Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfully framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Common decisions? That does not exist. The closest thing on this planet to have ever formed where a group decides anything without respect to wealth is called a SOVIET.
April 15th is just a shake down of the slaves that mostly don't have anything, the real plundering is when FED churns out trillions, gives it out to the mass murdering corporation perverts, that then buy up all the land, labor & resources for peanuts under the extortion of government thuggery.
@wspol624 He managed to siphon millions from the public trough, directly from the Pentagon which he has called the most evil institution in the world.
I'm sure he doesn't "worry" about money. He charges $12k to speak last I heard. Certainly a bunch of these would quickly dwarf his MIC subsidy, but of course that subsidy does give him the base of support from which to do the traveling radical socialist road show. It's nice to know that a "socialist" can get rich saying "I hate capitalism."
@MillionthUsername What do you mean that he managed to siphon millions from the public trough, directly from the Pentagon. If you're going to make that kind of claim I think that a bit more of an explanation is required.
@DwiteTheSpriteKnight For decades his post at MIT has been subsidized by the Pentagon. He says it's fine for him to feed at the public trough, but not Halliburton, Lockheed, and Blackwater apparently. I haven't figured out how yet, but I'm not a wealthy "socialist" who gets paid big bucks to spew commie rhetoric.
@MillionthUsername It doesn't sound like you're talking about anything illegal or a secret. If the Pentagon is subsidising Chomsky's post at MIT they don't seem to be having any success in getting him to support their outlook. To those who tend to agree with Chomsky's stances on human rights issues etc he is doing good things with money that was never meant to do good in the world. Can you put a figure on his personal wealth? Where does he rank in the US rich list?
@DwiteTheSpriteKnight He's worth millions. Don't know how many and don't care. He richer than most of the "capitalists" he hates who have real jobs. That I know.
Is it illegal to be subsidized by the Pentagon? No. It's just a strange occupation for a so-called "anarchist." It's also hypocritical, but nobody cares about hypocrisy of people they agree with (which makes me wonder what they agree with and why they would agree if they don't care about hypocrisy in said beliefs).
@MillionthUsername If Chomsky is making millions and keeping more of his income than he needs to, to live in reasonable comfort and secure his future then I agree that is hypocritical considering his views on socialism. If you can recommend any books to me so I can research this I will appreciate that a great deal.
@DwiteTheSpriteKnight You can read excerpts from the book Do As I Say (Not As I Do) at google books, IIRC. That's where some of the information comes from.
To my knowledge, he doesn't think he needs to defend anything. There's a disconnect between the things he preaches and how he lives his life.
@MillionthUsername Hopefully that book will shed some light on how his work in linguistics has benefited the military thus far. One article I read today seemed to be saying Chomsky's attempts to convert all human language into a form computers can interpret, if it's grammatically correct, is still far more experimental than useful. That article did say that the military is riding on the results and funding the research though. It sounds he's too rich for his beliefs but not astronomically rich
@MillionthUsername I've now read a few articles about the contradiction between Chomsky's personal wealth, how he acquired some of it and his political views. These articles definitely distort some of what Chomsky says in an effort to discredit him. I don't know why they go to the trouble to do that when their more credible sounding claims about his work in linguistics having aided the US military is enough to suggest he's a hypocrite. I'm still trying to find an unedited defence from Chomsky.
Capitalism is the death of individual development and autonomy. It makes hierarchies in society, via the class system, and in the work place. It also creates societies in which taking advantage of others for profit is perceived as something admirable.
As such it is a malignant and cancerous growth that, like a tick, must be uprooted from the flesh of humankind.
And then stomped on repeatedly.
And then flushed down the toilet, for a more humane social arrangement is needed.
Is he serious?! How can Chomsky call himself an anarchist and not reject taxation? The problem with taxation is not collectivism; there's nothing unlibertarian about collectivism, as long as they are voluntary collectives. The problem with taxation is that it is NOT VOLUNTARY. I don't get to opt our of the system if I don't like how the money is being spent. No anarchist, left or right, should EVER see taxation as anything other than theft.
@xknowledgeisfreex Involuntary Servitude is the definition of chattel enslavement and taxation theft. If no one suffers from taxation robbery why is it that they can not do it voluntarily, darwin?
Anyone that commits robbery should be charged as such, period.
You aren't a servant of the state, if the state is democratic and works for the public good instead of for private interests. Taxes serve the public good and not the enrichment of individual persons. It is not theft.
@xknowledgeisfreex It is not involuntary servitude if a mob you have no control over your own life with votes 52.24% to involuntarily steal your family and burn you alive? I am sure coercive mob rule seems voluntary to a thug progressive, but it is the opposite of Voluntarism by definition.
Anyone that commits coercion should be charged as such, period.
That's not what taxation is. You are mischaracterizing it for your own agenda that is based on imaginary fake problem. It's not that a mob just randomly decides to rob you. Everyone who lives and works in the state pays taxes equally in order to organize society. In the U.S. taxation is legitimized by the constitution, 16th amendment, not arbitrary mob rule. Absolute Voluntarism is impossible, since what people consider to be coercive or not is subjective.
What if you want to join a group, but the group doesn't allow you to join it. Many people would probably see this as "coercive" as well, especially when your own survival depends on that group. You could in principle simply leave the state and go live in a jungle somewhere so that you don't have to pay taxes. But i guess you consider this also as a form of coercion.
Therefore your utopian society without coercion doesn't exist. It can't exist, because coercion is subjective.
@xknowledgeisfreex Um in a Constitutional Republic make a law making coercion & fraud illegal, and set up courts locally at state level and at a federal level! Oh wait that already happen and oh wait socialist like you are already trying to beat that down and twisting it to fit their own agenda of misinformation.
Taxation...how can this man consider himself an anarchist? If a gang of thieves allow you to have a vote before robbing you, it's still robbery. It those robbers are representing "society", how is that any better? I, like Bakunin and others, think that the right of secession is key to anarchism. Chomsky sees democracy as a value in itself, but I see it as just a tool to be used in a voluntary context. And as far as I'm concerned, if a payment is voluntary, then it's not a tax.
Reality check for MSLSD watching morons. Google on words: china incorporate. Then google on Venezuela Food shortage. Guess which country is moving TOWARD increased capitalism? Want to eat well, you dumbF$#%s?
Workers self-management? Now, that's totally idiotic! Imagine burger flipping morons at McDonalds trying to draw up a weekly work schedule. Stop playing video games and get your GED so you can leave home and grow up.
Chomsky is fairly delusional if not insane. But you have to appeal to only the 1-5% of the population that is insane to actually have a following, and make a living. Case in point. A linguistics professor who believes he knows something about economics, whereas he is poor dolt.
Chomsky has access to some of the best resources (databases, libraries, etc) for just being who he is. He was involved in politics and economics since he became literate. I believe he knows far more about politics and economics than you do.
Chomsky is still a fringe collectivist who believe individuals (especially thse who are not academic elites) should SERVE society. This is the communist ideal. Results in STATE CONTROL, administered by people like him. The fact is people should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible, with MINIMAL taxation. Anything else is collectivist CRIMERALISM. Flakes mooching off the hardworking,
Yes but our taxes subsidize the investor class and further consolidate their wealth. They are not used as a democratic tool but a tool for corporations.
@canaan1967 Most of the taxes paid in USA are actually paid by the "investor class". Way Over 50%. So, save your pennies, so you can invest, and become wealthy, so you will not have to depend on government handouts.
The wealthy relies more on big government than you might think. The big corporations determine the president. In turn, dictates the policies. Corporate lobbyists pay out campaign contributions to get their ways. There are loopholes in most of the legislation that is created to "benefit the working stiffs". Corporations are the cancer in modern society.
@tophu1021 Corporations are cancer? In most state you can incorporate for $100 as filing fee, or just go to LegalZoom. This sounds very deadly. You MUST BE a real economic moron. Stop watching MSLSD and do your homework.
People are never going to like paying taxes. If the government wanted people to become really anti-political, they would get rid of the witholding tax and actually make people pay money on April 15th instead of filing a bunch of paperwork to get a TAX RETURN. They would stop using subtle taxes like gas taxes, tariffs and so on. They would stop using inflation as a tax or borrowing as a deferred tax. Government wants to HIDE the amount people are paying in taxes not rub it in our face.
I hate it when Chomsky is vague like this. If he's talking about voluntary payment, then that's totally compatible with a free society. But if he's saying the majority should be able to rob the minority, then wtf.
The Elite should imagine themselves on the toilet when they have diarrhea squirting that they are in a body that stinks up the whole fucking place while looking at the shit covered toilet paper in they're hand that they are nothing special just stupid enough to end many lives for a few dollars more, Come on JUDGEMENT DAY!!!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's like saying god exists weather you want to deny it or not. Collectivism is just warped world view made up by primates. Yes, we're all primates.
What is this rent-slavery nonsence? Grow a fucking pair, start up your own business and work for yourself then. Just keep in mind that if your business does too well you'll be working for the government half the year.
Socialism is nothing more than slavery to government. Some of us don't want to be the governments bitch.
Congrats for defending the "work for a boss or else" status quo of wage slavery by offering the arguments of slave owners: Slaves in Colonial Brazil could buy their own freedom&become businessowners, selfemployed or even slave owners themselves Theres a 3rd alternative to government/capitalist control: workers self-management ie traditional socialism/anarcho-syndicalism. Nevertheless government can be to some extent participatory. In contrast capitalist institutions have a totalitarian structure
Anarcho-Syndicalism is a pathetic caricature of what more intellectually sound people might consider almost 'un-caricaturable:' Socialism. There is no 'third way,' the question is, does a person have a right over his property or will the perennial, universal and societally necessary order of property rights and volitional exchange be ended. This question presupposes no value judgement nor a conclusion. But this question knows that agency & propriety must be had freely or coercively
@mr1001nights "capitalist institutions have a totalitarian structure". Hello! And Indian tribes have chiefs. Save your pennies. Start your own business and you can be in charge, if you can get out of bed in the morning. MSLSD will rot your brain.
@mr1001nights You are entirely ignoring that under a free market economy people could easily band together and form a socialist society/workplace by contract. The reason people don't do this is obvious, the capital that is needed to start a factory or job is massive and there is an equally massive risk of failure, so people are happy to accept wages for work instead of having to invest money in a risky enterprise that might not pay off.
@mr1001nights You might try to say well why do they need capital to start a factory, and I ask you how a socialist society would effectively allocate resources without pricing/capital? The answer is obvious, they can't. It has been tried in many places in many ways and it results in shortages in some areas and overproduction in others. Prices, money and the free market are the most effective way of finding the true value of something and therefor of organizing production.
@Hashishin13 - I don't get your argument. In any sort of society where the means of production are democratically self managed by the community a priority point system would be assigned to output which would determine how resources are spent. If a community wants more they work more if they want less they work less. A community would decide democratically if a new factory needs made based on demand and would use their resources and labor accordingly. Also, where has this been tried before?
@anarchopinko This is another one of the main problems with communism, namely that it expects unanimity. If you don't have unanimity then the minority will be endlessly oppressed. Imagine if communism had taken over before religion lost it's hold? How much production would be allocated to the first scientists in a society that believes the Bible to be the first and the last book ever needed?
Communism and all forms of socialism crush individuality by subjecting it to the whims of the majority.
@Hashishin13 - no you do not understand how an anarchist society might work. By priorities I think every member of a community would agree that water, food, housing, and health care, are the basic priorities. After that each individual can choose to work more than what is required for every member to obtain those basic priorities in the pursuit of individual desires or needs. This is much different than Communism and can be easily studied on the interwebs.
@anarchopinko It still requires a common purpose, and a common goal, on top of that it places all material wealth into the hands of "the group" which inevitably ends up with all goods in the hands of some figurehead. People are corruptable, which is why we should each have independent power instead of putting all the power into the hands of one position which will attract all the psychopaths and people who like to have power in order to lord it over others.
@Hashishin13 - I can't imagine how a society where the means of production are democratically self managed by the community (or by the workers and affected community in some cases) would lead to all the goods in the hands of some figurehead. How can a society built upon eradicating coercive institutions, which is kept in check by power distributed to each individual lead to a figurehead that owns everything.
@anarcho Because in democracy what ends up happening is that parties or blocks form within the representatives or citizens, inevitably these groups will unify under a single leader, then the party with the biggest share of votes ends up acting like a democratic government.
Also industries are constantly shifting in profitablity and utility to society and so some of these "democratic workplaces" will become richer then others if there are prices, and without money there are even more problems.
@Hashishin13 - "what ends up happening" when and what situation are you referring to? What you are describing is a republic not a democracy. If representatives do arise they are simply messengers delivering choices decided by democratic voting between federations not making choices on behalf of the public.
Your second complaint doesn't even make sense.You should really read Parecon or something about the spanish civil war anarchist communes.
@anarchopinko No commune has lasted more then a generation or two because they require too much consent and stifle individuality through collective ownership. The Spanish civil war communes LOST against the other groups for starters, and secondly, like most communist societies, they started with factories they either stole or occupied after the owners left.
I read the parecon thing on wiki, and even if they prevent leadership, the majority will still oppress the minority.
@Hashishin13 - the anarchist collectives that formed during the Spanish civil war did so very effectively on a large scale for years amidst turbulent political conditions. Give me 1 example of how they stifled individuality through collective ownership - rather than just saying it. They didn't steal the factories. They built them as wage slaves and ran them - they simply just cast of their shackles and took back what rightfully belonged to the community.
@Hashishin13 - democratic central planning. Once profit is no longer a motive factories work together for the common good of the communities they effect.
@Hashishin13 - also, what do you mean by common purpose and common goal? Which anarchist works have you read? You seem to be confused on a number of issues.
@mr1001nights Dude, how many times have I refuted ur wage slavery analogy? How many times did we debate this? 4 times, and I got the last word on all 4. Yet you still use that shit against ppl on ur comments. Just drop it.
@mr1001nights Government capitalist control? You gotta be fucking kidding me thats the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life, you love conjuring up bullshit don't you? Working for the man, when you start your business? NO YOUR WORKING FOR YOURSELF! WTF Are you that stupid your dumber than Obama sheep, Obama sheepie even know that! At-least they admit free market capitalism is lack of government intervention. And btw corporatism(government intervention) is socialism just like you guys! :O
@mr1001nights The problem is that governments are corrupt both the so called left and right. Community does not need the state people should work together. Schools can be ran by the teachers and parents, no need for corrupt politicans. For example Finland and Spain have similar high taxes. Yet Finland spends more of these taxes on good education.
Political corruption means ideology means nothing. A theif will tell you he has good intent, then steal everything.
Socieity is just an abstract idea. Socieity has no mind with which to form an opinion. In reality there are only individuals and the government should treat us as such.
collective dynamics exist whether you want to deny them or not. There's 8000 chambers in commerce in the US for a reason--capitalists unite as a class to protect their collective interests. In fact, the different parties represent different blocs of investors. But go ahead. Bury your head in the sand
And you're the type of subhuman scum who enables the government to make all those chambers of commerce by asking for taxation, central banking and law that is of positive intervention (the sign of an imbecile in legal philosophy since law must either be valid universally and existentially necessary for maintenance of civil i.e. developed, moral and productive society, or it must not be legally imposed in a way that might then enable thugs to do wrong with impunity.
@jerthemessiah It is true that we are all individuals, but it is also true that each of us owe a great deal of our identity to other people both alive and dead. Even the antisocial among us owe a great deal of who they are to others, in fact them especially.
@jerthemessiah No, society has a collective drive that manifests itself in democracy. Individuals come together to form cooperatives, communities, unions, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, and nations. In a democratic society, which are very rare, individuals are in groups and groups are made up of individuals; everyone's opinion gets heard, discussed, mulled over, until we come to the closest thing we can get to a consensus.
Everything you've said is Statist moonshine that ignores the fact that big business makes its high margins by investing in production not creating armies or starting wars or defending 'borders' of expropriated property that is controlled at a running loss and consequently must be paid for by society and with the opportunity cost of not using goods effectively, hm, could that be why Obamacare is going to create more problems than the few it might solve-why yes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Another socialist liar. Get real! You know Chomsky believes in Thugocracy, the majority taxing and spending whatever the want, including wealth distribution. Do you work?
Thanks. Obama, Pelosi, Boxer etc are all power-hungry, elitist Thugs. Note that they are all very rich. These people don't even have enough to be happy. They need MORE. Very sick people. Power corrupts
Total dolt.. Just because we have a democracy does not mean that "the mob" should have unlimited power to steal from income earners. Do welfare bums have the right to vote for theft of my money. This is why Chomsky is an ivory tower dolt
@forwardmover "Welfare bums?" That's not offensive at all to families who struggle because their respective companies don't pay them enough. There are people who mooch off of welfare and you should have to prove you have or are looking for a job before you get it, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it altogether. It saves a lot of lives.
@nocturnezero flawed statement. Respective companies (most businesses are small biz) have to struggle in a competitive environment, yet you want them to pay people more than the market rate for labor. perhaps you are confusing businesses with a welfare bureacracies. Democrats Socialists create welfare programs and then expect business owners to pay for them. This is why we are bankrupt and businesses are leaving USA. Not rocker science. Finally, people suffer and die. Get over it.
@forwardmover poscript. Chomsky is essentially a fraud and parasite who makes his living by pandering to less fortunate who want to blame others for their misfortune. Truly a delusional pathetic man.
@forwardmover Well, yes, most businesses are small business, but the actual controlling companies that have a foot in the door of the market are massive, global tyrannies - see Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Exxon, what have you. I want them to contribute to the country that they operate out of. I expect business owners making more than a certain amount to pay because, living in America, they've made a contract with the government - the government supports them with public services, they pay a little...
...to support public services. I'll concede without hesitation that people should have to prove that they have or are looking for a job to benefit from welfare, but to keep an economy smooth with lots of people supporting companies, I think there needs to be a backup just in case one loses their job so they can support themselves in the transition.
Get over it? I'm a bit more proactive about problems I perceive then "life isn't fair" or "that's just how it is" or "get over it."
@nocturnezero I generally with your attitude. Financial Planners suggest 6-12 months savings. we used to call this "rainy day" funds, before the welfare mentality increased. anybody relied on govt money is naive. They can print it and hand it out but this is illusionary due to inflation. More and people know this, and this is why old went uo 25% last year.
There is no such thing as a 'smooth' economy. One in which you force people to support businesses i.e. active combinations of capital and labour engaged with structures of production to bring final products to the market, could not be productive, could not be moral, could not be wealthy. Productivity is not counts; stability is no virtue unto itself for we maintain by coercion a stability of what is wrong and exploitative and that is called Statism aka Mercantilism/Fascism/Marxism
"Some people are not as wealthy as others and this is wrong and you need to shut up because some people are nasty and should be FORCED to pay other people"
You tax business & you tax people & therefore you increase the costs of their products that they sell in order to make a living unlike you who steal money from others when you should be working like third worlders who you exploit with socialism to make their labour cheaper & to keep their economy from developing-harming YOU in the long term.
Even if I were to agree societies were inherently collectivist, a true progression in history is individual rights which collectivism doesn't consider inherent. If Chomsky believed that socialism worked, he wouldn't deny the government his own money (which he hid in tax shelters for his children) for "social programs". He obviously believes that his own family should get it rather than some stranger. To all Chomsky fans: You need to be deprogrammed! Try reading opposing viewpoints.
Who wouldn't want to protect their money in a system as perverse as ours? I don't want most of my money going to carry out atrocities in the third world, but if most of it went to social programs I would be more than happy to pay up. I think Chimsky would agree with that.
First off Chomsky is in the top 2% net wealth in this country. Let him show you his tax returns and how much he shares. He would compel others to redistribute their wealth, but does not do so on his own volition. He and fellow fraud Howard Zinn both own million dollar homes in a nearby exclusive neighborhood. They don't practice what they preach.
It could be nothing but an ad-hominem. I was pointing out he is a hypocrite, and he does not seem to believe in his own message. Your point would be valid if I was debating his message, but I was not. If you read it again you will never see this. If you want a complete arguement why he is wrong, read Hayek's,"the road to Serfdom". This is a limited space to try to debate the evils of collectivism.
proper running Common law, particularly in under a collectivism where the threat of a totalitarian state is eminent, would be required. The 'public' (In the naive sense of the word) wouldn't get Washington D.C. to move an inch in their favor. Much of what is done for their sake screws them over anyway.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You all must realize Chomsky worked as a cryptographer for the Pentagon and has made millions on patents, as well as his liberal pornography. He is a communist when it comes to other peoples dough, but not his own. Is this discussion really about equality or envy? Even Marx states that the reason for modern freedoms are the emerging bourguoise (and they owned assets). Take that away and you just have Big Brother telling you when it is O.K. to wipe your ass.
Chomsky worked for the Research Labratory of Electronics (funded by the Pentagon and Multinationals). He wrote his book Syntactic Structures with ,grants from the U.S. Army Signal Corps, Airforce, and Naval Research. Similar funding for his next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Why don't you do the research? Furthermore why don't you see where he lives, and his annual income? He makes well over a $100,000 for a speaking engagement. Do your own research.
He is conflating "participation" with "compulsory participation". Its like conflating sex and rape. He doesn't get that a healthy society would not be forcing people to give resources to causes that weren't worthy of voluntary participation. When I see taxes I see War and Corporate bailouts, and a new inability to create a functioning social safety net separate of state power.
"When I see taxes I see War and Corporate bailouts"
You're using the war & the bailout as evidence that the concept of taxation is theft. Your presenting the exception as the norm since most countries don't have a large military industrial complex & many are against bail outs. What's the name of that fallacy again?
No I was not using it as evidence that taxation is theft, taxation is theft because it doesn't matter what kind of hat or piece of paper you have violence is wrong. War is an effect of taxation, without taxation war is impossible. You guys apparently think that welfare is a result of taxation and therefore it is good, which is absurd as our (where I live) welfare system is shit. Maybe your masters are nice to you but mine are not.
Dude I seriously have no idea how your arguments are supposed to work structurally, it's like I'm just reading a series of randomly selected fallacies or something.
"War is an effect of taxation, without taxation war is impossible?" Is one sentence supposed to support the other or something because even if there is some logic to it theyre both totally bogus claims.
You could have just asked me to elaborate, instead of browbeating me. You are just randomly calling me fallacious without elaborating on how, hypocrite. How is war an effect of taxation? Because armies need resources, and in order to get resources they need to steal from producers because Armies don't make anything useful. If there is no way to gather resources an army can not sustain a conflict, it must have systems in place can fund them.
The "point", that this "anarchist" (who here AGAIN functions essentially as a social democrat) is missing, is that tax is just a statist word for theft. Just like faith is a term for blind belief and war is a term for mass murder.
he was implying that this view is incorrect. That it is wrong or somehow a ill result of the WAY in which the state is run. NOT that it itself is wrong or that the states way of funding things like this is wrong.
Its one thing to say the government 'ought' to "at least" adhere to the general wants of its citizenry while taxing ("stealing") from them; in order to (at least) give marginal power to the public in a (kind-of) participatory society.
However, it should be made clear (and Chomsky here fails to do this) that ALL taxation (unless 100% voluntary) is illegitimate by assumption.
The principle of taxation, (that is to say "theft") has always been a bad one.
"i may look green here, but is the anarchic version of "taxing" legitimate cuz it's voluntary?"
Well, its certainly not ideal, and anarchists abhor the values & principles behind taxation (in the sense of coercion designed to rob the individual of how to freely spend the fruits of his labor; or at least, the idea of someone else making decisions for you at your expense)
However, that being said, supposing such taxation is 100% voluntary, its consistent with our ethics.
voluntarism is not apart of taxes. If a 'tax' was voluntarily collected it wouldn't BE a tax. It would be a donation. It is like attaching the term voluntary to rape. The concept of rape does not make any sense if the concept of voluntarism is attached to it. It becomes nonsensical to call it rape at this point. At this point its just 'sex'.
I understand your point, but you realize this is a semantics issue. If we ignore historical precedents, & connotations associated with the word "taxes," then all the denotation really means is:
"A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses."
We don't really have a word for non-coerced voluntary taxes, so I think its (at present) fine/fitting to call it "voluntary taxes." (that is unless you have a slick new word you'd like to coin to describe such a phenomenon)
To survive on planet earth, one must effectively become a citizen under at least one of any number of states. As nearly all territory on earth is "illegitimately owned" by the state. [Whose existence is fundamentally illegitimate]
Also it doesn't logically follow that simply on the premise that "since I live in the territory of a certain state", that the state then "necessarily has the right" to "violate by liberty".
By *choosing* (or your ancestors choosing) to live on the territory of a certain state, you benefit from the socio-economic system in said state. If you benefit but don't contribute you're the thief.
Citizenship is not required for survival, neither is citizenship to one state over another. You could also say that employment is involuntary
No in fact you are NOT a thief. If one has ANY legitimate concept of personal property, self-ownership, and/or freedom from coercion, then it NECESSARILY follows that the state ISN'T entitled to the fruits of YOUR labor. One cannot truly own something if an entity (who by its very existence) is somehow entitled to it, even though such property is derived from YOUR labor
Moreover, states own nearly all geopolitical property & one needs citizenship to own property
What's so illegitimate about the idea that I have partial ownership of the roads that I use & whose maintenance I pay for, or partial ownership of the police department whose service I benefit from, both of whose deicisions I influence via ballot initiatives and election of office holders?
Current state-capitalist employment (a more accurate term for which is: Wage Slavery) IS involuntary, because it resides on illegitimately conceptions of property (which are then put into practice).
Such conceptions of property are completely devoid of "use" as a qualifier for ownership. Thus one can deny others the use of property that one hasn't even seen (let alone used). This simply relies on the state to arbitrarily enforce and dictate what constitutes legitimate property.
he is attempting to justify theft and murder through the old externalities argument. And I believe Walter Block alone has thoroughly trounced any such defense of state like behavior.
If I'm not using a given piece of property (mixing my labor /w property) then I have no claim to deny others the use of that same property (I'm also not entitled to it per-se). Unless such property is qualified via "use," it cannot be seen as a legitimate extension of self-ownership
When this reasoning is applied in the context of state capitalism, the phenomenon of Wage-Slavery can only occur through capital (not use) qualifying ownership. Such ownership backed by coercive monopoly on violence
"If I'm not using a given piece of property (mixing my labor /w property) then I have no claim to deny others the use of that same property"
So if you have a plot of land with lots of trees and wildlife and you want to keep it as a wilderness for the sake of preservation then you have no right to keep someone from building houses on it?
Put it this way: in the case of "commons" that is to say (at least): a large stretch of land frequently "used" by townships, cities, etc, basically: multitudes of people, then, (those) people have a right to make decisions over that land in proportion to the degree they're affected by them
In other words, its a proportional community decision
Yet, if the land is entirely unused, it can potentially be owned (by those who develop it via their labor). However it can also be protected via using it
(Since ownership here= pluralistic) The people INVOLVED with such property make decisions in PROPORTION to the degree they're affected by them
EX: A workplace: say I want to bring a picture of my family to work; this decision affects only me, so its made by me. However, say I want to bring a 6-speaker boombox to work, playing loudly in the presence of my co-workers
Boombox: affects everyone, hence, decision making concerning it = participatory democratic
We're talking about unused property without effect on others, not used property whose use always affects others. I think a better analogy would be, "My cubicle has a radio in it that's been turned off, & a family photo. Since the picture of my family can't benefit co-workers then its my property. Since everyone can enjoy music at the same time, the community has a right to take the radio and put it in a territorial neutral spot in the office & vote on the radio station." Mob rule imminent domain
If we're talking about totally unused property, then essentially NO ONE has any claim to it UNTIL someone "USES" it (mixing their labor with property)(as "use" is the qualifier for ownership)
Thus, if land protection is the issue here, the best way to protect it is to "use it" (personally), thereby gaining sole ownership over it. Or, through collective action (township, group, etc) whose members "use" the land and thereby turn it into a kind-of commons.
What are the potential uses of a small wildlife preserve? The very idea of it is that you *don't* want any humans anywhere near the place, & it's not public land where people can come in and camp out/litter/hunt/golf. The collective would have to set up a local but coercive system to ban hunting of endangered species or what have you
No, coercion isn't needed, a group or individual would merely have to establish a wildlife reservation over a given area, laboring the land for the sake of its protection
Also, people aren't simply ENTITLED to wildlife preserves by virtue of their existence. If they have a legitimate want to preserve the environment, then they can donate: time, money & effort to set up a protected reservation (that is protected by the fact it is owned; labored upon)
The time money & effort you donate would have to be spent on securing the property against the wishes of those in the community who view the preserve as withholding of resources that should be harvested by the general public. If the majority of a community owns the land because they spent the time to build a fence to keep out the minority, then one individual should have the same right. Denial of resources to the general public still occurs.
(Supposing such property IS owned) the Community ISN'T entitled to the resources of YOUR property per-se; one wouldn't really be withholding the resources from anyone, seeing as those same resources AREN'T owned by anyone not entitled to them.
Unless theres some prior agreement, public doesn't get them.
(to address this bit about the fence) Moreover, if someone violates property rights of the owners, then their liberty has been actively violated, & they have the right to pursue reparations.
Also, are you agreeing then that working only towards building a fence so that others can't labor the land is the same thing as laboring the land? That's kind of my point in originally asking the question - you've still got the same philosophy of property rights, its just that instead of laboring towards a fence you labor towards a deed to the property
Oh yeah, about the idea that citizenship is necessary.. Land is a natural resource. If the state isn't obligated to give you wealth, it's not obligated to give you sovereign land
No, because the state CAN'T legitimately OWN land (or even wealth for that matter) (unless one ventures into the oxymoronic gray area of a voluntary state)
If I own land, the states "sovereignty" CANNOT extend to my land if I actually retain ownership. Otherwise the state is entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR by me simply owning a piece of land; ergo I don't actually retain ownership. The state then becomes the owner, & my property rights = nil; I'm merely "leasing it."
Thus (if the state retains all ownership), I'm subject to the state version of "Wage Slavery" that is to say "Land Slavery."
In other-words: the individual must be FORCED TO: subject himself to THEFT (a.k.a taxes) lest he be coerced and/or stolen from.
SELL YOURSELF TO AN OWNER OR STARVE [Wage Slavery] then becomes (in the context of the state) RELINQUISH ALL PROPERTY RIGHTS or BE KILLED, COERCED, IMPRISONED, and STOLEN FROM [Land/Property-Slavery].
The citizens own the geopolitical territory whose natural resource is land. They can excercise their ownership by voting to become anarchist or choose to relinquish citizenship & create an anarchist society on new land. They don't have an obligation to surrender their resources to an anarchist society anymore than an anarchist society would be obligated to set aside land for the minority of statists in their system. Death by starvation is also caused by a lack of resources.
"We participating in a community where we make commun decisions, and I'm glad to be able to participate in it, which is the way an healthy society works"
Translation : I compeled you to participate to "my community" where my mob make the decisions, and I inform you that you are glad to be compeled to participate in it, and it is the way I want to society to works.
Why do I feel that when a socialist say "A real democratic society", he in fact means a society that shares HIS PERSONAL VALUES PREFERENCES INTEREST etc. No socialits to whom I speak with so far seems to even imagine that "in a real democratic society" there might be people who would not vote in favor of what he advocates.
If decisions on healthcare or education or transport or whatever are reached in a participatory manner - thats not theft. Call it tax, call it fried chicken, call it whatever you like.
But nobody's perfect. Not even you triple F. So if Chomsky doesn't know how to discuss how taxes would exist in a democratic society, ask yourself if YOU can. I don't think they'd exist at all. I don't think Noam does either.
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfully framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 months ago
Common decisions? That does not exist. The closest thing on this planet to have ever formed where a group decides anything without respect to wealth is called a SOVIET.
April 15th is just a shake down of the slaves that mostly don't have anything, the real plundering is when FED churns out trillions, gives it out to the mass murdering corporation perverts, that then buy up all the land, labor & resources for peanuts under the extortion of government thuggery.
centurion180ad 6 months ago
@wspol624 He managed to siphon millions from the public trough, directly from the Pentagon which he has called the most evil institution in the world.
I'm sure he doesn't "worry" about money. He charges $12k to speak last I heard. Certainly a bunch of these would quickly dwarf his MIC subsidy, but of course that subsidy does give him the base of support from which to do the traveling radical socialist road show. It's nice to know that a "socialist" can get rich saying "I hate capitalism."
MillionthUsername 6 months ago
@MillionthUsername What do you mean that he managed to siphon millions from the public trough, directly from the Pentagon. If you're going to make that kind of claim I think that a bit more of an explanation is required.
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago
@DwiteTheSpriteKnight For decades his post at MIT has been subsidized by the Pentagon. He says it's fine for him to feed at the public trough, but not Halliburton, Lockheed, and Blackwater apparently. I haven't figured out how yet, but I'm not a wealthy "socialist" who gets paid big bucks to spew commie rhetoric.
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername It doesn't sound like you're talking about anything illegal or a secret. If the Pentagon is subsidising Chomsky's post at MIT they don't seem to be having any success in getting him to support their outlook. To those who tend to agree with Chomsky's stances on human rights issues etc he is doing good things with money that was never meant to do good in the world. Can you put a figure on his personal wealth? Where does he rank in the US rich list?
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago
@DwiteTheSpriteKnight He's worth millions. Don't know how many and don't care. He richer than most of the "capitalists" he hates who have real jobs. That I know.
Is it illegal to be subsidized by the Pentagon? No. It's just a strange occupation for a so-called "anarchist." It's also hypocritical, but nobody cares about hypocrisy of people they agree with (which makes me wonder what they agree with and why they would agree if they don't care about hypocrisy in said beliefs).
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername If Chomsky is making millions and keeping more of his income than he needs to, to live in reasonable comfort and secure his future then I agree that is hypocritical considering his views on socialism. If you can recommend any books to me so I can research this I will appreciate that a great deal.
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago
@DwiteTheSpriteKnight You can read excerpts from the book Do As I Say (Not As I Do) at google books, IIRC. That's where some of the information comes from.
To my knowledge, he doesn't think he needs to defend anything. There's a disconnect between the things he preaches and how he lives his life.
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername Hopefully that book will shed some light on how his work in linguistics has benefited the military thus far. One article I read today seemed to be saying Chomsky's attempts to convert all human language into a form computers can interpret, if it's grammatically correct, is still far more experimental than useful. That article did say that the military is riding on the results and funding the research though. It sounds he's too rich for his beliefs but not astronomically rich
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago
Comment removed
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername I've now read a few articles about the contradiction between Chomsky's personal wealth, how he acquired some of it and his political views. These articles definitely distort some of what Chomsky says in an effort to discredit him. I don't know why they go to the trouble to do that when their more credible sounding claims about his work in linguistics having aided the US military is enough to suggest he's a hypocrite. I'm still trying to find an unedited defence from Chomsky.
DwiteTheSpriteKnight 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername prove it !
anarchosolar 1 month ago
Chomsky loves taxes. They help subsidize his pay.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
Capitalism is the death of individual development and autonomy. It makes hierarchies in society, via the class system, and in the work place. It also creates societies in which taking advantage of others for profit is perceived as something admirable.
As such it is a malignant and cancerous growth that, like a tick, must be uprooted from the flesh of humankind.
And then stomped on repeatedly.
And then flushed down the toilet, for a more humane social arrangement is needed.
agapeiron 7 months ago
Is he serious?! How can Chomsky call himself an anarchist and not reject taxation? The problem with taxation is not collectivism; there's nothing unlibertarian about collectivism, as long as they are voluntary collectives. The problem with taxation is that it is NOT VOLUNTARY. I don't get to opt our of the system if I don't like how the money is being spent. No anarchist, left or right, should EVER see taxation as anything other than theft.
QuatFax 9 months ago
Taxation is robbery. Everything should be voluntary, anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such, period.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
Nothing is voluntary in life. Stop whining about fake problems.In the U.S. people have already more liberties than anywhere else on the world.
xknowledgeisfreex 8 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Lol, would you say that to a slave as well?
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
uh, there is a huge difference between taxation and slavery. Who does actually suffer from taxation? Who starves, because he must pay taxes? No one.
xknowledgeisfreex 8 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Involuntary Servitude is the definition of chattel enslavement and taxation theft. If no one suffers from taxation robbery why is it that they can not do it voluntarily, darwin?
Anyone that commits robbery should be charged as such, period.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
You aren't a servant of the state, if the state is democratic and works for the public good instead of for private interests. Taxes serve the public good and not the enrichment of individual persons. It is not theft.
xknowledgeisfreex 8 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex It is not involuntary servitude if a mob you have no control over your own life with votes 52.24% to involuntarily steal your family and burn you alive? I am sure coercive mob rule seems voluntary to a thug progressive, but it is the opposite of Voluntarism by definition.
Anyone that commits coercion should be charged as such, period.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
That's not what taxation is. You are mischaracterizing it for your own agenda that is based on imaginary fake problem. It's not that a mob just randomly decides to rob you. Everyone who lives and works in the state pays taxes equally in order to organize society. In the U.S. taxation is legitimized by the constitution, 16th amendment, not arbitrary mob rule. Absolute Voluntarism is impossible, since what people consider to be coercive or not is subjective.
xknowledgeisfreex 8 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
What if you want to join a group, but the group doesn't allow you to join it. Many people would probably see this as "coercive" as well, especially when your own survival depends on that group. You could in principle simply leave the state and go live in a jungle somewhere so that you don't have to pay taxes. But i guess you consider this also as a form of coercion.
Therefore your utopian society without coercion doesn't exist. It can't exist, because coercion is subjective.
xknowledgeisfreex 8 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Um in a Constitutional Republic make a law making coercion & fraud illegal, and set up courts locally at state level and at a federal level! Oh wait that already happen and oh wait socialist like you are already trying to beat that down and twisting it to fit their own agenda of misinformation.
wtfjaftw 7 months ago
When we reach that conception, taxation will cease to be a coercive process.
Trimbler00 9 months ago
LOL, the guy (Chomsky) who uses trust funds to pay the smallest amount of taxes possible
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
Taxation...how can this man consider himself an anarchist? If a gang of thieves allow you to have a vote before robbing you, it's still robbery. It those robbers are representing "society", how is that any better? I, like Bakunin and others, think that the right of secession is key to anarchism. Chomsky sees democracy as a value in itself, but I see it as just a tool to be used in a voluntary context. And as far as I'm concerned, if a payment is voluntary, then it's not a tax.
qrqrqrqr1 1 year ago
A very powerful IRS/Taxes documentary... "FREEDOM TO FASCISM"
PeaceIsRad 1 year ago
I can't tell if Chomsky is for or against a tax system from this video.
ufee 1 year ago
Reality check for MSLSD watching morons. Google on words: china incorporate. Then google on Venezuela Food shortage. Guess which country is moving TOWARD increased capitalism? Want to eat well, you dumbF$#%s?
forwardmover 1 year ago
Workers self-management? Now, that's totally idiotic! Imagine burger flipping morons at McDonalds trying to draw up a weekly work schedule. Stop playing video games and get your GED so you can leave home and grow up.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover
Such a society prolly will not have a McDonald's... You know DIY.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
Chomsky is fairly delusional if not insane. But you have to appeal to only the 1-5% of the population that is insane to actually have a following, and make a living. Case in point. A linguistics professor who believes he knows something about economics, whereas he is poor dolt.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover
Chomsky has access to some of the best resources (databases, libraries, etc) for just being who he is. He was involved in politics and economics since he became literate. I believe he knows far more about politics and economics than you do.
tophu1021 1 year ago
@tophu1021 Hitler, Stalin, Mao TseDung and Hugo Chavez are also educated people, representing failed economies.
forwardmover 1 year ago
Chomsky is still a fringe collectivist who believe individuals (especially thse who are not academic elites) should SERVE society. This is the communist ideal. Results in STATE CONTROL, administered by people like him. The fact is people should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible, with MINIMAL taxation. Anything else is collectivist CRIMERALISM. Flakes mooching off the hardworking,
forwardmover 1 year ago
Yes but our taxes subsidize the investor class and further consolidate their wealth. They are not used as a democratic tool but a tool for corporations.
canaan1967 1 year ago
@canaan1967 Most of the taxes paid in USA are actually paid by the "investor class". Way Over 50%. So, save your pennies, so you can invest, and become wealthy, so you will not have to depend on government handouts.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover
Inestimably poor and uninformed comment from a fast talker salesman
canaan1967 1 year ago
@canaan1967 Did that GUY have to do much fast talking when you let him plant the HIV in you?
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover
The wealthy relies more on big government than you might think. The big corporations determine the president. In turn, dictates the policies. Corporate lobbyists pay out campaign contributions to get their ways. There are loopholes in most of the legislation that is created to "benefit the working stiffs". Corporations are the cancer in modern society.
tophu1021 1 year ago
@tophu1021 Corporations are cancer? In most state you can incorporate for $100 as filing fee, or just go to LegalZoom. This sounds very deadly. You MUST BE a real economic moron. Stop watching MSLSD and do your homework.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover
Nice argument. "Corporations don't do anything bad, because you can incorporate for cheap". What kind of logic is that?!?!?
tophu1021 1 year ago
@tophu1021 Wayyyy over your head. Stop video game playing now, so you can get your GED, leave home and grow up.
forwardmover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tophu1021 Wayyyy over your head. Stop video game playing now, so you can get your GED, leave home and grow up.
forwardmover 1 year ago
People are never going to like paying taxes. If the government wanted people to become really anti-political, they would get rid of the witholding tax and actually make people pay money on April 15th instead of filing a bunch of paperwork to get a TAX RETURN. They would stop using subtle taxes like gas taxes, tariffs and so on. They would stop using inflation as a tax or borrowing as a deferred tax. Government wants to HIDE the amount people are paying in taxes not rub it in our face.
rios9000 1 year ago
I hate it when Chomsky is vague like this. If he's talking about voluntary payment, then that's totally compatible with a free society. But if he's saying the majority should be able to rob the minority, then wtf.
yehcnimoigres 1 year ago
The Elite should imagine themselves on the toilet when they have diarrhea squirting that they are in a body that stinks up the whole fucking place while looking at the shit covered toilet paper in they're hand that they are nothing special just stupid enough to end many lives for a few dollars more, Come on JUDGEMENT DAY!!!!!
TheCronicSlayer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's like saying god exists weather you want to deny it or not. Collectivism is just warped world view made up by primates. Yes, we're all primates.
What is this rent-slavery nonsence? Grow a fucking pair, start up your own business and work for yourself then. Just keep in mind that if your business does too well you'll be working for the government half the year.
Socialism is nothing more than slavery to government. Some of us don't want to be the governments bitch.
jerthemessiah 2 years ago
Congrats for defending the "work for a boss or else" status quo of wage slavery by offering the arguments of slave owners: Slaves in Colonial Brazil could buy their own freedom&become businessowners, selfemployed or even slave owners themselves Theres a 3rd alternative to government/capitalist control: workers self-management ie traditional socialism/anarcho-syndicalism. Nevertheless government can be to some extent participatory. In contrast capitalist institutions have a totalitarian structure
mr1001nights 2 years ago 18
Why not multiple choice, i.e. workers owning a company together or workers working for an inventor/engineer etc, voluntarily?
nammoo89 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
Anarcho-Syndicalism is a pathetic caricature of what more intellectually sound people might consider almost 'un-caricaturable:' Socialism. There is no 'third way,' the question is, does a person have a right over his property or will the perennial, universal and societally necessary order of property rights and volitional exchange be ended. This question presupposes no value judgement nor a conclusion. But this question knows that agency & propriety must be had freely or coercively
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@mr1001nights "capitalist institutions have a totalitarian structure". Hello! And Indian tribes have chiefs. Save your pennies. Start your own business and you can be in charge, if you can get out of bed in the morning. MSLSD will rot your brain.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@mr1001nights You are entirely ignoring that under a free market economy people could easily band together and form a socialist society/workplace by contract. The reason people don't do this is obvious, the capital that is needed to start a factory or job is massive and there is an equally massive risk of failure, so people are happy to accept wages for work instead of having to invest money in a risky enterprise that might not pay off.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@mr1001nights You might try to say well why do they need capital to start a factory, and I ask you how a socialist society would effectively allocate resources without pricing/capital? The answer is obvious, they can't. It has been tried in many places in many ways and it results in shortages in some areas and overproduction in others. Prices, money and the free market are the most effective way of finding the true value of something and therefor of organizing production.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13 - I don't get your argument. In any sort of society where the means of production are democratically self managed by the community a priority point system would be assigned to output which would determine how resources are spent. If a community wants more they work more if they want less they work less. A community would decide democratically if a new factory needs made based on demand and would use their resources and labor accordingly. Also, where has this been tried before?
anarchopinko 10 months ago
@anarchopinko This is another one of the main problems with communism, namely that it expects unanimity. If you don't have unanimity then the minority will be endlessly oppressed. Imagine if communism had taken over before religion lost it's hold? How much production would be allocated to the first scientists in a society that believes the Bible to be the first and the last book ever needed?
Communism and all forms of socialism crush individuality by subjecting it to the whims of the majority.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 - no you do not understand how an anarchist society might work. By priorities I think every member of a community would agree that water, food, housing, and health care, are the basic priorities. After that each individual can choose to work more than what is required for every member to obtain those basic priorities in the pursuit of individual desires or needs. This is much different than Communism and can be easily studied on the interwebs.
anarchopinko 10 months ago
@anarchopinko It still requires a common purpose, and a common goal, on top of that it places all material wealth into the hands of "the group" which inevitably ends up with all goods in the hands of some figurehead. People are corruptable, which is why we should each have independent power instead of putting all the power into the hands of one position which will attract all the psychopaths and people who like to have power in order to lord it over others.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 - I can't imagine how a society where the means of production are democratically self managed by the community (or by the workers and affected community in some cases) would lead to all the goods in the hands of some figurehead. How can a society built upon eradicating coercive institutions, which is kept in check by power distributed to each individual lead to a figurehead that owns everything.
anarchopinko 10 months ago
@anarcho Because in democracy what ends up happening is that parties or blocks form within the representatives or citizens, inevitably these groups will unify under a single leader, then the party with the biggest share of votes ends up acting like a democratic government.
Also industries are constantly shifting in profitablity and utility to society and so some of these "democratic workplaces" will become richer then others if there are prices, and without money there are even more problems.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 - "what ends up happening" when and what situation are you referring to? What you are describing is a republic not a democracy. If representatives do arise they are simply messengers delivering choices decided by democratic voting between federations not making choices on behalf of the public.
Your second complaint doesn't even make sense.You should really read Parecon or something about the spanish civil war anarchist communes.
anarchopinko 10 months ago
@anarchopinko No commune has lasted more then a generation or two because they require too much consent and stifle individuality through collective ownership. The Spanish civil war communes LOST against the other groups for starters, and secondly, like most communist societies, they started with factories they either stole or occupied after the owners left.
I read the parecon thing on wiki, and even if they prevent leadership, the majority will still oppress the minority.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 - the anarchist collectives that formed during the Spanish civil war did so very effectively on a large scale for years amidst turbulent political conditions. Give me 1 example of how they stifled individuality through collective ownership - rather than just saying it. They didn't steal the factories. They built them as wage slaves and ran them - they simply just cast of their shackles and took back what rightfully belonged to the community.
anarchopinko 10 months ago
@anarcho My second comment was in reference to this:
How does one factory group trade with another factory group? Is it by common consent or is it through prices and money?
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 - democratic central planning. Once profit is no longer a motive factories work together for the common good of the communities they effect.
anarchopinko 10 months ago
@anarchopinko - correction "central" should be "decentralized" planning.
anarchopinko 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 - also, what do you mean by common purpose and common goal? Which anarchist works have you read? You seem to be confused on a number of issues.
anarchopinko 10 months ago
@mr1001nights Dude, how many times have I refuted ur wage slavery analogy? How many times did we debate this? 4 times, and I got the last word on all 4. Yet you still use that shit against ppl on ur comments. Just drop it.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer: Actually, you didn't win. There are many who do not agree with your point of view.
chinopisces 1 year ago
@mr1001nights Government capitalist control? You gotta be fucking kidding me thats the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life, you love conjuring up bullshit don't you? Working for the man, when you start your business? NO YOUR WORKING FOR YOURSELF! WTF Are you that stupid your dumber than Obama sheep, Obama sheepie even know that! At-least they admit free market capitalism is lack of government intervention. And btw corporatism(government intervention) is socialism just like you guys! :O
wtfjaftw 7 months ago
@mr1001nights The problem is that governments are corrupt both the so called left and right. Community does not need the state people should work together. Schools can be ran by the teachers and parents, no need for corrupt politicans. For example Finland and Spain have similar high taxes. Yet Finland spends more of these taxes on good education.
Political corruption means ideology means nothing. A theif will tell you he has good intent, then steal everything.
warriorprince1010 5 months ago
@jerthemessiah Amen to that.
wtfjaftw 7 months ago
Socieity is just an abstract idea. Socieity has no mind with which to form an opinion. In reality there are only individuals and the government should treat us as such.
jerthemessiah 2 years ago
collective dynamics exist whether you want to deny them or not. There's 8000 chambers in commerce in the US for a reason--capitalists unite as a class to protect their collective interests. In fact, the different parties represent different blocs of investors. But go ahead. Bury your head in the sand
mr1001nights 2 years ago 12
But does the collective/society have to be based on violence/coercion/exploitation etc?
nammoo89 1 year ago
@nammoo89 No.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
And you're the type of subhuman scum who enables the government to make all those chambers of commerce by asking for taxation, central banking and law that is of positive intervention (the sign of an imbecile in legal philosophy since law must either be valid universally and existentially necessary for maintenance of civil i.e. developed, moral and productive society, or it must not be legally imposed in a way that might then enable thugs to do wrong with impunity.
Like you. Twat.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@mr1001nights Collectivism is uniting of socialist not capitalist, free market capitalism divides for better service tyvm.
wtfjaftw 7 months ago
@jerthemessiah It is true that we are all individuals, but it is also true that each of us owe a great deal of our identity to other people both alive and dead. Even the antisocial among us owe a great deal of who they are to others, in fact them especially.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
@jerthemessiah No, society has a collective drive that manifests itself in democracy. Individuals come together to form cooperatives, communities, unions, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, and nations. In a democratic society, which are very rare, individuals are in groups and groups are made up of individuals; everyone's opinion gets heard, discussed, mulled over, until we come to the closest thing we can get to a consensus.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
And why should that consensus be imposed by force? Have you a conception of what the law is? No. Go and educate yourself.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill ...? What force are you talking about?
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
Everything you've said is Statist moonshine that ignores the fact that big business makes its high margins by investing in production not creating armies or starting wars or defending 'borders' of expropriated property that is controlled at a running loss and consequently must be paid for by society and with the opportunity cost of not using goods effectively, hm, could that be why Obamacare is going to create more problems than the few it might solve-why yes.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Inside secret. Get rich with government jobs. High unionized pay. Full med, pension. Very stable. Organization has unlimited guaranteed revenue.
forwardmover 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Another socialist liar. Get real! You know Chomsky believes in Thugocracy, the majority taxing and spending whatever the want, including wealth distribution. Do you work?
forwardmover 2 years ago
lol 'thugrocracry' is a great way to describe wage-slavery.
agenttachyon 2 years ago
Thanks. Obama, Pelosi, Boxer etc are all power-hungry, elitist Thugs. Note that they are all very rich. These people don't even have enough to be happy. They need MORE. Very sick people. Power corrupts
forwardmover 2 years ago
Very true, so all the rich businessmen that control their every action and word.
agenttachyon 2 years ago 4
Total dolt.. Just because we have a democracy does not mean that "the mob" should have unlimited power to steal from income earners. Do welfare bums have the right to vote for theft of my money. This is why Chomsky is an ivory tower dolt
forwardmover 2 years ago
Fine, don't drive on the roads that taxes pay for, build and use your own dirt road.
BbdHome 2 years ago
@forwardmover "Welfare bums?" That's not offensive at all to families who struggle because their respective companies don't pay them enough. There are people who mooch off of welfare and you should have to prove you have or are looking for a job before you get it, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it altogether. It saves a lot of lives.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero flawed statement. Respective companies (most businesses are small biz) have to struggle in a competitive environment, yet you want them to pay people more than the market rate for labor. perhaps you are confusing businesses with a welfare bureacracies. Democrats Socialists create welfare programs and then expect business owners to pay for them. This is why we are bankrupt and businesses are leaving USA. Not rocker science. Finally, people suffer and die. Get over it.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover poscript. Chomsky is essentially a fraud and parasite who makes his living by pandering to less fortunate who want to blame others for their misfortune. Truly a delusional pathetic man.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover Well, yes, most businesses are small business, but the actual controlling companies that have a foot in the door of the market are massive, global tyrannies - see Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Exxon, what have you. I want them to contribute to the country that they operate out of. I expect business owners making more than a certain amount to pay because, living in America, they've made a contract with the government - the government supports them with public services, they pay a little...
nocturnezero 1 year ago
...to support public services. I'll concede without hesitation that people should have to prove that they have or are looking for a job to benefit from welfare, but to keep an economy smooth with lots of people supporting companies, I think there needs to be a backup just in case one loses their job so they can support themselves in the transition.
Get over it? I'm a bit more proactive about problems I perceive then "life isn't fair" or "that's just how it is" or "get over it."
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero I generally with your attitude. Financial Planners suggest 6-12 months savings. we used to call this "rainy day" funds, before the welfare mentality increased. anybody relied on govt money is naive. They can print it and hand it out but this is illusionary due to inflation. More and people know this, and this is why old went uo 25% last year.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
There is no such thing as a 'smooth' economy. One in which you force people to support businesses i.e. active combinations of capital and labour engaged with structures of production to bring final products to the market, could not be productive, could not be moral, could not be wealthy. Productivity is not counts; stability is no virtue unto itself for we maintain by coercion a stability of what is wrong and exploitative and that is called Statism aka Mercantilism/Fascism/Marxism
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
"Some people are not as wealthy as others and this is wrong and you need to shut up because some people are nasty and should be FORCED to pay other people"
You tax business & you tax people & therefore you increase the costs of their products that they sell in order to make a living unlike you who steal money from others when you should be working like third worlders who you exploit with socialism to make their labour cheaper & to keep their economy from developing-harming YOU in the long term.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Even if I were to agree societies were inherently collectivist, a true progression in history is individual rights which collectivism doesn't consider inherent. If Chomsky believed that socialism worked, he wouldn't deny the government his own money (which he hid in tax shelters for his children) for "social programs". He obviously believes that his own family should get it rather than some stranger. To all Chomsky fans: You need to be deprogrammed! Try reading opposing viewpoints.
belisarius2930 2 years ago
Who wouldn't want to protect their money in a system as perverse as ours? I don't want most of my money going to carry out atrocities in the third world, but if most of it went to social programs I would be more than happy to pay up. I think Chimsky would agree with that.
physicsgeek21690 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky=Communist
mg5679 2 years ago
Actually he's closer to a libertarian socialist / democratic socialist / anarcho-syndicalist. :)
JTsmiley14 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hes a moron.
mg5679 2 years ago
First off Chomsky is in the top 2% net wealth in this country. Let him show you his tax returns and how much he shares. He would compel others to redistribute their wealth, but does not do so on his own volition. He and fellow fraud Howard Zinn both own million dollar homes in a nearby exclusive neighborhood. They don't practice what they preach.
belisarius2930 2 years ago
This is a classic case of ad-hominem attack. Whether or not you're right has no impact whatsoever on the validity of Chomsky's comments.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
It could be nothing but an ad-hominem. I was pointing out he is a hypocrite, and he does not seem to believe in his own message. Your point would be valid if I was debating his message, but I was not. If you read it again you will never see this. If you want a complete arguement why he is wrong, read Hayek's,"the road to Serfdom". This is a limited space to try to debate the evils of collectivism.
belisarius2930 2 years ago
"This is a limited space to try to debate the evils of collectivism."
First of all, all societies are inherently collectivist.
"He would compel others to redistribute their wealth, but does not do so on his own volition."
He makes the point that genuine socialism requires a true, participatory democracy, which he obviously does not think we have.
You seem to be confusing charity/philanthropy with his broad political theory, which isn't radical egalitarianism.
AgnosticNews 2 years ago
He gives a lot of money to many different organisations.
Ullbritt 2 years ago
proper running Common law, particularly in under a collectivism where the threat of a totalitarian state is eminent, would be required. The 'public' (In the naive sense of the word) wouldn't get Washington D.C. to move an inch in their favor. Much of what is done for their sake screws them over anyway.
Springtime916 2 years ago
Does Chomski pay extra on his taxes so he can participate in the society in a real fashion
Or
is it he just wants others to do that?
Hypocrisy is best when served live.
Martintfre 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You all must realize Chomsky worked as a cryptographer for the Pentagon and has made millions on patents, as well as his liberal pornography. He is a communist when it comes to other peoples dough, but not his own. Is this discussion really about equality or envy? Even Marx states that the reason for modern freedoms are the emerging bourguoise (and they owned assets). Take that away and you just have Big Brother telling you when it is O.K. to wipe your ass.
belisarius2930 3 years ago
can you back this up with proof? chomsky's affiliation with the pentagon?
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago
Chomsky worked for the Research Labratory of Electronics (funded by the Pentagon and Multinationals). He wrote his book Syntactic Structures with ,grants from the U.S. Army Signal Corps, Airforce, and Naval Research. Similar funding for his next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Why don't you do the research? Furthermore why don't you see where he lives, and his annual income? He makes well over a $100,000 for a speaking engagement. Do your own research.
belisarius2930 2 years ago
He is conflating "participation" with "compulsory participation". Its like conflating sex and rape. He doesn't get that a healthy society would not be forcing people to give resources to causes that weren't worthy of voluntary participation. When I see taxes I see War and Corporate bailouts, and a new inability to create a functioning social safety net separate of state power.
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago
You're conflating true Democracy with the United States haha
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
How? Taxes are Taxes. Doesn't matter whether its a street thug , a democracy, or a "republic".
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago
"When I see taxes I see War and Corporate bailouts"
You're using the war & the bailout as evidence that the concept of taxation is theft. Your presenting the exception as the norm since most countries don't have a large military industrial complex & many are against bail outs. What's the name of that fallacy again?
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
No I was not using it as evidence that taxation is theft, taxation is theft because it doesn't matter what kind of hat or piece of paper you have violence is wrong. War is an effect of taxation, without taxation war is impossible. You guys apparently think that welfare is a result of taxation and therefore it is good, which is absurd as our (where I live) welfare system is shit. Maybe your masters are nice to you but mine are not.
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago
Dude I seriously have no idea how your arguments are supposed to work structurally, it's like I'm just reading a series of randomly selected fallacies or something.
"War is an effect of taxation, without taxation war is impossible?" Is one sentence supposed to support the other or something because even if there is some logic to it theyre both totally bogus claims.
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
You could have just asked me to elaborate, instead of browbeating me. You are just randomly calling me fallacious without elaborating on how, hypocrite. How is war an effect of taxation? Because armies need resources, and in order to get resources they need to steal from producers because Armies don't make anything useful. If there is no way to gather resources an army can not sustain a conflict, it must have systems in place can fund them.
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago 2
you are a hypocrite chomsky.
mrtyles 3 years ago
The "point", that this "anarchist" (who here AGAIN functions essentially as a social democrat) is missing, is that tax is just a statist word for theft. Just like faith is a term for blind belief and war is a term for mass murder.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago 3
I think he addressed that with the "these guys from mars are taking my hard earned money" line or whatever it was
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
he was implying that this view is incorrect. That it is wrong or somehow a ill result of the WAY in which the state is run. NOT that it itself is wrong or that the states way of funding things like this is wrong.
because hes NOT an anarchist.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
And here's where I diverge with Chomsky.
Its one thing to say the government 'ought' to "at least" adhere to the general wants of its citizenry while taxing ("stealing") from them; in order to (at least) give marginal power to the public in a (kind-of) participatory society.
However, it should be made clear (and Chomsky here fails to do this) that ALL taxation (unless 100% voluntary) is illegitimate by assumption.
The principle of taxation, (that is to say "theft") has always been a bad one.
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago 7
especially considering it's been created to fund the emergence of the modern state in europe in the past 200-300 years.
states make war and wars make states- this is just sociological fact, and they couldn't have done it without taxation- i.e coercion, militaries etc.
but i don't know, i may look green here, but is the anarchic version of "taxing" legitimate cuz it's voluntary?
mikezephyr 3 years ago
"i may look green here, but is the anarchic version of "taxing" legitimate cuz it's voluntary?"
Well, its certainly not ideal, and anarchists abhor the values & principles behind taxation (in the sense of coercion designed to rob the individual of how to freely spend the fruits of his labor; or at least, the idea of someone else making decisions for you at your expense)
However, that being said, supposing such taxation is 100% voluntary, its consistent with our ethics.
But we abhor the idea.
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago 2
voluntarism is not apart of taxes. If a 'tax' was voluntarily collected it wouldn't BE a tax. It would be a donation. It is like attaching the term voluntary to rape. The concept of rape does not make any sense if the concept of voluntarism is attached to it. It becomes nonsensical to call it rape at this point. At this point its just 'sex'.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago 2
I understand your point, but you realize this is a semantics issue. If we ignore historical precedents, & connotations associated with the word "taxes," then all the denotation really means is:
"A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses."
We don't really have a word for non-coerced voluntary taxes, so I think its (at present) fine/fitting to call it "voluntary taxes." (that is unless you have a slick new word you'd like to coin to describe such a phenomenon)
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Citizenship IS 100% voluntary.
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
No, it really isn't.
To survive on planet earth, one must effectively become a citizen under at least one of any number of states. As nearly all territory on earth is "illegitimately owned" by the state. [Whose existence is fundamentally illegitimate]
Also it doesn't logically follow that simply on the premise that "since I live in the territory of a certain state", that the state then "necessarily has the right" to "violate by liberty".
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago 4
well said laughingman
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago 2
By *choosing* (or your ancestors choosing) to live on the territory of a certain state, you benefit from the socio-economic system in said state. If you benefit but don't contribute you're the thief.
Citizenship is not required for survival, neither is citizenship to one state over another. You could also say that employment is involuntary
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
No in fact you are NOT a thief. If one has ANY legitimate concept of personal property, self-ownership, and/or freedom from coercion, then it NECESSARILY follows that the state ISN'T entitled to the fruits of YOUR labor. One cannot truly own something if an entity (who by its very existence) is somehow entitled to it, even though such property is derived from YOUR labor
Moreover, states own nearly all geopolitical property & one needs citizenship to own property
Thus, Life requires citizenship
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
What's so illegitimate about the idea that I have partial ownership of the roads that I use & whose maintenance I pay for, or partial ownership of the police department whose service I benefit from, both of whose deicisions I influence via ballot initiatives and election of office holders?
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
Current state-capitalist employment (a more accurate term for which is: Wage Slavery) IS involuntary, because it resides on illegitimately conceptions of property (which are then put into practice).
Such conceptions of property are completely devoid of "use" as a qualifier for ownership. Thus one can deny others the use of property that one hasn't even seen (let alone used). This simply relies on the state to arbitrarily enforce and dictate what constitutes legitimate property.
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
he is attempting to justify theft and murder through the old externalities argument. And I believe Walter Block alone has thoroughly trounced any such defense of state like behavior.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Can you reiterate this? All I'm getting when I read it is:
Since property as defined as something you have the right to keep others from using even if you don't use it is illegitimate (?),
Then employment is involuntary or equivocable with slavery.
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
If I'm not using a given piece of property (mixing my labor /w property) then I have no claim to deny others the use of that same property (I'm also not entitled to it per-se). Unless such property is qualified via "use," it cannot be seen as a legitimate extension of self-ownership
When this reasoning is applied in the context of state capitalism, the phenomenon of Wage-Slavery can only occur through capital (not use) qualifying ownership. Such ownership backed by coercive monopoly on violence
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
"If I'm not using a given piece of property (mixing my labor /w property) then I have no claim to deny others the use of that same property"
So if you have a plot of land with lots of trees and wildlife and you want to keep it as a wilderness for the sake of preservation then you have no right to keep someone from building houses on it?
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
Preservation is labor.
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago
Put it this way: in the case of "commons" that is to say (at least): a large stretch of land frequently "used" by townships, cities, etc, basically: multitudes of people, then, (those) people have a right to make decisions over that land in proportion to the degree they're affected by them
In other words, its a proportional community decision
Yet, if the land is entirely unused, it can potentially be owned (by those who develop it via their labor). However it can also be protected via using it
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
So the answer is no unless the community approves?
Isn't that kind of just imminent domain as applied to mob rule?
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
Your potently oversimplifying I said:
(Since ownership here= pluralistic) The people INVOLVED with such property make decisions in PROPORTION to the degree they're affected by them
EX: A workplace: say I want to bring a picture of my family to work; this decision affects only me, so its made by me. However, say I want to bring a 6-speaker boombox to work, playing loudly in the presence of my co-workers
Boombox: affects everyone, hence, decision making concerning it = participatory democratic
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
We're talking about unused property without effect on others, not used property whose use always affects others. I think a better analogy would be, "My cubicle has a radio in it that's been turned off, & a family photo. Since the picture of my family can't benefit co-workers then its my property. Since everyone can enjoy music at the same time, the community has a right to take the radio and put it in a territorial neutral spot in the office & vote on the radio station." Mob rule imminent domain
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
If we're talking about totally unused property, then essentially NO ONE has any claim to it UNTIL someone "USES" it (mixing their labor with property)(as "use" is the qualifier for ownership)
Thus, if land protection is the issue here, the best way to protect it is to "use it" (personally), thereby gaining sole ownership over it. Or, through collective action (township, group, etc) whose members "use" the land and thereby turn it into a kind-of commons.
This ISN'T: "mob-rule-imminent-domain"
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
What are the potential uses of a small wildlife preserve? The very idea of it is that you *don't* want any humans anywhere near the place, & it's not public land where people can come in and camp out/litter/hunt/golf. The collective would have to set up a local but coercive system to ban hunting of endangered species or what have you
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
No, coercion isn't needed, a group or individual would merely have to establish a wildlife reservation over a given area, laboring the land for the sake of its protection
Also, people aren't simply ENTITLED to wildlife preserves by virtue of their existence. If they have a legitimate want to preserve the environment, then they can donate: time, money & effort to set up a protected reservation (that is protected by the fact it is owned; labored upon)
Like AnarchyIsForMe said: Preservation=labor
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
The time money & effort you donate would have to be spent on securing the property against the wishes of those in the community who view the preserve as withholding of resources that should be harvested by the general public. If the majority of a community owns the land because they spent the time to build a fence to keep out the minority, then one individual should have the same right. Denial of resources to the general public still occurs.
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
(Supposing such property IS owned) the Community ISN'T entitled to the resources of YOUR property per-se; one wouldn't really be withholding the resources from anyone, seeing as those same resources AREN'T owned by anyone not entitled to them.
Unless theres some prior agreement, public doesn't get them.
(to address this bit about the fence) Moreover, if someone violates property rights of the owners, then their liberty has been actively violated, & they have the right to pursue reparations.
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
Also, are you agreeing then that working only towards building a fence so that others can't labor the land is the same thing as laboring the land? That's kind of my point in originally asking the question - you've still got the same philosophy of property rights, its just that instead of laboring towards a fence you labor towards a deed to the property
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
Oh yeah, about the idea that citizenship is necessary.. Land is a natural resource. If the state isn't obligated to give you wealth, it's not obligated to give you sovereign land
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
No, because the state CAN'T legitimately OWN land (or even wealth for that matter) (unless one ventures into the oxymoronic gray area of a voluntary state)
If I own land, the states "sovereignty" CANNOT extend to my land if I actually retain ownership. Otherwise the state is entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR by me simply owning a piece of land; ergo I don't actually retain ownership. The state then becomes the owner, & my property rights = nil; I'm merely "leasing it."
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
Thus (if the state retains all ownership), I'm subject to the state version of "Wage Slavery" that is to say "Land Slavery."
In other-words: the individual must be FORCED TO: subject himself to THEFT (a.k.a taxes) lest he be coerced and/or stolen from.
SELL YOURSELF TO AN OWNER OR STARVE [Wage Slavery] then becomes (in the context of the state) RELINQUISH ALL PROPERTY RIGHTS or BE KILLED, COERCED, IMPRISONED, and STOLEN FROM [Land/Property-Slavery].
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
The citizens own the geopolitical territory whose natural resource is land. They can excercise their ownership by voting to become anarchist or choose to relinquish citizenship & create an anarchist society on new land. They don't have an obligation to surrender their resources to an anarchist society anymore than an anarchist society would be obligated to set aside land for the minority of statists in their system. Death by starvation is also caused by a lack of resources.
d3p3ch3mod3 3 years ago
"We participating in a community where we make commun decisions, and I'm glad to be able to participate in it, which is the way an healthy society works"
Translation : I compeled you to participate to "my community" where my mob make the decisions, and I inform you that you are glad to be compeled to participate in it, and it is the way I want to society to works.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Why do I feel that when a socialist say "A real democratic society", he in fact means a society that shares HIS PERSONAL VALUES PREFERENCES INTEREST etc. No socialits to whom I speak with so far seems to even imagine that "in a real democratic society" there might be people who would not vote in favor of what he advocates.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
If decisions on healthcare or education or transport or whatever are reached in a participatory manner - thats not theft. Call it tax, call it fried chicken, call it whatever you like.
KentAllard 3 years ago
Thank you Mr1001Nights for exposing Mr. Chomsky for what he is.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago 4
Yeah. Rad as fuck.
But nobody's perfect. Not even you triple F. So if Chomsky doesn't know how to discuss how taxes would exist in a democratic society, ask yourself if YOU can. I don't think they'd exist at all. I don't think Noam does either.
TruthDevours 3 years ago
Here's how to discuss taxes:
Taxes are compulsory and not compatible with anarchism.
FistsoFuckinFreedom 3 years ago 6
Thanks for stating what should be the obvious. :)
brainpolice2 3 years ago
Oh, here we go again. The "anarcho"-capitalists start moaning about the revisionist views of Chomsky . . .
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
" "'s damn right.
mikezephyr 3 years ago
I don't see how Chomsky is much of an anarchist or why you even posted this video.
CapitalFailsUsNow 3 years ago 2