5 ms·

Meet Noam Chomsky - Academic Gatekeeper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ_6_GzGjZGlKKElb6ceOq0p&feature=player_detailpage http://www

Meet Noam Chomsky - Academic Gatekeeper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ_6_GzGjZGlKKElb6ceOq0p&feature=player_detailpage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ...

DominikR 13y ago
So someone who calls for overthrowing the US government and replacing Capitalism with Anarcho-Syndicalism is now a gatekeeper?
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  Feel free to argue against the points presented in the video. Capitalism is such a messed-up term these days. To me it means free, voluntary exchanges and agreements/contracts between people, but most people have been propagandized to view it as "evil capitalist pigs exploiting and oppressing the poor". But capitalism cannot be replaced, it's what people do when they're allowed to, after all. It's about people pursuing their personal gain through commerce and investments etc, and you know self-interest is not going anywhere, regardless of what societal system happens to be in place.
  - kokey 13y ago
    When a philosophy graduate is unhappy that collective, voluntary trade on the market doesn't benefit his 'trade', he will see it as evil, repressive capitalism. While, in an anarchist, decentralised, collective society there will be people who will no be able to realise their dreams and ambitions and they too will resent this repression imposed on them by the evil collective.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      A "decentralized collective society" seems contradictory. I can't tell what you mean.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal, and in extreme cases, difficult to distinguish from choices made under duress (starvation vs. sweatshop, expensive medication vs. death, etc) On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction. The idea that land, or mineral rights, or intellectual property belongs exclusively to either (a) an individual, (b) a corporation, (c) a state, or (d) everybody, are all legal fictions and voluntary illusions. Other than perhaps the clothes on one's back, property is not a natural right (in the sense of natural law). We made it up. For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership. I can accept the argument that interfering with the quasi-evolutionary capitalist engine does more harm than good, and that capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others. But given the history of unearned legacy wealth, systemic ethnic and national oppression, and the state's role in maintaining disproportionate advantages for those with capital, calling the trades that occur between haves and have-nots "voluntary" seems a little disingenuous.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by definition. You value whatever you're giving up lower than what you're getting in exchange, because otherwise you just wouldn't go through the trade. >> On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction Everyone naturally has the right to defend his property, through whatever means necessary. Not only that, but we all intuitively agree on what property is. An apple in your hand is automatically assumed to be your property, and so is the apartment you live in, or the factory everyone has always known you to own and run. If you see a car on the street, you don't assume it's no one's property even if there's no one in it. >> For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership. I can't tell what that's supposed to mean. But again, your property is your property, and you have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State exists. >> capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others Capitalism is not a "system". It's not something that's imposed on anyone, but instead, it's just all the things people do in their pursuit of personal gain - exchanges, commerce, investments, and contracts etc. If you see problems with "Capitalism", they're actually problems with Crony-Capitalism, and caused by the State. Those evil corporations buy political power, and then use it to prevent competition, to rape nature, pass their losses on to us, and so on. All the nasty stuff.

DominikR 13y ago

So someone who calls for overthrowing the US government and replacing Capitalism with Anarcho-Syndicalism is now a gatekeeper?

anoncowherd 13y ago
Feel free to argue against the points presented in the video. Capitalism is such a messed-up term these days. To me it means free, voluntary exchanges and agreements/contracts between people, but most people have been propagandized to view it as "evil capitalist pigs exploiting and oppressing the poor". But capitalism cannot be replaced, it's what people do when they're allowed to, after all. It's about people pursuing their personal gain through commerce and investments etc, and you know self-interest is not going anywhere, regardless of what societal system happens to be in place.
- kokey 13y ago
  When a philosophy graduate is unhappy that collective, voluntary trade on the market doesn't benefit his 'trade', he will see it as evil, repressive capitalism. While, in an anarchist, decentralised, collective society there will be people who will no be able to realise their dreams and ambitions and they too will resent this repression imposed on them by the evil collective.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    A "decentralized collective society" seems contradictory. I can't tell what you mean.
- lukifer 13y ago
  The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal, and in extreme cases, difficult to distinguish from choices made under duress (starvation vs. sweatshop, expensive medication vs. death, etc) On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction. The idea that land, or mineral rights, or intellectual property belongs exclusively to either (a) an individual, (b) a corporation, (c) a state, or (d) everybody, are all legal fictions and voluntary illusions. Other than perhaps the clothes on one's back, property is not a natural right (in the sense of natural law). We made it up. For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership. I can accept the argument that interfering with the quasi-evolutionary capitalist engine does more harm than good, and that capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others. But given the history of unearned legacy wealth, systemic ethnic and national oppression, and the state's role in maintaining disproportionate advantages for those with capital, calling the trades that occur between haves and have-nots "voluntary" seems a little disingenuous.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> The countervailing argument to "voluntary exchange" is that many trades are highly unequal If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by definition. You value whatever you're giving up lower than what you're getting in exchange, because otherwise you just wouldn't go through the trade. >> On top of that, trades that involve large quantities of capital must still rely upon law and violence to guard ownership, and therefore at least somewhat subject to public jurisdiction Everyone naturally has the right to defend his property, through whatever means necessary. Not only that, but we all intuitively agree on what property is. An apple in your hand is automatically assumed to be your property, and so is the apartment you live in, or the factory everyone has always known you to own and run. If you see a car on the street, you don't assume it's no one's property even if there's no one in it. >> For better or worse, we should take responsibility for the relationship between private capital and the social contract, even if it is for the purpose of maintaining private ownership. I can't tell what that's supposed to mean. But again, your property is your property, and you have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State exists. >> capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others Capitalism is not a "system". It's not something that's imposed on anyone, but instead, it's just all the things people do in their pursuit of personal gain - exchanges, commerce, investments, and contracts etc. If you see problems with "Capitalism", they're actually problems with Crony-Capitalism, and caused by the State. Those evil corporations buy political power, and then use it to prevent competition, to rape nature, pass their losses on to us, and so on. All the nasty stuff.