http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE - 5 minutes in length
This commentary by well known linguist and American foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky is interesting. It is flat out incorrect disinformation, in my opinion, and is incredibly counterproductive to the cause of freedom. What do you expect from a guy with the doublethink title "Libertarian Socialist". Right?
Chomsky actually declares that Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith were anti-capitalist and wanted equality. I think that they mean equality under law - yes - but not enforced equality by government regulation and redistribution.
Chomsky also has a very strange description of what "libertarianism" means and it seems like a total fabrication if not outright lie to me. He asserts that Libertarianism, in the American sense, is total tyranny because he asserts that it entails placing power into the hands of totally unaccountable tyrannies. He announces this to roaring applause from an audience who clearly do not trust freedom and even fear it. What do you all think of Chomsky's remarks?
That YouTube video only serves to support Rothbard's law that people tend to specialize in what they are worst at. Chomsky is primarily and most famously a linguist, however, his "hobby horse" as we saw in that video is denouncing capitalism and advocating a system of anarcho-syndecalism. Noam has been a strong critic of foreign policy which all left-liberals would probably agree with as most libertarians as well. Other than that, his views on economics are quite naive and misinformed.
He is confused, dishonest, or both. How can someone as respected as Choamsky not differentiate between corporatism (and understand that it relies on the State) and capitalism? His "American Libertarian" construct is pure strawman.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Every time I listen to or read Chomsky, I hear a number of totally unsubstantiated and/or false claims.
Jefferson wanted equality and opposed wage labor? ROFL. The guy owned slaves for cryin’ out loud! Freaking slaves!!
The Third World looks the way it does because of unregulated capitalism? Hahahaha, that’s a good one. (Might come as a bit of a surprise to Mugabe.)
Chomsky is just another silly ivory-tower crank, not to be taken seriously. Like most goofball ‘progressives,’ he has zero expertise in economics but constantly speaks on the subject as if he’s some kind of authority. For a dissection of his crackpottery, see: http://mises.org/story/1132
It is also worth noting that syndicalism has close ties to fascism. It’s a bit of an embarrassment to “libertarian socialists,” which is why they rarely bring it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I used to be a Chomskyite. I actually wrote him a letter a year and a half ago. Let's just say, when I recently re-read it - I wanted to go back in time and punch myself in the face.
Anyway, I actually came to know Ron Paul through Chomsky. Haha, someone had spammed 'He was America's last hope' on a Chomsky youtube video, so I checked him out. Haven't turned back since.
I did a critique of his critique of Libertarianism a while back. Which can be found here.
Kind of cool, the student can end up ripping apart the 'master'.
I feel like sending that too him, or re-writing him a letter telling him I've found anarcho-capitalism. Haha, see if I get a response.
For a man that wrote the Chomsky Normal Form stuff, he sure is a dip on other affairs.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
The traditional anarchist line is that property requires the state to survive. Which is technically true, since without any kind of "coercive" protection, anyone could simply take anyone's property and do what he wills with it. Thus begins (and ends) the "libertarian socialist" utopia. I find that Spencer gives a good response to this kind of thinking with his distinction between the "industrial" society (acquiring wealth through labour) and the "militant" society (acquiring wealth through theft, aggression, etc). Property is the institution that is designed to protect the industrial society from the militant society.
We need a good book that will destroy Chomsky's political idiocy.
equack: . Noam has been a strong critic of foreign policy which all left-liberals would probably agree with as most libertarians as well. Other than that, his views on economics are quite naive and misinformed.
. Noam has been a strong critic of foreign policy which all left-liberals would probably agree with as most libertarians as well. Other than that, his views on economics are quite naive and misinformed.
Actually, if I recall in the 90s he advocated carpet bombing of Serbia. Anti-war my foot...
sicsempertyrannis: equack: . Noam has been a strong critic of foreign policy which all left-liberals would probably agree with as most libertarians as well. Other than that, his views on economics are quite naive and misinformed. Actually, if I recall in the 90s he advocated carpet bombing of Serbia. Anti-war my foot...
He's not even consistently anti-war?
(shakes head)
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Chomsky is a mystery! He's a brilliant linguist who not only revolutionized linguistics, but also psychology with his theory of universal grammar and innate language.
You would think that given his intellectual achievements, he would have sophisticated reasoning for his antagonism towards libertarianism and Capitalism. I've listened to him a few times and his reasoning is no more sophisticated then a typical Marxist. It's as if some people are hardwired from birth to hate Capitalism. Some smart people just see it as a challenge to keep trying to refute something despite its logic and consistency. It's as if they are trying to break a lock or something.
I hate to consider something as black and white as Ayn Rand's idea of builders and destroyers, but I sure as heck can't come up with a better explanation for why someone presumably intelligent can be so stupid about libertarianism. I nearly sprayed Pepsi out my nose when ol' Chompers explained why Japan had developed as a nation after WWII.
Some people want to see something, and no matter what they actually do see, by gum they are going to see what they want to. What I cannot figure is why they want to see whatever it is they do want to see.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
In all my disputes with statists, we always go 'round and 'round the same subject. Whatever problems they pose, I always ask them how monopolizing law and law enforcement is a solution. You don't trust people? Then why give people a monopoly of law and law enforcement? Can't trust business to do what is right by its customers? Then how can you trust a monopoly?
I spend many long hours insisting on these questions again and again before I finally get some feeble attempt at an answer.
For whatever reason, the statist mindset is strong.
He is a "left wing" gate keeper.
Those sane enough to see the US's war of aggression and imperialism are naturally drawn to him, as he is practically the king of foriegn policy on the Campus's. Most quoted academic alive or something or other...
Anyway, those drawn to what he says on FP (mostly truth), follow him into his economic sphere - if not otherwise bumped from the course.
Which is troubling. *shrugs*
For being such a brilliant linguist, Chomsky continues to mystify me with his ignorance about politics and economics.
He should stick to philosophy of language.
The modern left love to throw around buzzphrases, with zero empirical illustrations to elaborate their terms. He says the market is tyranny in today's society, yet gives no evidence for this. Does he really believe that Honda, Verizon, Microsoft, Addidas, Burger King, Barnes&Noble, Geico are tyrannical? If you got him to answer honesty, he should say no.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Conza88: He is a "left wing" gate keeper. Those sane enough to see the US's war of aggression and imperialism are naturally drawn to him, as he is practically the king of foriegn policy on the Campus's. Most quoted academic alive or something or other... Anyway, those drawn to what he says on FP (mostly truth), follow him into his economic sphere - if not otherwise bumped from the course. Which is troubling. *shrugs*
haha Yes I have thought about this before. His intellect is very inviting in many ways but he ultimately leads you into useless leftist politics and he even advocates giving the U.N. increasingly more control over the world because he thinks that individual countries are too irresponsible. Something odd about this chap indeed! I was once a huge fan until I realized what freedom was.
His attacks on state-capitalism are amazing. His attacks on anarcho-capitalism are clueless. I think he needs some economy lessons.
economic ignorance is rampant among anarchists (especially non-market inclusive ones). these people are modern day utopian socialists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3DsKvD3qhM&feature=related
enjoy folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SaRnl0J_O0&annotation_id=annotation_114217&feature=iv
haha and this message to us, wow just wow
I used toi read Chomsky mostly for foreing affairs issue, but after those minutes I think ill just go burn his books.
Celebrate taxes so we can implement the programs we all decided for...sounds exactly out of atlas shrugged
To be fair to Chomsky, he is using "libertarianism" in it's original, European sense of the term, as opposed to it's US meaning (hence his use of the term "US libertarianism". In Europe libertarian means anarchist (in the sense of people who want to abolish the government, property and religion), while in the US it means something that doesn't really exist in Europe, it's closest form being neoliberal crony capitalism.
I think he confuses US libertarians with mercantilists. While neither, in my discussions with my anarchist friends I have tried to explain the difference between laissez faire capitalism (a system where the government does not interfere in voluntary trade) vs mercantilism (where the government does, to promote the interests of certain businesses). I mean, there are a number of entities Chomsky would criticise (General Motors, Halliburton) that could not exist in their present state were it not for the interference of the US government.
I remember a video in which Chomsky said that public enterprises were superior to private ones because they can spend beyond what they earn. Amazing.
ivanfoofoo: I remember a video in which Chomsky said that public enterprises were superior to private ones because they can spend beyond what they earn. Amazing.
Wow, just.... wow. I believed that when I was a child. It appears many Keynesians and leftists haven't grown out of thinking the government can violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Somebody sent me this vid a few weeks back, and while I like Chomsky in some respects his reasoning in this video is sub-par of an intelligent person like himself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt4dDOFNp9A&feature=related
this video is funny 2
zefreak: He is confused, dishonest, or both. How can someone as respected as Choamsky not differentiate between corporatism (and understand that it relies on the State) and capitalism? His "American Libertarian" construct is pure strawman.
Chomsky has said time and time again that the current economic system in any industrialized nation is not capitalism, it is far from capitalism. All he is saying on the topic of libertarianism is that historically, libertarianism goes hand in hand with leftist socialism, dating back to the french revolution. Only in America is libertarianism synonymous with capitalism, fiscal conservativism ect.
That is an interesting name. Wouldn't the nonexistance of truth be in fact a truth? Nihilists are so quirky, like Marxists.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
TBH, I couldn't care less what Chomsky "thinks" or not. He so utterly misunderstands American streams of libertarianism that he is not worth bothering with.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
equack: Actually, if I recall in the 90s he advocated carpet bombing of Serbia. Anti-war my foot...
Read Chomsky's New Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo. Where he spends 100 pages condeming NATO's actions.
Anarchist Cain: That is an interesting name. Wouldn't the nonexistance of truth be in fact a truth? Nihilists are so quirky, like Marxists.
I'm not a nihilist.
Truthisnonexistent:I'm not a nihilist.
Then what's up with the name? I'm just curious
Anarchist Cain: Truthisnonexistent:I'm not a nihilist. Then what's up with the name? I'm just curious
I feel the general consensus of reality is way off.
What you feel and what is so are two different things.
ladyattis: What you feel and what is so are two different things.
Who determines what is? Doesn't one have to initially feel that x is true in order to realize that x is true?
Truthisnonexistent: Chomsky has said time and time again that the current economic system in any industrialized nation is not capitalism, it is far from capitalism. All he is saying on the topic of libertarianism is that historically, libertarianism goes hand in hand with leftist socialism, dating back to the french revolution. Only in America is libertarianism synonymous with capitalism, fiscal conservativism ect.
Er... It actually kind of means both. The two first examples of libertarian that come to my mind from the french revolution were Bastiat and Proudhon and though they disagreed vehemently on certain issues - like interest rates, for example - they both sat on the left side of the spectrum at about equal lengths.
I think people just have to admit that there is no claim to "original libertarianism." It seems like you have early examples on both sides of individualism and collectivism.
existence is elsewhere
Truthisnonexistent:Who determines what is? Doesn't one have to initially feel that x is true in order to realize that x is true?
You and I do by virtue of the fact that identity among all possible entities are never contradictory (even when considering the strangeness of quantum mechanics).
Wilmot of Rochester: Truthisnonexistent: Chomsky has said time and time again that the current economic system in any industrialized nation is not capitalism, it is far from capitalism. All he is saying on the topic of libertarianism is that historically, libertarianism goes hand in hand with leftist socialism, dating back to the french revolution. Only in America is libertarianism synonymous with capitalism, fiscal conservativism ect. Er... It actually kind of means both. The two first examples of libertarian that come to my mind from the french revolution were Bastiat and Proudhon and though they disagreed vehemently on certain issues - like interest rates, for example - they both sat on the left side of the spectrum at about equal lengths. I think people just have to admit that there is no claim to "original libertarianism." It seems like you have early examples on both sides of individualism and collectivism.
I agree. The way I see it..
Left= Libertarian
Right= Authoritarian
regardless of economics. I would consider the Bolsheviks right wing and so on.