Government and corporations are both inanimate objects. Neither one is capable of any evil or good until we populate them with people. One has ultimate power, and responsibility for regulating the other. Which one is at fault if corruption occurs? DUH. GO BACK TO SLEEP, YOU ARE THE SHEEPLE, NOT LIBERTARIANS. I'm libertarian, not an Alex Jones freak. But conspiracies happen, and synergies happen even more often. No need to have a meeting when everybody involved already knows what's good for them.
This "corporatism" as Paul calls it, is why we need Ron Paul, the only politician we can trust. Couple terms with him and Rand, all the corrupt politicians would be hanging their heads in shame.
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc NOT ron paul
There is no other GOP candidate that even has the balls to say corporatism, let alone are willing to fight it. Yet Ron Paul has and does. This is a pretty baseless video. The trend shows that while not everyone may listen to everything Ron Paul has said in the past- many come around to it eventually and corporatism is definitely on his list.
Ron Paul has educated many on Americas true monetary system. He has been trying to get people to wake up and challange the Federal reserves policy's for years.
Why should I give the government more power over the markets? If you dont like those evil corporations then dont buy their products. I am so sick of liberals and big government folks stating the same falsities that govt will protect you from big business. History has shown it wont happen. It is up to a responsible public to regulate both markets and government. If the people are not capable of that then you dont live in a free society.
The more I learn about Ron Paul, the less I trust his integrity.
His past speaks more truth about him than what's coming out of his mouth nowadays, (this likely will be true of any candidate of your choosing) most all politicians try the "born again' act to get support but itey're just playacting.
@EgadsNo Well has has a record of saying some very racist things in his own political newsletter(1992-1996 respectively), Of course he says it was taken out of context, check his voting record, he's been in washington for years. Playing himself off as libertarian is his 'thing' now and obviously i don't trust him at his word. If you're curious, look it up, this is the net after all. Peace.
@DystopianEmpire01 I like your skepticism, I honestly do- and I even bet Ron Paul likes it ;P But as for the newsletter I too looked into it and came to the conclusion that he was not really directly involved in these many groups who used his endorsement. I like that instead of micromanaging his public relations campaign he was busy researching and working hard on serious matters at hand. Those ramblings in the newsletter are the complete inverse of every message I have seen come out of him.
@DystopianEmpire01 Voting record is a tricky subject- I early on looked into it when deciding to research Ron Paul, but honestly I have avoided it as when you look past just the name of the bill- read the entire thing there are usually questionable parts. I've come to find it admirable how he is a stickler and thoroughly thinks things out, and when something does not sound right to him- he votes accordingly. Brave to face scrutiny of being an outsider, to be unapproachable by lobbies.
@DystopianEmpire01 You are right that he is played off as a libertarian, but if Reagan did not make him want to puke by doing the opposite of what he said he was going to do- he never would have left the REPUBLICan party, the man is about States rights over anything- and the federal government protecting one state from another and all states from foreign countries. That means small federal government yet rules and contracts. The libertarians just liked his tax and drug policy so took him IMHO.
You fight corruption in government by taking its power away. You cant allow the government to intervene and expect the power not to be abused. A free society means No bailouts, No subsidies for anyone, No social security, No welfare, No transfer of wealth from A to B. The government does not create wealth it only redistributes it as it sees fit, and its the redistribution that people have problems with because they see how these special interest can snag these benefits from us the taxpayers.
Please learn about the federal reserve. It is the underlying reason behind the power the government has to give corporations all the favors they give them. In a truly free society without any government intervention in economics Businesses and banks would have much tougher market restrictions than the free reign and bailouts they have now. The government is to blame because they gave away the power they had to control the money supply because it allows them to fund a welfare-warfare state.
It's not about blaming the government, its about blaming the relationship of government with major corporations, banks, as well as the military industrial complex. They're in bed together. It's not a right vs left issue to me, because I would have Supported Dennis Kucinich or the Green Party against Obama. Obama doesn't represent change...he voted for the bailouts, escalated the war in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, supports the war on drugs & the Fed. So, given the options, Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul is contradictory. While he does criticize problems with corporate control of things, he also constantly lauds private interests and giving them more power. We have a WELL-proven track record of how reckless and criminal many corporations can be. I don't see how he thinks giving them even more power and control is going to help anything.
A big corporation would install body scanners just as readily as government if they could profit, don't get kidded folks
@unfortunatebeam I agree but -- The "free market" view is that since private interests tend to capture gov't, the way to equalize our chances is to remove the special advantage corporations have in gov't. This is the heart of the 'deregulate everything' sentiment. Chomsky suggests that we should instead mobilize the people to capture gov't in its own interests. The problem that arises is that gov't will become a battleground between divided popular interests. I think what matters is engagement.
@unfortunatebeam Meh when you put the government in control of something when something goes wrong, nobody is accountable, forced over all there is no chance of the market exuding effect on it. That is really not contradictory. If you hear turtle skies has a 3 hour boarding delay and jet azure has a flawless biometric database that allows people to board with no delay- you will see the market place dictate what is appropriate. Safety and speed is a selling point- believe they will utilize it.
@unfortunatebeam His point is that private corporations can't force anyone to do something, government can. It's an option vs. no option issue. It's about letting corporations handle what they are supposed to rather than letting government control everything. Guess you don't have the capacity to understand that simple principle behind what the republic of america is supposed to function like.
No need to have a meeting when everybody involved already knows what's good for them.This "corporatism" as Paul calls it, is why we need Ron Paul, the only politician we can trust. Couple terms with him and Rand, all the corrupt politicians would be hanging their heads in shame.
@unfortunatebeam Government and corporations are both inanimate objects. Neither one is capable of any evil or good until we populate them with people. One has ultimate power, and responsibility for regulating the other. Which one is at fault if corruption occurs? DUH. GO BACK TO SLEEP, YOU ARE THE SHEEPLE, NOT LIBERTARIANS. I'm libertarian, not an Alex Jones freak. But conspiracies happen, and synergies happen even more often.
Why did the government massacre the brach davidians in Texas? They could have just arrested Koresh when he was in town. This was what set off Timothy McVeigh from what I have heard.
Regarding the description of this video, Ron Paul doesn't blame just the government. He constantly talks about corporations and private banks, i.e. the Federal Reserve.
Ron Paul do speak against Big business. "When govt get in bed with big business, you should be aware of the diseases it spread" .. who said that? RON PAUL! He is against too much concentration of power in govt, govt can be easily manipulated by corporations. there ron paul propose individual liberty, individual responsibility and constitutional govt. I have no idea how that will help big buisness.
@o0xst Big business controls the govt? WHAT? Government is a tool. Without government then no company or corporation can control anything. Government helped make the corporations who are negative. Government is ABOVE business. Creditors are ABOVE governments. Religion/law is ABOVE creditors.
@o0xst I think we should define what we all mean by govn't. It's the federal reserve that rules everyone and everything, followed by lobbyists, so if the gov't wasn't involved in the subsidies business or providing special privileges then we wouldn't have half of the problem we have today. and that's exactly what Paul is talking about. There is a role for the gov't but not the one it has today.
@ManInTheBox0784 Ron Paul is extreme and stuff but I'm happy that he blames the government for not allowing people to do what they want as long as they are not hurting anybody/anything....
If the government or any other agency has control over that organization through taxation then there is no opting out. If you do not pay for the tax to run the corrupted organization, you will end up in jail. The Federal Reserve is very much envolved in enough wrong doing to take the brunt of this blame. They are the monetary policy of this country. They are the lendor of last resort. They are the private organization that allows no transparancy. Now they are being boycotted.
Why does this interview have anything to do with Ron Paul first of all? Second of all Chomsky has spoke out anti government time and time again? Just listen to his interviews and speaches. Ron Paul has spoken out against corporatism, monetary policy, congress, the people, and the federal government. He is not anti government he is pro choice and pro liberty. I also think Chomsky and Paul agree on a lot. The idea of liberty is that if a private sector does commit wrong doing, you can boycott.
Bottom line for me is Ron Paul rings the most honest and has a rock solid track record of consistency. I disagree with him on cutting many social programs so long as our earned income is being taxed. Public education is a fundamental social accomplishment. I believe in organized labor. But consider the message from the evangelical neo-cons.. By comparison Paul supporters, the real tea party are a bastion of reason on the right. FOX has mainstreamed the wingnut propaganda, a cheap shot.
Corporations are a government fiction. The only reason corporate tyranny can exist is due to government protectionism. If the ability to form corporations which is a legal fiction that limits personal liability were taken away. Corporate power would be lost. Tyranny is monopolistic control. Government monopolistic control is worse. Because governments have the appearance of legitimate use of force. Unless a Corp gets a government mandate they can't force you to buy their products.
Chomsky isn't simply wrong. This is disinformation. Period. You cannot understand what's going on right now if you don't understand the interlacing of corporations and governments. You cannot understand what's going on if you don't know how the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) and the CFR operate. Chomsky is directing his minions to dismiss vital information necessary to understanding the world.
@sectioncp5518 Criticizing Greenspan is not criticizing the Fed, it is giving legitimacy to the system it denotes while complaining about 1 bad leader. It's the equivalent of complaining about Pope Benedict XVI being a former Nazi yet not caring about the inherent problems in the political structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
@hellsunicorn Chomsky has been criticized for a lot of things (I disagree with him on many things, especially as he has gotten older), but I'm surprised to see anyone call Chomsky out for NOT blaming the system (the Fed!) Certainly The System (incl The Fed) is 100% jacked, but while working within the (utterly) flawed system Greenspan made HUGE mistakes.. Chomsky often *crushes* the system?!
@WelcomeToMyDream I did not necessarily state that Chomsky agreed with the Fed system (even pro-Central Bank people have objections to how it operates now), I was responding to a very poor example of it provided by sectioncp5518. My problem with Chomsky isn't that he lacks criticism on that particular subject, but that he repeatedly trashes every viable candidate who opposes it. It draws a lot of suspicion onto what his true motives are.
I was mislead by the video title into thinking it might be Ron Paul at first, at which point I was about to burst out with happy laughter, until the voice started to sound familiar. ;)
I blame the government for allowing corporatism to arrise. There is a time and place for unions, and blaming corporations. But the government protects corporations in court, gives them subsidies, and gives them special priveledges. Blaming corporations for the faults of keynsian economics is not right.
Rousseau and "everyman is born free" sense of the word. Anarchy is the absolute left of the social spectrum.
Ron Paul and a group of right winged conservatives took up the term "Libertarian" to reflect their belief in a "free market" so business runs the world and you are "free" to spend your wages where you can.
The US term of the word is the exact opposite of classic libertarianism.
What?! That doesn't make sense at all, at least from my political spectrum that I use. In anarchism everything is directly decided by "the people", and the goals that people make aren't necessarily left. And how is Leninism and Maoism right winged?!? If in a direct democracy, the people'd choose a right winged aproach to things, than how is direct democracy left?
(Woops I didn't saw what you wrote what spectrum you used).
Anyway, marxism and some forms of socialism, in your spectrum, be on the right. Seeing how marxism advocates a dictatorship for an undecided period of time, socialism is state-capitalism, a country where the state is in control of the means of production, this gives the gov't much power in the distribution of goods, so they should be right-winged... At least it apears.
Ron Paul is not anti-government. He believes in a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. You know, one that actually follows the rule of law, doesn't overstep their legal authority, doesn't engage in illegal wars, doesn't force its will upon the people by means of propaganda and fear, and one that simply guards our borders, coins our currency (the Fed is a private bank), and protects people's liberty. Those are litertally the federal government's only jobs (according to the Constitution).
Follow up: Noam Chomsky is a self-described anarchist (libertarian socialist). He is far more anti-government than Ron Paul, yet you use his speach as an example of how anti-government Ron Paul is? Come on now. Get a brain dummy.
I find it interesting that Chomsky (who I believe considers himself an anarchist) is coming out in defense of government and blames the corporations for the evils in our society. The government has the power to control the corporations but it's simply not doing it's job of protecting the people. He talks about how gov. has the ability to change, unlike the corp., but all the govt does is take bribes from lobbyists and let the corps ...
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace Not sure what your point is. Its obvious the system is messed up, and because we've allowed some terrible people into positions of power. Doesn't have to be that way, but it takes serious effort.
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace I think he's just reacting to all this propaganda from the right that the government is some thieving killer entity. He's not saying necessarily that it is good, but that it is potentially good and is thus the entity we should be turning to for help, not resenting for its supposed evils.
@nocturnezero Until we have a separation of gov. and corporatism, it will remain a thieving killer entity. Do you think the corporate lobbyists who influence politics on daily basis are looking out for you? We shouldn't be turning to government for help until we turn it into a helpful government.
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace As I understand it...he is for pure democracy but understands you can't just make it happen instantly. People have to be civilized and politically active for that progression to happen. Also, the corporations are currently in charge of the government (revolving door / campaign finance) so what he is talking about is the propaganda to prevent the population from being politically active. You can easily observe that much of the vote is influenced fear / religion / propaganda.
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace It is interesting. But I agree with him, but I know what you're saying. If you watch more videos of Chomsky, you'll get a better idea of what he means. Too many points to cover in a youtube post :P
roam free, just look at the banking crisis. In order to stop the corps. we have to have a moral, uncorrupted govt which acts in the best interest of the masses. This would require a pretty major reform, a revolution, if at all attainable. I don't think that Ron Paul is anti-government, he just wants to cut down on the bureaucracy thereby making the govt more direct, accessible, and accountable while reducing wasteful spending at the same time.
the Constitution is what works. Since we've abandoned it we are facing all kinds of problems, not the least of which include the Fed, government expansion, judicial system, and corporatism
it is really a process that has been going on for a long time. people at the top who want power are to gain. many laws are snuck in during manufactured "crises", supposedly for our benefit, which disregard the constitution. read "the death of common sense"
If there were any hatred in Ron Paul he wouldn't still be proposing solutions for broken America. He doesn't wish to combat the government, only the continuing growth of government. There is nothing irrational or extreme about wanting to hold our elected officals accountable to the Constitution(you know, the law of the land). He calls for all Americans to join his cause. He cooperates with all members of Congress(more recently with HR 1207). He is by far the most honest guy in Congress.
Historically, that has not been the case. We see through history the rise of authoritarian dictatorial regimes, such as in China, the former USSR, Nazi Germany, and many others, in which the will of the people was manipulated and controlled into producing the views of the elite.
Gov't is itself, a business. The only difference between gov't and a big corporation, is that gov't holds a monopoly on force. And can easily be corrupted and co opted.
Why the stupid question? Big business is at the mercy of the consumer. If people band together, they can boycott, and ultimately sway the company or whatever to act, or be destroyed by the free market. In an ideal society, the government would listen to the will of the people. But gov't can be easily corrupted. And with a monopoly on power, its only a matter of time before you end up in an oppressive regime.
@SunBeamsan I prefer Non Fiction. Whats with all the fiction? I work in a bookstore and all these catfish-eaters keep coming in asking for that bitch Ayn Rand's crap...
You have proven your complete ignorance to this subject. First of all, nothing i recommended had anything to do with the "bitch Ayn Rand". What i told you to look in was about government mind control, and population control. If you don't know what you're talking about, just don't talk about it at all.
That´s why Chomsky is so important to me. He is so precise with words, that he clearly highlights every "newspeak" of our time, which is so rapidly growing. I live in Germany, and its the same here - just a shame that we don´t have a Chomsky, but we have Volker Pispers (not as renouned, but very clever and utterly funny in a strange way)
McVeigh's irrational and idiotic decision that ruined an entire city and changed the face of an entire nation were, in fact, in response to terrible things that happened at the hands of groups that were government sponsored. that cannot be denied. to blame the government for everything, however, is terribly irrational, and to blame the government as a whole for these specific actions is equally irrational, but the government isn't exempt from blame. nice touch with the Chomsky excerpt btw.
It destroyed the spirit of OKC in a "Shock Doctrine" fashion. Since the bombing, we've got all kinds of wealthy developer friendly "stuff" and well, to put it honestly, we're Chile...radical neo-liberals heaven right now...do a google search for our fight against "maps3", it is quite interesting.
i most definitely will. let me first hear your definition of "radical neo liberal" though because i am a HUGE fan of Noam Chomsky (and you seem to like him as well) and i would most definitely consider him, at least, radically left. he, as i am as well, is an anarchist (libertarian socialism is a form of anarchy. he has stated numerous times that his version of libertarianism is far different from the US representation of it).
OKC is run by a radically neo-liberal set, i.e Cornett, McClendon, Bennett...who take tax payer money and use it for Private gain...all the while ranting and raving about the "Conservative Economic miracle of OKC" ... its huge man. Cornett has been on fox, forbes, in the wsj, on bloomberg talking about this stuff, never once mentioning our 17yr "temporary tax increase" thats built all this fancy stuff...or subsidies to fancy oil co's...he was slated to speak at the last RNC...
ok thx. i am from California. i have not read up on this because it hasn't crossed my radar. there are so many issues that i have found to be important that it is kind of hard to get to each one. thanks for making me aware of this. i have a friend in a neighboring town to OKC so i will ask him about it.
i believe in small businesses and small government, we should limit them both. i also believe in the seperation of corporation and state. you don't have to be for big business, just because your a libertarian.
Lemme 'splain something to you brainwashed asswipes.
The US of falling Empire has 2 governments.
1. The puppets you fools "vote" into office.
2. The CFR, CIA and the US military and its suppliers, the media and the mega corporations who pay these drunken assholes to run for office and be their HeyBoy's..
Until someone grows a set of balls and starts wiping out CEO's they will do as they do.
You need an internal war.Against the mega corps that many of you slaves work for.
For a guy as intelligent as Chomsky to say blaming government for all the crap going on with the country isnt right. what planet is he living on? Theyre responsible for EVERYTHING going wrong. and to the guy who thinks the new world order is far fetched. do a little research and youll find some incredibly fascinating evidence of the contrary. Theres at least a dozen video`s of the elder bush at speaking engagements referencing his" new world order" vision. go check out "Freedom to Facism".
the problem isn't government, or business in of themselves, it's when big and business government work together to fuck us in the ass. it's called corporatism.
I think the system of free market competition inherently leads to consolidation of money and power.
We have seen it time and time again in our short history. Companies become too large, buy up their competitors; at that point, it becomes more profitable to buy government than do the right thing.
work for small businesses. buy from small businesses. tell others to work for and buy from small businesses. if there are no small businesses around, then star your own, or move somewhere else. don't vote for politicians who redistribute wealth, because they usually redistribute it upwards. instead, don't become dependant on big business in the first place. form a union, or join a union. don't pay your taxes, buy a gun. fuck, there's so many things we can do without socialism and corporatism.
It's not an all or nothing thing. Gov't is centralized authority (our Gov't has too much; preemptive war/patriot acts) The challenge is having equal justice under the law (and this will never be perfect).
Jones didn't know Chomsky very well, as he made some references to him being an elitist. If he is an elitist, then how come he always answers my emails and engaged in long conversations w/ me in the times I got to meet him??? Anyway, I am not a big jones fan, but greatly appreciate his recent interview with sick-pukebag endtimes huckster Joel Rosenberg.
The interview ended poorly actually. Alex Jones went to an Ad Hominem attack on Chomsky, which doesn't do much to help Jones. I don't believe that Chomsky loves the US, but I don't think he's a shill as Jones claims. Too bad.
He loves it. He's had his dream job his whole life, and admits he couldn't do what he's done anywhere else. Nowhere is there so much access to information that you can use to bring about justice, which is what he is interested in. And he acknowledges this over and over. Disgraceful people like Bill Bennett attack him for hating America and say he should move, but sane people, clear headed thinking people know he loves this place and wants to make it better, and the world better.
I guess I mean that Chomsky is not known for being a patriot in the classic sense, in the way that say Ron Paul or William Cooper, both vocal critics of the US's mistakes, identify themselves as defenders of the american `narrative'. I like Chomsky, often more than Alex Jones' circus-like antics. But I do feel that Chomsky does exhibit a certain restraint to go `all-in'.
The specific reason why the discussion went south is because Chomsky is against guns and seems to exhibit the typical liberal myopia that guns are for fun and to shoot things and people. Alex Jones, Ron Paul, William Cooper and the like see the basic 2nd amendment right as the founding fathers did; for the individual to have the ability to defend himself against his government. On this point I would side with Jones, but he should have done it more gracefully.
The status quo, through the mainstream media, attributes nation-wide problems and economic crises to free-market ideology and 'de-regulation.' I don't know where chomsky sees the propaganda he's referring to. "The levers that pull firms are far more accessible to the public at large than those that pull governments," certainly not said by Noam Chomsky.
Except for the fact that Jones doesn't have a quarter of the brain that Chomsky does. Jones is so paranoid that goes off using ad hominem after ad hominem about guns in the UK.
Sorry, I just looked at your comment and it basically said the same thing. I just think it is crazy that Jones goes so far that he says that Chomsky is somehow "in" on all of this. But Chomsky has been speaking out against U.S. foreign policy, corporate media control, etc. before this guy was born.
gun control will not work in the US. It will only create another lucrative market for gangsters and thugs to profit and thrive on. Just look at the war on drugs. more than 2 decades of useless government programs adding their burden to our debt and the end is no where insight. People still use drugs. Those who are caught are treated like criminals, they pay fines, and then back to their life where they can then chose again whether or not to use drugs. Don't you see, prohibition never works!
Cmon., I know Paul supported him but even if your really a Paul fan I wouldn't be for Baldwin hes for the Constitution but him and his party are way too paleoconservative.
Your getting it backwards.. the laws that are written for america as a free country only applies to the powerful and the elite. take the Patriot act for example.. it is the biggest bite out of our freedom and allows civilians to be arrested, incarcerated, violated until you have nothing . But you see those laws don't apply to rockerfeller, bush, the clintons,, your bankers, war profiteer investors, etc. they have global diplomatic immunity.
I see a role for government, but you americans aren't just governed, you're regulated.
I've listened to all of the candidates, and Ron Paul doesn't say he wants NO government, just LESS government. All of his policies are bang-on and I wish he qualified to run as PM of Canada! We have our own problems.
The 2 biggest demographics to be negatively affected by R.P.'s policies are the lazy and the super-rich.
and before you say it, the outcome of the elections has a huge impact on Canada, no kidding
no, deregulation forces people to be fair and competitive. Consider this: if your state only offered one company that sells cell phones, where is there motivation to give you a fair price? On the flip-side, most phones are pretty cheap most places because even the 7-11 can sell them!
Deregulation forces real marketing and cost-effective lobbying because there is alot of competition.
The big guys already have so much capital that they just take over the small ones. That is what history tells us. Stop with the ideology and look at the facts. It's a free country down here and we have tremendous access to facts, it might be different up there. So stop insulting me.
if by "insulting" you mean "disagree" then no, i can't stop. I'm not being boorish and if you knew anything about canada, we're basically a carbon copy of your country with a tenth of the population.
it's MORE free up here than in the U.S. and i've lived in both countries. I have the SAME access to information that you do and I don't see where you're coming from. you spout that you have "tremendous access to facts" so do me a favor and back up your statements with at least an example.
Sure, take a look at the 96 Telecom Act, what wsa promised, and what actually happened. Im not saying you're insulting by disagreeing, I am saying you're insulting by spewing ideologies backed with zero facts all the while demanding examples from me. These are the games played by Fox News, The Heritage Foundation, Dick Armey's scumbag friends, etc... Stop playing games man.
They always do and they sure did during the so called days of "unfettered capitalization" in the late 19th century. 50% tariff rate just to start with.
I support Ron Paul but not to the point where it is government hate, nor do I think he is selling that. I love my country and I believe the government is doing what it thinks is best for the people but sometimes in some cases I believe government might simply not be necessary.
Geez you guys need to atleast 'try' to understand what im talking about. Lets see.. Cops? Justice system courts? Diplomatic treaties (lol when they finaly decide to do so). Our government isnt total evil
Chomsky is completely correct here. The reason why the US government has taken the route it has, is because of the nature of private power, not because of the nature of government.
The constant pro-capitalist propaganda during the cold war era (and onwards) has led to a situation where people want to dismantle the government infrastructure, rather than the corporate/private infrastructure that has exclusive control of the state. This would simply serve to give private power even more control.
The nature of government leads to the nature of private power. You can't have one without the other. That's how fascism works, it is a collusion of interests.
Walmart isn't able to be as powerful as it is if it wasn't able to get tax subsidies from the government and taxpayers to keep expanding (they even let them keep sales tax as profit--check the facts).
Government works and goes out of their way to get private interests as powerful and monopolistic as possible and that is fascism.
I don't think Ron "blames it all on gvt", just that it's the relevant target first of all. corporations are moderated by gvt, so essencially the faults and abilities of corporations are from the permissions of the gvt. There is so much to identify as faultly, Ron has already anough to get the gvt aspect out that he couldn't get to all the related elements.3 things to blame: human citizens,gouvernement & corporations. Elabortating on why would be asking a lot of time from a presidential candidate
The only role of the gvt is to practice and apply what is impossible by one individual but wich is wanted by the mass.The gvt is there to materialise the collective will.After all,a gvt is a parasite,it feeds on the people so that the people (should) feed on the conversion of ressources given to the gvt into adapted services. Ron wants to order the gvt back into it's proper fonction.I don't see what is wrong with that?How can some one think he is the one NOT to vote for?
not an anarchist like some emo kid at the mall, but a socio-anarchist as in workers have a right to organize, and to some extent control their work. Gov't involvement is necessary for such a thing to exist in a silly place like 'merka at this point and time and he knows it and admits it....
i'm confused. if the gov't is the institution that can be changed, then why is the media focussing blame on that? wouldn't it make more sense for them to focus blame on the corporations that can't be changed, since this would mean less chance of change occurring?
Sorry I dont quite understand. The media are blaming the government instead of the corporations for what? The War, the state of the economy, new legislation? Sorry.
just in the first half of the video, chomsky says that the media focusses our angst toward gov't rather than the corporations behind them. but if the gov't is capable of being altered by the ppl while corps are not (as he says), then i wonder why the media (i.e. corporate interests) would want our attn to go toward that which we can change. wouldn't it be safer for them to direct our angst toward that which we cannot affect (i.e. corps)?
Your comment is logical and makes more sense to me then anything Chomsky has said. "when some thing goes wrong" the MEDIA is manipulating us into blaming the Government! BEWARE this ANTI POLITICAL state is DANGEROUS! The evil corporations, and dark entrenpenuers are scheming to destroy the government. Chomsky's PRO GOVERNMENT anti-capitalism belongs in North Korea.
uh, i'm just asking if anyone picked up on why this might be. i'm not making a dif't point than chomsky, i'm just asking sincerely for help from someone on this point.
as for being so hostile to this point, i'm a bit curious where you're coming from. which part of it seems so unlikely to you?
I was just repeating the theme of Chomsy's argument, I wasn't being Hostile. Or do you meen my opinion of these views belonging to North Korea being hostile?
but i think it's a misunderstanding to interpret what he says here as a warning about corps taking over the gov't.the point is that the gov't is merely the shadow of corporations over the ppl.the gov't serves corporate interests.
this is why i wanted to know if anyone knows what chomsky thinks is the reason for this, since it seems more logical to me that the corporations, as institutions are less vulnerable to the will of the ppl (which they fear, of course) so wouldn't they be safer targets for our attn? so why does the media blame the gov't? see 1:50
I don't think the media blames the government. Take FOX news as an example of total loyalty to Bush and GOP biased reporting. It is obvious that the media supports Government, as it's in their interest. My argument is take away the government protectionisms and let the free market decide what businesses survive, such as FOX news.
i've never seen fox report on the themes chomsky is referencing here (that he explains eslewhere), about corps' entanglement with gov't.but anyway,chomsky speaks in broader terms than just fox news. he refers to the entire propaganda model, which, if you haven't read chomsky, you may doubt even exists.
I have seen manufacturing consent a few years ago. I think it was about the well oiled media machine which had evolved to a science of mind control and mainpulations of the public. I agree with Chomsky's evaluation of media and properganda in todays society, but it's the ideoligical perspectives where he draws his assuptions of WHY where I disagree.
well, ideologogies aside, i think we can all agree that we don't work all day and give half our money to the gov't so they can spend it on murdering innocents.take a specific case,from the movie if you'd like: east timor.what incentive could the media have had to cover that up if not what chomsky suggests: that it was...
Australia knew about the East Timor invasion and what was going on and our government covered it up. We are now building a huge gas pipe line in the timor sea worth billions to both Timor and Australia. Australian's are good people but I do think the motivation behind Australias involvement with helping the Timorese get their country back was about money not Humanitarian. Although the people don't know this it's the government's and corrupt corporations.
Government and corporations are both inanimate objects. Neither one is capable of any evil or good until we populate them with people. One has ultimate power, and responsibility for regulating the other. Which one is at fault if corruption occurs? DUH. GO BACK TO SLEEP, YOU ARE THE SHEEPLE, NOT LIBERTARIANS. I'm libertarian, not an Alex Jones freak. But conspiracies happen, and synergies happen even more often. No need to have a meeting when everybody involved already knows what's good for them.
TheScotthutch 2 days ago
This "corporatism" as Paul calls it, is why we need Ron Paul, the only politician we can trust. Couple terms with him and Rand, all the corrupt politicians would be hanging their heads in shame.
TheScotthutch 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc NOT ron paul
EndWesternTyranny 3 weeks ago
There is no other GOP candidate that even has the balls to say corporatism, let alone are willing to fight it. Yet Ron Paul has and does. This is a pretty baseless video. The trend shows that while not everyone may listen to everything Ron Paul has said in the past- many come around to it eventually and corporatism is definitely on his list.
EgadsNo 3 months ago
Ron Paul has educated many on Americas true monetary system. He has been trying to get people to wake up and challange the Federal reserves policy's for years.
buyred 3 months ago
Why should I give the government more power over the markets? If you dont like those evil corporations then dont buy their products. I am so sick of liberals and big government folks stating the same falsities that govt will protect you from big business. History has shown it wont happen. It is up to a responsible public to regulate both markets and government. If the people are not capable of that then you dont live in a free society.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
The more I learn about Ron Paul, the less I trust his integrity.
His past speaks more truth about him than what's coming out of his mouth nowadays, (this likely will be true of any candidate of your choosing) most all politicians try the "born again' act to get support but itey're just playacting.
DystopianEmpire01 3 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 thats some fancy rhetoric- have any examples?
EgadsNo 3 months ago
@EgadsNo Well has has a record of saying some very racist things in his own political newsletter(1992-1996 respectively), Of course he says it was taken out of context, check his voting record, he's been in washington for years. Playing himself off as libertarian is his 'thing' now and obviously i don't trust him at his word. If you're curious, look it up, this is the net after all. Peace.
DystopianEmpire01 3 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 I like your skepticism, I honestly do- and I even bet Ron Paul likes it ;P But as for the newsletter I too looked into it and came to the conclusion that he was not really directly involved in these many groups who used his endorsement. I like that instead of micromanaging his public relations campaign he was busy researching and working hard on serious matters at hand. Those ramblings in the newsletter are the complete inverse of every message I have seen come out of him.
EgadsNo 3 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 Voting record is a tricky subject- I early on looked into it when deciding to research Ron Paul, but honestly I have avoided it as when you look past just the name of the bill- read the entire thing there are usually questionable parts. I've come to find it admirable how he is a stickler and thoroughly thinks things out, and when something does not sound right to him- he votes accordingly. Brave to face scrutiny of being an outsider, to be unapproachable by lobbies.
EgadsNo 3 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 You are right that he is played off as a libertarian, but if Reagan did not make him want to puke by doing the opposite of what he said he was going to do- he never would have left the REPUBLICan party, the man is about States rights over anything- and the federal government protecting one state from another and all states from foreign countries. That means small federal government yet rules and contracts. The libertarians just liked his tax and drug policy so took him IMHO.
EgadsNo 3 months ago
You fight corruption in government by taking its power away. You cant allow the government to intervene and expect the power not to be abused. A free society means No bailouts, No subsidies for anyone, No social security, No welfare, No transfer of wealth from A to B. The government does not create wealth it only redistributes it as it sees fit, and its the redistribution that people have problems with because they see how these special interest can snag these benefits from us the taxpayers.
Ajeff07 3 months ago
Please learn about the federal reserve. It is the underlying reason behind the power the government has to give corporations all the favors they give them. In a truly free society without any government intervention in economics Businesses and banks would have much tougher market restrictions than the free reign and bailouts they have now. The government is to blame because they gave away the power they had to control the money supply because it allows them to fund a welfare-warfare state.
Ajeff07 3 months ago
Excellent vid!
What I don't get is how Chomsky criticizes anti-politics while simultaneously being an Anarchist. But then again there's many kinds of Anarchists.
VolcanicPenguin 4 months ago
It's not about blaming the government, its about blaming the relationship of government with major corporations, banks, as well as the military industrial complex. They're in bed together. It's not a right vs left issue to me, because I would have Supported Dennis Kucinich or the Green Party against Obama. Obama doesn't represent change...he voted for the bailouts, escalated the war in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, supports the war on drugs & the Fed. So, given the options, Ron Paul 2012
Franz1987 4 months ago
Ron Paul is contradictory. While he does criticize problems with corporate control of things, he also constantly lauds private interests and giving them more power. We have a WELL-proven track record of how reckless and criminal many corporations can be. I don't see how he thinks giving them even more power and control is going to help anything.
A big corporation would install body scanners just as readily as government if they could profit, don't get kidded folks
unfortunatebeam 4 months ago 7
@unfortunatebeam Good comment beam!
o0xst 4 months ago
@unfortunatebeam I agree but -- The "free market" view is that since private interests tend to capture gov't, the way to equalize our chances is to remove the special advantage corporations have in gov't. This is the heart of the 'deregulate everything' sentiment. Chomsky suggests that we should instead mobilize the people to capture gov't in its own interests. The problem that arises is that gov't will become a battleground between divided popular interests. I think what matters is engagement.
suredoloveya 4 months ago
@unfortunatebeam Meh when you put the government in control of something when something goes wrong, nobody is accountable, forced over all there is no chance of the market exuding effect on it. That is really not contradictory. If you hear turtle skies has a 3 hour boarding delay and jet azure has a flawless biometric database that allows people to board with no delay- you will see the market place dictate what is appropriate. Safety and speed is a selling point- believe they will utilize it.
EgadsNo 3 months ago
@unfortunatebeam His point is that private corporations can't force anyone to do something, government can. It's an option vs. no option issue. It's about letting corporations handle what they are supposed to rather than letting government control everything. Guess you don't have the capacity to understand that simple principle behind what the republic of america is supposed to function like.
Josepherism 1 month ago
@unfortunatebeam No they wouldn't and I'll explain why if you are willing to have this debate.
jpotts44 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No need to have a meeting when everybody involved already knows what's good for them.This "corporatism" as Paul calls it, is why we need Ron Paul, the only politician we can trust. Couple terms with him and Rand, all the corrupt politicians would be hanging their heads in shame.
TheScotthutch 2 days ago
@unfortunatebeam Government and corporations are both inanimate objects. Neither one is capable of any evil or good until we populate them with people. One has ultimate power, and responsibility for regulating the other. Which one is at fault if corruption occurs? DUH. GO BACK TO SLEEP, YOU ARE THE SHEEPLE, NOT LIBERTARIANS. I'm libertarian, not an Alex Jones freak. But conspiracies happen, and synergies happen even more often.
TheScotthutch 2 days ago
Comment removed
unfortunatebeam 4 months ago
A government strong enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
The merging of government and corporate powers is what we're seeing today. Ron Paul understands this, describing it as corporatism.
VotePaineJefferson 4 months ago
blame the govt cuz that's where the blame belongs, along with the rich, greedy corporations.
supermariofj 6 months ago
Comment removed
faktardish 8 months ago
Translation:
"Timothy Mcveigh was anti-government, so those who are anti government are the essence of Timothy McVeigh."
Did you know that Hitler preferred mustard on his sandwiches? those who prefer mustard must be the very essence of Hitler
southof76 8 months ago
Why did the government massacre the brach davidians in Texas? They could have just arrested Koresh when he was in town. This was what set off Timothy McVeigh from what I have heard.
giovanhagar 10 months ago
@giovanhagar That, and his tour in Iraq and the meth he was doing and a few other things....
o0xst 10 months ago 2
@o0xst Here we go again: Conquer them, sell them our wares and conquer them again.
Iraq has made the first payment in a deal to buy 18 US F-16 fighter jets worth a total of about $3bn (£1.9bn), the US state department has said.
johnnycmajor 4 months ago
Regarding the description of this video, Ron Paul doesn't blame just the government. He constantly talks about corporations and private banks, i.e. the Federal Reserve.
BobbyDigital1980 1 year ago
Ron Paul speaks openly about Corporatism morons.
there's a video where he even says "obama's not a socialist , he's a corporatist"
people don't understand the difference between capitalism and corportism.
papacap727 1 year ago
@papacap727 Because there is none.
Bellantoni 7 months ago
The gov is big corporations, so when Ron Paul blames the gov he is blaming corporations. Bloated gov means corporation control.
RyanR3volution 1 year ago
Ron Paul do speak against Big business. "When govt get in bed with big business, you should be aware of the diseases it spread" .. who said that? RON PAUL! He is against too much concentration of power in govt, govt can be easily manipulated by corporations. there ron paul propose individual liberty, individual responsibility and constitutional govt. I have no idea how that will help big buisness.
appumathew 1 year ago
ron paul blames the government because that is where the blame belongs
ManInTheBox0784 1 year ago 2
@ManInTheBox0784 The point is that it is not this simple. Big Business controls the Gov't, thus...
o0xst 1 year ago 8
@o0xst Big business controls the govt? WHAT? Government is a tool. Without government then no company or corporation can control anything. Government helped make the corporations who are negative. Government is ABOVE business. Creditors are ABOVE governments. Religion/law is ABOVE creditors.
Jononutoob 11 months ago
@o0xst I think we should define what we all mean by govn't. It's the federal reserve that rules everyone and everything, followed by lobbyists, so if the gov't wasn't involved in the subsidies business or providing special privileges then we wouldn't have half of the problem we have today. and that's exactly what Paul is talking about. There is a role for the gov't but not the one it has today.
innulja 3 months ago
@ManInTheBox0784 Ron Paul is extreme and stuff but I'm happy that he blames the government for not allowing people to do what they want as long as they are not hurting anybody/anything....
terceldude 4 days ago
If the government or any other agency has control over that organization through taxation then there is no opting out. If you do not pay for the tax to run the corrupted organization, you will end up in jail. The Federal Reserve is very much envolved in enough wrong doing to take the brunt of this blame. They are the monetary policy of this country. They are the lendor of last resort. They are the private organization that allows no transparancy. Now they are being boycotted.
holding09 1 year ago
Why does this interview have anything to do with Ron Paul first of all? Second of all Chomsky has spoke out anti government time and time again? Just listen to his interviews and speaches. Ron Paul has spoken out against corporatism, monetary policy, congress, the people, and the federal government. He is not anti government he is pro choice and pro liberty. I also think Chomsky and Paul agree on a lot. The idea of liberty is that if a private sector does commit wrong doing, you can boycott.
holding09 1 year ago
Ron Paul is an economical anarchist, an advocate of the darwinistic "survival of the fittest" ideology of Morgan Friedman.
August1977 1 year ago
someone tell chomsky the federal reserve is private (5:40-5:55)
JoeEsus 1 year ago
Bottom line for me is Ron Paul rings the most honest and has a rock solid track record of consistency. I disagree with him on cutting many social programs so long as our earned income is being taxed. Public education is a fundamental social accomplishment. I believe in organized labor. But consider the message from the evangelical neo-cons.. By comparison Paul supporters, the real tea party are a bastion of reason on the right. FOX has mainstreamed the wingnut propaganda, a cheap shot.
hzane 1 year ago
Corporations are a government fiction. The only reason corporate tyranny can exist is due to government protectionism. If the ability to form corporations which is a legal fiction that limits personal liability were taken away. Corporate power would be lost. Tyranny is monopolistic control. Government monopolistic control is worse. Because governments have the appearance of legitimate use of force. Unless a Corp gets a government mandate they can't force you to buy their products.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
I'm starting a campaign.
I'd like to see Chomsky and Ron Paul in a series of debates.
Pass it on.
smujismuj 1 year ago
Chomsky isn't simply wrong. This is disinformation. Period. You cannot understand what's going on right now if you don't understand the interlacing of corporations and governments. You cannot understand what's going on if you don't know how the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) and the CFR operate. Chomsky is directing his minions to dismiss vital information necessary to understanding the world.
nealkassanoff 1 year ago
@nealkassanoff
chomsky doesn't criticize the fed? nonsense.
watch: The Militarization of Science and Space Noam Chomsky at MIT 2004
greenspan get's some harsh criticism
sectioncp5518 1 year ago
@sectioncp5518 Criticizing Greenspan is not criticizing the Fed, it is giving legitimacy to the system it denotes while complaining about 1 bad leader. It's the equivalent of complaining about Pope Benedict XVI being a former Nazi yet not caring about the inherent problems in the political structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
hellsunicorn 1 year ago
@hellsunicorn Chomsky has been criticized for a lot of things (I disagree with him on many things, especially as he has gotten older), but I'm surprised to see anyone call Chomsky out for NOT blaming the system (the Fed!) Certainly The System (incl The Fed) is 100% jacked, but while working within the (utterly) flawed system Greenspan made HUGE mistakes.. Chomsky often *crushes* the system?!
WelcomeToMyDream 1 year ago
@WelcomeToMyDream I did not necessarily state that Chomsky agreed with the Fed system (even pro-Central Bank people have objections to how it operates now), I was responding to a very poor example of it provided by sectioncp5518. My problem with Chomsky isn't that he lacks criticism on that particular subject, but that he repeatedly trashes every viable candidate who opposes it. It draws a lot of suspicion onto what his true motives are.
hellsunicorn 1 year ago
This is Chomsky speaking, right?
I was mislead by the video title into thinking it might be Ron Paul at first, at which point I was about to burst out with happy laughter, until the voice started to sound familiar. ;)
Lodatzor 1 year ago 2
I blame the government for allowing corporatism to arrise. There is a time and place for unions, and blaming corporations. But the government protects corporations in court, gives them subsidies, and gives them special priveledges. Blaming corporations for the faults of keynsian economics is not right.
enomarekim 1 year ago
Timothy McVeigh was trained by the CIA as a contract agent.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
To help clear things up.
Chomsky is a Libertarian in the old world sense.
Rousseau and "everyman is born free" sense of the word. Anarchy is the absolute left of the social spectrum.
Ron Paul and a group of right winged conservatives took up the term "Libertarian" to reflect their belief in a "free market" so business runs the world and you are "free" to spend your wages where you can.
The US term of the word is the exact opposite of classic libertarianism.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
I agree
danielshacalis 1 year ago
Anarchism is the absolute left? I dissagree if Anarchism is "democracy all the way through" it is 'extreme-centrism'.
Far-left: communism, far-right: fascism, 'far-centrism': anarchism...
Or not, whatever label, who cares anyway.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets
Anarchism (of the socialist variety) is communism without 'state' or 'money'
It has no laws which makes it absolute left.
The Real left and right needs to be understood in terms of control of the people.
Left is Anarchy, Marxism, Socialism, Direct Democracy.
Right is Fascism, Nazism, Conservatism, Lenin and Maoism.
Liberals are in the middle since they want freedom but need laws 'for the public good'
MilanTbay 1 year ago
What?! That doesn't make sense at all, at least from my political spectrum that I use. In anarchism everything is directly decided by "the people", and the goals that people make aren't necessarily left. And how is Leninism and Maoism right winged?!? If in a direct democracy, the people'd choose a right winged aproach to things, than how is direct democracy left?
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets
Leninism and Maoism never gave the power back to the people that Marx thought would happen.
The old political spectrum had an interest in lumping socialism, communism in with Nazism and Maoism.
Direct Democracy is the people in charge of themselves and votes actually counting for something.
People control themselves = left
Government control us = right.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
(Woops I didn't saw what you wrote what spectrum you used).
Anyway, marxism and some forms of socialism, in your spectrum, be on the right. Seeing how marxism advocates a dictatorship for an undecided period of time, socialism is state-capitalism, a country where the state is in control of the means of production, this gives the gov't much power in the distribution of goods, so they should be right-winged... At least it apears.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets
State capitalism is more of what Mao and Lenin did. State profiting from the collective labours of the people.
Socialism first is the people in charge of 'the state' and second doesn't figure capital into the equation.
Like a public library. It shouldn't be there to make capital but as a social service regardless of cost.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
This.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Great post!!!!
People listen to RPs message of freedom but don't understand he wants corporations (the markets) to control everything.
Business already is the government so this would be handing them the keys to the white house,
Great call.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
Ron Paul is not anti-government. He believes in a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. You know, one that actually follows the rule of law, doesn't overstep their legal authority, doesn't engage in illegal wars, doesn't force its will upon the people by means of propaganda and fear, and one that simply guards our borders, coins our currency (the Fed is a private bank), and protects people's liberty. Those are litertally the federal government's only jobs (according to the Constitution).
drhibbart 1 year ago
Follow up: Noam Chomsky is a self-described anarchist (libertarian socialist). He is far more anti-government than Ron Paul, yet you use his speach as an example of how anti-government Ron Paul is? Come on now. Get a brain dummy.
drhibbart 1 year ago
Thanks a lot for posting this excellent Chomsky piece. It's truly brilliant, as always.
mussman717word 2 years ago
Comment removed
mussman717word 2 years ago
@o0xst "Ron Paul is a decent guy but his schtick of blaming the government for all of our society's woes is frightening."
I think that we do need a complete overhaul and the govt is the first place to look at. He is not anti-govt., he just wants a better one.
MonkeyNinjaFromSpace 2 years ago
no, he's definately anti government
jstewart0420 2 years ago
I find it interesting that Chomsky (who I believe considers himself an anarchist) is coming out in defense of government and blames the corporations for the evils in our society. The government has the power to control the corporations but it's simply not doing it's job of protecting the people. He talks about how gov. has the ability to change, unlike the corp., but all the govt does is take bribes from lobbyists and let the corps ...
MonkeyNinjaFromSpace 2 years ago
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace Not sure what your point is. Its obvious the system is messed up, and because we've allowed some terrible people into positions of power. Doesn't have to be that way, but it takes serious effort.
o0xst 2 years ago
@o0xst I wish it were just some "terrible people" but its all of us..
WelcomeToMyDream 1 year ago
The government does not have the power to control corporations. The corporations have the power to control the government.
ImElvis666 1 year ago
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace I think he's just reacting to all this propaganda from the right that the government is some thieving killer entity. He's not saying necessarily that it is good, but that it is potentially good and is thus the entity we should be turning to for help, not resenting for its supposed evils.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Until we have a separation of gov. and corporatism, it will remain a thieving killer entity. Do you think the corporate lobbyists who influence politics on daily basis are looking out for you? We shouldn't be turning to government for help until we turn it into a helpful government.
MonkeyNinjaFromSpace 1 year ago
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace I agree. The most important word in my sentence was "potentially."
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace As I understand it...he is for pure democracy but understands you can't just make it happen instantly. People have to be civilized and politically active for that progression to happen. Also, the corporations are currently in charge of the government (revolving door / campaign finance) so what he is talking about is the propaganda to prevent the population from being politically active. You can easily observe that much of the vote is influenced fear / religion / propaganda.
sphires 1 year ago
@MonkeyNinjaFromSpace It is interesting. But I agree with him, but I know what you're saying. If you watch more videos of Chomsky, you'll get a better idea of what he means. Too many points to cover in a youtube post :P
kellygiz 1 year ago
...
roam free, just look at the banking crisis. In order to stop the corps. we have to have a moral, uncorrupted govt which acts in the best interest of the masses. This would require a pretty major reform, a revolution, if at all attainable. I don't think that Ron Paul is anti-government, he just wants to cut down on the bureaucracy thereby making the govt more direct, accessible, and accountable while reducing wasteful spending at the same time.
MonkeyNinjaFromSpace 2 years ago
fanastic chomsky
ryko26 2 years ago
Great post man. Thanks for posting this. great argument against the Rand followers. Chomsky is by far one of the greatest minds we have today
newmind1 2 years ago
the Constitution is what works. Since we've abandoned it we are facing all kinds of problems, not the least of which include the Fed, government expansion, judicial system, and corporatism
valeo626 2 years ago
But why was it abandoned? Who gained?
mjalloxxxx 2 years ago
it is really a process that has been going on for a long time. people at the top who want power are to gain. many laws are snuck in during manufactured "crises", supposedly for our benefit, which disregard the constitution. read "the death of common sense"
valeo626 2 years ago
If there were any hatred in Ron Paul he wouldn't still be proposing solutions for broken America. He doesn't wish to combat the government, only the continuing growth of government. There is nothing irrational or extreme about wanting to hold our elected officals accountable to the Constitution(you know, the law of the land). He calls for all Americans to join his cause. He cooperates with all members of Congress(more recently with HR 1207). He is by far the most honest guy in Congress.
wcgates 2 years ago
@wcgates My problems were not with Paul, but the Paulbots at the time I put this together. I think he's a pretty decent guy.
o0xst 2 years ago
@wcgates
Wow. You completely missed the point of everything chomsky was saying didn't you?
Diosibundo 2 years ago
Gov't is the only thing people have control over?
Historically, that has not been the case. We see through history the rise of authoritarian dictatorial regimes, such as in China, the former USSR, Nazi Germany, and many others, in which the will of the people was manipulated and controlled into producing the views of the elite.
Gov't is itself, a business. The only difference between gov't and a big corporation, is that gov't holds a monopoly on force. And can easily be corrupted and co opted.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan So you are saying I can go do a citizen presentation at any Corporation's board meeting?
o0xst 2 years ago
Why the stupid question? Big business is at the mercy of the consumer. If people band together, they can boycott, and ultimately sway the company or whatever to act, or be destroyed by the free market. In an ideal society, the government would listen to the will of the people. But gov't can be easily corrupted. And with a monopoly on power, its only a matter of time before you end up in an oppressive regime.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan I suggest reading Jose Ortega Y' Gasset's fine work "Revolt of the Masses".
o0xst 2 years ago
And i suggest to you, Orwells "1984", and "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Better yet, youtube "ENDGAME".
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan I prefer Non Fiction. Whats with all the fiction? I work in a bookstore and all these catfish-eaters keep coming in asking for that bitch Ayn Rand's crap...
o0xst 2 years ago
You have proven your complete ignorance to this subject. First of all, nothing i recommended had anything to do with the "bitch Ayn Rand". What i told you to look in was about government mind control, and population control. If you don't know what you're talking about, just don't talk about it at all.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
fag
WSidis 2 years ago
Whore
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
@SunBeamsan
That´s why Chomsky is so important to me. He is so precise with words, that he clearly highlights every "newspeak" of our time, which is so rapidly growing. I live in Germany, and its the same here - just a shame that we don´t have a Chomsky, but we have Volker Pispers (not as renouned, but very clever and utterly funny in a strange way)
ThePt73 1 year ago
McVeigh's irrational and idiotic decision that ruined an entire city and changed the face of an entire nation were, in fact, in response to terrible things that happened at the hands of groups that were government sponsored. that cannot be denied. to blame the government for everything, however, is terribly irrational, and to blame the government as a whole for these specific actions is equally irrational, but the government isn't exempt from blame. nice touch with the Chomsky excerpt btw.
eboyd32 2 years ago
It destroyed the spirit of OKC in a "Shock Doctrine" fashion. Since the bombing, we've got all kinds of wealthy developer friendly "stuff" and well, to put it honestly, we're Chile...radical neo-liberals heaven right now...do a google search for our fight against "maps3", it is quite interesting.
o0xst 2 years ago
i most definitely will. let me first hear your definition of "radical neo liberal" though because i am a HUGE fan of Noam Chomsky (and you seem to like him as well) and i would most definitely consider him, at least, radically left. he, as i am as well, is an anarchist (libertarian socialism is a form of anarchy. he has stated numerous times that his version of libertarianism is far different from the US representation of it).
eboyd32 2 years ago
OKC is run by a radically neo-liberal set, i.e Cornett, McClendon, Bennett...who take tax payer money and use it for Private gain...all the while ranting and raving about the "Conservative Economic miracle of OKC" ... its huge man. Cornett has been on fox, forbes, in the wsj, on bloomberg talking about this stuff, never once mentioning our 17yr "temporary tax increase" thats built all this fancy stuff...or subsidies to fancy oil co's...he was slated to speak at the last RNC...
o0xst 2 years ago
Read David Harvey's "History of Neo-Liberalism" or Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" they define neo-liberalism quite well...
o0xst 2 years ago
ok thx. i am from California. i have not read up on this because it hasn't crossed my radar. there are so many issues that i have found to be important that it is kind of hard to get to each one. thanks for making me aware of this. i have a friend in a neighboring town to OKC so i will ask him about it.
eboyd32 2 years ago
i believe in small businesses and small government, we should limit them both. i also believe in the seperation of corporation and state. you don't have to be for big business, just because your a libertarian.
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
Lemme 'splain something to you brainwashed asswipes.
The US of falling Empire has 2 governments.
1. The puppets you fools "vote" into office.
2. The CFR, CIA and the US military and its suppliers, the media and the mega corporations who pay these drunken assholes to run for office and be their HeyBoy's..
Until someone grows a set of balls and starts wiping out CEO's they will do as they do.
You need an internal war.Against the mega corps that many of you slaves work for.
No more stock mkt!
blammcans 2 years ago
Sounds like you're a litte brainwashed, asswipe...
ZwolfZki 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NOAM CHOMSKY is an ANTI-INTELLECTUAL.
phospholipasec 2 years ago
Well he isn't main stream, so that's what the main stream would say...
WSidis 2 years ago
For a guy as intelligent as Chomsky to say blaming government for all the crap going on with the country isnt right. what planet is he living on? Theyre responsible for EVERYTHING going wrong. and to the guy who thinks the new world order is far fetched. do a little research and youll find some incredibly fascinating evidence of the contrary. Theres at least a dozen video`s of the elder bush at speaking engagements referencing his" new world order" vision. go check out "Freedom to Facism".
thegreendome1 2 years ago
New World Order = Neoliberalism
DrMonday 2 years ago
getting mad at the govt is playing the corporate shell game.
The govt, as it exists today, functions as little more than the entertainment branch of industry.
Chomsky is right- we need to blame the businesses in this country instead of continuing to fall for this shell game.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Indeed...as well as get involved locally...speaking at ones city council meetings are a good start.
o0xst 2 years ago
the problem isn't government, or business in of themselves, it's when big and business government work together to fuck us in the ass. it's called corporatism.
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
I think the system of free market competition inherently leads to consolidation of money and power.
We have seen it time and time again in our short history. Companies become too large, buy up their competitors; at that point, it becomes more profitable to buy government than do the right thing.
This is a systemic problem.
I am not sure how to solve it frankly.
Any ideas?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
work for small businesses. buy from small businesses. tell others to work for and buy from small businesses. if there are no small businesses around, then star your own, or move somewhere else. don't vote for politicians who redistribute wealth, because they usually redistribute it upwards. instead, don't become dependant on big business in the first place. form a union, or join a union. don't pay your taxes, buy a gun. fuck, there's so many things we can do without socialism and corporatism.
longinusmaximus 2 years ago
I've never been big on shopping at box stores.
I generally vote 3rd party.
Not a fan of guns- never touched one.
The world was a fucked up, crazy place when I got here, and with any luck, it will be a fucked up, crazy place when I leave.
I try to make people laugh as often as possible.
Jazz music helps.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
"Government is the shadow cast by business over society. If you want to change anything, change the substance, not the shadow."
If you try changing the government, you'll always land on your face. It simply won't work. The corporations are the REAL players.
tophu1021 2 years ago
Is this New world order real because it seems a bit far fetched to me.
craig260691 2 years ago
It's not an all or nothing thing. Gov't is centralized authority (our Gov't has too much; preemptive war/patriot acts) The challenge is having equal justice under the law (and this will never be perfect).
radiofriendly 3 years ago
Chomsky cuts through the BS and gets to the root of the issue, as always.
Sad how this video got voted down simply because it mentions Ron Paul in a seemingly unfavorable light. Apparently they didn't listen to it.
vktrsx 3 years ago 10
Watch "Alex Jones Interviews Noam Chomsky". They seem to see eye to eye on a lot.
CRAPCANNONS 3 years ago
Jones didn't know Chomsky very well, as he made some references to him being an elitist. If he is an elitist, then how come he always answers my emails and engaged in long conversations w/ me in the times I got to meet him??? Anyway, I am not a big jones fan, but greatly appreciate his recent interview with sick-pukebag endtimes huckster Joel Rosenberg.
o0xst 3 years ago
The interview ended poorly actually. Alex Jones went to an Ad Hominem attack on Chomsky, which doesn't do much to help Jones. I don't believe that Chomsky loves the US, but I don't think he's a shill as Jones claims. Too bad.
CRAPCANNONS 3 years ago
He loves it. He's had his dream job his whole life, and admits he couldn't do what he's done anywhere else. Nowhere is there so much access to information that you can use to bring about justice, which is what he is interested in. And he acknowledges this over and over. Disgraceful people like Bill Bennett attack him for hating America and say he should move, but sane people, clear headed thinking people know he loves this place and wants to make it better, and the world better.
o0xst 3 years ago
I guess I mean that Chomsky is not known for being a patriot in the classic sense, in the way that say Ron Paul or William Cooper, both vocal critics of the US's mistakes, identify themselves as defenders of the american `narrative'. I like Chomsky, often more than Alex Jones' circus-like antics. But I do feel that Chomsky does exhibit a certain restraint to go `all-in'.
CRAPCANNONS 3 years ago
The specific reason why the discussion went south is because Chomsky is against guns and seems to exhibit the typical liberal myopia that guns are for fun and to shoot things and people. Alex Jones, Ron Paul, William Cooper and the like see the basic 2nd amendment right as the founding fathers did; for the individual to have the ability to defend himself against his government. On this point I would side with Jones, but he should have done it more gracefully.
CRAPCANNONS 3 years ago
The status quo, through the mainstream media, attributes nation-wide problems and economic crises to free-market ideology and 'de-regulation.' I don't know where chomsky sees the propaganda he's referring to. "The levers that pull firms are far more accessible to the public at large than those that pull governments," certainly not said by Noam Chomsky.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Except for the fact that Jones doesn't have a quarter of the brain that Chomsky does. Jones is so paranoid that goes off using ad hominem after ad hominem about guns in the UK.
NormaJean337 3 years ago
read my following comments to o0xst below. i agree with you.
CRAPCANNONS 3 years ago
Sorry, I just looked at your comment and it basically said the same thing. I just think it is crazy that Jones goes so far that he says that Chomsky is somehow "in" on all of this. But Chomsky has been speaking out against U.S. foreign policy, corporate media control, etc. before this guy was born.
NormaJean337 3 years ago
gun control will not work in the US. It will only create another lucrative market for gangsters and thugs to profit and thrive on. Just look at the war on drugs. more than 2 decades of useless government programs adding their burden to our debt and the end is no where insight. People still use drugs. Those who are caught are treated like criminals, they pay fines, and then back to their life where they can then chose again whether or not to use drugs. Don't you see, prohibition never works!
ScottcNehrer 2 years ago
Chuck Baldwin, Champion of the constitution! FOR PRESIDENT!
Baldwinrevolution 3 years ago
Cmon., I know Paul supported him but even if your really a Paul fan I wouldn't be for Baldwin hes for the Constitution but him and his party are way too paleoconservative.
Blucius13 2 years ago
Your getting it backwards.. the laws that are written for america as a free country only applies to the powerful and the elite. take the Patriot act for example.. it is the biggest bite out of our freedom and allows civilians to be arrested, incarcerated, violated until you have nothing . But you see those laws don't apply to rockerfeller, bush, the clintons,, your bankers, war profiteer investors, etc. they have global diplomatic immunity.
guitarfreakstyle 3 years ago
I see a role for government, but you americans aren't just governed, you're regulated.
I've listened to all of the candidates, and Ron Paul doesn't say he wants NO government, just LESS government. All of his policies are bang-on and I wish he qualified to run as PM of Canada! We have our own problems.
The 2 biggest demographics to be negatively affected by R.P.'s policies are the lazy and the super-rich.
and before you say it, the outcome of the elections has a huge impact on Canada, no kidding
tillo2008 3 years ago
The super rich always benefit from less regulation.
o0xst 3 years ago
no, deregulation forces people to be fair and competitive. Consider this: if your state only offered one company that sells cell phones, where is there motivation to give you a fair price? On the flip-side, most phones are pretty cheap most places because even the 7-11 can sell them!
Deregulation forces real marketing and cost-effective lobbying because there is alot of competition.
tillo2008 3 years ago
The big guys already have so much capital that they just take over the small ones. That is what history tells us. Stop with the ideology and look at the facts. It's a free country down here and we have tremendous access to facts, it might be different up there. So stop insulting me.
o0xst 3 years ago
if by "insulting" you mean "disagree" then no, i can't stop. I'm not being boorish and if you knew anything about canada, we're basically a carbon copy of your country with a tenth of the population.
it's MORE free up here than in the U.S. and i've lived in both countries. I have the SAME access to information that you do and I don't see where you're coming from. you spout that you have "tremendous access to facts" so do me a favor and back up your statements with at least an example.
tillo2008 3 years ago
Sure, take a look at the 96 Telecom Act, what wsa promised, and what actually happened. Im not saying you're insulting by disagreeing, I am saying you're insulting by spewing ideologies backed with zero facts all the while demanding examples from me. These are the games played by Fox News, The Heritage Foundation, Dick Armey's scumbag friends, etc... Stop playing games man.
o0xst 3 years ago
The super rich benefit from government subsidization.
Blucius13 2 years ago
They always do and they sure did during the so called days of "unfettered capitalization" in the late 19th century. 50% tariff rate just to start with.
Blucius13 2 years ago
I support Ron Paul but not to the point where it is government hate, nor do I think he is selling that. I love my country and I believe the government is doing what it thinks is best for the people but sometimes in some cases I believe government might simply not be necessary.
Seiku 3 years ago
ck out david cay johnston's latest "free lunch" you will love it.
o0xst 3 years ago
you think the government poisoning the citizens and arresting peace lovers is good you are sick and stop watching fox news..
italstal07 3 years ago
Geez you guys need to atleast 'try' to understand what im talking about. Lets see.. Cops? Justice system courts? Diplomatic treaties (lol when they finaly decide to do so). Our government isnt total evil
Seiku 3 years ago
this criminal currently is diplomacy with bombs..is that good?
italstal07 3 years ago
not always but you gotta defend yourself. dont assume i support the iraq war or something.
Seiku 3 years ago
Chomsky is completely correct here. The reason why the US government has taken the route it has, is because of the nature of private power, not because of the nature of government.
The constant pro-capitalist propaganda during the cold war era (and onwards) has led to a situation where people want to dismantle the government infrastructure, rather than the corporate/private infrastructure that has exclusive control of the state. This would simply serve to give private power even more control.
Psycarne 3 years ago
Indeed.
o0xst 3 years ago
The nature of government leads to the nature of private power. You can't have one without the other. That's how fascism works, it is a collusion of interests.
Walmart isn't able to be as powerful as it is if it wasn't able to get tax subsidies from the government and taxpayers to keep expanding (they even let them keep sales tax as profit--check the facts).
Government works and goes out of their way to get private interests as powerful and monopolistic as possible and that is fascism.
Houtont 3 years ago
I don't think Ron "blames it all on gvt", just that it's the relevant target first of all. corporations are moderated by gvt, so essencially the faults and abilities of corporations are from the permissions of the gvt. There is so much to identify as faultly, Ron has already anough to get the gvt aspect out that he couldn't get to all the related elements.3 things to blame: human citizens,gouvernement & corporations. Elabortating on why would be asking a lot of time from a presidential candidate
EyeFed 4 years ago
The only role of the gvt is to practice and apply what is impossible by one individual but wich is wanted by the mass.The gvt is there to materialise the collective will.After all,a gvt is a parasite,it feeds on the people so that the people (should) feed on the conversion of ressources given to the gvt into adapted services. Ron wants to order the gvt back into it's proper fonction.I don't see what is wrong with that?How can some one think he is the one NOT to vote for?
EyeFed 4 years ago
not an anarchist like some emo kid at the mall, but a socio-anarchist as in workers have a right to organize, and to some extent control their work. Gov't involvement is necessary for such a thing to exist in a silly place like 'merka at this point and time and he knows it and admits it....
o0xst 4 years ago
i'm confused. if the gov't is the institution that can be changed, then why is the media focussing blame on that? wouldn't it make more sense for them to focus blame on the corporations that can't be changed, since this would mean less chance of change occurring?
j11j11j11j11 4 years ago
Sorry I dont quite understand. The media are blaming the government instead of the corporations for what? The War, the state of the economy, new legislation? Sorry.
kingobnoxious 4 years ago
just in the first half of the video, chomsky says that the media focusses our angst toward gov't rather than the corporations behind them. but if the gov't is capable of being altered by the ppl while corps are not (as he says), then i wonder why the media (i.e. corporate interests) would want our attn to go toward that which we can change. wouldn't it be safer for them to direct our angst toward that which we cannot affect (i.e. corps)?
j11j11j11j11 4 years ago
Your comment is logical and makes more sense to me then anything Chomsky has said. "when some thing goes wrong" the MEDIA is manipulating us into blaming the Government! BEWARE this ANTI POLITICAL state is DANGEROUS! The evil corporations, and dark entrenpenuers are scheming to destroy the government. Chomsky's PRO GOVERNMENT anti-capitalism belongs in North Korea.
kingobnoxious 4 years ago
uh, i'm just asking if anyone picked up on why this might be. i'm not making a dif't point than chomsky, i'm just asking sincerely for help from someone on this point.
as for being so hostile to this point, i'm a bit curious where you're coming from. which part of it seems so unlikely to you?
j11j11j11j11 4 years ago
I was just repeating the theme of Chomsy's argument, I wasn't being Hostile. Or do you meen my opinion of these views belonging to North Korea being hostile?
kingobnoxious 4 years ago
but i think it's a misunderstanding to interpret what he says here as a warning about corps taking over the gov't.the point is that the gov't is merely the shadow of corporations over the ppl.the gov't serves corporate interests.
j11j11j11j11 4 years ago
this is why i wanted to know if anyone knows what chomsky thinks is the reason for this, since it seems more logical to me that the corporations, as institutions are less vulnerable to the will of the ppl (which they fear, of course) so wouldn't they be safer targets for our attn? so why does the media blame the gov't? see 1:50
j11j11j11j11 4 years ago
I don't think the media blames the government. Take FOX news as an example of total loyalty to Bush and GOP biased reporting. It is obvious that the media supports Government, as it's in their interest. My argument is take away the government protectionisms and let the free market decide what businesses survive, such as FOX news.
kingobnoxious 4 years ago
i've never seen fox report on the themes chomsky is referencing here (that he explains eslewhere), about corps' entanglement with gov't.but anyway,chomsky speaks in broader terms than just fox news. he refers to the entire propaganda model, which, if you haven't read chomsky, you may doubt even exists.
j11j11j11j11 4 years ago
I have seen manufacturing consent a few years ago. I think it was about the well oiled media machine which had evolved to a science of mind control and mainpulations of the public. I agree with Chomsky's evaluation of media and properganda in todays society, but it's the ideoligical perspectives where he draws his assuptions of WHY where I disagree.
kingobnoxious 4 years ago
well, ideologogies aside, i think we can all agree that we don't work all day and give half our money to the gov't so they can spend it on murdering innocents.take a specific case,from the movie if you'd like: east timor.what incentive could the media have had to cover that up if not what chomsky suggests: that it was...
j11j11j11j11 4 years ago
Australia knew about the East Timor invasion and what was going on and our government covered it up. We are now building a huge gas pipe line in the timor sea worth billions to both Timor and Australia. Australian's are good people but I do think the motivation behind Australias involvement with helping the Timorese get their country back was about money not Humanitarian. Although the people don't know this it's the government's and corrupt corporations.
kingobnoxious 4 years ago
interesting...i didn&#