chomsky likes to talk about the importance of equality, but doesn't go to far in depth of liberty. i would like to hear what measures he would support the govt going to in order to stop consentual and voluntary exchange between private parties. force and violence would be my guess.
That last line, "If words have lost their meaning, it becomes impossible to talk", feels very familiar to Orwell's message through the development in 1984 of the New Speak language. However, New Speak's goal was to destroy words and thereby destroy thought. What Chomsky pointed out is, we can witness the hindering of thought, through the distortion of language. It's real and tangible, and almost as scary as Oceania's New Speak.
@rcarass1 nice comment, though I thought that New Speak's goal was NOT to destroy WORDS, but to destroy past and fuck with people's memories, thus distorting absurd reality of Oceania's and Big Brother's dictatorships. They were constantly rewriting even past months newspapers. Moreover, even diaries were forbidden because it would hold memory, thus creating different from "constant" today's traditions and values. Pretty much what marketing does with us now, but in more subtle way
@rcarass1 Excellent comment... I notice this quite a lot, and I'm particulary aware of it when I myself use political terminology. We all play fast and loose with these words unaware that, most of the time, what we are saying is semantically vacuous. Politicians are especially accomplished in this game.
Now we all recognize libertarianism for what it is, it isn't the Zionist cult of Ayn Rand which is frigid and mildly psychopathic. It isn't crony capitalism or neoconservatism. It's classical liberalism and Murray Rothbard and the Founding fathers. Jefferson didn't talk about equality because financial equality demands a statist society which is tyrannical. Jefferson talked against the Hamiltonians, their shitty central banks, was against tyranny and advocated free trade with all nations.
That's NOT what libertarianism is as explained in the very video you're commenting on.
The term itself was coined in 1857 by a French socialist-anarchist named Joseph Dejacque and for over a century had been used as a synonym for "anti-statist/anti-authoritarian socialism" Which it's still used for today outside the US
It was only co-opted by Murray Rothbard (founder of the oxymoron of anarcho-capitalism and co. in the 1950s
@MsSexySocialist Point conceded about the etymological origin of the term.
However, 'the oxymoron of anarcho-capitalism':
I can't see how capitalism necessitates a state in order to operate. Quite the reverse, it's syndicalism that would require such circumstances to ensure the the democratic vote of the workers.
Capitalism is by definition "the market economy with private ownership and control of the means of production". While a market economy could exist outside capitalism, the institution of "private ownership and control of the MOP" could never be enforced without some external authority able to use violence (ie: a state).
For example, a single individual could not claim to "own" an entire ceramics factory by themselves with over 100 employees . . .
. . . without some outside force able to use violence to ensure said employees don't start running the factory themselves.
In "anarcho"-capitalism all the negative functions of the state are merely decentralized into *private defense agencies* which are simply micro-states to whom one becomes a customer to instead of a citizen.
On the topic of syndicalism, I dont advocate it myself but your claim that it somehow requires a state can only be made by misunderstanding it
@Verradonairun He opposes any elite class that controls and owns the means of production and thereby the workers dependent upon said production. There...Did you get that? The workers should own what they make according to Liberal populism like Chomsky supports.
@Verradonairun Yeah it is Marxism, and the Marxist dialectic doesn't need to include a giant state that controls the workers and replaces the global capitalists, even though Marx would wrongly point to that as the solution. The founding fathers believed in workers having social mobility by removing the transnational finance/money changing capitalist that flees everywhere anyway. Unless you own the product of your labor, you are a slave. This ideology WAS America.
@Verradonairun There's no such thing as a "revolutionary without a revolution." It's called a field nigger buddy. I'm just another shackled prole who's pissed off because his slave notes don't represent the labor that they were intended to repay. Watch your costs and taxes go up while your pay goes into an inflationary black hole sucker! Get on top instead of being the pathetic house nigger that you are.
@PrimeConsciousness Rejoice in that which you have, for the acquisition of what you have not may come at too high a cost for you to bear. As for me, I am already on top.
I am not black and you're not Malcolm X so stop the "house nigger vs. field nigger"-rhetoric. It offends me, and doesn't suit you.
@Verradonairun Finally I get something remotely intelligent out of you. I'm not some ambitious douche trying to get anything from anyone. I don't rejoice in what I have because death reveals my identity and its dross as the bewildered delusion that it is.
@PrimeConsciousness "...and its dross as the bewildered delusion that it is." - You're not content with what you have because death reveals your deluded identity?
Till I met you, I didn't know that circular logic mixed with irrational arguments would produce a piece of writing that is both frustrating - and to a certain extent concerning - to read. I also didn't know psychiatric hospitals provided internet to their patients. I suppose it's a nice gesture...
@Verradonairun LoL. There's no circular logic at play, only Nihilism The entire human condition produces a filthy myopia that serves certain needs nonetheless. Just because I am a worthless temporal dust being doesn't mean that I can't have opinions and concerns. I even have monkey empathy for my fellow dust beings. We have no right to disturb creatures. I am too insane for an insane asylum because my insanity is the Vedas. I'd turn the docs into patients.
@Verradonairun I think you're imagining me too much along the lines of Reb & Vodka... They wanted to become demon gods and all... I'm just another rambling philosopher. We're all a little fucked up ya know...LoL.
What he describes as 'the perversity of american culture' I would say was simply the evolution of the meaning of words. This evolution is controlled by the local environment. Words change meanings. To say that your usage of a word hails to to the original definition of libertarian in the Adam Smith school of thought is not any less perverse than a self-described neo-libertarian, its just different. The important take away is one must have a clear understanding of the context of word usage.
Whether he would say it or not, when government intervenes, it rarely - if ever - solves an issue, whatever it may be, without garnering itself against personal liberty. If anyone wanted to give ab example to the contrary I would be excited to know about it.
If you bother about freedom at all, what you take upfront as that any relation of authority, any form of power is assumed illegitimate until otherwise established.
I would say that some forms of power can be justified -- and, in any regard, if we cannot avoid one, we should always take the better over the worst: even though he held it rhetorically, I would stand by Obama when he said you win nothing by sustaining a purist position. Even a small victory is desirable.
I do not think that all governmental intervention are that much undesirable. Ideally, it wouldn't be as centralized, but then it's still less annoying to look at than unfettered markets.
The argument I make often is that the government is theoretically capable of solving a lot of problems, economically and socially speaking.
The argument I suspect Chomsky would answer me with is that I am right in saying that governmental interventions of many kinds could be used to improve our conditions, but that I am probably out of the track if I think the political institutions as they are would ever allow for that to happen.
@richardflog When Obama passes the bill that essentially throws away your trial rights, will you then still throw your vote his way? Ron Paul may not be perfect, but ending the damn wars and auditing the fed is important enough that he can't possibly screw things up worse than any of the other puppets.
@Xylogeist Then there's the controversy that he wouldn't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... But I do agree, the illegal wars in the Middle East and North Africa need to end, the War on Drugs needs to end, and the gov't should stop meddling in the People's affairs. But I don't agree that cutting taxes for corporation is the way to go (as Paul has suggested)
@richardflog Well... there shouldn't be taxes period. There was no corporate or income tax when this country was founded, and we don't need it now. Sales tax and import taxes are fine, because those are noncoercive.
@Xylogeist So the take out the income tax and add it to the sales tax? Here, typical sales is 9-10%. Are you suggesting make it 15-20%? Or scrap those public services all together? The second sounds quite cruel... Although, I'd be all for it if the services being scraped are for national weaponry and defense. Those I'd be glad to be rid of.
if that's your only issue with Ron Paul, you should seriously re-think voting for Obama. Paul is pro-life, but he's firstly pro-states rights, meaning he thinks it's the responsibly of each state to decide for themselves what their laws will be concerning abortion. Besides, he needs to save face in front of republican voters- he couldnt say he was pro-choice even though i suspect he is- after all, he is a strong believer in self-autonomy (choice)
@TermTres Whether you want a socialist world or capitalist, the people within that system must change for it to work well. Now libertarian free market ideas give the most incentive for the people to be involved and aware. The deal of the pure market was basically if you dont pay attention you will get cheated. It seems people like you have forgotten the deal and now complain that greedy men cheated you. NO SHIT! That is why it is OUR(consumers) job to stop it, NOT A GOVERNMENT.
@TermTres Maybe we "spam" because we believe in what we are talking about. Obviously the world is crooked. It has to be fixed, now this collapse will be used by people with your mindset to create more centralized power of the global economy and governments. We libertarians want the other direction. Now most of us know that the people will criticize us, it is common in history. We are called "fundamentalists" by people who actually consider it an insult or negative trait.
@TermTres See now you are contradicting yourself. Libertarianism is a philosophy which argues that there is no path to utopia to be found in government structure. We do want a static economic system because if you are kinetic, where are you going and why? You are the one arguing for a kinetic structure which its design depends on the year in which it exists. A free market will work the same in year 1 and year 2011.
@Jononutoob Eutopia is exactly that... it doesn't existe, so all that burble talked by people like Mr Cham-psky, is just brainwashing stuff, for those whom, he and other consider... as he himself says 'below' ... He must have a love afair with Adam Smith... just a thought!
@TermTres You want a system backed up by fact. You want a system supported by historical data which shows it will succeed. What you want is impossible. I study history as much as I can and I can assure you that no nation in all of human history has lasted in the same system forever. They always reform themselves into different systems because of the people within them and the situations those people run into. Guess what, its a pattern. Or a human nature assumption like you say.
@TermTres If Ron Paul supporters like me are such ignorant people then why is there such a move to insult us? I saw all your comments with people just bombing us with insults. Yes I am living in the real world. Do I expect charities to take care of everyone who gets sick, no, and Paul has never said that. Do I want companies to openly make workers slaves in a free market? No! And Paul never said that either. You guys come to conclusions and assumptions just like I do.
it absolutely makes me sick how loons supporting Ron Paul and Penn and so on run their mouths on libertarian views when they know nothing about true libertarianism
@TermTres It's funny, because that's exactly what staunch socialists say to support the implementation of their ideology. "It's never -truly- existed, so it can't be criticized. The part about Paul and private charities actually being willing and able to take up the slack left behind in the absence of the federal government is just laughable.
What "DISGUSTING" is that this is one of the methdes that the Germans-Nazies use in "GETHO-WARSHA" and "Hawshvitts" in Germany and I know for sure some Russians-Jews doing this horrible horrible "Electronic Weapon" and more torturing on some Targeted-Individual" that they are Jews also!
In here Noam Chomsky IS The Voice of Reason...how about this: he writes books to address issues that need addressing? Hypocrite? As if you can not be against capitalism if you write books about how bad capitalism is? How would you go about writing without any funding???
So would you agree with getting rid of all trade union legislature and allow unions to participate in wild cat strikes and secondary action. After all unions are corporations offering a service to their members so why should big government try to control them?
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@shortywheat Ron Paul supporters love the peaceful message. Chomsky's syndicalism is identical to libertarianism (not crony 'libertarianism' where as he says the merchant elite buys the legislator). If you have a group of syndicalists who open a restaurant, now hire a waitress. The waitress has a vote. She can vote to work a few hours a day, but knows the business will go belly up and she will be jobless. She thus conforms to the originators. So you're merely increasing the number of owners.
@Otzmatron correct - but doesn't that stop power from congregating in few too hands vizi-a-viz a few 100 shareholders treating tens of thousands of food workers like slaves.
@32peartree Not really, because instead of a few merchants and bankers you'd have hundreds of them but still corrupt and nasty and destructive. You need to end the marriage between business and state. You need to allow competition and get the government out of the free market, it gives subsidies to a certain product and company which inflates the price. If you allow competition, financial institutions would have to compete with others to provides goods and services.
@Jononutoob if that is your name: have you not noticed that CEO 's and Politicians switch chairs once every "election" in so called "democracies." So are those former CEO 's going to make laws that gives their pals problems and reduces their election funding next "election"? Have you not noticed that the candidate with the most money "wins" ? "Free" markets have not been tried in so called developed countries. That is why they developed. It have only been tried in the so called third world...
@janerikkvalheim I dont understand your attitude towards me, I have openly said there are private interests in govt and vice versa. As long as you have a govt that oversees so much as it does now, you will have private interests that will infect the govt and corrupt it. So I think you have the wrong person there, I have already explained how private interests infect the govt. What libertarians like me are saying is, MAKE THE GOVT SMALLER so that corruption is less powerful.
@Jononutoob will less government mean no anti-union legislation - no police or prisons. The rich will always advocate big government when it suits their interests
@janerikkvalheim Also money matters in elections. Now lets look at who has the authority of the election laws. Does GE decide electoral decisions or does congress and the supreme court? And I wont even touch on your flawed ideas about nations develop because they DONT have free markets. I wonder if you realize that the only reason America isnt a 2nd or 3rd world nation is because we can print money whenever we want and we can just increase our debt. Power built on debt is temporary.
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of the working class for material interest of the criminal ruling elite.
So who wrote the laws which require corporations to maximize profit? Was it a company with no authority to legislate or was it government? Free markets work, IF the people are responsible enough to be aware. I can control a corporation far easier than government. I can stop buying a company's products and I immediately influence them. As opposed to voting or calling my congressman who will just ignore me. You cant blame free markets or capitalism because we never really had it.
@Jononutoob Try boycotting McDonalds as one person, hell, even as a "huge" group of people (huge in quotes since a brand name known the world over would have to be facing hundreds of millions for huge to be applicable) and you will find that it's not so easy to dismantle a corporation from the consumer end. With government, you wait a couple years and pick some different guys who more fully represent you.
@TylerGuru So you want to dismantle corporations? I am a capitalist, I dont want to dismantle corporations, I want the government to stop helping corporations. Wait to elect better representatives? HA! Good luck with that. I cant name 1 modern administration that stopped corruption between govt and the private sector. If a million people stop buying mcdonalds, you can bet your ass McDonalds will notice. And even if it is just me, I am expressing my self alone then.
@Jononutoob The problem is that in the real world boycotts of corporations are very rarely effective. Look to Wal-Mart and the millions involved in regular protests, information campaigns, strikes, etc. and you will see that consumer action in the 21st century simply is not enough to rattle the bones of any corporation with enough power to really stretch its legs out and hurt anyone. It's a grim reality. I agree completely that the government should stop helping corporations.
@TylerGuru The govt is the source of the problem, cut down the federal government and the spine which holds up this corrupt private sector will fall. But all the fooled liberals who think they can make govt larger to help America obviously have not read any of the founders of this nation. Liberty requires the people to be self dependent and self responsible, if they are not then either you will lose your freedom to govt or private interests. This is a natural law.
@ElDukerino1 Yes if people were aware nearly any system could work well. And yes if people are not aware then no system would work very well. I would say communism and socialism require or create the most collective manipulation or deception. Your argument I feel is that we have never had a population fully aware and if we did it wouldnt matter what system we had. I can agree. This is like saying if we had a dictatorship and the dictator was perfect then it would be a good system.
@ElDukerino1 I would say socialism or communism create or require the most collective deception or manipulation. I know that people are not and have never been fully aware or wise people as a group. It is this reason which makes me a libertarian. I dont want the masses failures to be so directly injected into my own life. I dont want less money in my pocket to pay for the mistakes of others just like I dont want more money from someone else to pay for my mistakes. And ignorance is a mistake.
You say you’re libertarian, but also for capitalism. These aren’t necessarily inconsistent, but they are certainly not the same thing, so let's focus on capitalism (this is what I'm questioning).
I think we know capitalism incents people to deceive to a great extent (right?). And I agree certain brands of socialism/communism (of the statist variety) create this incentive & are good machines for accomplishing it too. But, how does “libertarian socialism” create this incentive?
@ElDukerino1 Capitalism incents companies to motivate or entice someone to want what they are selling. If a person is dumb enough to see a handbag commercial and then go out the next minute and buy a handbag they dont need, then that is their stupidity. Listen, I am against materialism, I am against greed. But as long as people want this crap and want more of it, then I see no fault in rich men selling this stuff. What I do hate is government interference in the markets.
@ElDukerino1 Now chrony capitalism invites waste, poor investing, more greedy behavior, and down right lying by both government and companies. But tricking someone into buying something is different than a law that says you have to buy something. I think libertarian socialism can work well, but it needs a group of people who are willing to work hard and work together. Because if it doesnt then a libertarian socialist system will end up a statist system. Just like everything else.
"But tricking someone into (1) buying something is different than (2) a law that says you have to buy something."
Yes, these are 2 different devices & it seems the 2nd restricts one's choices more (although that's not necessarily true), but I'd be concerned with trying to do away with both as much as possible...I mean, restricting the ability for #1 doesn't entail #2, right?
Also, in some cases #2 is actually justified whereas #1 is never justified, #1 is just harder to detect.
@ElDukerino1 To force someone to do anything is worse than being tricked. You cant do away with both completely because they are natural to business and human nature. But you can reduce #1 by giving the incentive to the consumer to pay attention to what they buy and from who. Also the government does have the role to enforce contracts. Now #2 is wrong because the government has no right to force me or you to buy a good or service. I think we have different ideas of what liberty is.
"To force someone to do anything is worse than being tricked"
Really? So to "force" someone to pay .01% of their income toward something that 99.9% of the society they live amongst believes is right (like a legal system) is worse than maintaining a system where a goliath econcomic interest can easily "trick" someone into going bankrupt. I agree a system ought to incent responsibility, but where do you draw the line? I think democracy is the most just means for drawing the lines.
And just to be more clear, I was really advocating that people are forced to "not do things" (negative force) which is a little different than forcing people "to do something" (positive force). The negative force can be based on principles like "it is always wrong to do this or that" wheras the positive force is usually something that could be justified on pragmatic grounds (such as forcing society to contribute to education, national defense, law enforcement, healthcare, etc)
@ElDukerino1 Yes force is worse than deception. I dont like either but force is wrong because it normally always damages your rights. I dont see any god given right of man to be given the truth. If someone lies to me, I dont blame that person as much as I blame myself for believing it. I hope I am dead before full democracy sets in on America. Have you seen the majority of Americans? They cant even list all their rights.
Ok, in general yeah, but again there are different effects of each of these types of force (as I gave example of). So, yeah, forcing someone to "keep their hands to themself" is probably a bit more justifiable than forcing someone to "not lie" in most cases. But you have to consider damange done by any force (the 'type' of force itself isn't whole picture). And the force should be given weight by how difficult it is to overcome...cont'd
@ElDukerino1 I would rather the govt lie to me first rather than beat my brains in. You are right that force can be many things. I could even argue that income taxes could be deceptive in nature. Govt can use force or lies to get their way. Companies can only use lies because it is illegal for a company to beat you up. Unless that company works with govt. Govt is the force, that is the ram. Only govt has the force to enslave the people.
I'm kind of with you on the point about the government being the "ram"& I'd like to reduce govt as much as possible. But why not advocate a system that either makes so that it's not an incentive to deceive, or to straight out punish the deception more harshly (as it would be if they "beat you up".) What's the big difference aside from maybe the idea that people can overcome the lying more so than the physical force..is that your position? that the lying is just easier to overcome?
@ElDukerino1 Yes I see lying as much easier to overcome. I see states easier to overcome than the feds. I see corporations easier to control than corporations with govt ties. I just have a very temporary perspective. I am alive today so I want to live the most free today. All this progress, utopia building, or global world economy, is just nonsense to me. I think it is man trying to make a perfect balanced system that is not possible because man if loose in the skull right now.
Well I myself would be for Ron Paul (vs all the other big govt advocates) even though I really have come to recognize some real big flaws in "free market w/ the special case of capitalism" which is what he advocates. I guess I'm also for cutting this big govt machine down to size asap as an immediate priority. It's still worthwhile to try to advocate what we feel would be progress & if everyone shares these ideas more, there will be real progress.
@ElDukerino1 Honestly I dont really have any angry disagreement at anyone who thinks different. I just dont see how someone can possibly not vote Paul. I mean it just boggles my mind. And with Paul you dont have to be republican. Im sure Paul would have democratic counsel. If we cant agree on the constitution then we are just going left and right, back and forth until implosion.
@ElDukerino1 The system I see giving me the most possible control over my life is a free market libertarian republic. I dont plan to live forever so I want to live as long as possible as a free man. I dont know, some people are content with the shit, and some arent but want crazy things to fix it. I think it is kinda weird how a lion in Africa is a more wild animal than I. People are boxed in, give em a lil freedom and watch. But many people fear their peers. We are all strangers.
Well back to our earlier discussions, I don't think capitalism has much to do with free markets/liberty. The idea that you can pursue whatever you want without infringing on other people's pursuits is what everyone agrees on, but this is just empty rhetoric because everyone has their own idea of what infringes on what. Capitalism has been put forth with a lot of "lying" and more people buy into it than I can believe..Ur right that once the govt distraction is gone, people will see.
@ElDukerino1 I look at the country and I see the govt holding us in a really right bear hug. And the govt squeezes us really hard sometimes. And while they hold us smother us, the private aspects of tyranny sneak in and make some money or wealth(power). If not for the government the American people would have overthrown the financial tyranny on us long ago. But it is more obvious govt is problem. So they need to do less. Much less. Citizens need to do more. (continued)
@ElDukerino1 I dont exploit people. But people do get exploited and after they do, they get all pissed and go to government to fix it. Then the government is in charge of controlling exploitation, which is hilarious. If people would stop being lazy morons, they could use the free market to their advantage. And I dont mean making money. I mean controlling corporations. People need to take responsibility for their decisions, no system will work well until that happens.
cont'd...And we should recognize the context/environment of where the force (ie lying) is being perpetrated. So, to tolerate lying w/in a framework like capitalism for example (which is a system largely based on & justified by the assumption of informed counterparties & btw has plenty of "force" involved in its maintenance) is pretty perverse. Again, it may not be a big deal to you (because you can overcome the lying somehow), but I don't think you could speak for everyone on this.
And so, It seems you want to limit the ability for "negative force" (ie preventing actions) on pragmatic grounds (i.e. you'd allow some people to do what is clearly wrong in order to somehow salvage "personal responsibility"). I guess you advocate the "tough love" approach which isn't totally outlandish...Or else maybe it's just in your interest given your traits to have opportunity to be an "exploiter" w/ less chance that you'd be an "exploitee" in this kind of system you advocate.
@Jononutoob "I dont want less money in my pocket to pay for the mistakes of others just like I dont want more money from someone else to pay for my mistakes."
Did you even listen to the video? And why is it that "libertarians" always claim it have never excisted? First of all it has, and it always ends up in some sort of system where the people suffer, for instance corporatism. Second, why is it that it has to have existed to say it would not work? Don't you have a brain? If anything, the "fact" that it has never excisted would be a testament to that it does not work.
And btw, socialism and communism have never existed either.
@TheSaltyAdmiral I do have a brain. When has free market capitalism existed? People suffer in all kinds of systems. But what liberals and others dont seem to comprehend is that in a free market system it offers the best chance for a person to decide the most aspects of their financial life. If you dont work, you dont eat. If you dont help others, then dont expect it back. It is fair. And it isnt the fault of libertarians or free markets that the people choose/allow corporatism.
@Jononutoob I think that's true, but for a population to be aware you'd need an excellent not-for-profit education system in place. "the people" would need enough skills and information to analyze the products or companies they're supporting
@junskey You're making a big assumption: that education can increase intelligence. This is patently false, as intelligence is determined genetically and differs between individuals.
@junskey In nature, if a mama bear doesnt teach the young one enough, it will not survive when it grows older. Parents are important. If parents cant teach their children how to be aware of the world around them then why should I pay for their education on such things? That kind of system creates more ignorance in society and poor behavior by parents and youth.
i view myself as a conservative because i stand for the values that have been carried along in human societies for thousands of years, they stand for conservative because they stand for whatever is the corporate whim and whatever powerful rich people say is right.
yes finally, this is the real libertarianism (anarcho/socialism), term was founded by a french anarchist. The American version is typical hijacked bullshit.
Don’t forget Chomsky is a socialist linguist, his job is to keep the firmament of language in public discourse constantly shifting, a la Orwell’s newspeak. Orwell himself did the same for British intelligence so he knew what he was writing about. American Libertarians are the same old classical liberals we always were, if you wonder why the word “liberal” used to mean Thomas Jefferson but now means Abby Hoffman it was people like Chomsky shifting the sands of language on you.
Liberalism is a quest to maximize freedom...If you want to try to compare the status of freedom (let alone the changes in economic relations) in the times of Thomas Jefferson to recent times, I think you are really just missing the point. Holding on to mechanisms and/or theories that at one time may have been thought to be the best mechanisms for liberty is not a libertarian value...as Chomsky points out here, it can be (and indeed is to some extent) the opposite.
@Tyrfingr Re: How come people who do their own research is agreeing with his conclusions then ?
Because they have the same agenda as he, and didn’t research our libertarian candidate, Dr. Ron Paul who, goes on incessantly about corporatism. The fact is, that corporatism can’t exist without a large central statist govt. and it's bureaucracies to fix things for them; antithetical to classical liberalism (Libertarianism) "That governs best which governs least".
@Frumibandersnatch I don't think he or anyone else has suggested that government should be totally cut off, that's an utopian ideal that any free and independent person aims towards. But all rational people understands that they have to make compromises when many are involved.
Government should rather be limited in the way that they can operate with lobbyists. With the consequence that corporations would become internally democritized, rather than remaining as "Totalitatian institutions"
@Tyrfingr Totalitarianism was a term first coined by Mussolini, it meant govt. involvement in all aspect of the citizen/subjects life from cradle to grave in its totality. Corporations do this, Governments do.
Re: "Government should rather be limited in the way that they can operate with lobbyists."
They should be limited in the way they do everything! This was the idea in Philadelphia in 1787, this is what the Constitution was supposed to do for us, but we are ignoring it.
Ron Paul does believe a similar Libertarian Philosopy to Adam Smith and we havent given that type of government a chance yet! Ron Paul is a traditional conservative like noam because he doesnt want ANY WARS OR CIA OR FBI OR ANY OTHER NO GOOD TROUBLE CAUSING AGENCY LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALOT OF THE PROBLEMS NOAM TALKS ABOUT!
@Alexanderisgreat well if you have no interests in this then stop insulting people who do. Everyone who thinks that other people are fools because there are having opinion about some ideology than that person definitely failed in life because it's easier to say fuck all, then actually educating yourself about thing that you dont know
I'm mostly with you on all of that, however, just like socialism is very possible in this dream world, so is feudalism or other forms of quasi slavery..extreme forms of either of these left/right utopias are pretty scary & not unlikely to develop absent a legitimate institution to initiate force when needed.
Otherwise, It would all depend on notions of property rights & who has power to enforce their notion..property rights are self affirming in theory but NEVER in practice.
One could characterize a particular system of unregulated capitalism in a similar kind of fashion (I wouldn't really accept that either).
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) humans are complex as are relations they have amongst one another. I'd say free markets are a good idea in general, but lots can go wrong in reality (when removed from simple theories)..the govt must enforce property rights, so why not enforce other universal laws that are democratically determined???
It's actually not a fallacy...the major fallacy (among others) in the way you're thinking is that "govt from 1778-1863" = "govt that was integral force in freeing slaves" (and even if they were =, your point still isn't valid).
The govt is simply whatever the people it serves dictate (just like a market behaves based on its members & their relatvie power & actions). Both of these complex entities can have their virtues & vices, neither is absolutely/necessarily this or that.
Well, I disagree with that. Slaves were freed via govt force. So, even as I recognize govt is/was the cause of many anti-liberty policies, there is the other side of the coin.
This is where Chomsky and Ron Paul are so different at a fundamental level.
I agree with your pointing out the commonalities, or where their fundamental aims overlap, because those are some very important things to do away with...however, they are starting from & ending at completely different places.
"A free market is just a population in absence of government."
I'd say: A free market is a population in absence of coercive forces...
Govt is not the ONLY coercive force (at least not in Chomsky's view), in fact he recognizes govt (or the like) as a means to combat other coercive forces. So basically, the govt in itself is nothing other than how it behaves...it could possibly be a force promoting liberty or not depending on the particular govt function you're looking at.
@ElDukerino1 As a business owner there is little coercion over you, but as an employee with a wage from someone else you are coerced in all sorts of ways. In a "free" market system only the markets are free (and perhaps the business owners), not the people. Most people would be just as conditioned and just as exploited by private oligarchs as they currently are by any state subsidized corporations. Profit maximization efforts unregulated, would lead to all sorts of human rights violations.
Agreed. Basically, in a free market system, your degree of freedom corresponds to your wealth, abilities and circumstances to a very great extent. Some people will always be dominated by others in a not-so-pretty sort of way, but at the least this sort of behavior should always be checked one way or another.
There are some similarities between these 2 guys as far as what they're against (e.g.the particulars you mentioned), but in the grander scheme here is the difference:
Chomsky: supports whatever mechanisms will lead to equality.
Ron Paul: supports unregulated markets, regardless of the outcome (there is a presumption this will maybe lead to equality, but the results wouldn't matter..unregulated market seems to be more the "end in itself").
So he says private tyranny is worse than public tyranny. Just to note: I can quit my job, I can boycott a company, I can start my own company. I cannot quit paying taxes, I cannot start my own country. Also note, the government forces me to pay taxes and often subsidizes the worst of the worst companies, of which I believe I have no say.
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
@4evaFranyify Yeah but his values are suitable for people who want "revolution" but without having to give up the goodies or attitudes of consumerist culture.
I like Chomsky however I think he is wrong. He is wrong on a few issues. Debatably wrong and I can understand the points he reaches and why however I read people writing things that are not accurate. The United States was founded on Classical Liberalism, The kind that went throughout Europe, it was Radical. Neo Classicalism I believe changed things. America has historically been weary of the corporation, that is a recent change in about 100 yrs. I'm sorry this is just not true.
Libertarians are divided on the issue of corporations. The Libertarian Party supports a pro-corporate agenda that would hand over total control over all of this nation's natural resources to multinationals (when they sell the national parks, who could outbid the multinationals?). The GOP uses arguments to justify measures that strengthen corporations by deregulating them, while simultaneously supporting massive (and clearly unlibertarian) handouts like the prescription drug benefit plan.
Someone explain to me: libertarians seek to minimize or eliminate the powers of the state, period. This is the definition in the United States AND all over the world. So what's Chomsky talking about?
@chinopisces Please explain to me why the United States idea of libertarianism (ie the 1971 Libertarian Party) is different from Chomsky's libertarianism
@Trimbler00: The definition of 'libertarian', in recent times, has somehow achieved the opposite meaning of which it was originally intended.
The term originally refers to "free thinking", where equality is believed to result in truly free market economies.
If you go to their site, the official party seems to agree with this notion, however, their actions have proved otherwise. Their monetary investments are typically partitioned to special interests and private corporations.
the free market hasn't existed in the developing world because free markets require power to enforce property rights.. if no one stops gangs from menacing others rights, the country won't progress. very cheap shot from chomsky here.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ~ Bastiat
adam smith didn't advocate free-markets with the clause that only under perfect liberty, and only if it lead to perfect equality. (i've read ' .. the wealth of nations' and chomsky has completely mis-represented smith to the point of lying)
private tyranny? that term breaks down very simply when you realise that these 'tyrannies' are subject to laws. it's also where they derive their power to exist.
no classical liberal support the corporate system.
He's tried to get elected as a Libertarian in the past, but doing so makes people see the stigmata before the message. Running as a Republican people are more likely to hear his message.
What I like about Chomsky is that very intelligent and well-read people listen to and read his stuff. And the level of comment is very thoughtful. What I like about Ayn Rand is that she is overt, admits that she believes Altruism is an evil thing. Praise the Right Wing, pass me the whole Turkey. Ayn Rand and Anne Coulter share a transparency that makes their aggressive role as corporate stooges overt and apparent, no false fronts there.
I think the person asking the question about the contradiction of Libertarian Socialism was trying to address the issue that while libertarianism attempts to minimize all forms of government because they represent a negation of liberty, socialism creates another form of government to manage the means of production and distribute goods. Ranting about linguistics is a great way to avoid the question.
@altaris2011 Libertarianism is the philosophy that advocates free will--obviously in favor of minimizing government control over people. Now, socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which is, by definition, also a way to limit government control, especially of the markets, which in turn rent people that depend on wage-labor or slave-labor. To a libertarian socialist, the idea of renting or enslaving a person is degrading to the very essence of human nature.
This has been flagged as spam show
if i take part in private trade, what will you do to me? if i keep control over my property, what will you do to me?
steveistheman84 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
chomsky likes to talk about the importance of equality, but doesn't go to far in depth of liberty. i would like to hear what measures he would support the govt going to in order to stop consentual and voluntary exchange between private parties. force and violence would be my guess.
steveistheman84 1 week ago
That last line, "If words have lost their meaning, it becomes impossible to talk", feels very familiar to Orwell's message through the development in 1984 of the New Speak language. However, New Speak's goal was to destroy words and thereby destroy thought. What Chomsky pointed out is, we can witness the hindering of thought, through the distortion of language. It's real and tangible, and almost as scary as Oceania's New Speak.
rcarass1 1 month ago 11
@rcarass1 nice comment, though I thought that New Speak's goal was NOT to destroy WORDS, but to destroy past and fuck with people's memories, thus distorting absurd reality of Oceania's and Big Brother's dictatorships. They were constantly rewriting even past months newspapers. Moreover, even diaries were forbidden because it would hold memory, thus creating different from "constant" today's traditions and values. Pretty much what marketing does with us now, but in more subtle way
FotoKadr 3 weeks ago
@rcarass1 Excellent comment... I notice this quite a lot, and I'm particulary aware of it when I myself use political terminology. We all play fast and loose with these words unaware that, most of the time, what we are saying is semantically vacuous. Politicians are especially accomplished in this game.
myopium 2 weeks ago
Now we all recognize libertarianism for what it is, it isn't the Zionist cult of Ayn Rand which is frigid and mildly psychopathic. It isn't crony capitalism or neoconservatism. It's classical liberalism and Murray Rothbard and the Founding fathers. Jefferson didn't talk about equality because financial equality demands a statist society which is tyrannical. Jefferson talked against the Hamiltonians, their shitty central banks, was against tyranny and advocated free trade with all nations.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
@Otzmatron
That's NOT what libertarianism is as explained in the very video you're commenting on.
The term itself was coined in 1857 by a French socialist-anarchist named Joseph Dejacque and for over a century had been used as a synonym for "anti-statist/anti-authoritarian socialism" Which it's still used for today outside the US
It was only co-opted by Murray Rothbard (founder of the oxymoron of anarcho-capitalism and co. in the 1950s
True libertarianism is antithetical to capitalism
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist Point conceded about the etymological origin of the term.
However, 'the oxymoron of anarcho-capitalism':
I can't see how capitalism necessitates a state in order to operate. Quite the reverse, it's syndicalism that would require such circumstances to ensure the the democratic vote of the workers.
Otzmatron 1 week ago
@Otzmatron (1/2)
Incorrect.
Capitalism is by definition "the market economy with private ownership and control of the means of production". While a market economy could exist outside capitalism, the institution of "private ownership and control of the MOP" could never be enforced without some external authority able to use violence (ie: a state).
For example, a single individual could not claim to "own" an entire ceramics factory by themselves with over 100 employees . . .
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@Otzmatron (2/2)
. . . without some outside force able to use violence to ensure said employees don't start running the factory themselves.
In "anarcho"-capitalism all the negative functions of the state are merely decentralized into *private defense agencies* which are simply micro-states to whom one becomes a customer to instead of a citizen.
On the topic of syndicalism, I dont advocate it myself but your claim that it somehow requires a state can only be made by misunderstanding it
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
noam chompsky is a fraud
Verradonairun 1 month ago
He's not a statist Rtard...
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@PrimeConsciousness a mongol knows better english than you. Make yourself clear!
Verradonairun 1 month ago
@Verradonairun He opposes any elite class that controls and owns the means of production and thereby the workers dependent upon said production. There...Did you get that? The workers should own what they make according to Liberal populism like Chomsky supports.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@PrimeConsciousness THAT'S FUCKING MARXISM, YOU IDIOT. NOT SOMETHING THIS FRAUD INVENTED!!!
Verradonairun 1 month ago
@Verradonairun Yeah it is Marxism, and the Marxist dialectic doesn't need to include a giant state that controls the workers and replaces the global capitalists, even though Marx would wrongly point to that as the solution. The founding fathers believed in workers having social mobility by removing the transnational finance/money changing capitalist that flees everywhere anyway. Unless you own the product of your labor, you are a slave. This ideology WAS America.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@Verradonairun 1776 was about a British bankign currency scam bro...Look it up. The global bankers never change their behavior, just their garments.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@Verradonairun Inflation renders your labor null and void prole.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@PrimeConsciousness I know people like you. You're a joke. A revolutionary without a revolution.
Verradonairun 1 month ago
@Verradonairun There's no such thing as a "revolutionary without a revolution." It's called a field nigger buddy. I'm just another shackled prole who's pissed off because his slave notes don't represent the labor that they were intended to repay. Watch your costs and taxes go up while your pay goes into an inflationary black hole sucker! Get on top instead of being the pathetic house nigger that you are.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@PrimeConsciousness Rejoice in that which you have, for the acquisition of what you have not may come at too high a cost for you to bear. As for me, I am already on top.
I am not black and you're not Malcolm X so stop the "house nigger vs. field nigger"-rhetoric. It offends me, and doesn't suit you.
Verradonairun 1 month ago
@Verradonairun Finally I get something remotely intelligent out of you. I'm not some ambitious douche trying to get anything from anyone. I don't rejoice in what I have because death reveals my identity and its dross as the bewildered delusion that it is.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@PrimeConsciousness "...and its dross as the bewildered delusion that it is." - You're not content with what you have because death reveals your deluded identity?
Till I met you, I didn't know that circular logic mixed with irrational arguments would produce a piece of writing that is both frustrating - and to a certain extent concerning - to read. I also didn't know psychiatric hospitals provided internet to their patients. I suppose it's a nice gesture...
Verradonairun 1 month ago
@Verradonairun LoL. There's no circular logic at play, only Nihilism The entire human condition produces a filthy myopia that serves certain needs nonetheless. Just because I am a worthless temporal dust being doesn't mean that I can't have opinions and concerns. I even have monkey empathy for my fellow dust beings. We have no right to disturb creatures. I am too insane for an insane asylum because my insanity is the Vedas. I'd turn the docs into patients.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@PrimeConsciousness It must be hell inside your brain.
Verradonairun 1 month ago
@Verradonairun I think you're imagining me too much along the lines of Reb & Vodka... They wanted to become demon gods and all... I'm just another rambling philosopher. We're all a little fucked up ya know...LoL.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
@PrimeConsciousness Too much work in the sun will make any serf crazy.
Verradonairun 1 month ago
@Verradonairun True, but never as crazy as power makes the lords.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
This is bullshit. Capitalism = freedom. And "KrugmanTheKing", dont even try to reply on me. Your nicknames proves your ignorrance already.
TheJitkakurz 1 month ago
@TheJitkakurz lol
SalvadorBrumov 1 month ago
@TheJitkakurz Why is it freedom? What concept of freedom do you have?
dadgadable 1 month ago
What he describes as 'the perversity of american culture' I would say was simply the evolution of the meaning of words. This evolution is controlled by the local environment. Words change meanings. To say that your usage of a word hails to to the original definition of libertarian in the Adam Smith school of thought is not any less perverse than a self-described neo-libertarian, its just different. The important take away is one must have a clear understanding of the context of word usage.
ophnell56 1 month ago
Whether he would say it or not, when government intervenes, it rarely - if ever - solves an issue, whatever it may be, without garnering itself against personal liberty. If anyone wanted to give ab example to the contrary I would be excited to know about it.
plumlogan 1 month ago
@plumlogan
If you bother about freedom at all, what you take upfront as that any relation of authority, any form of power is assumed illegitimate until otherwise established.
I would say that some forms of power can be justified -- and, in any regard, if we cannot avoid one, we should always take the better over the worst: even though he held it rhetorically, I would stand by Obama when he said you win nothing by sustaining a purist position. Even a small victory is desirable.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@plumlogan
**upfront is that**
**, any form of power, is***
I do not think that all governmental intervention are that much undesirable. Ideally, it wouldn't be as centralized, but then it's still less annoying to look at than unfettered markets.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
The argument I make often is that the government is theoretically capable of solving a lot of problems, economically and socially speaking.
The argument I suspect Chomsky would answer me with is that I am right in saying that governmental interventions of many kinds could be used to improve our conditions, but that I am probably out of the track if I think the political institutions as they are would ever allow for that to happen.
Maybe he's right, maybe not.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
If Ron Paul was pro-choice, I would support him. But he's not. Obama's not perfect, but he gets my vote.
richardflog 2 months ago
@richardflog When Obama passes the bill that essentially throws away your trial rights, will you then still throw your vote his way? Ron Paul may not be perfect, but ending the damn wars and auditing the fed is important enough that he can't possibly screw things up worse than any of the other puppets.
Xylogeist 2 months ago
@Xylogeist Then there's the controversy that he wouldn't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... But I do agree, the illegal wars in the Middle East and North Africa need to end, the War on Drugs needs to end, and the gov't should stop meddling in the People's affairs. But I don't agree that cutting taxes for corporation is the way to go (as Paul has suggested)
richardflog 2 months ago
@richardflog Well... there shouldn't be taxes period. There was no corporate or income tax when this country was founded, and we don't need it now. Sales tax and import taxes are fine, because those are noncoercive.
Xylogeist 2 months ago
@Xylogeist So the take out the income tax and add it to the sales tax? Here, typical sales is 9-10%. Are you suggesting make it 15-20%? Or scrap those public services all together? The second sounds quite cruel... Although, I'd be all for it if the services being scraped are for national weaponry and defense. Those I'd be glad to be rid of.
richardflog 2 months ago
@richardflog
if that's your only issue with Ron Paul, you should seriously re-think voting for Obama. Paul is pro-life, but he's firstly pro-states rights, meaning he thinks it's the responsibly of each state to decide for themselves what their laws will be concerning abortion. Besides, he needs to save face in front of republican voters- he couldnt say he was pro-choice even though i suspect he is- after all, he is a strong believer in self-autonomy (choice)
minarchist43 2 months ago
@TermTres Whether you want a socialist world or capitalist, the people within that system must change for it to work well. Now libertarian free market ideas give the most incentive for the people to be involved and aware. The deal of the pure market was basically if you dont pay attention you will get cheated. It seems people like you have forgotten the deal and now complain that greedy men cheated you. NO SHIT! That is why it is OUR(consumers) job to stop it, NOT A GOVERNMENT.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@TermTres Maybe we "spam" because we believe in what we are talking about. Obviously the world is crooked. It has to be fixed, now this collapse will be used by people with your mindset to create more centralized power of the global economy and governments. We libertarians want the other direction. Now most of us know that the people will criticize us, it is common in history. We are called "fundamentalists" by people who actually consider it an insult or negative trait.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@TermTres See now you are contradicting yourself. Libertarianism is a philosophy which argues that there is no path to utopia to be found in government structure. We do want a static economic system because if you are kinetic, where are you going and why? You are the one arguing for a kinetic structure which its design depends on the year in which it exists. A free market will work the same in year 1 and year 2011.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob Eutopia is exactly that... it doesn't existe, so all that burble talked by people like Mr Cham-psky, is just brainwashing stuff, for those whom, he and other consider... as he himself says 'below' ... He must have a love afair with Adam Smith... just a thought!
guruartist 2 months ago
@TermTres You want a system backed up by fact. You want a system supported by historical data which shows it will succeed. What you want is impossible. I study history as much as I can and I can assure you that no nation in all of human history has lasted in the same system forever. They always reform themselves into different systems because of the people within them and the situations those people run into. Guess what, its a pattern. Or a human nature assumption like you say.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
@TermTres If Ron Paul supporters like me are such ignorant people then why is there such a move to insult us? I saw all your comments with people just bombing us with insults. Yes I am living in the real world. Do I expect charities to take care of everyone who gets sick, no, and Paul has never said that. Do I want companies to openly make workers slaves in a free market? No! And Paul never said that either. You guys come to conclusions and assumptions just like I do.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
it absolutely makes me sick how loons supporting Ron Paul and Penn and so on run their mouths on libertarian views when they know nothing about true libertarianism
JagjeetMann 3 months ago
@TermTres It's funny, because that's exactly what staunch socialists say to support the implementation of their ideology. "It's never -truly- existed, so it can't be criticized. The part about Paul and private charities actually being willing and able to take up the slack left behind in the absence of the federal government is just laughable.
Motive11331 3 months ago
Noam = pseudo-intellectual
RustyIronloins 3 months ago
@RustyIronloins Yeah, the man who revolutionized linguistics is a pseudo-intellectual.
N33DL3R 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What "DISGUSTING" is that this is one of the methdes that the Germans-Nazies use in "GETHO-WARSHA" and "Hawshvitts" in Germany and I know for sure some Russians-Jews doing this horrible horrible "Electronic Weapon" and more torturing on some Targeted-Individual" that they are Jews also!
So sometime I wonder Who are really the Nazis!
SuperBingo21 3 months ago
any libertarian is a good libertarian.
Ravengaurd6 3 months ago
Comment removed
NDB1790 3 months ago
Comment removed
Lukege15 3 months ago
In here Noam Chomsky IS The Voice of Reason...how about this: he writes books to address issues that need addressing? Hypocrite? As if you can not be against capitalism if you write books about how bad capitalism is? How would you go about writing without any funding???
janerikkvalheim 3 months ago
@ImRichYouMad I'm sure he wrote these books with a profit in mind...
mightymarcin 3 months ago
@ImRichYouMad I guess money doesn't equal intelligence. I'm surprised you made it here young Epsilon
johnpotter26 3 months ago
So would you agree with getting rid of all trade union legislature and allow unions to participate in wild cat strikes and secondary action. After all unions are corporations offering a service to their members so why should big government try to control them?
32peartree 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
@shortywheat Ron Paul supporters love the peaceful message. Chomsky's syndicalism is identical to libertarianism (not crony 'libertarianism' where as he says the merchant elite buys the legislator). If you have a group of syndicalists who open a restaurant, now hire a waitress. The waitress has a vote. She can vote to work a few hours a day, but knows the business will go belly up and she will be jobless. She thus conforms to the originators. So you're merely increasing the number of owners.
Otzmatron 3 months ago
@Otzmatron correct - but doesn't that stop power from congregating in few too hands vizi-a-viz a few 100 shareholders treating tens of thousands of food workers like slaves.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree Not really, because instead of a few merchants and bankers you'd have hundreds of them but still corrupt and nasty and destructive. You need to end the marriage between business and state. You need to allow competition and get the government out of the free market, it gives subsidies to a certain product and company which inflates the price. If you allow competition, financial institutions would have to compete with others to provides goods and services.
Otzmatron 3 months ago
The American Right libertarians are certainly one of the more interesting by products of the public relations industry.
DraconianKindness 3 months ago
@Jononutoob if that is your name: have you not noticed that CEO 's and Politicians switch chairs once every "election" in so called "democracies." So are those former CEO 's going to make laws that gives their pals problems and reduces their election funding next "election"? Have you not noticed that the candidate with the most money "wins" ? "Free" markets have not been tried in so called developed countries. That is why they developed. It have only been tried in the so called third world...
janerikkvalheim 4 months ago
@janerikkvalheim I dont understand your attitude towards me, I have openly said there are private interests in govt and vice versa. As long as you have a govt that oversees so much as it does now, you will have private interests that will infect the govt and corrupt it. So I think you have the wrong person there, I have already explained how private interests infect the govt. What libertarians like me are saying is, MAKE THE GOVT SMALLER so that corruption is less powerful.
Jononutoob 4 months ago
@Jononutoob will less government mean no anti-union legislation - no police or prisons. The rich will always advocate big government when it suits their interests
32peartree 3 months ago
@janerikkvalheim Also money matters in elections. Now lets look at who has the authority of the election laws. Does GE decide electoral decisions or does congress and the supreme court? And I wont even touch on your flawed ideas about nations develop because they DONT have free markets. I wonder if you realize that the only reason America isnt a 2nd or 3rd world nation is because we can print money whenever we want and we can just increase our debt. Power built on debt is temporary.
Jononutoob 4 months ago
"Here, 'libertarian' means extreme advocate of total tyranny."
Yes, of course, Noam. I'm a libertarian because I am an EXTREME ADVOCATE OF TOTAL TYRANNY.
How can anyone with a brain and/or a conscience listen to this nutbag?
Stupid stupid commies.
MillionthUsername 4 months ago
@shortywheat It's because we like his social and foreign policy and he wants to end the fed. I'm not a fan of his far right economics.
Pillowpants8495 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of the working class for material interest of the criminal ruling elite.
arzoyan 4 months ago
So who wrote the laws which require corporations to maximize profit? Was it a company with no authority to legislate or was it government? Free markets work, IF the people are responsible enough to be aware. I can control a corporation far easier than government. I can stop buying a company's products and I immediately influence them. As opposed to voting or calling my congressman who will just ignore me. You cant blame free markets or capitalism because we never really had it.
Jononutoob 4 months ago
@Jononutoob Try boycotting McDonalds as one person, hell, even as a "huge" group of people (huge in quotes since a brand name known the world over would have to be facing hundreds of millions for huge to be applicable) and you will find that it's not so easy to dismantle a corporation from the consumer end. With government, you wait a couple years and pick some different guys who more fully represent you.
TylerGuru 4 months ago
@TylerGuru So you want to dismantle corporations? I am a capitalist, I dont want to dismantle corporations, I want the government to stop helping corporations. Wait to elect better representatives? HA! Good luck with that. I cant name 1 modern administration that stopped corruption between govt and the private sector. If a million people stop buying mcdonalds, you can bet your ass McDonalds will notice. And even if it is just me, I am expressing my self alone then.
Jononutoob 4 months ago
@Jononutoob The problem is that in the real world boycotts of corporations are very rarely effective. Look to Wal-Mart and the millions involved in regular protests, information campaigns, strikes, etc. and you will see that consumer action in the 21st century simply is not enough to rattle the bones of any corporation with enough power to really stretch its legs out and hurt anyone. It's a grim reality. I agree completely that the government should stop helping corporations.
TylerGuru 4 months ago
@TylerGuru The govt is the source of the problem, cut down the federal government and the spine which holds up this corrupt private sector will fall. But all the fooled liberals who think they can make govt larger to help America obviously have not read any of the founders of this nation. Liberty requires the people to be self dependent and self responsible, if they are not then either you will lose your freedom to govt or private interests. This is a natural law.
Jononutoob 4 months ago
@Jononutoob
"Free markets work, IF the people are responsible enough to be aware"
Wouldn't ANYTHING work IF the people are responsible enough to be aware?
And if many people are NOT aware (or rather purposely driven to ignorance), then isn't any kind of a society with that character pretty scary?!
And so what sort of society would you say incents deception & manipulating collective awareness the most?
ElDukerino1 3 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Yes if people were aware nearly any system could work well. And yes if people are not aware then no system would work very well. I would say communism and socialism require or create the most collective manipulation or deception. Your argument I feel is that we have never had a population fully aware and if we did it wouldnt matter what system we had. I can agree. This is like saying if we had a dictatorship and the dictator was perfect then it would be a good system.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
@ElDukerino1 I would say socialism or communism create or require the most collective deception or manipulation. I know that people are not and have never been fully aware or wise people as a group. It is this reason which makes me a libertarian. I dont want the masses failures to be so directly injected into my own life. I dont want less money in my pocket to pay for the mistakes of others just like I dont want more money from someone else to pay for my mistakes. And ignorance is a mistake.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
@Jononutoob
You say you’re libertarian, but also for capitalism. These aren’t necessarily inconsistent, but they are certainly not the same thing, so let's focus on capitalism (this is what I'm questioning).
I think we know capitalism incents people to deceive to a great extent (right?). And I agree certain brands of socialism/communism (of the statist variety) create this incentive & are good machines for accomplishing it too. But, how does “libertarian socialism” create this incentive?
ElDukerino1 3 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Capitalism incents companies to motivate or entice someone to want what they are selling. If a person is dumb enough to see a handbag commercial and then go out the next minute and buy a handbag they dont need, then that is their stupidity. Listen, I am against materialism, I am against greed. But as long as people want this crap and want more of it, then I see no fault in rich men selling this stuff. What I do hate is government interference in the markets.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Now chrony capitalism invites waste, poor investing, more greedy behavior, and down right lying by both government and companies. But tricking someone into buying something is different than a law that says you have to buy something. I think libertarian socialism can work well, but it needs a group of people who are willing to work hard and work together. Because if it doesnt then a libertarian socialist system will end up a statist system. Just like everything else.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
@Jononutoob
"But tricking someone into (1) buying something is different than (2) a law that says you have to buy something."
Yes, these are 2 different devices & it seems the 2nd restricts one's choices more (although that's not necessarily true), but I'd be concerned with trying to do away with both as much as possible...I mean, restricting the ability for #1 doesn't entail #2, right?
Also, in some cases #2 is actually justified whereas #1 is never justified, #1 is just harder to detect.
ElDukerino1 3 months ago
@ElDukerino1 To force someone to do anything is worse than being tricked. You cant do away with both completely because they are natural to business and human nature. But you can reduce #1 by giving the incentive to the consumer to pay attention to what they buy and from who. Also the government does have the role to enforce contracts. Now #2 is wrong because the government has no right to force me or you to buy a good or service. I think we have different ideas of what liberty is.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob
"To force someone to do anything is worse than being tricked"
Really? So to "force" someone to pay .01% of their income toward something that 99.9% of the society they live amongst believes is right (like a legal system) is worse than maintaining a system where a goliath econcomic interest can easily "trick" someone into going bankrupt. I agree a system ought to incent responsibility, but where do you draw the line? I think democracy is the most just means for drawing the lines.
ElDukerino1 2 months ago
@Jononutoob
And just to be more clear, I was really advocating that people are forced to "not do things" (negative force) which is a little different than forcing people "to do something" (positive force). The negative force can be based on principles like "it is always wrong to do this or that" wheras the positive force is usually something that could be justified on pragmatic grounds (such as forcing society to contribute to education, national defense, law enforcement, healthcare, etc)
ElDukerino1 2 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Yes force is worse than deception. I dont like either but force is wrong because it normally always damages your rights. I dont see any god given right of man to be given the truth. If someone lies to me, I dont blame that person as much as I blame myself for believing it. I hope I am dead before full democracy sets in on America. Have you seen the majority of Americans? They cant even list all their rights.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob
"force is worse than deception"
Ok, in general yeah, but again there are different effects of each of these types of force (as I gave example of). So, yeah, forcing someone to "keep their hands to themself" is probably a bit more justifiable than forcing someone to "not lie" in most cases. But you have to consider damange done by any force (the 'type' of force itself isn't whole picture). And the force should be given weight by how difficult it is to overcome...cont'd
ElDukerino1 2 months ago
@ElDukerino1 I would rather the govt lie to me first rather than beat my brains in. You are right that force can be many things. I could even argue that income taxes could be deceptive in nature. Govt can use force or lies to get their way. Companies can only use lies because it is illegal for a company to beat you up. Unless that company works with govt. Govt is the force, that is the ram. Only govt has the force to enslave the people.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob
I'm kind of with you on the point about the government being the "ram"& I'd like to reduce govt as much as possible. But why not advocate a system that either makes so that it's not an incentive to deceive, or to straight out punish the deception more harshly (as it would be if they "beat you up".) What's the big difference aside from maybe the idea that people can overcome the lying more so than the physical force..is that your position? that the lying is just easier to overcome?
ElDukerino1 2 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Yes I see lying as much easier to overcome. I see states easier to overcome than the feds. I see corporations easier to control than corporations with govt ties. I just have a very temporary perspective. I am alive today so I want to live the most free today. All this progress, utopia building, or global world economy, is just nonsense to me. I think it is man trying to make a perfect balanced system that is not possible because man if loose in the skull right now.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob
Well I myself would be for Ron Paul (vs all the other big govt advocates) even though I really have come to recognize some real big flaws in "free market w/ the special case of capitalism" which is what he advocates. I guess I'm also for cutting this big govt machine down to size asap as an immediate priority. It's still worthwhile to try to advocate what we feel would be progress & if everyone shares these ideas more, there will be real progress.
ElDukerino1 2 months ago
@ElDukerino1 Honestly I dont really have any angry disagreement at anyone who thinks different. I just dont see how someone can possibly not vote Paul. I mean it just boggles my mind. And with Paul you dont have to be republican. Im sure Paul would have democratic counsel. If we cant agree on the constitution then we are just going left and right, back and forth until implosion.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@ElDukerino1 The system I see giving me the most possible control over my life is a free market libertarian republic. I dont plan to live forever so I want to live as long as possible as a free man. I dont know, some people are content with the shit, and some arent but want crazy things to fix it. I think it is kinda weird how a lion in Africa is a more wild animal than I. People are boxed in, give em a lil freedom and watch. But many people fear their peers. We are all strangers.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob
Well back to our earlier discussions, I don't think capitalism has much to do with free markets/liberty. The idea that you can pursue whatever you want without infringing on other people's pursuits is what everyone agrees on, but this is just empty rhetoric because everyone has their own idea of what infringes on what. Capitalism has been put forth with a lot of "lying" and more people buy into it than I can believe..Ur right that once the govt distraction is gone, people will see.
ElDukerino1 2 months ago
@ElDukerino1 I look at the country and I see the govt holding us in a really right bear hug. And the govt squeezes us really hard sometimes. And while they hold us smother us, the private aspects of tyranny sneak in and make some money or wealth(power). If not for the government the American people would have overthrown the financial tyranny on us long ago. But it is more obvious govt is problem. So they need to do less. Much less. Citizens need to do more. (continued)
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@ElDukerino1 I dont exploit people. But people do get exploited and after they do, they get all pissed and go to government to fix it. Then the government is in charge of controlling exploitation, which is hilarious. If people would stop being lazy morons, they could use the free market to their advantage. And I dont mean making money. I mean controlling corporations. People need to take responsibility for their decisions, no system will work well until that happens.
Jononutoob 2 months ago
@Jononutoob
cont'd...And we should recognize the context/environment of where the force (ie lying) is being perpetrated. So, to tolerate lying w/in a framework like capitalism for example (which is a system largely based on & justified by the assumption of informed counterparties & btw has plenty of "force" involved in its maintenance) is pretty perverse. Again, it may not be a big deal to you (because you can overcome the lying somehow), but I don't think you could speak for everyone on this.
ElDukerino1 2 months ago
@Jononutoob
And so, It seems you want to limit the ability for "negative force" (ie preventing actions) on pragmatic grounds (i.e. you'd allow some people to do what is clearly wrong in order to somehow salvage "personal responsibility"). I guess you advocate the "tough love" approach which isn't totally outlandish...Or else maybe it's just in your interest given your traits to have opportunity to be an "exploiter" w/ less chance that you'd be an "exploitee" in this kind of system you advocate.
ElDukerino1 2 months ago
@Jononutoob "I dont want less money in my pocket to pay for the mistakes of others just like I dont want more money from someone else to pay for my mistakes."
==
How much tax do you pay?
allgoo19 1 month ago
@allgoo19 How much I pay is not relevant. I pay more than Id like to.
Jononutoob 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jononutoob " How much I pay is not relevant. I pay more than Id like to."
==
Basically you are saying you don't pay any tax, correct?
allgoo19 1 month ago
@Jononutoob 1/2
Did you even listen to the video? And why is it that "libertarians" always claim it have never excisted? First of all it has, and it always ends up in some sort of system where the people suffer, for instance corporatism. Second, why is it that it has to have existed to say it would not work? Don't you have a brain? If anything, the "fact" that it has never excisted would be a testament to that it does not work.
And btw, socialism and communism have never existed either.
TheSaltyAdmiral 3 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral I do have a brain. When has free market capitalism existed? People suffer in all kinds of systems. But what liberals and others dont seem to comprehend is that in a free market system it offers the best chance for a person to decide the most aspects of their financial life. If you dont work, you dont eat. If you dont help others, then dont expect it back. It is fair. And it isnt the fault of libertarians or free markets that the people choose/allow corporatism.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
@Jononutoob I think that's true, but for a population to be aware you'd need an excellent not-for-profit education system in place. "the people" would need enough skills and information to analyze the products or companies they're supporting
junskey 3 months ago
@junskey You're making a big assumption: that education can increase intelligence. This is patently false, as intelligence is determined genetically and differs between individuals.
wyqtor 3 months ago
@junskey In nature, if a mama bear doesnt teach the young one enough, it will not survive when it grows older. Parents are important. If parents cant teach their children how to be aware of the world around them then why should I pay for their education on such things? That kind of system creates more ignorance in society and poor behavior by parents and youth.
Jononutoob 3 months ago
What a genius.
tylerchhatesyou 4 months ago
Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that people like Sean Hannity have both a Radio and Television show, and this guy doesn't? Huh? Why? How? What?
Eaglesfaninca 5 months ago
He just called Adam Smith a socialist. NEXT.
ROlshansky1 5 months ago
please excuse the continuity errors, had a bit of trouble with the letter limits
dommyl 5 months ago
what does he say at 2:46 anyone? i can't make it out
dommyl 5 months ago
i view myself as a conservative because i stand for the values that have been carried along in human societies for thousands of years, they stand for conservative because they stand for whatever is the corporate whim and whatever powerful rich people say is right.
communistfun 5 months ago
The scariest monopoly is always the government. They have a monopoly on the use of force. Would that not bother Chomsky?
cmunce 5 months ago
yes finally, this is the real libertarianism (anarcho/socialism), term was founded by a french anarchist. The American version is typical hijacked bullshit.
JagjeetMann 5 months ago
Don’t forget Chomsky is a socialist linguist, his job is to keep the firmament of language in public discourse constantly shifting, a la Orwell’s newspeak. Orwell himself did the same for British intelligence so he knew what he was writing about. American Libertarians are the same old classical liberals we always were, if you wonder why the word “liberal” used to mean Thomas Jefferson but now means Abby Hoffman it was people like Chomsky shifting the sands of language on you.
Frumibandersnatch 6 months ago
@Frumibandersnatch
Liberalism is a quest to maximize freedom...If you want to try to compare the status of freedom (let alone the changes in economic relations) in the times of Thomas Jefferson to recent times, I think you are really just missing the point. Holding on to mechanisms and/or theories that at one time may have been thought to be the best mechanisms for liberty is not a libertarian value...as Chomsky points out here, it can be (and indeed is to some extent) the opposite.
ElDukerino1 5 months ago
@Frumibandersnatch How come people who do their own research is agreeing with his conclusions then ?
Tyrfingr 5 months ago
@Tyrfingr Re: How come people who do their own research is agreeing with his conclusions then ?
Because they have the same agenda as he, and didn’t research our libertarian candidate, Dr. Ron Paul who, goes on incessantly about corporatism. The fact is, that corporatism can’t exist without a large central statist govt. and it's bureaucracies to fix things for them; antithetical to classical liberalism (Libertarianism) "That governs best which governs least".
Frumibandersnatch 5 months ago
@Frumibandersnatch I don't think he or anyone else has suggested that government should be totally cut off, that's an utopian ideal that any free and independent person aims towards. But all rational people understands that they have to make compromises when many are involved.
Government should rather be limited in the way that they can operate with lobbyists. With the consequence that corporations would become internally democritized, rather than remaining as "Totalitatian institutions"
Tyrfingr 5 months ago
@Tyrfingr Totalitarianism was a term first coined by Mussolini, it meant govt. involvement in all aspect of the citizen/subjects life from cradle to grave in its totality. Corporations do this, Governments do.
Re: "Government should rather be limited in the way that they can operate with lobbyists."
They should be limited in the way they do everything! This was the idea in Philadelphia in 1787, this is what the Constitution was supposed to do for us, but we are ignoring it.
Frumibandersnatch 5 months ago
My mind is expanding.
doubts 6 months ago 24
Comment removed
PigeonTech 6 months ago
Ron Paul does believe a similar Libertarian Philosopy to Adam Smith and we havent given that type of government a chance yet! Ron Paul is a traditional conservative like noam because he doesnt want ANY WARS OR CIA OR FBI OR ANY OTHER NO GOOD TROUBLE CAUSING AGENCY LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALOT OF THE PROBLEMS NOAM TALKS ABOUT!
alanezz22 6 months ago
anyone that has an ideology is a fucking fool. doesn't matter what it is, if you label your self you've failed at life. period.
Alexanderisgreat 6 months ago
@Alexanderisgreat well if you have no interests in this then stop insulting people who do. Everyone who thinks that other people are fools because there are having opinion about some ideology than that person definitely failed in life because it's easier to say fuck all, then actually educating yourself about thing that you dont know
hanter012 6 months ago
@Alexanderisgreat do you label yourself as a human being? labels are neccesary forms of self identification
DrBandrew 6 months ago
@RationalBullets
I'm mostly with you on all of that, however, just like socialism is very possible in this dream world, so is feudalism or other forms of quasi slavery..extreme forms of either of these left/right utopias are pretty scary & not unlikely to develop absent a legitimate institution to initiate force when needed.
Otherwise, It would all depend on notions of property rights & who has power to enforce their notion..property rights are self affirming in theory but NEVER in practice.
ElDukerino1 6 months ago
@RationalBullets
One could characterize a particular system of unregulated capitalism in a similar kind of fashion (I wouldn't really accept that either).
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) humans are complex as are relations they have amongst one another. I'd say free markets are a good idea in general, but lots can go wrong in reality (when removed from simple theories)..the govt must enforce property rights, so why not enforce other universal laws that are democratically determined???
ElDukerino1 6 months ago
@RationalBullets
It's actually not a fallacy...the major fallacy (among others) in the way you're thinking is that "govt from 1778-1863" = "govt that was integral force in freeing slaves" (and even if they were =, your point still isn't valid).
The govt is simply whatever the people it serves dictate (just like a market behaves based on its members & their relatvie power & actions). Both of these complex entities can have their virtues & vices, neither is absolutely/necessarily this or that.
ElDukerino1 6 months ago
@RationalBullets
Well, I disagree with that. Slaves were freed via govt force. So, even as I recognize govt is/was the cause of many anti-liberty policies, there is the other side of the coin.
This is where Chomsky and Ron Paul are so different at a fundamental level.
I agree with your pointing out the commonalities, or where their fundamental aims overlap, because those are some very important things to do away with...however, they are starting from & ending at completely different places.
ElDukerino1 6 months ago
@RationalBullets
"A free market is just a population in absence of government."
I'd say: A free market is a population in absence of coercive forces...
Govt is not the ONLY coercive force (at least not in Chomsky's view), in fact he recognizes govt (or the like) as a means to combat other coercive forces. So basically, the govt in itself is nothing other than how it behaves...it could possibly be a force promoting liberty or not depending on the particular govt function you're looking at.
ElDukerino1 6 months ago
@ElDukerino1 As a business owner there is little coercion over you, but as an employee with a wage from someone else you are coerced in all sorts of ways. In a "free" market system only the markets are free (and perhaps the business owners), not the people. Most people would be just as conditioned and just as exploited by private oligarchs as they currently are by any state subsidized corporations. Profit maximization efforts unregulated, would lead to all sorts of human rights violations.
eydos 6 months ago
@eydos
Agreed. Basically, in a free market system, your degree of freedom corresponds to your wealth, abilities and circumstances to a very great extent. Some people will always be dominated by others in a not-so-pretty sort of way, but at the least this sort of behavior should always be checked one way or another.
ElDukerino1 6 months ago
@RationalBullets
There are some similarities between these 2 guys as far as what they're against (e.g.the particulars you mentioned), but in the grander scheme here is the difference:
Chomsky: supports whatever mechanisms will lead to equality.
Ron Paul: supports unregulated markets, regardless of the outcome (there is a presumption this will maybe lead to equality, but the results wouldn't matter..unregulated market seems to be more the "end in itself").
ElDukerino1 6 months ago
So he says private tyranny is worse than public tyranny. Just to note: I can quit my job, I can boycott a company, I can start my own company. I cannot quit paying taxes, I cannot start my own country. Also note, the government forces me to pay taxes and often subsidizes the worst of the worst companies, of which I believe I have no say.
kickndave21 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 7 months ago
@4evaFranyify Yeah but his values are suitable for people who want "revolution" but without having to give up the goodies or attitudes of consumerist culture.
AndrewMann552 7 months ago
Noam doesn't like my rights.
Thatmakessense356 7 months ago
@MrBloograss
Why are you fantasizing about Chomsky being "tightly wrapped in spandex"?
SowellFan333 7 months ago
I like Chomsky however I think he is wrong. He is wrong on a few issues. Debatably wrong and I can understand the points he reaches and why however I read people writing things that are not accurate. The United States was founded on Classical Liberalism, The kind that went throughout Europe, it was Radical. Neo Classicalism I believe changed things. America has historically been weary of the corporation, that is a recent change in about 100 yrs. I'm sorry this is just not true.
Ryukikon 8 months ago
@SalvadorMarch3 Deregulation IS the minimization of state power. Who does the regulating if it's not the state?
Trimbler00 8 months ago
Libertarians are divided on the issue of corporations. The Libertarian Party supports a pro-corporate agenda that would hand over total control over all of this nation's natural resources to multinationals (when they sell the national parks, who could outbid the multinationals?). The GOP uses arguments to justify measures that strengthen corporations by deregulating them, while simultaneously supporting massive (and clearly unlibertarian) handouts like the prescription drug benefit plan.
chinopisces 8 months ago
Someone explain to me: libertarians seek to minimize or eliminate the powers of the state, period. This is the definition in the United States AND all over the world. So what's Chomsky talking about?
Trimbler00 8 months ago
Chomskyites just follow yet another false religion, same as atheists, same as global warmers.
nachodaddy 9 months ago
@nachodaddy: You have no idea what you're talking about.
chinopisces 9 months ago
@chinopisces Please explain to me why the United States idea of libertarianism (ie the 1971 Libertarian Party) is different from Chomsky's libertarianism
Trimbler00 8 months ago
@Trimbler00: The definition of 'libertarian', in recent times, has somehow achieved the opposite meaning of which it was originally intended.
The term originally refers to "free thinking", where equality is believed to result in truly free market economies.
If you go to their site, the official party seems to agree with this notion, however, their actions have proved otherwise. Their monetary investments are typically partitioned to special interests and private corporations.
chinopisces 8 months ago
@chinopisces "Their" monetary investments? Who? Some specific examples? Libertarians are staunchly against corporate welfare.
Trimbler00 8 months ago
(cont)
the free market hasn't existed in the developing world because free markets require power to enforce property rights.. if no one stops gangs from menacing others rights, the country won't progress. very cheap shot from chomsky here.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ~ Bastiat
100CommonCents 9 months ago
jefferson wasn't anti-capitalist.
adam smith didn't advocate free-markets with the clause that only under perfect liberty, and only if it lead to perfect equality. (i've read ' .. the wealth of nations' and chomsky has completely mis-represented smith to the point of lying)
private tyranny? that term breaks down very simply when you realise that these 'tyrannies' are subject to laws. it's also where they derive their power to exist.
no classical liberal support the corporate system.
(cont)
100CommonCents 9 months ago
@something9313 If Ron Paul were a revolutionary he would leave the Republican Party.
AndrewMann552 9 months ago 3
@AndrewMann552
He's tried to get elected as a Libertarian in the past, but doing so makes people see the stigmata before the message. Running as a Republican people are more likely to hear his message.
zxcv73 8 months ago
What I like about Chomsky is that very intelligent and well-read people listen to and read his stuff. And the level of comment is very thoughtful. What I like about Ayn Rand is that she is overt, admits that she believes Altruism is an evil thing. Praise the Right Wing, pass me the whole Turkey. Ayn Rand and Anne Coulter share a transparency that makes their aggressive role as corporate stooges overt and apparent, no false fronts there.
Grrraig 10 months ago
Atlas Shrugged movie trailer is on youtube
yousmokecrackers 1 year ago
@yousmokecrackers Are you funded by the CIA? Seems weird all the truth movies that came out since the Matrix have been Right Winger.
HoGraz 11 months ago
I think the person asking the question about the contradiction of Libertarian Socialism was trying to address the issue that while libertarianism attempts to minimize all forms of government because they represent a negation of liberty, socialism creates another form of government to manage the means of production and distribute goods. Ranting about linguistics is a great way to avoid the question.
altaris2011 1 year ago
@altaris2011 Libertarianism is the philosophy that advocates free will--obviously in favor of minimizing government control over people. Now, socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which is, by definition, also a way to limit government control, especially of the markets, which in turn rent people that depend on wage-labor or slave-labor. To a libertarian socialist, the idea of renting or enslaving a person is degrading to the very essence of human nature.
vioguy 1 year ago
@vioguy I need to learn more about the subject. Can you suggest any books covering the topic of libertarian socialism? thanks
altaris2011 1 year ago