Noam Chomsky Refutes the Neo-Capitalist Libertarians

What more should be said?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Chomsky
• Socialism
• Marx
• Capitalism
• Libertarian

[BloodTypeRagu]

@00RoninSamurai00 no no no, you're doing exactly what he's saying. literally, the word libertarian was originally tied to socialism, because libertarianism is about liberty, and the socialists/anarchists were againts both the state and capitalism as tyrannical entities. read the AFAQ if you;re curious. this is not to say that laissez faire or whatever wouldn't work, or whether it is the real definition of "capitalism" the only point is that the US has a a vocabulary which is distorted.

[Shezmu]

@TheSkunkCat - Argumentum ad populum

Please google it.

[VidLib2K11]

@TheIncredibleFrank ...or perhaps that your do not clearly understand fallacious logic. Chomsky is seemingly a great refutist but intellectually empty on alternative solutions from my limited understanding of him.

[TheIncredibleFrank]

@VidLib2K11 He's speaking clearly. You are not.

[VidLib2K11]

I believe this clip of Mr. Chomsky has two major flaws: first the mis-representation of a libertarian (i.e. see word origin and definition) and second is the fallacy of contextomy in his understanding of Adam Smith (i.e. contradicting). Perhaps some context is needed or in my perspective this is just a poorly constructed argument.

[louiethegreater]

Libertarians by U.S. standards means simply " get government out of the way so we can make more money".

[hippydog123]

@theredscourge When I wrote my thesis we had to unpack all our terms inorder to be as specific as possible. (This is really the hardest part of the process imo) Personally, I am not in to normative arguments. It is cool that you are, you should pursuit it. However, you have define morality, human nature( I had to do this in mine), what is meant by necessary etc. etc. I would check out "Marx's On the Jewish Question" he talks a ton about the State, human emancipation vs political emancipation.

[hippydog123]

@theredscourge Just as Adam Smith agrees "It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public". We have to be careful not to allow the State to become a political smoke screen. It is not like feudal societies were better off. It is coercion that needs to be abolished, generally. This theredscourge is difficult to do but nevertheless, so worthy to pursuit.

[hippydog123]

@keep in mind its "the dealers" who are the rulers of the state are for Adam Smith. "The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers."-This reflects the early Marx who see's the modern state as a bourgeois construct designed to give various "dealers".

[theredscourge]

@hippydog123 I believe that if we use subjective human nature to examine it, either we can claim that most/all people are good natured and thus the state is unnecessary, or most/all people are evil and thus the state is immoral, as it simply consolidates power and gives that evil a more damaging outlet to express itself.

[hippydog123]

@hippydog123 I have a lot of question about this thesis. Have you unpacked the terms? Is this for college? I would definitely look at "Limits of State Action". and some "Audre Lorde"

[hippydog123]

@theredscourge Your conclusion is that the "State is only necessary insofar as it is immoral"?