The Chomsky Contradiction

The concept of insurance offers a simple illustration concerning the concept of voluntary government.

But that does set aside the Elephant in the room, which is what I call Legal Crime.

If government could be ideal, could it be as simple as insurance?

If so, how do the current victims of Legal Crime get past what exists, and go to voluntary government, as voluntary government could be illustrated with the example called insurance?

Confused?

I have trouble reaching other people with my viewpoint, but it is easy to understand.

Example:

Suppose it was not against the law to pay into a new insurance product, a policy that is not mandated by anything other than common sense, and this insurance policy is offered by 10 competitive insurance providers.

A person paying into the collective collection of money, or insurance fund, will receive a benefit if the policy holder is injured by any law enforcer who enforces an involuntary law, such as the enforcement of collecting a Federal Income Tax payment from someone who refuses to pay such a payment, knowing that such a payment is no different than an extortion payment.

A person shopping for this policy has 10 competitive providers of this insurance policy offering a rate of payment and a rate of return, and the highest quality product is higher in quality than the lowest quality product in both cost and benefit, relative to the 9 lesser providers, until such time as the bar is set higher by another competitor.

Examples can be imagined as to a cost and benefit.

Premium:
20 Dollars a month paid in, or any amount less than the rate being paid as "Federal Income Tax".

Claims Paid in full:
Relocated out of the Country until such time as the Legal Trial is settled in favor of the accused, and the accused is relocated back home.

Why can't insurance be voluntary and why can't it apply to any form of threat to one's well being?

It's not blaming America; that's a logical fallacy that Rush Limbaugh uses to smear Dr. Paul.

Rather, it's acknowledging the realities of blowback:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3EryUG0EA

primary reason government is not benign, how could Chomskey explain the worst democides of the last century: Stalin's murder of many millions, and Mao's, Pol Pot's, and Hitler's?

Thanks

Good Find.

Having that source to work on it is possible, and probably very instructive, to compare the Left Expedient Path to Liberty, competitively, alongside the Right Expedient Path to Liberty, from a Chomsky versus Paul Boundary.

I would not choose either Left or Right, since my understanding is such that the best way is Equitable Commerce, which can happen over night.

But, since so many people are polarized, either Left, or Right, it may be of grave importance to figure out where Left and Right agree, so as to formulate a workable combination of the two, in the fight, of defense, against absolute despotism.

I just started reading the links, and so I have things to do, thanks again.

EDIT:

I am very impressed by this first link on Chomsky and I have a running commentary to offer.

Example:

"Now Chomsky’s notion of the state as a crucial bulwark against “concentrations of private power” might initially seem puzzling, given that – as Chomsky’s own research has confirmed time and again – the state has historically been the chief enabler of such concentrations. But what Chomsky seems to mean is not so much that it generally acts as a bulwark now, but rather that it can be made to do so; if you’re facing a much stronger opponent (private power) who also has a sword (government power), you’re better off trying to grab the sword and use it against him than you would be simply destroying the sword."

Now that makes sense, but from the Ron Paul perspective, if I can offer an interpretation, the sword in question isn't the force sword, it is the information sword, or to use a more accurate word: CURRENCY.

Currency is economic information. How much is needed to transfer the vital matter required to make the economic engine work?

Now, as it happens, the Legal Criminals have control of that sword, that economic CURRENCY thing.

Ron Paul, as opposed to Chomsky, can see the vital need to take that sword away from the Legal Criminals, and return that sword, CURRENCY, back to honest productive people.

The thinking there has to do with economic POWER, or Surplus Wealth.

Who creates it?

Honest People create Surplus Wealth, and they do so with agreement, cooperation, division of labor, specialization, and accurate CURRENCY.

When CURRENCY is falsified, it is as if a parasite has attached itself to the Economic Engine, and a steady flow of power is siphoned off of the Economic Engine, that Sword, that parasitic, fraudulent, CURRENCY, is held by those Legal Parasites, those CRIMINALS.

So...take that away, and what happens?

Who has that Sword, once it is taken away, and who has the power to take it away?

The answer is easy. Everyone has the power to take it away, and it can be taken away over night.

Example:

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
Henry Ford

Here is where, in my opinion, currently, Ron Paul is ever so much more effective at helping anyone who may want to move toward Liberty, compared to the work done by Noam Chomsky, which is saying a lot, since Noam Chomsky has a wide audience, his work has immense measures of CURRENCY.

Ron Paul goes for the throat of the Beast, so to speak, or even the Heart, while Chomsky appears to prefer taking a less direct route, along the lines of treating symptoms, not causes.

There is so much more to it, but I like how the first link has offered analogy, along with direct quotes, to explain Chomsky's recipe for remedy.

EDIT:

"After all, a business can get your labour and/or possessions only if you agree to hand them over, while a government can extract these by force."

Here is where the division of 4 separate groups are not well understood, or, they are well understood but the author is using deception to discredit his targeted victims.

The Involuntary Capitalists have no problem using force and deceit, not just force, but a combination of violence with deceit, in order to enforce their will upon the victims that are targeted. Deceit is so much more effective than naked force, as victims can be led to accept their victimization, a State of being that would never exist had there been no willful application of deceit by the Legal Criminals upon the Targeted Victims.

A Confidence Man, Con-Man, can certainly get someone to hand over their earnings voluntarily, so long as words like "voluntarily" mean whatever the criminal definition is at the time the definition used fits the occasion. Fraud is fraud, it is not voluntary exchanges of surplus wealth, depending upon who you ask to define the word "is", as in the famous Clinton quote: "It depends upon what "is" is".

I am approaching the level of Spam on this forum today, so this ends my efforts to promote Liberty on this day.

As they are currently implemented in the real world, I'm in agreement with you. As they would exist in the absense of state interference, though, I don't see a problem. This is very possibly an issue of semantics: to my mind, a corporation is merely any joint ownership of a business venture by shareholders. A division of entrepreneurship, if you will. There's nothing wrong with people freely interacting like that. When you start using the state to grant favors, priveliges, special legal statuses and such to these entities, however, there's a big problem. The solution to that problem is to remove political power.

True this.