Noam Chomsky, Libertarians, Intentional Communities, and the Venus Project

In searching for YouTube videos of Noam Chomsky debating libertarians such as Ron Paul or Austrian economists such as Murray Rothbard, I found this:

Chomsky argues in this video that “if you go back to the Constitutional debates, they are all very clear: Madison, the framer of the Constitution, makes clear that the prime responsibility of government is to protect the minority, the opulent, against the majority.”

“Madison warned of what he called ‘the danger of the leveling spirit among the growing number of people who labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings’.”  Chomsky thus argued that the primary principle of our Constitution was that “democracy is unacceptable.”

“Madison’s thought carried the day.  James Wilson was the only dissenting voice.  Jefferson, a real democrat, was not part of it. [He was on some assignment to Europe during the Constitutional Convention]…This satisfied the Madisonian principle that wealth must rule.  The wealthy are a better class of men.  They must rule.  They own the country anyhow, so therefore, they must be responsible.”

Noam Chomsky says he is a Libertarian Socialist, which only appears to be a contradiction of terms here in the United States.  He argues that the term “libertarian” in the United States means the opposite of what it meant to everyone else throughout history.  The real Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson were anti-capitalists and called for equality.  They did not believe that people should be subject to wage labor because that is a destruction of their humanity.

Chomsky stated that “Adam Smith [in his book The Wealth of Nations] said that in any civilized society something has to be done to prevent the division of labor because it will turn the people into creatures who are as ignorant as it is possible to be.  Adam Smith advocated markets only on the grounds that “perfect liberty leads to perfect equality.”  That is the traditional libertarian position.

“The US stance on libertarianism is quite different,” according to Noam Chomsky. “It means extreme advocacy of total tyranny, and private unaccountable tyranny is worse than state tyranny because the public has some control over state tyranny.  The corporate system, as it has evolved in the twentieth century, is pure tyranny, completely unaccountable.  You are inside one of these institutions and you take orders from above and hand it down below [this is hierarchy].”

One commentator of this Youtube video wrote “Anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians are anti-government but not anti-governance.  They never talk about the destruction of [private corporate] hierarchies or the shareholder/stakeholder divide. That is why it is a pseudoanarchy.”

Chomsky also said that “unsubsidized capitalism has existed in a good part of the Third World, which is why the Third World countries look the way they do.  Unsubsidized capitalism has never existed in any developed society for a simple reason: the wealthy and powerful won’t allow it just as Adam Smith understood.  They will use the levers of power to make sure that state power subsidizes them.”  Chomsky then concludes that he “would only subscribe to the free market as it was advocated by Adam Smith, the person who wrote Wealth of Nations, not the person that most people worship today.”

In another Youtube video entitled, “Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul supporters,” Chomsky acknowledged how libertarians are against a foreign policy of interventionism (I would say Chomsky agrees with Ron Paul supporters on foreign policy), but Chomsky also said Ron Paul supporters unleash “their anger on the government (which potentially can be democratic), not against the Fortune 500 companies that make dazzling profits.  Libertarians hate bureaucrats in Washington but not the ones in the insurance offices.  “They are fearful of the Council on Foreign Relations, the UN, and the Federal Reserve, but are not fearful of private power or corporate tyrannies.”

I agree with much of what Noam Chomsky says in the above paragraphs.  However, unlike Noam Chomsky, I think the Federal Reserve is very dangerous.  I personally have not heard Chomsky say he was worried too much about fractional reserve banking and Keynesian economics, which have caused great harm to our nation.  And in defense of Ron Paul, I would point out that Ron Paul also is very much against corporatism, or crony capitalism. For more information about the Federal Reserve, go to Youtube.com and type the name “G. Edward Griffin” or the title “The Money Masters.”

The reason I have written a new US Constitution (called The Third Constitution of the United States) is that in the course of our nation’s history, several Amendments and federal laws (like giving women and blacks the right to vote) were passed that express the idea that our government is a democracy (a word that is not found in the Constitution because our founding fathers feared it).  The Greens today even talk about the ideal of a participatory and consensus democracy achievable at local, small scale levels (in small groups it is better than representative democracy).  But our founding fathers, and many libertarians today, argue that our government is a Constitutional Republic that guarantees our inherent individual rights (rights that a mob democracy cannot take away).  I believe we need a new constitution that better reconciles these two forces of individualism and collectivism, a constitution that gives more power to common, working people.  I recommend that we maximize local community self-determination, with a system in which decision-making power flows (from the bottom-up, not from the top-down) from the precinct to the township, then from the township to the county, and from the county to the state level, while having the smallest possible federal government.

I do not care for corruption and top-down hierarchy in government.   But I also do not want to work in a tyrannical and hierarchical private corporation, which may be my only choice in a free market (based on competition, scarcity, and profit) as the rich get richer, and the poor, poorer.  Therefore, I believe cities and counties should be able to revoke corporate charters.  Also, there should be guaranteed workplace democracy in private companies when they reach a certain size.

We also need more intentional communities that show the world, by example, how small cooperative groups of people, sharing similar values, can live simply in ecologically, self-sufficient, sustainable ways, using consensus decision-making, permaculture landscaping, organic fertilizers, composting, vegetarianism, geodesic domes, and alternative energies (that make it possible to get off the electrical grid).

If Ron Paul, with his Austrian economics, became President for the next 20 years, things would be much better.  Some libertarians even advocate a stateless, free market society, as advocated by some writers at www.LewRockwell.com such as Murray Rothbard and Stefan Molyneux.   I would be willing to try this for 20 years.  But the reason why I am excited by the Venus Project (described below) right now is this: Even if we eliminate a corrupt government altogether, wouldn’t it still be possible for 1% of the population to own 40% of the world’s resources, as it does now?   Such economic disparity creates animosity between the haves and the have-nots of the world.

Eventually our survival on the planet may depend upon whether we adopt the ideas expressed in the Zeitgeist Movie and the Venus Project, which would neither be an implementation of the United Nation’s Agenda 21, socialism, nor communism (these models have elitist control, social stratification, and monetary systems of one form or another–all three conditions we should abolish at that point).  We can easily feed and house all the people on the planet in sustainable ways, and it is unconscionable that we don’t.  The Venus Project is also about creating a world without lawyers, politicians, advertisers, insurance agents, or the need for prisons.  Go to www.theVenusProject.com or www.theZeitgeistMovement.com and watch some of their videos or read some of their articles.  For information about all types of intentional communities, go to www.ic.org.

Our mainstream television media is owned by about six big corporations. Think of it as an arm of the government and the industrial-military complex, and maybe the pharmaceutical industry as well.  It is all about perception management.  When you see animated political debates on Fox News, CNN, or others, do not expect to see and hear any radical opinions such as from Michael Parenti, a thought-provoking socialist (I agree with his analysis but not his solution), or Noam Chomsky (considered by many of the progressive left as our country’s greatest intellectual).  These people have dangerous ideas not fit for public consumption, in the eyes of our corporate masters.  Professor and theologian David Ray Griffin has done incredible research into 9/11.  Don’t expect the major media to allow him to talk about Building 7, which was not even hit by an airplane, and yet it collapsed into its footprints at the speed of gravity!  I dare you to read Internet articles or watch Youtube video lectures by David Ray Griffin, the foremost authority on 9/11.  And did you know when the Republican and Democratic National Parties had their televised presidential debates in 2008, they agreed to not include Ralph Nader, who was an independent presidential candidate?  That is democracy at work in our “free” country.  If corporate-owned, politicians become successful in putting controls on Internet websites (the ones they consider dangerous), we are in big trouble.

The wealthiest people and the most powerful organizations (many of them are international bankers and military defense contractors) finance both of the major two parties; they also finance and empower many of our incumbent federal legislators.  The bailouts, which started with Bush, were for the very companies who profited from us and hurt us the most.  Under Obama, Homeland Security and foreign policy are still pretty much the same.  I say, keep the so-called “change.” Is anyone in government really concerned about the enormous national debt which we will never, ever pay off?   Murray Rothbard at www.LewRockwell.com has discussed in an article how the national debt could be repudiated by giving away government assets.   If the Federal Reserve keeps printing money out of thin air, we eventually will be paying just for the interest on the debt, not for government programs.  We truly need real change soon, but it is a change the Democrats and Republicans, the identical

twins, are not capable of providing.  For now on if I vote, it will be for a third party candidate.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is not a wise approach.  When we vote for a third party, we publicly register our dissent, which lawmakers and other citizens need to see.  Of course, all of this is true as long as the electronic ballots are not tampered.

Many people believe our country was actually hijacked starting with the Kennedy assassination.  The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has long been involved in the drug trade, which is how it gets money to do illegal operations that it does not want the American people or lawmakers to know about (it is like a government within a government).  Essentially it is all about controlling the Middle East and the whole world for that matter to increase the profits of transnational (or mega-) corporations, many of which are more powerful than entire countries.  It is unethical that our CIA covertly interferes in the affairs of democratically elected, sovereign countries by financing corrupt opponents, providing disinformation and smear campaigns, arming paramilitary counter-forces, and overtly sending in American troops, when the above measures do not work. We are told that various terrorists hate us because of our democratic freedoms.  The truth is they hate us because of our policies, our actions toward them, actions about which the American people, living inside a matrix, are utterly clueless.

The hemp plant, which marijuana comes from, just happens to be the most versatile plant on the Earth, the very best source for rope and paper and over 50,000 other household uses such as nylons and plastics.  Marijuana is the best treatment for glaucoma.  When the hemp plant is grown for food, its seeds have the highest number of amino-acid proteins, higher than any other plant.  Birds will always choose hemp seeds over any other type of seed.  Hemp could also be an excellent source of biomass energy.  Unlike the growth or corn and cotton, hemp does not need toxic chemicals or a lot of fertilizers to make it grow.  It would truly be a Green alternative.  The real reason it was made illegal in 1937 (through yellow journalism) was that it cut into the profits of the Dupont and Hurst Corporations.  No one has ever died exclusively from long-term marijuana smoking.  Can we say that about the use of alcohol, tobacco, aspirin, and many other legal drugs? The original Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were printed on hemp paper!   And several of our founding fathers grew it. Much more could be said.  To learn more about hemp, you can go to www.norml.org or do a search on “Jack Herer,” the foremost authority on hemp.

Don’t expect high school students in our public schools to read The People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.  Public schools are government schools.  How honest and critical can teachers, bureaucrats, history and government textbook publishers be when their livelihoods depend on sharing innocuous, or noncontroversial, opinions?  I recommend that we eliminate federal, state, and even township control of our public schools.  Parents could use the money they spend on property taxes to hire their own tutors. Teaching parents to be educated homeschoolers would be even better.  Now that I am retired from the public schools, I can be more honest.

I have found that the best way to learn about a topic is to find the very best arguments for and against it.  I was an evangelical Christian for most of my life, believing that accepting Jesus is the only way, but when I looked at atheistic websites, run by former pastors, Bible scholars, and conservative theologians, it caused me to doubt my faith.  Then when I reread the amazing book Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda, which I had explored during my college days, I became interested again in Hinduism, Buddhism, and meditation.  But I have to admit, I still pray to Jesus.  Supposedly when one attains the superconscious state of awareness through meditation and unselfish love, the person gains insight into previous lifetimes.  In Eastern thought, you do not find salvation through accepting certain beliefs by faith.  You only have to believe what you have actually experienced.  Maybe those yogis and zen masters who claim they have insight into previous lifetimes have been deceived.   But meditation, Hatha yoga postures and exercises have proven health benefits.  I frequently told my son, who is now 24, when he was growing up, that even more important than being smart and educated is to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul and thy neighbor as thyself.   I still believe that, and he does too.

Today the world is outraged at Israel’s blockade of Gaza and its attack on the flotilla of ships loaded with supplies heading for Gaza.  I got similar opinions when I went to favorite websites such as www.Dprogram.net, www.GlobalResearch.ca , www.infowars.com or www.BrasscheckTV.com.  But when I forced myself to go to www.JewishWorldReview.com, which also is in my computer’s Favorites List of websites, I got an entirely different perspective.

When I was in the Green movement, I did not doubt global warming, but when I became a libertarian, I started to doubt.  I have always thought that organic foods are best, though expensive.  But now I am finding books and experts on TV who argue that there is no proof that they are better for you.  If we are truly honest seekers of truth, we have to think critically about everything, including ourselves.

Many believe there is a New World Order that is emerging—that is being influenced by the world’s wealthiest people, especially international bankers.   They are upper-echelon members of elitist groups like the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, who control the Federal Reserve and probably the CIA.  September 11, 2001 has been the pretext to expand the stupid wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, warrantless spying on Americans, the Real ID, and imprisonment without due process.  Our rights are being taken under the guise that we need more Homeland Security, presidential Executive Orders, and proposed Enemy Combatant laws.  The neo-conservative, shadow government elites who control our lawmakers, the President, and the corporate-owned, mainstream media, would love for all of us to have a microchip, implanted under our skin.  Then if we exercise our Constitutional rights, and share opinions that do not harmonize with their sinister designs, they can just label us “political dissidents” or “enemy combatants.”

Then all they have to do is turn off our chip, so that we cannot buy or sell.  We, the outspoken Americans, will be put in prisons like Guantanamo without a public trial when they classify us as the terrorists. This is how things gradually evolved in Hitler’s Germany. We must always remember that to have “freedom of speech” means we have freedom to engage in unpopular speech.

People may have to experience a world catastrophe before they become receptive to the need for having a truly free and fair world order (but it may be too late then), one that implements the goals and values of the Venus Project.

Some people say the Venus Project is just too idealistic or pie-in-the-sky, defying the so-called laws of human nature. But you could also argue that it is foolishly idealistic to believe that following our current course will not end in disaster.

No doubt there are terrorists in the world, but Al-Qaida and Bin Laden were first created and empowered by the CIA back when our government was supporting the Afghanistan “freedom fighters” against the Soviet Union.  I believe a new, independent investigation into 9/11 (not one done by government insiders) will shed much light on the way the world really works.  Not even counting the money our CIA gets illegally, our government spends more on the military than all the governments of the world combined, using money printed out of thin air, which causes inflation, a hidden tax on everyday people.

The real reason our government does not legalize marijuana and other drugs for adults to consume in the privacy of their own homes is the CIA would not get the enormous profits it gets by keeping such drugs illegal.  Legalizing drugs would make the prices go way down, and that would make drug cartels and the CIA very unhappy.  It was the criminal mobsters who were most upset when the prohibition on alcohol was uplifted.  For information about the CIA, do searches on Peter Dale Scott, a high level retired CIA Officer; historian Chalmers Johnson; Michael C. Ruppert, a former LAPD narcotics investigator; author James Bamford; and Terry Reed and John Cummings, authors of the book Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA.

Now to keep my argument consistent, you should also study the foreign policy viewpoints of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, which I am forcing myself to do.   But right now I say, let us reduce military spending by about 90 percent.  We have American troops and bases in about 130 countries.  Let us find a way to reunite the anti-war, nonviolent, Peace Movement.  It disappeared when the military draft was cancelled after the Vietnam War ended.  If we did these things we would truly feel safer, resting in our beds at night, than we do now.  Our country could have a new image in the world, and peace on Earth would not be considered pie-in-the-sky.

Roger Copple retired this year (May 2010) from teaching third grade in a public school in Indianapolis.  He turned 60 on June 3.  Roger became a libertarian supporting Ron Paul after identifying with the Green movement.  Now he is trying to reconcile the two third party political theories.  He has a Master’s degree in Special Education, and a Bachelor’s in Elementary Education.

, , ,

  • malatesting123

    So called “capitalist libertarians” are nothing but fascists in anarchists clothing. Their far right ideas have nothing to do with true libertarianism, and only serve to confuse and distort. Anyone who challenges governement tyranny without challenging the now even more potent Private tyranny of the corporation is a complete joke, or a shill for the rich, as bastards like Ron Paul and the oft quoted and always ignorant Murray Rothbard. Those guys should do us all a favor and go blow Adam Smiths corpse.

  • tonyviner

    2008, if I am not mistaken, was not the only time Nader was excluded from nationally televised debates. I have a love/hate relationship with Ron Paul, his book on ending the Fed, entitled, oddly enough, “End the Fed”, was a bit better than I expected from someone in the public eye and I would like to see him in some sort of foreign affairs role, certainly not as President though. He is responsible for a lot of the unrest on the Right (not that it is all unwarranted), which I think has only served to open up more divisions among the ranks of the working class in this country. This only serves the interests of those already at the top. The working class that identifies with the Right are so misinformed about the way the world works that they should be considered a liability to people that are truly worried about worker's rights. A lot of the working class in this country are lining up in droves begging to be spoon fed some kind of candy coated fascism, and I think that should be considered one of the greatest dangers that this country has ever faced. I also think Ron Paul showed a bit more of his true colors than he might have intended during that scene in Bruno.

    As far as global warming goes, there is still significant evidence that it is happening and is detrimental to the longevity of a lot of the various life forms on our planet. Switching sides of the political spectrum should hold no sway over the way one views the way we treat our planet. Assuming that global warming is not a factor, why should we continue to senselessly pollute the hell out of this planet, endangering and ending the lives of the things that live on it? The only things that come to mind are greed and selfishness, two qualities that I think we would be better off without. Of course corporatists/capitalists “think” that pollution and global warming are not issues, that would affect their bottom line, and we can't have that.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FMBYZV6PXDK725XR3DKPLB5X6Y Stuart

    I agree with you that progressives need to work with princpled Libertarians like Ron Paul on very urgent issues on which we agree – ending the Federal Reserve, breaking up the banks, restoring civil liberties and ending the war in the Middle East. I also agree we need a new constitution – and that we need to revoke corporate charters. Other modern democracies rewrite their constitutions every 50 years or so – if not more often. I currently live in exile in New Zealand – owing to my own run-in with US intelligence thugs. I write about this in my recent memoir THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY ACT: MEMOIR OF AN AMERICAN REFUGEE.

    • oman28

      Kia ora, bro. Best of luck.

  • cakeypig

    Great stuff.
    I'm English, and it's always been real hard for me to understand how (US) Libertarians embrace 'private unaccountable tyranny', whilst kicking against government (partially accountable tyranny).
    Much food for thought indeed…
    I wish I knew just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

  • Cerebralcaustic

    “MIT pays only thirty or forty per cent of my salary. The rest comes from other sources – most of it from the Defense Department.” Chomsky, quoted in “The Anatomy of a Revolution in the Social Sciences: Chomsky in
    1962,” Dhumbadji! Winter 1994.

    For the rest of Chomsky's top 199 lies, click below:

    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

    • Andrew

      Whoever compiled that list blew the very first one, focusing exclusively of the Soviet's atrocities and ignoring the U.S. atrocities Chomsky was referring to (probably the genocide of the Indians and the slave trade, which killed millions more than the Soviets). Still, I'd like to check out the rest of that Dhumbadji article. Michael Parenti and Bill Mitchell have made interesting cases for Chomsky being an acceptable dissident, drawing left-wing attention away from the Kennedy assassination. Perhaps that's what the D.O.D. pays him for.

    • tonyviner

      You're funny. I think we'll keep you around.

    • rtb61

      Consider the title the “Liberal Arts” as a definition, open though and learning. Unlike the right fixed in time and space by whomever it suits most at the time, the left exposes continuous revision of thought and the principles exposed by a person today are the ones they adhere to, ones of a decade or more ago, are based upon their knowledge and understanding at that time. I know those kind of thoughts are largely meaningless to you but they are real and have deep import for liberal thinking. Yes, you are meant to spend the whole of of life learning and it is expected that throughout that learning experience you will revise you thoughts and understanding to incorporate the added knowledge. There is a cave calling out to you, with hammer and chisel carve your rigid thinking in stone.

  • rtb61

    Consider the title the “Liberal Arts” as a definition, open though and learning. Unlike the right fixed in time and space by whomever it suits most at the time, the left exposes continuous revision of thought and the principles exposed by a person today are the ones they adhere to, ones of a decade or more ago, are based upon their knowledge and understanding at that time. I know those kind of thoughts are largely meaningless to you but they are real and have deep import for liberal thinking. Yes, you are meant to spend the whole of of life learning and it is expected that throughout that learning experience you will revise you thoughts and understanding to incorporate the added knowledge. There is a cave calling out to you, with hammer and chisel carve your rigid thinking in stone.

  • Tuna Ghost

    I'm inherently suspicious of anything that advocates watching Zeitgeist. If the part detailing the Fed was anything as accurate as the first 1/3rd it's complete bullshit, and if it's as accurate as the 2/3rd it's mostly bullshit with a veneer of “we don't know”.

  • Tuna Ghost

    I'm inherently suspicious of anything that advocates watching Zeitgeist. If the part detailing the Fed was anything as accurate as the first 1/3rd it's complete bullshit, and if it's as accurate as the 2/3rd it's mostly bullshit with a veneer of “we don't know”.

  • Harry Anslinger

    Firstly who creates corporate tyranny, you do. We have chosen to enslave ourselves through complacency and now you cry about the evils of the corporate tyrants. The whole premise of the free market is competition, the idea that anyone with the ingenuity can create a business that could compete with other businesses in the same market. But you don’t support local businesses. Everyone has had a breaking point on this subject and after they see the convenience and the potential savings with another company who uses cheaper labor and in return has poorer quality, we quickly disregard the idea of supporting local business. We choose and we choose the wrong products each time. Which is why the idea of this Venus project is a load more than anything else. Why do people enslave another, because there is always a class or group of people willing to give up there liberties for convenience. The same goes in the Venus project, any sort of democracy is potentially a grounds for another servitude. Not everyone wants to participate and the ones that do if they are a minority are still subject to majority rule. Does not sound like everyone is equal. Equality is the basis that there will be no weight or superiority over another person, but when the majority decide what is best for a minority there is no longer equality. For this I say Mr. Chomsky is full of himself. James Madison should have been exiled for rejecting the Articles of Confederation and hung for treason with his tyrannical constitution. His Constitution initially did not include the bill of rights; it was not until his federalist papers were met with extreme prejudice facing rejection by certain states that he add the Bill of Rights. A tyrant in the making.

    “The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, and it is useless for the innocent to try by reasoning to get justice, when the oppressor intends to be unjust.” Aesop’s Fables The Wolf and the Lamb.

    Humanity will never be free from servitude.

  • Harry Anslinger

    Firstly who creates corporate tyranny, you do. We have chosen to enslave ourselves through complacency and now you cry about the evils of the corporate tyrants. The whole premise of the free market is competition, the idea that anyone with the ingenuity can create a business that could compete with other businesses in the same market. But you don't support local businesses. Everyone has had a breaking point on this subject and after they see the convenience and the potential savings with another company who uses cheaper labor and in return has poorer quality, we quickly disregard the idea of supporting local business. We choose and we choose the wrong products each time. Which is why the idea of this Venus project is a load more than anything else. Why do people enslave another, because there is always a class or group of people willing to give up there liberties for convenience. The same goes in the Venus project, any sort of democracy is potentially a grounds for another servitude. Not everyone wants to participate and the ones that do if they are a minority are still subject to majority rule. Does not sound like everyone is equal. Equality is the basis that there will be no weight or superiority over another person, but when the majority decide what is best for a minority there is no longer equality. For this I say Mr. Chomsky is full of himself. James Madison should have been exiled for rejecting the Articles of Confederation and hung for treason with his tyrannical constitution. His Constitution initially did not include the bill of rights; it was not until his federalist papers were met with extreme prejudice facing rejection by certain states that he add the Bill of Rights. A tyrant in the making.

    “The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, and it is useless for the innocent to try by reasoning to get justice, when the oppressor intends to be unjust.” Aesop's Fables The Wolf and the Lamb.

    Humanity will never be free from servitude.

  • Butter Knife

    Utopianism is adorable. Naive, impractical and demonstrative of a keen misunderstanding about how things actually operate, but at least it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    Cool story though.

  • Butter Knife

    Utopianism is adorable. Naive, impractical and demonstrative of a keen misunderstanding about how things actually operate, but at least it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    Cool story though.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IGPGVYS2CFH6KKA5C2V25T3QYY Past LPF Chair Ralph Swanson

    very interesting article. For more on work by world Libertarians, check out http://www.Libertarian-International.org and some of the thinkpieces on intentional community.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IGPGVYS2CFH6KKA5C2V25T3QYY Past LPF Chair Ralph Swanson

    very interesting article. For more on work by world Libertarians, check out http://www.Libertarian-International.org and some of the thinkpieces on intentional community.

  • Behavethroughmythos

    Chomsky simply said Ron Paul supporters are pushing a kind of anti-politics. They’re afraid of government but devote little time to the threat of unaccountable private power. Chomsky stresses that governments are at least ostensibly accountable, so they are ‘flawed’, in the sense that the public exerts an influence that can hinder the tyranny. Private companies are not flawed: they cannot be held accountable. Chomsky is not saying the Fed and the Council on Foreign Relations are not legitimate concerns. Also, it should be pointed out that Chomsky is making this (IMO, reserved) criticism of Ron Paul supporters, not Paul himself.

    As far as Chomsky not talking about Keynes…that’s just silly. Often, Keynes is all Chomsky DOES talk about. He often mentions the disintegration of the Breton-Wood system and talks about Keynesian economics and the principal lesson in them, namely that the free flow of capital inhibits democratic options. Fundamentally, you are in complete agreement with Chomsky on this.

    Actually, you and Chomsky and Paul are in agreement about lots of things. Chomsky has issued several dire warnings about the consolidation of the means of communication in private hands. He is a constant critic of Israel’s aggression. He’s even talked about hemp. So, yes, Chomsky has addressed these issues in verifiable ways with his usual impeccable sourcing.

    You spout a bunch of infowars crap. Alex Jones cares for absolutely nobody besides his increasingly neurotic contingent of American nationalists. They do not pay attention to corporate malfeasance in a serious way because the implications of a system dominated by private power reach all people all over the world, not just our eroding middle class. The Infowars people consider themselves rabid Constitutionalists. That’s funny, because so does big business (after all, it was the Constitution that was designed to promote their interests, e.g. the states put suffrage requirements BACK in place AFTER the Constitution because the Constitution was a business document that sought to protect the interests of the priveleged minority). I really believe that, intentionally or not, Infowars and their advocates spread a kind of anti-political propaganda that distracts people from real issues. They would like to monopolize all dissent, infuse all political activism with vague terminology (‘Shadow Government, ‘New World Order’, etc.). The reason it’s vague is so that they can tell you what it means. Moreover, many of your assertions with regard to the intellectual class’ refusal to acknowledge things like the Trilateral Commission is completely false.

    Perhaps the most striking feature of the new Administration is the role played in it by the Trilateral Commission. The mass media had little to say about this matter during the Presidential campaign – in fact, the connection of the Carter group to the Commission was recently selected as “the best censored news story of 1976″ – and it has not received the attention that it might have since the Administration took office. All of the top positions in the government – the office of President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Defense and Treasury – are held by members of the Trilateral Commission, and the National Security Advisor was its director. Many lesser officials also came from this group. It is rare for such an easily identified private group to play such a prominent role in an American Administration.
    —”The Carter Administration: Myth and Reality,” Excerpted from Radical Priorities, Noam Chomsky (1981)

    So…yeah. Try to read a little.

  • Behavethroughmythos

    Chomsky simply said Ron Paul supporters are pushing a kind of anti-politics. They’re afraid of government but devote little time to the threat of unaccountable private power. Chomsky stresses that governments are at least ostensibly accountable, so they are ‘flawed’, in the sense that the public exerts an influence that can hinder the tyranny. Private companies are not flawed: they cannot be held accountable. Chomsky is not saying the Fed and the Council on Foreign Relations are not legitimate concerns. Also, it should be pointed out that Chomsky is making this (IMO, reserved) criticism of Ron Paul supporters, not Paul himself.

    As far as Chomsky not talking about Keynes…that’s just silly. Often, Keynes is all Chomsky DOES talk about. He often mentions the disintegration of the Breton-Wood system and talks about Keynesian economics and the principal lesson in them, namely that the free flow of capital inhibits democratic options. Fundamentally, you are in complete agreement with Chomsky on this.

    Actually, you and Chomsky and Paul are in agreement about lots of things. Chomsky has issued several dire warnings about the consolidation of the means of communication in private hands. He is a constant critic of Israel’s aggression. He’s even talked about hemp. So, yes, Chomsky has addressed these issues in verifiable ways with his usual impeccable sourcing.

    You spout a bunch of infowars crap. Alex Jones cares for absolutely nobody besides his increasingly neurotic contingent of American nationalists. They do not pay attention to corporate malfeasance in a serious way because the implications of a system dominated by private power reach all people all over the world, not just our eroding middle class. The Infowars people consider themselves rabid Constitutionalists. That’s funny, because so does big business (after all, it was the Constitution that was designed to promote their interests, e.g. the states put suffrage requirements BACK in place AFTER the Constitution because the Constitution was a business document that sought to protect the interests of the priveleged minority). I really believe that, intentionally or not, Infowars and their advocates spread a kind of anti-political propaganda that distracts people from real issues. They would like to monopolize all dissent, infuse all political activism with vague terminology (‘Shadow Government, ‘New World Order’, etc.). The reason it’s vague is so that they can tell you what it means. Moreover, many of your assertions with regard to the intellectual class’ refusal to acknowledge things like the Trilateral Commission is completely false.

    Perhaps the most striking feature of the new Administration is the role played in it by the Trilateral Commission. The mass media had little to say about this matter during the Presidential campaign – in fact, the connection of the Carter group to the Commission was recently selected as “the best censored news story of 1976″ – and it has not received the attention that it might have since the Administration took office. All of the top positions in the government – the office of President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Defense and Treasury – are held by members of the Trilateral Commission, and the National Security Advisor was its director. Many lesser officials also came from this group. It is rare for such an easily identified private group to play such a prominent role in an American Administration.
    —”The Carter Administration: Myth and Reality,” Excerpted from Radical Priorities, Noam Chomsky (1981)

    So…yeah. Try to read a little.

  • Behavethroughmythos
  • Behavethroughmythos
21
More in Libertarianism, Noam Chomsky, Venus Project
The World Health Organization (The WHO) is Accused of Hyping Swine Flu, Favoring Drug Firms and Costing European Governments Millions

WHAT? I can't believe it. Corporations, in this case, Big Pharma, gave advice to governmental bodies that wasn't in the best interest of the public, it was more about making...

Close