"The first man who,having fenced in a piece of land,said "This is mine,"& found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the founder of civil society.From how many crimes,wars &murders,from how many horrors & misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind... Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." Jean-Jacques Rousseau"
It's when the Rancher manages to convince the cattle to believe, that if they work hard enough, give more milk and don't bother about being slaughtered, they can become Ranchers too...it's called the american dream! (smart Ranchers impose a theatre called Congress).
The alternative to WESTERN PRIVATE CAPITALISM has been STATE CAPITALISM OF ASIATIC MODALITY, in USSR case it restructrued itself and China should soon become the biggest WORLD CAPITALIST MARKET. The only real alternative is TO SHARE THE EARTH IN COOPERATION in a moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity where we express our multitude of creative energies in freedom of being rather the current minority tyrannical ABSTRACT ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION.
@joru100 You think he doesn't understand that he's engaging in pure sophistry whenever he talks about free markets? This clip in particular is one of the worst examples of a complete bypass of logic and reason. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard him make a distinction between more and less free markets. He never does this because he uses the all-or-nothing fallacy to "argue" against free markets. Either a free market must exist perfectly or it doesn't exist at all. Pure sophistry.
@MillionthUsername Not sophistry but economic-history. Give an example of a country that developed without massive state intervention in the economy. This isn't an "all or nothing fallacy"-It is just the entire history of the post-industrial world. You can just email Prof. Noam Chomsky. He is pretty good about answering email. Arguing semantics again "Either a free market must exist perfectly or it doesn't exist at all"-this depends on your conception of what a free markets is.
@hippydog123 "Give an example of a country that developed without massive state intervention in the economy."
I didn't realize that massive state intervention was the cause of economic development of a country. Explain it to me.
"Arguing semantics again 'Either a free market must exist perfectly or it doesn't exist at all'"
So you're denying that he routinely says that free markets don't exist? Or you are denying what is implied by him saying they don't exist? Tell me which.
@MillionthUsername "I didn't realize that massive state intervention was the cause of economic development of a country. Explain it to me." Really, this is not good, have you studied the history of industrialization began? It is not about you "realizing" it, you either have researched it or you have not. What about it do you want me to explain to you, your question is your answer.
@hippydog123 Explain what "massive intervention" is and how it is responsible for economic development. Who or what is intervening? How do they intervene? Into what are they intervening? Ever heard of production? Does production exist without "massive intervention"? Do the interveners produce? What do they produce? How much?
What further massive interventions do you recommend?
Was the banking crisis caused by intervention or a lack of intervention?
@MillionthUsername Read Fredrich List, the Wiki is good. "how it is responsible for economic development." Infant industry argument, which you should really read about. "Do you hate yourself for being stupid" really a projection statement? "Recommendations" have nothing to do with the history of the industrial world.
@hippydog123 When you say that the state's "massive intervention" is the cause of economic development, you deserve to be called stupid. The state is a parasite. It produces nothing. Whatever it has, it steals. You are claiming that thieves are the cause of economic development which is self-refuting. Before you can steal something, someone must produce it. Taking from A and giving to B does nothing but waste existing wealth and thwart otherwise free production and exchange.
@MillionthUsername So, very plainly you do not understand how state intervention has occurred, free markets theory, or how economic development has taken place. This is very plain "Infant industry argument," easy to understand, even for someone with no economic background. "Taking from A and giving to B does nothing but waste existing wealth and thwart otherwise free production and exchange."refutes your own free market argument.
@hippydog123 "you do not understand how state intervention has occurred"
What the hell does that mean?
"refutes your own free market argument."
What???????????? You're off the rails. I said that stealing from one person and giving to another wastes wealth and thwarts production and trade. How the hell do you get "refutes your own free market argument" from that????
@MillionthUsername Haha, the history economic dev. is trolling. haha. "I said that stealing from one person and giving to another wastes wealth and thwarts production and trade."-if that is what a free market is then you are right and Chomksy is wrong.
@hippydog123 A free market means trading voluntarily, without coercion. No one in their right mind would say that a free market means stealing from A and giving to B, so you are obviously a loser troll just out to mess with people. You even made your channel unavailable so that people can't block you. Fine. I'll just ignore you.
@"Nobody in there right mind would say that a free market means stealing from A and giving to B "yet the state does this and the state exists-NC's argument (You):""Don't understand how state intervention occurred"What does that mean?" (ME)"This is very plain "Infant industry argument,". I can't even establish premises with you to have a rational discussion. Your continuously contradict yourself and don't realize it. Please Ignore me and read Lists"infant industry argument" (If you're serious) "
@hippydog123 redistribution from the rich to the poor is not stealing - but rather can be seen has compensation paid to the victim's caught up in a unfair system. Take for instance how working class communities have been decimated by de-industrialisation - which suddenly obliterated their way off of life. Welfare also amounts to a form of social control - just like prisons that allow their inmates certain small perks so as to avoid a riot
@32peartree Really, this "redistribution from the rich to the poor is not stealing" has nothing to do with the discussion we were having. The State is the reason for industrialization, funded by tax revenue, and de-industrialization. None of the policy decision are decided by the masses who money is used, yet your labor-time in the form of tax revenue is used without your consent. This is a obvious form of theft regardless if it is a "form of social control". That has nothing to do with it.
@hippydog123 Of course everybody hates paying tax - and I suppose it might be considered a form of theft at a stretch - but unfortunately we haven't yet devised a better system of organizing a society - but I feel the average tax payer doesn't mind tipping up has long as the money is being spent on stuff like highways, healthcare and prisons etc. However, people are right to complain when they see their taxes pissed away by the banks or squandered on pointless wars that only serve the rich.
@32peartree Hello? Logic, instead of using force to pay for something, use voluntary action instead. Let me here you say a bunch of complex bullshit to try to make what I said true. Taxation will always end up being squandered because there is no incentive to save money because there is no choice or competition.
I am not sure what you asked. "How is the need (to) produce more, and save more profit, has(have) anything to (do) from the left and monopoly of government?" - Is this in reference to something I said earlier? If it has to do with economic development check Friedrich List's infant industry argument. You will begin to see the role the state played in fostering industrialization-in every country-that developed.
@hippydog123 Even if what you said is true, and it is it slowed development not help speed it up. Ancient Ireland survived had large independent, without taxation, completely on voluntary individual interactions. Anything under the control of government right now, would be far more effective in a free market.
@wtfjaftw "slowed development"-all indexes show otherwise. It is not what I said, it simply is what happened. What time frame do you mean by "ancient Ireland"? "More effective in free market?" First off (depending on the thing) its unlikely it would have developed. What things and how would they be more "effective" in a free market economy? This simply is not the case in host of industries that have been privatized-has your utility bill cost ever went down? (its called a natural monopoly)
@ "So you're denying that he routinely says that free markets don't exist? Or you are denying what is implied by him saying they don't exist? Tell me which." again..."this depends on your conception of what a free markets is." If your conception is "more or less free markets", you have to define that term and then do the work to demonstrate whether or not it exists. Compare your conception with his.
@MillionthUsername Your conception and his are pretty much the same. He is saying free markets are X and don't exist. You are saying some variation of X exists, but this does not refute what he is saying, nor does it refute what you are saying. Effectively, you are just calling our economic relations free markets. You can call them anything you want too. It doesn't say a thing about the actual world until you define what that thing is (Free markets). I'm sort of denying the "implication" side.
@hippydog123 "Effectively, you are just calling our economic relations free markets"
No, I'm not. A market can be either free, not free, more or less free, freer than something else, etc. We can analyze what is free about it and what isn't. Isn't this what Chomsky does in analyzing foreign policy? Or does he just say either that all US foreign policy is good or that all US foreign policy is evil? Why are you unable to make simple distinctions like this?
@MillionthUsername You are the one who is not able to make the distinctions, again you just repeated what I said. I said" If your conception is "more or less free markets",-then you said "We can analyze what is free about it ". This is exactly what he does in this video and all the other videos and literature involving markets. You apparently have not watched or read them. You are arguing only his use of the word, nothing else. This is distinction that I hope is becoming clear.
@hippydog123 "This is exactly what he does in this video and all the other videos and literature involving markets"
I have never heard him acknowledge the free society that sits beneath all the tyrannies of the world and keeps everything going from day to day, year to year, century to century. He's an obscurantist, and quite accomplished at it. As I've said numerous times, he fails to make even the most basic distinctions. He denies what drives economies because it refutes his worldview.
@MillionthUsername "I didn't realize that massive state intervention was the cause of economic development of a country."-Check out the "Infant Industry" argument by "Fredrich List".
@hippydog123 So the state and its "massive intervention" is the cause of economic development? That was Chomsky's argument in saying that if we had had a truly free market we would be fur traders and fishermen. So you agree with this now? It wasn't either a mistake by Chomsky or some misunderstanding of mine as to what he said and meant? You actually believe that the state is the cause of development, prosperity, etc? Wow.
@MillionthUsername Everything is a misunderstanding of yours. The rest of economic history and I agree with NC's claim, that economic history developed through state intervention in the economy. This is a really basic and elementary aspect of development. A truly "free market",whatever that means, may or may not have a different impact on development and you can have an academic discussion with all the conjecture you want, but it has NOTHING to do with the real world and its history.
@hippydog123 "economic history developed through state intervention in the economy."
There you go, moron. The state, a gang of violent thieves, takes by force some produce of someone engaged in production and trade. Then they waste 30% of the stolen wealth before they give the rest of the loot to their politically connected friends or useless idiot supporters as welfare - and absolutely mindless idiots like you and Chomsky think that it is the cause of economic development!
@MillionthUsername Infant industry argument, Fredrich List. You are behaving like a child. "The state, a gang of violent thieves, takes by force some produce of someone engaged in production and trade. Then they waste 30% of the stolen wealth before they give the rest of the loot to their politically connected friends or useless idiot supporters as welfare"-this is about right. At some point you are going to have to reconcile with facts.
@hippydog123 "This is a really basic and elementary aspect of development."
Not production, free exchange, property rights, etc., but LOOTING. LOOTING is the "really basic and elementary aspect of development."
Tell me then, does the state loot producers or non-producers? Producers, right? So how did these producers produce? I guess it was the "massive intervention" in their lives which forced them to produce? Otherwise, they would sit in a pile of dirt and twirl their thumbs?
@MillionthUsername Again your arguing that the state loots and they people innately are driven to produce. So you agree with Chomsky and Marx in that regard. You think the state loots "producers"(proletariat-you are in agreement with Marx and Chomsky). This does not in any way dismiss the argument or simple fact that state intervention leads to economic development. Here is a simple exercise, name a country where this is not the case. IF you can't what does that mean?
@hippydog123 "name a country where this is not the case."
Name a country without crime.
"IF you can't what does that mean?"
It means absolutely nothing. Because the two are UNRELATED. Crime is not "economic development." Having a large criminal gang steal the produce of ANOTHER who ACTUALLY PRODUCED WEALTH is not "economic development."
Demonstrate how stealing is economic development. I dare you. Go ahead.
@hippydog123 "A truly "free market"...has NOTHING to do with the real world and its history."
Right. Because the whole of humanity does absolutely nothing but sit around and wait to be conquered and coerced and forced to produce by gun-wielding thugs and pot-bellied bureaucrats. Otherwise they have no incentive to live, to survive, to build, to prosper, to trade, to grow, to expand, to create, to enjoy life and make it better for their kids, etc.
Why do you hate reason so much? Why do you hate facts so much? "Right. Because the whole of humanity does absolutely nothing but sit around and wait to be conquered and coerced and forced to produce by gun-wielding thugs and pot-bellied bureaucrats. Otherwise they have no incentive to live, to survive, to build, to prosper, to trade, to grow, to expand, to create, to enjoy life and make it better for their kids, etc."what does this have to do with economic dev.? This is just a premise.
"... the only market societies that... the only social system that approximate market societies are poor, colonized, underdeveloped, countries where it's been rammed down their throats."
"I don't know what capitalism is supposed to be. If capitalism is supposed to be a market society, it's never existed."
"Take someone who's a committed revolutionary - thinks we really have to throw out the whole capitalist - whatever there is of a capitalist system in our market system."
Chomsky did not say that collections of private power do not exist; he said that there are no free markets. Very different. He is also absolutely aware of the outrageous health care costs in the U.S. and enormous role the government plays in the health care system--i.e., its shouldering a significant amount of the costs (one of causes of the U.S. continually running deficits is the inefficient health care system). It is still perfectly reasonable to call our system a "private system."
@5:35 "the inefficiency of the privatized health care system here"
What the hell is that supposed to mean? It's a fascist system, Chomsky, and you know that. It's already state-run. People are NOT FREE to transact business in the health care field without being "regulated" to death. It's a damned fascist cartel. Why is "privatized" used? That doesn't even fit. The monstrous inefficiency is because gov't is all over it. They pay like over half the bills through Medicare. It's a mess.
Perhaps the most interesting point is the part about how other branches of industry often are the ones that get any talk in, when it comes to changing policy, like chomsky claims about manufacturing. or how the Nuclear lobby is the one who might get a word in when it comes to green energy. am i wrong? i surely might be.
As much as I like Chomsky in other discussions regarding the history of Imperialism I think he is being completely irrational and condescending. To completely dump the idea of a free market of voluntary trade is completely and utterly unanarchistic because if consenting parties agree who's right is it to stop them? Unfortunately we cannot all jump immediately into a utopia of a syndicalist-commune society based on public ownership of all land, factories etc. The realistic route is individualism.
Chomsky is the biggest intellectual fraud going. This is just HORRIBLE. Worst stuff I've heard from him. He's saying the US would be poor fishermen and hunters under free market principles, but that we owe our development and wealth to state intervention? WTF? What kind of crack is this guy smoking?
He speaks in double-talk. Can't even make a simple distinction between more free or less free. Instead, since there is no "pure" free market, he ascribes all progress to the state? Idiot.
@MillionthUsername The kind of crack that imparts easily verifiable data. It's no mystery where computer and internet technology came from, except maybe to you. And the so-called "Golden Age of Capitalism" in the U.S. during the postwar period was facilitated directly by New Deal economic policy (highest tax rates in modern American history and so on). Subsequent changes which widened the gap between rich and poor were also state-ordained, though by way of vast protectionism.
@MillionthUsername You acuse him of speaking in absolutes, then do so yourself. There is a staggeringly vast amount of Chomsky writings and talks on the internet. Please find a single one where he ascribes "all" progress to the state. He doesn't. He's simply making a point; one which you fully understand yet choose to pervert by playing word games.
@MillionthUsername No...If you'd read all of my comment instead of just the last sentence you'd see what I was saying. I'll try and rephrase here:
You said that Chomsky ascribes all progress to the state just because not all of it can be attributed to the market. He did not say that. He was simply highlighting a point. There is a widely held belief in America that the state only serves to stifle progress, while the market is perfect and divine. He was highlighting that this isnt the case
@nomis101uk "If the US had ever been a market society, we would now be pursuing our comparative advantage of exporting fish and fur,the few scattered people that lived here."
"The US DEVELOPED, as did EVERY OTHER rich & developed society, by RADICAL VIOLATION of market principles...It's a logical impossibility for the US to enter free trade agreements cuz our own economy depends crucially on the STATE SECTOR. That's where we get computers & the internet & telecommunications, lasers, aircraft"
@MillionthUsername What ridiculous sophistry. Either that or you are hopelessly ignorant. He says we depend on the "STATE SECTOR" for telecommunications, because such things would not and could not survive on private investment alone. And he is libertarian, a left libertarian to be specific. You might not like that, but he unquestionably is.
@NotHomelessAnymore "He says we depend on the "STATE SECTOR" for telecommunications, because such things would not and could not survive on private investment alone. And he is libertarian, a left libertarian to be specific"
@NotHomelessAnymore And did you miss the part where he said that IF WE HAD FREE MARKETS, we would be FUR TRADERS and FISHERMAN?
He is AGAINST free markets. He is not a libertarian. He's a freaking communist. He does not believe in private property or freedom of exchange. He is the sophist, using words like "libertarian" to mean the opposite of what it's supposed to mean. He's "anti-state" but ascribes almost all of our economic process to the "state sector"? Complete and utter bull!
@MillionthUsername We can all agree he is against free markets and that he is a socialist. Left libertarians don't believe in free markets. That doesn't make him statist. He simply sees the markets as a form of tyranny and inseperable from government, because market economies cannot grow or develop without at least some sort of organizational principle. And please read anything Chomsky has written about communism. He regarded the fall of he Soviet Union as a 'victory for socialism'. Go figure.
@nomis101uk Those are quotes. That's exactly what he said. You and I would be trading fish and fur under a free market. We "depend crucially" on the STATE SECTOR for everything else.
I don't know why people like you cannot just listen to what the man says. He's telling you what he believes. Don't blame me for what he says. I'm just pointing out how utterly ridiculous it all is. He has a radically anti-liberty view of the world, yet has the gall to call himself "libertarian." It's a joke.
@MillionthUsername i just think its funny that you would call chomsky "anti-liberty" when he is anything but. maybe i misread it and you were talking about somebody else. i pretty much just read the last sentence you wrote
@EndWesternTyranny You really have to listen closely and to hear him repeat these kinds of things in order to understand where he's coming from. He is a collectivist. He does not believe in property or freedom of production and exchange (free markets). He calls people who are devoted to property rights and economic freedom "fascists" & "monopolists." Don't get caught up in the Chomsky aura, listen to the arguments. They are just absurd. I tried to show that by quoting him directly.
@MillionthUsername lol, i think you should follow your own advice and try his arguments again without your bias. he doesn't care much for the proclaimed principles of "economic freedom" because usually they are used as rhetorical devices by political and financial elites to justify policy that permit only certain visions of property rights. a lot of work points to the gap between preached doctrine, and the reality of its effects. for example, he argues free markets have never existed anyway
"he doesn't care much for the proclaimed principles of "economic freedom" because usually they are used as rhetorical devices"
What the HELL does that have to do with anything? Freedom is bad or "doesn't work" because politicians mouth "freedom"? I guess I could say i don't care much for the proclaimed principles of family life, community spirit, charity, cooperation, and love because they're also used as rhetorical devices by pols and elites. Complete non-sequitur!
@MillionthUsername Then a reasonable person like you would reply that there are degrees of democracy, that one system is better than another because it better follows democratic principles, therefore democracy is very much relevant and that I was using totally fallacious reasoning to "argue." Now apply this understanding to free markets. Markets have always existed and have been always more or less free. More free is better than less free because freedom is good, not bad. Right?
@ThePatcam I quoted him directly from this video. Why don't you deal with that? He says that if we were free we would all be fur traders and fishermen. Do you believe that also? Why? What is the ARGUMENT AGAINST FREEDOM that leads a supposed "libertarian" to make such an unbelievably absurd statement? And what makes people like you so absolutely blind to the fact that he indeed is making an anti-liberty "argument" straight to your face? Why do you defend such blatant nonsense? I'm curious.
@ThePatcam Another anti-intellectual trick of Chomsky's is to employ the all-or-nothing fallacy. This is exactly what you just repeated back to me. He programmed you and you responded to your programming without even thinking. You said, "he argues free markets have never existed anyway." Tell me, what kind of "argument" is that? I'll tell you: none. There is no "therefore," rather Chomsky wants you to FEEL that FREEDOM has NO BEARING on prosperity. It's the "it doesn't exist" trick.
@ThePatcam Chomsky regularly does this. A statement is not an argument, yet he stops at 'free markets have never existed." Chomsky loves what he calls "democracy." I can say that democracy has never existed. I mean the pure pure pure democracy (all or nothing), and then I can then talk about moon landings and computers and medicine to imply that democracy (which has never existed) is a myth, a phantom, completely irrelevant to the life of society. That's all-or-nothing. See how that works?
@MillionthUsername wow, you've wildly misunderstood everything chomsky stands for. i stopped at free markets have never existed because of the character limit. chomsky is famous for providing mountains of data to go along with his extremely thorough arguments. you really should try reading him again if you want to be intellectually honest and open-minded. i mean, its obvious you've hardly read him cuz you're making sweeping generalizations without knowing what you're talking about.
@ThePatcam Your reply is typical of Chomsky supporters. It doesn't address anything at all and just says that I should read more Chomsky. Is Chomsky for or against free markets? If he is for them, then can you explain to me what is going on in this exchange here? When he says that if we had free markets we would be fishermen and fur traders, does he mean that we would be fishermen and fur traders? Or is that me twisting Chomsky's words? Explain why he says that in answer to the question.
@MillionthUsername dude, this is the youtube comment section, im not going to reply 6 times to write a full response like you did. i would gladly do so over private messaging, if you want to. he does not say we would be fishermen and fur traders under the free market. you ARE twisting and misinterpreting him. his point is that the people who cry "free markets!" the loudest are people in high position of capital control that really depend on the state for massive subsidizing
@ThePatcam Absolute bull. Starting at 1:10, please quote Chomsky word for word back to me. I've already quoted him, but you people just ignore it. Go ahead. Listen and type.
Please listen to the question also. What is the question the man asks? What is Chomsky's response? The man deals with your supposed objection right up front. He's not talking about corporate fascism, but real free markets. If you are unable to deal with this exchange as it is recorded, then don't respond to me.
@ThePatcam I won't do private message because of some very bad experiences. No reflection on you at all. I just won't do it anymore. This is all public, and that's fine with me.
@ThePatcam @6:30 he says that real revolutionaries who want to throw out capitalism and free markets are still reformists. Then he goes on to talk about how he is a statist and wants gov't to take over health care. Why is it that you cannot accept what this man says?
A "revolutionary" who wants to "get rid of free markets" is NOT a "reformist." He's a tyrant. We have the RIGHT to produce and trade FREELY. Chomsky is an avowed enemy of freedom. He makes that clear over and over again.
@MillionthUsername maybe you're getting confused because this is one video. like i've said before multiple times, actually try reading him for once. he is no way a statist, but when it comes to government programs to secure basic living standards to make life better for people, he'll support them. that's his point about reform. he says that both revolutionary socialists and those for diplomatic situation are both for reform, though it may take on different avenues for each.
@ThePatcam "he is no way a statist, but when it comes to government programs to secure basic living standards to make life better for people, he'll support them."
A blatant contradiction.
Why can't you quote him from this piece? He clearly says that if we had free markets we would be fishermen and fur traders. Do you think he is so completely ignorant of economics? I don't. No one could be THAT stupid. He obviously has his own motivations for trashing economic freedom.
@MillionthUsername he is saying that the only true free markets are less advanced, unindustrialized economies akin to pre-monetary societies, ya idiot. the point he's trying to make which you miss over and over again is that the rhetoric that pro-corporate policymakers use about "free markets" is disingenuous given the level of involvement the state has in our economy. they preach free markets and small government, but really are in favor of big government for them, small government for the rest
@ThePatcam THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF RHETORIC HERE. How am I an "idiot"? He was asked about REAL FREE MARKETS. Don't call me names because you refuse to listen to what is actually said. What should I even talk to you?
On your statist point being a contradiction: I do not favor bullies, but if bully#1 protects someone from bully#2, and there's no other effective deterent to bully #2, and bully #1 does less harm overall than bully #2 does unchecked, then I'm in favor of bully#1 given the circumstance.
was just saying that "summing up the world's problems" wasn't the point of the analogy...it was just "to show MillionthUsername a flaw in his logic" in the best way I could conjur up considering whom it was directed toward...
But sure, what you said would be nice, I guess :)
@ElDukerino1 No, claiming to be anti-statist and supporting the state's initiation of force against peaceful people whenever it suits your fancy and you can spew a boatload of sophist rhetoric to justify anything you want to do to other people is not a contradiction because contradictions don't exist. Neither do principles.
Okay, but who supports the state's initiation of force against peaceful people? Everyone pretty much has the same principles, but may favor or ignore one thing or the other more when applying their principles (and often re-interpret not only what other people favor, but even misinterpret their principles, as you do to Chomsky). Of course, you're ignoring bully#2...call it sophist rhetoric if that makes you feel better, but the fact remains.
@MillionthUsername you use the logic of a Bachmann-supporting Tea Partier. learn the difference between social and economic liberty. when slavery was outlawed, slave-masters also used terms like "trashing economic freedom." learn the difference between social and economic liberty. you support a cause that is the exact opposite of what you think it is.
Anarcho-Capitalism empowers the Individual, Libertarian Socialism to me is a contradiction and could be viewed as Collectivist. We do not have Capitalism in the US, We have Corporatism! Collectivism/Socialism is Anti-Individualism, why on earth would you believe that Anarchism (Liberty) and Socialism (anti-liberty) can go hand in hand? Read Murray Rothbard.
Way to be a parrot. Whats the difference between corporatism and capitalism? Capitalism is worse. Corporations have zero accountability to anyone but their own profits - dog eat dog - rich get richer.
"Libertarian Socialism to me is a contradiction and could be viewed as Collectivist. "
What's wrong with being collectivist? Even in the bourgoise system you love so much the means of production are a collective effort. Individuals are in turn influenced by others around them and the environment.
Individualism is a capitalist and religious perversion that creates a false illusion that the decisions one makes do not affect other people, It denies natural law.
Noam Chomsky is a classic Socialist Libertarian, meaning keep government out of my life for the most part. With a lot of Social Freedom but he also believes in a large Welfare State by American Standards.
@FRSFreeStateES Noam Chomsky believes in anarchism, which by definition is against any state, regardless if it has generous welfare or not. What kind of health care system he advocates, I have no idea.
@FRSFreeStateES Libertarian socialism is the same thing as anarchism, like he's explained on other occasions. Supporting single payer health care is not more or less anarchic than opposing it, since such things can be organised without the State.
@FRSFreeStateES That is probably an expression of his marxist-influenced belief that the left should use the state as a means to suppressing corporate power, which at the same time is only a short-term goal. The long-term goal is getting rid of the state. Noam Chomsky simply considers the state the lesser of two evils.
"So Marxism, ... I think is an irrational cult. They're theology... belong to the history of organized religion" -N. Chomsky, Understanding Power, p. 227 ;-)
@dihydrohydroxycodein Yeah, he's obviously not a marxist since he's an anarchist, you know with the Marx/Bakunin split and all. But it's not odd or unusual for anarchists or any other socialist to hold Marxist-influenced views.
Bakunin wasn't much of a theorist. IF you want to understand anarchism you should read An Anarchist FAQ (available for free), specifically section I. Then moving on to Bakunin, Kropotkin and all the other major figures.
@FRSFreeStateES "He believes in Single Payer Health Insurance which would be run by the State, so he believes in a State at least in that sense. " Are you confusing The State with The Government? John Dewey gave excellent essays on this difference.
@comusnine Of course signifiers are arbitrary. But signifiers flow within discourse, and discourse is embedded in history, where there have been struggles. The struggle for liberty in the original libertarian sense is a totally different struggle from your pro-market, private property oriented ideology. You can only pretend otherwise if you ignore history.
If the word is of no intrinsic value to you, then why not give it up?
@comusnine It sounds good in theory, and I applaud your attempt at harmony. It is very noble! Most right wing libertarians just hose me with capitalist odium. But there are philosophical positions that are fundamentally at odds, friend-- Different conceptions of liberty and coercion and hierarchy. As it is, the libertarian thought that began in the 19th century workers' movement is irreconcilable with late 20th century American market ideology.
@comusnine Then fight for the term liberal against social liberals by stressing your emphasis on private property and anti-taxation. Point out the roots of right wing laissez-faire thought in classical liberalism. Don't steal our words to exploit their radical content to make yourselves seem radical; you're not.
I'll never understand Libertarian Socialism. There seems to be nothing similar between the two. One advocates the complete, unabridged freedoms of all people (which seems to necessitate a Market organization). The other advocates equalization of people, a feat that can only be carried out through government action or widespread tweaking of the conscience of individuals for them to behave how they ought to behave. It makes no sense how one can contemplate joining the two terms.
@buzbuz576 The word "libertarian" was always used to mean socialist. The first one to use it in this sense was Joseph de Jacque in the 19th century, and he was an anarcho-communist. It only sounds strange to you because you probably have a typically narrow-minded conservative understanding of history and the world. But now since right wingers want to call themselves "libertarians," and since they create political parties and think tanks using the term, they think they invented it, etc.
To say that markets have been "rammed down the throats" of third world countries is bullshit. Third world countries have been forced to accept heavily interventionist policies as part of globalization. Chomsky himself acknowledges that treaties like GATT force things like patents on third world countries, which are totally incompatible with free markets. Banana republics and wage slavery are the results of unfree markets' supporting corporate tyranny.
Hmm, so the only place where there are free markets is where they have been shoved down the throats of people ? "The only place where voluntary marriage exists is where they have been shoved down people's throat". I can see why Chomsky doesn't do much debates....
Anybody who thinks democracy is mob rule just needs to read more. Anybody who has thought about democracy in any deep sense has understood the problem, and it has been understood and dealt with in real literature supporting participatory democracy for over a century.
@VanDoodah Most people have always had a hard time imagining a different society than the one in which they live. Similar arguments were made in favour of slavery. That doesn't mean change is impossible.
@VanDoodah It's not under-developed at all. Many, many people have written very detailed books about it and it's also been realised in practice in the Spanish revolution, and briefly in other situations.
@VanDoodah How could markets function without poverty, downturns, recessions, unemployment, widespread inequality, wars? How could markets function without their characteristic feature: a lack of freedom that stifles every day people (not merely people born into the richest household) from developing themselves to their full capabilities?
How can markets be "free" in a sense that is not a horrible, cynical perversion of freedom (except among right wing business majors and economists)?
@alistairproductions Better get working on creating a revolutionary capitalist movement. Because I don't see how you're going to convince the majority of people on this planet that the inequality and misery of the market systems they suffer under are just a blessing in disguise, and that we need even MORE inequality and poverty, and have had enough of democracy.
But then again, only comfortable, middle-class twits like you think they're a blessing because you were born into privilege, right?
@agapeiron The market creates opportunity for all. What problem do you have with inequality? Look, I think all should be respected etc. but what gives you the idea people ought to be brought down or raised to each other's levels? Capitalism takes people OUT of poverty, unlike the fascist corporatism we have now. Maybe you should join the side of voluntary transaction and let people pursue what they will. Democracy is just mob rule, even a middle class twit knows that!
@alistairproductions Middle class twits always confuse their own comfortable lives with the lives of others. That is why they so smugly idealize capitalism as some sort of utopian ideal. Since we all know free markets can't exist without a powerful state to protect them (or at least without a privately-hired army to crush democratic resistance), they distort "voluntary transaction" into some sort of liberating principle. Which is why I love how nervous they are about "mob rule."
@agapeiron How do you gather that I'm confusing "my comfortable life with the lives of others". I never even made reference to my life, nor even vaguely suggested that I live in a free market capitalist society right now so I altogether can't understand what you're suggesting. I think you think I think I'm in a capitalist society now, which I don't. It's a corporatist fascist state.Also capitalism is the opposite of the state, what do you mean "It cant exist WITHOUT the state. WHAT!? bollocks..
@agapeiron Also, "democratic resistance"??? Define that for me. Do it. Define democratic resistance. I think you'll have a hard time, since it's one of those phrases that has no actual meaning besides sounding nice. If you're into freedom you're into voluntary transactions of goods and services.. In other words "humans doing as the will" basically. Then there's the opposite: Elections, (mob rule booths) "politicians" (scum) law (forcefully enforced myth), taxation (theft)... Which will it be???
@agapeiron Without Property rights, there is no freedom it's that simple, free market capitalism, no coercion, fraud, or force, it is a volunteer society.
@wtfjaftw What do you mean by property? Do you mean having your own clothes, bed, pans, utensils etc. or do you mean having real estate like apartment & office buildings or a piece of nature, intellectual creations etc. In the first case I would certainly agree with you, but in the last case I completely disagree. Also property doesn´t necessarily equal freedom & vice versa.
@TheRacistsMustDie So what does it mean? Government has right to property? Lets turn it around How is collectivist group have ownership of your property freedom? If you can't do what you want with your property, without and you were dictated I would call that oppression.
@wtfjaftw Well "should anyone have the right to those second types of property?" is more what I had in mind. Again for example: intellectual property(IP), should a legal person (an individual, a corporation, a government) own for example a song? & the whole idea of IP isn't even that old - 250 years or so - in itself that's not at all a valid argument against IP, but it would be good to ask: "Where people less free before the existence of IP?" &: Are they now more free because of IP?
@wtfjaftw Also again the example of real estate(RE). We think of it as a natural thing, but it's actually a Western idea which didn't exist in that way in the rest Afro-Eurasia. Where in the West one indication of wealth was RE ownership, in Africa or South-East-Asia it was: How much labour did you own? Now Western isn't inherently bad, & the other system is not preferable either. But again: Where people less free before the existence of RE?" &: "Are they now more free because of RE?"
@TheRacistsMustDie What? your saying property rights is only real estistate, no animals, tools, weapons. If there was no basic understanding of property why would ancient people make art and culture on things that wasn't theirs? Stealing(force) under complete chaos is not freedom! It's hell! Want Anarcho-socialism go back to the dark ages!
@wtfjaftw No I'm saying RE is something that can be somebodies property and also that RE didn't use to exist everywhere. I say all that to pose the question: "shouldn't maybe some things not be able to be the property of anybody/thing". I'm not saying I know where to draw the line. Art & culture has communal origins with social coherence as original goal. The 3 following sentences I simply don't understand. & IP is indeed a farce but a legal reality & they can be stolen from their legal owner.
This is retarded...
danterrell14 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The first man who,having fenced in a piece of land,said "This is mine,"& found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the founder of civil society.From how many crimes,wars &murders,from how many horrors & misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind... Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." Jean-Jacques Rousseau"
Hasshasser 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You want to know what Capitalism is?
It's when the Rancher manages to convince the cattle to believe, that if they work hard enough, give more milk and don't bother about being slaughtered, they can become Ranchers too...it's called the american dream! (smart Ranchers impose a theatre called Congress).
Hasshasser 2 months ago
The alternative to WESTERN PRIVATE CAPITALISM has been STATE CAPITALISM OF ASIATIC MODALITY, in USSR case it restructrued itself and China should soon become the biggest WORLD CAPITALIST MARKET. The only real alternative is TO SHARE THE EARTH IN COOPERATION in a moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity where we express our multitude of creative energies in freedom of being rather the current minority tyrannical ABSTRACT ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION.
arzoyan 2 months ago
even Chomsky doesn't understand himself.
joru100 2 months ago
@joru100 You think he doesn't understand that he's engaging in pure sophistry whenever he talks about free markets? This clip in particular is one of the worst examples of a complete bypass of logic and reason. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard him make a distinction between more and less free markets. He never does this because he uses the all-or-nothing fallacy to "argue" against free markets. Either a free market must exist perfectly or it doesn't exist at all. Pure sophistry.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername Not sophistry but economic-history. Give an example of a country that developed without massive state intervention in the economy. This isn't an "all or nothing fallacy"-It is just the entire history of the post-industrial world. You can just email Prof. Noam Chomsky. He is pretty good about answering email. Arguing semantics again "Either a free market must exist perfectly or it doesn't exist at all"-this depends on your conception of what a free markets is.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 "Give an example of a country that developed without massive state intervention in the economy."
I didn't realize that massive state intervention was the cause of economic development of a country. Explain it to me.
"Arguing semantics again 'Either a free market must exist perfectly or it doesn't exist at all'"
So you're denying that he routinely says that free markets don't exist? Or you are denying what is implied by him saying they don't exist? Tell me which.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername "I didn't realize that massive state intervention was the cause of economic development of a country. Explain it to me." Really, this is not good, have you studied the history of industrialization began? It is not about you "realizing" it, you either have researched it or you have not. What about it do you want me to explain to you, your question is your answer.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 Explain what "massive intervention" is and how it is responsible for economic development. Who or what is intervening? How do they intervene? Into what are they intervening? Ever heard of production? Does production exist without "massive intervention"? Do the interveners produce? What do they produce? How much?
What further massive interventions do you recommend?
Was the banking crisis caused by intervention or a lack of intervention?
Do you hate yourself for being stupid?
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername Read Fredrich List, the Wiki is good. "how it is responsible for economic development." Infant industry argument, which you should really read about. "Do you hate yourself for being stupid" really a projection statement? "Recommendations" have nothing to do with the history of the industrial world.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 When you say that the state's "massive intervention" is the cause of economic development, you deserve to be called stupid. The state is a parasite. It produces nothing. Whatever it has, it steals. You are claiming that thieves are the cause of economic development which is self-refuting. Before you can steal something, someone must produce it. Taking from A and giving to B does nothing but waste existing wealth and thwart otherwise free production and exchange.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername So, very plainly you do not understand how state intervention has occurred, free markets theory, or how economic development has taken place. This is very plain "Infant industry argument," easy to understand, even for someone with no economic background. "Taking from A and giving to B does nothing but waste existing wealth and thwart otherwise free production and exchange."refutes your own free market argument.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 "you do not understand how state intervention has occurred"
What the hell does that mean?
"refutes your own free market argument."
What???????????? You're off the rails. I said that stealing from one person and giving to another wastes wealth and thwarts production and trade. How the hell do you get "refutes your own free market argument" from that????
You're just trollin' now.
BLOCKED.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername Haha, the history economic dev. is trolling. haha. "I said that stealing from one person and giving to another wastes wealth and thwarts production and trade."-if that is what a free market is then you are right and Chomksy is wrong.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 A free market means trading voluntarily, without coercion. No one in their right mind would say that a free market means stealing from A and giving to B, so you are obviously a loser troll just out to mess with people. You even made your channel unavailable so that people can't block you. Fine. I'll just ignore you.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@"Nobody in there right mind would say that a free market means stealing from A and giving to B "yet the state does this and the state exists-NC's argument (You):""Don't understand how state intervention occurred"What does that mean?" (ME)"This is very plain "Infant industry argument,". I can't even establish premises with you to have a rational discussion. Your continuously contradict yourself and don't realize it. Please Ignore me and read Lists"infant industry argument" (If you're serious) "
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 redistribution from the rich to the poor is not stealing - but rather can be seen has compensation paid to the victim's caught up in a unfair system. Take for instance how working class communities have been decimated by de-industrialisation - which suddenly obliterated their way off of life. Welfare also amounts to a form of social control - just like prisons that allow their inmates certain small perks so as to avoid a riot
32peartree 2 months ago
@32peartree Really, this "redistribution from the rich to the poor is not stealing" has nothing to do with the discussion we were having. The State is the reason for industrialization, funded by tax revenue, and de-industrialization. None of the policy decision are decided by the masses who money is used, yet your labor-time in the form of tax revenue is used without your consent. This is a obvious form of theft regardless if it is a "form of social control". That has nothing to do with it.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 Of course everybody hates paying tax - and I suppose it might be considered a form of theft at a stretch - but unfortunately we haven't yet devised a better system of organizing a society - but I feel the average tax payer doesn't mind tipping up has long as the money is being spent on stuff like highways, healthcare and prisons etc. However, people are right to complain when they see their taxes pissed away by the banks or squandered on pointless wars that only serve the rich.
32peartree 2 months ago
@32peartree Hello? Logic, instead of using force to pay for something, use voluntary action instead. Let me here you say a bunch of complex bullshit to try to make what I said true. Taxation will always end up being squandered because there is no incentive to save money because there is no choice or competition.
wtfjaftw 2 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 2 months ago
@hippydog123 How is the need produce more, and save more profit, has anything to from the left and monopoly of government?
wtfjaftw 2 months ago
Hey wtfjaftw,
I am not sure what you asked. "How is the need (to) produce more, and save more profit, has(have) anything to (do) from the left and monopoly of government?" - Is this in reference to something I said earlier? If it has to do with economic development check Friedrich List's infant industry argument. You will begin to see the role the state played in fostering industrialization-in every country-that developed.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 Even if what you said is true, and it is it slowed development not help speed it up. Ancient Ireland survived had large independent, without taxation, completely on voluntary individual interactions. Anything under the control of government right now, would be far more effective in a free market.
wtfjaftw 2 months ago
@wtfjaftw "slowed development"-all indexes show otherwise. It is not what I said, it simply is what happened. What time frame do you mean by "ancient Ireland"? "More effective in free market?" First off (depending on the thing) its unlikely it would have developed. What things and how would they be more "effective" in a free market economy? This simply is not the case in host of industries that have been privatized-has your utility bill cost ever went down? (its called a natural monopoly)
hippydog123 2 months ago
@wtfjaftw You missed the entire point of List's infant industry argument.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername Kahn's multiplier effect.
hippydog123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ "So you're denying that he routinely says that free markets don't exist? Or you are denying what is implied by him saying they don't exist? Tell me which." again..."this depends on your conception of what a free markets is." If your conception is "more or less free markets", you have to define that term and then do the work to demonstrate whether or not it exists. Compare your conception with his.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername Your conception and his are pretty much the same. He is saying free markets are X and don't exist. You are saying some variation of X exists, but this does not refute what he is saying, nor does it refute what you are saying. Effectively, you are just calling our economic relations free markets. You can call them anything you want too. It doesn't say a thing about the actual world until you define what that thing is (Free markets). I'm sort of denying the "implication" side.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 "Effectively, you are just calling our economic relations free markets"
No, I'm not. A market can be either free, not free, more or less free, freer than something else, etc. We can analyze what is free about it and what isn't. Isn't this what Chomsky does in analyzing foreign policy? Or does he just say either that all US foreign policy is good or that all US foreign policy is evil? Why are you unable to make simple distinctions like this?
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername You are the one who is not able to make the distinctions, again you just repeated what I said. I said" If your conception is "more or less free markets",-then you said "We can analyze what is free about it ". This is exactly what he does in this video and all the other videos and literature involving markets. You apparently have not watched or read them. You are arguing only his use of the word, nothing else. This is distinction that I hope is becoming clear.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 "This is exactly what he does in this video and all the other videos and literature involving markets"
I have never heard him acknowledge the free society that sits beneath all the tyrannies of the world and keeps everything going from day to day, year to year, century to century. He's an obscurantist, and quite accomplished at it. As I've said numerous times, he fails to make even the most basic distinctions. He denies what drives economies because it refutes his worldview.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername "I didn't realize that massive state intervention was the cause of economic development of a country."-Check out the "Infant Industry" argument by "Fredrich List".
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 So the state and its "massive intervention" is the cause of economic development? That was Chomsky's argument in saying that if we had had a truly free market we would be fur traders and fishermen. So you agree with this now? It wasn't either a mistake by Chomsky or some misunderstanding of mine as to what he said and meant? You actually believe that the state is the cause of development, prosperity, etc? Wow.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername Everything is a misunderstanding of yours. The rest of economic history and I agree with NC's claim, that economic history developed through state intervention in the economy. This is a really basic and elementary aspect of development. A truly "free market",whatever that means, may or may not have a different impact on development and you can have an academic discussion with all the conjecture you want, but it has NOTHING to do with the real world and its history.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 "economic history developed through state intervention in the economy."
There you go, moron. The state, a gang of violent thieves, takes by force some produce of someone engaged in production and trade. Then they waste 30% of the stolen wealth before they give the rest of the loot to their politically connected friends or useless idiot supporters as welfare - and absolutely mindless idiots like you and Chomsky think that it is the cause of economic development!
What a joke.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername Infant industry argument, Fredrich List. You are behaving like a child. "The state, a gang of violent thieves, takes by force some produce of someone engaged in production and trade. Then they waste 30% of the stolen wealth before they give the rest of the loot to their politically connected friends or useless idiot supporters as welfare"-this is about right. At some point you are going to have to reconcile with facts.
hippydog123 2 months ago
@hippydog123 "This is a really basic and elementary aspect of development."
Not production, free exchange, property rights, etc., but LOOTING. LOOTING is the "really basic and elementary aspect of development."
Tell me then, does the state loot producers or non-producers? Producers, right? So how did these producers produce? I guess it was the "massive intervention" in their lives which forced them to produce? Otherwise, they would sit in a pile of dirt and twirl their thumbs?
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@MillionthUsername Again your arguing that the state loots and they people innately are driven to produce. So you agree with Chomsky and Marx in that regard. You think the state loots "producers"(proletariat-you are in agreement with Marx and Chomsky). This does not in any way dismiss the argument or simple fact that state intervention leads to economic development. Here is a simple exercise, name a country where this is not the case. IF you can't what does that mean?
hippydog123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hippydog123 "name a country where this is not the case."
Name a country without crime.
"IF you can't what does that mean?"
It means absolutely nothing. Because the two are UNRELATED. Crime is not "economic development." Having a large criminal gang steal the produce of ANOTHER who ACTUALLY PRODUCED WEALTH is not "economic development."
Demonstrate how stealing is economic development. I dare you. Go ahead.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
@hippydog123 "A truly "free market"...has NOTHING to do with the real world and its history."
Right. Because the whole of humanity does absolutely nothing but sit around and wait to be conquered and coerced and forced to produce by gun-wielding thugs and pot-bellied bureaucrats. Otherwise they have no incentive to live, to survive, to build, to prosper, to trade, to grow, to expand, to create, to enjoy life and make it better for their kids, etc.
Why do you hate reason so much?
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
Why do you hate reason so much? Why do you hate facts so much? "Right. Because the whole of humanity does absolutely nothing but sit around and wait to be conquered and coerced and forced to produce by gun-wielding thugs and pot-bellied bureaucrats. Otherwise they have no incentive to live, to survive, to build, to prosper, to trade, to grow, to expand, to create, to enjoy life and make it better for their kids, etc."what does this have to do with economic dev.? This is just a premise.
hippydog123 2 months ago
"... the only market societies that... the only social system that approximate market societies are poor, colonized, underdeveloped, countries where it's been rammed down their throats."
"I don't know what capitalism is supposed to be. If capitalism is supposed to be a market society, it's never existed."
"Take someone who's a committed revolutionary - thinks we really have to throw out the whole capitalist - whatever there is of a capitalist system in our market system."
joru100 2 months ago
I am sorry. I tried to say that profits are privatized, not costs.
stoiclife45 3 months ago
It is private because it is owned privately and because costs are privatized.
stoiclife45 3 months ago
Chomsky did not say that collections of private power do not exist; he said that there are no free markets. Very different. He is also absolutely aware of the outrageous health care costs in the U.S. and enormous role the government plays in the health care system--i.e., its shouldering a significant amount of the costs (one of causes of the U.S. continually running deficits is the inefficient health care system). It is still perfectly reasonable to call our system a "private system."
stoiclife45 3 months ago
sigh...
"There's no markets!"
"Oh yeah, america has private health care!!"
Even though the government is responsible for half of all medical spending and spends more as a percetnage of gdp than any scandanavin country.
StatelessEuphoria 3 months ago
@5:35 "the inefficiency of the privatized health care system here"
What the hell is that supposed to mean? It's a fascist system, Chomsky, and you know that. It's already state-run. People are NOT FREE to transact business in the health care field without being "regulated" to death. It's a damned fascist cartel. Why is "privatized" used? That doesn't even fit. The monstrous inefficiency is because gov't is all over it. They pay like over half the bills through Medicare. It's a mess.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
Perhaps the most interesting point is the part about how other branches of industry often are the ones that get any talk in, when it comes to changing policy, like chomsky claims about manufacturing. or how the Nuclear lobby is the one who might get a word in when it comes to green energy. am i wrong? i surely might be.
RipTheJackR 4 months ago
The radical protectionism that he speaks of is exactly what China is doing in large part with the currency. Pretty smart stuff.
Penryn87 5 months ago
As much as I like Chomsky in other discussions regarding the history of Imperialism I think he is being completely irrational and condescending. To completely dump the idea of a free market of voluntary trade is completely and utterly unanarchistic because if consenting parties agree who's right is it to stop them? Unfortunately we cannot all jump immediately into a utopia of a syndicalist-commune society based on public ownership of all land, factories etc. The realistic route is individualism.
ThaFreeMind 5 months ago
Chomsky is the biggest intellectual fraud going. This is just HORRIBLE. Worst stuff I've heard from him. He's saying the US would be poor fishermen and hunters under free market principles, but that we owe our development and wealth to state intervention? WTF? What kind of crack is this guy smoking?
He speaks in double-talk. Can't even make a simple distinction between more free or less free. Instead, since there is no "pure" free market, he ascribes all progress to the state? Idiot.
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername The kind of crack that imparts easily verifiable data. It's no mystery where computer and internet technology came from, except maybe to you. And the so-called "Golden Age of Capitalism" in the U.S. during the postwar period was facilitated directly by New Deal economic policy (highest tax rates in modern American history and so on). Subsequent changes which widened the gap between rich and poor were also state-ordained, though by way of vast protectionism.
Philfa 5 months ago
@Philfa "It's no mystery where computer and internet technology came from, except maybe to you"
It comes out of the barrel of a gun, doesn't it? And prosperity came from New Deal "economic policy," right?
Absolute mindless stupidity.
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername I live in Tennessee so yes.
HoGraz 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername You acuse him of speaking in absolutes, then do so yourself. There is a staggeringly vast amount of Chomsky writings and talks on the internet. Please find a single one where he ascribes "all" progress to the state. He doesn't. He's simply making a point; one which you fully understand yet choose to pervert by playing word games.
nomis101uk 5 months ago
@nomis101uk "He's simply making a point; one which you fully understand yet choose to pervert by playing word games."
This is the part where you tell me the man said something other than what he said. Whatever. I'm not going argue with stupidity on YT.
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername No...If you'd read all of my comment instead of just the last sentence you'd see what I was saying. I'll try and rephrase here:
You said that Chomsky ascribes all progress to the state just because not all of it can be attributed to the market. He did not say that. He was simply highlighting a point. There is a widely held belief in America that the state only serves to stifle progress, while the market is perfect and divine. He was highlighting that this isnt the case
nomis101uk 5 months ago
@nomis101uk "If the US had ever been a market society, we would now be pursuing our comparative advantage of exporting fish and fur,the few scattered people that lived here."
"The US DEVELOPED, as did EVERY OTHER rich & developed society, by RADICAL VIOLATION of market principles...It's a logical impossibility for the US to enter free trade agreements cuz our own economy depends crucially on the STATE SECTOR. That's where we get computers & the internet & telecommunications, lasers, aircraft"
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername What ridiculous sophistry. Either that or you are hopelessly ignorant. He says we depend on the "STATE SECTOR" for telecommunications, because such things would not and could not survive on private investment alone. And he is libertarian, a left libertarian to be specific. You might not like that, but he unquestionably is.
NotHomelessAnymore 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotHomelessAnymore "He says we depend on the "STATE SECTOR" for telecommunications, because such things would not and could not survive on private investment alone. And he is libertarian, a left libertarian to be specific"
That's a blatant contradiction, you numbskull.
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@NotHomelessAnymore And did you miss the part where he said that IF WE HAD FREE MARKETS, we would be FUR TRADERS and FISHERMAN?
He is AGAINST free markets. He is not a libertarian. He's a freaking communist. He does not believe in private property or freedom of exchange. He is the sophist, using words like "libertarian" to mean the opposite of what it's supposed to mean. He's "anti-state" but ascribes almost all of our economic process to the "state sector"? Complete and utter bull!
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername We can all agree he is against free markets and that he is a socialist. Left libertarians don't believe in free markets. That doesn't make him statist. He simply sees the markets as a form of tyranny and inseperable from government, because market economies cannot grow or develop without at least some sort of organizational principle. And please read anything Chomsky has written about communism. He regarded the fall of he Soviet Union as a 'victory for socialism'. Go figure.
NotHomelessAnymore 4 months ago
@nomis101uk Those are quotes. That's exactly what he said. You and I would be trading fish and fur under a free market. We "depend crucially" on the STATE SECTOR for everything else.
I don't know why people like you cannot just listen to what the man says. He's telling you what he believes. Don't blame me for what he says. I'm just pointing out how utterly ridiculous it all is. He has a radically anti-liberty view of the world, yet has the gall to call himself "libertarian." It's a joke.
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
@MillionthUsername ignorance is a bliss, i suppose. enjoy your bliss
EndWesternTyranny 4 months ago
@EndWesternTyranny What are you talking about?
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername i just think its funny that you would call chomsky "anti-liberty" when he is anything but. maybe i misread it and you were talking about somebody else. i pretty much just read the last sentence you wrote
EndWesternTyranny 4 months ago
@EndWesternTyranny You really have to listen closely and to hear him repeat these kinds of things in order to understand where he's coming from. He is a collectivist. He does not believe in property or freedom of production and exchange (free markets). He calls people who are devoted to property rights and economic freedom "fascists" & "monopolists." Don't get caught up in the Chomsky aura, listen to the arguments. They are just absurd. I tried to show that by quoting him directly.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername lol, i think you should follow your own advice and try his arguments again without your bias. he doesn't care much for the proclaimed principles of "economic freedom" because usually they are used as rhetorical devices by political and financial elites to justify policy that permit only certain visions of property rights. a lot of work points to the gap between preached doctrine, and the reality of its effects. for example, he argues free markets have never existed anyway
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@ThePatcam
"he doesn't care much for the proclaimed principles of "economic freedom" because usually they are used as rhetorical devices"
What the HELL does that have to do with anything? Freedom is bad or "doesn't work" because politicians mouth "freedom"? I guess I could say i don't care much for the proclaimed principles of family life, community spirit, charity, cooperation, and love because they're also used as rhetorical devices by pols and elites. Complete non-sequitur!
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername Then a reasonable person like you would reply that there are degrees of democracy, that one system is better than another because it better follows democratic principles, therefore democracy is very much relevant and that I was using totally fallacious reasoning to "argue." Now apply this understanding to free markets. Markets have always existed and have been always more or less free. More free is better than less free because freedom is good, not bad. Right?
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@ThePatcam I quoted him directly from this video. Why don't you deal with that? He says that if we were free we would all be fur traders and fishermen. Do you believe that also? Why? What is the ARGUMENT AGAINST FREEDOM that leads a supposed "libertarian" to make such an unbelievably absurd statement? And what makes people like you so absolutely blind to the fact that he indeed is making an anti-liberty "argument" straight to your face? Why do you defend such blatant nonsense? I'm curious.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@ThePatcam Another anti-intellectual trick of Chomsky's is to employ the all-or-nothing fallacy. This is exactly what you just repeated back to me. He programmed you and you responded to your programming without even thinking. You said, "he argues free markets have never existed anyway." Tell me, what kind of "argument" is that? I'll tell you: none. There is no "therefore," rather Chomsky wants you to FEEL that FREEDOM has NO BEARING on prosperity. It's the "it doesn't exist" trick.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@ThePatcam Chomsky regularly does this. A statement is not an argument, yet he stops at 'free markets have never existed." Chomsky loves what he calls "democracy." I can say that democracy has never existed. I mean the pure pure pure democracy (all or nothing), and then I can then talk about moon landings and computers and medicine to imply that democracy (which has never existed) is a myth, a phantom, completely irrelevant to the life of society. That's all-or-nothing. See how that works?
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername wow, you've wildly misunderstood everything chomsky stands for. i stopped at free markets have never existed because of the character limit. chomsky is famous for providing mountains of data to go along with his extremely thorough arguments. you really should try reading him again if you want to be intellectually honest and open-minded. i mean, its obvious you've hardly read him cuz you're making sweeping generalizations without knowing what you're talking about.
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@ThePatcam Your reply is typical of Chomsky supporters. It doesn't address anything at all and just says that I should read more Chomsky. Is Chomsky for or against free markets? If he is for them, then can you explain to me what is going on in this exchange here? When he says that if we had free markets we would be fishermen and fur traders, does he mean that we would be fishermen and fur traders? Or is that me twisting Chomsky's words? Explain why he says that in answer to the question.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername dude, this is the youtube comment section, im not going to reply 6 times to write a full response like you did. i would gladly do so over private messaging, if you want to. he does not say we would be fishermen and fur traders under the free market. you ARE twisting and misinterpreting him. his point is that the people who cry "free markets!" the loudest are people in high position of capital control that really depend on the state for massive subsidizing
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@ThePatcam Absolute bull. Starting at 1:10, please quote Chomsky word for word back to me. I've already quoted him, but you people just ignore it. Go ahead. Listen and type.
Please listen to the question also. What is the question the man asks? What is Chomsky's response? The man deals with your supposed objection right up front. He's not talking about corporate fascism, but real free markets. If you are unable to deal with this exchange as it is recorded, then don't respond to me.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@ThePatcam I won't do private message because of some very bad experiences. No reflection on you at all. I just won't do it anymore. This is all public, and that's fine with me.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@ThePatcam @6:30 he says that real revolutionaries who want to throw out capitalism and free markets are still reformists. Then he goes on to talk about how he is a statist and wants gov't to take over health care. Why is it that you cannot accept what this man says?
A "revolutionary" who wants to "get rid of free markets" is NOT a "reformist." He's a tyrant. We have the RIGHT to produce and trade FREELY. Chomsky is an avowed enemy of freedom. He makes that clear over and over again.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername maybe you're getting confused because this is one video. like i've said before multiple times, actually try reading him for once. he is no way a statist, but when it comes to government programs to secure basic living standards to make life better for people, he'll support them. that's his point about reform. he says that both revolutionary socialists and those for diplomatic situation are both for reform, though it may take on different avenues for each.
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@ThePatcam "he is no way a statist, but when it comes to government programs to secure basic living standards to make life better for people, he'll support them."
A blatant contradiction.
Why can't you quote him from this piece? He clearly says that if we had free markets we would be fishermen and fur traders. Do you think he is so completely ignorant of economics? I don't. No one could be THAT stupid. He obviously has his own motivations for trashing economic freedom.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername he is saying that the only true free markets are less advanced, unindustrialized economies akin to pre-monetary societies, ya idiot. the point he's trying to make which you miss over and over again is that the rhetoric that pro-corporate policymakers use about "free markets" is disingenuous given the level of involvement the state has in our economy. they preach free markets and small government, but really are in favor of big government for them, small government for the rest
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@ThePatcam THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF RHETORIC HERE. How am I an "idiot"? He was asked about REAL FREE MARKETS. Don't call me names because you refuse to listen to what is actually said. What should I even talk to you?
I'm done. Blocked.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername calm down ladies! at least you've all joined the enlightenment leave them other peopole be
boxermaf 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername
On your statist point being a contradiction: I do not favor bullies, but if bully#1 protects someone from bully#2, and there's no other effective deterent to bully #2, and bully #1 does less harm overall than bully #2 does unchecked, then I'm in favor of bully#1 given the circumstance.
Is that contradictory?
ElDukerino1 4 months ago
@ElDukerino1 if only all of life's problems could be summed up in meaningless "bully #1 and #2" metaphors...
EndWesternTyranny 4 months ago
@EndWesternTyranny
Right...however, if people don't use proper logic (because of loaded words/concepts like "state") then they can't solve anything, can they?
ElDukerino1 4 months ago
@ElDukerino1 okay?
EndWesternTyranny 3 months ago
@EndWesternTyranny
was just saying that "summing up the world's problems" wasn't the point of the analogy...it was just "to show MillionthUsername a flaw in his logic" in the best way I could conjur up considering whom it was directed toward...
But sure, what you said would be nice, I guess :)
ElDukerino1 3 months ago
@ElDukerino1 all right
EndWesternTyranny 3 months ago
@ElDukerino1 No, claiming to be anti-statist and supporting the state's initiation of force against peaceful people whenever it suits your fancy and you can spew a boatload of sophist rhetoric to justify anything you want to do to other people is not a contradiction because contradictions don't exist. Neither do principles.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername
Okay, but who supports the state's initiation of force against peaceful people? Everyone pretty much has the same principles, but may favor or ignore one thing or the other more when applying their principles (and often re-interpret not only what other people favor, but even misinterpret their principles, as you do to Chomsky). Of course, you're ignoring bully#2...call it sophist rhetoric if that makes you feel better, but the fact remains.
ElDukerino1 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername you use the logic of a Bachmann-supporting Tea Partier. learn the difference between social and economic liberty. when slavery was outlawed, slave-masters also used terms like "trashing economic freedom." learn the difference between social and economic liberty. you support a cause that is the exact opposite of what you think it is.
EndWesternTyranny 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EndWesternTyranny "you use the logic of a Bachmann-supporting Tea Partier."
Ad hominem, jackass.
"learn the difference between social and economic liberty. you support a cause that is the exact opposite of what you think it is. "
So for you "liberty" is not liberty? In supporting economic liberty, I'm really supporting its opposite?
You people are embarrassing.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername you will probably never understand what an oxymoron that statement was...
EndWesternTyranny 4 months ago
@EndWesternTyranny What?
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@MillionthUsername exactly...
EndWesternTyranny 4 months ago
What a bunch of baloney! Chomsky is afraid of dealing with Rothbardians, thats intellectually a good sign for rothbardians :)
100percenteri 5 months ago
Comment removed
jrmbrasher 6 months ago
Anarcho-Capitalism empowers the Individual, Libertarian Socialism to me is a contradiction and could be viewed as Collectivist. We do not have Capitalism in the US, We have Corporatism! Collectivism/Socialism is Anti-Individualism, why on earth would you believe that Anarchism (Liberty) and Socialism (anti-liberty) can go hand in hand? Read Murray Rothbard.
Leftovervictim1991 6 months ago
@Leftovervictim1991
Way to be a parrot. Whats the difference between corporatism and capitalism? Capitalism is worse. Corporations have zero accountability to anyone but their own profits - dog eat dog - rich get richer.
GnomesAmok 6 months ago
@GnomesAmok
How ironic, calling him out for parroting (which I agree) but then using the age-old "dog eat dog, da ritch getz ritcher!" rhetoric.
Anyway, Corporatism is worse than Capitalism. Corporatism is the mergence of Corporations and the State making Corporations unaccountable.
fountainherz 6 months ago
@Leftovervictim1991 Anarchism is socialist. It always has been. Name one classical anarchist thinker that was not a socialist.
Libertarian has always meant anarchist (until it was hijacked by the American right). Prove me wrong.
agapeiron 6 months ago
Comment removed
kingmafi6699 6 months ago
"Libertarian Socialism to me is a contradiction and could be viewed as Collectivist. "
What's wrong with being collectivist? Even in the bourgoise system you love so much the means of production are a collective effort. Individuals are in turn influenced by others around them and the environment.
Individualism is a capitalist and religious perversion that creates a false illusion that the decisions one makes do not affect other people, It denies natural law.
kingmafi6699 6 months ago
Noam Chomsky is a classic Socialist Libertarian, meaning keep government out of my life for the most part. With a lot of Social Freedom but he also believes in a large Welfare State by American Standards.
FRSFreeStateES 7 months ago
@FRSFreeStateES He believes in no state at all...
SlaktadOchStolt 6 months ago
@SlaktadOchStolt
So Noam Chomsky does not believe in a Single Payer Health Care System
FRSFreeStateES 6 months ago
@FRSFreeStateES Noam Chomsky believes in anarchism, which by definition is against any state, regardless if it has generous welfare or not. What kind of health care system he advocates, I have no idea.
SlaktadOchStolt 6 months ago
@SlaktadOchStolt
Actually Professor Chomsky describes himself as a Libertarian Socialist and believes in Single Payer Health Insurance. He's not an anarchist.
FRSFreeStateES 6 months ago
@FRSFreeStateES Libertarian socialism is the same thing as anarchism, like he's explained on other occasions. Supporting single payer health care is not more or less anarchic than opposing it, since such things can be organised without the State.
SlaktadOchStolt 6 months ago
@SlaktadOchStolt
He believes in Single Payer Health Insurance which would be run by the State, so he believes in a State at least in that sense.
FRSFreeStateES 6 months ago
@FRSFreeStateES That is probably an expression of his marxist-influenced belief that the left should use the state as a means to suppressing corporate power, which at the same time is only a short-term goal. The long-term goal is getting rid of the state. Noam Chomsky simply considers the state the lesser of two evils.
SlaktadOchStolt 6 months ago
@SlaktadOchStolt
by the way (kinda interesting)
"So Marxism, ... I think is an irrational cult. They're theology... belong to the history of organized religion" -N. Chomsky, Understanding Power, p. 227 ;-)
dihydrohydroxycodein 6 months ago
@dihydrohydroxycodein Yeah, he's obviously not a marxist since he's an anarchist, you know with the Marx/Bakunin split and all. But it's not odd or unusual for anarchists or any other socialist to hold Marxist-influenced views.
SlaktadOchStolt 6 months ago
@SlaktadOchStolt
Thanks for the reply. Honestly I don't know much about Bakunin, can you recommend some of his literature/books?
dihydrohydroxycodein 6 months ago
@dihydrohydroxycodein
Bakunin wasn't much of a theorist. IF you want to understand anarchism you should read An Anarchist FAQ (available for free), specifically section I. Then moving on to Bakunin, Kropotkin and all the other major figures.
GodOfTheInternets 6 months ago
@SlaktadOchStolt
So Noam Chomsky does believe in some form of a State
FRSFreeStateES 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRSFreeStateES "He believes in Single Payer Health Insurance which would be run by the State, so he believes in a State at least in that sense. " Are you confusing The State with The Government? John Dewey gave excellent essays on this difference.
WhyMeMoFo 5 months ago
Chomsky has little understanding of economics, economic history and moral principles.
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog
Moral principals?
GnomesAmok 6 months ago
@GnomesAmok i believe that is what i wrote.
AussieAustrianBlog 6 months ago
@comusnine Of course signifiers are arbitrary. But signifiers flow within discourse, and discourse is embedded in history, where there have been struggles. The struggle for liberty in the original libertarian sense is a totally different struggle from your pro-market, private property oriented ideology. You can only pretend otherwise if you ignore history.
If the word is of no intrinsic value to you, then why not give it up?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@comusnine It sounds good in theory, and I applaud your attempt at harmony. It is very noble! Most right wing libertarians just hose me with capitalist odium. But there are philosophical positions that are fundamentally at odds, friend-- Different conceptions of liberty and coercion and hierarchy. As it is, the libertarian thought that began in the 19th century workers' movement is irreconcilable with late 20th century American market ideology.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@comusnine Then fight for the term liberal against social liberals by stressing your emphasis on private property and anti-taxation. Point out the roots of right wing laissez-faire thought in classical liberalism. Don't steal our words to exploit their radical content to make yourselves seem radical; you're not.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@King100Joe Good lord. You are a violent racist, and I'm not even going to dignify your anti-semitic gibberish with a rebuttal. Seek help.
DoctorMandible 8 months ago
@King100Joe Thanks, Joe.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@King100Joe I still don't see why you feel it's necessary to lurk here, my conservative friend. Shouldn't you be off watching Reagan speeches?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@King100Joe Cry some more. Everyone wants to hear the little Youtube conservatives express their hurt feelings, you "peice" of shit.
agapeiron 8 months ago
I'll never understand Libertarian Socialism. There seems to be nothing similar between the two. One advocates the complete, unabridged freedoms of all people (which seems to necessitate a Market organization). The other advocates equalization of people, a feat that can only be carried out through government action or widespread tweaking of the conscience of individuals for them to behave how they ought to behave. It makes no sense how one can contemplate joining the two terms.
buzbuz576 8 months ago
@buzbuz576 The word "libertarian" was always used to mean socialist. The first one to use it in this sense was Joseph de Jacque in the 19th century, and he was an anarcho-communist. It only sounds strange to you because you probably have a typically narrow-minded conservative understanding of history and the world. But now since right wingers want to call themselves "libertarians," and since they create political parties and think tanks using the term, they think they invented it, etc.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@King100Joe Fuck off, reactionary. Your misery only makes you look more ridiculous.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@King100Joe fuck off Joe.
blackmichael75 8 months ago
@King100Joe you're a nutter.
blackmichael75 8 months ago
How does Chomsky feel about worker cooperative movements, such as Mondragon in Spain or the Emilia-Romagna cooperatives in Italy?
QuatFax 9 months ago
To say that markets have been "rammed down the throats" of third world countries is bullshit. Third world countries have been forced to accept heavily interventionist policies as part of globalization. Chomsky himself acknowledges that treaties like GATT force things like patents on third world countries, which are totally incompatible with free markets. Banana republics and wage slavery are the results of unfree markets' supporting corporate tyranny.
QuatFax 9 months ago
Hmm, so the only place where there are free markets is where they have been shoved down the throats of people ? "The only place where voluntary marriage exists is where they have been shoved down people's throat". I can see why Chomsky doesn't do much debates....
StrafingMoose 9 months ago
When was this interview conducted.
I can't help to think whether this information/perspective is outdated?
scout6686 10 months ago
Who is the interviewer? He sounds like Michael Savage just toned down.
HoGraz 11 months ago
when was this interview conducted?
KungFuKing1916 1 year ago
@KungFuKing1916 I'm thinking, based on when that photo was taken, 1950 maybe?
majordbag2 10 months ago
Anybody who thinks democracy is mob rule just needs to read more. Anybody who has thought about democracy in any deep sense has understood the problem, and it has been understood and dealt with in real literature supporting participatory democracy for over a century.
MonsieurEm 1 year ago
How could a modern society function without markets?
VanDoodah 1 year ago 5
@VanDoodah several ways
Alarik5 1 year ago
@VanDoodah Most people have always had a hard time imagining a different society than the one in which they live. Similar arguments were made in favour of slavery. That doesn't mean change is impossible.
blackmichael75 1 year ago 18
@blackmichael75 I didn't mean to imply that such a change is impossible, but it does seem like a very under-developed theory.
VanDoodah 10 months ago
@VanDoodah It's not under-developed at all. Many, many people have written very detailed books about it and it's also been realised in practice in the Spanish revolution, and briefly in other situations.
blackmichael75 10 months ago
@VanDoodah This video does not advocate a society without markets. Pay closer attention, please.
DoctorMandible 10 months ago
@VanDoodah bartering? hmm good point
fallenempireoverdrve 10 months ago
@VanDoodah How could markets function without poverty, downturns, recessions, unemployment, widespread inequality, wars? How could markets function without their characteristic feature: a lack of freedom that stifles every day people (not merely people born into the richest household) from developing themselves to their full capabilities?
How can markets be "free" in a sense that is not a horrible, cynical perversion of freedom (except among right wing business majors and economists)?
agapeiron 10 months ago 9
@agapeiron markets will be free once we abolish the state
alistairproductions 8 months ago
@alistairproductions Better get working on creating a revolutionary capitalist movement. Because I don't see how you're going to convince the majority of people on this planet that the inequality and misery of the market systems they suffer under are just a blessing in disguise, and that we need even MORE inequality and poverty, and have had enough of democracy.
But then again, only comfortable, middle-class twits like you think they're a blessing because you were born into privilege, right?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron The market creates opportunity for all. What problem do you have with inequality? Look, I think all should be respected etc. but what gives you the idea people ought to be brought down or raised to each other's levels? Capitalism takes people OUT of poverty, unlike the fascist corporatism we have now. Maybe you should join the side of voluntary transaction and let people pursue what they will. Democracy is just mob rule, even a middle class twit knows that!
alistairproductions 8 months ago
@alistairproductions Middle class twits always confuse their own comfortable lives with the lives of others. That is why they so smugly idealize capitalism as some sort of utopian ideal. Since we all know free markets can't exist without a powerful state to protect them (or at least without a privately-hired army to crush democratic resistance), they distort "voluntary transaction" into some sort of liberating principle. Which is why I love how nervous they are about "mob rule."
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron How do you gather that I'm confusing "my comfortable life with the lives of others". I never even made reference to my life, nor even vaguely suggested that I live in a free market capitalist society right now so I altogether can't understand what you're suggesting. I think you think I think I'm in a capitalist society now, which I don't. It's a corporatist fascist state.Also capitalism is the opposite of the state, what do you mean "It cant exist WITHOUT the state. WHAT!? bollocks..
alistairproductions 8 months ago
@agapeiron Also, "democratic resistance"??? Define that for me. Do it. Define democratic resistance. I think you'll have a hard time, since it's one of those phrases that has no actual meaning besides sounding nice. If you're into freedom you're into voluntary transactions of goods and services.. In other words "humans doing as the will" basically. Then there's the opposite: Elections, (mob rule booths) "politicians" (scum) law (forcefully enforced myth), taxation (theft)... Which will it be???
alistairproductions 8 months ago
@agapeiron Without Property rights, there is no freedom it's that simple, free market capitalism, no coercion, fraud, or force, it is a volunteer society.
wtfjaftw 8 months ago
@wtfjaftw What do you mean by property? Do you mean having your own clothes, bed, pans, utensils etc. or do you mean having real estate like apartment & office buildings or a piece of nature, intellectual creations etc. In the first case I would certainly agree with you, but in the last case I completely disagree. Also property doesn´t necessarily equal freedom & vice versa.
TheRacistsMustDie 8 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie So what does it mean? Government has right to property? Lets turn it around How is collectivist group have ownership of your property freedom? If you can't do what you want with your property, without and you were dictated I would call that oppression.
wtfjaftw 8 months ago
@wtfjaftw Well "should anyone have the right to those second types of property?" is more what I had in mind. Again for example: intellectual property(IP), should a legal person (an individual, a corporation, a government) own for example a song? & the whole idea of IP isn't even that old - 250 years or so - in itself that's not at all a valid argument against IP, but it would be good to ask: "Where people less free before the existence of IP?" &: Are they now more free because of IP?
TheRacistsMustDie 8 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie What? intellectually property is a farse, and an monopoly. Ideas cannot be stolen there is no object to take it from.
wtfjaftw 8 months ago
@wtfjaftw Also again the example of real estate(RE). We think of it as a natural thing, but it's actually a Western idea which didn't exist in that way in the rest Afro-Eurasia. Where in the West one indication of wealth was RE ownership, in Africa or South-East-Asia it was: How much labour did you own? Now Western isn't inherently bad, & the other system is not preferable either. But again: Where people less free before the existence of RE?" &: "Are they now more free because of RE?"
TheRacistsMustDie 8 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie What? your saying property rights is only real estistate, no animals, tools, weapons. If there was no basic understanding of property why would ancient people make art and culture on things that wasn't theirs? Stealing(force) under complete chaos is not freedom! It's hell! Want Anarcho-socialism go back to the dark ages!
wtfjaftw 8 months ago
@wtfjaftw No I'm saying RE is something that can be somebodies property and also that RE didn't use to exist everywhere. I say all that to pose the question: "shouldn't maybe some things not be able to be the property of anybody/thing". I'm not saying I know where to draw the line. Art & culture has communal origins with social coherence as original goal. The 3 following sentences I simply don't understand. & IP is indeed a farce but a legal reality & they can be stolen from their legal owner.
TheRacistsMustDie 8 months ago