5 ms·

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-li

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.

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.