3 votes

"Big Think" Interview With Noam Chomsky Video - 23 minutes

You can only truly be wise if you're forever open to all perspectives.

Your thoughts?


http://youtu.be/5ZvI6KpA5MI

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I am at a loss to explain ...

Chompski
Greenwald
Taibbi
Nadar

Et al.

And I don't mean to group them because they are all uniquely different and their sphere of influence is slightly different ...

And I know I missed a few that I respect greatly so don't limit your personal thought thread to those listed above ...

But ...

They all get it and they all are extremely intelligent and they all appear to be ideologically driven and could care less about power and criticism ...

And yet ... ????

It is as if they appear to think that the law appears in a vacuum and can be enforced without regulators.

They appear to beleive that laws are most important and their creators really do not have an important nor timeless influence and therefore the creators matter not.

But I don't get how they arrive at this conclusion.

I am extremely intrigued by this.

God Bless.

Chomsky's always been fairly

Chomsky's always been fairly adept at identifying the problems, but his solutions generally involve populist coercion via government. He's not a friend of the free market, unfortunately.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Astute Observations

That is because, no matter what else he pretends to be, Chomsky is a Marxist, bordering on full blown Communist. This deception goes very far back. Until freedom-loving people understand the depth of this deception, the Liberty movement will always be imperiled.

Unfortunatey

Deception is ubiquitous as exemplified right here right now.

Chomsky has written, and spoken, often enough to constitute a record of his viewpoints being spoken by himself.

People who see Chomsky as a "Marxist," are often people who are demonizing Chomsky, for reasons they do not often confess.

Marx was a well published philosopher who was then hired by Central Bankers to perform a criminal function.

If someone refers to the work of Marx, then someone else can claim that there is a nebulous connection to the crimes perpetrated by so called "Marxists" as exemplified by Bolsheviks in Russia, such as the Stalin Regime, or those goings on in China under Mao.

So the deception is such that anyone speaking out against government, whereby the speaker is not fooled by the capitalist dogma, will then be demonized as a so called "Marxist."

Meanwhile the Central Bankers running the World Reserve Currency Fraud and Extortion Racket now known as The Dollar Hegemony, or The New World Order, or whatever name works best to maintain the deception, are smiling.

Chomsky is accurately identifiable as a anarchist according to a specific meaning of the word anarchist, whereby the accurate meaning of the word anarchist is defined by the individual person, and the meaning of the word anarchist is not defined by the liars who employ words to injure innocent people.

Joe

Left anarchism isn't anarchism

I would never oppose Chomsky or anyone else from describing themselves as anarchists but it is absurd. He has in mind a state. If he did not have in mind a state he would repudiate the state.

I have no problem with an anarchist that thinks he can pull off a voluntary planned economy, although just the phrase shows it is incoherency of the highest order.

But unless they explicitly repudiate coercion and the state there is little reason to trust them. Their attempts will cause misery and they will be forced to resort to coercion. In fact they know or suspect this because they do not explicitly reject the possibility of state.

Free people would tolerate a planned collective. unfortunately free people will always be blamed for the failures of the planners. Imagine an island split between a free society, a true anarchist society and a left anarchist planned economy. The ansyns will bring misery on themsleves and people will start to defect to liberty. The ansyns will become desperate and be led to agress on their free neighbors. They will whip the envy of the rubes left into hatred. After all look at the wealth the free people are 'hoarding' greedily from their suffering neighbors?

A curious paradox?

Someone claiming to have the power to dictate THE meaning of anarchism, or THE meaning of a "state," is in no position to point the finger of accusation as they define the meaning of a dictator in fact.

Were the same dictator able to actually know what another person thinks, instead of dictating to the other person what the other person thinks, then the same dictator could dictate the actual facts of what the other person thinks, instead of professing to know something that is merely a subjective opinion.

"I have no problem with an anarchist that thinks he can pull off a voluntary planned economy, although just the phrase shows it is incoherency of the highest order."

Dictators are often gaining access to subjective and ambiguous verbiage so as to leave room for plausible deniability?

How about an example of what is being claimed as a so called voluntary planned economy?

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

What is the above example an example of, if not a voluntary planned economy?

If the dictator of what Noam Chomsky thinks can offer an example of what the dictator says Noam Chomsky thinks, concerning said "voluntary planned economy" then someone other than the dictator, including Noam Chomsky (were he ever to have an interest in those who dictate to other people what he himself thinks), could know what the dictator of Noam Chomsky's thoughts thinks. Not that anyone would then know what Noam Chomksy thinks, but the dictator of Noam Chomsky's thoughts could provide an example of what the dictator of Noam Chomky's thoughts thinks about a nebulous voluntary planned economy.

"But unless they explicitly repudiate coercion and the state there is little reason to trust them. Their attempts will cause misery and they will be forced to resort to coercion. In fact they know or suspect this because they do not explicitly reject the possibility of state."

Dictators are a dime a dozen, having their closed minds, dictating to everyone who may want to be dictated to, what is, and what is not in other people's minds.

How does that work in reality?

When someone says that they lend moral and material support to people who coerce other people, such as dictators are apt to do, then someone listening might distrust said person who may, or may not, lend moral and material support to people who coerce other people. Dictators, as far as my experience goes, can be trusted to fabricate lies so as to coerce their targeted victims into false beliefs in those lies, which just happen to aid and abet the liars, by coincidence? If a liar lies, can the liar be trusted to tell the truth once?

"Free people would tolerate a planned collective. unfortunately free people will always be blamed for the failures of the planners."

If a free person were waving their hands, claiming that they are free, and that they are tolerating a planned collective, then I'd be curious enough to ask said person what the meaning of free is, and what the meaning of planned collective is, according to the hand waver. As to the dictator placing thoughts in the minds of other people other than the dictator, my experience is such that it is difficult to get from a dictator a straight answer to simple questions.

What is a free person?

What is a planned collective?

A person stranded on a remote island is an example of a free person, for example?

A person stranded on a remote island can plan an economy by collecting up more of the things needed to survive for the present moment, saving surplus wealth, earned income, into a collection of collectables, and is that an example of a planned collective?

"Imagine an island split between a free society, a true anarchist society and a left anarchist planned economy."

Imagine what might be written next by someone who claims to have the power to dictate the meaning of words to the very people the dictator is targeted for coercive dictatorial character assassination?

If the dictator currently assassinating the character of Noam Chomsky were to offer a definition of any word, any term, as a free market, competitive definition, and Noam Chomsky were to then offer a competitive definition of the same word, or term, would the definitions of the same word be the same definitions, and which definition would be higher in quality and lower in cost according to the dictator and to Noam Chomsky?

"Left anarchists" (so called) may be mislabeled, or definitions may be counterfeited. Who does the mislabeling and who does the counterfeiting and what is the interest of the dictators doing the mislabeling or the counterfeiting?

What is the point of character assassination?

A possible example of a left anarchist is Steven Pearl Andrews.

Example:

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

"Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

Having no interest in being mislabeled myself I can dictate to anyone caring to know that I defend my Liberty, my power, to speak for myself, and reject any claims by anyone else who may claim to have authority over what I think or what I know.

"The ansyns..."

The dictators dictate.

"After all look at the wealth the free people are 'hoarding' greedily from their suffering neighbors?"

Muggers and frauds gain what is knowable, accurately measurable, as unearned income. When that stops, when that flow of earnings no longer flows from those who earn surplus wealth to those who gain unearned income, those who know best how to use power to make more power keep their power rather than surplus wealth flowing to those who know how to steal power and use power to steal more.

In one direction (no unearned income flowing to muggers and frauds) there is every human possibility of reaching for the highest human standards of living while reaching for the lowest human costs of living soonest.

In the other direction (unearned income increasingly accelerating from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who produce lies, threats, and violence upon the innocent, using the stolen power to steal more) the human species destroys the human specie rapidly.

The lie that a so called "voluntary planned economy" is in any way destructive, if anyone claims such a thing, a lie, a fraud, a falsehood, a non-competitive viewpoint, is designed to accomplish exactly what purpose?

To disarm those who would plan on finding ways to cooperate in defense of those who plan on enslaving their innocent victims?

Cui Bono?

Who benefits from character assassinating Noam Chomsky?

How are their benefits measured precisely?

Joe

Reading comprehension issues?

What part of:

I would never oppose Chomsky or anyone else from describing themselves as anarchists but it is absurd.

could possibly give any sane mind the idea that I was claiming "to have the power to dictate THE meaning of anarchism".

Personally I wish Chomsky would wake the hell up. He's not stupid or unlikeable. He just doesn't trust other people to be free, which to me is a rather curious position for an 'anarchist'.

As for planned voluntary economies, I also repeat, I do not have any problem with people attempting them, as futile as it is. But they will always fail, because people are fallible and the power to plan for other people is an irresistible temptation to the worst humanity has to offer. If there is a neighbor they can blame for their suffering they will do so.

That said, I would never presume to prevent anyone. But if I'm in a free society and some collectivists moved in I would arm up preparatory to their self inflicted misery and also save supplies for the refugees that will inevitably come before the leaders attempt violence.

Ultimately the fact that left collectivists will never leave free people alone and often resent their very existence puts the lie to the word anarchist, in my opinion.

As for the definition of the word state, I'm using the commonly understood one, of the group with the monopoly on violence in a region. To me however this is synonymous with the predator class.

Venemous character assasination take II?

There is now a change of targets from Noam Chomsky onto me personally.

Now the character assassin is making claims that suggest that a forum member (me) is insane?

Now the character assassin is making claims that suggest that a forum member (me) has comprehension issues?

Title: "Left anarchism isn't anarchism"

The word choice is "isn't." The word was chosen by the dictator who dictates the meaning of words.

"I would never oppose Chomsky or anyone else from describing themselves as anarchists but it is absurd."

The dictator not only dictates but the dictator also writes sentences that are self-contradictory if English can be used as a method of conveying accurate meaning.

The word "never" is chosen by the dictator, which is an absolute, and therefore whatever "never" is meant to apply to never happens.

The dictator chooses "never oppose...anyone else from describing themselves as anarchists..." and therefore opposition to someone describing themselves as anarchist never happens, supposedly, while the next word choices can easily be understood as opposition to "describing themselves as anarchists" in such a way as the opposition takes the form of insult.

I won't oppose you, except in claiming that what you are doing is absurd; therefore the word choice "never" is inaccurate or false or an error, or whatever does work to convey accurate meaning.

______________________________________________
What part of:

I would never oppose Chomsky or anyone else from describing themselves as anarchists but it is absurd.

could possibly give any sane mind the idea that I was claiming "to have the power to dictate THE meaning of anarchism".
_______________________________________________

It is absurd according to who?

1. The dictator who dictates that "it" is absurd.

2. The character assassin who claims that they would not oppose someone in the same sentence that they oppose someone by resort to insult as the choice of the word "absurd" can easily mean "opposition" to the definition of the word anarchism, and the word choice "absurd" can easily be understood as an insult. "Hey, you, the idea I think you have in your head is such that YOU, not me, are absurd."

3. Some other, more accurate, more competitive, explanation.

"Personally I wish Chomsky would wake the hell up. He's not stupid or unlikeable. He just doesn't trust other people to be free, which to me is a rather curious position for an 'anarchist'."

The statement above follows the pattern of dictatorial character assassination. Will the pattern continue?

If someone, anyone, someone Named Noam Chomsky, or someone named Lysander Spooner, anyone, trusts that criminals who have a long history of perpetrating crimes upon the innocent may perpetrate crimes upon the innocent in the future, then that can be understood as someone who "just doesn't trust other people to be "free"?

Free to perpetrate crimes upon innocent people without any defensive resistance of any kind produced by the individual targeted victim or someone number of individual targeted individuals "collecting" their individual powers of defense into more than the sum total of each individual acting alone?

The word choices "He doesn't trust other people to be free..." can easily mean that he, like me, does trust that having freedom (a state in nature) is often abused by people, such as character assassins on forums, and such as criminals perpetrating crimes behind false governments.

"Personally I wish Chomsky would wake the hell up."

To me the person Noam Chomsky was (before he grew as old as he is now) much more awake, on my personal awake scale, than the common forum troll who resorts to character assassination as a means of gaining whatever interest the forum troll has in resorting to character assassination.

"As for planned voluntary economies, I also repeat, I do not have any problem with people attempting them, as futile as it is. But they will always fail, because people are fallible and the power to plan for other people is an irresistible temptation to the worst humanity has to offer. If there is a neighbor they can blame for their suffering they will do so."

The common abuse of language above is commonly known as a Man of Straw argument (presumably for the sake of argument, or the "pay-off" could be character assassination) whereby a false version of some nebulous attribute (or thought, or claim, or idea, or work) of someone targeted is made up out of whole cloth, or made up of Straw, so as to make up a very weak, undefendable, viewpoint attributed to the target. Then the actual producer of the false viewpoint stands up and tears apart the Man of Straw created by the producer of the Man of Straw. The producer of the Man of Straw claims that the Man of Straw was produced by the target targeted by the producer of the Man of Straw.

If there are such things as "planned voluntary economies" whereby these things are "futile" and they "always fail," then one of these things can be exemplified by the creator of one of these things, so let the creator of one of these things confess that they have created one of these things, and then the creator of one of these things can be known for having created one of these things that "always fail" as claimed by the character assassin.

I offered one example of a voluntary association the was produced by a person who later became known as the first American Anarchist, however that person himself, in his own words, rejected false labels attributed to himself. People who invent false labels do so for reasons that may become obvious.

"...some collectivists moved in..."

What is a so called "collectivist"?

A nebulous label that can mean anything one minute and something opposite the next minute?

"Ultimately the fact that left collectivists will never leave free people alone and often resent their very existence puts the lie to the word anarchist, in my opinion."

What is a "left collectivist"?

Narrowing down the definition to be something that does not change to fit the current demand for insult?

"As for the definition of the word state, I'm using the commonly understood one, of the group with the monopoly on violence in a region. To me however this is synonymous with the predator class."

If there are predators then it can be proven, demonstrated, that they, each individual in turn, preys upon someone.

Example: Forum Trolls pick out a person named Noam Chomsky and each individual Forum Troll, in turn, preys upon his good name, and therefore those Forum Trolls, in that predator class, prey upon Noam Chomsky personally.

Are there other examples of predators classes?

Predators classes listed:

1.
Forum Trolls
2.
3.
4.

Presumably there are among the labels used to accurate identify individual predators in predator classes whereby the Labels fail to actually account for any actual victim being victimized in any way by the so called predators.

Example: Left Collectivists

Being left means to prey upon someone?

Collecting means to prey upon someone?

Forum Trolls troll forums and forum trolls often resort to character assassination as a means of defining the meaning of Forum Trolls.

A more accurate label, setting aside the less accurate label of Forum Trolls, could be Character Assassins.

Character Assassins constitute a predator class whereby each individual Character Assassin voluntarily joins the "class" by assassinating some innocent victims character, each time a character assassin decides to be a character assassin.

Joe

I have no need to assasinate your character

to demonstrate your incoherence. You've made this self apparent. When you attack me for saying something exactly the opposite to what I said, yes your sanity is in question or else you're just being garden variety deceitful.

I'm quite happy to have this discussion but you will have to win or lose on the merits. Your feeble attempts at rhetorical fallacy will be used against you. I will not fail to point them out and I will delight in doing so.

For example:

Making an assertion isn't equivalent to being a dictator. Yes that is a claim. Yes I used the word 'isn't'. No I isn't a dictator. I isn't a dictator by profession, philosophy, nor by temperament;)

Asserting that making claims that don't equivocate make you a dictator would mean everyone is a dictator, including you for making this claim. This is clearly absurd, paradoxical, and plain old asinine.

You seem to have a fetish for semantic trickery, but sadly you are very bad at it. Things like semantic trickery are only useful as an adjunct to solid logic even if you were any good. I would advise you focus on learning logic first.

Now if you want to have an actual discussion about the topic, anarchism and it's nature, that would be swell.

Tell me all about how you have solved the calculation problem and the motivation problem. Tell me all about how you will keep people on your collective without guns when there is a more free society for people to flee to.

To anyone

A forum is useful for transferring information, however there are people who use the forums to discredit individuals like Noam Chomsky.

In order to do so the character assassins resort to deception.

If the character assassins are exposed, then the character assassins do what they do best, they attack the character of the individual who exposes the character assassins deceitful acts.

Often a character assassin will confess their lies in one sentence, as demonstrated earlier, and again here exists another example.

"I have no need to assassinate your character to demonstrate your incoherence."

If there was no supposed "need to assisinate [sic] your character" then why do it in the same sentence?

I can demonstrate coherence as exemplified in pointing out how a character assassin often demonstrates falsehoods self-contained within one sentence.

"You've made this self apparent. When you attack me for saying something exactly the opposite to what I said, yes your sanity is in question or else you're just being garden variety deceitful."

What I actually did was recorded in actual text published by me on this forum, and what the character assassin does is offer a false opinion as to what I actually did, so as to discredit, assassinate, and do so by obvious, measurable, deception.

Out with what I actually did publish, and in with the twisted, false, version offered by the character assassin.

My accurate identification of the works being published by a character assassin are based upon the actual work done by the character assassin, the origin of the falsehoods can be traced back to the character assassin.

As to the latest insult, concerning my sanity, there is no trail back from the claim being made by the character assassin to any demonstration of evidence supporting the false claim.

If the claim were true then there would be evidence proving the claim. The only source of evidence is the subjective opinion emanating from the proven character assassin.

"I'm quite happy to have this discussion but you will have to win or lose on the merits."

The meaning of the term "discussion" as defined by a character assassin can be noted, if one existed, other than the demonstration of a so called "discussion" that is recorded as aggressive character assassination published by a character assassin, and defensive reports that accurately identify the character assassin.

"Your feeble attempts at rhetorical fallacy will be used against you."

Subjective opinions concerning a possible series of symbols published by me, as yet to be accurately identified as actually being a series of symbols published by me?

"I will not fail to point them out and I will delight in doing so."

Character assassins love their work?

"Making an assertion isn't equivalent to being a dictator."

Character assassins dictate the meaning of dictator by claiming that which is not being a dictator?

"Yes that is a claim."

Character assassins dictate what is or is not a claim?

"I isn't a dictator by profession, philosophy, nor by temperament;)"

Character assassins profess not to be dictators while they dictate that they are not dictators?

"Asserting that making claims that don't equivocate make you a dictator would mean everyone is a dictator, including you for making this claim. This is clearly absurd, paradoxical, and plain old asinine."

Claims (promises?) that "feeble attempts at rhetorical fallacy will be used against you" and yet all that is being done by the character assassin is using insults instead of any reference to any actual arrangement of symbols published by the target of the character assassin?

"You seem to have a fetish for semantic trickery, but sadly you are very bad at it. Things like semantic trickery are only useful as an adjunct to solid logic even if you were any good. I would advise you focus on learning logic first."

Character assassins who resort to insults are in any position of authority on anything other than resorting to insults during demonstrations of character assassination?

"Now if you want to have an actual discussion about the topic, anarchism and it's nature, that would be swell."

The topic is Noam Chomsky.

The character assassins love to assassinate Noam Chomsky's character, and yet all they have to offer are twisted insults based upon dictatorial falsehoods.

If there ever were a discussion on anarchism, then one could be exemplified.

http://praxeology.net/HJ-HG-SPA-LMD.htm

That, however, is off the topic subject matter.

"Tell me all about how you have solved the calculation problem and the motivation problem."

I calculate that you are a character assassin and you offer a continuing supply of falsehoods, my motivation problem is solved as I defend against your insults and falsehoods.

Do you solve calculation and motivation problems for other people other than yourself, such as you demonstrate while you dictate to me what Noam Chomsky thinks, or what I think?

"Tell me all about how you will keep people on your collective without guns when there is a more free society for people to flee to."

Voluntary associations, by definition, do not involve will being used to keep people in any place, or state of mind, that is not strictly a voluntary offer of competitive choices from each to each other in time and place.

If there is a so called "more free society for people to flee to" then it is definable as a voluntary association, or it isn't, and if it isn't, then there would be no escaping it because it is an involuntary association.

How does that song go?

"You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave!"

I can leave this topic anytime I like, but your victims of character assassination, once you have done your work on them, can't leave that which has already been done by you.

Noam Chomsky is less assassinated by you now that you gleefully torture me with your lies?

Joe

Try more coherence and brevity,

I'm not attacking anyone's character. I said I like Chomsky. He's just a statist by his own words and the definition of the state, and thus wrong. Mises was a statist too he rejected anarchy. Rand rejected anarchy. Pointing that out does not amount to character assassination.

The question for me is why is Chomsky wrong? Is he like Milton Friedman just too old to change? Or deliberately misleading people? I suppose I'd prefer to believe the former. I wish he would wake up, he could be a force for good. I always ask myself of intelligent people like this, why be evil?

Chomsky uses all sorts of equivocations for not repudiating the state. This to me means self appelating himself an anarchist is a bit problematic. I do specifically assert he has every right to do so, so lets not go through that silliness again.

As for pointing out your apparent logical incompetence being somehow character assassination, do you think refraining from pointing out your absurdities would help anything? You said my positive assertion about anarchy made me a dictator. That's incoherent. Sorry.

I assume anyone defending Chomsky as you have, to be well meaning. You aren't espousing statist crap, you just think Chomsky is an anarchist, hehe. I don't think you're a bad person, just confused and you haven't yet learned to think, or certainly at least not to write, logically. You're really bad at debate as it currently stands. Just as I would be really bad if I tried to play golf without any training.

Seriously, take free online courses in logic, or study it yourself if you learn on your own. I think you have the innate intelligence and you have some inclination to liberty, you could be a force for good.

Offer?

Your conditional offers of what I may or may not want to try are often repeated critical opinions couched as generous gifts?

You continued opinions concerning what Noam Chomsky is, or is not, similarly are often repeated efforts to accomplish some goal?

Now you are speaking for Mises and Rand, as if your subjective opinions about anyone somehow become accurate facts?

"The question for me is why is Chomsky wrong?"

The dictate that must exist before that question becomes a question is the dictate whereby the dictator claims the Chomsky is wrong, for some nebulous reason that is never accurately conveyed in any way other than an endless supply of opinion that was never, at least never by me, demanded.

What is it when someone supplies something that is not in demand?

"Is he like Milton Friedman just too old to change?"

Now the dictator speaks for Milton Friedman too?

"Or deliberately misleading people?"

Again the dictator manages, by some edict, to establish some nebulous error on the part of the targeted victims who is continually having his character assassinated by the dictator.

"I always ask myself of intelligent people like this, why be evil?"

More evil that a dictator who works to assassinate the characters of their targeted, and innocent, victims?

At least the evidence of character assassination being perpetrated by the assassin, in this case, is documented as it happens, for anyone to realize, at will; while the nebulous wrongdoings of the people having their characters assassinated are just so much smoke and mirrors?

"... your apparent logical incompetence..."

And the venom now turns back to me.

"...your absurdities..."

Dictatorial deceptions couched as facts?

"You said my positive assertion about anarchy made me a dictator."

Twisted versions of what is actually published on this forum?

"That's incoherent. Sorry."

Sorrow?

"I assume anyone defending Chomsky as you have, to be well meaning. You aren't espousing statist crap, you just think Chomsky is an anarchist, hehe."

Consistent pretentious false authority endeavoring to cover up naked falsehoods?

Anarchy is a word that serves no useful purpose, in my opinion, and I'm not alone.

http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/theindex/1876-tucker-andrew...

-------------------------------------------
Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and
principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter.
Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it.
----------------------------------------------------

Like the words Republic, Federalist, and Liberal, there are reasons why the usefulness of the words are, or become, useless except for those who are well practiced at deception, so in that way the words have a use: to aid in deception.

"...you haven't yet learned to think..."

Words arranged as if to convey a statement of fact, without actual evidence supporting the dictatorial claim - routine?

"You're really bad at debate as it currently stands."

Character assassination on one hand and defense on the other hand is your definition of "debate," or have the goal posts you plant been moved once again?

"Seriously, take free online courses in logic, or study it yourself if you learn on your own. I think you have the innate intelligence and you have some inclination to liberty, you could be a force for good."

Your version of good (character assassination), by example, has not been, is not, and will not be on my things to do list.

Joe

Let me also add

The well may be poisoned. I can see you are defensive and I have contributed to it by being short with you. Nothing personal was intended but you do amuse me no end by conflating assertions with dictatorship.. You maybe agree on reflection that is a bit over the top?:)

But if you would actually like to debate left vs right anarchism, again that would be swell.

But I will do so if and only if you will refrain from claiming every assertion I make is akin to me being a dictator. That is absurd, and if I did the same to you, or we did the same to everyone, all the world would be 'dictators'.

I will make assertions, and when you challenge them attempt to back them up. You will make assertions, and when challenged attempt to back them up.

This a basis of debate. The basis of debate cannot be that any assertion I make means I am a dictator, and somehow hence wrong. That standard applied universally also means nothing anyone says can possibly be correct.

Capice?

Who could stop you?

"Let me also add"

At what point do character assassins ask permission to assassinate characters?

"The well may be poisoned."

The character is assassinated?

"You maybe agree on reflection that is a bit over the top?:)"

To me it is pathetic as in pathological. If a discussion were to commence, there would be an agreement to commence a discussion instead of one person agreeing with him or her self to go right ahead and assassinate someone's character as if the targeted victim asked for it.

"But if you would actually like to debate left vs right anarchism, again that would be swell."

Having built up a trust in your capacity to exemplify character assassination, there is little to be employed, within my field of view, to realize what your idea of "debate" might be, other than more of the same character assassination.

"But I will do so if and only if you will refrain from claiming every assertion I make is akin to me being a dictator. That is absurd, and if I did the same to you, or we did the same to everyone, all the world would be 'dictators'."

Communicating accurately is a lost art?

"I will make assertions, and when you challenge them attempt to back them up."

When there is only subjective opinion "backing up" your "assertions," or whatever you want to call your dictates, then the possibility of backing up said dictates are potentially possible some time in the distant future?

"Capice?"

An offer?

Joe

I'f I'm to attempt to interpret the hornets nest

that passes for your writing correctly, and yes that was an insult, yet still not 'character assassination' (look it up) because I don't coddle you I'm a 'dictator'.

Well done sir. I have debated statists and progressives of all sorts and I'm sad to say someone who I think styles himself an anarchist is the amongst the most confused I have ever had the sad but still real, amusement of being exposed to.

Yes, I am mocking you. Yes you deserve to be mocked. Yes were I more charitable I might refrain. But to what purpose? You have some semblance of good motives I think, but you are incapable of defending them, much less promulgating them.

I think you are well intentioned.

I suspect you are smart and capable of learning to be effectual in asserting your ideas.

I am sure you are not now capable of doing so.

This uncomfortable feeling you have is knowing you are on the wrong side of logic but not only not knowing how to fix it, but not knowing how you got there.

If you wish to have a conversation, explain to me why making an unequivocal assertion is in fact not the same as arrogating oneself as a dictator. In other words explain to me how you know you were being an utter donkey's ass there.

Or don't. Just go learn to think. I suspect you can. You've got yourself twisted in a knot because you haven't trained yourself to think logically and now you are trapped trying to defend an undefendable position.

You got into an undefendable position because you didn't know better. Learn not to.

I think you can.

Back to anyone other than the assassin:

"This uncomfortable feeling you have is knowing you are on the wrong side of logic but not only not knowing how to fix it, but not knowing how you got there."

The sentence above is an example of transference or projection?

"If you wish to have a conversation, explain to me why making an unequivocal assertion is in fact not the same as arrogating oneself as a dictator. In other words explain to me how you know you were being an utter donkey's ass there."

An example of dictation by a dictator can be understood as a dictator hiring a secretary to "take dictation" by the dictator, thereby dividing labor, specializing, and accomplishing an agreed upon mutually beneficial goal. The dictator dictates to the one taking dictation.

If there is an agreement, then the dictator benefits by the dictation, and so does the one taking dictation.

A character assassin does not ask for agreement by the target of the dictation when the character assassin is dictating the insults, thinly veiled or well covered up in falsehoods.

"Just go learn to think."

What do dictators do?

"...yes that was an insult..."

What do character assassins do?

Joe

Oh, OK... Chomsky is a Capitalist.

He's capitalist, or anarchist, whatever.
That's why the wiki page on him lists all of the Communist organizations to which he belongs.
He infiltrated and is now working to destroy them from within.
My bad.
As long as he can pull the Communist lackeys off on his anarchist windmill tilt, they won't be working on Party business, so it's all good.

Note to anyone

Those who willfully distort information are bound to say anything, so long as the words that spew forth are not factual.

Joe

Top 200 Chomsky Lies

whatever...

I'll just leave THIS here and you can follow him around hating America for as long as you please. I prefer to dislike him and other leftists, like him, who have propagandized idiot Americans into hating themselves and destroying their own country from within.

The lies confess

The lie now is formed as a false claim whereby the liar claims that the link (if followed) leads the reader to a list of some nebulous number of lies attributable to a person named Chomsky; while the reader follows the link and finds, instead, a list of claims that are made by people other than Chomsky?

There is instead of a list of lies made by Chomsky a list of lies told about Chomsky?

A list of lies told by professional liars is claimed to be a list of lies told by Chomsky?

What lie could be told by a liar that does not confess that the liar is a liar?

Follow the lie back to the source of the lie, and what is found at the end of that rainbow?

A pot of Gold?

Joe

All of your wordism notwithstanding

name calling...LOL
big meanie,,,neener neener neener

Chomsky, the Communist, is a communist apologist and hates America, likening Americans at every chance, to Nazis.

ON COMMUNISM...
“One might argue, at least I would argue, that council communism... is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society.”
(Government in the Future [Seven Stories Press, 2005], p. 27)
ON POVERTY...
“if we ever get anything like a kind of just society, things like my standard of living may very well not exist. In that sense, there will be, I think, material deprivation in some manner for a large part of the population. And I think there ought to be.”
(Interview, Black Rose, No. 1, 1974)
ON REVOLUTION...
“I suppose that, at some point, the ruling class will simply strike back by force, and there has to be defense against that force, and that probably means violent revolution.”
(Interview, Black Rose, No. 1, 1974)
ON TERROR...
“If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.”
(Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power and Confrontation [McGraw-Hill, 1971], p. 119)
ON DICTATORSHIPS...
— Maoist China
“But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable... a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry...”
(Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power and Confrontation [McGraw-Hill, 1971], pp. 117-8)
— Stalinist North Vietnam
“I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments... Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit and human will.”
(Radio Hanoi, April 14, 1970)
— Pol Pot’s Cambodia
“the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives. It is striking that the crucial facts rarely appear in the chorus of condemnations.”
(After the Cataclysm [South End Press, 1979], p. 160)
ON AMERICA...
“Such facts as these... raise the question whether what is needed in the United States today is dissent or denazification... I myself believe that what is needed is a kind of denazification.”
(Ethics, October 1968)
ON REPUBLICANS...
“The new Republicans represent a kind of proto-fascism. There’s a real sadism. They want to go for the jugular. Anybody who doesn’t meet their standards, they want to kill, not just oppose, but destroy.”
(The Progressive, March 1996)
ON ZIONISM...
“Hitler’s conceptions have struck a responsive chord in current Zionist commentary.”
(Fateful Triangle [rev. ed., Pluto Press, 1999], p. 208)
ON JUDAISM...
“In the Jewish community, the Orthodox rabbinate imposes its interpretation of religious law... Were similar principles to apply to Jews elsewhere, we would not hesitate to condemn this revival of the Nuremberg laws.”
(Foreword, Sabri Jiryis, The Arabs in Israel [Monthly Review Press, 1976], p. viii)
ON ISRAEL...
“Israel’s ‘secret weapon’ ... is that it may behave in the manner of what have sometimes been called ‘crazy states’ in the international affairs literature... eventuating in a final solution from which few will escape.”
(Fateful Triangle [rev. ed., Pluto Press, 1999], pp. 468-9)
ON JEWS...
“The Jewish community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do not want freedom.”
(Interview, Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought, Summer 1988)
ON ANTISEMITISM...
“Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population... privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why antisemitism is becoming an issue.”
(Variant, Scotland, Winter 2002)
ON THE HOLOCAUST...
“I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust.”
(Quadrant, Australia, October 1981)
ON THE COLD WAR...
“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”
(Letter, in Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is In Us [Verso, 1995], pp. 149-151)
ON 9/11...
“for the first time in history the victims are returning the blow to the motherland.”
(La Jornada, Mexico, September 15, 2001)
ON AL-QAEDA...
“It’s entirely possible that bin Laden’s telling the truth when he says he didn’t know about the [9/11] operation.”
(9-11 [Seven Stories Press, 2001], p. 60)
ON LIBERATING AFGHANISTAN...
“Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that... Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people...”
(Lecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 18, 2001)
ON LIBERATING IRAQ...
“But here’s a way to liberate Iraq... No US casualties, no threat to Israel, good chance of bringing democracy... Help Iran invade Iraq... They have a fair chance of introducing democracy.”
(Interview, The New Yorker, March 31, 2003)

Competition exist?

Despite the lies, there remains to be a level of competition?

I do not speak for anyone, let alone Noam Chomsky, but my view is similar, if it can be understood that Voluntary Association is much higher in value and much lower in cost compared to Involuntary Association; if anyone can ever afford to choose (not being forced into Involuntary Association, by fraud, threat, or violence).
.
.
.
.
.
_________________________________________________
ON COMMUNISM...
“One might argue, at least I would argue, that council communism... is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society.”
(Government in the Future [Seven Stories Press, 2005], p. 27)
__________________________________________________

I read that quote as being accurate from an understanding that the cause of ill effect is the enforcement of Involuntary Association, as a matter of demonstrable fact, those who Enforce Involuntary Association, get what they invest into, so the words by Chomsky are factual. If Chomsky is using the word "natural" as being separate from "criminal," then the non-criminal form of a revolution is to avoid criminals (who may call themselves communists, or socialists, or capitalists, or central bankers) and the result of avoidance of criminals (not matter what name they hide behind) results in an industrial society.

Why would anyone choose not to be industrious if someone can afford to be industrious? Why would human beings not, naturally, be industrious? If criminals enforce otherwise, then it could be said that it is revolutionary to avoid being victims of criminals, no matter what the false Name is used by the Criminals: socialist, communist, capitalist, fascist, monarchist, whatever.

You, or anyone, can have an opinion as to what Noam Chomsky means, as I can, so which opinion is more accurate? Which opinion is more competitive?
.
.
.
.
.
___________________________________________________________
ON POVERTY...
“if we ever get anything like a kind of just society, things like my standard of living may very well not exist. In that sense, there will be, I think, material deprivation in some manner for a large part of the population. And I think there ought to be.”
(Interview, Black Rose, No. 1, 1974)
____________________________________________________________

The word "large" is possibly directed at a number of people who by hook, and by crook, or by "subsidy," or by whatever word hides the fact that it is a crime in progress, whereby UNEARNED INCOME flows from those who do earn the income to those who steal it. That "large" group can include "subsidized" "professors" at State "subsidized" "Universities."

A person could claim that the word "large" means "large enough to be a majority," and therefore the mean, or average, standard of living goes down, and the mean, or average, cost of living goes up. I do not think that Noam Chomsky thinks that Voluntary Association compared to Involuntary Association is such that there will be lower standards of living and higher costs of living under Voluntary Associations. I think that Noam Chomsky understand very well that under Voluntary Associations the Standards of Living increase, and the Costs of Living decrease, because the factor of Unearned Income flowing from producers to criminals is no longer flowing, and therefore those who know best how to increase standards of living and those who know how best to lower costs of living have the power they earn to do what they do best, instead of having the power they earn flowing to those criminals who know how to perpetrate crimes best.
.
.
.
.
.
_________________________________________________
ON REVOLUTION...
“I suppose that, at some point, the ruling class will simply strike back by force, and there has to be defense against that force, and that probably means violent revolution.”
(Interview, Black Rose, No. 1, 1974)
__________________________________________________

How is that, in any way, a lie, or in any way, not a matter of demonstrable fact? I suppose, on the contrary, that it can be possible, and demonstrated as fact, that the future could be an example of peaceful revolution on a more extensive scale than one person managing to avoid one criminal act.
.
.
.
.
.
_____________________________________________________
ON TERROR...
“If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.”
(Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power and Confrontation [McGraw-Hill, 1971], p. 119)
ON DICTATORSHIPS...
______________________________________________________

The definition of what is, or is not, "terror" could be explained, as well as what is, or is not, meant by the word "justified."

Example:
People driven into madness by such severe oppression as is common in such places, and times, as The Inquisition, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the Corporate (U.S.A.) destruction of The Philippines, etc., can result in normal people becoming terrorists, and so the justification is such that "you get what you pay for," which is similar to the concept elucidated by Ron Paul called "Blow Back,"

If normal people are not victimized (terrorized), then normal people do not become terrorists. Violence begets violence.
.
.
.
.
.
___________________________________________________
ON DICTATORSHIPS...
— Maoist China
“But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable... a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry...”
(Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power and Confrontation [McGraw-Hill, 1971], pp. 117-8)
_____________________________________________________

A case can be made that Nazi Germany coincided with the move from abject economic poverty into a competitive world producer. The fact that Wall Street was underwriting the Nazi Regime may be worth noting. How much underwriting was done in Communist China by Wall Street? Why did the Corporation (USA) disown, stop funding, Chiang Kai-shek when his forces threatened the communist power?

I don't think that Noam Chomsky has connected all the dots concerning how much of a factor the Central Bank Cabal is in human history. I may be wrong, he does depend upon subsidy after all, and he has not been arrested, tortured, and murdered. Perhaps he knows the limits of which he can reasonably speak of the demonstrable facts. But the quote on Mao is merely factual. What happened, happened, and what could have happened is theoretical.
.
.
.
.
.
__________________________________________________________
— Stalinist North Vietnam
“I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments... Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit and human will.”
(Radio Hanoi, April 14, 1970)
____________________________________________________________

If it is understood that the French and then the Corporation (USA) invaded, occupied, and subjugated (enslaved) the people of Vietnam, then the defenders against such acts, which are aggressive wars for profit, are defensive actions in fact. If it is not understood, or if it is not factual, then those are not the facts. Did the people of Vietnam invade France or Washington D.C.?

Is that a fair question?

Did the people of the Philippines invade Washington D.C.?

Did the people of Iraq invade Washington D.C. and if the answer is the Knee Jerk response "911!," then the answer is false, since the actual perpetrators of the crimes of Sept 11, 2001 where claimed to be Saudi Arabians, not Iraqis.
.
.
.
.
.
______________________________________________________
— Pol Pot’s Cambodia
“the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives. It is striking that the crucial facts rarely appear in the chorus of condemnations.”
(After the Cataclysm [South End Press, 1979], p. 160)
________________________________________________________

The underwriting of Pol Pot with Corporate (USA) DEBT (charged upon American Tax Payers) is a crucial fact that rarely appears in the Corporate (USA) "Media," so what is the reasoning for placing this quote in this Thread whereby the lies perpetrated against Noam Chomsky are being spread?
.
.
.
.
.
___________________________________________________________
“Such facts as these... raise the question whether what is needed in the United States today is dissent or denazification... I myself believe that what is needed is a kind of denazification.”
(Ethics, October 1968)
____________________________________________________________

Which facts? What does Noam Chomsky mean with the term "denazification"? I'm curious, but I have many other things to do other than answer lies being told about Noam Chomsky.
.
.
.
.
.
________________________________________________________
ON REPUBLICANS...
“The new Republicans represent a kind of proto-fascism. There’s a real sadism. They want to go for the jugular. Anybody who doesn’t meet their standards, they want to kill, not just oppose, but destroy.”
(The Progressive, March 1996)
________________________________________________________

George Bush, Dick (who put the vice back into Vice President) Cheney, and the other "crazies" known as Neo-CONS? Does anyone defend the Neo-Cons in any way whatsoever, and if so, on what grounds are those criminals supported in any way? Aiding and abetting enemies domestic?
.
.
.
.
.
___________________________________________________________
ON ZIONISM...
“Hitler’s conceptions have struck a responsive chord in current Zionist commentary.”
(Fateful Triangle [rev. ed., Pluto Press, 1999], p. 208)
ON ZIONISM...
“Hitler’s conceptions have struck a responsive chord in current Zionist commentary.”
(Fateful Triangle [rev. ed., Pluto Press, 1999], p. 208)
ON JUDAISM...
“In the Jewish community, the Orthodox rabbinate imposes its interpretation of religious law... Were similar principles to apply to Jews elsewhere, we would not hesitate to condemn this revival of the Nuremberg laws.”
(Foreword, Sabri Jiryis, The Arabs in Israel [Monthly Review Press, 1976], p. viii)
ON ISRAEL...
“Israel’s ‘secret weapon’ ... is that it may behave in the manner of what have sometimes been called ‘crazy states’ in the international affairs literature... eventuating in a final solution from which few will escape.”
(Fateful Triangle [rev. ed., Pluto Press, 1999], pp. 468-9)
ON JEWS...
“The Jewish community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do not want freedom.”
(Interview, Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought, Summer 1988)
ON ANTISEMITISM...
“Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population... privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why antisemitism is becoming an issue.”
(Variant, Scotland, Winter 2002)
ON THE HOLOCAUST...
“I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust.”
(Quadrant, Australia, October 1981)
___________________________________________________________

It may be noted that the Zionist Political Party members torture, experiment on, and mass murder innocent people? Is that the point with these quotes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUU08xnVaGM
.
.
.
.
.
__________________________________________________________
ON THE COLD WAR...
“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”
(Letter, in Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is In Us [Verso, 1995], pp. 149-151)
___________________________________________________________

The lesser of two evils? What is the point other than to recognize that evil is evil?
.
.
.
.
.
_____________________________________________________________
ON 9/11...
“for the first time in history the victims are returning the blow to the motherland.”
(La Jornada, Mexico, September 15, 2001)
_______________________________________________________________

I think Noam Chomsky knows enough to avoid recognizing that the crimes of Sept 11th, 2001 were an Inside Job. His days of fighting against the current Regime are in the past. The point of the quote is along the lines of "Blow Back," which is a point shared by Ron Paul; if people are being injured by someone, or some group, it makes sense that the victims may fight back at some point during the ongoing injury? Is that not a competitive viewpoint of reality?
.
.
.
.
.
______________________________________________________________
ON AL-QAEDA...
“It’s entirely possible that bin Laden’s telling the truth when he says he didn’t know about the [9/11] operation.”
(9-11 [Seven Stories Press, 2001], p. 60)
_____________________________________________________________

In fact, according to the FBI "official" reports, Osama Bin Laden was not a suspect in the crimes of Sept 11, 2001. What is the point with this quote? The person doing the quoting claims that the crimes of Sept 11, 2001 were not orchestrated by people inside the Corporation (USA)?
.
.
.
.
.
_____________________________________________________________
ON LIBERATING AFGHANISTAN...
_______________________________________________________________

On Liberating the babies in Waco?

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/page...

So...who is working for the criminals at this moment? Do you apologize for the criminals on your own, or are you a paid employee, or is there some other interest and motivation you have in covering up the crimes done by the criminals in "office"? I'd like to know the truth.
.
.
.
.
.
_______________________________________________________________
ON LIBERATING IRAQ...
“But here’s a way to liberate Iraq... No US casualties, no threat to Israel, good chance of bringing democracy... Help Iran invade Iraq... They have a fair chance of introducing democracy.”
(Interview, The New Yorker, March 31, 2003)
_______________________________________________________________

Some of the Soldiers who are misled into wars of aggression for the profit of criminals in "office" survive and live to return back home and begin to defend Liberty instead of destroying it. Some people haven't the faintest clue as to what is or is not true. Some lie for fun, some for profit. Which viewpoint is the more accurate one, which is more competitive in a free market of ideas?

Joe

And just where does Chomsky get his funding from?

It is my opinion that Chomsky is controlled opposition. He will take logical arguments only just so far. He consistently stops short of biting the hand that feeds him time after time.

Where does he get his funding

Where does he get his funding from?

Yes

and yes, again
Noam Chomsky is no friend of Liberty.

Painfull to watch

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Always hated his views

masochist much? :D

I've always enjoyed catching his perspective. However, this was relatively ZZZZZZZZ.., so I played Hearts while I listened, as such I required no pain to stay awake. ;)

give him a break...he's

give him a break...he's getting up there..it just takes him a little longer to make his points now haha....he's still saying things that, generally speaking, the liberty movement approves of...Some of this could've come from Ron Paul or Andrew Napolitano's mouth...Remember it's about the message not how endearing the messenger is..

Capitalist dogma

Capitalist dogma is tailor made to inspire hatred against Communist dogma.

If the capitalist dogmatists offered their ideology unto a free market then they would not be fabricating lies (fraud) to discredit their free market competitors, but they do, and therefore it is the capitalist dogmatists who are guilty of exceeding the boundaries of the free market, as they take liberties too far, as they perpetrate unwelcome, unjust, injury to their innocent, targeted, victims.

When the false capitalists have the principle of might making right (according to their dogma) they are not capitalists, they are merely more of the same criminal types who use any False Front that effectively hides the true color.

Joe