Naomi Klein - Iraq: The Neoliberal Project (Part 1 of 8)

[Liberalviewer1]

Damn. Naomi Klein tells it like it is. She's great!

[MillionthUsername]

"you don't seem to follow specific trains of thoughts & grossly impose things that aren't said or meant"

That must be because I'm on drugs, insincere, and dishonest. Or, alternatively, it could be because there are 50 questions and trains of thought and only 500 characters at a time with which to reply. : )

"How do you think 300 mill. people can effectively & civilly live together?"

I would start with self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. I would reject violence and extortion.

[MillionthUsername]

No, I don't want to rule over 300 million people. I want my rights to be respected and I want to respect theirs.

And, no, I don't think people being free to live their lives while they respect the rights of others leads to might-makes-right. That is clearly the case with the majority ruling over and looting the minority and destroying their rights, isn't it?

I just want to remove the tyranny, not the civil society. That's not hard to understand, I hope!

[wethepeoplefor4]

So with no system in place, you think 300 million people are going to simply respect what you consider your rights to be; and you will respect what they consider their rights to be?

[MillionthUsername]

There won't be "no system in place," if by that you mean no courts or police. People create such institutions in order to preserve their rights - and everyone (except perhaps the insane) think they have rights vis-a-vis other humans.

I'm just against the monopoly provision of these needed services by gangs who impose their will on everyone in a territory. Those are the "might makes right" people. But most people are not interested in criminality if they have to pay the price for it.

[wethepeoplefor4]

Okay, we'll take this a step at a time. So are you saying that you think only police and courts are needed as part of "a system" for 300 million people to live civilly in society together?

If so, how would "people create such institutions in order to preserve their rights"? Would they vote on what their rights and the laws are? And, would they vote on how the police and courts would be set up?

[MillionthUsername]

No, I did not say that only police and courts are needed. Society needs many kinds of voluntary and useful institutions which satisfy the needs of its members. People create such institutions because they are needed and useful.

No, voting is not a universal ethic; it's a method of management which is useful and ethical only in a voluntary context. People would create and subscribe to services which meet their needs for protection, arbitration, insurance against loss, etc.

[kolomgorov]

Just to chime in here: if you're for an actual free market you shouldn't be attacking Naomi Klien, her analysis of the coercion of neoliberalism is essentially correct.

I assume your an anarcho-capitalist, so by your own philosophy you know that you can only claim property through homesteading. You can't swoop in and privatize the water supply of a country using force. Neoliberalism isn't the free market, and these transnationals know it. They bank on it.

[kolomgorov]

Consider what privatization is. When a firm privatizes something (like water), they basically take control of that resource using political power, and then prevent competition against themselves using state power.

Bolivians for example weren't even allowed to collect rain water, and when their were revolts the Bolivian government actually went in and suppressed it with the military.

So basically that's protecting a monopoly with the military.

[kolomgorov]

Finally one last thing. I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure Naomi Klien is for something like libertarian socialism. That's basically where people organize voluntarily into communities, unions, etc. It's actually not coercion.

I'm an induvidualist anarchist and I'm for a free market. But libertarian socialists have equal claim to the word "libertarian".

Don't make the assumption that just because someone's not for your brand of freedom they must be for tyranny.

[MillionthUsername]

Her parents were members of the Communist Party. She says she wants to "take over the energy companies."

She mocks free market reforms. She's horrified by people educating their own children or providing for their own retirement or health care.

I've watched a bunch of her videos, and she is NOT in any way a libertarian. Communists like her and Chomsky must control people in order to bring about what they want. True libertarians just want to be left alone.

Property rights cannot be ignored.

[rickbar123]

Wow, great post. Thank you.

You are able to put into words things I feel are truths in my gut.

[MillionthUsername]

Yes, I know. You and I make those proper distinctions. People like Klein do not. The reason they don't is that all of these evils stem from the gov't and people like her worship the gov't. They still want to dictate and control, they just have a different agenda.

[MillionthUsername]

You're exactly right about me and a real free market, but you're not right about Klein.

She does NOT make any distinctions. She is like so many other elites and politicos who are not interested in telling the truth. They are interested in their agenda only.

She's like Michael Moore. They're basically communists. They purposely distort things in order to bash the free market.

Klein, to me, is absolutely despicable. You have to listen to all of her false claims to see what a liar she is.

[kolomgorov]

Fair enough, I suppose Klein has an authoritarian streak to her. Still her critiques of globalism are valid.

Also Chomsky isn't a communist he's a libertarian socialist. Again I invite you to consider the idea of *voluntarily* organizing into unions, communities, worker's councils and then organizing society in that manner. There's nothing in that idea that contradicts non-aggression.

[kolomgorov]

Remember non-aggression is just anything voluntary, under that principal society could take any form, cooperative or competitive. It doesn't have to resemble capitalism in the slightest.

[MillionthUsername]

"under that principal society could take any form, cooperative or competitive"

That is the anarcho-capitalist position, but that is not shared by Chomsky's crowd.

They can exist in our world but we can't exist in theirs.

Over and over again they deny that a person can be free to own "the means of production".

No ancaps deny that people can form co-ops or do anything else they want in groups, but they deny that we can be free to own property because "property is theft" to them.

[MillionthUsername]

Chomsky speaks of "direct democracy". He claims that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists or libertarians.

What does that tell you? You need to go below the surface. I have asked for clarification over and over again from his supporters and they won't even answer simple questions which would straighten it all out. The reason is that there is nothing to straighten out. They are marxists. They deny property rights.

Without property rights, there is no voluntary society.

[kolomgorov]

"They can exist in our world but we can't exist in theirs"

This seems to be a common an-cap position, but you're mixing your own preferences for property in with non-aggression such that "you don't believe in my property rights so you're a tyrant" becomes a tautology.

Can you say for certain that hardcore non-proviso Lockean property is the only possible property system consistent with non-aggression?

[kolomgorov]

Proudhon believed in private property, just based on occupancy and use, he also said "property is liberty".

[MillionthUsername]

Ok, why don't you just tell me what kind of property I'm not allowed to own or buy or sell.

Otherwise I have no idea what you mean.

No one ever wants to say what they mean. Maybe you'll be the first!

[kolomgorov]

Property is the one thing I can't make my mind up on, and it's not that I'm avoiding your question, it's a genuinely difficult problem.

For instance how much labour is needed to extract a resource from nature? (Obviously Christopher Columbus can't kick around some sand and claim ownership of a continent) What constitutes abandonment? And so on.

[kolomgorov]

Personally I think I'm for something like Lockean property with a Proviso left in.

I'm for free trade and private ownership of the means of production (because anything can be capital even a hair comb).

But you can't own so much property that others are unable to own property. You can't own say all the water in a country, because then you own a perpetual monopoly and can charge citizens whatever tax you want to simply live.

Any piece of property needs other property competing with it.

[MillionthUsername]

What happens is that original claims are then sold. No individual would ever be able to defend a claim to a whole state-sized piece of land. Those sorts of abuses come from states. In the absence of states, people form a claims association to make their claims known and recognized in the local society. As population and division of labor grows, the original farms are subdivided and sold off.

Without interference, it's a simple and reasonable process.

[MillionthUsername]

It's a lot simpler when you understand property as a superior claim to a particular resource vis-a-vis others. There's no need to find the right amount of labor in an abstract sense. My claim is compared to that of latecomers, not to some abstraction.

When people homestead unowned land, they establish a superior claim by being first and by living and working on it. What is the latecomer going to say? His claim is void by any reasonable standard which anyone would want applied to themselves.

[kolomgorov]

So you mean in an an-cap society the community has a say over any claim to land? If so I guess anarcho capitalism is less abusive than I originally thought. I pictured firms hiring private defense agencies and using them to protect claims they decide for themselves.

Anyways, we're taking up a lot of room here, you can PM if you want to continue the discussion.

Go easy on leftists though...they're just sensitive to the very real exploitation that occurs under the current system.

[wethepeoplefor4]

OK, 2 questions for now. 1) What do you call these "many kinds of voluntary & useful institutions which satisfy the needs of its members"? Many people in representative governmental systems call this "government." 2) I repeat my previous question from above, since police & courts are the only institutions I have heard you specifically name (& "protection" & "arbitration" seem to just repeat this) -how would people create & subscribe to police & courts, if not by voting somewhere along the way?

[MillionthUsername]

You forgot to mention that I was on drugs in this one. : )

You said, "No, I don't understand how you think Naomi advocates control over our lives"

Ok. Well, I thought most people would understand that it's self-evident that the gov't controls our lives and that Noami advocates that they do so in many varied ways.

Obviously, you either don't believe the gov't controls us or don't believe Naomi supports that control. I can't read your mind, so tell me why you don't understand it.

[MillionthUsername]

So you don't understand what "control" means? Or what "advocates" means? Ok!

Control means to direct, to be in charge of. And advocates means to argue for, wish for.

Do you disagree with these definitions?

[MillionthUsername]

I'm 44.

So you don't understand how Naomi advocates control over our lives? Ok, are you aware of things like taxation, the health care "reform," the monetary system, business regulation, etc? Have you heard of those things?

Over and over again she is aghast at things like lower taxes, education freedom, economic freedom, etc.

She is in favor of taking my right to make my own medical decisions! What the hell is that!?!

That's nothing but tyranny.

I suppose you'll say that's liberty?

[MillionthUsername]

You can't tell me what a free market is? All you know is that it's evil, right? But it's not evil if Naomi Klein controls the free choices of free people?

Got it. Thanks.

[MillionthUsername]

Wow. I don't understand the concepts of free market and free trade, huh?

Well, up I'm for some Orwellian fun! Tell me what a free market is. : )

[MillionthUsername]

She says repeatedly that the free market is evil and oppressive. So she must advocate monopoly power and coercion.

What do you think she believes in? Freedom? She campaigns against freedom. For her "freedom" is when people she approves of do the things she's railing against, and that's all.

She does not mean that human beings have a right to own themselves and the fruits of their labor.

Yes, those who don't submit to tyranny are put in a cage. You didn't know that?

[MillionthUsername]

What does she think of Obama's mass murder?

It would seem that mass murder fits right into Naomi's ideology of total control over the lives of others. After all, the dissenters must be punished and put in cages. If they try to defend themselves, they will be killed.

But judging from this woman's speeches, she does not seem aware of this fact. I guess she thinks her version of tyranny and control is nicer?

[mishapenheid]

brilliant, beautiful woman!!!!!

[bitherwack]

We need Hunter Thompson!

Naomi, will you help fill the gap?

[shiankiang]

Brilliant, beautiful woman.

[kennykenny99]

yeah, she researched no logo.

[TrustKovacss]

Naomi Klein looks familiar..is she the one that made No Logo?

[daderone]

yes she is. Good job. She's great

[JanePoet]

This lady is brilliant and deserves to be heard. See: "The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism". Those who refuse to open their minds to learning are those who support the criminals who are exposed by Naomi's serious WORK!

[Whatusaid2me]

In the first five minutes of this rant, she shows everyone what a liar she is. The story of the sight-challenged grandmother and people waving at her is as old as the hills. She claims it as her own grandmother's story. It's plagiarized, and she's lying.

[Davey1977]

Prove it.

...and even if she borrowed this story, it's just a humorous anecdote and has absolutely no relevance to anything. Calling someone a "liar" for telling a story is just ridiculous.

[urvil]

if you find reality tedious maybe you could do us a favor and direct your attention elsewhere.

[BlindEyeJones]

Tedium pushed beyond the limits of reason... sell the product and get on with it... sell your books and be the Martha Stewart and the Chardonnay socialists. Good grief.

[swapvid]

Not tedium. I think you don't get her point.

Try viewing all this vids again, at least two times.

[crystalchrysalis]

Simple words

Pro nixon = pro retrograd

[Chappuisat]

We all have to condemn the political and economical disenfranchisement of the Iraqis and ackknowledge their struggle for democracy. We need to discuss the neoliberal agenda that puts this whole society into fetters for years to come. And the direct attack on democracy by the same prophets of freedom. Please, Naomi come visit Germany as well.

[davidmesaaz]

What are you talking about political disenfranchisement they are the only Arab people they have anything close to the right to vote.

[bigfish531]

I think Japan would be another great place to vist along with Evan Sayet's video on Utube as well.

[Marly61]

Bravo Chapp, check out David Harvey Neoliberalism on U tube, inparticular 5.

[mrblend101]

Thank You....Thank You, Thank You for your intelligence, your honesty, and the truth. Bless you and your work!

[smujismuj]

Journalism is a dying art in this increasingly fascist world.

Bless you Naomi.

[jackrabbitrio]

Naomi Klein is one of the extremely few journalists who "get it," along with Greg Palast, John Perkins, and a precious few others. She understands the big picture and gets to the heart of the matter.

In this case, saying the Iraq War is about oil is like saying marriage is about sharing a utility bill. If you want to know why we went to war with Iraq, why we really went to war, then watch this series and also read Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.

[Bellator656]

Excellent.

[Durruti]

A lot of women are like her, I suggest not sitting at your computer any longer.

[foamweapons]

Naomi Klein is smart, sexy and maybe the best political writer/journalist in the world. If more women were like her, I wouldn't be sitting at my computer all the time.