@benjaminnetanyahoo but what is the better product? If free markets make a better iPad and cheaper ipad for those who can afford them is that necessarily a good thing considering the human cost? Moreover, the environmental cost that free markets has shown to haram arduous to both. A free makers requires those in charge to have a strong will to do right by al by doing right I mean harming them as little as possible -if persons who are morally willing to do right by all things exist in mass-than
First I would like to thank you for posting the video secondly I loathe the images. The very perversion Chomsky is talking about you continue to do with these images. The power of association should not be understated furthermore, by placing photos at certain parts of the speech you oversimplify a statement. The PC moment can considered newspeak. Any form of editing is censorship and creates a bias because a
Corporations are fascist tyrants whom the people have absolutely no power over, we should boycott them....oh wait.
Fact is interactions between corporations and individuals are voluntary and so long as a person has access to dirt and seeds they can create an independent system of survival and even thrive. Corporations don't use force. Governments do which is why I prefer to keep it out of my personal interactions.
Chomsky is an elitist socialist academics short on common sence, I doubt he knows what end of screwdiver to hold. Ron Paul is a doctor with a practical and useful skill (unlike this professional talker). Libertarians believe a free market will produce a better product than a gubmint controlled system will produce. This would make health more accessable and affordable. This takes time. He doesn't advocate people dying on the street.
@yogishkamath ..(cont). 2 of the main causes of the GFC were that Greenspan (a devotee of Rand), left monetary policy alone for too long coz he believed markets were 100% efficient, there a bubble could not occur. Result --> housing bubble. Also regulations on financial institutions were removed - another bit of Rand doctrine- result --> GFC. The GFC was in the main, a result of laissez faire policies not interventionist policies.
@yogishkamath You sound like you're quoting straight from a Ron Paul flyer. When it comes to Economics, you're a special needs student. The whole point of the bank bailouts was because banks were NOT lending to each other. The Treasury bought shares/assets of the banks. They have now sold them and made a profit. ....(cont)
libertarianism has a more sensible root than the anglo-american variety. it was initially used as a synonym of socialism and anarchism. the way it's used now involves a shallow analysis of power relations. they seem to think that authoritarian tendencies only occur in the state.
Chomsky easily confuses the leaders and proponents of the moder libertarian movements as pro corporation. Due to his incredibly high intellect, I'd imagine this is because when he thinks "libertarian", an image of the despicable Milton Friedman comes to his mind. I wish Chomsky and Murray Rothbard got to sit own and talk for a few hours before Murray Died. Chomsky thinks that the only way libertarianism could work is with perfect liberty. Murray would argue this, not "privatizing everything".
@livfreeordi3 Well modern libertarians may *think* they're anti-corporation but if they really take their brand of libertarianism seriously then they can't be. I think their beliefs are contradictory, because by their logic people would have to be free to form corporations--if they can't do that then they can't really be "free." And how would you prevent corporations without regulation?
Nonsense..... That is not what Adam Smith said at all... I don't understand how somebody who writes so well about American foreign policy can be so sloppy when describing Adam Smith's work.
Also, it is not true that corporations are unaccountable. Corporations want profit and the only legitimate way to earn a profit is by providing goods and services to people in society. Society can regulate corporations by changing the way we shop (and we shop much more often than we vote)
@yogishkamath Actually there is no nonsense in what he mentioned about Smith. Smith wrote about it, so maybe your reading on Smith is sloppy.
Corporations are unaccountable unlike Government. The people don't vote on who and how the corporation is run, the type or quality of things it does, its wages, its investments, its exploitation of people and wages, otherwise the corporation would actually be accountable. Corporations regulate society in countless ways and how people shop is naive
@Navywxman Corporations have to produce goods and services that people demand. They also have to invest accordingly..... Corporations do not have any power of their own.
They cannot make anybody do a single thing against their will. So, the question of exploitation does not arise.
If the shopping behavior of people is naive(it is not) what on earth makes you think their voting behavior is not naive ?
@yogishkamath So you're saying corporations such as Enron, Haliburton, BP, Union Carbide, JP Morgan Chase, IG Farben, etc are incapable of exploiting people, and only seek to provide goods and services to them and hopefully earn a bit of profit. But then that same naive population goes and votes for idiots who think this perfect market equilibrium needs to have laws and regulations to protect them from this imaginary exploitation. Who's protecting the corporations from the public, right?
@retron23 Who handed all that bailout money to JP Morgan ? The Government did. Without Government, they can't get a single penny from your pocket.
Corporations seek to make as much profit as they can.....
But in a market, they don't have the power to make you pay at gunpoint.... Only the Government does.
It is sad that progressives do not get this. They vote to put more power in the hands of Government which invariably results in greater corporate control of our lives.
@yogishkamath According to the recent Bloomberg report, out of the $1.2 trillion that banks secretly borrowed from the fed in 08, JPMorgan got a $48 billion loan. It's supposedly been paid back with interest going into the Treasury, (even though the Fed is self funded and my pennies weren't part of the deal in the first place.) To put these numbers in perspective, JPMorgan lent $70 billion to other banks soon after, bought $250 billion in securities, and went on a bank acquisition spree.
1) Who decided the interest rate ? The Government did (Or the fed, which is effectively an arm of Government) .... The interest rate obviously must have been way below the rate at which JPM could have borrowed from the market at the time (if not they would have borrowed from the market!)
Anyway , the point was that JPM (or any other corporation) has no power per se... It derives all its power from Government. JPM could not have got a cent out of us but for Government.
@yogishkamath Fine, you obviously need to believe that the Fed is controlled by the government beyond GAO audits and board appointments, and that it gets public funding from your taxes. You'd rather draw conclusions based on your basic assumptions than spend a few minutes reading a report. Bloomberg filed an FOIA to finally cut through the secrecy around the Fed/Wall St shady dealings of 4 years ago. Very enlightening if you don't believe you already know everything about economics.
@yogishkamath Anyway I didn't bring up the bailouts, of which JPMC got a small portion since they were stable and loaning money themselves to help other banks. I was referring to the billions they paid in fines and settlements for several scandals, such as financing Enron. Enron execs were recorded on tape plotting to push deregulation, allowing them to control California's energy market, and shut down plants to create constant rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy prices.
@Navywxman You're dead wrong. Government is NOT accountable while corporations ARE accountable. All the people have to do is not buy or work for a corporation to keep it accountable which is real and direct action while unless you overthrow the government there will still be that government therefore it is not accountable.
@RealityStar9 Actually not buying or working isn't often an option, nor does it effect the structure of a corporation, how decisions are made, or change anything, and certainly not anymore since things are more globalized, they'll just shift jobs and sales elsewhere leaving devastation behind. Gov. can be and has been and still can be altered by the people, made to serve the publics interests, but as long as big money owns it, it won't happen. Sorry, but libertarianism is a sad joke
@HyperboreanBrew Under the letters section of Chomsky dot info, a letter from him makes it clear he did not support pol pot and describes how US bombing and invasion of Cambodia led to the Khmer Rouge's rise. And your economic theory is just mindless gibberish.
How can he defend corporate subsidies? It doesn't actually create anything of value, it just takes from some businesses and individuals and gives to others. Nothing is created in the process, but you might end up with a poorly run business surviving at the expense of those that do well.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky was an apologist for the mass murder of Pol Pot and his goons. Libertarianism is dedicated to the non aggression principle, which is why Chomsky does not subscribe.
@HyperboreanBrew I've heard Chomsky say that the Cambodian genocide was smaller than the one in East Timor which didn't get the media coverage Cambodia did. But that's not an apology. What's your source for Chomsky apologizing for Pol Pot?
I like the non-aggression principle, but it has nothing to do with the exploitation possible under anarcho-capitalism. What will that principle mean when a desperately poor person has to enslave themselves to a rich man to avoid starvation?
@TheForwardGaze In fairness to Chomsky I'm sure he does not still defend Pol Pot today. However, there is little doubt that at the time he was quick to discount reports of mass murder, particularly in his Nation articles. Much like many leftists in the 20's turned a blind eye to communist atrocities.
@TheForwardGaze The poor, freed from the depredations of government fiat currency and free to establish their own currencies, will have greater power than they do under a welfare state.The real exploitation possible under the monopoly of the State is the real question.
@HyperboreanBrew You should read what America's founding fathers had to say about the printing of currencies and fiat currency. One of them is very bad and the other very good.
@HyperboreanBrew "the greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour." WTF is Chomsky talking about re: Division of Labor? The quote above is from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
@HyperboreanBrew It's legal to make your own currency in the US, they do it in the Berkshires and other places to support local economies. There were 8000 different private currencies in 1860, and when issuers went out of business their notes would become suddenly worthless. But you're free to try that economic model out; have fun freeing the poor from the tyranny of food stamps and healthcare.
@HyperboreanBrew Well I'd probably go with models that have worked in the past to stabilize economic tailspins; invest in the nation's infrastructure, education, and healthcare. And of course no more tax breaks, loopholes and subsidies for the real welfare recipients in America, that minuscule fraction who control much of the world's economy. Big banks and their multinational cartel make more money from wars and developing nations drowning in debt than they do from 'the market'.
@HyperboreanBrew yeah show me where this has worked. lets understand something conservatives and libertarians were for big government for the majority of history. When government was "limited" and only protected wealthy property rights, government was fine.But when government became a tool of the oppressed against the powerful,big government became a problem libertarians don't understand how to run a society. When you have disease and starvation, you can't just hope wealthy people will do right
Chomsky actually rights about why people like you think he was an apologist for Pol Pot (He wasn't, by the way - in 'Manufacturing Consent' he goes into painful detail of the tragedy of Cambodia and the U.S support that Pol Pot received and how his forces were reconstructed with U.S/Chinese support under Diexapong (sp?) and Nixon..
His conclusion is that this claim despite it's falsehood, will be believed because of 'sheer repetition' people will hear it over and over..
If words don't hold the meaning that you think they hold, Mr Chomsky. Then perhaps you should learn their modern meanings, or avoid trying to be an intellectual altogether. Then people might understand what you are trying to say.
@CaptainAmerica5013 mate for the rest of the world its your USA distortion of words that is problematic. Like murderkilled is now 'casualties'. God Save America the nation of 'Spin'.
like chomsky points out elsewhere it is not as if economic theory whether it is neoclassical or austrian or whatever is not strictly incoherent. In other words the theories behind economics can be pretty much valid. The problem is is that they just do not apply because the world does not match up with the axioms economics is built on. Economics, at least plenty of it is pure sophistry on the level of obscure philosophy which merely can claim to sound intelligent.
More Libertarians need to see this video and pull their head from their backside! It is foolish to worship a fantasy fiction cult of a capitalism that never has nor could ever exist because capitalists themselves wouldn't allow it. buying government is what they want, using the public, exploiting resources and human beings, to keep democracy out of the economic system, monopolize industries, privatize profits, socialize costs. Time to wake up before there is nothing left!
@Navywxman Of course, capitalists want to buy Governments because Governments have a lot of power. Take away Government power and corporations won't have an incentive to do so.
And yes, we do want to keep democracy out of the economic system. We don't believe that the average person is any better at capital allocation than she is at brain surgery.
@yogishkamath Governments do and can exert power which is why they own it. In a capitalist system there is no taking power away from government, the owners of it will not allow it nor will the need due to the multitude of problems associated with capitalism/monetary system.
I know Libertarians could care less about freedom, only subserviance to an economic system. They might want crazy stuff like a decent wage, or not exporting industries overseas, or care about the environment over profits
@Navywxman And in a socialist system, it is possible to take power away from Government ? Show me one instance in history when society has even gotten close to your ideal .....
The picture of George Orwell was appropriate. He wrote an essay called "Politics and the English Language." Everyone interested in the themes discussed in this clip should definitely read it. You can Google it (how appropriate and convenient). It was published in 1946 right after World War II. Chomsky hits it on the nail when he explains how the corporate elite use the state to protect their interests.
Tin foil hat on Ron Paul is pathetic. Ron Paul is an extremely learned man, Doctor for 30 years, well read in economics, long time serving in the Congress.
Just because you disagree doesn't = tin foil hat. Grow up.
@historypoliticsbb i don't exactly see, why ron paul wouldn't agree with noam chomsky in this speech. Can anybody tell why a real conservative and libertarian like ron paul get's attacked by this video? I would be glad to know...
@KoushAcalledKukA Leave these ultimately meaningless theories to one side for a sec. Ron Paul and Chomsky are basically complete opposites. Chomsky believes in a centralised planned state providing everyone with the basic necessities, eliminating the idea of labour for capital. Paul believes in very small government, sound money, complete decentralisation of power.
Both agree that unnecessary infringements on civil liberties, foreign and domestic, should be done away with.
@RockyMountainPrepper - Only in the sense that it's not a solution of itself. Currency issued by fiat (paper) may seem to be the problem...and its bad yes. However before there was speculation on fiat currency there was speculation on the value gold/silver etc. it merely was HARDER to manipulate.
America has a currency mostly fiat, but also backed in oil (petrodollars).
The way out is to ditch issuing currency as debt (private central bank) for...
@RockyMountainPrepper ...for issuing currency backed by the productivity of the nation(people) as a whole. It would help also to back it with resources: oil, gold, silver, whatever...iron etc. It can be paper, but it doesn't always need be debt.
This would mean getting rid of the private central bank (FED) and having a public central bank or: the equivalent-> Congress shall issue currency (debt-free) and regulate the value thereof. This would be a huge-fucking-shift.
@willyrobinson Right. I got the impression, and just with the one blip image on this slideshow, that "gold is a scam" was implying that buying and holding in times of tumult was a bad idea. If that were to be the argument, I would strongly disagree. Thanks for your insight.
@UltraProle21 money buys our politicians; our entire lobbying system is legitimated bribery. large corporations and related interest groups flood the system with corporate cash to protect their interests (at the expense of private human citizens) and insulate themselves from having to deal with the downsides of the free market. corporate welfare in the weapons, energy, and financial sectors (among others) add up to a reality where corporate power is unaccountable to the public and subverts govt.
how exactly is a corporation unaccountable? if people don't want to buy their product, they will be exterminated. however, if people don't want to pay taxes, they will be thrown in jail. nice logic, chomsky.
@UltraProle21 Corporate leaders are not expected to follow the wishes of people under them (the workers). In state tyrannies, the idea was that one party can represent all people because after the social revolution, everybody would be working class (there wasn't a need for more parties). Governments, they at least tend to be thought of as having the obligation to listen to people. Private companies advertise their not caring about anything but profits as a good thing.
Thanks for the Jefferson warning ' not to hold the constitution or the founding fathers as sacred but as imperfect as in need of change' Address what in the 'keystones of the system is actually failing' also good have the Jefferson+Madison History lesson:) Thanks again
@friendlyfurtraders How lovely, Thomas Jeffersons DRAFT of the Declaration of Independence is on display in Boston. It inculdes specific languages to abolish slavery.However Jefferson was met with lots of opposition. Chomsky conveniently leaves out pieces of information and it is not the first time I have noticed....
@PrivateAckbar I've already given you the opportunity to explain some economic concepts you idiot. That's why I mentioned minimum wage laws. DWL ring a bell? Instead you come back with BS about the Judicial system. You know sweet FA about economics! As for Ron Paul? Pwahaha
"We shall soon see the final extinction of our national debt, and liberation of our revenues for the defense and improvement of our country. These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich [....] The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to General Thaddeus Kosciusko, April 13, 1811
It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land.... By an universal law, ... whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.
The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, [...] He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. [...] But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it
How is it a misleading view of libertarianism? He is explaining what the term means here as what it's meant elsewhere throughout history. How is that misleading?
Just stating that someone is wrong is not an argument. If it's propaganda, tell us why and give examples.
@fugazipk He's defining liberty as the absence of authority. It isn't. It's the absence of force. A state government is a very complex and dangerous example of what happens when people initiate force against one another, but anarcho-syndicalism is as well.The free market rewards pacifism. Marxist distrust in the invisible hand as an advocation of force disrupts wealth. A free market assigns a value to products and it is in the self interest of both the boss and workers not to be exploit wages.
@fugazipk If the employer underpays the workers for the value of their labour they will simply move to a job that doesn't and the business will bust. Likewise if the workers are in a union using force to demand more wages than the free market (the actions of everyone) has decided they deserve, then the business will not be as productive as others. Either way a free market rewards peoples right to freedom. It isn't authority per se which collapses economies, it's the initiation of force.
@PrivateAckbar You sound like some teenager. Try living in the real world. A person with a family to support probably doesn't have the opportunity to move to another job. Plenty of people desperate to work, not many jobs = massive imbalance of power. The nonsense of your argument is borne out by the fact that the wages of illegals (a market without any Govt interference), are significantly less than average earnings.
@neuterallrednecks If I told explained to you the mechanics of state owned means of production you would think it sounds unrealistic. I was giving you the basic mechanism of one free market force. Obviously it doesn't go that smoothly realistically but nothing does. I have first class honors in economics so I can explain something more complex if you've got questions? Chomsky fits your insult quite well btw.
@neuterallrednecks Try to work things out for yourself as well. I was merely demonstrating how produce and labour are part of peoples freedom. That's what we call ownership. Disrupting that does make a business less productive so logically what other scenarios could you see taking place instead of the workers or employer simply leaving?
@PrivateAckbar Dont try the 'I've got a degree in Economics' bluff mate, go as complex as you want. You can go back 200 years to Dickensian times if you want the rest of the developed world had moved past that. Hence we have restrictions such as anti child labour laws, minimum wages, oh&s laws - all of which you or someone in your family would have benefitted from.
@neuterallrednecks The judicial system is an integral part of free markets. It's what enforces pacifism and makes non aggression productive and explicitly within self interest. Do a few minuets research and ask me a question on economics. Find some graphs and curve and ting and I'll delve deep wit ya. Stay away from Keynesianism. I'll answer soon as. Please vote Ron Paul btw.
@PrivateAckbar Authority is bad because it only benefits those who have it. Employees can't always look for other jobs if they feel undervalued, because they can't choose to offer any work they want to employers (we call them employeEs). People's 'supply' of work is limited by at least their natural endowment, the 'strongest' workers will end up in power and use that to keep the others down (telling them how to work is imposing their own standard on weaker people).
@PrivateAckbar I believe people are most productive if they can choose how to work. Right now, that is the case only for few people. Our society cuts people off from most connections if they don't do wage labor, and being self-employed is too risky for many people in our current context.
This is a misleading view of libertarianism. He is a linguist ladies and gentleman, not an economist. He knows how to say certain words to make you believe almost anything he says. Thats why he is so good at pinpointing propaganda and how he knows how to make his own.
@brVOVds Actually he is right by saying apex 4:57 ; We have to start by decoding our system of intellectual distortion before we can even talk, that itself is an big achievement. If terms have lost their meaning it comes impossible to talk; he says one word doesn't mean the same what libertarianism means for an American has changed its meaning to the meaning many generations ago. btw just because he is linguist doesn't mean he doesn't know how economy is working
@VirtuosicElevator First of all you really can't get an accurate representation of Chomsky's views in a five minute speech. Try reading some of his books, because I think you may be misunderstanding the reason why he's saying what he's saying. Second, Chomsky's views on economics are perfectly sensible, he gives examples of libertarian socialist societies that functioned just fine, like the Israeli Kibbutzim & Spanish Revolution of 1936.
I have lost respect for Chomsky here too. Did he ever comprehend that true free markets DEMAND sound money and the Rule of Law? Which both are not in place with our Two Tier Justice system and our deeply flawed monetary policies...
Noam Chomsky sold his soul years ago to the powers that be. Before I woke up 8 years ago, I used to buy his books and was a voracious reader of his material. I have since donated his books to the nationalized brainwashing libraries here in town for other brainwashed sheep to read, as I was 8 years ago. He's nothing but a corporate, establishment mouthpiece now.
@principles101 I'm curious as to why you say he is a "corporate, establishment mouthpiece"? How do you feel he supports corporations or the establishment? I do read and listen to a great deal of Chomsky and feel he is largely accurate in his assessments of the world but I believe in challenging myself and my beliefs so I would truely like to hear your criticism of really any of Chomsky's views.
@terpdawg6924 He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he reports the truth about USA involvement in all the different wars, on the other hand he denigrates any one such as Ron Paul with a common sense foreign policy such as the founding fathers recognized. He did a hitpiece on Ron Paul in one of his interviews misrepresenting what Ron Paul's constitutional view of foreign policy and misquoted what he had said. Thank goodness someone corrected Mr. Chomsky in the comment section.
@terpdawg6924 My question for you is, How can someone such as Chomsky be criticizing the USA on its foreign policy killing millions of people around the world, then, turn around and put Mr. Paul down who actually is promoting NOT running into countries without first DECLARING a CONSTITUTIONALLY approved war, just willy nilly sending troops over to these countries to destroy them without congressional approval, as Mr. Chomsky notes himself. Something is wrong with this picture, Mr. Chomsky!
@principles101 I believe that if Chomsky was to support Ron Paul he would loose the objectivity required to disect his policies. Additionally, Chomsky is in a position of great power: many people worship him and by committing himself to Paul he could potenti\lly influence many people. On previous occasions I have read that Chomsky does not want to pledge his allegiance to one politician as he could influence voters choices. Just my opinion, though.
@15Elliott93 I believe then that Mr. Chomsky should have misquoted the others as well, but he chose Ron Paul exclusively. The two establishment chosen front runners in the primaries are KNOWN for voting for bailouts, warmongering, NDAA, Patriot Act, and have received their campaign funds from the likes of Goldman Sachs and other big corporations. Mr. Paul does not pander to the establishments stripping of our personal freedoms, ignoring the Constitution, and bankers destroying our economy.
@clockworkscott watch?v=wAt1ySNF6yg Then read how sircharles2012 down in the blog corrects him. Then do your own research on Ron Paul's responses if you still don't get it. It's easy enough to do if you are serious also.
@principles101 he didn't misquote him there. he was paraphrasing, and it seems to me to be an accurate paraphrase. what do you mean by "sircharles2012 down in the blog"? you can't make claims that someone misquoted someone else, and then when you get called on it, say" do your own research." the burden of proof is on you, not the person raising an objection.
@clockworkscott Please point out where he did not misquote him. It would be in true form that you would not want to take responsibility for finding out this information for yourself. It's also your choice to stay blind to truth so don't shove your responsibility for any further knowledge onto me. I already know Chomsky misquoted him.
@clockworkscott "...seems to me (clockworkscott) to be an accurate paraphrase." Now I'm asking you to show me where you found Chomsky's statement about Ron Paul "...to be an accurate paraphrase. I looked and I am unable to find a video proving Chomsky was ACCURATE about anything Ron Paul said. All Chomsky did was misquote what Ron Paul said.
@principles101 here's a better quality vid for that speech you posted earlier: watch?v=3B0Q109uQ7o
here's the ron paul quote: watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE
chomsky doesn't quote ron paul in full, but paraphrases him. c. 1:10 in the chomsky vid, he says "his first answer was something like...", the "something like" indicating a paraphrase, not a direct quote. his paraphrase, moreover, perfectly captures the substance of paul's response. take a look at both vids and hit me back.
@clockworkscott watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE Thank you clockworkscott. Everyone definitely needs to watch this to see just how brilliantly Chomsky distorted Ron Paul's entire message. Chomsky took a very small part of the debate exchange (out of context) and destroyed its meaning. Chomsky's paraphrasing did not "capture" the "substance" of Paul's response; it destroyed the "substance" of the entire message.
@clockworkscott There is a huge margin of error for convoluting a message when one takes a very small portion of the entire exchange out of context, and that's what Chomsky attempted to do. Misquotes often result from "paraphrasing," and, messages convoluted by taking very small portions of an entire exchange out of its context. Chomsky's attempt at humor failed and did a grave disservice to a great man. He should be ashamed of himself. I wonder if Dr. Paul would be willing to return the favor.
@principles101 In other words, it was a "cheap shot" at Dr. Ron Paul by Chomsky sacrificing Dr. Paul for a short-lived laugh. I have lost total respect for Chomsky for this, and other reasons.
@principles101 but note that the burden of proof is on you, since you are raising the claim that chomsky misquoted paul, and i'm saying he didn't. i cannot prove a negative, much like i cannot prove e.g. that god doesn't exist.
like all human beings i'm constantly striving to find more information, but i'm totally at a loss as to why you think chomsky misquoted paul, and if you're a rational person you will account for that claim with evidence.
@clockworkscott The following is the dangerous philosophy that Mr. Chomsky espouses and the reason America is in its current state-of-affairs watch?v=PwjAO05Xe4Q. Some people that follow Chomsky feel that everyone else is responsible to do everything for them and don't want to take responsibility for their own research (you for instance) or livelihood. The views he espouses are leading America right down the road to where Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland; socialistic and broke!
@principles101 well, you haven't shown in what way chomsky's statement misconstrues the meaning of paul's statement. what specific information is being left out? until you can say specifically what that info is, i'm going to declare myself winner.
socialism is basically the idea that workers ought to control the means of production. this isn't at all present in those countries you mentioned, much less the u.s.a.
@15Elliott93 If there is any "worshipping" of Noam Chomsky, it's coming from the older population of 60's and over, baby boomers. The younger generation is savy on the computer and looking for truth. Noam Chomsky has shown which side of the fence he is on in regard to status quo establishment politics by discounting anything Ron Paul has to say, which is exactly what Chomsky was inferring by his commentary should be done at one time. Has Mr. Chomsky changed his mind all of a sudden?
@15Elliott93 Also, if you look back in Chomsky's history, you'll find that at one time Mr. Chomsky rebelled against paying his income taxes for approximately 10 years. This is the very organization, the IRS, that Ron Paul wants to abolish. When the US government eventually put the hammer on Chomsky's head, I believe that is when Mr. Chomsky made a deal with the devil. Now, anyone proposing to abolish the very thing Mr. Chomsky at one time objected to, will become a target for Mr. Chomsky.
@15Elliott93 There is a bright, new generation arising that are doing their research using the internet to find truth.They are distrustful of government media (rightfully so) and are using their own critical thinking skills to sort through what is truth, what are distortions, and what are outright lies.Mr. Chomsky can fool the older population, but the younger generation is going to call him out. If the government succeeds with SOPA, then Mr. Chomsky can probably move on in his same old fashion.
@terpdawg6924 If you look at what's happening in the current primaries with voter fraud and see how blatant the mainstream media has been in their attempts at ignoring Ron Paul; then watch an interviewer pose a question about Ron Paul to Noam Chomsky who actually misquotes what Ron Paul actually said (BTW, without Ron Paul being there to debate it or defend the misquote), you'll understand why I feel the way I do. Noam Chomsky has become a shill for the establishment.
@Yo4801 If you're really that interested, you'll take the time to research this for yourself and provide me with proof otherwise...again, if you're that serious about knowing the truth.
@principles101 or you will just say misquoted, uh i meant mis-paraphrased yeah. I've done my research, if on the political level democracy is the best possible hope for a truly free society, then why isn't democracy in economics, in the work place, not a best possible hope for a truly free economy? Ron Paul is looking at a glass half full, but for whatever reason is unable to pour the last half.
@Valobladr America was never meant to be a democracy, but a Republic. Slowly but surely, it has evolved into a democracy which is mob rule. This is exactly what the founders warned against. Thomas Jefferson warned that, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Americans got too comfortable and did not heed the warning about their government which continues to grow out of proportion and into the current monster that it is. Hence, our current economic debacle.
@principles101 "America was never meant to be a democracy" WTF? Do the words "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" ring a bell with you? Amazingly, just about everything you've said in your many posts is complete bollocks. You Tea bangers can't even rise to the intelligence level of a Baboon sitting in a tree picking its arse! Your ilk are the biggest block to America's future.
@neuterallrednecks Also, you are showing your ignorance if you do not understand "Republic." Check your history and learn a few things about the country you've been living in and feeding off of.
@principles101 Sorry to disappoint but I work. And I know what a Republic is. All modern defintions revolve around power to elect a Government residing with the people. If you're alluding to a Plato's Republic then that would make you a Fascist. You can't defeat anyone on here through the power of your brains so you try to baffle them with Bullshit. Libertard!
@Valobladr Ron Paul understands that in order to correct the disasterous path toward self-destruction that America is currently on, the federal government needs to be thinned out considerably. This includes all of the socialistic programs Chomsky endorses. Fortunately for Chomsky, he's in a tax bracket that doesn't really affect him as it does the middle class, who is most affected and overtaxed by the creation of these social welfare programs.
@Valobladr I haven't seen any reports where Chomsky has donated any amount of his own money to any charity for the poor and helpless. And he has plenty of it given all the books, DVD's, CD's, ect that he has sold to you people over the years.
@Valobladr To include the fees he demands for speaking engagements to preach what he doesn't practice. Remember, he did not pay his income taxes for a span of 10 years back in the 60's. So he's preaching about socialistic policy and welfare programs, yet refusing to contribute his taxable income to support them. I believe there's a word for that; hypocrite.
@principles101 First of all your a delusional troll, i get your game and this will be my last response to you (understanding you will simply troll responses after this one and there is no reason to feed a troll past this statement). 1. We are "devolving" into a democracy, can you please point to where THE PEOPLE vote directly on legislation in this country (and not state based democracy, I'm talking nationally). 2. Mob rule? no mob rule and democracy are two distinctly different approaches.
@Valobladr 3. i do agree that government excess and tyranny is a disastrous path that needs to be corrected, but handing over rule to private non-democratic institutions hardly seems the answer, how does less liberty equate to full liberty? It's implausible. Plus don't act as though this didn't exist before, throughout the late 1800's we saw the disastrous effects of total monopolies and their effect on society and government, yet you and other...
@Valobladr Ron Paul ilk try to assure me that is history is simply that, history, never to be repeated, well i have news for you, history repeats itself. When you can explain to me why we should take away power from the state and enhance the power of private non-democratic institutions for the goal of creating a more free society then id love to talk...
@Valobladr My guess is though you will continue trolling, continue accusing noam of doing something he's not, then when proven wrong, re-write your initial criticism so that it reflects better on your overall point. You are the worst kind of person, good day, enjoy trolling for brownie points.
This is horribly arrogant. Libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive because socialism is institutionalised force. This man has horrible character.
@PrivateAckbar socialism is control over production, greater democracy for workers, if you're talkign about the false state capitalist fascist USSR then yes that "socialism" of course it was just called socialism, it actually wasn't.
@PrivateAckbar Socialism is the opposite of Statism; it more or less decentralizes authority and power and puts it into the hands of the means of production (the population). It is institutional (as ANY government necessarily is) but it comes as close as possible to allowing people to have a meaningful say in the government of their immediate communities and preserving personal rights. the skewed american libertarian movement is just the capitulation to corporate tyranny wether implicit or not.
@ubustang Bollox. Firstly corporations are only people, and in a free market corporations are just as mortal as any other business. Corporatism can only take place with big government. Secondly, a majority does not have the right to take away the freedoms of individuals. People don't exercise freedom through government, they exercise force. To a Libertarian the only function of government is to secure freedom. This form of government you're talking about is the opposite of a free market.
in a Zeitgeist world, see documentary, Then maybe a real free market and can self regulate. But first we must free all of humanity from banking fiat money. Provide all necessities of life support for Everyone, then maybe a free market in a free liberated society can happen.
@orchidtender Ehhh...? Zeitgeist proposes the most logical system of any system that has ever existed. None of your illogical ideologies can even compare to the system that it proposes.
Private sector is not accountable to anything where the public its atleast somewhat?That is the point right?
Well but the private sector is accountable because if you dont like a bussines all you do is stop fucking shoping their unlike the government that if you dont want to pay for the Iraq war all you get is a "FUCK YOU pay for it or go to jail"
Exactly, the public sector isn't accountable to anything. They're the ones with all the guns, they have a monopoly on violence. If a business does something you don't like, you stop giving them money. You might even encourage others to stop as well. If enough people have a problem with that business, it will fail.
The public sector takes your money regardless of if you agree with it or not. How is this more accountable? It's absurd.
@rodrigodet If people weren't ignorant and deluded, and or utterly apathetic then that might work. You know what Monsanto, exxon Mobil et al do to the world but you fucking ignore it. Gas is a cent more expensive and you go apoplectic.
@rodrigodet One thing to consider is that if you, for example, want to stop giving your money to a food corporation you pretty much have to just become a farmer. Almost everything in your grocery store comes from just five different corporations, so you cant really change brands. Well, lets say that you are a farmer now (good on you), you still have to pay taxes that subsidize those same companies. And if you dont want to pay your taxes then, well you said it allready.
@rodrigodet it's fine to say vote with your wallet, but the fact is that as corp's continue to consolidate, you have fewer alternatives. All American-style libertarianism is transfer power from the state to the corporatists. The crucial difference is a corporation is not subject to the checks, balances and term-limits elected governments are.
Furthermore, majority shares can be owned by a minority. It's anti-democratic. It's tyranny.
He can only be attacking those Americans that don't understand Austrian school economics. Some idiots call their self Libertarians without a full understanding - so really he's juist attacking idiots, not Libertarians.
I'd say you are missing the point. U.S. Libertarian is not what Libertarian was initially. Remember that Libertarians were and are for markets, not capitalism. Right-wing Libertarian doesn't exist outside of the U.S.! Capitalism can be degrees of state capitalism, private capitalism, or a broad mix (third way, democratic socialism ,etc ).
@PositivelyBored They are for free market capitalism. Perhaps you don't understand what that is.State capitalism is not free market capitalism - I missed nothing
Who is "they"? U.S. vulgar libertarians and "anarcho-capitalists" and the like? Noam Chomsky is refuting those and claiming the corporate structural poverty is in part through either "free market" capitalism (which we know as a perverse lie), state -subsidized and guided capitalism (ala socialist regimes), rather than syndicalism, agorism , mutualism , etc which the power is through the fruits of ones labor and NOT a heirarchical structure of structural poverties.
@PositivelyBored Q.E.D. It's not free market capitalism! They are all those who use capitalism as a dirty word. They are also the msm that use the word and package it with sinister undertones. They are the brainwashed masses that absorb the subversive connotations and they are the entertainment industry that ironically promote serfdom as a virtue. I do not think that you and I are poles apart, except that I believe that Chomsky is a devious man.
There's always apologists for the contempory power structure on Chomsky videos.
To dethrone the current elite hegemony, not only do you combat the bourgeois intellectuals, but also, those outside the power structure, ordinary people who want to preserve their own exploitation and enslavement.
Whether it's due to their hope of rising to power(becoming an exploiter), or due ignorance(wilful or not), or owing to lack of education, and possibly other reasons, I do not know.
@benjaminnetanyahoo but what is the better product? If free markets make a better iPad and cheaper ipad for those who can afford them is that necessarily a good thing considering the human cost? Moreover, the environmental cost that free markets has shown to haram arduous to both. A free makers requires those in charge to have a strong will to do right by al by doing right I mean harming them as little as possible -if persons who are morally willing to do right by all things exist in mass-than
Fatmanunk 4 days ago
All is not shown. If one needs images to go along with a speech your missing out on the speech itself.
Fatmanunk 4 days ago
First I would like to thank you for posting the video secondly I loathe the images. The very perversion Chomsky is talking about you continue to do with these images. The power of association should not be understated furthermore, by placing photos at certain parts of the speech you oversimplify a statement. The PC moment can considered newspeak. Any form of editing is censorship and creates a bias because a
Fatmanunk 4 days ago
Corporations are fascist tyrants whom the people have absolutely no power over, we should boycott them....oh wait.
Fact is interactions between corporations and individuals are voluntary and so long as a person has access to dirt and seeds they can create an independent system of survival and even thrive. Corporations don't use force. Governments do which is why I prefer to keep it out of my personal interactions.
BlindMaphisto 4 days ago
Chomsky is an elitist socialist academics short on common sence, I doubt he knows what end of screwdiver to hold. Ron Paul is a doctor with a practical and useful skill (unlike this professional talker). Libertarians believe a free market will produce a better product than a gubmint controlled system will produce. This would make health more accessable and affordable. This takes time. He doesn't advocate people dying on the street.
benjaminnetanyahoo 5 days ago
I read profit over people, it seemed like something a child would right. It was so boring I couldn't finish
BoloBeachBall 1 week ago
chomsky needs to stop speaking about things he doesn't know anything about
BroodjeEend 1 week ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 2 weeks ago
@neuterallrednecks s/b 'therefore' not 'there'
neuterallrednecks 2 weeks ago
@yogishkamath ..(cont). 2 of the main causes of the GFC were that Greenspan (a devotee of Rand), left monetary policy alone for too long coz he believed markets were 100% efficient, there a bubble could not occur. Result --> housing bubble. Also regulations on financial institutions were removed - another bit of Rand doctrine- result --> GFC. The GFC was in the main, a result of laissez faire policies not interventionist policies.
neuterallrednecks 2 weeks ago
@yogishkamath You sound like you're quoting straight from a Ron Paul flyer. When it comes to Economics, you're a special needs student. The whole point of the bank bailouts was because banks were NOT lending to each other. The Treasury bought shares/assets of the banks. They have now sold them and made a profit. ....(cont)
neuterallrednecks 2 weeks ago
libertarianism has a more sensible root than the anglo-american variety. it was initially used as a synonym of socialism and anarchism. the way it's used now involves a shallow analysis of power relations. they seem to think that authoritarian tendencies only occur in the state.
fede2 2 weeks ago
Chomsky easily confuses the leaders and proponents of the moder libertarian movements as pro corporation. Due to his incredibly high intellect, I'd imagine this is because when he thinks "libertarian", an image of the despicable Milton Friedman comes to his mind. I wish Chomsky and Murray Rothbard got to sit own and talk for a few hours before Murray Died. Chomsky thinks that the only way libertarianism could work is with perfect liberty. Murray would argue this, not "privatizing everything".
livfreeordi3 3 weeks ago
@livfreeordi3 Well modern libertarians may *think* they're anti-corporation but if they really take their brand of libertarianism seriously then they can't be. I think their beliefs are contradictory, because by their logic people would have to be free to form corporations--if they can't do that then they can't really be "free." And how would you prevent corporations without regulation?
fronkly350 3 weeks ago
@fronkly350 just type "Domenick Armentano" into youtube search.
livfreeordi3 3 weeks ago
Nonsense..... That is not what Adam Smith said at all... I don't understand how somebody who writes so well about American foreign policy can be so sloppy when describing Adam Smith's work.
Also, it is not true that corporations are unaccountable. Corporations want profit and the only legitimate way to earn a profit is by providing goods and services to people in society. Society can regulate corporations by changing the way we shop (and we shop much more often than we vote)
yogishkamath 4 weeks ago
@yogishkamath Actually there is no nonsense in what he mentioned about Smith. Smith wrote about it, so maybe your reading on Smith is sloppy.
Corporations are unaccountable unlike Government. The people don't vote on who and how the corporation is run, the type or quality of things it does, its wages, its investments, its exploitation of people and wages, otherwise the corporation would actually be accountable. Corporations regulate society in countless ways and how people shop is naive
Navywxman 4 weeks ago 3
@Navywxman Corporations have to produce goods and services that people demand. They also have to invest accordingly..... Corporations do not have any power of their own.
They cannot make anybody do a single thing against their will. So, the question of exploitation does not arise.
If the shopping behavior of people is naive(it is not) what on earth makes you think their voting behavior is not naive ?
yogishkamath 4 weeks ago
@yogishkamath So you're saying corporations such as Enron, Haliburton, BP, Union Carbide, JP Morgan Chase, IG Farben, etc are incapable of exploiting people, and only seek to provide goods and services to them and hopefully earn a bit of profit. But then that same naive population goes and votes for idiots who think this perfect market equilibrium needs to have laws and regulations to protect them from this imaginary exploitation. Who's protecting the corporations from the public, right?
retron23 3 weeks ago
@retron23 Who handed all that bailout money to JP Morgan ? The Government did. Without Government, they can't get a single penny from your pocket.
Corporations seek to make as much profit as they can.....
But in a market, they don't have the power to make you pay at gunpoint.... Only the Government does.
It is sad that progressives do not get this. They vote to put more power in the hands of Government which invariably results in greater corporate control of our lives.
yogishkamath 3 weeks ago
@yogishkamath According to the recent Bloomberg report, out of the $1.2 trillion that banks secretly borrowed from the fed in 08, JPMorgan got a $48 billion loan. It's supposedly been paid back with interest going into the Treasury, (even though the Fed is self funded and my pennies weren't part of the deal in the first place.) To put these numbers in perspective, JPMorgan lent $70 billion to other banks soon after, bought $250 billion in securities, and went on a bank acquisition spree.
retron23 2 weeks ago
@retron23
1) Who decided the interest rate ? The Government did (Or the fed, which is effectively an arm of Government) .... The interest rate obviously must have been way below the rate at which JPM could have borrowed from the market at the time (if not they would have borrowed from the market!)
Anyway , the point was that JPM (or any other corporation) has no power per se... It derives all its power from Government. JPM could not have got a cent out of us but for Government.
yogishkamath 2 weeks ago
@yogishkamath Fine, you obviously need to believe that the Fed is controlled by the government beyond GAO audits and board appointments, and that it gets public funding from your taxes. You'd rather draw conclusions based on your basic assumptions than spend a few minutes reading a report. Bloomberg filed an FOIA to finally cut through the secrecy around the Fed/Wall St shady dealings of 4 years ago. Very enlightening if you don't believe you already know everything about economics.
retron23 2 weeks ago
@retron23 The Fed has a monopoly on printing the currency that we are all forced to use .... Who created that monopoly ? The Government did.
yogishkamath 2 weeks ago
@yogishkamath Anyway I didn't bring up the bailouts, of which JPMC got a small portion since they were stable and loaning money themselves to help other banks. I was referring to the billions they paid in fines and settlements for several scandals, such as financing Enron. Enron execs were recorded on tape plotting to push deregulation, allowing them to control California's energy market, and shut down plants to create constant rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy prices.
retron23 2 weeks ago
@Navywxman You're dead wrong. Government is NOT accountable while corporations ARE accountable. All the people have to do is not buy or work for a corporation to keep it accountable which is real and direct action while unless you overthrow the government there will still be that government therefore it is not accountable.
RealityStar9 1 week ago
@RealityStar9 Actually not buying or working isn't often an option, nor does it effect the structure of a corporation, how decisions are made, or change anything, and certainly not anymore since things are more globalized, they'll just shift jobs and sales elsewhere leaving devastation behind. Gov. can be and has been and still can be altered by the people, made to serve the publics interests, but as long as big money owns it, it won't happen. Sorry, but libertarianism is a sad joke
Navywxman 1 week ago 2
@HyperboreanBrew Under the letters section of Chomsky dot info, a letter from him makes it clear he did not support pol pot and describes how US bombing and invasion of Cambodia led to the Khmer Rouge's rise. And your economic theory is just mindless gibberish.
neuterallrednecks 1 month ago
How can he defend corporate subsidies? It doesn't actually create anything of value, it just takes from some businesses and individuals and gives to others. Nothing is created in the process, but you might end up with a poorly run business surviving at the expense of those that do well.
theJMBgamer 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky was an apologist for the mass murder of Pol Pot and his goons. Libertarianism is dedicated to the non aggression principle, which is why Chomsky does not subscribe.
HyperboreanBrew 1 month ago
@HyperboreanBrew I've heard Chomsky say that the Cambodian genocide was smaller than the one in East Timor which didn't get the media coverage Cambodia did. But that's not an apology. What's your source for Chomsky apologizing for Pol Pot?
I like the non-aggression principle, but it has nothing to do with the exploitation possible under anarcho-capitalism. What will that principle mean when a desperately poor person has to enslave themselves to a rich man to avoid starvation?
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago 8
@TheForwardGaze In fairness to Chomsky I'm sure he does not still defend Pol Pot today. However, there is little doubt that at the time he was quick to discount reports of mass murder, particularly in his Nation articles. Much like many leftists in the 20's turned a blind eye to communist atrocities.
HyperboreanBrew 1 month ago
@TheForwardGaze The poor, freed from the depredations of government fiat currency and free to establish their own currencies, will have greater power than they do under a welfare state.The real exploitation possible under the monopoly of the State is the real question.
HyperboreanBrew 1 month ago
@HyperboreanBrew You should read what America's founding fathers had to say about the printing of currencies and fiat currency. One of them is very bad and the other very good.
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
@HyperboreanBrew "the greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour." WTF is Chomsky talking about re: Division of Labor? The quote above is from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@HyperboreanBrew It's legal to make your own currency in the US, they do it in the Berkshires and other places to support local economies. There were 8000 different private currencies in 1860, and when issuers went out of business their notes would become suddenly worthless. But you're free to try that economic model out; have fun freeing the poor from the tyranny of food stamps and healthcare.
retron23 3 weeks ago
@retron23 Ok then, what model would you use to free them from the 'tyranny of food stamps and healthcare'?
HyperboreanBrew 3 weeks ago
@HyperboreanBrew Well I'd probably go with models that have worked in the past to stabilize economic tailspins; invest in the nation's infrastructure, education, and healthcare. And of course no more tax breaks, loopholes and subsidies for the real welfare recipients in America, that minuscule fraction who control much of the world's economy. Big banks and their multinational cartel make more money from wars and developing nations drowning in debt than they do from 'the market'.
retron23 3 weeks ago
@HyperboreanBrew yeah show me where this has worked. lets understand something conservatives and libertarians were for big government for the majority of history. When government was "limited" and only protected wealthy property rights, government was fine.But when government became a tool of the oppressed against the powerful,big government became a problem libertarians don't understand how to run a society. When you have disease and starvation, you can't just hope wealthy people will do right
cocosear 1 day ago
@TheForwardGaze Shut up you booger eating butt pooper
GohModley 1 week ago
@HyperboreanBrew
Chomsky actually rights about why people like you think he was an apologist for Pol Pot (He wasn't, by the way - in 'Manufacturing Consent' he goes into painful detail of the tragedy of Cambodia and the U.S support that Pol Pot received and how his forces were reconstructed with U.S/Chinese support under Diexapong (sp?) and Nixon..
His conclusion is that this claim despite it's falsehood, will be believed because of 'sheer repetition' people will hear it over and over..
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
@HyperboreanBrew Don't be an idiot, he did no such thing.
Navywxman 1 month ago in playlist Inspiring thought
@HyperboreanBrew that is incorrect sir
shanyin1234 2 weeks ago
@HyperboreanBrew
I'd love to see a source for that outrageous claim. When and where did Chomsky apologise for Pol Pot?
QwidgyboMan 1 week ago
If words don't hold the meaning that you think they hold, Mr Chomsky. Then perhaps you should learn their modern meanings, or avoid trying to be an intellectual altogether. Then people might understand what you are trying to say.
CaptainAmerica5013 1 month ago
@CaptainAmerica5013 mate for the rest of the world its your USA distortion of words that is problematic. Like murderkilled is now 'casualties'. God Save America the nation of 'Spin'.
Kanashakti 1 month ago
like chomsky points out elsewhere it is not as if economic theory whether it is neoclassical or austrian or whatever is not strictly incoherent. In other words the theories behind economics can be pretty much valid. The problem is is that they just do not apply because the world does not match up with the axioms economics is built on. Economics, at least plenty of it is pure sophistry on the level of obscure philosophy which merely can claim to sound intelligent.
BloodTypeRagu 1 month ago
More Libertarians need to see this video and pull their head from their backside! It is foolish to worship a fantasy fiction cult of a capitalism that never has nor could ever exist because capitalists themselves wouldn't allow it. buying government is what they want, using the public, exploiting resources and human beings, to keep democracy out of the economic system, monopolize industries, privatize profits, socialize costs. Time to wake up before there is nothing left!
Navywxman 1 month ago
@Navywxman Of course, capitalists want to buy Governments because Governments have a lot of power. Take away Government power and corporations won't have an incentive to do so.
And yes, we do want to keep democracy out of the economic system. We don't believe that the average person is any better at capital allocation than she is at brain surgery.
yogishkamath 4 weeks ago
@yogishkamath Governments do and can exert power which is why they own it. In a capitalist system there is no taking power away from government, the owners of it will not allow it nor will the need due to the multitude of problems associated with capitalism/monetary system.
I know Libertarians could care less about freedom, only subserviance to an economic system. They might want crazy stuff like a decent wage, or not exporting industries overseas, or care about the environment over profits
Navywxman 4 weeks ago
@Navywxman And in a socialist system, it is possible to take power away from Government ? Show me one instance in history when society has even gotten close to your ideal .....
yogishkamath 4 weeks ago
The picture of George Orwell was appropriate. He wrote an essay called "Politics and the English Language." Everyone interested in the themes discussed in this clip should definitely read it. You can Google it (how appropriate and convenient). It was published in 1946 right after World War II. Chomsky hits it on the nail when he explains how the corporate elite use the state to protect their interests.
USASecretHistory 1 month ago
Tin foil hat on Ron Paul is pathetic. Ron Paul is an extremely learned man, Doctor for 30 years, well read in economics, long time serving in the Congress.
Just because you disagree doesn't = tin foil hat. Grow up.
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago 2
@historypoliticsbb i don't exactly see, why ron paul wouldn't agree with noam chomsky in this speech. Can anybody tell why a real conservative and libertarian like ron paul get's attacked by this video? I would be glad to know...
KoushAcalledKukA 1 month ago
@KoushAcalledKukA Leave these ultimately meaningless theories to one side for a sec. Ron Paul and Chomsky are basically complete opposites. Chomsky believes in a centralised planned state providing everyone with the basic necessities, eliminating the idea of labour for capital. Paul believes in very small government, sound money, complete decentralisation of power.
Both agree that unnecessary infringements on civil liberties, foreign and domestic, should be done away with.
historypoliticsbb 1 month ago
Uhhhhhh.....why is gold a scam?
RockyMountainPrepper 1 month ago
@RockyMountainPrepper - Only in the sense that it's not a solution of itself. Currency issued by fiat (paper) may seem to be the problem...and its bad yes. However before there was speculation on fiat currency there was speculation on the value gold/silver etc. it merely was HARDER to manipulate.
America has a currency mostly fiat, but also backed in oil (petrodollars).
The way out is to ditch issuing currency as debt (private central bank) for...
willyrobinson 1 month ago
@RockyMountainPrepper ...for issuing currency backed by the productivity of the nation(people) as a whole. It would help also to back it with resources: oil, gold, silver, whatever...iron etc. It can be paper, but it doesn't always need be debt.
This would mean getting rid of the private central bank (FED) and having a public central bank or: the equivalent-> Congress shall issue currency (debt-free) and regulate the value thereof. This would be a huge-fucking-shift.
willyrobinson 1 month ago
@willyrobinson Right. I got the impression, and just with the one blip image on this slideshow, that "gold is a scam" was implying that buying and holding in times of tumult was a bad idea. If that were to be the argument, I would strongly disagree. Thanks for your insight.
RockyMountainPrepper 1 month ago
@UltraProle21 money buys our politicians; our entire lobbying system is legitimated bribery. large corporations and related interest groups flood the system with corporate cash to protect their interests (at the expense of private human citizens) and insulate themselves from having to deal with the downsides of the free market. corporate welfare in the weapons, energy, and financial sectors (among others) add up to a reality where corporate power is unaccountable to the public and subverts govt.
MMBKG0 1 month ago 2
how exactly is a corporation unaccountable? if people don't want to buy their product, they will be exterminated. however, if people don't want to pay taxes, they will be thrown in jail. nice logic, chomsky.
UltraProle21 1 month ago
@UltraProle21 Corporate leaders are not expected to follow the wishes of people under them (the workers). In state tyrannies, the idea was that one party can represent all people because after the social revolution, everybody would be working class (there wasn't a need for more parties). Governments, they at least tend to be thought of as having the obligation to listen to people. Private companies advertise their not caring about anything but profits as a good thing.
Ollie9402 1 month ago
@Ollie9402 And how do you make profits ? By providing goods or services that people are willing to buy... duh!
yogishkamath 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 1 month ago
Thanks for the Jefferson warning ' not to hold the constitution or the founding fathers as sacred but as imperfect as in need of change' Address what in the 'keystones of the system is actually failing' also good have the Jefferson+Madison History lesson:) Thanks again
friendlyfurtraders 1 month ago
Comment removed
DutchsMaria 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@friendlyfurtraders How lovely, Thomas Jeffersons DRAFT of the Declaration of Independence is on display in Boston. It inculdes specific languages to abolish slavery.However Jefferson was met with lots of opposition. Chomsky conveniently leaves out pieces of information and it is not the first time I have noticed....
DutchsMaria 1 month ago
@PrivateAckbar I've already given you the opportunity to explain some economic concepts you idiot. That's why I mentioned minimum wage laws. DWL ring a bell? Instead you come back with BS about the Judicial system. You know sweet FA about economics! As for Ron Paul? Pwahaha
neuterallrednecks 1 month ago
i hate this joke, but it makes sense here:
24 people are libertarians
TractorTheBassist 1 month ago
watch?v=DlYegCNRE6E <--- my opinion on our current political situation! OCCUPY!
Jack102589 1 month ago
Silly silly Socialist. *facepalm*
SanguineBullet667 1 month ago
@SanguineBullet667 Please offer your thoughts.
ahhhhjjjj 1 month ago
More TJ:
"We shall soon see the final extinction of our national debt, and liberation of our revenues for the defense and improvement of our country. These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich [....] The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to General Thaddeus Kosciusko, April 13, 1811
retron23 1 month ago
Thomas Jefferson was anti capitalist???? No he was not, and neither was Adam Smith.
themi90 1 month ago
@themi90 They both were.
TJ:
It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land.... By an universal law, ... whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.
GregSLG 1 month ago
@themi90 AS:
The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, [...] He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. [...] But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it
GregSLG 1 month ago
@GregSLG
Adam Smith was the poster boy for the East India company... Not my kind of idol
Salvysahagun 1 month ago
How is it a misleading view of libertarianism? He is explaining what the term means here as what it's meant elsewhere throughout history. How is that misleading?
Just stating that someone is wrong is not an argument. If it's propaganda, tell us why and give examples.
fugazipk 1 month ago
@fugazipk He's defining liberty as the absence of authority. It isn't. It's the absence of force. A state government is a very complex and dangerous example of what happens when people initiate force against one another, but anarcho-syndicalism is as well.The free market rewards pacifism. Marxist distrust in the invisible hand as an advocation of force disrupts wealth. A free market assigns a value to products and it is in the self interest of both the boss and workers not to be exploit wages.
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago
@fugazipk If the employer underpays the workers for the value of their labour they will simply move to a job that doesn't and the business will bust. Likewise if the workers are in a union using force to demand more wages than the free market (the actions of everyone) has decided they deserve, then the business will not be as productive as others. Either way a free market rewards peoples right to freedom. It isn't authority per se which collapses economies, it's the initiation of force.
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago
@PrivateAckbar You sound like some teenager. Try living in the real world. A person with a family to support probably doesn't have the opportunity to move to another job. Plenty of people desperate to work, not many jobs = massive imbalance of power. The nonsense of your argument is borne out by the fact that the wages of illegals (a market without any Govt interference), are significantly less than average earnings.
In short you talk crap!
neuterallrednecks 1 month ago
@neuterallrednecks If I told explained to you the mechanics of state owned means of production you would think it sounds unrealistic. I was giving you the basic mechanism of one free market force. Obviously it doesn't go that smoothly realistically but nothing does. I have first class honors in economics so I can explain something more complex if you've got questions? Chomsky fits your insult quite well btw.
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago
@neuterallrednecks Try to work things out for yourself as well. I was merely demonstrating how produce and labour are part of peoples freedom. That's what we call ownership. Disrupting that does make a business less productive so logically what other scenarios could you see taking place instead of the workers or employer simply leaving?
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago
@PrivateAckbar Dont try the 'I've got a degree in Economics' bluff mate, go as complex as you want. You can go back 200 years to Dickensian times if you want the rest of the developed world had moved past that. Hence we have restrictions such as anti child labour laws, minimum wages, oh&s laws - all of which you or someone in your family would have benefitted from.
neuterallrednecks 1 month ago
@neuterallrednecks The judicial system is an integral part of free markets. It's what enforces pacifism and makes non aggression productive and explicitly within self interest. Do a few minuets research and ask me a question on economics. Find some graphs and curve and ting and I'll delve deep wit ya. Stay away from Keynesianism. I'll answer soon as. Please vote Ron Paul btw.
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago
@PrivateAckbar Authority is bad because it only benefits those who have it. Employees can't always look for other jobs if they feel undervalued, because they can't choose to offer any work they want to employers (we call them employeEs). People's 'supply' of work is limited by at least their natural endowment, the 'strongest' workers will end up in power and use that to keep the others down (telling them how to work is imposing their own standard on weaker people).
Ollie9402 1 month ago
@PrivateAckbar I believe people are most productive if they can choose how to work. Right now, that is the case only for few people. Our society cuts people off from most connections if they don't do wage labor, and being self-employed is too risky for many people in our current context.
Ollie9402 1 month ago
This is a misleading view of libertarianism. He is a linguist ladies and gentleman, not an economist. He knows how to say certain words to make you believe almost anything he says. Thats why he is so good at pinpointing propaganda and how he knows how to make his own.
VirtuosicElevator 1 month ago
Comment removed
brVOVds 1 month ago
@brVOVds Actually he is right by saying apex 4:57 ; We have to start by decoding our system of intellectual distortion before we can even talk, that itself is an big achievement. If terms have lost their meaning it comes impossible to talk; he says one word doesn't mean the same what libertarianism means for an American has changed its meaning to the meaning many generations ago. btw just because he is linguist doesn't mean he doesn't know how economy is working
brVOVds 1 month ago
@VirtuosicElevator Being a linguist means you understand a lot about how human culture develops, as communication is central to that.
TakeshiAndTheKid 1 month ago
@VirtuosicElevator First of all you really can't get an accurate representation of Chomsky's views in a five minute speech. Try reading some of his books, because I think you may be misunderstanding the reason why he's saying what he's saying. Second, Chomsky's views on economics are perfectly sensible, he gives examples of libertarian socialist societies that functioned just fine, like the Israeli Kibbutzim & Spanish Revolution of 1936.
fronkly350 3 weeks ago
I have lost respect for Chomsky here too. Did he ever comprehend that true free markets DEMAND sound money and the Rule of Law? Which both are not in place with our Two Tier Justice system and our deeply flawed monetary policies...
DutchsMaria 1 month ago
Comment removed
principles101 1 month ago
Noam Chomsky sold his soul years ago to the powers that be. Before I woke up 8 years ago, I used to buy his books and was a voracious reader of his material. I have since donated his books to the nationalized brainwashing libraries here in town for other brainwashed sheep to read, as I was 8 years ago. He's nothing but a corporate, establishment mouthpiece now.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 I'm curious as to why you say he is a "corporate, establishment mouthpiece"? How do you feel he supports corporations or the establishment? I do read and listen to a great deal of Chomsky and feel he is largely accurate in his assessments of the world but I believe in challenging myself and my beliefs so I would truely like to hear your criticism of really any of Chomsky's views.
terpdawg6924 1 month ago
@terpdawg6924 He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he reports the truth about USA involvement in all the different wars, on the other hand he denigrates any one such as Ron Paul with a common sense foreign policy such as the founding fathers recognized. He did a hitpiece on Ron Paul in one of his interviews misrepresenting what Ron Paul's constitutional view of foreign policy and misquoted what he had said. Thank goodness someone corrected Mr. Chomsky in the comment section.
principles101 1 month ago
@terpdawg6924 My question for you is, How can someone such as Chomsky be criticizing the USA on its foreign policy killing millions of people around the world, then, turn around and put Mr. Paul down who actually is promoting NOT running into countries without first DECLARING a CONSTITUTIONALLY approved war, just willy nilly sending troops over to these countries to destroy them without congressional approval, as Mr. Chomsky notes himself. Something is wrong with this picture, Mr. Chomsky!
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 I believe that if Chomsky was to support Ron Paul he would loose the objectivity required to disect his policies. Additionally, Chomsky is in a position of great power: many people worship him and by committing himself to Paul he could potenti\lly influence many people. On previous occasions I have read that Chomsky does not want to pledge his allegiance to one politician as he could influence voters choices. Just my opinion, though.
15Elliott93 1 month ago
@15Elliott93 I believe then that Mr. Chomsky should have misquoted the others as well, but he chose Ron Paul exclusively. The two establishment chosen front runners in the primaries are KNOWN for voting for bailouts, warmongering, NDAA, Patriot Act, and have received their campaign funds from the likes of Goldman Sachs and other big corporations. Mr. Paul does not pander to the establishments stripping of our personal freedoms, ignoring the Constitution, and bankers destroying our economy.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 where did chomsky misquote paul? what was the quote?
clockworkscott 1 month ago
@clockworkscott watch?v=wAt1ySNF6yg
principles101 1 month ago
@clockworkscott watch?v=wAt1ySNF6yg Then read how sircharles2012 down in the blog corrects him. Then do your own research on Ron Paul's responses if you still don't get it. It's easy enough to do if you are serious also.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 he didn't misquote him there. he was paraphrasing, and it seems to me to be an accurate paraphrase. what do you mean by "sircharles2012 down in the blog"? you can't make claims that someone misquoted someone else, and then when you get called on it, say" do your own research." the burden of proof is on you, not the person raising an objection.
clockworkscott 1 month ago
@clockworkscott Please point out where he did not misquote him. It would be in true form that you would not want to take responsibility for finding out this information for yourself. It's also your choice to stay blind to truth so don't shove your responsibility for any further knowledge onto me. I already know Chomsky misquoted him.
principles101 1 month ago
@clockworkscott "...seems to me (clockworkscott) to be an accurate paraphrase." Now I'm asking you to show me where you found Chomsky's statement about Ron Paul "...to be an accurate paraphrase. I looked and I am unable to find a video proving Chomsky was ACCURATE about anything Ron Paul said. All Chomsky did was misquote what Ron Paul said.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 here's a better quality vid for that speech you posted earlier: watch?v=3B0Q109uQ7o
here's the ron paul quote: watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE
chomsky doesn't quote ron paul in full, but paraphrases him. c. 1:10 in the chomsky vid, he says "his first answer was something like...", the "something like" indicating a paraphrase, not a direct quote. his paraphrase, moreover, perfectly captures the substance of paul's response. take a look at both vids and hit me back.
clockworkscott 1 month ago
@clockworkscott watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE Thank you clockworkscott. Everyone definitely needs to watch this to see just how brilliantly Chomsky distorted Ron Paul's entire message. Chomsky took a very small part of the debate exchange (out of context) and destroyed its meaning. Chomsky's paraphrasing did not "capture" the "substance" of Paul's response; it destroyed the "substance" of the entire message.
principles101 1 month ago
@clockworkscott There is a huge margin of error for convoluting a message when one takes a very small portion of the entire exchange out of context, and that's what Chomsky attempted to do. Misquotes often result from "paraphrasing," and, messages convoluted by taking very small portions of an entire exchange out of its context. Chomsky's attempt at humor failed and did a grave disservice to a great man. He should be ashamed of himself. I wonder if Dr. Paul would be willing to return the favor.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 In other words, it was a "cheap shot" at Dr. Ron Paul by Chomsky sacrificing Dr. Paul for a short-lived laugh. I have lost total respect for Chomsky for this, and other reasons.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 You should be asking yourself, who and what else is Chomsky willing to sacrifice in his own best interests?
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 but note that the burden of proof is on you, since you are raising the claim that chomsky misquoted paul, and i'm saying he didn't. i cannot prove a negative, much like i cannot prove e.g. that god doesn't exist.
like all human beings i'm constantly striving to find more information, but i'm totally at a loss as to why you think chomsky misquoted paul, and if you're a rational person you will account for that claim with evidence.
clockworkscott 1 month ago
@clockworkscott The following is the dangerous philosophy that Mr. Chomsky espouses and the reason America is in its current state-of-affairs watch?v=PwjAO05Xe4Q. Some people that follow Chomsky feel that everyone else is responsible to do everything for them and don't want to take responsibility for their own research (you for instance) or livelihood. The views he espouses are leading America right down the road to where Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland; socialistic and broke!
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 well, you haven't shown in what way chomsky's statement misconstrues the meaning of paul's statement. what specific information is being left out? until you can say specifically what that info is, i'm going to declare myself winner.
socialism is basically the idea that workers ought to control the means of production. this isn't at all present in those countries you mentioned, much less the u.s.a.
clockworkscott 1 month ago
@15Elliott93 If there is any "worshipping" of Noam Chomsky, it's coming from the older population of 60's and over, baby boomers. The younger generation is savy on the computer and looking for truth. Noam Chomsky has shown which side of the fence he is on in regard to status quo establishment politics by discounting anything Ron Paul has to say, which is exactly what Chomsky was inferring by his commentary should be done at one time. Has Mr. Chomsky changed his mind all of a sudden?
principles101 1 month ago
@15Elliott93 Also, if you look back in Chomsky's history, you'll find that at one time Mr. Chomsky rebelled against paying his income taxes for approximately 10 years. This is the very organization, the IRS, that Ron Paul wants to abolish. When the US government eventually put the hammer on Chomsky's head, I believe that is when Mr. Chomsky made a deal with the devil. Now, anyone proposing to abolish the very thing Mr. Chomsky at one time objected to, will become a target for Mr. Chomsky.
principles101 1 month ago
@15Elliott93 There is a bright, new generation arising that are doing their research using the internet to find truth.They are distrustful of government media (rightfully so) and are using their own critical thinking skills to sort through what is truth, what are distortions, and what are outright lies.Mr. Chomsky can fool the older population, but the younger generation is going to call him out. If the government succeeds with SOPA, then Mr. Chomsky can probably move on in his same old fashion.
principles101 1 month ago
@terpdawg6924 If you look at what's happening in the current primaries with voter fraud and see how blatant the mainstream media has been in their attempts at ignoring Ron Paul; then watch an interviewer pose a question about Ron Paul to Noam Chomsky who actually misquotes what Ron Paul actually said (BTW, without Ron Paul being there to debate it or defend the misquote), you'll understand why I feel the way I do. Noam Chomsky has become a shill for the establishment.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 Really? Provide evidence?
Yo4801 1 month ago
@Yo4801 If you're really that interested, you'll take the time to research this for yourself and provide me with proof otherwise...again, if you're that serious about knowing the truth.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 or you will just say misquoted, uh i meant mis-paraphrased yeah. I've done my research, if on the political level democracy is the best possible hope for a truly free society, then why isn't democracy in economics, in the work place, not a best possible hope for a truly free economy? Ron Paul is looking at a glass half full, but for whatever reason is unable to pour the last half.
Valobladr 1 month ago
@Valobladr America was never meant to be a democracy, but a Republic. Slowly but surely, it has evolved into a democracy which is mob rule. This is exactly what the founders warned against. Thomas Jefferson warned that, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Americans got too comfortable and did not heed the warning about their government which continues to grow out of proportion and into the current monster that it is. Hence, our current economic debacle.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 "America was never meant to be a democracy" WTF? Do the words "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" ring a bell with you? Amazingly, just about everything you've said in your many posts is complete bollocks. You Tea bangers can't even rise to the intelligence level of a Baboon sitting in a tree picking its arse! Your ilk are the biggest block to America's future.
neuterallrednecks 1 month ago
@neuterallrednecks Keep collecting your social welfare check redneck and leave it at that. You Chomsky people are hopeleess.
principles101 1 month ago
@neuterallrednecks Also, you are showing your ignorance if you do not understand "Republic." Check your history and learn a few things about the country you've been living in and feeding off of.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 Sorry to disappoint but I work. And I know what a Republic is. All modern defintions revolve around power to elect a Government residing with the people. If you're alluding to a Plato's Republic then that would make you a Fascist. You can't defeat anyone on here through the power of your brains so you try to baffle them with Bullshit. Libertard!
neuterallrednecks 1 month ago
@Valobladr Ron Paul understands that in order to correct the disasterous path toward self-destruction that America is currently on, the federal government needs to be thinned out considerably. This includes all of the socialistic programs Chomsky endorses. Fortunately for Chomsky, he's in a tax bracket that doesn't really affect him as it does the middle class, who is most affected and overtaxed by the creation of these social welfare programs.
principles101 1 month ago
@Valobladr I haven't seen any reports where Chomsky has donated any amount of his own money to any charity for the poor and helpless. And he has plenty of it given all the books, DVD's, CD's, ect that he has sold to you people over the years.
principles101 1 month ago
@Valobladr To include the fees he demands for speaking engagements to preach what he doesn't practice. Remember, he did not pay his income taxes for a span of 10 years back in the 60's. So he's preaching about socialistic policy and welfare programs, yet refusing to contribute his taxable income to support them. I believe there's a word for that; hypocrite.
principles101 1 month ago
@principles101 First of all your a delusional troll, i get your game and this will be my last response to you (understanding you will simply troll responses after this one and there is no reason to feed a troll past this statement). 1. We are "devolving" into a democracy, can you please point to where THE PEOPLE vote directly on legislation in this country (and not state based democracy, I'm talking nationally). 2. Mob rule? no mob rule and democracy are two distinctly different approaches.
Valobladr 1 month ago
@Valobladr 3. i do agree that government excess and tyranny is a disastrous path that needs to be corrected, but handing over rule to private non-democratic institutions hardly seems the answer, how does less liberty equate to full liberty? It's implausible. Plus don't act as though this didn't exist before, throughout the late 1800's we saw the disastrous effects of total monopolies and their effect on society and government, yet you and other...
Valobladr 1 month ago
@Valobladr Ron Paul ilk try to assure me that is history is simply that, history, never to be repeated, well i have news for you, history repeats itself. When you can explain to me why we should take away power from the state and enhance the power of private non-democratic institutions for the goal of creating a more free society then id love to talk...
Valobladr 1 month ago
@Valobladr My guess is though you will continue trolling, continue accusing noam of doing something he's not, then when proven wrong, re-write your initial criticism so that it reflects better on your overall point. You are the worst kind of person, good day, enjoy trolling for brownie points.
Valobladr 1 month ago
This is horribly arrogant. Libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive because socialism is institutionalised force. This man has horrible character.
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago
@PrivateAckbar socialism is control over production, greater democracy for workers, if you're talkign about the false state capitalist fascist USSR then yes that "socialism" of course it was just called socialism, it actually wasn't.
JagjeetMann 1 month ago
@PrivateAckbar Socialism is the opposite of Statism; it more or less decentralizes authority and power and puts it into the hands of the means of production (the population). It is institutional (as ANY government necessarily is) but it comes as close as possible to allowing people to have a meaningful say in the government of their immediate communities and preserving personal rights. the skewed american libertarian movement is just the capitulation to corporate tyranny wether implicit or not.
ubustang 1 month ago
@ubustang Bollox. Firstly corporations are only people, and in a free market corporations are just as mortal as any other business. Corporatism can only take place with big government. Secondly, a majority does not have the right to take away the freedoms of individuals. People don't exercise freedom through government, they exercise force. To a Libertarian the only function of government is to secure freedom. This form of government you're talking about is the opposite of a free market.
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago
@ubustang You're talking about syndicalism.
PrivateAckbar 1 month ago
in a Zeitgeist world, see documentary, Then maybe a real free market and can self regulate. But first we must free all of humanity from banking fiat money. Provide all necessities of life support for Everyone, then maybe a free market in a free liberated society can happen.
mrzack888 1 month ago
@mrzack888 sure, and maybe we can travel back in time and keep Hitler's grandparents from ever meeting.
The whole point of this video is to explain how American libertariaism only works in a perfect vacuum.
No such animal.
Of course anyone who looks to that crapfest "Zeitgeist" for direction is a lost cause anyway.
orchidtender 1 month ago
@orchidtender and people didn't believe in going to the moon or a round earth either. you
are too cynical.
mrzack888 1 month ago
@orchidtender Ehhh...? Zeitgeist proposes the most logical system of any system that has ever existed. None of your illogical ideologies can even compare to the system that it proposes.
Watchdawg 1 month ago
@TehAlexJonesChannel this coming from someone that follows a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones. LOL
TLNoir 1 month ago 2
FUCKING LIAR, WANKER, POMPOUS, AND NO UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS, CHIMPSKY IS A FUCKWIT
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 month ago
Wow ok....
Private sector is not accountable to anything where the public its atleast somewhat?That is the point right?
Well but the private sector is accountable because if you dont like a bussines all you do is stop fucking shoping their unlike the government that if you dont want to pay for the Iraq war all you get is a "FUCK YOU pay for it or go to jail"
rodrigodet 1 month ago
@rodrigodet
Exactly, the public sector isn't accountable to anything. They're the ones with all the guns, they have a monopoly on violence. If a business does something you don't like, you stop giving them money. You might even encourage others to stop as well. If enough people have a problem with that business, it will fail.
The public sector takes your money regardless of if you agree with it or not. How is this more accountable? It's absurd.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@rodrigodet If people weren't ignorant and deluded, and or utterly apathetic then that might work. You know what Monsanto, exxon Mobil et al do to the world but you fucking ignore it. Gas is a cent more expensive and you go apoplectic.
Mjhavok 1 month ago
@rodrigodet One thing to consider is that if you, for example, want to stop giving your money to a food corporation you pretty much have to just become a farmer. Almost everything in your grocery store comes from just five different corporations, so you cant really change brands. Well, lets say that you are a farmer now (good on you), you still have to pay taxes that subsidize those same companies. And if you dont want to pay your taxes then, well you said it allready.
ZombiBuddy 1 month ago
@rodrigodet it's fine to say vote with your wallet, but the fact is that as corp's continue to consolidate, you have fewer alternatives. All American-style libertarianism is transfer power from the state to the corporatists. The crucial difference is a corporation is not subject to the checks, balances and term-limits elected governments are.
Furthermore, majority shares can be owned by a minority. It's anti-democratic. It's tyranny.
When you remove the rules, the big kids rule.
orchidtender 1 month ago
@orchidtender Who said that removing the state will also mean the removal of rules?
Watchdawg 1 month ago
He can only be attacking those Americans that don't understand Austrian school economics. Some idiots call their self Libertarians without a full understanding - so really he's juist attacking idiots, not Libertarians.
Avidcomp 1 month ago
@Avidcomp
I'd say you are missing the point. U.S. Libertarian is not what Libertarian was initially. Remember that Libertarians were and are for markets, not capitalism. Right-wing Libertarian doesn't exist outside of the U.S.! Capitalism can be degrees of state capitalism, private capitalism, or a broad mix (third way, democratic socialism ,etc ).
PositivelyBored 1 month ago
@PositivelyBored They are for free market capitalism. Perhaps you don't understand what that is.State capitalism is not free market capitalism - I missed nothing
Avidcomp 1 month ago
@Avidcomp
Who is "they"? U.S. vulgar libertarians and "anarcho-capitalists" and the like? Noam Chomsky is refuting those and claiming the corporate structural poverty is in part through either "free market" capitalism (which we know as a perverse lie), state -subsidized and guided capitalism (ala socialist regimes), rather than syndicalism, agorism , mutualism , etc which the power is through the fruits of ones labor and NOT a heirarchical structure of structural poverties.
PositivelyBored 1 month ago
@PositivelyBored Q.E.D. It's not free market capitalism! They are all those who use capitalism as a dirty word. They are also the msm that use the word and package it with sinister undertones. They are the brainwashed masses that absorb the subversive connotations and they are the entertainment industry that ironically promote serfdom as a virtue. I do not think that you and I are poles apart, except that I believe that Chomsky is a devious man.
Avidcomp 1 month ago
He's spot on about words losing there meaning in popular discourse today.
Alicetheredpill 1 month ago
@Alicetheredpill BULLSHIT CHIMPSKY IS A DISHONEST CUNT
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 month ago
There's always apologists for the contempory power structure on Chomsky videos.
To dethrone the current elite hegemony, not only do you combat the bourgeois intellectuals, but also, those outside the power structure, ordinary people who want to preserve their own exploitation and enslavement.
Whether it's due to their hope of rising to power(becoming an exploiter), or due ignorance(wilful or not), or owing to lack of education, and possibly other reasons, I do not know.
Incognitoification1 2 months ago
Comment removed
Incognitoification1 2 months ago
Comment removed
Incognitoification1 2 months ago