I'm an anarchist, I have a very narrow view of Trancecoach...because of my tiny little eyes.

I see. So you've decided to ignore me and rely on Chomsky's "authority" instead of actually responding to my comments, or thinking for yourself.

Who's talking?! I CAN'T SEE NOTHIN'!

Did someone ask you, anything?

Hey man it's ok for you to be wrong...just as long...as you're not mean to meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! *musical interlude*

Invocations (music) cannot be called by Yogi because Yogi is not privileged - sorry.

@Trancecoach
interesting.
i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better.

and in doing so i offend you?
and you respond by offending my sensibilities?

do you REALLY think i cannot think for myself?
are we in some epic battle where there is some abstract "winner"?
i thought i was talking to someone who i am quite fond of and who i also just happen to disagree with on this particular subject.

i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism.
which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room.it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790.
even blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships,a privilege given by the people,to be dissolved when the project was concluded.
and blankfist is a die hard libertarian.

or is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you?
maybe reading too many heritage foundation essays?
have any of these articles outlined the flaws in capitalism?
like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?
that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything..eventually and eventually everything will become a commodity.
to be sold and traded.

its not like it is a huge secret.
the problems with capitalism are well know and well understood,but i guess you are not one of those people.

and i am not one of those people who are good at conveying things such as these..never have been.
but i have always been respectful with you,even when i disagree.
and yet you assume my intentions.
take offense when i meant none and snipe at me from some imagined superior balcony.

i was never trying to say you were wrong.i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe.

and now as i am writing this i am being forced to question.
will he take this sentence wrong?
how will he perceive this word in that context?
and i have to admit..its kinda irritating.

but ya know what?
thats on me.
i made certain assumptions about you based an very little.
he likes floyd..check.
dropped some acid back in the day...check.
is educated and in the psychology field...check.

so every correspondence i have had with you is with that person in my minds eye.
i have written every word to you as if you were sitting right next to me.

i wrote about this before and you ridiculed me then.i should have gotten the message.
you are not the person i gave you credit for.
you are you.
and thats ok.

watch the video if you wish.its pretty informative.
or dont.
it doesnt matter.

i apologize for offending you.
/end transmission

"i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better."

If your position is the same as Chomsky's, I understand that position. I have heard Chomsky talk about it repeatedly. (Here's a take on Chomsky by David Gordon with which I tend to agree).

"i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism."

If you want to understand my position, why send me Chomsky to explain YOUR position? Why not read what I sent you? Or what I've recommended that you read? Or simply respond to my comments?? This is NOT how you "understand" another position: by stating your own (or, someone else's, in this case, Chomsky's).

"which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room."

If the 'elephant' is all the conjectures you've seen about corporations/business taking over in evil ways, then I've already explained that those scenarios cannot happen under anarchy. That's not how business works in a government-free market.

"it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790."

I don't even know what this means...

"even Blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships"

Let me restate it again then for you, since you seemed to have missed my position the first few times I've said it. Maybe I didn't say it enough times:

If you can do any of this, with no initiation of violence, zero, never initiating any physical violence against anyone's person or property, then I'm for it, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, whatever. But the requirement is zero initiation of violence. None. I don't know how you can have that with any form of syndicalism or socialism, unless everyone unanimously agrees on everything and that is quite rare. I doubt that it can happen except in the smallest groups, and even then, it's in specific and circumscribed ways. That is why a private property system is the only system that can ensure zero legal physical coercion/aggression against anyone's person and/or property. (Here's Rothbard's take on syndicalism. Worth reading.)

"like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?"

This cannot/will not happen in a free market. Only when aggression is introduced could this happen.

"that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything"

Unfettered voluntary exchanges will never lay waste to anything. Do you understand how absurd this sounds to me? You are proposing the replacement of voluntary exchanges with coercion. Yes, you are -- because I have been clear that capitalism, as I am defining it, means free, voluntary exchanges. I don't care what corporations do as long as they engage in voluntary transactions providing goods and services that consumers want. Only through government-granted privileges -- enforced through violence -- can corporations do otherwise. There are no "natural monopolies." There have never been. Ever.

Even after watching the video, there is nothing there which "proves" that there is such a thing a "natural monopoly" or that "proves" that aggression is better than non-aggression. Is there?
But like I said, if you can show how to do any of what you'd propose with zero aggression, then I'm for it.

"you are not the person i gave you credit for."

Bad thymology, then, apparently.

"i made certain assumptions about you based an very little."

Similar to making all sorts of assumptions about corporations and the free market based on very little evidence.

"i was never trying to say you were wrong"

Really? What were you saying then??

"i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe."

Then, instead of insulting me or trying to shame or coerce me (what's with this posting "for Trancey"?! What?!), you could simply ask me polite questions, instead of ones like, "do you even know this or that"? No dice.

And instead of just telling me what "thou believe" or not. Is this about understanding my view or about you telling me what you believe or dictating what I ought to believe?

"is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you"

No. How is Apple tyrannizing you?
They haven't tyrannized me. Not one iota. In fact, they have provided my friends with some useful goods, for which they have gladly given them several thousands of dollars.

If you have a specific grievance against a specific company, let me know, and I can point out to you what your remedy could be. Any grievance that does not involve a government.

I wouldn't particularly appreciate you (or anyone) trying to interfere, through violence or the threat thereof, in any voluntary non-aggressive exchanges I choose to engage in, whether I do so as an individual or as a group, even as a group where we choose to call ourselves a corporation. And if our group does or does not want to structure itself as a syndicate, what business is it of yours?

Call me 1790 or whatever, but I don't really consider someone who'd want to impose their will on me like that a bonafide 'anarchist' despite what they choose to call themselves. I know, that's just my choice. I am not preventing you from calling yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect me to agree.

If you really cared to make an effort to understand my views, rather than this back and forth, you'd be better served by reading Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson," (PDF) followed by Mises' "Human Action" and "Socialism."

I have nothing to add, carry on.

Moving this video to enoch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.