"What I was describing was the real... Thomas Jefferson... who [was] anti-Capitalist... and thought people shouldn't be subjected to wage labor."

He lost me there. Thomas Jefferson was quite the industrialist and owned and ran a nailery, sold crops, land, and created inventions though not as successfully as Ben Franklin. He was a man that spent more than he could afford and was continually in debt.

Chomsky keeps citing those in the Enlightenment movement as the criteria to bolster his version of Libertarianism, and although I know little of Adam Smith I can say the Enlightenment wasn't specifically noted for its take on wage labor or capitalism one way or another. The Enlightened, which he keeps referring to, were preoccupied with reason, not socialism.

Arguably, the American Enlightened believed in smaller, limited government, so they'd most certainly be against socialism whether it be of the Chomsky version of it or not.

Jefferson was a Libertarian in the classical sense of the word (read: Liberal), which is antithetical to Chomsky's beliefs. Not sure why Chomsky wants to pervert the facts like this, but he's misrepresenting Jefferson and the Enlightenment for his own political agenda.

Someone should tell him the story of Ben Franklin and why you don't fly kites in thunder storms.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I hear they had guns at the revolution. Some were even armed in the presence of the (what would soon be) president gasp . Wake me up when some real news is on, I got some zombie hordes to decimate. You will wish you had guns when the undead try and eat your man flesh. Freedoms don't have to be rational. If I want to have a gun to feel safer even though it most likely doesn't then I should. If I want a gun just because I like the idea of having something powerful, then I should. Hundreds of thousands of guns sit in dust filled attics and closets not harming anyone. And when you say "when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms", it is in violation of that essence that you would seek the remove that right. Once again, freedoms don't have to exist in rational form. I like silly fart jokes and some of my friends like dipping french fries in soft serve ice cream (LUNACY I SAY!) But it isn't the freedom that needs renationalisation, and thus I think arguing from that perspective is moot. I don't say that to be a dick or contrary, I just think that misses the point. Liberty first, as Ben Franklin would say (that and electricity hurts!).


/agreed

On a side note BK fries dipped in a Wendy's chocolate frosty are awesome! It's like getting a bite of cone in every serving. :-)

I hear they had guns at the revolution. Some were even armed in the presence of the (what would soon be) president *gasp*. Wake me up when some real news is on, I got some zombie hordes to decimate. You will wish you had guns when the undead try and eat your man flesh. Freedoms don't have to be rational. If I want to have a gun to feel safer even though it most likely doesn't then I should. If I want a gun just because I like the idea of having something powerful, then I should. Hundreds of thousands of guns sit in dust filled attics and closets not harming anyone. And when you say "when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms", it is in violation of that essence that you would seek the remove that right. Once again, freedoms don't have to exist in rational form. I like silly fart jokes and some of my friends like dipping french fries in soft serve ice cream (LUNACY I SAY!) But it isn't the freedom that needs rationalization, and thus I think arguing from that perspective is moot. I don't say that to be a dick or contrary, I just think that misses the point. Liberty first, as Ben Franklin would say (that and electricity hurts!).

edit: typo

>> ^jerryku:
I'm not surprised that so few are Republican (Einstein was a Communist, and many of Oppenheimer's relatives were, too), but I wonder how many today are Libertarian-types, since so many identify as independents?
And how many are pro-democracy? I would argue that science and democracy don't really work together well. For one thing, scientists are very smart, while the majority of the human race is probably embarrassingly foolish in their eyes. So are scientists (elite eggheads) really in favor of having the unwashed masses rule the world? I gotta wonder.
A scientist libertarian party guy makes sense to me though. Free market stuff is like a form of social darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Evolution. Science. Brutal, cold, efficient, and without any silly Bible or Quran to teach hippie whatever egalitarian "love your neighbor" principles that are in there.
A scientist fascist makes sense to me, too.
I guess a scientist Communist (which was VERY popular in the past) actually makes the least amount of sense to me. The only part that makes sense is the tenet of Communism that opposes faith in God. If high #s of scientists are not religious, then I can see the appeal of Communism. But all the other aspects of Communism, which is really based on the idea of majority rule ("The People!"), seems to go against what scientists would favor. Then again, I guess convincing the world that there was no afterlife after a nuclear world-destroying war.. would be the most important thing to do for the time being. Kinda like an Ozzymandias from The Watchmen type thing.




Maybe scientists are elite egg heads, but you know who else were also elite eggheads? Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Thomas Edison, Dr. Salk, Neil Armstrong. It was American eggheads that led the way to map the human genome. Nearly everyone on tonight’s shuttle launch is a science/math geek, and all but two are American. I for one am proud that my country has produced so many eggheads.

Science has done very well under democracy, and amazingly well under American democracy. In our brief history, American scientists (or at least scientists that came to and did their best work while in America [i.e. Nikola Tesla, Alexander Bell, Wernher von Braun]) have given the world the greatest number of advances in science, medicine and technology of the modern era. It makes totally sense; a free society, where ideas and information can be easily exchanged, coupled with a healthy amount of capital from the private sector to fund research is the best environment for scientific advances.

Just because a person is not religious does not mean they would automatically find communism attractive. If everyone that didn’t believe in a god were also a communist, communism would be a lot more successful than it is. I would venture to say that a disbelief in a god is more likely to happen in the above-mentioned free and open societies as opposed to one where everyone are told what to think. Communism (at least as in the form of China, Cuba, North Korea and the USSR) is not a “majority rule” government, but one where a small, self appointed, insular group at the very top controls everything. Majority rule is, however, a tenet of democracy.

I gotta say, Jesse is bringing ol'painless to the sift today, but he really has to do something about the hair, he's like some steriodous Ben Franklin... then again, maybe that's what he's going for now that I think about it...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Totally agree with her. If only all the jesus freaks actually emulated Jesus - the world would be a lovely place.

Note to evangelical Christians: Jesus never said "the lord helps those who help themselves". That was Ben Franklin.

Jesus said something like "give all your fucking money to poor people and serve the weakest among us" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.
The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."
You know and I know it's not weakness to treat an enemy humanely. However, what WE think doesn't count, because the terrorists from Russian and Arabic cultures view all concessions and negotiations as weakness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's little use debating the dangers of a suicidal, homicidal enemy with folks who deny evil exists or believe jihadists can be reasoned with. It's quite obviously a very dangerous world and Democrats have a terrible track record of protecting America.
You fellows like to pretend Bush has somehow shut down or taken away your rights. Bullshit. Name ONE of YOUR rights being affected, and I don't mean cut-n-paste hearsay from the Daily Komatose. How has YOUR life been affected? Taps on your phone? Waterboarding suspects at the local library? Credit score? Resume? The very act of typing anti-Bush or anti-government sentiment shows you don't believe you're in any danger whatsoever. Even the presses of the traitorous New York Slimes continue to roll.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Think of the Franklin quote the next time you want government to take over your health care and give vote-buying "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes.


You're having a conversation with yourself. You don't even listen to what people say right here in this thread, you just respond to Rush Limbaugh inspired straw men that bear no resemblance to the people on "the left".

The best part is how you can't even go 2 straight responses without stooping to childish name calling, as if it makes your argument stronger.

You even recycled the Ben Franklin quote, without responding to the critique that it applies to your position on foreign policy more readily than health care.

Franklin was talking about limits on search and seizure, freedom of speech, and habeas corpus, not the freedom to have your medical treatment denied by pencil pushers, and I think deep down you know that.

Oh, and BTW, if criticism of Bush was anti-government and treason, any and all criticism of Obama is now anti-government treason. Turn yourself in, or we'll be forced to dispatch black helicopters (now with black pilots) to collect you, and send you to experience "enhanced interrogation" as an "unlawful combatant".

Don't like it? Well, I'm sure at some point, years later, someone will give you a show trial to air your complaints, dismiss them, and then send you back to your cell indefinitely.

The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The pledge of allegiance to the flag says "...to the republic for which it stands" Someone asked Ben Franklin what form of government we were. He said "a republic, if you can keep it."

The fact of the matter is, academia introduced a plethora of new terms and redefined old ones to the point that people are completely confused what they really mean. There is no such thing as a constitutional democracy, it's a god-damned oxymoron. The proper term is "republic" for a nation that has plurality votes, but institutes a constitution to prevent majority consensus from infringing on rights. Democracy is unrestricted plurality votes. Political science profs have completely fucked this one up.

Adding to the confusion is that our two major parties are called "Democratic" and "Republican." They're just names of parties with different social platforms, people, they don't correspond to the lower case terms.

ben franklin is shocked.

Prophet? I don't get it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:


The war then was a different war then the war now in that we needed to stop the war. Every one, even the enemy.
The wars now are for prophet, and for those in power to ensure that they still have jobs, because all they know is how to steal liberties under the false banner of democracy.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither - ben franklin.

EDIT: Bold Comment written as is on purpose.

The war then was a different war then the war now in that we needed to stop the war. Every one, even the enemy.
The wars now are for prophet, and for those in power to ensure that they still have jobs, because all they know is how to steal liberties under the false banner of democracy.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither - ben franklin.


EDIT: Bold Comment written as is on purpose.

>> ^Payback:
In war, the object is to kill the enemy. As many of them as you can. As swiftly and decisively as possible. That is what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing more.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea.
Forgive my bluntness, but this lesson was forgotten after the end of WW2. War has become "kinder, gentler" and therefore more likely to happen. It has become a tool, part of foreign relations. War needs to be unthinkable. It demands to be unforgivable. If only to stop it from happening again.


The war then was a different war then the war now in that we needed to stop the war. Every one, even the enemy.

The wars now are for prophet, and for those in power to ensure that they still have jobs, because all they know is how to steal liberties under the false banner of democracy.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither - ben franklin.

Shit is getting out of hand fast.

It may end up circling the drain before its all over.

I hope this guy is wrong... and just plain crazy.. but something tells me he ins't. Something in my gut... deep down, maybe its my Ben Franklin or my Jefferson sense.

Ben Franklin was right, the Turkey should have been our national bird. That turkey was awesome.