I wonder if Rockefeller or the Koch brothers were around in 1776, how the Wealth of Nations would have been written...

@sovietsandvich8443

3 жыл бұрын

We’ll Rockefeller made energy cheaper and more accessible to the general population. He also created a lot of jobs where there were none before. These jobs were preferable to the crappy agriculture jobs people were working before that. So it probbaly would have been written the same way

@MRender32

3 жыл бұрын

His name was Marx

Noam Chomsky: Libertarianism is bad because it empowers tyrannical corporations. Also Noam Chomsky: Libertarianism is impossible because corporations won't allow it because they can not survive without a nanny state. Wut

@isolatsi

Жыл бұрын

If not a state, into what would a corporation incorporate?

@TheEisel

Жыл бұрын

No, he said private unaccountable tyrannies. As a previous comment stated corporations would not be able to operate in "American style libertarianism" and that is the kind he objects to being feasible. Capitalism already enables tyrannical corporations, so it would resist a system that threatens them. You're conflating the terms he use with your own definition and make a strawman argument against it.

Ron Paul supporters should actually watch the video before making comments! It is evident by your responses that you either didn't watch it or failed to comprehend it.

@Jimbobasaur

9 жыл бұрын

The truth is inconvenient.

@mapleownage27

9 жыл бұрын

***** You haven't looked into Chomsky very well :p

@mapleownage27

9 жыл бұрын

***** yup... Chomsky is a fat cat for sure.... He's done nothing but enjoy his life of luxury :p right.

@mapleownage27

9 жыл бұрын

***** lmao gg citing a joke website, that article goes on to talk about his ownership of "Fat Chomsky Burger" and his own perfume line with covergirl. www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=1385b76d-6c34-4c22-942a-18b71f2c4a44 2m net worth aprox.

@mapleownage27

9 жыл бұрын

***** :/ so what about economics did you have to say..... Since you're critiquing the man who's written over 100 books on numerous subjects, such as this.I'm sure any internet pleb could refute any point you make, so lets go.

The corporations would get more or less all power in society, but the system/economy would collapse very shortly..

Noam is an amazing historian and linguist/intellectualist! He is now in his late 80s, not gonna be around much longer, I highly recommend attending one of his speeches if you ever get the chance.

@superfisher4379

2 жыл бұрын

He's a worthless sack of flesh hiding in a university.

@josephaziz785

Жыл бұрын

He's an idiot Marxist who disguises it with rhetoric like any good Sophist.

@oneoflokis

10 ай бұрын

💯👍

@oneoflokis

10 ай бұрын

​@@dumballover123Hopefully!! 👍👍

@lorenzomcnally6629

10 ай бұрын

Libertarian Communist? Like a Catholic Nun executioner? This man is consummate dissimulating revisionist liar. Decades of Revisionist Lies.

"A Libertarian here means an extreme advocate for tyranny" LMFAO

@catsforever2857

4 жыл бұрын

Corporate tyranny

@bubblegumgun3292

3 жыл бұрын

@@catsforever2857 >corporate Tyranny LMAO yes god forbid they pay me little as possible to sell someone a 2 dollar coffe cup. omg the tyranny.

@catsforever2857

3 жыл бұрын

@@bubblegumgun3292 It's not that. they aren't accountable to anybody. The decision making inside a corporation is autocratic. That could be OK if it's a family business, but not if it's a 1 000 000 000 000$ worth company. See for exemple what Amazon is doing to help subdue the less fortunate in the name of policing.

@furiousmat

3 жыл бұрын

@@bubblegumgun3292 That's a very narrow idea of corporations huh... Corporate tyranny refers to the fact that ever-growing entities end up being so enormous that they become sufficiently powerful to alter the way even democratic governments operate. This is increasingly the case everywhere but especially in the US, where almost all elected officials are highly dependent on securing corporate support for re-election and/or have a significant incentive in terms of the options they have once they exit their political role. Corporations are unelected but they have such grip on legislators that they can bend and break the law. They can lobby/bribe their way to advantageous regulation loosening, access to foreign labor, to stricter IP laws in their favor, to bailouts, to tax cuts. They can roll right over the rights of normal citizens, either by bullying them with lawsuits that they have the ability to drag for decades or by getting local governments to approve their projects despite the prejudice they cause (properties ruined by fracking? Indigenous treaties violated for mining projects? and so on...) No, he's not talking about the minimum wage guy who can't spell your name right at Starbucks.

@miguimau

3 жыл бұрын

Literally true.

I don’t want big government. I want a libertarian socialist society with a participatory democracy built and controlled from below. In free-market capitalism you don’t control the corporations. You control what you buy, but wealth is highly concentrated. The overwhelming power is in the hands of the owners and the financial elite. The communities and workplaces in society must be controlled democratically by the participants, not by the wealthy.

@stevemasterson7776

3 жыл бұрын

Lolol libertarian socialist..... Yes and I'd like to be a potatoe hammer one day..... Jesus Christ kid get your college money back....

@daddyaf945

3 жыл бұрын

There are no markets free of regulation except for the black market. Deregulation would end intellectual property and debt. Those are the two things that funnel the most money into corporate pockets. The regulation the wealthy want to end are consumer protections, environmental protections and anything that supports workers’ rights.

@ediodimacaroni

3 жыл бұрын

@@stevemasterson7776 shut up snowflake cry us a river

Did anyone notice that at about 1:36 Noam basically says that without government power we would have corporate tyranny and then immediately goes on to say that corporations couldn't live without a powerful government?

@TheJajajajaja21

8 жыл бұрын

+Louis Graveline "they can't live without a corporatist state; they know it." corporations can't exist without a government that allows them.

@cavalrycome

7 жыл бұрын

There's no contradiction. He's arguing that a society that embraced a corporate tyranny would likely self-destruct. That doesn't mean that if we embraced libertarianism we would eventually end up with a society free from corporate tyranny but that we would end up with a society based on something other than libertarianism or with no society at all. Chomsky isn't opposed to government of every sort, just government that can't demonstrate the legitimacy of its rule over the governed. A government that is basically rigging the system in favor of the wealthy elite who provide campaign contributions is clearly not of the legitimate sort.

@cavalrycome

7 жыл бұрын

+Jean Luc Bergman That's not the subject of this thread, but yes, quality of life has improved in various ways for the poor since the 1950s. A lot of that has to do with legal protections for women, minorities and workers and a dramatic lowering of the crime rate rather than technology, but there are certainly advances in science and technology that have improved people's quality of life. More illnesses are treatable, so people who have access to health care will benefit from that, etc. Access to the internet is affordable to a very large segment of society. But here's where Chomsky would disagree with what you've said. You reflexively give credit for those advances to the wealthy elite but most of the major technological innovations of the past century were not developed by private companies but in public institutions with public funds like universities and the military. That includes the computers developed by the military, the internet which was developed at CERN, until recently the entire space industry with communication satellites, GPS and the rest of it. Just about every major medical advance was made at public research institutions, and so on. The role of private corporations has been to exploit these innovations for profit and to speak loudly about their own contributions to society so that people believe that we would be taken back to the dark ages without them. Chomsky has made this point time and again, and it's hard to fault his reasoning.

@TheJajajajaja21

7 жыл бұрын

***** quality of life is not a product of capitalism and the marketplace. do you think doctors find cures because they're getting paid? do you think the marketers who sell new technology are the ones who are helping society, or the nerds who design new technology regardless of whether or not it's sold? competition is for suits, the people who make real advancements in medicine and technology (where we have gotten this increase in living standards) don't care about markets or sales. [also, small note, but republicans mostly opposed legal protection for minorities, women, and workers (workers especially). unions and the like have been consistently dogged on by conservatives.]

@louisgraveline3354

7 жыл бұрын

Jean Luc Bergman gets it!

It's sad that some don't get what Chomsky is saying.

@catbuffalo

9 жыл бұрын

If you assume that everyone on the internet watching chomsky videos is a poor misguided joe sixpack then I suppose it'd be sad. Some people have antagonistic views and they know it.

@InvestingForTomorrow24

5 жыл бұрын

Many are busy stuffing their uneducated brains with Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc; Being able to contemplate Chomsky's rational point of view of a fact-based reality is foreign to Trump lemmings. We can't just take them out to the flight line and explain how much weapon systems cost when they have no idea how many million are in a billion.

@Geopolitic157

5 жыл бұрын

Marco. Your definition of freedom is to be able tp choose between exploitation into slave labour conditions by unethical and immoral employer vs. Starvation... You may accept that low bar of ethical behaviour.. I do not, and it is why it requires regulation. Neoliberalism and Libertarianism ( which is really Koch Brothers invention), are the philosophical scourge of humanity because they believe they have the right to exploit humanity. They do not.

@TheGuitologist

5 жыл бұрын

It's sad that he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

@imavileone7360

5 жыл бұрын

@@brettlandry6479 you have several accounts.

“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.” -Adam Smith, Scottish political economist (1723-1790)

What is the original source of this video?

would be incredible to see these two debate

I think most people - even you ultra right-wingers - eventually will embrace the ideas of libertarian socialism if one just studies them. It’s just common sense that people should be in control of their own lives. Mob rule? A free, libertarian socialist society would be a society with democracy built from below, with democratic workplaces, democratic communities etc - a society without hierarchy and tyranny, and where democratic say is proportional to how much you’re a part of it.

@yydd4954

2 жыл бұрын

That's a oxymoron brother It sounds good but isn't practical Infact the socialist idea itself isn't practical Competition is highly important for a stable economy To follow a socialist system u need apply use of force! U can't ignore human behaviour. Everyone has their dream and ambition. That keeps them motivated to do more and more. But if u socialist system then everyone is paid same, life is boring, people are interdependent, there is no liberty, everyone will think not to work and put it on others because at the end all are paid same.

Has Chomsky ever had a formal debate with someone who is considered a respectable free market libertarian? I don't think I've ever heard Chomsky address specific beliefs of libertarians.

@AspieMediaBobby

8 жыл бұрын

+Seamus Burns Yes,he`s debated William F. Buckley and Rand Paul.Also,he considers Ron Paul "a great friend" despite key disagreements on religious,scientific and socio-economic issues.He criticizes Dr. Paul`s policies from a methodological point of view,not a personal one.He agrees with Dr. Paul that the US government is fundamentally corrupt but they disagree on the source of the corruption.

How do you seperate the State and corporations? The corporation recieves its charter from the state, so can the former exist without the latter?

I've taken a lot of time to read the comments and I just want to say a few things. Agree with them or not, just take a moment to read what I have to convey. Firstly, shouldn't the government be the tool of the people? To be used in the benefit of the population as a whole? This is something that hardly no one seems to bring up. Maybe it's because of the amount of importance we put on positions of power? Or that we feel so disconnected from the government that we no longer feel that it is something that we can, ourselves, have any power over? I think it's important for people to remember you do have control over your government. It may seem that we don't, but if you take a moment and think about it, you do. You have the choice to put people (or yourself) in representative positions. It should be open to everyone. And if money is in question...well, make it so it is no longer a factor. Perhaps allocated time slots on television or open source advertising. Do many more open debates and have multiple parties (not just two) convey their ideas along side the major ones. And don't let campaigning stretch longer than six months. As for the Tool of the People, this runs right along with the ideas stated above. It should used to help all people. This means poor, rich, and everyone else in between. But we treat it as if it's a bad thing for the government to provide healthcare and education. If done poorly, then it is. But if done right, it would be the most practical way to ensure our safety as citizens. Perhaps the best way is for it to be taken care of on a state level. Like where I live, in Wisconsin, there should be a way for there to be a basic level healthcare for all people. Preventative care that would be paid through taxes. It has the potential to bring down the cost of healthcare dramatically. If done right. The only draw back would be the limited abilities of healthcare insurance companies. Though, through this action, you would see a shift of person funds to other parts in the economy. As for education, there should be easily affordable education for everyone (this means no high cost tuition and excessive loans). And as for trades, free of cost. But I also believe that the trades hardly get the respect they deserve. So hug a carpenter, why don't ya. Second point: stop worshiping people, ideas, and other things. Most have good ideas some of the time. No one has good ideas all of the time. And there's a little saying I like to say, "Not everyone can be right, but everyone could be wrong." This applies to economics, the Constitution, the left ight paradigm, and a great many number of other things we take seriously. Even Chomsky and Paul can be wrong. Adam Smith maybe well venerated, but his ideas worked best for his time. Same with Marx and the Founding Fathers. What's important is to handle the problems of today. Because the stakes are higher, the risks are greater, and we live in a time where we really need to be more responsible for the state of the world, each other and ourselves. Finally, stop seeing ourselves as nations. There's seven billion people on this planet, there's no longer enough room to define boarders and nationalities. Once we figure this out, things will be a lot more smoother in this world. There's no difference between being and American, Chinese, Nigerian, or German. It's just a place where you were born and\or reside. The sooner we get over this idea, the easier we could start acting as a world united and tackle the bigger issues on this planet. Now, like I said before, agree or disagree with me. But consider the ideas I convey. It's just my reaction to the craziness of the world today.

@danny.nedelk0

5 жыл бұрын

Your idealism makes me smile :)

@thesurvivorssanctuary6561

4 жыл бұрын

This is the way it should be. It's not this way because of the narcissists who make the laws. Peace and Love, ✌😊❤ We'll get there, 😁

@jaixzz

4 жыл бұрын

"The government" has *always* been "the tool of" some people - the question has always been:- *which people* ?

@enderkoregameing8090

3 жыл бұрын

Finally a nuanced take in this godforsaken comment section

@collinblatchford

2 жыл бұрын

I get you but from my perspective voting is immoral. The idea that because 51% or more of a population believe in something makes it okay for them to impose their will on the minority is immoral. From drugs being illegal to forcing people to pay for roads and schools.

I hope sometime in the future you'll embrace the ideas of a free democratic society without undemocratic hierarchies

@stevemasterson7776

3 жыл бұрын

We operate in hierarchies of competence... just because you can't compete very well doesn't mean we need to tear it down...

@RadiantJo

3 жыл бұрын

@@stevemasterson7776 Then you should be completely fine with ”big government”, and massive transnational corporations. Right? After all, We operate in hierarchies of competence, right? They got their wealth and power by working really hard right? It's not as if people can cheat the system right?

@stevemasterson7776

3 жыл бұрын

@@RadiantJo lolol like there isn't corruption is socialist Marxist economies?!?! Did anyone hold a gun to you head to make you use Amazon? Or walmart?

@stevemasterson7776

3 жыл бұрын

@@RadiantJo just because you can't compete doesn't mean we have to burn the system down....

@gregorious123

3 жыл бұрын

who is saying burn the system down? It's about stripping out undemocratic hierarchies. Marxism in practice used another form of undemocratic hierarchy. Libertarian socialists reject that. Individual Freedom + fairness in society. What's wrong with that?

you can be against privatization without being pro state. Many businesses rely on the government to keep business running smoothly. There's a pretty big correlation between the health of the economy and the approval ratings of politicians, even when they're not directly responsible. Any sound minded politician would need private enterprise to flourish if they hoped to stay in office

@cfwintner1

2 жыл бұрын

Unless they're using their office to amass personal fortunes. People vote based on party identity. In most cases I agree with you, but refusing to pump our own oil, allowing gas prices to skyrocket, importing unskilled workers by the millions...those are politician-caused in my opinion.

@cfwintner1

Жыл бұрын

In America today sound-minded politician is an oxymoron.

@bucketiii7581

Жыл бұрын

What mechanism do you propose for limiting private power, if not for state power?

strange to hear jesse from breaking bad asking a question about ron paul

Sm57. Just keeping track of microphones that actually capture Noam Chomsky audio.

Libertarianism: The belief that doing what you want is more important then doing what you should.

@tucowept

8 жыл бұрын

+Mr. Stonefallow Yeah, you sound to smart to fall for that freedom crap.

@Stonefallow

8 жыл бұрын

tucowept Libertarians don't truly believe in freedom either. They pretend to but deep down they know that taken to an extreme it would be absurd. They don't believe people should have the freedom to commit crimes, or breach contracts, or act in any number of ways which could subject them to a cause of action. You just draw the line in a different place than I do. You treat government like a referee for a game with arbitrary rules rather than an instrument for policy making. All that will lead to is social-darwinism and underhanded business dealings. Perhaps you should consider well-being as the primary moral principle, rather then freedom. You might come to appreciate that good societies have a balance of individual freedom and sensible regulation.

@tucowept

8 жыл бұрын

Do I get to use the " taken to an extreme" argument? Oh, I don't have to, we have social darwinism now, we have underhanded business dealings now. We have them with the blessings of government. When you have an all powerful gov't, this power will always be for sale, always has been always will be. The left for some unexplainable reason believes that government to be a benevolent entity, and you think libertarians are naive.

@Stonefallow

8 жыл бұрын

tucowept You can use "taken to an extreme" all you like. It certainly can apply to leftists, but I challenge you to find the problem with valuing the well-being of people to an extreme. I am an independent, in case you were wondering. We have social-darwinism and underhanded business dealings now because of a lack of regulation. We live in an age of crony capitalism where bribes are legal and there is no oversight in foreign tax evasion. Taxes on investments are ridiculously low, and our graduates are drowning in debt from "free market education". Our healthcare is a disaster, both before and after Obamacare, because we are too afraid to follow in Canada's footsteps. We allow businesses to pay criminally low wages to their workers that have not risen through inflation at the same level as prices. Compared to other first world nations, we are about as libertarian as it gets. Don't take this to mean that all regulation is good. But your blanket boycott of common-sense policy making is just as much to blame for the state of our nation as bad regulation.

@tucowept

8 жыл бұрын

We have social darwinism and underhanded business dealings precisely because of regulation! Why do you think multi national corps lobby congress, bribe candidates> They do it to use gov't regs to reduce competition, to make entry into the market too expensive, to use eminent domain to screw people out of their property for less than market value so the crony caps that bribed them make fortunes.........etc. Why do you think Trump donated millions to the Clintons? It's not not "free market education" it's subsidized by the gov't, Medicine has been ruined by the gov't years ago by the gov't. Taken to the extreme Red China, U.S.S.R., Cuba and yes Nazi Germany all examples of big powerful gov't. None of these realities will change your mind, Yes, maybe freedom isn't for you.

Murray Rothbard showed that monopolies can't exist without government intervention in his book The Progressive Era. Around 1900, companies tried very hard in hundreds of cases to form monopolies, but failed every time. They then turned to government to use its coercive force to create monopolies.

@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031

Жыл бұрын

The problem is basicaly the companies became big enough to made this kind of influence over the government. The centralized government only exists because big companies or individuals with lots of money were extremely influential in society. In US, the federalists sho are patronized by heavy industries became the first advocates for strong government. In France, the bourgeoisie, in French Revolution and in subsequent revolutions of 1830, 1848 and 1871 intervened to maintain the french state heavy centralized. In 1871 the revolutionary tried to abolish french state, expeling the Army from Paris and trying to emancipate all the cities, but the rich forced a alliance between french republic and prussian empire (they were in war until the day before) to march over Paris and restore the westfalian statist order. The state doesnt not exists outside the capitalist society. Capitalism only exists because capitalism always rely in a strong watchmen state who guarantee the property rights and make financial rescues for banks and corporations who are "to big to fail". And the state dont do this to reinforce monopolies against the "utopian contrafactual perfect market economy", but precisely because capitalism is not a idealization, is a real economic system where corporations when became rich and powerful enough, perceive more power bribing politicians and other state agents to help them form a monopoly or another kind of anti-competitive strategy, because in competitive capitalism the profit tax is always decreasing, while monopolies, cartels, trusts and so on, have increasing profit taxes. When you are a CEO, or an investor, what is your most rational capitalistic choice: dont go to the state to guarantee you increasing profits for decades, or continue in the ultracompetitive p sum race until the bankruptcy? Of course, the rational capitalistic answer is go to the state, make some friends and support laws who make the state more cappable to reinforce your goals and then, made the state help you to form a monopoly. Its because of things like this, that american companies still likes GOP and Democrats over thr Libertarian Party. The righ wing libertarians cannot defend the will of corporations and they arent anticapitalist enough to really go against this corporations and made the state less powerfull.

What ideal or belief do you use to judge an issue? For example I use individual liberty, so when I see an action take place, I ask myself, does that increase or decrease individual liberty. I ask because I am curious to why you think corporations shouldnt be able to control the political system because of their selfish interests, but at the same time you promote the people using govt for their own interests.

Then what alternative do you prefer instead of government or corporations? Perhaps syndicalism?

"So-called intellectual property doesn't exist without a state." Exactly. I agree. I don't think a lot of corps deserve their enormous wealth because of a couple patents. It is disproportional. Patent: having a good idea and then asking the govt to prevent others from using it. Oh yeah, the patentholder must pay the govt too...maybe that is why they are so helpful.

"""In western Europe countries had socialist regimes yet never regressed to dictatorships. Chavez and Correa were democratically (re)-elected."""" Western Europe? Those countries are all mixed economies. So is Venezuela, for that matter. When people criticize socialism, they're talking about total command economies. You can't point to them and say "see, socialism works, they haven't devolved into dictatorships", they haven't even devolved into socialism.

@bucketiii7581

Жыл бұрын

Then why do they call themselves socialist?

Chomsky, how did the US first develop? It wasn't with an expandig Fed, so how were we able to do it?

Under perfect liberty markets will bare perfect equality. How is that not what a Ron Paul says on a daily basis? I seem to remember the debate you refereed to in the opening of this I do not recall the statements going the way you said.

It would be a society where the non-elected financial elite and the huge corporations would have the overwhelming power in society. That's not freedom, that's tyranny.

Chomsky has it backward. Getting government involved means more corporate involvement, not less. He's from the era when the two actually were separate.

@epicphailure88

Жыл бұрын

Well corporations were granted massive power by the courts. They have more rights than actual people.

I missed the part where OsirisNeits said that... or even implied it.

Sounds good!

No thanks. I'll pass on the tyranny-supporting literature. I like democracy and people being in control of their own lives, and no book will ever change that. I live in Norway, btw.

@jaixzz

4 жыл бұрын

Did you not mean:- "tyranny-supporting" (in quotes)?

@WBKimmons

3 жыл бұрын

If you don’t like tyranny, you’re a libertarian

Chomsky has a lot of wonderful ideas. I would not sell him so short over some differences of opinion.

True. Even though big business will probably exist, there won't be a state to give the individuals who make up the indemnity of action that is the limited liability model.

Smith was pre-capitalist, which Chomsky makes abundantly clear. He's referring to Smith's market theory at the time, which is totally different than modern industrial capitalism. He's guessing, quite correctly, that Smith would be appalled if he could see what has come to be in the 21st century.....

Funny thing is I came to this realization about libritarianism on my own, then I found Chompsky.

@maonyksmohc9574

3 жыл бұрын

thats great, unfortunately a lot of people still believe this crap

@bucketiii7581

Жыл бұрын

@@maonyksmohc9574 Billions of dollars per year go into convincing people of the virtues of the "free market". It's no huge surprise. Advertising works.

I don't understand how taking STATE out of something can be shocking to anarchist...Or Noam is anarchist just by name?

@spokoziomTHC

8 жыл бұрын

+MrBanausos corporations have so much power becouse of their mutual affection with state.

@TheRhinehart86

8 жыл бұрын

+Lord Inquisitor No, corporations have so much power because they control the means of production, you could abolish the state and corporations would still control the means of production and as Chomsky said in this very video, you would have taken away the state, which at least pays lip service to representation and accountability and handed all power over to corporations which are internally run like totalitarian states. Chomsky's position is that the means of production should be in the hands of the people, not private corporations, removing the state would only make the corporations even stronger.

@spokoziomTHC

8 жыл бұрын

TheRhinehart86 prove it please. This is all wishfull thinking. Read "The Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand", it proves my point very well.

@spokoziomTHC

8 жыл бұрын

MrBanausos it's funny that you call me stupid yet you think countries you've mentioned are not regulated LOL. You are nothing but a stupid ex christian that replaced "god has a plan" with "goverment has plan". You went from worshiping clergy to worshiping the state. There is no god and socialism does nothing but enslave people with starvation and poverty.

@spokoziomTHC

8 жыл бұрын

MrBanausos ok let's have a look on your bullshit. All contries you've mentioned have minimum wage. Guess what? Schwitzerland doesn't! In a referendum year ago they denied enforcing minimum wage. Sweden also doesn't have one!! You cherry pick data and you can't even do it right. India ranks 128 in economic freedom, Malaysia is 30 hovewer it's quiet rich country do I got not idea why you've mentioned it, Nigeria is 120, Mexico is 59. I've never said that CEO's will run civilization, you are making strawman here. India is so poor because until 90's they extremly regulated economy, very close to real socialism like in USSR. Suprisingly, since they've freed their economy a bit proverty is falling rapidly. Oh, and worldwide poverty is on lowest level ever. Damm you, capitalism!

Good one.

Individualism does not work when you are dependent on others and whether you like it or not, you are. There are 7 billion+ people on this planet, you can't escape that. Unless you are living in the wilderness in a log cabin living off the land, you are dependent on someone for something at all times.

'why are da libertarians so extreme?' (while he is about to fall off the left/authoritarian quadrant)

@supersam1914

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@JohnXOsterman

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dimitris_Balf can you?

@lightnightpod173

Жыл бұрын

If you think Chomsky is about to fall off of the authoritarian left quadrant, might I introduce to you Mao? or Stalin? Or were they so left wing they looped all the way back around like an integer limit, or... are you attempting to say that Chomsky and stalin share near identical places?

Noam Chomsky... hugely disagree with you here... says a lot of great things (Chomsky, and holds the U.S accountable) .. but if you supported Hillary in 08 who took millions from banks and Wall Street [over Ron Paul], how is that not corporate tyranny? In a system where all loopholes and benefits were closed to corporations from Govt.. I don't think there would be corporate tyranny in a libertarian state, because it only is a is, because lobbyists protect corporations in government, and give them advantages and regulations. You're a great thinker and talker, and I'm glad you're pro Sanders '16, and I'm glad you call out the U.S on foreign policy in an objective sense.. some of the best stuff out there in that regard.

@guapocat203

4 жыл бұрын

His argument is that big business will never allow a libertarian state. It will always incentivize and pay off regulators to crush their competition. The more you weaken government regulation of big business, the more you ensure that big business will capture the government mechanisms to force out their competitors.

@Si_Mondo

2 жыл бұрын

@@guapocat203 There are no regulators in a Libertarian society except the base market consumers. Learn the theory first before stating a mistaken understanding.

@guapocat203

2 жыл бұрын

@@Si_Mondo Literally read what I wrote. I said Chomsky was critiquing society as it exists. Not the fairy tale Libertarian society that exists on your head.

pt 2 The economy is also all-encompassing; a co-op here and there does not change the fact that the financial elite are in control. Real participatory democracy, in a free libertarian socialist, or anarcho-syndicalist society, would mean democracy built from below, where people were in control of their own lives and workplace. Please watch the first video “Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Syndicalism”

Also it should be noted that corporations are state sanctioned business and without the state, they'd fail...

Liberteranism has its flaws, but it beats Chomsky's nutty policies anyday.

@joeyrasmussen8394

4 жыл бұрын

Really dumb take.

Not a single argument to be found.

@tomio8072

5 жыл бұрын

yeah?

I completely agree

I was just using it as an example. I was simply saying with the technology we have today, someone could be standing in a store and looking at products, and research it on the spot. They dont need some govt department to tell them who is who and what is what. My fundamental point was that it makes more sense to empower the individual in such a time of communication, rather than centralization. A free market depends on the consumer being informed, which is why I made the comment.

These are some of the most blatant mischaracterizations of libertarianism that I've ever heard.

@saxmanager

9 жыл бұрын

It's that suppose to be your argument? It doesn't qualify....

@bobenheimen

9 жыл бұрын

Roger Dantes No, because because your statement infers i arrived to my medical treatment safely, in a country of established government in which peace time may or may not exist, such that i may be treated. This, sir, is the avoidance of such disaster.

@DastardlyHandsome

9 жыл бұрын

Roger Dantes Government creates laws that favor corporate interests, but I can also see how an unaccountable private institution can become authoritarian. There really is no easy answer, and for all intents and purposes, I think the debate between private ownership of the means of production versus public means, is largely moot and semantics. I mean, honestly, what is the real difference between state socialism and state capitalism? Both are still tyranny's.

@charlieduran4269

8 жыл бұрын

MrDarcyIsHere Government creates laws which favour the dominant sectoral interests within the party which controls government. There's no way around that & no escape from that - the *only* solution is to create mass movements which can control the state. That's the central lesson of political history.

@charlieduran4269

8 жыл бұрын

Roger Dantes I'd argue there are countries in europe with labour movements strong enough to exert some influence on government

Chomsky just completely misquoted Ron in this. What a disappointment. It seems he doesn't even understand what he's talking about really.

@TheGreatUtopiaCat

8 жыл бұрын

+Matt Ryan#24 he does, and he's a sophist and a gatekeeper

@r.d.k.4166

8 жыл бұрын

+Matt Ryan#24 Chomsky is overrated.

@TheGreatUtopiaCat

8 жыл бұрын

***** worse!

@TheGreatUtopiaCat

7 жыл бұрын

***** are you calling chomsky a zionist?

@Bulhakas

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe "zionist" means "critical of the Jewish state" in whatever pigsty Krix Tix is from.

Good points. They are very differnet in their approach.

There's force in any kind of society - you're forced to follow the rules and laws to avoid unwanted consequences. In a capitalist society you’re forced to live in a society where the huge corporations and financial elite are in control. You should be free to help whoever you want, but it should be in a free, egalitarian, democratic society, without undemocratic tyranny and hierarchy

Noam Chomsky < Ron Paul

@danny.nedelk0

5 жыл бұрын

George Millar hahahahaha good one

Does it ever bother anyone that a Linguist is being asked these questions? and that his responses are given so much legitimacy? I truly have a difficult time tolerating this man, who by all appearances seems to have a very poor understanding of business and economics.

@FlashVirus

8 жыл бұрын

+Ben P Oh jesus... economics isn't a "natural science," there are plenty of economists that would agree with Chomsky's economic model. Many that wouldn't, as well. I hate when people give the old "don't understand economics" criticism. Not having a go at you, but Libertarians in general do it, and it's most amusing because Austrian economics is probably even more fringe than Chomsky's Syndicalist model of society when it pertains to academia.

@benp8067

8 жыл бұрын

Xm Flash He doesn't have a good understanding of business and economics, in a purely academic sense. Moreover, he's not an economist and hasn't studied the field in an educational setting to any measurable extent. And I think that given what I've said there should be more skepticism about his ideas. FYI I'm not a libertarian and I'm not trying to promote any ideology.

@lugus9261

6 жыл бұрын

Chomsky knows more than you'll ever know

@zapazap

6 жыл бұрын

Do you know this?

@steptb

6 жыл бұрын

at least he's read and understood both the two major books of adam smith. while on the other hand tons of modern economists cite him a lot but clearly have not read them.

Then why is he so dismissive? Honest Q. I mean if they are so allied in philosophy ....... i don't understand the strong terms Chomsky uses in regard to Ron P. I am open to what you say, thanks. Toatlly agree with your last paragraph.

I believe that I own my body and that I own what I produce, call me what you want to.

There is no such thing as "free market tyranny." If you don't like a product, buy a different one. Chomsky doesn't know anything about Adam Smith. Milton Friedman has preemptively destroyed Chomsky's premises.

@alexruddies1718

7 жыл бұрын

There's also no such thing as a free market. It's like communism and anarchism, in respect to the idea that it looks great in theory but nearly impossible in practice. It would require tremendous individual discipline and mutual respect for each other in order for a free market to exist. At this point in history, it's not feasible.

@alexvolkov223

7 жыл бұрын

"Chomsky doesn't know anything about Adam Smith" What?? Every single economist knows about Adam Smith and is practically forced to read all his work. To suggest that Chomsky would be unfamiliar with Smith's work is pretty far-fetched. And I know this because I study economists. The free-market has never existed in the developed world, and it's a theoretical concept that doesn't exist anywhere, because for a free-market to exist you need to assume perfect rationality from humans, as well as zero outside interference. It's like Lenin's "socialism for the world" idea, you cannot have perfect socialism unless all other states are dominantly socialist, just like you can't have a perfect free-market unless it exists worldwide under very specific conditions (which have to somehow come about naturally). But it's far fetched in reality. We have always had regulated capitalism, the only true question is; do the regulations work in favor of the public, or do they work in favor of special interests and corporations?

@thenew4559

7 жыл бұрын

And communism worked in practice? There were 94 million dead in the 20th century because of communism. No, I don't think buddy.

@ashleigh3021

7 жыл бұрын

Yankie Doodle Never been capitalism on planet Earth.

@TehIdiotOne

7 жыл бұрын

Wrong. Capitalism simply means private ownership of the means of production, markets and wage labour. That's perfectly consistent with what we have today. Whether markets have regulations or not is completely irrelevant. In fact, regulations is a necessity of markets to even function. Even though capitalism as we have it today is not what you WANT it to be, has absolutely no relevance to whether it is capitalism.

Chommie at his best, misquoting opponents and missing the point. I love how "the church will take care of him, or something" gets a laugh from the audience. Solidarity sounds ridiculous to people in love with the idea that helping one another means pointing guns at rich people.

'For money is the root of all evil.' Think I saw that somewhere in some religious book. Your lion - tiger - bear analogy is quite apt. The economy basically is a survival of the fittest, maybe even law of the jungle? In any case, do you really expect that 100% of the people wont be tempted to bend or break the rules when the bottom line is money?

Some corporations successfully influence (or infiltrate) government through lobbying or the CEOs that move back and forth while other corporations have not attained that kind of power. A company like Halliburton is perfectly fine with the state because their profits depend on that cozy relationship. Some corporations are at risk if libertarian policies are implemented. It's in their self interest to oppose such policies.

Dear chomsky. you are wrong. it is a human right to freely exchange the things you own.

@heldinahtmlhell

6 жыл бұрын

Really? A person can live without doing that. A person can't live without healthcare, food, a home, etc.

i respect chomsky, but he is wrong about this one, a free society is much better than socialism. At least his someone who you can have an honest debate with without the name calling you get from most leftist.

@rhettllewallyn8435

9 жыл бұрын

Egyptian American Patriot Freedom to either be a wage slave or starve? Sounds so free. You should look into what socialism actually is.

@egyptianamericanpatriot1531

9 жыл бұрын

I know exactly what it is. It's worker control of productively. You should study the liberty movement and see what it is and why it is so much better. Study ron paul, thomas Jefferson and ayn rand. Believe me friend, there is nothing greater than freedom. as for slave wages, you forget that the state cannot give to one without taking from another. that is real slavery. the usa was the wealthiest country in the world in the 19th century because of the great amount of liberty it provided its citizens. take care friend.

@egyptianamericanpatriot1531

9 жыл бұрын

absolutely not, free markets have proven themselves (and female empowerment over their own bodies) to be the greatest tools to reduce poverty in the world. Socialists have their hearts in the right place, but the power they give to the state is then used to imprison them for corporate fascism.

@SevenEightyThreeHz

9 жыл бұрын

Egyptian American Patriot "state cannot give to one without taking from another" have you ever heard about the term "SHARE": To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns. If we "THE FREE PEOPLE" agree to share the world and the wealth, where is the tyranny? Of course we agree corporate fascism has taken the power of state and that must be avoided and prevented. You can't say simply "NO state" will solve this, it's about changing, giving more freedom to people, to decide, to real participate in political decisions, not to give more power to the actual corporate tyranny.

@SevenEightyThreeHz

9 жыл бұрын

***** Can you tell me why the hell do you think "your money" is yours? why do you think you deserve it more than million other people who work harder than you and get nothing? When you get real insight of the world you are living in, then tell me about money, force and stealing, but right now, you are just ignoring ALL what gives you "your money", so don't even try to teach me about philosophy and economics

Sounds good to me!

It's also nice when they start claiming you are advocating things or making claims that were never made. It really makes a 500 character comment much more productive. And then sweepingly ignore volumes of information that they pick and choose terms from... as if they were just looking for scripture to support their pre-existing ideals.

Chomsky is way overrated.

@EhAmes94

7 жыл бұрын

Funny enough - he would probably agree. He doesn't want people to idolize him. On the other hand when it comes to video like this, or if he criticizes say Milton Friedman, people go on and on about how Milton was such a Genius. Then bash Chomsky saying he is an idiot. Lol ok then youtube comment intellectuals... Whatever you say.

@briannewman9285

7 жыл бұрын

You don't have to be a celebrity to be right. Name one linguistic theory he created which hasn't been proven wrong. He's really in the same pot with Dawkins. Both of these people are allegedly scholars who have made no contribution to the field they are famous for.

@sherlockcipher6690

6 жыл бұрын

Really , Chomsky's hierarchy is used to categorise expressivity of language and the automation used to exceot it namely recursively enumerable, context free, context sensitive and regular. Here www.diku.dk/hjemmesider/ansatte/henglein/papers/chomsky1959.pdf Besides this there is also the chomsky normal form used to describe context free grammar with given production rules.

@Oners82

6 жыл бұрын

Brian Newman He is right regarding the topic of the video, so you are going off topic introducing linguistics. And has he actually been proven wrong regarding his theories in linguistics? Controversy does not equal refutation. And to say that Dawkins has not contributed anything is completely idiotic and instantly destroys any fragments of credibility that you may have been clinging on to. "The Selfish Gene" alone revolutionised the field and cemented his place as one of the great thinkers of evolutionary biology, not to mention other phenomenal works such as "The Extended Phenotype". You're completely clueless. "You don't have to be a celebrity to be right." No, but a basic understanding of the topics under discussion might help...

Libertarianism is a call for corporate tyranny? Go home Noam, you're drunk.

@cleric3236

6 жыл бұрын

Of course it is. Market competition leads to an oligopoly and monopoly.

@thejohnsinghshow1689

5 жыл бұрын

These misguided “Democratic-Socialists” in the comment section don’t even understand the true meaning of Libertarianism. Libertarianism allows free-will unlike a Communist mindset of telling everyone what they should believe in. Socialism = Slavery. Libertarianism = Freedom. White liberals who think socialism is so great, they should go live in socialist countries & see how great it is.

Yea a balanced budget, that's just crazy!!!

The problem is, that as long as the markets control the government, individuals will NEVER be sophisticated enough to regulate markets.

You're right about one thing, Adam Smith had no problem using the force of government to protect the rich from the poor. Even today, how many bankers went to jail in compared to the number of protestors. If you want libertarian ideas go check out Man, Economy, and State by Rothbard.

2:45 the real Adam smith

Lots of really smart people said things hundreds of years ago that people love to quote when talking about modern politics- I've done it myself, but usually only while using a quote by a person to refute another quote by the same person that someone is using to back their argument. The fact is that people 2 hundred years or more ago could not possibly have foreseen the advances of the 20th century. Globalism and outsourcing completely change the equations. 90 days around the world is a bit slow.

Markets reflect demands. You can't fault a free market when it's the people themselves that don't want to stop the pollution.

That college student knew not a thing of Chomsky and asked that question.

Something that Libertarians in North America recognize which is why we want to abolish the Federal Reserve so real money can come into being. Lenin himself said that best way to destroy capitalism is to debauch the currency and that is what is happening in America.

I love how people think. If we voted 40 libertarians into congress there will still be conservatives, liberals, and independents. I think it would be a nice check and balance for this system run a muck.

RSFO, how can you assert that adam smith and marx are classical libertarians? and put all those names into the same classification? marx was the critic of smith, marx was socialist and smith was the theorist of 1700s emerging capitalism and european liberalism- as the political philosophy opposing monarchism and feudalist political ideas; marx was also a critic of liberalism - the ideology of the bourgeois class; he recognize their historical merits but their limitations for proletarian interest

Hugo Chaves praised Noam Chomsky that tells you what Chomsky is.

@mytoll6529

3 жыл бұрын

A Homo-Sapiens?

@epicfail552

3 жыл бұрын

Awesome?

Once you've grasped this, you can see the answer to your question; the only way a corporation in a free market has accountability is in a scenario of perfect liberty rather than corporate tyranny. Since free markets and perfect liberty are not conducive to each other in such a simplistic way, laissez-faire can indeed empower corporate tyranny which in turn supresses personal liberty.

I went out of my way to separate them so to blame by inference is over the top.

5:30 ...the conditions described by Adam Smith---the REAL Adam Smith, the one who wrote Wealth of Nations...If you look at his argument for markets...the argument was..."that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality." That's why markets are good he said. They will lead to perfect equality and they will not force people to subject themselves to outside orders so they become less than human.

It's the power of corporations on the government, that have every incentive in the world to influence regulations in their favor, creating crony capitalism and high inequality. The most effective way of stopping that, is to withdraw the government from regulating things which are not hurting anybody, or there is an almost imminent danger from someone getting hurt.

I was about to say "...solve it and burry the isms, left, right and center".

Right. What's your point?

Explain please. Why do you think that?

In small towns is very commun to see how people help each other without having a nanny state, thats a fact not a "logical" view. And please, which countries are those who fail because they didn't subsidize failures?

A debate should eventually produce some progress. If a person brings up valid points then the objective mind should consider them. However if a person is really entrenched in an ideology then there's little to no consideration. Unfortunately, I see the latter happening quite frequently.

Lol I prefer annotation over connotation, but whatever... That sounds very agreeable to me, I totally agree that corps should be (way) more accountable for their mistakes. What does this philosophy say about defending consumers and citizens against corporate control though, e.g. livable wages, pollution, labor rights and all that? B/c that's one doubt I've had about libertarianism...

That was part of Chomsky's point, because he is more akin to European libertarians. There is a whole world outside of the United States, and appropriating these terms just farther confuses issues. And as I had stated... NONE of the conceptions of liberty states implied a complete lack of government... in fact, Montesquieu was quite critical of people that felt they were more important than the government and society (and claimed the caused the fall of civilisations).

Right, we all do really want the same things: peace ,liberty, freedom, rights, happiness. But HOW we want to get there, how we want to acheive these universal and noble goals - using force or regulations or limitations on others , or not - that is a critical question, no?

I think Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are both interesting speakers. While some Libertarians may ask for complete freedom from the government, I understand Ron Paul to not desire that. I understand the governments role to be the regulator of justice, whether social or economic, but I also see that the more a government participates in the actual economy the more corruption and unfairness results. That said I am not really against Noam Chomsky's idea of a universal basic income, because it would treat all citizens equally. However governments participation in education and healthcare results in lack of innovation, corruption, and nepotism. The economy is never meant to be equal among all people, but rules and laws must treat all people equally. The separation of economy and state is as fundamentally important as the separation of church and state. Lobbyists should not be allowed to deal with politicians because it results in unfair laws and unfair government tenders. The mingling of economy and state results in corruption no matter whether it is in a socialist or capitalist state.

It is not to suggest that there is any racist intent. The point is often used as prove that socialism is a superior system and yet most data suggest that only white countries of northern Europe have avoided the trend toward dictatorship. Chavez was very close to being a dictator and was democraticlly elected for life.

So who is supposed to keep a comatose patent alive? And for how long?

He said corporate tyranny is worse than state tyranny, and that corporations have no accountability. 3:40 Can someone explain how a corporation in a free market, without government, can have no accountability to their clients?

Exactly.

If you want to crush authority, I cannot find a more effective action than what WikiLeaks is doing (transparancy). Try to read some of the stuff that Julian Assange is suggesting. I find it very interesting. I think he is a libertarian beyond left and right.

Unwillingness to see potential negative consequences of your philosophy speaks volumes. Listen to Noam Chomsky here who also warns of corporate tyranny in a libertarian society.

Not really true, but I didn't suggest that corporations could or should be dismantled. Corporations exist for one and one reason only. It's not to make money, because all businesses of all kinds share that. Corporations exist to LIMIT LIABILITY. So that you CAN'T sue he shareholders. Because corporations enjoy this special status, granted by governments through many years, the governments are within their rights, and the rights of the people they represent, to regulate them.

Corruption exists where power exists. Name one entity more powerful than the US Federal Government.

The simple thing you should grasp - if there is NO big government and NO regulations/licenses for small competitors to enter the market at any time, then only consumers decide who wins and who loses (in a democratic way, via their purchasing power - each purchase like a vote of confidence.) Big monopolies and trade union thugs wont be able to force you to buy their products (via tariffs, etc) if you prefer something different. You become free, they become your servants.

The problem in the US isn't that there is too much government intervention, it's that a monied elite has too much influence on both the government and the media. The population will always be uninformed while this is the case. More deregulation would simply serve to increase the disparity. "Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to...the general prey of the rich on the poor." There's another Jefferson quote for ya.