granted subsidies.
Laissez-faire capitalism only makes it possible for countries to become banana republics. I tell you from my own experience.
Seeing Rumsfeld and his Big Pharma, amongst so many others controlling US policies, I think US is a banana republic too ;)
libertits 2 years ago
What subsidies are you refering to?
If a banana republic means a society which is not based on the initiation of violence/coercion etc, I`ll support it! Why is that bad thing?
nammoo89 2 years ago
Why can`t people take active part in cooperating with eachother, independantly of people who are not taking part in that particular transaction, i.e. only the ones taking part in the transaction, take an active part?
nammoo89 2 years ago
Chomsky critiques the state and calls it "capitalism" and "free market". Unreal.
I'm going to critique Hitler and call him Chomsky. That's how the principle works, right? You talk about one thing but call it something else? I got it. I'm a quick learner.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Perfect competition is a fundamental prerequisite for any "free market" which is conspicuously missing from the monopoly conditions of global capitalism. Chomsky's extensively researched and typically well cited critique suggests that the state tends to be a coercive instrument in the maintenance and advancement of those dysfunctional conditions.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
Chomsky repeatedly blames the "free market" for actions of the state.
He also claims in one video clip that the reason health care costs are high is because services are privately provided, which is completely false.
I don't believe he is so ignorant of economics and the nature of the state. I think, rather, that he says whatever will further his own agenda, which seems to be communism.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Chomsky actually considers himself an anarcho-syndicalist, not a communist. Meanwhile, the market forces of supply and demand fail to establish either price or quantity for health care because demand is price-inelastic. In other words, sellers control the price absolutely and buyers have little or no choice but to engage. Thus, health care professionals draw greater incomes by forcing more and more consumers out of the market while charging higher prices to those who are able and willing to pay.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
What Chomsky considers himself and what he is are two different things. He advocates for big gov't, so that tells me what he really is.
And do you even realize what you're saying about the cost of health care? Which "market forces" allow sellers to control prices?
If buyers of a product demand it even when the price is so high, then why don't other sellers rush in to take market share by offering lower prices?
Answer that correctly and you will never listen to people like Chomsky again.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Government protects the market from you,
You protect the market from the government,
the market wins,
and you sound pissed.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
@AndicaStall
What???
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Government protects the market from you/interests of the commons=
tax cuts for the most wealthy individuals, subsidies to the most powerful and profitable businesses, deregulation that undermines the possibility of fair trade and free exchange, the development of technology in the state sector (publicly funded) which is sold to private entities, and let us also make note of the billions of dollars in public wealth (tax revenue) that was just last year given to the wealthiest banks in the world.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
I don't understand how what you are saying relates to me nor to the fact that the state is an evil and corrupt institution which denies human rights, takes our liberties, drives up costs, and creates conflict.
Are you agreeing with me or challenging me?
Please state exactly what you are challenging me about if that is what you are trying to get across because I don't understand what "you" (meaning me?) means in this context. I have nothing to do with the gov't and don't support it.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Do you pay taxes? I assume you do, and if so that is involvement in government wether you agree with it or not.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Do you pay taxes? I assume you do, and if so that is involvement in government wether you agree with it or not. "
Another example of flawless logic there. And if I were beheaded by a gang of escaped homicidal maniacs, that would prove my involvement with homicidal maniacs whether I wanted to get beheaded or not.
Ok, I see where you're going with this. Now what's the next step in your argument?
1) Market = Oppression
2) I am "involved with" the gov't.
3) ???
What's the punchline, genius?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
You protect the market from the government=
Your fear of big government is played upon to slander the notion that democracy is a powerful tool against the destructive narrow interests of the economic elites. Democratic participation in government is a tantamount fear of the ruling class. It becomes evident that there is much to gain by convincing people that the only tyranny in the world is taxes and that participating in government is a waste of time.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
So here you are arguing for big gov't? And democracy too? You are not against ruling others by force? You think mob rule is "a powerful tool"? So you're a statist then, right?
Can you tell me whether you are trying to defend what you think Chomsky's views are or your own?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
I believe in any complex industrial society, organization is an obvious requirement for its basic functioning and problem solving. I reject the idea that people need to be forced at all to look out for their common interests. That's actually rather instinctual.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
The market wins=
The market has deflected massive amounts of public animosity & outrage and successfully diverted that anger to the political sphere, which is inherently defective because it can be affected by popular movements and democratic participation— you have witnessed a wonderfully executed diversionary tactic of the economic elites to redirect popular disposition away from themselves. A brilliant maneuver I will be the first to admit.
I welcome your thoughts and criticisms brother.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
"The market wins="
Which market?
How does "the market" win?
You seem to be claiming that the market
is whoever is given a monopoly by the state?
You seem to be following Chomsky by calling things by different names than what they are. I'm afraid if you do that you will not gain any insight into anything. You should start off by being clear, accurate, and honest. Otherwise, the rest of what you say is confused and very misleading to say the least!
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
By market I am referring to an oppressive system of economic exchange and it's brokers. I am referring to the industrial capitalist market. I am claiming that the market is constructed to maintain a privileged minority in direct conflict with the interests of the individuals that produce that system's tangible wealth. It wins by using the tentacles of the state for it's own ends; tentacles that are in fact by their very design, open to public involvement in the decision making process.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
"By market I am referring to an oppressive system of economic exchange"
Well there's your problem right there.
Please consult a dictionary.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
I wasn't referring to the dictionary. I was referring to what I had written. Please consult my post.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
I did consult your post. I quoted you. You defined market as "an oppressive system of economic exchange."
That is not what market means.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Enlighten me brother.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
My original point was about how gov't intervention in the health care market has created skyrocketing costs. In a market free of such control people can buy and sell services as they please. But when gov't uses force to create barriers to entry and imposes mandates and such on providers, the consumers suffer from higher prices and fewer choices.
The answer is more liberty, not less as Chomsky advocates.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
The abolition of slavery in 1865 was one of the most severe intrusions of government into the marketplace by all of the standards you just provided. Would you argue for less regulation in regards to owning slaves, as this would certainly increase choices in the marketplace and, of course, lower prices.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
??????????????????????????????????????????
AndicaStall 2 years ago
"Would you argue for less regulation in regards to owning slaves"
Unbelievable.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
The point being made is how do you draw the line? You want complete liberty in the marketplace with no restrictions? Then follow your premise through to the end. It is not unbelievable. It is the historical fact that the capitalist system has enslaved human beings through labour and consumption. I think we are done here. Thank you for your time brother.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
Where is this perfect market in regards to health care? Can you point to a nation?
mrktwn 2 years ago
There is none because the state controls our lives and doesn't allow us to trade freely.
Understand?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Not really. So why is that the US consistently ranks below most western industrialized nations in terms of health care, yet the health care industry is less regulated than say Germany?
mrktwn 2 years ago
What don't you understand about state control?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
If the state controls our lives then who controls the state? Please don't answer with another question.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
your a funny.
AndicaStall 2 years ago
Just answer my question.
mrktwn 2 years ago
I dont understand why our form of state control vis-a-vis health care, results in poorer standards than our western counterparts, yet we have a less regulated system than say Germany for example. Are ALL state control devices , rules and regulations bad?
mrktwn 2 years ago
I don't know about Germany specifically or what "poorer standards" means with respect to their state run system. What exactly do you mean?
"Are ALL state control devices , rules and regulations bad?"
Of course! Because they restrain our liberties and prevent us from acting on our own. And on the economic level, it creates a cartelized system which is essentially a monopoly.
Monopolies raise prices and reduce quality because people have no choice but to buy the monopolists' services.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Christ almighty do you live under a rock?? The lesser/lower/poorer standards and results are ours, when compared with other western industrialized countries. Other western industrialized countries (Germany as an example and a cultural peer) have BETTER health care systems with MORE governmental regulatory devices than we do. Following your idealogical opinions they should have a WORSE health care system than we do. But they dont. Explain.
mrktwn 2 years ago
I asked you what you meant. You didn't tell me.
Writing "BETTER" doesn't tell me what you mean. You might think that gulags are better than beachfront condos. How the hell do I know? That's why I asked the question. I even said, "what exactly do you mean".
Do we need an interpreter?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
I geuss we do! So..I'm supposed to prove something to you. Admittedly there isnt one single reason you need to take my word for anything. SO... What do you need to know? Better? Will WHO ranking be enough? Infant mortality rates? Percentage of insured? Longevity? What?
mrktwn 2 years ago
The common good, is that`s the basis, any means allowed if it benefits the common good?
nammoo89 2 years ago
The US health care system is heavily regulated, I doubt anyone are a proponent of the current US HC-system, people are in favour of a non-regulated health care market, i.e. service providers and customers coming to an agreement among themselves without bringing the government into the equation.
nammoo89 2 years ago
@nammoo89 I'm in favour of a health care system where providers and customers come to an agreement without bringing private actors into the equation
grantorgeir 1 year ago
And the state restrains the liberty of people to own slaves. What a grotesque infringement on personal liberty!
AndicaStall 2 years ago
Yes, fascism/socialism/communism/nazism/social democracy/liberal democracy/islamism/maoism/collectivism etc is all bad!!!
nammoo89 2 years ago
Fascism is when private hands become the biggest institution in a country, stronger than the laws and the will of the majority of people. This is what I see happens in the US and in many countries influenced by it. Fascism is not necessarily communism, in fact it has little to do with it, fascism is when you have state capitalism and that has little to do with socialism. If you mention Islamism, you can also mention Christianity and Judaism. Collectivism is why roads, highways, etc are built.
libertits 2 years ago
Mussolini said that fascism is the complete opposite of marxian socialism.
P.S I hate youtube's new setup
Bellantoni 1 year ago
Mussolini said that fascism is the complete opposite of marxian socialism.
P.S I hate youtube's new setup
Bellantoni 1 year ago
Mussolini said that fascism is the complete opposite of marxian socialism.
P.S I hate youtube's new setup
Bellantoni 1 year ago
Mussolini said that fascism is the complete opposite of marxian socialism.
P.S I hate youtube's new setup
Bellantoni 1 year ago
Mussolini said that fascism is the complete opposite of marxian socialism.
P.S I hate youtube's new setup
Bellantoni 1 year ago
Mussolini said that fascism is the complete opposite of marxian socialism.
P.S I hate youtube's new setup
Bellantoni 1 year ago
@nammoo89
But a corporatist polyarchy is good? I am confused.
littleumbrellas37 2 years ago
No. libertarianism etc. small government is good.
nammoo89 2 years ago
revolution on the horizon brothers. get smart!
AndicaStall 2 years ago
Why can`t individuals cooperate independant of the government or other people not taking part in the transaction?
nammoo89 2 years ago
A scarcity of doctors is at least one reason the cost of health care is steadily climbing in the United States. If more sellers were able to "rush in to take market share by offering lower prices", then health care would be more effectively marketed by the forces of supply and demand. But by restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians, giving its members monopoly power to charge above-market prices.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
Absolutely. You have barriers to entry on the supply side and then you have the gov't creating a situation on the demand side where the high costs are subsidized by transfer payments via the entitlement programs and mandates for insurance coverage, etc.
The gov't now pays about half of all medical costs I think. Insurance probably pays a significant portion of the other half. Therefore the buyers and sellers don't even relate to each other economically most of the time. It's really messed up.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Your critique is a standard argument in favor of single payer health care, which extends Medicare "entitlements" to every US citizen regardless of age or income, eradicates the financial interference of insurance corporations, and restores the direct relationship between buyers and sellers. By injecting the system with needed purchasing power, single payer also facilitates increased entry of new health care professionals and fosters competition, where the "free market" has historically failed.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
How is the critique of a rigged market an "argument in favor of single payer"? It's a refutation of it.
You are contradicting yourself when you mention "purchasing power" and "direct relationship between buyers and sellers" and "fosters competition" within the context of a monopoly of force.
You need to understand that "single payer" is a euphemism for coercion. Do you understand that? It's the very opposite of a free market. That's why it's bad in the first place. I thought you agreed.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Any market that can be "rigged" is a market failure. Since it inherently doesn't respond to the "free market" signals of supply and demand to establish price, health care is easily impacted by artificial forces. The Office of Health Economics provides an indepth analysis of why health care is a market failure:
oheschools:
Economics of health care
Please explain who is coerced and what is monopolized by democratic control of public utilities like health care, police and fire departments.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
Do you understand what the word "free" means?
Assuming you don't, let's say that you are a carpenter and you would like to build houses in order to make a living. As long as you and other builders are free to build and buyers are free to hire you to build, there is a free market.
Now if a gang comes to town and says that only people who pay $50,000 for a license to build can build, then the prices of houses will go up while potential builders will be shut out since they can't afford the bribe.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
From your perspective, "free" means laissez-faire, or no intervention, which presupposes conditions of perfect competition that health care inherently fails to meet. Since its demand curve is not downward sloping, the market will never reach equilibrium price without intervention. So the question is not whether intervention is needed, but what kind of intervention is most appropriate; profit-driven insurance agencies or nonprofit government agencies? This brings us back to my previous question.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
WTF?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
"WTF" isn't an argument, genius. Go do your homework, and stop blowing smoke all over the place.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
You sent me utterly absurd contradictions. You are claiming that coercive monopolies are better than free markets. You ask me who will be a better controller for your coercive medical dictatorship as if that's even a legitimate question.
I don't know. I guess it depends on what the punishments are for free people exchanging health services. If monopoly A puts you in jail for 5 years for hiring a doctor, that's probably better than monopoly B who punishes by execution.
Wouldn't you agree?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Wrong again.
I have suggested that democratic control is better than private control of public utilities, and that "free markets" exist primarily in theory under real-world conditions of wage-slavery.
Meanwhile, I asked you a direct question about your own claims which you have twice evaded. Duck it again, and this discussion is over.
Please explain who is coerced and what is monopolized by democratic control of public utilities like health care, police and fire departments.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
Who is coerced?
I have no idea since, for you, "coerced" probably means "to have lovely flowers strewn about one's feet."
Since your definition of "freedom" is control and your definition of "market" is monopoly. perhaps you should consult Orwell in order to find you a proper definition of "coercion," comrade. He understood you people. I don't.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
"I have no idea" is obviously not an answer to my question, and neither is putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. Once again, if that's the best argument you can summon, then you obviously have a lot of homework to do. Meanwhile, as promised, our discussion is now over. Best wishes and good day.
davidlkendall 2 years ago
If you don't understand what coercion is and have to ask why a monopoly instituted by force is coercion, then what do you expect from me?
I'm supposed to play your stupid game and listen to you tell me that a group of people controlling doctors and patients by force is not coercion?
If you're not playing a game then you're simply irrational. In either case, discussion is not possible.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
What is democratic control, is it 10 % of the population calling the shots, or 20 %, or 30 %, or 40 %, or 50 %, or 60 %, or 70 %, or 80 %, or 90 %, or 100 % of the population calling the shots, and is it unanimous? I.e. who will be in power, who control the money system, will it be one centrally planned money system, will it be one centrally planned health care system, will the democratic authority have the right to initiate violence on behalf of the common good/majority(whatever that means)?
nammoo89 2 years ago
What do you mean by; perfect competition that health care inherently fails to meet?
What kind of health care is necessary?
Who decides what is necessary, the majority/special interests/individual?
Who will call the shots, when profit-driven insurance agencies or nonprofit government agencies call the shots, will the former have the right to initiate violence, like the latter usually does(I`m not refering to the profit-driven insurance agencies as fascist government backed, but private)?
nammoo89 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What do you mean by "rigged"?
Why doesn`t health care respond to supply and demand to establish price?
nammoo89 2 years ago
So how would they do that under laissez-faire capitalism, limit the eduacation of MDs??
nammoo89 2 years ago
where did he get the info about fidelity and raytheon?
loturos 2 years ago
He mentioned the National Bipartisan Leadership Council. Try doing an internet search on them. I found NOTHING.
jadam914 2 years ago
what is your point? i'm assuming you are saying that since it didn't show up in search that it must not exist and if it doesn't exist chomsky is wrong and if chomsky is wrong free market fundamentalism is still the perfect utopia for all of us naturally self interested individuals, no?
jrjones529 2 years ago
Sounds like a more like a description then the actual name of the group. "National Council - Co-chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and composed of leading citizens, the National Council draws on members' deep understanding of UN issues to bolster the nationwide advocacy and outreach of UNA-USA." If that is not good enough go on Znet and ask him about it.
VenomousFrost 2 years ago
New Zealand also has a highly free market system incorporated into its economy , and it doesn't have a high prison population. capitalism->high prison population=fail
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
Are you saying you are now a libertarian socialist now?
terps4eva9 2 years ago 2
We should post links to these on all Ron Paul videos =). If for nothing else, then to piss them off =). I used to be a libertarian (it was a fad, for a month or two), until I went back to liberal capitalism, and then I started reading Marx. Which I recommend to everyone. If nothing else, then from wikipedia. It's a good start to socialism of any sort. And puts capitalism in a new perspective; I actually found it combines neatly with what I knew from liberals or libertarians, like Hayek.
Pussychka 2 years ago 2
The highest prison population in the world is in the USA
Demetrenos 2 years ago
and we're experimenting with privatized prisons.
LothairApoclyane 2 years ago
Since the 80's?
Prison population going up from 1/2 million to 3 million now.
One out of 31 is either in jail on probation or parole.
Demetrenos 2 years ago
Prison population is UP because of the draconian drug laws in the United states. Do a quick google search and you will find that half the people in prison are because of drug related crimes. A true proponent of laissez faire capitalism want for people to be able to freely be able to consume any drug they desire and be able to sell any drug to whomever they wish too. Capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with the prison population.
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
It's prison capitalism that has created such a huge prison population. The prison guards unions was the second biggest contributor to Schwarzennegers election. The USA has a 10 times higher prison population then Japan per million citizens. By the way: Holland is a capitalist country and soft drugs are legal and less people consume soft drugs there then in the USA.
Demetrenos 2 years ago 2
I told you why the US has such a high prison population. And I am not against the legalization of drugs. I was only arguing that capitalism has nothing to do with the high prison population we have in this country, Like mr. Chomsky seems to be implying that their is a causation; hell, their isn't even a correlation. New Zealand and Luxember don't have a high prison population and their economy is more capitalistic than ours
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
It's not black or white. The US capitalism is a more of a predatory Capitalism.
Is China a Communist country? Or something in between? Giving trillion to the bankers.. is this Capitalism? Or socialism for the rich?
Demetrenos 2 years ago
i agree with u capitalism has nothing to do with the prison population in us
but i dun think NC is making that opposite arguement
stirrrrrr 2 years ago
the population of New Zealand and Luxemberg together isn't even 5 million people. There are more people in the state of Maryland than those two combined. thus your statement is retarded.
To use your words, there isn't even a correlation.
fail.
spinner883 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Laws of Supply & Demand have been empirically proven and one of the founding Principles is that of Self-Interest. They are natural laws like gravity. Attempt to deny gravity, jump off a cliff you still die. Same for Laws of Supply & Demand. Humans are born a capitalists, self-interest is why we took our first breath. Self-interest motivates humans to drink water rather then die of thirst. DECEPTION IS MENTAL KRYPTONITE, it never allows identifying CORRUPTION as the true problem.
waketheoblivious 3 years ago
And really to deny that corporations are an influencing power is nonsense. Just as the state is hegemonic, so is the corporation.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago 8
Yes, "corporations" have influence over governements simply because people want governements. Left and right, both extremes, they ALL want governements, which plays right into the hands of poeple you're talking about.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
Doesnt that kind of kill the whole idea of anarchism if everyone wants governments? I completely disagree with this reactionary statement. I've already stated as to what I believe people all want, which is attainable without governments.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
"Doesnt that kind of kill the whole idea of anarchism if everyone wants governments? I completely disagree with this reactionary statement. I've already stated as to what I believe people all want, which is attainable without governments."
Doesn't really kill the idea, but yeah, shows people aren't ready for it just about now. But if you think you can convince people that private property is bad therefore changing their moral values without involving governement policies, more power to you.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
And apparently you don't believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that there are corporations who profit from war or disasters--purposefully, or if they do, once the governments that fine them for doing such will disappear, corporations will magically stop doing it.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
Why yes, many business profit from war. But tell me about a war that wasn't financed by taxpayers money. Basically, the Lockheed Martins, BAE, Raytheon's of this world are just governement front companies; wouldn't exist without taxation. Or if they would, they'd produce something that you and I actually would be interested in buying.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
I dont disagree with this. But the thing is is that war in first place is caused by the accumulation of private property. As dictionary(dot)com describes competition: "rivalry between two or more persons or groups for an object desired in common, usually resulting in a victor and a loser but not necessarily involving the destruction of the latter." Find me a war that doesn't fit this mold.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
You're not going to get an argument from me rationalizing war. But what I look at, is the enabling element. To wage a war, governements needs to confiscate, steal and destroy lots of private property. If private property is causing wars, why is there plenty of it destroyed by design in all wars ?
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
I never said anything about rationalizing war, what I said was to find me a war that wasn't fought over private property. And to answer your question, governments don't need ever last inch of the globe to be accumulated or destroyed because wars arent fought over every inch of the earth (i.e. my backyard).
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
Wars are fought for private property, but not as the endgame strategic goal. Wars are created to transfer wealth (taxes) from people's pocket (you and me) to others.
So basically what you are suggesting is; to hell with private property and leave governements in place ?
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
So Hitler's invasion of Poland was all about taxes eh? And I've already stated I'm an anarchist, and yes private property is theft (not personal property).
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
"So Hitler's invasion of Poland was all about taxes eh?"
I'm sure it partly was in the game plan. After all, Hitler needed people in foreign countries to work for Germany's national socialism. The only theft I can think of is when someone doesn't get what is stated on a contract, or when extortion trough violence is involved.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
As an anarcho-capitalist, I somewhat agree with Chomsky on some parts of this essay.
He's not really dissing free market, he's saying the world isn't one. Which is right on target.
His definition of libertarians is somewhat wrong though. You can't have subsidies with real libertarianism since you don't have taxes in the first place.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
He doesnt define libertarians as such, he is subtly mocking the politician for running as a libertarian and then proceeding to engage in the practice of subsidization of private industry. He is well aware of the tenets of libertarianism, its a joke.
HegelianDialectic 4 years ago
He's saying free markets don't exist because they cant exist.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
as long as peole think governements can offer peace, justice and prosperity, it can't really exist.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
Corporations are protected by the nanny state, and they like it that way, all these economists and such talking of "free markets" are just PR campaigns to make you believe this is the final stage of societal development. And anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion is the most utopian idea, even more so than Leninism. I agree with Chomsky in that if things like anarcho-capitalism were enacted it would wreak havoc on the world.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
like I said, if you and everyone are wed to statist ideas, it sure will end up wrecking havoc.
But in the meantime, lets move towards more socialism and call it capitalism.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
I'm an anarchist, as it has been classically understood to be (meaning on the libertarian left.) And there has been moves toward socialism in the past and all thats all they were: capitalism (i.e. Leninism--Bolshevism). Capitalism is just as coercive as the state, and both by nature form a pyramid of hierarchal authority.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
That's just typical of left leaning people. They had the product of socialistic policies demonstrated through all the 20th century, yet, will call it something different. It's very common with these people (ie: "There were _some_ problems with the USSR BUT yada yada yada...") Capitalism isn't coercive, I don't recall the last time I've had a gun pointed at my head to buy something, but had guns pointed at it many times so I pay my taxes.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
(1 of ) Actually, the current Left Marxists of Lenin's time (Lenin was a right-wing orthodox Marxist) disagreed with his version of socialism (i.e., Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Pannekoek, etc.), in fact Leon Trotsky himself said that Soviet Union was founded on state capitalism, and he agreed with it. Just take a look at this:
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
(2 of 5) Trotsky's opinion on the basis of communist structure is that the "workers state" in its first steps, cannot yet abide by "[each] according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and that "in order to increase the productive forces, it is necessary to resort to the customary norms of wage payment." Trotsky's use of the term "workers state" implies that the state has acquired [owns] and controls the means of production.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
(3 of 5) If the means of production are owned and controlled by the state and it is necessary to "resort to the customary norms of wage payment" it is only logically concluded that Trotsky is referring to state capitalism. This is important to note because of what Trotsky states in the paragraph following his conceptualization of communist structure.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
(4 of 5) "Marx named this (Trotsky is referring to the Soviet Union "in its first steps") first state of the new society 'the lowest stage of communism'" and that "the present official Soviet doctrine" reads "we have already achieved socialism--that is, the lowest stage of communism." In other words, Trotsky's claim to adopt wage payment in the workers state (essentially state capitalism) is socialism according to "official Soviet doctrine". He has no objection to this either.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
(5 of 5)My conclusion on Trotsky's conception of socialism is from page 34 of the 2004 publication of The Revolution Betrayed published by Dover Publications Inc.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
Whatever the flavour of socialism you're talking about, it's all statist violence anyways. And if you think having to sell your labour is a problem, why not become an IntelligentHobbo? :P
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
It wasn't socialism, as I proved; Trotsky called it state-capitalism--and approved of it--which it was. I'm not defending the Soviet Union anyway. The Bolsheviks crushed the soviets even before the Civil War. You haven't heard any of this because it would undermine the NSC68, which was the basically thee official Cold War doctrine.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
It was socialism; all the money and power in the hands of the state. Period.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
The Soviet Union was socialism according to who? A commissar or an American politician? Both claimed that it was; for different ideological reasons, and both were wrong.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
And again, there is a gun in a sense; I have no choice but to sell my labor to survive. Anyone who can fight their way out of a paper bag can figure that out.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
Nobody will force you to sell your labour, as long as you don't expect something in return.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
"Nobody will force you to sell your labour, as long as you don't expect something in return."
So I have 2 choices really: sell labor and live, dont sell labor and dont live. How is that no coercive? Again I got apples and oranges and nothing but fruit.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
"sell labor and live, dont sell labor and dont live"
That "coertion" you're talking about is human nature of working for something, for what they deem as worthy private property. The only way you can get rid of it (believe me THAT was tried and failed) is having the governement trying to enforce an anti-private property ideology.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
Who says I have to work for something on a competitive basis? Or for what I "deem as worthy private property"? If everyone wants be healthy, have liberty and well-being then why wouldnt people work in cooperation to attain these goals? The answer is because we have different interests; say I want to buy a hat, I want to buy it as cheaply as I can--the capitalist looks to profit as much as he can. Slave societies were also regarded as being the natural human existence, look what happened to them.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
Corporations don't need guns to coerce, coercing people by force wont work, thats why public relations industries were started, and thats why you are bombarded every day with propaganda (post-WWI the term was dropped for "advertising"). How can a bureaucracy such as corporations, which naturally exist as a hierarchal, top-down authority not be coercive? And there is a gun in a sense; I have no choice but to sell my labor to survive.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
Advertising isn't propaganda. Both are different. Advertising tries to sell you something that you haven't invested in yet, and propaganda is making you believe what the governement extorted from you was good and moral (after the fact that it did). ie: governement takes your taxes, goes to war, then tells you how good it is.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
thesaurus[dot]reference[dot]com/browse/propaganda
why dont you tell me the first entry for synonym.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
you did not refute my point, and know you can't.
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
which point?
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago
"How can a bureaucracy such as corporations, which naturally exist as a hierarchal, top-down authority not be coercive?"
Do you know of any corporation that forces people to work for itself, or forces investors to invest in ?
StrafingMoose 4 years ago