This is the first time I've heard his "perverted version of Libertarianism in America". I agree - it is perverted and completely wrong. As a Constitutional Libertarian myself I was shocked when he stated that American libertarians support tyranny. I can't take someone that states something like this serious. *lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by Constitutional_Patriot.

^Hmmmm... and who is the Libertarian party candidate again? Chomsky, as always, is right on the money c_p.

I must disagree with Chomsky here while capitalism isnt that great state capitalism is certainly way worse. (Thought the first almost necessarily bring to the second.)

There always seems to be a lot to consider with Chomsky. I think Oxdottir had a really great criticism of him, that his only constant position is to go against the grain. I think that's a sign of a healthy intellectual mind -- always challenging the prevalent assumptions of the time.

Specific to this clip, CP, I think he's dead right. Read the American Libertarian Party's own platform. Skip down to "Economic liberty", and it's a textbook description of laissez-faire capitalism. I especially love how they say enforcing property rights and a free market is the only right way to solve environmental problems.

You might not agree with the other logical steps he takes, but his steps make sense to me:

American Libertarians => Laissez-faire markets
Laissez-faire markets => Corporate monopolies
Corporate monopolies => Tyranny worse than state tyranny

Therefore: American Libertarians => Tyranny worse than state tyranny

The above is also a core tenet to my own personal political belief system.

"We have to start by decoding a whole system of intellectual distortion"
- Very well put by Chomsky (5:00)

I have been giving this topic a lot more thought... and your posts have helped me to understand the flaws of my perception of what he was intending to convey. Thank you.

I agree with what he states in this video, I admit that I was quickly offended. I find tyranny despicable and I've always been on the fence regarding lazzez-faire markets. What is the optimal solution?

Regulation is the only clear method for keeping a check on run-away capitalism, I do agree.

I tend to agree with most Libertarian platform issues however this one is a tough one indeed - especially with the mess of the political perceptions and aspects today.

I agree that if left unchecked then the powerful corporation will tend to squash the smaller competition thereby dominating the market and instituting unfair pricing systems.. the competition in the free market allows for competitive pricing (normally).

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by mauz15.

Mr. Chomsky is making a slight error. When he says "libertarianism," he means "liberalism," and seems to be referring to Enlightenment liberalism typified by John Locke etc. Europeans don't use the term libertarian particularly. In any case, in its American usage, libertarian nearly always refers to a more exaggerated form of liberalism than Adam Smith would have envisioned. Liberalism contained checks on personal freedom for the common good. Libertarianism as theorized by Robert Nozick or Austrian economists such as Hayek contains no such checks. This is a quibble, really.

*quality

^ They need to make self-quality legal.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.

"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.

Fuck isms.


Thats the whole problem with every thing.

to many isms.

a list of isms

Image Depictions using Stick Figures to illustrate -isms.

^What about jism?

>> ^blankfist:
^What about jism?


I thought that I saw one that had that as well. Have to dig around on the net for it.

This man has not had zero impact on the world, he has had a negative impact by undermining a sane left in America.

Chomsky is first and foremost a linguist. Agree or disagree with his politics, he is right on one thing: we keep changing definitions of words for the purpose of propaganda: Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Nationalist, Globalist, all mean different things today than the traditional meaning.