5 ms·

"Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — per

"Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. …that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal to private power concentrations. So why should we prefer it? Well I think because freedom is better than subordination. It’s better to be free than to be a slave. Its’ better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them. I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that. It seems like … transparent." Noam Chomsky

ttoinou 9y ago
There's so much wrong about NC and mainstream perception of classic liberalism I don't even know where to begin. There are some interesting topics of dispute between NC / Proudhon-like anarchists and libertarians, but I don't see how this kind of quote achieves anything in this regard. Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" but acknowledge that hierarchy and subordination can develop in a voluntarily way and think about the best meta-rules with which each society groups can co-exist. Yes, large entities can occur - proof is with nation states and big companies. But I don't see how Chomsky fans can replace them with anything better, do you ? Theirs solutions generally involve the state taking a monopole about some product / service or over regulations, leading to an even growing state and big co (all of which are "tyranny", "concentrated powers", "domination", "authority" they supposedly despise)
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  But libertarian thought paves the way for concentrated power and even relies upon it. Wealth, which libertarians believe can gotten from self-determination alone, does not accrue without legally enforced property relations (state monopolized justice/violence). Self-determination without other anarchist values of mutual aid and solidarity creates classist society. I don't want to live in a classist society. I don't have an interest in a political critique which remains imminent to capitalist values and society. I'd also add that libertarian thought in practice leads to abhorrent entities such as the Cato institute and the Atlas Network.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    You can't have liberty without "state monopolized justice/violence".
    - evanlivingston 9y ago
      I didn't mean to imply otherwise, rather I just wanted to point out that one of the principles of Libertarianism as I understand it (freedom from government regulation of things) is counter to the libertarian value of wealth accumulation.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        There is no libertarian value of wealth accumulation. There is only the libertarian value of individual liberties such as being able to own personal property without limits. If some accumulate wealth, as long as they don't take it from others that's fine.
  - ttoinou 9y ago
    Could you care to explain how we could reduce "concentrated powers" ? It's not enough to simply claim that libertarian or neoliberal are not anti-business and hence facilitate concentrated powers, you have to explain to me a better solution, how you would approach this issue. values of mutual aid and solidarity Isn't that what exchange, association and charity are about ? Theses are core libertarian values.
    - evanlivingston 9y ago
      In my listening to and reading of libertarians the non-aggression principle is of higher importance than aid and solidarity. The NAP is then extended to property belonging to the individual such that property becomes prioritized over other individuals: "That person is starving, but this is my property and they have no right to it". When solidarity is taken as a core value it doesn't provide an avenue for allowing one to starve while another has more wealth than they need to provide for themselves. My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations. I think a reduction in concentration of power requires a cultural shift where people cease to fetishize the accumulation of power a la money.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" I disagree. Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and in fact, to survive in capitalism is to accumulate capital. The tyranny being spoken of is found hiding in a shallow place - under the guise of free exchange, free enterprise, free association. Many would contend property is tyranny - beacuse it is due to the existence of property for which generations of people have to toil while surrendering the fruits of their labour to the landlord, capitalist, State etc. To be forced to pay rent is not dissimilar to be forced to be paid taxes. And what right does the landlord have over the property? Transferred title from a time when it was forcibly enclosed by the state or transformed into property without the consent of all at the time - i.e it is an arbitrary right founded on violence. The idea is not to transfer property into the ownership of all, it is to abolish it entirely. "The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there." (Max Stirner)
  - ttoinou 9y ago
    Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and in fact, to survive in capitalism is to accumulate capital What's wrong with that ? That's a good thing. Gathering human and physical capital, saving and investing are the mechanisms that enabled us humans to make such tremendous progress. To be forced to pay rent is not dissimilar to be forced to be paid taxes I think the rules of the game are generally fair, but the initial conditions inherited from history are not. But I understand what you mean if you don't believe the rules are "fair" and if you believe there's an alternative to our "capitalist system". The idea is not to transfer property into the ownership of all, it is to abolish it entirely. I read a lot of left leaning authors years ago before discovering french XIX th century liberalism (including Max Stirner most famous text). I never found anything remotely concerned about the course of actions society should engage to abolish private property. Seriously, I've been searching for years. I'm open to any text if you have some.
valuearb 9y ago
Chomsky thought the world would be better if any person that ever figured out a better way to do things was beaten to death before their idea becomes a large corporation that millions of people would willingly chose to patronize.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  Lovely projection I have to say. Chomsky is the guy with the good ideas (though he'd be the first to point out they're not original, but he still understands and holds them so the sentence is correct as is), you're the one biting his ankles with a straw man.

ttoinou 9y ago

There's so much wrong about NC and mainstream perception of classic liberalism I don't even know where to begin. There are some interesting topics of dispute between NC / Proudhon-like anarchists and libertarians, but I don't see how this kind of quote achieves anything in this regard. Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" but acknowledge that hierarchy and subordination can develop in a voluntarily way and think about the best meta-rules with which each society groups can co-exist. Yes, large entities can occur - proof is with nation states and big companies. But I don't see how Chomsky fans can replace them with anything better, do you ? Theirs solutions generally involve the state taking a monopole about some product / service or over regulations, leading to an even growing state and big co (all of which are "tyranny", "concentrated powers", "domination", "authority" they supposedly despise)

evanlivingston 9y ago
But libertarian thought paves the way for concentrated power and even relies upon it. Wealth, which libertarians believe can gotten from self-determination alone, does not accrue without legally enforced property relations (state monopolized justice/violence). Self-determination without other anarchist values of mutual aid and solidarity creates classist society. I don't want to live in a classist society. I don't have an interest in a political critique which remains imminent to capitalist values and society. I'd also add that libertarian thought in practice leads to abhorrent entities such as the Cato institute and the Atlas Network.
- valuearb 9y ago
  You can't have liberty without "state monopolized justice/violence".
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    I didn't mean to imply otherwise, rather I just wanted to point out that one of the principles of Libertarianism as I understand it (freedom from government regulation of things) is counter to the libertarian value of wealth accumulation.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      There is no libertarian value of wealth accumulation. There is only the libertarian value of individual liberties such as being able to own personal property without limits. If some accumulate wealth, as long as they don't take it from others that's fine.
- ttoinou 9y ago
  Could you care to explain how we could reduce "concentrated powers" ? It's not enough to simply claim that libertarian or neoliberal are not anti-business and hence facilitate concentrated powers, you have to explain to me a better solution, how you would approach this issue. values of mutual aid and solidarity Isn't that what exchange, association and charity are about ? Theses are core libertarian values.
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    In my listening to and reading of libertarians the non-aggression principle is of higher importance than aid and solidarity. The NAP is then extended to property belonging to the individual such that property becomes prioritized over other individuals: "That person is starving, but this is my property and they have no right to it". When solidarity is taken as a core value it doesn't provide an avenue for allowing one to starve while another has more wealth than they need to provide for themselves. My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations. I think a reduction in concentration of power requires a cultural shift where people cease to fetishize the accumulation of power a la money.
ue_ 9y ago
>Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" I disagree. Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and in fact, to survive in capitalism is to accumulate capital. The tyranny being spoken of is found hiding in a shallow place - under the guise of free exchange, free enterprise, free association. Many would contend property is tyranny - beacuse it is due to the existence of property for which generations of people have to toil while surrendering the fruits of their labour to the landlord, capitalist, State etc. To be forced to pay rent is not dissimilar to be forced to be paid taxes. And what right does the landlord have over the property? Transferred title from a time when it was forcibly enclosed by the state or transformed into property without the consent of all at the time - i.e it is an arbitrary right founded on violence. The idea is not to transfer property into the ownership of all, it is to abolish it entirely. "The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there." (Max Stirner)
- ttoinou 9y ago
  Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and in fact, to survive in capitalism is to accumulate capital What's wrong with that ? That's a good thing. Gathering human and physical capital, saving and investing are the mechanisms that enabled us humans to make such tremendous progress. To be forced to pay rent is not dissimilar to be forced to be paid taxes I think the rules of the game are generally fair, but the initial conditions inherited from history are not. But I understand what you mean if you don't believe the rules are "fair" and if you believe there's an alternative to our "capitalist system". The idea is not to transfer property into the ownership of all, it is to abolish it entirely. I read a lot of left leaning authors years ago before discovering french XIX th century liberalism (including Max Stirner most famous text). I never found anything remotely concerned about the course of actions society should engage to abolish private property. Seriously, I've been searching for years. I'm open to any text if you have some.

valuearb 9y ago

Chomsky thought the world would be better if any person that ever figured out a better way to do things was beaten to death before their idea becomes a large corporation that millions of people would willingly chose to patronize.

thinkfurther 9y ago
Lovely projection I have to say. Chomsky is the guy with the good ideas (though he'd be the first to point out they're not original, but he still understands and holds them so the sentence is correct as is), you're the one biting his ankles with a straw man.