Chomsky would favor free markets IF they led to equality

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
5,285
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Sep 13, 2008

A response to brainpolice's article "Transcending Anarcho-Semantics"

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 5 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (220)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @MsSexySocialist "You want to maintain wage-labor"

    That's meaningless. It's not up to me what free people choose to do. You don't seem to understand that people make economic choices according to their particular goals, talents, situations, etc. It is beyond absurdity to suggest that all people will choose either sole-proprietorship or socialist participation in a co-op.

    All economies need part-time, temporary, or full-time wage-labor jobs. It's a niche that you can't obliterate with your will

  • @MsSexySocialist "Wouldn't happen with the principle of usufruct."

    So you want to replace property rights with property rights, eh? That's brilliant.

    When I mention your co-op's building, I assume they have some legitimate right to it, that's why my question of whether it was fair to me was just making fun of your little "inequitable" rant. A property right IS the superior claim vs all others. What else could it be? But that depends entirely on the justice of acquisition.

  • @MsSexySocialist "I meant under a single owner."

    You're afraid all the people of a town are going to sell all their property to one man? Putting aside the odds of this happening, why would that matter?

  • @MsSexySocialist "It doesn't matter whether or not I can have your "crumbs from the table" option"

    I in no way support the current system, so I am not offering you crumbs from the table. I'm correcting you when you act like it's impossible for people to start a business. The system has made it harder than it should be, and it's not fair, but that isn't because ancaps are advocating freedom! Give me a break.

  • @MillionthUsername

    It's true though isn't it?

    You want to maintain wage-labor; people selling their liberty and autonomy away in order to survive while the people they sell it to get to reap the fruits of their productive efforts.

    You can't have wage-labor "without the oppression". It IS oppression.

  • @MillionthUsername

    "So if your co-op claims a building that I also want to share, that is inequitable?"

    Wouldn't happen with the principle of usufruct. MOP is allocated by each self-governing community upon request on a best case for use basis. If there's a conflict of interest it can be settled through negotiation.

  • @MsSexySocialist "the fact is the vast majority are still forced by necessity into wage-labor"

    The all-or-nothing rhetoric is false, but to the extent that they are hampered they are hampered by the state, by its crushing taxation, property tax, rents, phony monopoly monetary system, servile education system, propaganda, etc. We suggest a FREE society with NONE of this oppression, and you have the gall to claim that we want people to be "forced" to work for someone. Absolute bull. Grow up.

  • @MillionthUsername

    "Towns are already "privatized." They consist of hundreds or thousands of parcels of private property."

    I meant under a single owner.

  • @MsSexySocialist "Ancap by contrast would allow for a whole town or city to be privatized and run like a monarchy."

    Towns are already "privatized." They consist of hundreds or thousands of parcels of private property. If you or anyone else has some superior claim to your neighbor's home or business, then by all means you should pursue it in court.

    Are you referring to taking back "public property" which the state has usurped? How can you have a problem with local control?

  • @MsSexySocialist "It is inequitable for any individual to claim productive property or resources to the detriment of others."

    So if your co-op claims a building that I also want to share, that is inequitable?

    "monopolization of MOP in either private or state hands."

    You keep saying this and it has no context.

    "Indivisible (common) ownership of MOP is the solution to this"

    MOP in general is not your to distribute as you wish unless you have a specific claim to specific property.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more