Can anyone give a response to this video? As I watched it, it seemed like he was being disengious, but I can't verify or disprove everything he says. Most of you are better aquainted with libertarianism than I am, so I was hoping someone could provide a rebuttal to Chomsky.
If you don't know why he's wrong, why do you assume him to be wrong?
Perhaps a better approach would be "He seems to disagree with some points that I can't seem to refute, and I'd like you to offer your input as to the veracity of his statements."
I don't have time right now, but if no one else replies, I will tackle this.
I've seen this video before and let's just say that it doesn't live up to expectations.
1. Chomsky's arguments for what he says Smith and Jefferson believe is absolutely dubious at best. I think anyone who reads the wealth of nations would agree that Smith believed that markets would lead towards generally equal wages, but to say that this was the thrust of his argument is idiocy. Smith did believe that there would be sizeable wealth inequality and he argued for markets also on the grounds that they would make everyone richer
2. Smith and the American libertarians argue for practically the same things. The conditions of perfect liberty that he's talking about are what the libertarians advocate
3. Corporate "tyrannies" are certainly accountable in a libertarian society. Even if the people are helpless and the coporations are unbelievably monopolistic, the rule of law regulates these entities. In the real world, however, there would be a thousand things regulating these tyrannies, usually revolving around competition and consumer sovereignty. Furthermore he does and idiotic conflation to what the libertarians want to what exists today whilst at the same time saying that the libertarian society doesn't exist.
4. Developed nations never developed under conditions of pure laissez-faire, for that has very, very rarely existed if it ever really has, however most of them developed under conditions of fairly free markets. I feel like the one real exception to this might be germany. With this being said all developed nations everywhere only began to develope after they were liberalized. There has also However I can guarantee you that Chomsky can't give you a single reason why non-free markets are more efficient and lead to developement whilst free markets don't, except for possibly the old protectionist arguments which have some validity
5. The most idiotic thing taht he says is that the conditions of laissez-faire are what Africa are experiencing now. This is such an amazingly idiotic statement that I can't believe that he wasn't laughed out of the room as soon as he said it
http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking
Notice how practically every sub-saharan country is in the 100 least free countries, and most of the developed world is within the top 50
6. Yea, libertarianism, property rights and the strict rule of law are totally out of the question, but libertarian socialism where the workers sieze power and make wonderful democratic decisions, a system seen once in history, is Definitely the right answer.
Chomsky is a fool
Do you think an economic system based on voluntary exchange is tyrannical? The corporate system which he mentions would probably look different under laissez-faire. I've been meaning to make a post about this, but you probably wouldn't have a situation where shareholders are completely insulated from the actions of the corporation. You would probably still have limited liability, but it would be much different.
I will partially agree with one of his points. It may be the case that the wealthy in an anarcho-capitalist system may seek to establish a state in order to create barriers to entry, but that will just put us in the same situation we are now.
The guy is a mental midget. He's not refuting anything. Through equivocation he criticizes the current corporatist/fascist collusion of business and government as "libertarianism". He even manages to contradict himself within the 5mins by stating that we've never really seen a true laissez faire (libertarian, capitalist) society. The "tyranny" of private capital that he so denounces stems only from the privileges (powers) given to it by the government ("public") that he claims must regulate (contain) it.
The other logical inconsistencies of left anarchists -- such as his quip about the hierarchy/tyranny of "command" in a corporation, or his aspirations for "true" equality -- have been beaten to death here already.
I think he knows that libertarianism isn't that bad, but he's too ideologically attached to the idea of an 'equal' or 'fair' society. He's employing a common marxist method in which truth and integrity are beneath any actions which bring about the final stage of mankind. He understands corporatism and how it leads to corporate tyranny, and yet attempts to besmirch free-markets for the effects of corporatism. He's obviously not so stupid as to think that unregulated and regulated capitalist systems will both lead to some kind of private tyranny, since he understands largely that restricted competition and limited liability are blessings from the state. Laissez-faire is simply an obstacle to his vision and truth be damned if it impedes the march to a shining socialist future. My 2c anyways...
His argument about how it has never existed and can't exist because rich people want to buy power is irritatingly retarded. Firstly, no african country knows laissezfaire capitalism. Secondly, couldn't one say the exact same thing about 'libertarian socialism', whatever that is? Because it's so good for everyone, like laissezfaire, that the rich just won't allow it so there's no point in trying. Right? Liberty is an idea and an infectious one at that. If I told someone in 1267 that some day, kings would be a thing of the past, he would say "why thats absurd! Kings have always been around and they always will be, because they want the power." And he would be wrong today.
This argument from history or whatever it is is purely nonsensical. Nowhere is it written that the future is constrained by the experience of the past. That's why I think that Chomsky is just a very clever, good little socialist spreading his message. He can be very intelligent when he wants to be and then nonsensical when he must be.
On a somewhat unrelated note: I enjoy watching him shred this slimy hack
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Libertarian socialist is a contradiction in terms. He sort of skimmed over this contradiction by making the case that libertarianism in todays society means the opposite to what it realy means. If he realy wanted to explain the confusion over the apparent contradiction he should have just given his definition for socialism and libertarianism. Instead he never mentions socialism and why it is compatible with libertarianism. I have listened to a lot of chomsky's lectures and he has a lot of good points but he can tend to waffle and as he is a linguist he speaks very intelligently. I do agree with him however that people have different definitions for political terminology. But I would say there is more confusion over what socialism is compared to libertarianism. When someone starts to use socialism with anarchism or libertarianism then my first thought is, they must have a different definition of socialism than myself. They also probably struggle to realize that any sort of collective involuntary system is contrary to one of anarchism and libertarianism's core tenets.
If I told someone in 1267 that some day, kings would be a thing of the past, he would say "why thats absurd! Kings have always been around and they always will be, because they want the power." And he would be wrong today.
I know I'm being besides the point, but there are still quite a few monarchs knocking around today. The Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan actually rule as well as reign, and those monarchs who restrict themselves to reigning - such as the British - are not the utterly impotent and symbolic human mascots of the state most people seem to think they are. They only own half the goddam planet.
I actually think monarchs in medieval times tended to be substantially less powerful than the British monarchy today. They were certainly much, much poorer.
You guys are great. This is the reason I've been browsing these forums for over a year.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. When I said "disengious" (I meant "disingenuous") I meant that I found it odd that the same man who refers to himself as a "liberal" could spend so much time complaining about the perversion of labels like "conservative" and "libertarian". Chomsky always struck me as a pretty smart guy on certain topics(foreign policy in particular), which is why I came here to hear what others have to say.
"Libertarian socialist is a contradiction in terms. He sort of skimmed over this contradiction by making the case that libertarianism in todays society means the opposite to what it realy means. If he realy wanted to explain the confusion over the apparent contradiction he should have just given his definition for socialism and libertarianism. Instead he never mentions socialism and why it is compatible with libertarianism. "
Actually he's entirely right in what he says there. Traditionally the word "libertarian" was synonymous to left wing anarchists who were egalitarian, socialistic, and non-hierarchical. It wasn't until fairly modern times that classical liberals began to use the term which carried over to anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist ideology. Therefore in order to maintain their autonomy, and as a way of identification, classical libertarians employ the term "libertarian-socialist". So in the sense that Chomsky is using the term it is not a contradction in terms, it is redundant. I also feel like that the term still has its classical meaning outside of north America, but I'm not sure
my favorite part was his claim that free market capitalism exist in third world countries.
@ Neodoxy's earlier post
"Chomsky is a fool"
You just said in a recent post that Chomsky is a very intelligent man.
Intelligent men are sometimes the easiest to fool.
Uri Geller had lots of success convincing scientists he had supernatural powers. Magicians, not so much.
"You just said in a recent post that Chomsky is a very intelligent man."
He's a little bit of both, although my views have changed a little bit since making the above post. Chomsky is smart and he does a very good job of putting forward the Libertarian Socialist view of the world.
The problem is that this view is mostly wrong.
I think that to throw out context, I think that Marx was among the ranks of the smartest and most thoroughly read people to ever walk the earth... But he was still f***ing wrong, really, really f***ing wrong
I concur with Neodoxy's assessments of both Chomsky and Marx. As I see it, the errors in their thinking lie mainly with their premises.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Anarchist was first used to name one's own ideas by the Enrages, anarcho-communists of the French Revolution, and later by Proudhon in the meaning of "against any form of subordination, against hierarchy", and has been since then used and is used that way among anarchists.
Libertarian was first used by Joseph Dejacque, to mark his anarcho-communist ideas and emphasize that anarcho-communism is the ideology based on the centrality of freedom and not capitalism that his contemporary "liberals" advocated, that was based on the centrality of property; and has been since then used and is used that way among anarchists.
The word socialism was firstly used to name one's own ideas by Robert Owen, who advocated workers' self-management, and the word has been since then used and is used that way among socialists.
The three words can be somewhat seen as synonims in their original meanins in which they are in fact used outside the USA.
As Chomksy said- in the USA the words get their opposite meaning, and that "system of intellectual distortion" needs to be decoded.
stsoc,
You are fighting a losing battle. Do you think the words queer and gay are ever going to mean anything but homosexual ever again? Maybe they will, but it's not going to happen through people like you complaining about words not continuing their previously held meaning. Meanwhile, we libertarians are going to continue to use the words "anarchy" and "libertarian" the way we feel like it, and as our numbers grow, other people will use it the way we do.
Gay and queer is used by homosexuals and that's it. Anarchism, libertarianism, and socialism is used in it's original meaning by the proponents of those ideologies that those terms in their original meanings signify. The meanings have been corrupted by propaganda, and we are not going to say "well, ok, this kind of identity theft is ok, we'll just take some other names", those are our names and we are going to give in to propaganda trying to confuse people.
I don't see what's wrong with free-market capitalism, stateless capitalism, laissezfaireism, propertarianism or voluntaryism that you have to also hijack anarachism and libertarianism for yourself, you are not against hierarchies and you do not see liberty (but consent) as the central value, and therefore it's just plain lying to people and trying to lure them by calling yourselves something you are not.
"anarchism and libertarianism for yourself, you are not against hierarchies and you do not see liberty (but consent) as the central value, and therefore it's just plain lying to people and trying to lure them by calling yourselves something you are not."
This statement makes no sense.
1. Libertarianism (as you define the term) is in absolutely no way about liberty but rather the death of hierarchy
2. Libertarians (as we define them) promote what they see as the greatest degree of liberty possible which is exactly what is done voluntarily within the realm of property. Inevitably you believe EXACTLY the same thing except that your definition of property is different.
3. "Libertarian" has been used to describe a free market oriented individual who promotes voluntary interaction devoid of most state action for coming up on a century now. While I can understand that you might be a little upset that the term was hijacked from what it originally meant but I think that it's about time to except it
4. Anarchism, while traditionally about the death of all hierarchy had its central factor in its anti-statism. If, for instance, Fascism was associated heavily upon conception with Nazism then Fascism would still have a meaning outside of Nazism. This is to say that classical anarchism means all of the things you imply, but not all anarchisms necessarily mean this at all, simply anti-statism.
5. No one is being tricked by these words. No one, because they don't have the conception of these ideas as you have them then they are not tricked into thinking (oh, these people support socialist anarchism at espoused by Kropotkin and Goldman, I might give that a try!) rather they learn what "righ libertarians" mean when using both terms. For this reason it is not misleading, and only misleading if you originally had the leftist conception of the term in your mind.
Do you have terms besides anarchism and libertarianism that you would rather we use?
Gay and queer is used by homosexuals and that's it.
I stopped reading there.
You jumped the gun. If the OP is the same now as when you saw it, then I'm struggling to see the assumption of wrongness he (allegedly) made.
That's why we also call outselves anarchists. Libertarians because we see liberty as a central value, and anarchists because we see hierarchy as opposite to liberty.
Libertarians (as we define them) promote what they see as the greatest degree of liberty possible which is exactly what is done voluntarily within the realm of property.
You don't promote liberty, you promote consent. You see nothing wrong with people not being free if they consent to it (and economic circumstances don't count as coercion).
"Libertarian" has been used to describe a free market oriented individual who promotes voluntary interaction devoid of most state action for coming up on a century now.
Actually, it is used by capitalists in USA only from late 60s. Anarchists are using it for more then 150 years.
4. Anarchism, while traditionally about the death of all hierarchy had its central factor in its anti-statism.
No, it was used in the meanings of "chaos" or "anti-state", and often in equation of those two term by the media, anarchists have since their begining and until this day say their fight as being against primarily state, capitalism, organized religion, but always against all hierarchis.
Fascism was associated heavily upon conception with Nazism then Fascism would still have a meaning outside of Nazism.
Fascism has lost it's meaning even more then the word socialism. But I'm not overly interested in that being that I'm not a fascist.
For this reason it is not misleading
Of course it's misleading. The word has in it the word "liberty", and you support slavery. Yes, under condition that it's not imposed on someone, but you do support it, and yet you promote yourself to people by a name that misleads them into thinking that you see liberty as central value.
If I shared your views, I could not forbare that kind of intellectual dishonesty and would use propertarianism or voluntaryism (but as I mentioned there are a number of alternatives- free market capitalism, stateless capitalism, freemarketism, laissezfaireism)
Anarchism, socialism, libertarianism, communism are terms that we use for our ideas, and they are all hijacked and had their meanings distorted.
I have to resort to calling myself by pleonasms such as libertarian socialist and anarcho-communist so that people from USA who are not versed in anarchist/ socialist history would know what I'm talking about.
Because you know of an anti-homosexual group calling their own way of life "gay" or "queer"?
The word has in it the word "liberty", and you support slavery. Yes, under condition that it's not imposed on someone, but you do support it,
yes you promote yourself to people by a name that misleads them into thinking that you see liberty as central value.
If I shared your views, I could not forbare that kind of intellectual dishonesty and would use propertarianism or voluntaryism.
We explicitly declare that slavery contracts are unenforceable.
You having inconsistent views is your problem.
liberty is the central value. Thats why we support the liberty to have voluntary hierarchies.
Exaclty the word tampering I'm talking about. You do not see liberty as central, but consent and voluntaryism.
What's your definition of "liberty", Stsoc?
Okay, I really don't know how to respond to your post because you prettymuch sidestepped everything that I was going for but I'll give this a try:
The ultimate point which your contention rests upon is that consent is not conducive to liberty, especially depending upon the economic system . Right-Libertarians would disagree with this and at some level you must too. Do I have a right to act as someone else's slave? Yes or no? If you say no then you are restricting my liberty, whether or not you like it. I don't like the idea of someone acting as someone else's slave anymore than you do, but I will not interfere with them doing so exactly because I support liberty.
If we look deeper into liberty and choice then the fact is that there is ultimately no way to increase the powers of one person without denying the powers of another. Right-libertarians accept this and therefore instate a system of property and voluntary interaction, whereas you support a highly democratic system based around use-ownership. These are merely different approaches, but the goal of liberty is the same. The argument then revolves around which system will provide a greater amount of liberty. I'd argue that the economic destruction and primitivization, as well as the democratization of public life which would follow the full realization of your system would mean that it is inferior the provision of liberty. That is ultimately where the discussion lies, I do not see how you can state that right-libertarians do not value liberty.
As for terms, I've seen the term "libertarian" used relatively synonymously with right-libertarianism as early as the 1920's, and I am unaware of a leftist usage before the 1880's. The meaning of words changes and I don't think that it's a great loss since right-libertarians generally support what you allegedly support, liberty, they just get there in a different way. If it makes you feel any better we've had the meanings of capitalism, liberalism, and individualism stolen from us.
"Of course it's misleading. The word has in it the word "liberty", and you support slavery."
I want to reemphasize this point, if you would stop someone from voluntarily becoming someone slave then you are restricting their liberty, and someone who voluntarily chooses to continually be someone else's slave is expressing their liberty. It seems that you're using the term "slave" for shock value more than anything else. That which is counter-intuitive need not be false.
Saying that someone who voluntarily gives up their liberty is a "slave" is an insult to real slaves.
my view is consistent
You see people as property, you think things that are de fact inalienable should be de jure transferable (like labor), and yet you think think that the title over oneself should not be transferable. That's called being inconsistent.
"liberty" is the freedom to act without coercive constraint.
No, liberty is to be in control oneself, that is, not be under the authority of another. You see nothing wrong with people not being free as long as they consent to it. Therefore, you do not value liberty, you value consent.
Do I have a right to act as someone else's slave? Yes or no?
No.
If you say no then you are restricting my liberty, whether or not you like it.
No, "I am" restricting your rectriction of your liberty. Not only is that not the same as restricting your liberty, but it is exactly the opposite of it.
The argument then revolves around which system will provide a greater amount of liberty.
Why is voluntarism not enough?
As for terms, I've seen the term "libertarian" used relatively synonymously with right-libertarianism as early as the 1920's
Where and when precisely.
and I am unaware of a leftist usage before the 1880's.
June 9, 1858 the first number of Le Libertaire was published, and it was an anarcho-communist jurnal. And to this day the word is still used by anarcho-communists in Europe, e.g. the group "Libertarian Alternative" (or Alternative libertaire in their language) in France.
The meaning of words changes and I don't think that it's a great loss since right-libertarians generally support what you allegedly support, liberty, they just get there in a different way.
It is a loss, because you hijacked our name for yourself and you do not support liberty, and have no connection with out views for which we invented the name you hijacked.
If it makes you feel any better we've had the meanings of capitalism, liberalism, and individualism stolen from us.
Capitalism and individualism, no, capitalism was always about property, and not about markets, and individualism is not a political idea. But liberalism yes, and Friedman fought against that, he many times called himself a liberal and explained to people that it's meaning is perverted in the USA.
someone who voluntarily chooses to continually be someone else's slave is expressing their liberty.
This borders on doublethink. You state an obvious contradiction and expect someone to think that proves that there is no contradiction. He expresses his consent, but not his liberty, because he has become a slave, and that diametrically opposite of freedom.
As I told you already, stop being such an ignoramus and read something first before talking at all, let alone in a such condescending manner.
Self-sale contracts have existed in almost all laws in history and have been practiced troughout history, and those people who sold themselves (voluntarily gave up their liberty) did not became "fake slaves" or "make-believe slaves", but real, full-fledged slaves, property of their owners.
"No, liberty is to be in control oneself, that is, not be under the authority of another. You see nothing wrong with people not being free as long as they consent to it. Therefore, you do not value liberty, you value consent."
My god this is a fools definition of liberty.
My earlier post got deleted so here's the abridged version
1. No, voluntary slavery is not a negation of liberty because it is continuously voluntary and the fact that because of this one instance you would deny libertarianism is astoundingly foolish. Slavery as we're talking about here is something which people would have to want to do. This sort of arrangement is not illegal today and yet it practically never happens. Therefore it is just as legitimate to say that people should not be able to walk down the street as not be slaves. Skeptical Metal is not being an ignoramus for chipping in here and mentioning the thing which you would apparently reject the whole system for is indeed an insult to real slaves because the two institutions only resemble eachother semantically. You're just saying that you don't like what two people do and that therefore you reject the whole system.
You do not support liberty and you are not a libertarian, you just support whatever your ideology tells you is okay
2. Wage slavery is an absolutely foolish argument as well and I didn't see any economic argument in the section which you linked to me. Comparing people's natural need for food which they must work with others to slavery and being forced at the point of a gun to do things for other people is not only comical, but vulgar and foolish. What is even more sad about this, is that communism would not end the horror that is "wage slavery" unless it would have ended in the capitalist society too. Much more likely is that communism would exacerbate wage slavery.
He already called me an "ignoramus" for making an inquiry about what he advocates. It's fine, I don't take anything this trollbot says seriously anymore.
You're a better man than I am, SkepticalMetal. I never took this trollbot seriously.
I don't think he's a troll, but I also don't think he's being intellectually honest. A lot of his "arguments" are simply retorts, as if he expects a retort to shut up his opponent. Or maybe his retorts are meant to show (to who? himself?) how much he's willing to stand up to people who disagree with him. That hardly qualifies as intellectual honesty. Nevertheless, it's how a lot of leftists behave around non-leftists.
stsoc:No, liberty is to be in control [of] oneself, that is, not be under the authority of another.
As I see it, everyone is always in control of himself. That includes slaves.
If Walt Kowalski growled at me to get off his lawn, would you say that I'm no longer in control of myself?
Normally I would agree, but seeing as he prefers to insult rather than discuss, I prefer not to give him the benefit of the doubt.
True, he has resorted to insults at times. I see that as an attempt by him to browbeat his opponents into intellectual submission - "Agree with my arguments/definitions/premises/etc. or I'll call you an idiot!" This again seems to be common in leftist circles, and I think it again just goes to show how much they focus on power relations over ideas themselves.
I honestly think he's right....That's been my libertarian view....Follow teh constitution, which protects peoples liberty, property, and life. I don't think a statless society can or could work. You'd just end up replacing the state with something else....I think the only way to achieve peace, liberty, and the protection of people is to have a centralized governemnt that is checked by a constitution and smaller states. aka America (pre-civil war) Not to say that everything they did was right, but the ideals were there. You need some regulation to maek sure companies follow the ethical code that you talk about.
Everything that the US federal government has done up to the present day has been in accordance with (some interpretation of) the US Constitution.
Actually, that's the view of liberty held by classical philosophy, the enlightement, and anarchism. Yours is the fools definition of liberty because it based on propaganda, and more importantly it's contradictory. The very existence of the possibility to voluntarily forfeit your liberty shows that consent and liberty are not only not the same, but can be (in the case where someone consents to forfeir his liberty) diametrically opposite. And it is clear from the propertarian views that you value consent, and not liberty. Therefore, voluntaryism is the suitable term for your views, not our term libertarianism.
No, voluntary slavery is not a negation of liberty
All slavery is a negation of liberty, whether voluntary or not. Voluntary slavery is just not a negation of consent.
Therefore it is just as legitimate to say that people should not be able to walk down the street as not be slaves.
Walking down the street is the same as being someone's property, yeah right. And someone says that the comparison of wage-slavery with chattel slavery is far-fetched.
Much more likely is that communism would exacerbate wage slavery.
This makes absolutely no sense.
He already called me an "ignoramus" for making an inquiry about what he advocates.
For being a wise-ass and making "smart" comments without knowing about what are you talking about.
I don't know of any enlightenment philosopher who is definining liberty as you have. This is why Skeptical Metal is right and your statement is contradictory; the definition of slave:
"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them"
-Oxford
This can't happen in the voluntaryist society. Period. No one can be forced to obey anyone else in a whimsical way and beyond the need to enforce person and property. You can agree to serve someone and act as their slave, but no one can force to be or to continue being a slave. Thusly it is a fools definition and indeed an insult to those people whose homes were raided, families were killed, and they were forced into forcible servitude for the rest of their lives.
There are other definitions there, but this is the one that we are discussing because this is the important one. Skeptic wasn't being a wise ass (I'd like to point out he's done more to try to understand you than anyone else on these forums) you were being an ignoramus
The reason why communism will not end wage slavery and instead exacerbate it is because you'll still have to work in order to eat in this society, but because of the economic destruction and stagnation that it would bring would mean people would have to work more for less, assuming that they could get anything more by working more. They would also be closer to slavery to begin with as they were thrown to the whim of the majority which has no tendency towards freedom by any definition.