Naomi Klein - Iraq: The Neoliberal Project (Part 4 of 8)

aka "Free Iraq from Killer Liberators and the Corporations They Serve" speech in Los Angeles, CA 2/21/05

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• naomi
• klein
• iraq
• neoliberal
• privatization
• corporations
• democracy
• invasion
• occupation
• economy
• wethepeoplefor4

[kappra]

This is awesome! Is anybody listening?

[hyperauxia]

not when they have complicit media cheerleaders and those most people don't know any better

[MillionthUsername]

@HoRostam "Nothing about the iraq war fits with the ideas of milton friedman, or any other economist or capitalist advocate. A war is government intervention, a market distortion."

I know. That's why I oppose people like Naomi Klein who tries to blame gov't intervention and wars on capitalism. You obviously read me wrong. Looks like the posts of the person I was talking to have been removed, so I didn't "kill the comments" by flooding them either.

[HoRostam]

@MillionthUsername damn dude... i know its been two years, but you kinda killed the comments here, so i what the hell. Nothing about the iraq war fits with the ideas of milton friedman, or any other economist or capitalist advocate. A war is government intervention, a market distortion. Kills comparative advantage of the loser. Not free.

[MillionthUsername]

If some have the right to rule others, how does one get to be the ruler? Is it by consent of the ruled? Where is the proof? Can consent be withdrawn? How?

Who is my "representative"? What does that mean? Did I hire him? Where is the contract? What is the penalty for him violating the contract? Is he liable for odious and criminal rules he imposes on me and others? Why not?

What is law? Is it arbitrary edicts issued by rulers? Or is there a natural law which can be rationally discerned?

[MillionthUsername]

No, I am NOT saying I do not believe in rules!

I'm saying people who believe in "representative democracy" don't believe in rules. They believe only in ruling. They believe they have a right to rule over others. If you study the matter you will find that all states begin and exist by violence, not agreement. And worse, the rulers and the ruled have no discernible ethic which they can apply universally to judge their actions.

Where do they get this right to rule others?

[MillionthUsername]

You asked me what the group was that controls the economy. My answer was the ruling party.

You said this made no sense because she was speaking against the ruling party of 2005.

Well, Einstein, the answer to the question of who controls the economy has nothing to do with whether she was speaking against the rulers of 2005 or the rulers of 2009.

In every year, there are rulers who rule. One of the things they rule over is the economy, and she advocates that they do so. Yes or no?

[MillionthUsername]

It makes no sense to you that the ruling party is the party who rules??? Oh brother!

You asked me who the group was that controls the economy by force. I answered. And you say it doesn't make sense! Who rules it then?

Yes, she is against liberty. All of her speeches are about how evil it is for people to trade freely. She wants to control people. What the hell else is she saying?

I suppose you have some orwellian definition for "liberty," right? Like the old "Freedom is Slavery"???

[MillionthUsername]

The 'group' is the ruling party and their friends. Who else?

In all of her videos she states how the free market is evil. That's why she turns Milton Friedman into the devil - for advocating liberty.

She does not believe in liberty at all - except as a nice sounding word, of course.

"She believes in representative-democracy"

And anyone who doesn't will still be robbed and threatened with violence if they don't consent to be looted and comply with every

edict. No different than Bush/Obama.

[MillionthUsername]

"She is saying EXACTLY that it is evil for a group of people to take over the economy by force."

But not if it's her group, right? That's what I mean. What the hell is the difference? She advocates the exact same thing she says she opposes - and liberty has nothing to do with it.

She says that liberty is evil, therefore we must be controlled by those she approves of. She does not approve of Bush, but she has some others in mind to be the rulers. Correct?

[MillionthUsername]

So economic liberty and social liberty are two different unrelated things? Really?

She doesn't put a label on herself. Can you tell me what her label should be and what it means? She's against liberty but doesn't say what she's for, except "democracy" (but only if she approves of it).

And if economic liberty is evil, then why is it not also evil for a group of people to take over the economy by force? Why is force more moral than freedom?

[MillionthUsername]

I thought Bush's crowd were NEOCONS, and now they're "neoliberals". That's interesting.

I'd like to know what she thinks invading other countries has to do with liberalism. Oh wait, that's right, Milton Friedman wrote about violating the liberties of others because he was an advocate of liberty. I forgot. Where was that exactly?

I'm sure when Friedman talked about rights and liberty what he *really* meant was warfare and conquest, but only Naomi is smart enough to interpret for us.