3 ms·

That's really only "libertarianism" in the American tea party sense, and fairly unique to the US. It's not that it is conflated with anarchism online, it's that

That's really only "libertarianism" in the American tea party sense, and fairly unique to the US. It's not that it is conflated with anarchism online, it's that Americans have conflated it with laissez-faire capitalism offline. The reason it seems different online is because you're seeing what the majority of the world understands it to be. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-an... "Chomsky: 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." Powerful patents being used to dominate individuals, whether through infringement suits or through depriving them access to the market is about as far from libertarianism as you can get. This becomes more intuitive when you observe that the individual farmer has been put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. He does not, in fact, have his economic liberty.

nickff 13y ago
Are you certain that Chomsky is the best source for information about libertarianism? Could he pass the ideological Turing test?[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test
rayiner 13y ago
Chomsky isn't saying that the U.S. has an atypical definition libertarianism, but that libertarianism is not a popular ideology outside the U.S. There is not some other set of beliefs the rest of the world recognizes as "true libertarianism." Laissez-faire capitalism combined with a strong emphasis on individuality and property rights is what characterizes libertarianism. Its the beliefs of the neoclassical economic liberals minus the social contract thinking many of them also had. Your characterization of the farmers plight isn't accurate. They are not in a "damned if they don't" position. The roundup ready plants behave like ordinary plants if you don't use roundup. They had no reason to either enter into contracts with Monsanto or to use Monsanto's property by applying roundup, other than to gain the benefit of Monsanto's invention. Once they do those things, libertarianism says that Monsanto can dictate whatever terms it wants, and furthermore that one of the few legitimate purposes of even a limited government is providing courts for the enforcement of contractual and property rights.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  You're quite wrong on that first point. He's discussed that very issue many times. Here is another: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/chomsky-on-libertarianism-and-its-meaning.html http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/chomsky-on-lib... "The term "libertarian" has an idiosyncratic usage in the US and Canada, reflecting, I suppose, the unusual power of business in these societies. In the European tradition, "libertarian socialism" ("socialisme libertaire") was the anti-state branch of the socialist movement: anarchism (in the European, not the US sense). I use the term in the traditional sense, not the US sense." The farmer is indeed damned if he doesn't. Monsanto crushes him because he can't compete in the market. Did you not hear of the mass suicides among farmers in India, where they took 95% of the seed market? Monstanto has been very successful in executing the equivalent of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" in the seed market, and now enjoy an 80% - 90% monopoly on seeds depending on the crop. It's now difficult to purchase non-patent-encumbered seeds even if you want to, and if you do so, you're at a severe disadvantage. Seeds. Think about that for a moment. That small piece of biomatter, the source of life, which grows into staple crops for feeding our planet. This and all future generations of it are patent encumbered, and controlled by a large corporation. To equate this with liberty is hilarious. Laissez-faire capitalism leads only to tyranny, not liberty. Even Greenspan finally figured this out. Too bad it took destroying nearly half of the global wealth for him to do so.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Chomsky is taking some liberty in characterizing the American definition as "idiosyncratic." Libertarian socialists and Libertarian anarchists usually identify themselves with the qualifier. Indeed, it's in your quote: ("socialisme libertaire"). That branch of libertarianism arose contemporaneously with the leftist movements in the early 20th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Left-libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Left-libertarian.... American libertarianism has older roots, in the work of Locke and Adam Smith. It's in the lineage of the beliefs of classical liberals. It's largely an Anglo phenomenon, but that doesn't make the American usage of the term "idiosyncratic." > The farmer is indeed damned if he doesn't. Monsanto crushes him because he can't compete in the market. So what? That's how the market works. > It's now difficult to purchase non-patent-encumbered seeds even if you want to, and if you do so, you're at a severe disadvantage. They're at a disadvantage because Monsanto's product is dramatically superior. Within the framework of libertarianism (American libertarianism if you want to quibble about that), there is nothing wrong with a superior competitor crushing inferior competition.

nickff 13y ago

Are you certain that Chomsky is the best source for information about libertarianism? Could he pass the ideological Turing test?[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test

rayiner 13y ago

Chomsky isn't saying that the U.S. has an atypical definition libertarianism, but that libertarianism is not a popular ideology outside the U.S. There is not some other set of beliefs the rest of the world recognizes as "true libertarianism." Laissez-faire capitalism combined with a strong emphasis on individuality and property rights is what characterizes libertarianism. Its the beliefs of the neoclassical economic liberals minus the social contract thinking many of them also had. Your characterization of the farmers plight isn't accurate. They are not in a "damned if they don't" position. The roundup ready plants behave like ordinary plants if you don't use roundup. They had no reason to either enter into contracts with Monsanto or to use Monsanto's property by applying roundup, other than to gain the benefit of Monsanto's invention. Once they do those things, libertarianism says that Monsanto can dictate whatever terms it wants, and furthermore that one of the few legitimate purposes of even a limited government is providing courts for the enforcement of contractual and property rights.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
You're quite wrong on that first point. He's discussed that very issue many times. Here is another: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/chomsky-on-libertarianism-and-its-meaning.html http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/chomsky-on-lib... "The term "libertarian" has an idiosyncratic usage in the US and Canada, reflecting, I suppose, the unusual power of business in these societies. In the European tradition, "libertarian socialism" ("socialisme libertaire") was the anti-state branch of the socialist movement: anarchism (in the European, not the US sense). I use the term in the traditional sense, not the US sense." The farmer is indeed damned if he doesn't. Monsanto crushes him because he can't compete in the market. Did you not hear of the mass suicides among farmers in India, where they took 95% of the seed market? Monstanto has been very successful in executing the equivalent of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" in the seed market, and now enjoy an 80% - 90% monopoly on seeds depending on the crop. It's now difficult to purchase non-patent-encumbered seeds even if you want to, and if you do so, you're at a severe disadvantage. Seeds. Think about that for a moment. That small piece of biomatter, the source of life, which grows into staple crops for feeding our planet. This and all future generations of it are patent encumbered, and controlled by a large corporation. To equate this with liberty is hilarious. Laissez-faire capitalism leads only to tyranny, not liberty. Even Greenspan finally figured this out. Too bad it took destroying nearly half of the global wealth for him to do so.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Chomsky is taking some liberty in characterizing the American definition as "idiosyncratic." Libertarian socialists and Libertarian anarchists usually identify themselves with the qualifier. Indeed, it's in your quote: ("socialisme libertaire"). That branch of libertarianism arose contemporaneously with the leftist movements in the early 20th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Left-libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Left-libertarian.... American libertarianism has older roots, in the work of Locke and Adam Smith. It's in the lineage of the beliefs of classical liberals. It's largely an Anglo phenomenon, but that doesn't make the American usage of the term "idiosyncratic." > The farmer is indeed damned if he doesn't. Monsanto crushes him because he can't compete in the market. So what? That's how the market works. > It's now difficult to purchase non-patent-encumbered seeds even if you want to, and if you do so, you're at a severe disadvantage. They're at a disadvantage because Monsanto's product is dramatically superior. Within the framework of libertarianism (American libertarianism if you want to quibble about that), there is nothing wrong with a superior competitor crushing inferior competition.