Chomsky On "libertarianism"

[Dean]

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.
Noam Chomsky

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:10 AM
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.
Noam Chomsky
Can the liberal God Chomski be that naive? Of course we cappies know anarcho-capitalism will lead to inequality and injustice. Does he think we don't know? I WANT others in poverty. I WANT a Dickensian world to re-emerge. Liberals know nothing of the tremendous leverage effect of inequal income upon technological development. The capitalist 'long nineteenth century', (1800-1914) brought more advancements than any other century in the past. The 20th century is merely big government war technologies. Unregulated capitalism is the only way we can advance into the FUTURE and I will tolerate, nay WELCOME any poverty or hardship required to get there.

[Whitten]

Whats the point in advancement when it suse is restricted to the hands of a few?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ebeneezer+Jul 24 2006, 12:36 PM--> (ebeneezer @ Jul 24 2006, 12:36 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 03:10 AM
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.
Noam Chomsky
Can the liberal God Chomski be that naive? Of course we cappies know anarcho-capitalism will lead to inequality and injustice. Does he think we don't know? I WANT others in poverty. I WANT a Dickensian world to re-emerge. [/b]
So you want to create immense suffering in the name of technological progress when an alternative that allows just as much advancement is available (for example the Technocratic model or even plain old Communism.). You're an idiot or do you think that wanting people to suffer is somehow 'cool' and makes you feel like you have a massive penis or something? Either way.


Liberals I don't care what Liberals think, they're scum - just read 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill - full of free marketeer crap.


know nothing of the tremendous leverage effect of inequal income upon technological development. We seek to change the world in such a way as sufferiong is no longer required.


The capitalist 'long nineteenth century', (1800-1914) brought more advancements than any other century in the past. And it is now in the past, to yearn for a return to those times is reactionary and regressive.

The 20th century is merely big government war technologies. Can't argue with that. Which is why I want to change it.
Unregulated capitalism is the only way we can advance into the FUTURE and I will tolerate, nay WELCOME any poverty or hardship required to get there. Cease the arse talk.

[bezdomni]

I WANT a Dickensian world to re-emerge. Liberals know nothing of the tremendous leverage effect of inequal income upon technological development. The capitalist 'long nineteenth century', (1800-1914) brought more advancements than any other century in the past. The 20th century is merely big government war technologies.

Yes, because times were much better when women weren't allowed to vote, "colored people" were hardly viewed as people, millions died from starvation and easily preventable disease, and any worker who stood up for their rights was killed.

Seriously, how can you say "oh stalin was such a bad man because a lot of people died when he was general secretary", and then advocate mass poverty...which inherently leads to starvation and essentially death?

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:36 PM
I WANT others in poverty. I WANT a Dickensian world to re-emerge.
You WANT people to suffer?

If that's not enough to get banned I don't know what is.

I suggest you retract those points in your next post.

P.S. I'm not TRYING to get you banned, your accomplishing that all by yourself.

[ebeneezer]

Sigh :(

I didn't expect you guys to understand...
I guess you think I'm heartless. Well, I think you'll find every single libertarian out there will agree with me. I'm not exactly an outlier. Please try to understand I just want the best for everyone as although people are 'poor', they will still be far richer under capitalism, and increasingly rich the longer it progresses thanks to the technological advancements which will do the work for us. Look at washing machines and cars as evidence. The poor have them.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:36 PM
Can the liberal God Chomski be that naive?
Who said he was a god? Oh, that's right, quotation = worship, I forgot.

Well, I think you'll find every single libertarian out there will agree with me.
Which is why I'm not a "libertarian". Well, I am, but only in the sense that the word was used before the Libertarian Party stole it, and the way it's still used in Europe.

By the way, I don't have a washing machine or a car, and I'm poor. And don't tell me I don't bust my ass all day at work to get the meager amount of money I have to live off of. Well, I'm going to go scrub out a pot, cook a can of soup, and bike to work. Good day to you sir.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:27 PM
Sigh :(

I didn't expect you guys to understand...
I guess you think I'm heartless. Well, I think you'll find every single libertarian out there will agree with me. I'm not exactly an outlier. Please try to understand I just want the best for everyone as although people are 'poor', they will still be far richer under capitalism, and increasingly rich the longer it progresses thanks to the technological advancements which will do the work for us. Look at washing machines and cars as evidence. The poor have them.
most of these guys dont:

http://www.traveldocs.com/images/africa_b.jpg

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:27 PM
Sigh :(

I didn't expect you guys to understand...
I guess you think I'm heartless. Well, I think you'll find every single libertarian out there will agree with me. I'm not exactly an outlier. Please try to understand I just want the best for everyone as although people are 'poor', they will still be far richer under capitalism, and increasingly rich the longer it progresses thanks to the technological advancements which will do the work for us. Look at washing machines and cars as evidence. The poor have them.
Don't talk bullshit.

It's simple, yes the poor get richer but so do the rich but at a greater speed. Therefore the gap between rich and poor widens. The poor may have a little more money than they had before but they will be comparitively poorer because capitalism forces prices up to level which the poor are less able to afford. This forces more goods to produced so that they are cheaper and the more supply rises the more demand falls so businesses go bust, the poor lose their jobs and we're back to square one.

Capitalism will eat itself.

EDIT: And in reference to Whitten's post I was talking about the industrialised world.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:27 PM
I didn't expect you guys to understand...
I guess you think I'm heartless.
erm.....well let's just say the case for the prosecution looks pretty strong.

I also see that you haven't retracted those quotes, which proves beyond doubt what a greedy, spiteful little retard you are.

That you would actually WANT people in poverty, so you can continue to make your money (or more of it) is another nail in your 'I'm not heartless really' coffin.

So cut the fucking 'bleeding heart' crap will you, save it...it makes us want to puke.


Well, I think you'll find every single libertarian out there will agree with me.

Only if they're as blind and indifferent as you are. The capitalist classes use the word 'liberty' differently from the rest of society, like you are here.


Please try to understand I just want the best for everyone

How? by wishing poverty on people? Save it...it stinks and you know it.

All you 'want' is as much as you can get at whatever cost to anyone else.


although people are 'poor', they will still be far richer under capitalism, and increasingly rich the longer it progresses thanks to the technological advancements which will do the work for us. Look at washing machines and cars as evidence. The poor have them

You have no idea what 'poor' is do you? No sense of REAL POVERTY, and you care even less.

Your just playing your pathetic word games, trying to provoke a similar response from us.

If you did know (or care) you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.

The vast majority of the 'poor' (as you call them) do not have washing machines and cars, many don't have homes or shelter, many don't have sustainance.

So don't play the 'I'm a caring cappie really, so please love me' card, it might wash with your fellow degenerate retards, but doesn't wash with us and wouldn't with the VAST majority of people on this planet.

[Orange Juche]

Chomsky is a fucking sellout.

"He was the only realistic choice" - on John Kerry (and then continued to say how we had to support him because of this)

You can't say I took that out of context or misinterpreted what he meant, I was about 40 fucking feet away from him when he said it.

Fuck Chomsky.

[Publius]

http://www.hooverdigest.org/061/schweizer.html

Chomsky complains and complains about what 'the rich' would do to the poor; self-loathing?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:14 AM
http://www.hooverdigest.org/061/schweizer.html

Chomsky complains and complains about what 'the rich' would do to the poor; self-loathing?
i feel like an asshole for trying to defend chomsky but

communism is not about charity work or pity. we live in capitalism, and sadly, we have to play by its cards if we want to live decently. chomsky is just being a pragmatist and adopting to the capitalist paradigm.

the establishment of socialism would mean that chomsky would become economically secure, and thus he won't need his estate anymore.

however, lets see how chomsky's kind react when in a future revolution, all their property paperwork becomes useless.

[Publius]

i feel like an asshole for trying to defend chomsky but

communism is not about charity work or pity. we live in capitalism, and sadly, we have to play by its cards if we want to live decently. chomsky is just being a pragmatist and adopting to the capitalist paradigm.

People release works under open license all the time. Often leftists release their writings for free.

Being a professor, a very well paid professor, he doesn't need the money.

An estate of millions of dollars isn't 'pragmatic'. Well invested (as it is), that kind of money will never go away. Accrue that at 6% and you're set.

He can release his books for free, or at least some of them. He can release at least some of speaches under open license.

He just chooses not to.

[ebeneezer]

erm.....well let's just say the case for the prosecution looks pretty strong.

Can't wait for the show trials eh? Disgusting! :angry:


I also see that you haven't retracted those quotes, which proves beyond doubt what a greedy, spiteful little retard you are.
I am greedy, but not spiteful, a retard or little. Judging by your posts I would say you're the spiteful one. And I bet I'm taller than you too, as well as less retarded.


That you would actually WANT people in poverty, so you can continue to make your money (or more of it) is another nail in your 'I'm not heartless really' coffin.
I don't want people in poverty per se. I want technology and innovation. Capitalism works and if this results in wealth differences resulting in relative poverty then who cares? Do they care about me?


Only if they're as blind and indifferent as you are. The capitalist classes use the word 'liberty' differently from the rest of society, like you are here.

You don't know what liberty is. Liberty is the freedom to make money. Grant that and everything else follows. Take it away and all tyranny follows.


All you 'want' is as much as you can get at whatever cost to anyone else.

Actually, that's it. Hole in one. I do want as much as possible regardless of the costs involved. In my career I will run factories working people all day if necessary to assure my titanic fortune. This will grant the maximum wealth to myself and to those who participate in the system, thus doing the most good for all involved.


You have no idea what 'poor' is do you? No sense of REAL POVERTY, and you care even less.
Why should I care? Like they care about me? Do you think they care about you, Si Pinto? Doubt it.



If you did know (or care) you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.
My statements are NOT ridiculous. Yours are.


The vast majority of the 'poor' (as you call them) do not have washing machines and cars, many don't have homes or shelter, many don't have sustainance.
So? They soon will under capitalism.


So don't play the 'I'm a caring cappie really, so please love me' card, it might wash with your fellow degenerate retards, but doesn't wash with us and wouldn't with the VAST majority of people on this planet.
I do have a heart and can be swayed. I mean once someone came to my door collecting money for some charity or something and I gave him five bucks out of the generosity of my heart, so stop it with the 'I don't care' rubbish because I do.

[JKP]

Originally posted by ebeneezer+Jul 24 2006, 04:36 AM--> (ebeneezer @ Jul 24 2006, 04:36 AM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 03:10 AM
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.
Noam Chomsky
Can the liberal God Chomski be that naive? Of course we cappies know anarcho-capitalism will lead to inequality and injustice. Does he think we don't know? I WANT others in poverty. I WANT a Dickensian world to re-emerge. Liberals know nothing of the tremendous leverage effect of inequal income upon technological development. The capitalist 'long nineteenth century', (1800-1914) brought more advancements than any other century in the past. The 20th century is merely big government war technologies. Unregulated capitalism is the only way we can advance into the FUTURE and I will tolerate, nay WELCOME any poverty or hardship required to get there. [/b]
Nothing like social Darwinism to brighten up the day, eh?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:33 AM
communism is not about charity work or pity. we live in capitalism, and sadly, we have to play by its cards if we want to live decently. chomsky is just being a pragmatist and adopting to the capitalist paradigm.
The working class can kiss my ass I got the foreman's job at last :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 25 2006, 06:28 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 25 2006, 06:28 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 01:33 AM
communism is not about charity work or pity. we live in capitalism, and sadly, we have to play by its cards if we want to live decently. chomsky is just being a pragmatist and adopting to the capitalist paradigm.
The working class can kiss my ass I got the foreman's job at last :rolleyes: [/b]
yea

[Tungsten]

Libertarianism on Chomsky:

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/...cle.asp?ID=5843 (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5843)

[Publius]

That's actually a very good article.

I was impressed. I usually don't expect much from FrontPageMag, but that clearly showed the absurdity of removing coercion from economics.

As long as resources are limited, people will have to do certain jobs to provide for certain ends; that's unavoidable.

[red team]

I don't want people in poverty

Sure you do. Otherwise, what does it mean to be "rich".


I want technology and innovation.

For what purpose?


Capitalism works and if this results in wealth differences resulting in relative poverty then who cares?

"Capitalism works"
Only so far in that it compensates less than the value it produces, otherwise it doesn't work.

If it compensates far less than what it produces then it's a form of slavery "per se".

"if this results in wealth differences resulting in relative poverty then who cares?"

The people living in "relative poverty".


You don't know what liberty is. Liberty is the freedom to make money. Grant that and everything else follows. Take it away and all tyranny follows.

What is money? How do you make it? How do you spend it?
Prove that money isn't a fraud.

"Grant that and everything else follows."

If everybody tries to "make" money then who will make work. It doesn't follow. Unless you mean liberty for a few. If it actually follows as you imply then there would be no such thing as "over-production" or "over-capacity". Throwing away obviously useful products that doesn't sell would be a punishable crime for the fact that it destroys wealth. Is that the case today?

"Take it away and all tyranny follows."

Not necessarily.

Money can only be "made" by producing a debt. Debt is only useful in motivating non-machine-reproducable physical labour. A perfect system for the low-tech system of bribery, blackmail and con-games we have now called Capitalism.


Actually, that's it. Hole in one. I do want as much as possible regardless of the costs involved. In my career I will run factories working people all day if necessary to assure my titanic fortune. This will grant the maximum wealth to myself and to those who participate in the system, thus doing the most good for all involved.

"I do want as much as possible regardless of the costs involved."

What does it cost you?

"In my career I will run factories working people all day if necessary to assure my titanic fortune."

Evidently, it doesn't cost you that much.

"This will grant the maximum wealth to myself and to those who participate in the system, thus doing the most good for all involved."

This will grant you maximum wealth by minimising costs in money for wages, thus doing the most good for yourself except for those who are the costs.

The only ones "involved" are those who have the money to invest.


So? They soon will under capitalism.

Only if they have credit cards in the industrialized parts of the world and only if you're rich in the colonized parts of the world.


I do have a heart and can be swayed. I mean once someone came to my door collecting money for some charity or something and I gave him five bucks out of the generosity of my heart, so stop it with the 'I don't care' rubbish because I do.

And that piece of paper with dead presidents and a number 5 printed on it is valuable because? .....

[Publius]

Sure you do. Otherwise, what does it mean to be "rich".

"Have more money."

It says nothing about there being poor people.

In fact, the 'poor' in the modern era are rich by any but modern standards. It's not perfect, no, but it's better.



"Capitalism works"
Only so far in that it compensates less than the value it produces, otherwise it doesn't work.

How does it compensate less value than it produces? Where does this extra money come from, thin air?

Consumers 'compensate' for exactly the value they have for the object.



If it compensates far less than what it produces then it's a form of slavery "per se".

It's 'compensation' and it's 'production' are subservient to the principal of demand. It's not slavery it fulfulls people's purchasing desires.


What is money?

A promise.


How do you make it?

Get someone to trade it to you.


How do you spend it?

Trade it to someone.



If everybody tries to "make" money then who will make work. It doesn't follow. Unless you mean liberty for a few. If it actually follows as you imply then there would be no such thing as "over-production" or "over-capacity". Throwing away obviously useful products that doesn't sell would be a punishable crime for the fact that it destroys wealth. Is that the case today?

No, it isn't, but I don't see any reason to throw out the entire market system for the allocation of resources because of its inefficiencies.

Why don't we just, I don't know, get rid of its inefficiencies.

The problem isn't 'markets', it's human behavior. If you gave out goods instead of throwing them away, nobody would then have an incentive to purchase them at cost, which means none would have any incentive to produce.

Socialism 'solves' this by pretending people will produce so they can consume, as a member of society. There is, of course, no reason why this principal shouldn't apply today or tommorow, instead of in the socialist future. The problem is, it doesn't work like that.

THe ideal solution is to give it to people who genuinely need it and force those who can pay to pay; can we think of any system to do this? If not, I can't see how we can ever solve the problem. We can pretend it doesn't exist (socialism) but we can't accurately fix supply, need, and demand.



Money can only be "made" by producing a debt.

How do you figure this?




This will grant you maximum wealth by minimising costs in money for wages, thus doing the most good for yourself except for those who are the costs.


If you don't have any incentive to cut costs, you won't cut costs; if you don't cut costs, inefficiencies add up (regardless of the economy.)

Yeah, it sucks that people get fired or have their pay reduced because of changing market conditions; it sucks even more that most owners are unaffected.

But what do you propose? Vote to fire workers and pay them the same as they made when they were working? That's sure going to be efficient.




And that piece of paper with dead presidents and a number 5 printed on it is valuable because? .....

Because we pretend it is. The only reason anything has value.

[LSD]

I'm not one to defend Chomsky, the man's generally useless on all but linguistics and US foreign affairs, but that actually sums up my feelings on libertarianism quite nicely.

As a "theory" libertarianism is quite ...pretty. Everyone can get along, everyone gets paid for their work, no coercion, no oppression, etc... The problems only start coming once you realize that an unlimited free market means an unlimited free market.

Anything that people want will get done and some people want some pretty horrible stuff.

I once had a rather lengthy discussion in this very forum in which I tried to convince a libertarian than his philosophy would inevitably lead to a massive rise in child porn production. He resisted until the bitter end and, as I recall, never actually conceded the point, but the excuses that he came up with speak for themselves.

In his words, anti-pedophile activitists would organize "armed groups" and would "hunt down" pedohphiles. He failed to see how these "armed groups" would probabnly "hunt down" a whole lot of other folks too, but was quite inisistant that they would be an effective bullwark against perversity.

He also proposed that no one would trade with pedophiles. A rather ludicrous contention seeing as pedophiles seem to be doing just fine right now.

The simple truth is, if we make money the only social force, inequality and oppression cannot help but follow. Power doesn't sit idly by, it perpetuates itself and it does so at the cost of everyone else.

Like Chomsky, though, I must say that I find a tragic kinship in libertarians. I think that a lot of them came into politics from a similar perspective. They too see that there's something deeply wrong with the way things are organized and they want to radically change it.

Even more admirably, they approach politics from an entirely rational perspective. I may disagree with them, but at least I can debate with them.

Religious fundamentalists, "Christian" conservatives, on the other hand, are a complete mystery to me. I get how someone might buy into libertarianism, I do not get how someone might buy into the fucking Bible.

Besides, better the libertarian right than the fascistic right. At least with libertarians you can have a diaglogue; with fascists all you get is a bullet to the head!

[red team]

Religious fundamentalists, "Christian" conservatives, on the other hand, are a complete mystery to me. I get how someone might buy into libertarianism, I do not get how someone might buy into the fucking Bible.

"I do not get how someone might buy into the fucking Bible."

Because humans are social animals. They cannot help, but be that way because we've successfully evolved that way. Compared to some of the puniest predators in the wild we are no match and it turns out that our ancestors who crave social interaction and cooperation in meeting a goal like hunting down dinner or communal farming was able to reproduce more people who also are social animals.

When forced to become atomised, self-interested consumers with any sense of community or cooperation toward a shared vision stripped from them some people lose it.

Religion is masses of people losing it.

Of course, there is the occasional mutation of psychopathic individuals who sees others as nothing, but objects to be used and then discarded. These kind of individuals would be successful in which society?


Besides, better the libertarian right than the fascistic right. At least with libertarians you can have a diaglogue; with fascists all you get is a bullet to the head!

They divert popular rage stemming from social alienation toward actions detrimental to popular interests. Divide and conquer.