This lecture is worth 3 months of trying to pry information and anchoring facts and empowering insights from mainstream media. Thank you for sharing it with world at large.
i wonder why Chomsky has a plastic water bottle with him out there? So we're basically at the whims of a tiny group of degraded, socio-pathic, meglomanical power elites who are filming us, stressing us, robbing us, killing us, raping us, oppressing us. And we're not doing anything about this?
@unfortunatebeam :) One needs to consider what part of the population you mean by "us" (unless, for instance, you default that the entire population owns a laptop or a PC; and then, what's your universe of discourse (US? Germay? Bulgaria? Zimbabwe?). Even if US is the universe of your discourse, please take a look at the statistics about PC (let alone laptop) ownership; you might be surprised (by tens of millions). Words like "us" and "we" are not necessarily descriptive holistically :). Next ..
@unfortunatebeam ... Next, there's the sense of confusion that consumer goods (such as bottled water) would haven't been around, hadn't companies been founded on the principal of shareholder profit maximization. Albeit,maximization of shareholder profit is not the one and unique drive of economy and "economy" should not be equated with the current status quo. Economy is defined, by the way, "as the system of production and distribution and consumption"; nothing there about shareholders and CEOs.
@unfortunatebeam That is, one needs to consider the alternative of stakeholders benefit maximization as an economical drive (also, yielding consumer goods and services such as bottled water, cameras, films,.... ). And while doing that one should not equate stakeholder driven economy with state socialism, for instance. (Thus, pointing the failure of state socialism in some countries as an example of the failure of stakeholders driven economy is not sustainable claim.)
@unfortunatebeam The next point is self evident: of course, the people that you mention are not killing, stressing, raping, etc. us. Why would they? It is people among society that kill, rape, stress, oppress especially when they are conditioned into a state of such predisposition. Beside the point, would it be fair to say that if the proportion of people on welfare committing crimes is higher than that of the people owning a laptop, then it is welfare that is the cause?
@unfortunatebeam Similarly, the people that you refer to are not degraded, socio-pathic, megalomaniacs. In fact, I am sure, they are people that care about their family, love, cry, mourn, enjoy nature and good dinner (when presented with opportunity and time for that); they go to the toilet for that matter, as all Human beings do. All things being equal, it is people that govern institutions: though institutions (political, capitalistic, etc.) are not people or human.
@unfortunatebeam Now, apply epithets such as degraded, socio-pathic, meglomanical power, elite to a bulk of institutions, think about their role in society and see if the epithets fit (but see that based on information and full array of facts). You, again, might be at surprise: it is like a tailor made suit :) In fact, it is a tailor made suit. Then, ask who was/were the tailors; were they ill-intentioned, if not, were they incompetent; or, were they well-intentioned, but for their family?
@unfortunatebeam To illustrate the point, think about the plastic water bottle and this video: watch?v=OZbTXDkrD1o . That goes without comment (there are many more, much better videos online on the perils of plastic bottles as externalities of conditioning, shareholder profit, institutional sociopathy :). And this is a small example. To end this, perhaps meaningless, thread of response to your question (very serious in fact). No, "we" are doing things, but not too many or enough.
His talk about defunding leading onto privitisation is immensely relevant to current British Politics. See the 'Big Society' stripping of funds from public institutions such as libraries in the UK - it presents itself as emancipating the people by localising control of government funded organisations.
@mnik0623 Your removed reply to me - could you explain it? If there were more than one then the version I can see in my message box is a little incongruent?
@owenhunt It was one of the replies meant for unfortunatebeam's comment; I accidentally post it to you instead of unfortunatebeam, then removed it. The rest of the replies to unfortunatebeam are in order from bottom to top starting from his comment; (to whoever might be interested to read them :)
" 'Privatization' does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person; it means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyranny.
Public institutions have many side benefits ... " -- Noam Chomsky
This lecture is worth 3 months of trying to pry information and anchoring facts and empowering insights from mainstream media. Thank you for sharing it with world at large.
37Dionysos 11 months ago 3
i wonder why Chomsky has a plastic water bottle with him out there? So we're basically at the whims of a tiny group of degraded, socio-pathic, meglomanical power elites who are filming us, stressing us, robbing us, killing us, raping us, oppressing us. And we're not doing anything about this?
unfortunatebeam 1 year ago
@unfortunatebeam :) One needs to consider what part of the population you mean by "us" (unless, for instance, you default that the entire population owns a laptop or a PC; and then, what's your universe of discourse (US? Germay? Bulgaria? Zimbabwe?). Even if US is the universe of your discourse, please take a look at the statistics about PC (let alone laptop) ownership; you might be surprised (by tens of millions). Words like "us" and "we" are not necessarily descriptive holistically :). Next ..
mnik0623 11 months ago
@unfortunatebeam ... Next, there's the sense of confusion that consumer goods (such as bottled water) would haven't been around, hadn't companies been founded on the principal of shareholder profit maximization. Albeit,maximization of shareholder profit is not the one and unique drive of economy and "economy" should not be equated with the current status quo. Economy is defined, by the way, "as the system of production and distribution and consumption"; nothing there about shareholders and CEOs.
mnik0623 11 months ago
@unfortunatebeam That is, one needs to consider the alternative of stakeholders benefit maximization as an economical drive (also, yielding consumer goods and services such as bottled water, cameras, films,.... ). And while doing that one should not equate stakeholder driven economy with state socialism, for instance. (Thus, pointing the failure of state socialism in some countries as an example of the failure of stakeholders driven economy is not sustainable claim.)
mnik0623 11 months ago
@unfortunatebeam The next point is self evident: of course, the people that you mention are not killing, stressing, raping, etc. us. Why would they? It is people among society that kill, rape, stress, oppress especially when they are conditioned into a state of such predisposition. Beside the point, would it be fair to say that if the proportion of people on welfare committing crimes is higher than that of the people owning a laptop, then it is welfare that is the cause?
mnik0623 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unfortunatebeam Similarly, the people that you refer to are not degraded, socio-pathic, megalomaniacs. In fact, I am sure, they are people that care about their family, love, cry, mourn, enjoy nature and good dinner (when presented with opportunity and time for that); they go to the toilet for that matter, as all Human beings do. All things being equal, it is people that govern institutions: though institutions (political, capitalistic, etc.) are not people or human.
mnik0623 11 months ago
@unfortunatebeam Now, apply epithets such as degraded, socio-pathic, meglomanical power, elite to a bulk of institutions, think about their role in society and see if the epithets fit (but see that based on information and full array of facts). You, again, might be at surprise: it is like a tailor made suit :) In fact, it is a tailor made suit. Then, ask who was/were the tailors; were they ill-intentioned, if not, were they incompetent; or, were they well-intentioned, but for their family?
mnik0623 11 months ago
@unfortunatebeam To illustrate the point, think about the plastic water bottle and this video: watch?v=OZbTXDkrD1o . That goes without comment (there are many more, much better videos online on the perils of plastic bottles as externalities of conditioning, shareholder profit, institutional sociopathy :). And this is a small example. To end this, perhaps meaningless, thread of response to your question (very serious in fact). No, "we" are doing things, but not too many or enough.
mnik0623 11 months ago
@mnik0623 I hope you're criticizing the university organizers for this thoughtless action.
Cowbair 11 months ago
His talk about defunding leading onto privitisation is immensely relevant to current British Politics. See the 'Big Society' stripping of funds from public institutions such as libraries in the UK - it presents itself as emancipating the people by localising control of government funded organisations.
owenhunt 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
mnik0623 11 months ago
@mnik0623 Your removed reply to me - could you explain it? If there were more than one then the version I can see in my message box is a little incongruent?
owenhunt 11 months ago
@owenhunt It was one of the replies meant for unfortunatebeam's comment; I accidentally post it to you instead of unfortunatebeam, then removed it. The rest of the replies to unfortunatebeam are in order from bottom to top starting from his comment; (to whoever might be interested to read them :)
mnik0623 11 months ago
Comment removed
owenhunt 11 months ago
If you value logic and reasoning in your life you come across ''Noam Chomsky'' lol
Reptile0000 1 year ago
" 'Privatization' does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person; it means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyranny.
Public institutions have many side benefits ... " -- Noam Chomsky
wda013 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
wda013 1 year ago