economic ignorance is rampant among anarchists (especially non-market inclusive ones). these people are modern day utopian socialists.
enjoy folks
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.
Never let logic get in the way of your (chomsky’s) pet ‘theory’ (or piece of propaganda).
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
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.
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.
Read Chomsky’s New Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo. Where he spends 100 pages condeming NATO’s actions.
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.
Who determines what is? Doesn’t one have to initially feel that x is true in order to realize that x is true?
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.
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).
I agree. The way I see it..
Left= Libertarian
Right= Authoritarian
regardless of economics. I would consider the Bolsheviks right wing and so on.