Noam Chomsky - Anarchism and misguided Libertarians

[Spendulus]

Well, guess what.  It did in fact do that in certain places.   And then it self corrected...

Hasn't worked well for healthcare - UK consensus among healthcare experts is that there is little/no role of private companies in healthcare provision. Growing consensus also for train transport given lack of competition that can realistically occur on 1 line.

UK consensus?  Don't make me laugh.  You mean a bunch of "healthcare experts," employed by the government, say what they are told to say - if they want to keep their jobs.

I mean, do better than that.  Please.

Growing consensus for train transport?  I don't even know what that means.  There's no "growing consensus" about the wisdom and economics of Amtrak.  There's certainly no "growing consensus" about the wonderful utopia of Argentina's trains.

But hey, nobody ever said that every single last aspect of a society should be capitalist.  And some aspects change with technology.  As an example, it was once clear that most roads might best be done by the government for the general good -  but that was the era of paper money. 

I personally don't think that's true anymore with efficient micropayments and scanners possible.  So these things can and should change with time and with technology.  One argument against "government services" is that they are much less likely to change with technology, and much less likely to remain, or become, efficient and cost effective.

Have to be very, very careful when trying to make big, sweeping generalizations.

[1714875799]

1714875799

[1714875799]

1714875799

[1714875799]

1714875799

[Jordan23]

Are you obsessed with the #1 killer of mankind........government? Stay out of my business you fucking commie 

[Jordan23]

Why America's obsession with libertarianism?!

First of all, this isn't America's obsession. Libertarians are a vocal minority on the internet. They come from Christian conservative Republican parents and they're trying to rebel by using this weak platform of "social liberalism, economic conservativism", this platform totally ignores the reality that economics (distribution of resources) IS the most social issue of all!



There's also a powerful strain of Randian insanity at play.

HAHAHAHA this idiot thinks he knows my atheist parents. Lol

[Beliathon]

HAHAHAHA this idiot thinks he knows my atheist parents. Lol

Stay out of my business you fucking commie  

Welcome to the internet, my child. Reason alone rules this place.

Part 1: Conversations with Great Minds w/ Dr. Richard Wolff - America's taboo subject

Part 2: Alternatives to Capitalism

[Spendulus]

HAHAHAHA this idiot thinks he knows my atheist parents. Lol

Stay out of my business you fucking commie  

Welcome to the internet, my child. Reason alone rules this place.
....

I call troll!

[TECSHARE]

Welcome to the internet, my child. Reason alone rules this place.

Too bad you have none. (btw 4chan might disagree with you on this point)

[Beliathon]

(btw 4chan might disagree with you on this point)

A: Typing some potentially offensive words on an internet forum.
B: Physically assaulting or murdering a person

Spot the difference.

[TECSHARE]

(btw 4chan might disagree with you on this point)

A: Typing some potentially offensive words on an internet forum.
B: Physically assaulting or murdering a person

Spot the difference.

How is that even a response to my comment? Are you really that fucking lazy that you are now reposing your comments to several threads even though it has nothing to do with my comment?

BTW here is how I already responded to this parroting in another thread:

And yet you tell people to kill themselves.

A: Typing some potentially offensive words on an internet forum
B: Stabbing or shooting someone

See if you can spot the difference.

Words kill too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

I guess words only kill when they support your bias...

[TPTB_need_war]

"what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power:  so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.  The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society...

just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny."

Please point out to the senile Noam Chomsky that he is describing democracy, where the 0.001% (the unaccountable private owners of the governments) convince the 99% to tax the 1%, which is really a tax on the 99.999%.

Any inane socialist pigheaded questions?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/16385

I was in Australia when they were proposing the Luxury Tax. They got the people to vote for higher taxes by lying to them. The slogan was they were going to tax the rich with their “Ferraris, Fur Coats, and French Wines.”  Everyone cheered – ya! Get the bastards! When the tax was passed, suddenly the dumb public discovered ALL electrical products were included. You could not buy a clock radio without the Luxury Tax.

People get what they deserve from government – lie, lies, and more lies, and empty pockets to show for it.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35453

Governments promised that they would never use E-ZPass [toll booth elimination] technology for speeding tickets, but they lied. A friend received a speeding ticket in the mail from Virginia, stating that they drove through the E-ZPass lane 10 mph above the speed limit. I remain skeptical about government because they are simply not trustworthy.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/23950

Earn just US$100,000 and you have made it to the hated top 1% that they argue deprive the 99% without exactly explain why it is such people rather than governments.

Taxes have been increasing exponentially and this has reduced new job creation from small business because in many developed countries, savings are still at rock bottom levels after the tax burden. This is just glaringly obvious when we look at Western Europe. The growth since 2007 in the sheer the volume of financial assets that have been accumulated is down by about 50% on average whereas Germany has been hit even harder as wealth has fallen to just 40% of the pre-crisis level. Germans on average now pay more than 50% in taxes and with the pending confiscation of 10% of their asset to bailout banks and an additional 5% tax to bailout the municipal governments, this trend in Germany may wipe out its ability to even create wealth moving into 2032.

Strangely, even with the French-elite socialist inspired IMF proposal to just confiscate 10% of everyone’s bank accounts in Europe, it appears that the majority of people do not pay attention to the financial news. In Europe, bank deposits are still the investment of choice, whereas long-term investments, including equities, are still being avoided as evil and untrustworthy since 2007. This has contributed to the historic low in retail participation in the stock market that is only furthering the gap between the “rich” and the “poor”. Money is just being “parked” rather than invested and this is clearly a major concern for any downturn from here will have even less wealth to provide a cushion for the middle class. Consequently, the next downturn appears to be far worse than anything previously. This is at odds with individuals facing retirement when the governments have unfunded liabilities and keep turning to higher taxes rather than looking at the problem long-term.

The rising disparity between the “rich” no one wishes to actually define and the “poor” who is defined as having less than the “rich”, is impacted by the rising taxation that is also reducing job creation and sending interest in borrowing for investment in Europe to record lows. That trend will hit the US shores starting in 2016.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/26331

The socialists love to tout that 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%. From the socialists’ viewpoint, this justifies stealing from one group to give to another, despite this model failing in the past. It is also in clear violation of the Ten Commandments. But why does this trend even happen? Is it that the 1% suppress the 99%? Or could it be that government suppresses the 99%?

The 99% cannot get richer because government robs them every day. What should have been put into savings and investments, was squandered as usual by politicians. So is it the fault of those who actually invest on their own? The socialists want to blame the rich and rob them, handing more and more assets to the political class who waste it on themselves.

The 99% need to wake up. It ain’t the 1% – It is those who pretend to be on your side who deprive you of your real right to economic freedom.

[BADecker]

Libertarianism is freedom of the mind as well as the person. An illusion of freedom foisted on the masses by the few is not freedom.

If you do not stand up and take responsibility for your life and freedom, somebody else will be responsible for your slavery.

A war between two armies of free people may cause the death and destruction of one free people, but it will never cause slavery.

Taxes are slavery.
Taxes are not taxes if they are free donations.

Freedom is freedom if I am free to live my life in any way I want as long as I do not hurt someone or damage his property. Inappropriate breaking of a contract is hurting someone or damaging his property.

Military might is set in place through donation, not taxation. If it is through taxation, it involves slavery rather than freedom.

Libertarianism in its simplest form involves all this simple thinking.



EDIT: Private property ownership among people is the evidence that the people are all kings, and therefore all free. Lack of or reduced private property is evidence of a kingship, and of slavery.

[polychenko]

Well, guess what.  It did in fact do that in certain places.   And then it self corrected...

Hasn't worked well for healthcare - UK consensus among healthcare experts is that there is little/no role of private companies in healthcare provision. Growing consensus also for train transport given lack of competition that can realistically occur on 1 line.

UK consensus?  Don't make me laugh.  You mean a bunch of "healthcare experts," employed by the government, say what they are told to say - if they want to keep their jobs.

I mean, do better than that.  Please.

Growing consensus for train transport?  I don't even know what that means.  There's no "growing consensus" about the wisdom and economics of Amtrak.  There's certainly no "growing consensus" about the wonderful utopia of Argentina's trains.

But hey, nobody ever said that every single last aspect of a society should be capitalist.  And some aspects change with technology.  As an example, it was once clear that most roads might best be done by the government for the general good -  but that was the era of paper money.  

I personally don't think that's true anymore with efficient micropayments and scanners possible.  So these things can and should change with time and with technology.  One argument against "government services" is that they are much less likely to change with technology, and much less likely to remain, or become, efficient and cost effective.

Have to be very, very careful when trying to make big, sweeping generalizations.

Healthcare professionals and scientists are interested in improving health, not being biased towards government. See BMA and other groups output, usually in response to government imposed changes. Compare and contrast the UK's expensive and price discriminatory private train lines with other more efficient publicly run ones (eg France). Majority of the UK population support rail re nationalisation  
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/11/why-do-people-support-rail-nationalisation/

[TECSHARE]

That is of course unless the government is signing their paychecks, then they will do what they are told.

[Spendulus]

...
Healthcare professionals and scientists are interested in improving health, not being biased towards government. See BMA and other groups output, usually in response to government imposed changes. Compare and contrast the UK's expensive and price discriminatory private train lines with other more efficient publicly run ones (eg France). Majority of the UK population support rail re nationalisation  
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/11/why-do-people-support-rail-nationalisation/

A simple question.

What is the UK budget for propaganda directed toward.

1)  "Support Rail Nationalization!"

2) "National Heath Care is So Great!"

No more needs be said.

[polychenko]

That is of course unless the government is signing their paychecks, then they will do what they are told.

That is extremely cynical.

1)Do you have any experience of working in science / with scientists? 

2)How do you propose science is funded

3) When scientists were providing evidence of harmful effects of tobacco on health while politicians were on the boards of big tobacco, were they doing what they were told?!   They eventually - over decades - changed policy which cost big tobacco.
http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Kenneth_Clarke#Tobacco_Links)

[Spendulus]

That is of course unless the government is signing their paychecks, then they will do what they are told.

That is extremely cynical.

1)Do you have any experience of working in science / with scientists? 

2)How do you propose science is funded

3) When scientists were providing evidence of harmful effects of tobacco on health while politicians were on the boards of big tobacco, were they doing what they were told?!   They eventually - over decades - changed policy which cost big tobacco.
http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Kenneth_Clarke#Tobacco_Links)

Not comparable, is it?

Look at the budget for propaganda in the given issue. (or the lack of a budget.)