Yes exactly! That’s what the entire system is about... and people just don’t get it... they complain and complain about the system, wanting change... but it’s not designed for the people’s needs... that’s why America is shit! Idk why anyone goes along with it...
Let me get this straight. The employees pay taxes to the government which in turn gives them out as subsidies to the employer. The employees therefore are effectively paying shareholders to work, often for subsistence wages.. Did I miss something? Does this arrangement between producers and profiteers have a name?
In relevance to removing the state sure, but the anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron anyway) dont agree with us regarding either the cause of the problem or have an effective means to address it. Its like fending off a wolf with one hand whilst feeding it with the other. Its not even a simple mistake, its fundamentally incongruous with itself.
@@CG0077 1. Anarcho-capitalism is not self-contradictory, but is consistent. 2. They actually do have a solution. All initiation of force is wrong. 3. Opposition to property rights is wrong.
he told the unpopular truth at risk to himself knowing it was the greater good. what a hero. mob rule doesnt work. without stability we can only live for today. tomorrow a jealous mob will take it away. no investment; no saving for winter. just blow it all. with great popular support we can amend the constitution. the tools are there to create our world, if you convince us.
Public pays for the development and risk and corporations take the profits. An example is the drug HIV drug Truvada which was developed with the help of public research institutions and costs less than 10 for a monthly dose. It is patented by Gilead and they charge 2000 a month for it.
I love this because my favourite work was changing land use law. When I could. It is difficult to change. Economic forces are more powerful than democracy, in most cases. This is as true of our local land use decisions as our warlike tendencies.
@@projectmalus This will appeal to many people who are getting the short end of our economy. Given human nature, doing it in a way that stays done will always be a struggle though.
@@coreycox2345 The profit going out of a community is the easiest thing to change. We have assigned value to money and that's what we have to work with. The other major problem is in restricting group size, since power dynamics can ruin things when stockpiling and irresponsibility are present. People become grabbers and the system of living is something that one games. So I came up with the idea of a corporate structure for limiting group size and for legal protection, in a village. Combine this with a lower cost and higher quality of life - a better product for less cost - and have a system that takes the profit part and directs it to buying land and setting it up for the people without. Have an open source template that allows space for wild Nature to exist. The problem is the same one as always. The people who would promote their own interests and gather together with no restrictions. The thing is, they have to pay that living fee and if the template is followed, then the next village will open up a new space while keeping a friendly group size. It wouldn't be ingrown because of the internet. Another major element is avoiding ideology as a focus for the group. Having an economic focus with DIY is the way! I'm serious about doing this. I've thought about it for about 4 or 5 years. The place I'm in would be suitable for a start except two things, the uncertain nature of a development in a property upwind (but not uphill :) and the fearsome bugs this year especially. Yikes! Would love to hear your opinion, don't worry about hurting my feelings.
We should have voted 🗳 in Aristotle as President. That guy makes total sense; AND he does a mean gyros 🥙. He runs the souvlaki joint at the corner of Third and Lexington...
Ah yes, he wanted a socialist state 2000+ years before the notion of a socialist state even existed, interesting! 😂 PS: if this was meant as sarcasm, or is some meme my millenoomer/boomenial brain cannot recognize, then excuse me for taking you seriously/literally. ❤️🏴♾
Mojo Jojo - He in fact argued for both. Aristotle was one complicated dude - the ancient one from Stageira, not my uncle from Delphi who runs the souvlaki grill: he’s just plain crazy.
@@johnhire6086 Well Chomsky certainly is in favor of a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. He does believe in Communism. But then it becomes a matter of what practical steps humanity should take to reach communism, and that's where some leftists stray from him. He can't be just another liberal when he's on the record numerous times talking about the need to abolish the state and capitalism.
business is my favorite form of organization. its voluntary (for transactors, not third parties). transactors are better off if they choose wisely. sole proprietorship (autocratic) is no bs. no red tape slowing down action. abusive behavior is readily eliminated - abusive ownership is out competed and eliminated, or at least set back. companies with good leadership and fairness will prevail, unless their competitors are friends with regulators. employees make countable monetary profit (at opportunity cost), and can walk away anytime. employers have a challenging predicament and get backstabbed, robbed and vandalized easily. but no one likes megacorporations; they seem to be a product of system and our choices. economics is extension of ecology and it can be cruel. im learning about horizontal organization but you still need someone to appeal to in disputes.
What just philosophical or moral basis could possibly exist to support the fact that in nearly all the world, private individuals have no right to private property or wealth (i.e. you may hold but cannot truly posses land or wealth)? All property/wealth is owned and controlled by governments, which are ultimately controlled by elite classes. A permission or a grant is not the same as an inalienable or natural right. A permission can be rescinded. What just philosophical or moral basis could possibly exist to support the concept that only elites own the rights to the world's resources (i.e. oil, minerals, creatures of the sea, etc)? A wage may be proper compensation for the effort of harvesting or processing the resources, but the value of the raw resources themselves would be equally shared in a just world.
Protect your brother because mindsets change often. however, the requirements to live do not! 💗 love your neighbor and plant something edible. If you are alive, you have a word and a chance. Don't give up your mind or your stance! Good bless us all!
Friedman refused to answer questions about wealth inequality from some rich kid that was dabbling in documentaries. If he was that frightened of the neighborhood kid, you would of had to hold him hostage to get em on stage with Chomsky. lol.
If by refused to answer you mean didn't agree with you about it being a problem, you're right. But to take that stance on that exchange, you either missed the point or ignored the support to confirm your own bias. "Wealth inequality" is a pretty hot phrase right now, so I don't blame you for repeating it without understanding it. We can discuss it if you'd like, but I am sure all I would get is a litany of statistics without any real explanation as to why they matter. Most people that throw that phrase around subscribe to the "fixed pie fallacy" of economics. You might do yourself a favor and look that up.
Oh no! Someone is triggered. ;-P Shhh... shhh... It's alright. Don't worry. Selfishness is a legit virtue, not an oxymoron. Milton was right now put your faith in the free markets and everything will magically be ok.
OK, this is what I listen to Chomsky for. His historical understanding, and his honesty and clarity about it is second to none. I learn a lot by listening to stuff like this. HOWEVER, he presents this like Madison, who wanted to protect the opulent minority, whatever that means, from the majority is not such a bad, or ridiculous, or patently evil idea ... provided that the opulent minority, or whatever is transparent and clear about their intent and does the right thing vis-a-vis the minority, like the philosopher king idea. Now, America should be about debating and determining what is the relationship and tension between the classes, what is right and fair and what is not. Clearly we have lost the democratic, and even the representative democratic component in our country now, and with the technology and military power, as well as the ability to hide and be anonymous, we have leaders that have no intention of living up to their responsibilities to our citizens. or at least talking about. The problem is if you talk about it it just creates panic, so what happens over time is that journalism shuts down, debate shuts down, democracy shuts down. Look at our elections now ... they are a joke, and even at the local level the more corporate and rich a given location is the less democratic it becomes. Local areas are being taken over by money precinct by precinct. The difference between now and in the past is the power of technology, in weapons, surveillance and economics, none of it exists for the average people any more, even while the entertainment media has pandered to citizens making them feel important and like they are listened to. Can the people possible stand up to what this has evolved into, and where is the weak point in our system now. The only real weak point is the vulnerability of citizens like we have seen in France, but if the government does not care about citizens they just make a show and herd everyone in whatever direction they want us to go - and who is to say they are wrong as long as the world is driven and based on war?
Lets not pretend that Rome was somehow this society of free men who went on a cascade of invasions that corrupted their balanced society. They were always conquerors and in the early days of Rome when it was still confined to only part of the Iberian peninsula it had subjects who were not free Romans. Rome conquered its rivals to protect itself, and where have we heard that justification before. I think you grossly misread history through your own prism. Rome was never a democratic society. It always had a massive underclass and it expanded far enough that this slim slim ruling class which is not comparable in any way to the people you're relating them to in our societies couldn't maintain its primacy. Comparing the Roman citizens on the tax roll to people on a train in every day western life is just... meaningless. Its a nice little story but it doesn't bear any relation to our reality and that's the danger of applying our values and view to historical context like that.
Chomsky seems to be stuck in the Charles A. Beard paradigm of American history, where the framer's original intention was to create a government that would secure economic privileges to the few at the expense of the many. It's an interesting theory, but there is quite a lot of historical evidence that cuts the other way, and I don't think many historians subscribe to it today.
7:36 "the decision to break down the system of regulated currencies which is a policy decision made first by the Nixon administration..." Holy shit, is he talking about the end of the gold standard?
4:45 _if i have the right of free speech it doesnt interfere with your right of free speech_ we cant all talk at once. yelling cancels other speech, so no one has speech. (this applies mostly to confined physical spaces.) its like how without private property rights, all the looting and defrauding cost society so much it destroys the thing fought over, or we're left with much less. as a metaphor: two govs (gangs) fighting over a city thats left in rubble. the winner owns the rubble. mob rule is so dirty - majoritarianism. it leads to power and protection seekers joining the winning side, to destroy those who stand by their own personal integrity. of course the way you implement principled charters - bills of rights, can be done poorly. im a libertarian and i watch chomsy to learn all the arguments. hes relaxing and speaks to those who agree or disagree with him. he's not big on inflammatory comments. hes turned me on to madisonian democracy (as a term and historical note), tho its not his leaning < 3
@@Alan649 ha...I don't think so since the spirit of poverty elimination is to provide more people with more resources. It's my opinion now two years hence from my comment that the plan is to simply get rid of everyone who does not pay into the system by labor or capital. I think they call them "useless eaters". They will keep who remain to do the work and buy the useless shit they produce. Perhaps global warming and ecocide is by design so that two thirds of the population drops away...likely the most efficient way to do it. Yes, this is ghoulish, but they're ghouls...they don't think like virtuous people.
A Bully complaining about having a portion his Money being shared amongst the Nerds, when all of his Money and his grandfather's grandfather's Money was obtained by Bullying Nerd's for their Money... 🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦 They speak about the redistribution of wealth as if the wealth was gained by the efforts of the evil people in possession of it...
I don't understand why "agrarian reform" with legitimate consensual legal power through the democracy is "unjust". Like I could see that argument making sense about maybe a government just taking it without consent, or a revolution taking it, and it's made a lot today, but the kind described here seems about as through the acceptable channels as can be. I know the reason is "the ruling class justifies itself with its own power rather than meaning so the participants just choose whatever they need to to justify that" but ... i dunno I feel like they have to lie to themselves oftentimes.
This may not be what you were asking, but from my understanding the birth of capitalism was birthed in part from the land enclosures enactment, where during feudal times common land was taken from peasants, and thus started the need for people to work to repay the debts on staying on the land, this wasn't given in consent from the majority of people, only decided by those already in power such as the lord's and kings of areas. I could be wrong however
The entire point in democratic societies (such as anarchism; Chomsky is an anarchist) is to foster and maintain a culture in which people's core value is to constantly question the legitimacy of institutions of power and maximize liberty for all unconditionally, which necessarily means minimizing the extent to which a minority (of whatever form) is a minority. Part of this is that a big part of anarchism is the freedom of association: nobody forces you to belong to a community that does not want you. If there is a group of people that is (as an example) 70% Group A and 30% Group B and the group operates on a simple majority (which is not the only mechanism democracies use, but I'm guessing it's what you're assuming), then Group B might never have their collective will represented. If that were the case, they are free to not be a part of the larger group and live independently. The more realistic resolution, though, is that conflicts like this result in open discussion about the needs of various people and what matters to them, often resulting in some sort of compromise.
The need for the welfare state exists because the socio-political arrangements and institutions under which we in the U.S. live have been structured to secure and protect rentier privilege. Henry George provided the best solution: socialize rents and leave legitimate private property untaxed.
@@pygmalion8952 As Henry George argued, the public collection of the rent of land is not taxation but a charge based on benefits received (or advantages provided by nature and by society). British author Fred Harrison has written extensively from a perspective gained by the study of Henry George's works. His latest book, "#WeAreRent" examines how our prehistoric ancestors developed cooperative relations that advanced human accomplishment and how this level of cooperation was subverted by private property in land. Well worth the read.
@@nthperson what do you think of ebenezer Howard's green cities? I think they have so much potential to participatory citizenship. Howard's cities requires some form of collective democratic ownership. In order to function.
@@pygmalion8952 I am supportive of community planning, so long as the entire community participates in the process. I would like to see the land in all communities held in common, leased to the highest bidder and the ground rents used to pay for needed and desired public goods and services (including parks and open space).
@@pygmalion8952 Hong Kong as a British colony held the land in the name of the colony, leasing it to private interests. The ground rents paid almost all of the colony's expenses and continue to do so even now. Australia's capital city, Canberra, was set up as a land trust city, but the system was gradually undermined by the failure to increase ground rent charges as land values increased. In Pennsylvania, there are about 25 towns, boroughs and several school districts that tax the value of land at a rate some multiple that applied to property improvements. One or two do not tax buildings at all. The capital, Harrisburg, taxes land at a rate six times higher than on buildings. There are other examples scattered around the globe.
Deal with this: No ownership -> no exchange -> no prices -> no economic calculation -> production decisions have to be made in the dark -> basic needs go unmet.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 think about a webstore, where you go and ask for everything you would need and want. Okay now if everyone did the same you would now know what people needed and could calculate what can (and cannot) be produced and how to distribute it. Your logic forgets that we have pretty powerful computers now.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 also, the calculation of production based on prices and profit, because the distribution of income is harshly unequal (because of unequal capital ownership), is the reason why capitalism is failing to provide the basic needs of a considerable portion of the population.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 the capitalist way of economic calculation is often regarded as a form of democracy where you "vote with your money". Which is actually correct and it's the reason it works. The issue with it though is that the voting power of the population is extremely unequal. Instead of "voting with money" we could still use a democratic method of economic calculation (such as the market) that would be less unequal. For example. An actual meritocratic system where you get coins for work done. No one in particular owns the means of production: it is socialized. The workers themselves own and manage the means of production. The government is organised from the bottom up and a confederation of democratic unions (trading unions and worker cooperatives). You earn money by actually doing work and you can't profit over the ownership of capital. The workers decide democratically what to do with the profits of capital. Then you buy stuff as you would on the market; "voting" for what gets produced in the future. Market socialism 🤯
It’s pretty easy Noam. Labor is personal time and effort spent/traded to create a good or provide a service. Labor is compensated monetarily, monetary rewards are used to purchase property, you have a right to the fruits of your labor because it’s your time/life spent obtaining it.
Ah yes, Jeff Bezos, who's labor (signing papers, owning things, and doing/buying whatever he wants) is worth over 300million dollars a day. Brilliant argument. Sounds alot like Marx's Labor theory of value, but described by a 4 year old.
Chomsky is always on point. But what he calls classical "liberalism" wasn´t. It was classical Republicanism . Liberalism was the capitalist reaction to the French Revolution, as Socialism (in a wide sense: Anarchism, Socialism, etc) was the popular, emancipatory reaction to the new challenges of 19th Century Capitalism, inheriting the Republican Democratic tradition. And the common ground of oligarchic Republicanism (Right) and Democratic Republicanism (Left) was not "Liberalism". It was Republicanism. I think its an American bias. And it´s not just a semantic issue. It´s a serious flaw and a mistake, very much like when bolsheviks called parliamentary countries assaulting the young Soviet Republic "Bourgeois Democracies" when they were not democratic at all and they had been fighting democrats and their demands for decades.
not by on any kind of personal capability but by on an illegitimate means of corrupted beyond reconcyliation disfunctionate transaction that can just be senslessly spammed and with surface level degeneracy oriented / in illusion of living off of opperative premises of corruption and illusions of and through mass manipulation are funding blind belief in behind closed doors out of lazyness from fear of there own incompetnace as oipperative basis behind them basically carrying them with no physically measurable accont for personal capabilities nor judging them and so out of technical inknowledgability there just like eh well just go with this vague broad unclear loosely defined
As a species absolutely. We're just stuck in a system that has convinced us that centralized consolidated wealth amongst an elite few is normal and sane, and that distributing wealth and resources in a sane manner to assist and benefit all mankind is somehow wrong and unjust. We think that because the same people who benefit in our current system, are also the ones who make all the rules and write the narratives. They obviously wouldn't be advocating for a wealth ceiling cap, or that no individual should be entitled to have so much money they couldn't spend in several life times when there are still people dying from lack of basic necessities. There is enough technology, wealth and resources in planet earth to quite easily feed everyone. The system we live in simply chooses and demands not to. Mining metal for a Toyota or Porsche, or fabricating bullets and weapons or making cheap plastic toys is just more "profitable" in our psychopathic civilization.
Is the common belief here that autocracy is inherently hostile? Because I don't believe that to necessarily be the case. Most institutional endeavors DID start out as being owned/ran democratically. (Think Apple) But then they democratically opted to delegate so they could specialize. People would rather appoint and delegate the responsibility of making every minute detail to a few, so that the majority could all go home and be with their families/have a life, rather than have to spend every spare waking hour in meetings debating what decisions to make. So to me, autocracy would seem like the natural evolution of democracy.
Just one minor disagreement with Chomsky here: he says our own society was based on reducing democracy as opposed to reducing poverty, but I believe it has done both. State Capitalism has created the middle class: with enough purchase power and social status to not feel grossly disempowered, yet simultaneously motivated to climb the social ladder to attain more wealth (and further entrench their roles as wage-slaves).
DionysusEleutherios you’re right but the creation of a large middle class is looking like an anomaly produced by the Great Depression, the New Deal, and WW2. As globalization and automation pick up pace, cost of life increases and wages decline, deregulation and austerity continue to guide governments, the middle class is being squeezed
State Capitalism did not create or strengthen the middle class- unions and social democratic reforms did. As those two things have been eroded, the middle class has shrank in direct correlation.
Ben Hull He’s basically describing what Aristotle said on Democracy, and how Aristotle prescribed what is equivalent to welfare to take care of severe inequality/poverty, to ensure protection of the elites/wealthy in a truly, fully democratic society. He doesn’t go into the methods, systems, or structures that Aristotle prescribed to do so, but I’m sure that’s readily available online, or at a local library (though I’m not 100% sure which of his texts this discussion appears in, it shouldn’t be too difficult to find on google). He also described how, unlike Aristotle, Madison’s solution to this “problem” (as Chomsky said, whether or not one considers it a problem is a separate question) was to lessen democracy in stead of lessening poverty/inequality... Granted, one has to bear in mind that there’s around 2000 years between Aristotle writing on these things, and 18th century liberalism sort of “rediscovering” and “reappraising” much of what he said, but Chomsky isn’t really explicitly making value judgements on that (not that he needs to), or going into the historical context of any discrepancies; he’s just explaining that one important philosopher/historical figure decided that one way is better or more appropriate than the other. Anyway, I answered you like this bc I wasn’t sure if your question was referring to Chomsky or Madison, and I thought it could just be a misunderstanding of Chomsky’s point. That’s said, I could easily be the one misunderstanding, so if this comment is of no help whatsoever, I apologize for wasting our time! ✌️
Ben Hull Sure no problem. So might I ask, where you asking if Chomsky thought a welfare state would ensure a good life for the poor, or if that was Aristotle’s thoughts? In my original reply I wasn’t sure what the nature of your inquiry really was, thus my going into detail about the point Chomsky was making. It’s good of you to reply, but it didn’t clear up my confusion over your question. In fact, it just made it seem like you knew what he meant all along, so it made me even more confused tbh 😅
He's intelligent enough to understand Aristotle and his rather greatly complex thoughts on democracy, but regards the market simply as a "concentrator of wealth and power" and "harmful to the vast majority". I think that this notion of the market is wrong. Mises got it right.
YEah Chomsky seems to really drop the ball on property rights here. At once brilliant, but also ideological. I take the great insights from him whilst feeling sad that he has his own suspect agenda. For you: ua-cam.com/video/AQmMe2IeGPU/v-deo.html Hans Herman Hoppe, sort of just mops the floor with Chomsky's presuppositions.
@@alexanderetges4342 Mises, what a joke .. . "It cannot be denied that fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions, and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." . --------Ludwig von Mises, Neo-Liberalism, 1927 Von Mises, the founder and patron saint of neo-liberal economics, is praising Austria's "sound economics" and attendant destruction of social democracy and unions. He continues to be a hero for followers of the "Austrian school" of capitalist economics, i.e. tooth-fairy "free market" delusion.
Yeah, I'm sure it was only jealousy that made people want to abolish slavery. After all, people were just jealous they couldn't own slaves themselves. You've solved it!
Property rights: The right to keep what others own, protected by state legislative fiat, under the guise of law, from the efforts of the productive to acquire it via occupancy and use.
@@Hooga89 Lol, your body is your property because, you know, it's you. Slavery violates property rights (I know, almost a year later, not trying to start a debate, just tell me if I'm wrong in saying that my body is mine).
@@apollyon2018 It doesn't matter what you believe inside your skull because prior to 1865 the state itself considered certain people to be slaves and thus property.
+Tom Lahr In this case though, they're only superior due to wealth. At least for the time being, the elite are *not* yet a technocratic or intellectually gifted bunch. Many of them have gained wealth through rent-seeking activities and speculation, or simply through inheritance. And beyond an amount, money more or less makes money.
Chomsky makes an error when he contrasts the right of "freedom of speech" and the right "to own property." While it's true that one's ownership of an item precludes its ownership by another, hence is exclusionary, freedom of speech, or of the press or of movement suffer much of the same problem. My speaking may not entirely preclude you from speaking, but it may very well preclude you being heard --- this is much worse at some manner of forum, public or private. There, one's freedom to speak before the crowd is controlled. By whom? The owner or organizer of the forum. Freedom of the press is even more clear. Freedom of the press doesn't mean that you will be provided a press for free ... it means that you are free to buy or rent a press to print what you like. Even if presses were provided by the government, their use would still have to be rationed in one way or other. Freedom of movement is also obvious. If I am occupying a particular point in space-time, clearly you cannot occupy the same point. And from my point of view, you have no right to move me ... unless you own the ground I stand on. In the final analysis, all other so called "rights" depend on property ... there *is* no "right" except the right to own property. This simplifies all theory of rights considerably.
The property rights are bound to the specific property, which is always unique property. You can not have the same property twice, thus two persons can not exercise the same property rights. In contacts, right to free speech, press etc. can be exercised reasonably equally, via physical or electronic media. The main difference is between rights to control and use something versus rights to do something.
I don't think he serves America, he's against almost everything modern America stands for. He's said that every single president since ww2 is responsible for war crimes.
Uh.... loyalty to a nation is not genetic. Some of the fiercest opponents/critics of the State of Israel are American Jews. In contrast, the biggest supporters of Israel are American evangelicals.
Very nazi-esque take. Why is that suprising? The biggest critics of Israel's atrocities are anti-zionist Jews. You need to do some research on Zionism and the beginnings of the occupation of Palestine. It's not Jews vs. the world, that's Nazi propaganda that is apparently still effective...
@@kyled1673 who knows.. " sudo (/ˈsuːduː/[4] or /ˈsuːdoʊ/ command for Unix-like systems that allows users to run programs with the security privileges of another user, by default the superuser. It originally stood for "superuser do" a sudo-intellectual ! :D
This of course ignores the reality that in fact it is the poor who suffer most when property rights are trampled upon. When land is confiscated by imminent domain laws from a property owner who rents out to the poorest, the land owner suffers sure, but those poor individuals suffer more as they might not be able to find another place to live.
In that example, yes. What about in countries like Austria when property controlled by the state has affordable and high quality housing built on it to house the poor and benefit the society as a whole? Context matters.
@@itcouldbelupus2842 What about it? The outlier proves the rule, the outlier isn't the rule. I'm totally fine with the US government using land they already own to build the housing you are talking about. I am not fine with them using imminent domain to buy someone's property on the cheap.
@@davidalvarez7262 There are about 50 million dead in China and the USSR that would probably have lived if private property rights had not be replaced by collectivization.
@@christopherglenn5599 That's false. Both Russia and China have been impoverished and then battered by war. In both of those famines were a regular thing, people died in their millions every year. You have to take into account the total population of each, as well. The Russian empire had somewhere around 200+ million people, China had 700. Yes, there were large famines which naturally come with industrialization, specifically of agriculture. The Chinese also screwed up big time with their extermination of sparrows, which brought about the proliferation of locusts and other crop devouring pests (so a big oopsie based on a false premise with disastrous consequences and an exorbitant death toll). Every country went through a period of that while industrializing. Britain had an empire to feed it so her populace (at least on the island) did not starve, but that meant its colonies had to starve (especially Ireland, India, Africa, and China), where food was being taken to be given to the imperial core. And yet those were the last famines each of those two socialist countries experienced. And they didn't need to starve the third world to achieve it.
2:30 Mr. Chomsky is an ideological prisoner of his doctrine of "popular longing for equal distribution". In practice, average people hardly think or obsess about "inequality". Popular preoccupation is by far about "the standard of living". Chomsky completely obfuscates the factor of "personal wealth and freedom of choice". That is why societies with large "middle class" are so successful. There is poverty everywhere, but it is mostly by choice, not some conspiracy of oppression by "power and corporations" - the idea of which is a rea "limit" in Chomsky's thesis.
Chomsky demonstrates an incredible (and probably misplaced) faith in the general population. Most people have no real interest in politics or economics so it is unreasonable to expect them to participate in a democracy I agree with his description of the problem but not his solution.
*Most people have no real interest in politics or economics so it is unreasonable to expect them to participate in a democracy* Most people have never had any real opportunity to participate in any such thing. Most people's apathy is defined by the fact that the system is not in their hands, that they cannot control it and that they see how major attempts to do so are mostly failures. People participate in their own lives don't they? Well if democracy became part of your life, became as much a part of your day to day life as visiting your children's teachers and interacting with the school administration or working with your coworkers and all that then why wouldn't they participate? The fear of democracy was never that people wouldn't participate in it. The fear and danger was that people would.
A well presented point but not one that I agree with for 3 reasons; (1) I think it is disingenuous to say that most people would be actively engaged with democratic institutions. If they were no forced to engage, I doubt that many would avail themselves of the opportunity. If they were forced, many would do so perfunctorily. (2) I think that governance and statecraft require specialised understanding and skills. Not something that the broader population has in the capacity for. I do not want to dictate policy to my government for the same reason that I do not dictate what medicines I should take to my doctor. In a democracy, complex political realities are reduced to buzzwords and slogans to capture popular opinion. I think this is very dangerous. As a consequence of which, people find themselves voting for what sounds good rather than what IS good. Short term goals and objectives are privileged at the expense of long term goals, which is no way to run a society. (3) An effective democracy constrains the policy options of governments. They may no longer take necessary actions if they cannot first be reconciled with (an often whimsical) public opinion. If I am not mistaken, Hans Morgenthau talked about this concept in terms of diplomacy. He lamented the fact that Western diplomats on the world stage lacked maneuverability on important issues because they were worried about how they would be misconstrued at home.
The account *I think it is disingenuous to say that most people would be actively engaged with democratic institutions. If they were no forced to engage, I doubt that many would avail themselves of the opportunity.* Why? You offer no argument. My argument was that the mode of participation would be fundamentally different and people would be more willing to participate. Local municipal politics are always much more active with people because you can have a real effect. Every day you can find an example of how people have influenced the direction of their local area through interacting with this local democratic institution. They participate because they have a vested interest in the specific policies that are local and everyone knows you can, despite the idiom, actually fight city hall now and then. All that comes with a not particularly democratic institution of municipal politics. Properly democratic beyond disenfranchising representation would be much more effective and therefore less alienating. *I do not want to dictate policy to my government for the same reason that I do not dictate what medicines I should take to my doctor.* I see that as profoundly misguided. Doctors are habitually incorrect and many simply overprescribe or overdiagnose illnesses while underdiagnosing others. Patients who merely go with the flow are actually at greater risk than those who inform themselves and speak on their own behalf. Afterall its your body. You know more than the doctor does about it so when he's wrong you can be better ina position to question him. The culture of not questioning doctors is part of our twisted culture of not questioning authority figures. Also the idea that people don't know whats good for them or can't participate in policy decision making is nonsense. You don't have to be the one who crafts the policy to give input, to directly involve yourself is expressing needs or dissatisfaction with outcomes from certain policies. That's what representative democracy is supposed to be about anyway, the people bending the ear of the one who does form the policy. Instead we've had it taught to us that we're not supposed to meddle in the work of those who know better than we do. *In a democracy, complex political realities are reduced to buzzwords and slogans to capture popular opinion.* In great part because of the nature of how our democracies work. You cannot take the current reality for being exactly the nature of an alternate one. Afterall juries are made up of the same people you're talking about and they are far more reliable in that context than elections. That's because we give people responsibility, whereas modern democracy is all about telling us we have none, that its not ours to have, and we have to pick someone else to tell us what to do. *Short term goals and objectives are privileged at the expense of long term goals, which is no way to run a society.* And yet thats what we get now with poor democracy run by people who malign the interests of the many much of the time. I don't see where you get this. *An effective democracy constrains the policy options of governments.* Yes, for good reason. The people do not want to do what the government wants it to do. That's not irrational. Not wanting to be a military interventionist culture is not irrational. It is after all the people who pay in blood, not the leaders making those choices. If people had been able to stop the 2003 invasion of Iraq think of how many lives could be saved. Instead a very small cadre of extremists got to make the call, and so the world tumbled into chaos. I think the people in charge are more dangerous than what the people would want if left to decide themselves much of the time.
Your first two points make sense but I am actually arguing my points in the context of national or transnational policy (forgive me as I should have made that clearer). Yes, there can be a degree of meaningful input at the local level but not when these problems start to affect mass populations. People are too removed from the subject in hand or there are too many different preferences vying for representation that it is impossible to accommodate all of them. This is why a society confers responsibilities onto a governing institution to reconcile the many disparate opinions in a society. With these responsibilities come asymmetric information. Perhaps you are familiar with principal-agent theory(?) Well this effectively characterises my opinion on the matter. Citizens are not privy to all the facts, governments are. I do not see how a different model could exist. *You cannot take the current reality for being exactly the nature of an alternate one.* Well then we are in the business of debating a hypothetical situation and it would be very difficult to do so conclusively. I’m not an idiot who is advocating blind deference to authority. I understand the risks that such a system would entail and this is why I advocate a strict system of checks on government authority. That said, the reality is that citizens are not clamouring for political participation and few really care about these issues. Whether that is a part of human nature or comes from the mundanity of everyday life I do not know. But I do recognise this to be the majority. Also, I trust from your Iraq example that you are American or British, well both the recent Brexit campaign and US presidential election showcase the problem with democracy. Both campaigns descended into farce with important issues being obfuscated by sensationalism and slogan. No doubt you will blame this on the powers that be, however, the people need to take some responsibility as well. You get the politicians you deserve. *Yes, for good reason. The people do not want to do what the government wants it to do. That's not irrational. Not wanting to be a military interventionist culture is not irrational.* I don't care to disagree with you here. But that is not the point. It is not always possible to govern innocently. International politics is anarchic and, put simply, one can find themselves compelled to do bad to do good. This is not the case in day to day life and few citizens can understand this reality. It takes a special type of moral fortitude to do well in politics. Politicians of this type are few and far between in the modern context. But this is also the fault of the people, who would prefer to elect an charismatic man with a nice smile rather than a man of moral conviction. I am dealing with empirical reality here, you are talking about fantasy.
S Tillman another of his videos disputes this claim. Apparently, in the 1820s, workers were far better educated than today, and created their own publications, many run by women. Chomskys claim, which I haven't verified, is that this urge to educate oneself and one's kids has been supplanted through years of constant propaganda, in the form of advertising and other media. He wrote the book on this (literally, he wrote Manufacturing Consent with Hermann en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent?wprov=sfla1)
Everyone involved in enterprise takes on risk, from the owner(s) to the lowest laborer. The difference is that our society has protections in place for owners who lose on a bet, whereas we have very few support systems in place for the workers. There's also the fact that an owner is "risking" becoming a worker if they go under, whereas the workers are potentially out of health insurance, food, shelter, and other basic necessities. Labor fears starvation; owners fear becoming part of the laboring class they once commanded. In addition, it could be said that slaveowners took on risk when they purchased and housed slaves. Does that justify the institution of slavery? Maybe so if you're an "anarcho"-capitalist or someone who enjoys giving boots a new spit-shine. Not so much if you recognize the concept of coercion.
@@SouthCom1917 None of that is even close to a guy who sinks in every penny that he has into an enterprise. The owner can be out of all of those necessities too if the business fails. You talk as if all owners are rich and only using risk capital - that is extremely rare. I should know - I owned a business and my ass was on the line 100%. No biz, no health insurance, food, shelter, etc. etc. Try it yourself sometime.
@@TheLoyalOfficer That's neither here nor there. Laborers sink their time and, in many cases, their wellbeing and personal health into their work. Are those not a form of risk or liability assumed by the workers, or are they somehow less important than investing capital to you? We also engage in risk all the time in our personal lives. Why should capital risk take primacy over those other forms of risk? What makes capital investment more legitimate as an argument for total ownership of enterprise than any other form of risk? The fact that some say it should be that way? Plenty of slave owners were small plantation owners or owned slaves for light commercial use. Were they justified in owning those slaves because they accepted initial risk? Of course not. Not too interested in your anecdotes.
@@SouthCom1917 LOL! Small biz owners = slave owners... Ah... spoken like a true leftist. Nice try. What's next, you calling me a racist or sexist? Again, you are not looking at DEGREES of risk. Losing a job is a pain in the ass, but you can get another one. Losing a business is almost always devastating for the owner.
ahh bollocks.. No one has the right to property, they have the right to own property. I have no right to my neighbours sports car but I the right to own one if I am able to. Sure the right to property is very different from the rest of the rights but the right to own is not....
Nice straw man, and you are unwittingly talking about what Chomsky is talking about though you think he is talking about something different. Chomsky is pointing out that if people own property their 'property right' is to do what they want with that property, even if that means it will effect you. So for instance if someone buys the land and whatever water supplies on it and in it, then they can keep others from having water there by claiming it is their property. Now depending on the situation, this can be devastating, especially in places have little water, or in areas where other natural water sources are property of the same or other individuals. This is not like the old west where people were going to places mostly unused. With the amount of people we have, there is only so much land to go around. Also if someone owns land, they are under the dominion of whoever controls the land they live on. You would have the very rich buying huge amounts of land and the very poor with little or none. Since it is not publically shared, unless the poor got lucky to be on the land of a beneficent land owner, they are doomed, or would be forced to take the land themselves in order to use the resources. So the idea of property for Dictators, Kings, Lords, and Capitalists is that if you use land that they own, you will either submit to them or you will pay.
Corporations are not autocracies, they are subject to and regulated by the laws of the jurisdictions in which they conduct business. Their internal governance is determined by a board of directors, who are elected by shareholders. Is this system perfectly democratic? No. But it's a major stretch to say that corporations are akin to private governments that are unelected, unaccountable, and not subject to any external constraints.
xxcrysad3000xx In one key way shareholders (in effect the corporation) do have reduced constraints thanks to limited liability. That is, they're gifted with an unbalanced risk/reward ratio. Hypothetically unlimited reward, limited risk.
Corporations are run autocratically, as is the state - although strictly speaking 'representative' democratic states allow electing leaders on policy 'promises' that are not legally binding.
xxcrysad3000xx the analogy is exact. Corporations are only subject to external forces, and those forces they have imposed on themselves. An autocrat can kill any of his subjects. A corporation can fire any employee. There are almost NO conditions on this. A manager can fire any employee for any reason, except various forms of discrimination. That prohibition, like the prohibition states place on other states for things like ethnic clensing, are imposed by outside the corporation. Corporations are NOT democracies. They are autocracies, or at best oligarcies.
Well, yhere is one problem here. Those that plan, invest, and risk, which is to build should have a greater stake in their efforts than typically the average laborer, that is, if the laborer wants his/her opportunity to earn a living. But as to a balance that involves first knowing the environment in which one lives, which involves basic honest macroeconomics. That is not happening, and academics seem useless in this regard--as well as the media. To any problem of values they need prioritizing according to there significance. Economics seems like a legal system that can't prioritize which comes first: shoplifting or mass murder. In 25byears,the federal government spent the equivalent of nearly 10 years worth of total IRS Adjusted Gross Income (Individual, Corporate, Social Security payments, Inheritance, etc) unaccountable off-budget. This isn't rocket science.
Everyone should earn 100% of the value they produce. If someone buys a bunch of machinery, hires 5 workers to work along side them, and then that person works harder, they should earn more. If someone buys a bunch of machinery, hires 5 workers and then sits at home they should be entitled to 0 profit.
@GlassesAndCoffeeMugs Naah. They had to go through the trouble of convincing the financial powers that the extended loan was worth the value extended, and they are on the hook for repayment plus interest. Capital and labor both have an interest in ventures. As to the latter, I think profit sharing and the right to invest in, if not outrightly own, a business by workers is empowering as well as works towards a better economic venture for all involved.
@@user-lr2ib1cv4d Getting a loan isn't a strenuous or arduous task. People get loans every day. Doesn't entitle you to profit generated by somebody else physically working. In the context of a worker cooperative, if the workers democratically decide that someone should get a larger share of profits, for example because they provided some of the machinery, I'd have 0 problem with that
1:30 Aristotle said in order to prevent the majority from taking away property of the rich, either eliminate poverty or eliminate democracy
Oh boy
They've eliminated Democracy and maintained the illusion of Democracy.
I vote eliminate poverty. Oh wait, this isn't a democracy.
That's either/or thinking from Aristotle. That kind of thinking still prevents the most basic humanitarianism.
2:49 James Madison said primary goal of gov is to protect the rich ("opulent minority") from the majority
Constitutional convention/debates are very informative. I'd recommend studying it further, quite revealing of our current system.
Adam Smith said that government protection of property is protection of the Rich from the poor.
Yes exactly! That’s what the entire system is about... and people just don’t get it... they complain and complain about the system, wanting change... but it’s not designed for the people’s needs... that’s why America is shit! Idk why anyone goes along with it...
"The wants of the many cannot supercede the rights of the few" is another way of saying it.
Hi Matt
Let me get this straight. The employees pay taxes to the government which in turn gives them out as subsidies to the employer. The employees therefore are effectively paying shareholders to work, often for subsistence wages..
Did I miss something? Does this arrangement between producers and profiteers have a name?
Remove the state gradually then. Doesn't invalidate property.
Kapitalism.
Guys, you agree with anarcho-capitalists.
In relevance to removing the state sure, but the anarcho-capitalists (an oxymoron anyway) dont agree with us regarding either the cause of the problem or have an effective means to address it.
Its like fending off a wolf with one hand whilst feeding it with the other. Its not even a simple mistake, its fundamentally incongruous with itself.
@@CG0077 1. Anarcho-capitalism is not self-contradictory, but is consistent.
2. They actually do have a solution. All initiation of force is wrong.
3. Opposition to property rights is wrong.
2:00 James Madison wanted to eliminate democracy. Was against agrarian justice.
he told the unpopular truth at risk to himself knowing it was the greater good. what a hero. mob rule doesnt work. without stability we can only live for today. tomorrow a jealous mob will take it away. no investment; no saving for winter. just blow it all. with great popular support we can amend the constitution. the tools are there to create our world, if you convince us.
Public pays for the development and risk and corporations take the profits. An example is the drug HIV drug Truvada which was developed with the help of public research institutions and costs less than 10 for a monthly dose. It is patented by Gilead and they charge 2000 a month for it.
That’s an absolute sin....how can we let that happen? Shame
It’s called a patent monopoly. Economist Dean Baker talks extensively about.
And covid vaccines.
big government picking winners; corporate subsidies; crony capitalism.
I love this because my favourite work was changing land use law. When I could. It is difficult to change. Economic forces are more powerful than democracy, in most cases. This is as true of our local land use decisions as our warlike tendencies.
I totally agree with you on the power of economic forces. To me, this suggests the way forward for change on the profit motive front.
@@projectmalus This will appeal to many people who are getting the short end of our economy. Given human nature, doing it in a way that stays done will always be a struggle though.
@@coreycox2345 The profit going out of a community is the easiest thing to change. We have assigned value to money and that's what we have to work with. The other major problem is in restricting group size, since power dynamics can ruin things when stockpiling and irresponsibility are present. People become grabbers and the system of living is something that one games.
So I came up with the idea of a corporate structure for limiting group size and for legal protection, in a village.
Combine this with a lower cost and higher quality of life - a better product for less cost - and have a system that takes the profit part and directs it to buying land and setting it up for the people without.
Have an open source template that allows space for wild Nature to exist.
The problem is the same one as always. The people who would promote their own interests and gather together with no restrictions. The thing is, they have to pay that living fee and if the template is followed, then the next village will open up a new space while keeping a friendly group size.
It wouldn't be ingrown because of the internet.
Another major element is avoiding ideology as a focus for the group. Having an economic focus with DIY is the way!
I'm serious about doing this. I've thought about it for about 4 or 5 years. The place I'm in would be suitable for a start except two things, the uncertain nature of a development in a property upwind (but not uphill :) and the fearsome bugs this year especially. Yikes!
Would love to hear your opinion, don't worry about hurting my feelings.
Resource based economy for a better future!
Link
What do u mean by resource
I want a report on this guy Aristotle! Put him on the no-fly list!
Fantastic
Excelent, excelent, excelent!
We should have voted 🗳 in Aristotle as President.
That guy makes total sense; AND he does a mean gyros 🥙. He runs the souvlaki joint at the corner of Third and Lexington...
Yea, but he wanted a socialist state, which is an automatic fail...
Ah yes, he wanted a socialist state 2000+ years before the notion of a socialist state even existed, interesting! 😂
PS: if this was meant as sarcasm, or is some meme my millenoomer/boomenial brain cannot recognize, then excuse me for taking you seriously/literally. ❤️🏴♾
Mojo Jojo - He in fact argued for both. Aristotle was one complicated dude - the ancient one from Stageira, not my uncle from Delphi who runs the souvlaki grill: he’s just plain crazy.
Nikola Demitri - As I say above, Aristotle was one complicated dude... Χαίρετε, από τους Δελφούς!
Actually, he's the true American.
No, he's an un-American Commie bastard.
Steve Arizona IMAGINE CALLING CHOMSKY A COMMIE LMFAO
@@stevearizona521 did you just call Chomsky a commie? You’re mad stupid
@@johnhire6086 Well Chomsky certainly is in favor of a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. He does believe in Communism. But then it becomes a matter of what practical steps humanity should take to reach communism, and that's where some leftists stray from him. He can't be just another liberal when he's on the record numerous times talking about the need to abolish the state and capitalism.
@@oomenacka I normally hear “commie” and take it as ML, even though Chomsky has repeatedly stated his disdain with the previous socialist countries.
Where's "Noam Chomsky - Property Rights II"?
There should be no autocratic structures.
business is my favorite form of organization. its voluntary (for transactors, not third parties). transactors are better off if they choose wisely. sole proprietorship (autocratic) is no bs. no red tape slowing down action. abusive behavior is readily eliminated - abusive ownership is out competed and eliminated, or at least set back. companies with good leadership and fairness will prevail, unless their competitors are friends with regulators. employees make countable monetary profit (at opportunity cost), and can walk away anytime. employers have a challenging predicament and get backstabbed, robbed and vandalized easily. but no one likes megacorporations; they seem to be a product of system and our choices. economics is extension of ecology and it can be cruel. im learning about horizontal organization but you still need someone to appeal to in disputes.
The Greek intellectuals had a more sober view of politics than the early Americans. Our founders were too abstract in their thinking.
American founders were abstracts because the people who wrote "all men are created equal" owned slaves.
Pradeep Singh cry harder baby
@@PradeepSingh-mv9ie Exempt Thomas Paine, who called them out for it. I also think the Adams cousins didn't own slaves.
@@IncredulousIndividual :: Well ... that was a great counter-argument !
@@cliffgaither thank you.
What just philosophical or moral basis could possibly exist to support the fact that in nearly all the world, private individuals have no right to private property or wealth (i.e. you may hold but cannot truly posses land or wealth)? All property/wealth is owned and controlled by governments, which are ultimately controlled by elite classes. A permission or a grant is not the same as an inalienable or natural right. A permission can be rescinded. What just philosophical or moral basis could possibly exist to support the concept that only elites own the rights to the world's resources (i.e. oil, minerals, creatures of the sea, etc)? A wage may be proper compensation for the effort of harvesting or processing the resources, but the value of the raw resources themselves would be equally shared in a just world.
Let's distinguish between private and personal property. You are on an anarchist video, after all :)
What’s a shame this talk gets 1.7 thousand views and some cat video gets over a million.
counterpoint: Cats are very cute
Have you considered that we live in a society
Cats have done infinitely more for the benefit of mankind than this certified asshole.
@@llaurita2 like what?
Cats are cute.
What major study on transnationals is he referring to?
Did you ever find the answer to this question? I'm curious as well.
@@Dessam1221 no :(
@@GazaFloatilla ill let you know if I'm able to find out!
@@GazaFloatilla the logic of international restructuring by Ruigrok and Tulder 🙂
@@Dessam1221 wow amazing thanks so much
Protect your brother because mindsets change often. however, the requirements to live do not! 💗 love your neighbor and plant something edible. If you are alive, you have a word and a chance. Don't give up your mind or your stance! Good bless us all!
Noam Chomsky on Property Rights
Published on 11 Oct 2014
Chomsky on property rights, equality and democracy.
Category
Education
APR 18, 2016
Read, Bataille, the Accursed Share, and ponder risk taking.
No mention of John Locke....?
Chomsky should have debated friedman. Itd have been carnage.
We all know whod have been knocked out...
+Jimmy Joe noam
Friedman refused to answer questions about wealth inequality from some rich kid that was dabbling in documentaries. If he was that frightened of the neighborhood kid, you would of had to hold him hostage to get em on stage with Chomsky. lol.
If by refused to answer you mean didn't agree with you about it being a problem, you're right. But to take that stance on that exchange, you either missed the point or ignored the support to confirm your own bias.
"Wealth inequality" is a pretty hot phrase right now, so I don't blame you for repeating it without understanding it. We can discuss it if you'd like, but I am sure all I would get is a litany of statistics without any real explanation as to why they matter. Most people that throw that phrase around subscribe to the "fixed pie fallacy" of economics. You might do yourself a favor and look that up.
Oh no! Someone is triggered. ;-P
Shhh... shhh... It's alright. Don't worry. Selfishness is a legit virtue, not an oxymoron. Milton was right now put your faith in the free markets and everything will magically be ok.
Wow this is nuts
Welfare is fair wealth. Farewell my beloved!
How come I wasnt around when they were deciding who owns the cobalt mines and river crossings and glue factories? Did I just oversleep that day?
You probably needed to be buddy buddy with people in positions of power.
The origins of our economy are largely nepotism
OK, this is what I listen to Chomsky for. His historical understanding, and his honesty and clarity about it is second to none. I learn a lot by listening to stuff like this.
HOWEVER, he presents this like Madison, who wanted to protect the opulent minority, whatever that means, from the majority is not such a bad, or ridiculous, or patently evil idea ... provided that the opulent minority, or whatever is transparent and clear about their intent and does the right thing vis-a-vis the minority, like the philosopher king idea.
Now, America should be about debating and determining what is the relationship and tension between the classes, what is right and fair and what is not. Clearly we have lost the democratic, and even the representative democratic component in our country now, and with the technology and military power, as well as the ability to hide and be anonymous, we have leaders that have no intention of living up to their responsibilities to our citizens. or at least talking about.
The problem is if you talk about it it just creates panic, so what happens over time is that journalism shuts down, debate shuts down, democracy shuts down. Look at our elections now ... they are a joke, and even at the local level the more corporate and rich a given location is the less democratic it becomes. Local areas are being taken over by money precinct by precinct.
The difference between now and in the past is the power of technology, in weapons, surveillance and economics, none of it exists for the average people any more, even while the entertainment media has pandered to citizens making them feel important and like they are listened to.
Can the people possible stand up to what this has evolved into, and where is the weak point in our system now. The only real weak point is the vulnerability of citizens like we have seen in France, but if the government does not care about citizens they just make a show and herd everyone in whatever direction they want us to go - and who is to say they are wrong as long as the world is driven and based on war?
Lets not pretend that Rome was somehow this society of free men who went on a cascade of invasions that corrupted their balanced society. They were always conquerors and in the early days of Rome when it was still confined to only part of the Iberian peninsula it had subjects who were not free Romans. Rome conquered its rivals to protect itself, and where have we heard that justification before.
I think you grossly misread history through your own prism. Rome was never a democratic society. It always had a massive underclass and it expanded far enough that this slim slim ruling class which is not comparable in any way to the people you're relating them to in our societies couldn't maintain its primacy.
Comparing the Roman citizens on the tax roll to people on a train in every day western life is just... meaningless. Its a nice little story but it doesn't bear any relation to our reality and that's the danger of applying our values and view to historical context like that.
justgivemethetruth Yes, I had a historical brain fart.
Chomsky seems to be stuck in the Charles A. Beard paradigm of American history, where the framer's original intention was to create a government that would secure economic privileges to the few at the expense of the many. It's an interesting theory, but there is quite a lot of historical evidence that cuts the other way, and I don't think many historians subscribe to it today.
7:36 "the decision to break down the system of regulated currencies which is a policy decision made first by the Nixon administration..."
Holy shit, is he talking about the end of the gold standard?
legitimizing it as rich ppls property in first place is first problem
who is John Galt?
Noam should be on Bernie Sanders presidential cabinet
+Christine Jones "IN" the cabinet, he's not an ornament.
+Christine Jones I'd like to see Chomsky on Bernie's team. Or is it "IN" Bernie's team?
+Paul horneto horneto Actually, she was right. It's like you'd say someone is on a panel or on a board. You could say "in" too, but she wasn't wrong.
I'm not the one who incorrectly corrected someone for no reason. So reply to him with that comment, not me.
***** He's spent the last several decades in office dumbass.
4:45 _if i have the right of free speech it doesnt interfere with your right of free speech_
we cant all talk at once. yelling cancels other speech, so no one has speech. (this applies mostly to confined physical spaces.) its like how without private property rights, all the looting and defrauding cost society so much it destroys the thing fought over, or we're left with much less. as a metaphor: two govs (gangs) fighting over a city thats left in rubble. the winner owns the rubble.
mob rule is so dirty - majoritarianism. it leads to power and protection seekers joining the winning side, to destroy those who stand by their own personal integrity. of course the way you implement principled charters - bills of rights, can be done poorly. im a libertarian and i watch chomsy to learn all the arguments. hes relaxing and speaks to those who agree or disagree with him. he's not big on inflammatory comments. hes turned me on to madisonian democracy (as a term and historical note), tho its not his leaning < 3
Does anyone know the source for Aristotle's bits on perfect democracy?
Found it. It's in Aristotle's "Politics."
@@petech3975 lol
Socrates?
Aristotle for President!
Aristotle - fully participatiory democracy - welfare state to maintain postulate of solidarity - moderate but sufficient property -
Lasting prosperity by the welfare state
If we have a perfect democracy but very differences r their - state should give more democracy rather
Madison :-)) poverty nd democracy shouldn't be eliminated but rather the democracy is something which should be eliminated.
Moderate But sufficient property for everyone
they have a third option now and that's just to get rid of the poor
Would that not technically fall under "elminate poverty"?
@@Alan649 ha...I don't think so since the spirit of poverty elimination is to provide more people with more resources. It's my opinion now two years hence from my comment that the plan is to simply get rid of everyone who does not pay into the system by labor or capital. I think they call them "useless eaters". They will keep who remain to do the work and buy the useless shit they produce. Perhaps global warming and ecocide is by design so that two thirds of the population drops away...likely the most efficient way to do it. Yes, this is ghoulish, but they're ghouls...they don't think like virtuous people.
@@Alan649 No because poverty would be passed on to another class. Poverty exists to scare the class above it, so it can't be eliminated.
A Bully complaining about having a portion his Money being shared amongst the Nerds, when all of his Money and his grandfather's grandfather's Money was obtained by Bullying Nerd's for their Money... 🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦 They speak about the redistribution of wealth as if the wealth was gained by the efforts of the evil people in possession of it...
4:45
The land should belong to the people who work on it (farmers). Factories should belong to the workers...
I don't understand why "agrarian reform" with legitimate consensual legal power through the democracy is "unjust". Like I could see that argument making sense about maybe a government just taking it without consent, or a revolution taking it, and it's made a lot today, but the kind described here seems about as through the acceptable channels as can be.
I know the reason is "the ruling class justifies itself with its own power rather than meaning so the participants just choose whatever they need to to justify that" but ... i dunno I feel like they have to lie to themselves oftentimes.
This may not be what you were asking, but from my understanding the birth of capitalism was birthed in part from the land enclosures enactment, where during feudal times common land was taken from peasants, and thus started the need for people to work to repay the debts on staying on the land, this wasn't given in consent from the majority of people, only decided by those already in power such as the lord's and kings of areas. I could be wrong however
Wonder how the failure of Prop 9 jives with Chomsky's thoughts on direct democracy.
Open4991 manufacturing consent
Please someone tell me how a true direct democracy can effectively protect the rights of minorities
According to the Aristotle point, it could only if there wasn't extreme inequities between the minority and the majority.
The entire point in democratic societies (such as anarchism; Chomsky is an anarchist) is to foster and maintain a culture in which people's core value is to constantly question the legitimacy of institutions of power and maximize liberty for all unconditionally, which necessarily means minimizing the extent to which a minority (of whatever form) is a minority. Part of this is that a big part of anarchism is the freedom of association: nobody forces you to belong to a community that does not want you. If there is a group of people that is (as an example) 70% Group A and 30% Group B and the group operates on a simple majority (which is not the only mechanism democracies use, but I'm guessing it's what you're assuming), then Group B might never have their collective will represented. If that were the case, they are free to not be a part of the larger group and live independently. The more realistic resolution, though, is that conflicts like this result in open discussion about the needs of various people and what matters to them, often resulting in some sort of compromise.
@@totlyepic you can't just say we're gonna listen to each others problems and if someone doesn't like it here they can leave.
@@totlyepic anarchists don't like democracy like ours lol, they advocate for free association+ consensus from what i understand
The need for the welfare state exists because the socio-political arrangements and institutions under which we in the U.S. live have been structured to secure and protect rentier privilege. Henry George provided the best solution: socialize rents and leave legitimate private property untaxed.
@@pygmalion8952 As Henry George argued, the public collection of the rent of land is not taxation but a charge based on benefits received (or advantages provided by nature and by society). British author Fred Harrison has written extensively from a perspective gained by the study of Henry George's works. His latest book, "#WeAreRent" examines how our prehistoric ancestors developed cooperative relations that advanced human accomplishment and how this level of cooperation was subverted by private property in land. Well worth the read.
@@nthperson what do you think of ebenezer Howard's green cities? I think they have so much potential to participatory citizenship. Howard's cities requires some form of collective democratic ownership. In order to function.
@@pygmalion8952 I am supportive of community planning, so long as the entire community participates in the process. I would like to see the land in all communities held in common, leased to the highest bidder and the ground rents used to pay for needed and desired public goods and services (including parks and open space).
@@nthperson oh nice. do you know any experiment on this kind of arangement? like, democratic community planning in the modern era?
@@pygmalion8952 Hong Kong as a British colony held the land in the name of the colony, leasing it to private interests. The ground rents paid almost all of the colony's expenses and continue to do so even now. Australia's capital city, Canberra, was set up as a land trust city, but the system was gradually undermined by the failure to increase ground rent charges as land values increased. In Pennsylvania, there are about 25 towns, boroughs and several school districts that tax the value of land at a rate some multiple that applied to property improvements. One or two do not tax buildings at all. The capital, Harrisburg, taxes land at a rate six times higher than on buildings. There are other examples scattered around the globe.
If you learn about 'Resource Based Economy' (RBE), than you will find the answer Chomsky searched for! ♥️🗺️🖖🐇
why you resource basedd economy guys always use strange emojis tho? no offense.
Deal with this:
No ownership -> no exchange -> no prices -> no economic calculation -> production decisions have to be made in the dark -> basic needs go unmet.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 think about a webstore, where you go and ask for everything you would need and want. Okay now if everyone did the same you would now know what people needed and could calculate what can (and cannot) be produced and how to distribute it. Your logic forgets that we have pretty powerful computers now.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 also, the calculation of production based on prices and profit, because the distribution of income is harshly unequal (because of unequal capital ownership), is the reason why capitalism is failing to provide the basic needs of a considerable portion of the population.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 the capitalist way of economic calculation is often regarded as a form of democracy where you "vote with your money". Which is actually correct and it's the reason it works. The issue with it though is that the voting power of the population is extremely unequal. Instead of "voting with money" we could still use a democratic method of economic calculation (such as the market) that would be less unequal. For example. An actual meritocratic system where you get coins for work done. No one in particular owns the means of production: it is socialized. The workers themselves own and manage the means of production. The government is organised from the bottom up and a confederation of democratic unions (trading unions and worker cooperatives). You earn money by actually doing work and you can't profit over the ownership of capital. The workers decide democratically what to do with the profits of capital. Then you buy stuff as you would on the market; "voting" for what gets produced in the future. Market socialism 🤯
what's your point dude? the majority HAS property in any developed or developing country
It’s pretty easy Noam. Labor is personal time and effort spent/traded to create a good or provide a service. Labor is compensated monetarily, monetary rewards are used to purchase property, you have a right to the fruits of your labor because it’s your time/life spent obtaining it.
Ah yes, Jeff Bezos, who's labor (signing papers, owning things, and doing/buying whatever he wants) is worth over 300million dollars a day. Brilliant argument. Sounds alot like Marx's Labor theory of value, but described by a 4 year old.
Why are you anarcho-syndicalists not De-Leonists(Marxist-syndicalists)?
Chomsky is always on point. But what he calls classical "liberalism" wasn´t. It was classical Republicanism . Liberalism was the capitalist reaction to the French Revolution, as Socialism (in a wide sense: Anarchism, Socialism, etc) was the popular, emancipatory reaction to the new challenges of 19th Century Capitalism, inheriting the Republican Democratic tradition. And the common ground of oligarchic Republicanism (Right) and Democratic Republicanism (Left) was not "Liberalism". It was Republicanism.
I think its an American bias. And it´s not just a semantic issue. It´s a serious flaw and a mistake, very much like when bolsheviks called parliamentary countries assaulting the young Soviet Republic "Bourgeois Democracies" when they were not democratic at all and they had been fighting democrats and their demands for decades.
not by on any kind of personal capability but by on an illegitimate means of corrupted beyond reconcyliation disfunctionate transaction that can just be senslessly spammed and with surface level degeneracy oriented / in illusion of living off of opperative premises of corruption and illusions of and through mass manipulation are funding blind belief in behind closed doors out of lazyness from fear of there own incompetnace as oipperative basis behind them basically carrying them with no physically measurable accont for personal capabilities nor judging them and so out of technical inknowledgability there just like eh well just go with this vague broad unclear loosely defined
Are we pretending it’s that simple, that we can simply choose to eliminate poverty?
yes, coz it really is
@@williamharris3003
Ok well I look forward to your Nobel prize
As a species absolutely. We're just stuck in a system that has convinced us that centralized consolidated wealth amongst an elite few is normal and sane, and that distributing wealth and resources in a sane manner to assist and benefit all mankind is somehow wrong and unjust. We think that because the same people who benefit in our current system, are also the ones who make all the rules and write the narratives. They obviously wouldn't be advocating for a wealth ceiling cap, or that no individual should be entitled to have so much money they couldn't spend in several life times when there are still people dying from lack of basic necessities. There is enough technology, wealth and resources in planet earth to quite easily feed everyone. The system we live in simply chooses and demands not to. Mining metal for a Toyota or Porsche, or fabricating bullets and weapons or making cheap plastic toys is just more "profitable" in our psychopathic civilization.
@@pietroaretino6390
As a species? That’s a peculiar intro
we just have to rip off the big owners
Human rights > Property rights
Is the common belief here that autocracy is inherently hostile? Because I don't believe that to necessarily be the case. Most institutional endeavors DID start out as being owned/ran democratically. (Think Apple) But then they democratically opted to delegate so they could specialize. People would rather appoint and delegate the responsibility of making every minute detail to a few, so that the majority could all go home and be with their families/have a life, rather than have to spend every spare waking hour in meetings debating what decisions to make. So to me, autocracy would seem like the natural evolution of democracy.
Just one minor disagreement with Chomsky here: he says our own society was based on reducing democracy as opposed to reducing poverty, but I believe it has done both. State Capitalism has created the middle class: with enough purchase power and social status to not feel grossly disempowered, yet simultaneously motivated to climb the social ladder to attain more wealth (and further entrench their roles as wage-slaves).
Look at the people around the world having their gas and minerals plundered
Uh, the Friedman quote about rising tides lifting all boats is a lie. Since the 70s, wages for most of America have been stagnant.
DionysusEleutherios you’re right but the creation of a large middle class is looking like an anomaly produced by the Great Depression, the New Deal, and WW2. As globalization and automation pick up pace, cost of life increases and wages decline, deregulation and austerity continue to guide governments, the middle class is being squeezed
State Capitalism did not create or strengthen the middle class- unions and social democratic reforms did. As those two things have been eroded, the middle class has shrank in direct correlation.
USA is my. Property . What kind of food do you eat 4 thoughts
To him a welfare state will assure "lasting prosperity" for the poor?????????????????????????
Ben Hull He’s basically describing what Aristotle said on Democracy, and how Aristotle prescribed what is equivalent to welfare to take care of severe inequality/poverty, to ensure protection of the elites/wealthy in a truly, fully democratic society. He doesn’t go into the methods, systems, or structures that Aristotle prescribed to do so, but I’m sure that’s readily available online, or at a local library (though I’m not 100% sure which of his texts this discussion appears in, it shouldn’t be too difficult to find on google).
He also described how, unlike Aristotle, Madison’s solution to this “problem” (as Chomsky said, whether or not one considers it a problem is a separate question) was to lessen democracy in stead of lessening poverty/inequality... Granted, one has to bear in mind that there’s around 2000 years between Aristotle writing on these things, and 18th century liberalism sort of “rediscovering” and “reappraising” much of what he said, but Chomsky isn’t really explicitly making value judgements on that (not that he needs to), or going into the historical context of any discrepancies; he’s just explaining that one important philosopher/historical figure decided that one way is better or more appropriate than the other.
Anyway, I answered you like this bc I wasn’t sure if your question was referring to Chomsky or Madison, and I thought it could just be a misunderstanding of Chomsky’s point. That’s said, I could easily be the one misunderstanding, so if this comment is of no help whatsoever, I apologize for wasting our time! ✌️
@@nikolademitri731 Very well said and thank you for engaging!
Ben Hull Sure no problem. So might I ask, where you asking if Chomsky thought a welfare state would ensure a good life for the poor, or if that was Aristotle’s thoughts? In my original reply I wasn’t sure what the nature of your inquiry really was, thus my going into detail about the point Chomsky was making. It’s good of you to reply, but it didn’t clear up my confusion over your question. In fact, it just made it seem like you knew what he meant all along, so it made me even more confused tbh 😅
So what our Friend Naom is saying is that the government must limit the government.
No. Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist.
He's intelligent enough to understand Aristotle and his rather greatly complex thoughts on democracy, but regards the market simply as a "concentrator of wealth and power" and "harmful to the vast majority". I think that this notion of the market is wrong. Mises got it right.
he is full of contradictions. One cannot be for open borders than rail against trans national anything.
Why should those who happen to be successful owe someone who is not? I want to add that I am not necessarily successful.
YEah Chomsky seems to really drop the ball on property rights here. At once brilliant, but also ideological. I take the great insights from him whilst feeling sad that he has his own suspect agenda.
For you: ua-cam.com/video/AQmMe2IeGPU/v-deo.html
Hans Herman Hoppe, sort of just mops the floor with Chomsky's presuppositions.
You mean successful in exploiting others?
@@alexeykaratayev6250 Elaborate, please.
@@alexanderetges4342 Mises, what a joke .. . "It cannot be denied that fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions, and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." .
--------Ludwig von Mises, Neo-Liberalism, 1927
Von Mises, the founder and patron saint of neo-liberal economics, is praising Austria's "sound economics" and attendant destruction of social democracy and unions. He continues to be a hero for followers of the "Austrian school" of capitalist economics, i.e. tooth-fairy "free market" delusion.
Successful at what
Property Rights --- the right to keep what you own, protected by law from the efforts of the jealous to acquire via force.
Yeah, I'm sure it was only jealousy that made people want to abolish slavery. After all, people were just jealous they couldn't own slaves themselves. You've solved it!
Property rights: The right to keep what others own, protected by state legislative fiat, under the guise of law, from the efforts of the productive to acquire it via occupancy and use.
@@Hooga89 Lol, your body is your property because, you know, it's you. Slavery violates property rights (I know, almost a year later, not trying to start a debate, just tell me if I'm wrong in saying that my body is mine).
@@apollyon2018 It doesn't matter what you believe inside your skull because prior to 1865 the state itself considered certain people to be slaves and thus property.
@@Hooga89 Yes, the state, another reason why "an"caps and conventional anarchists are, you know, against it. But ok, got an answer from 1854 lmao
The truth is so icky
Straight back to Plato's "Republic"- Rule by the relatively small number of superior beings over the inferior masses.
+Tom Lahr
In this case though, they're only superior due to wealth. At least for the time being, the elite are *not* yet a technocratic or intellectually gifted bunch. Many of them have gained wealth through rent-seeking activities and speculation, or simply through inheritance. And beyond an amount, money more or less makes money.
Inheriting money doesn't make anyone "superior", whatever that even means.
Chomsky makes an error when he contrasts the right of "freedom of speech" and the right "to own property." While it's true that one's ownership of an item precludes its ownership by another, hence is exclusionary, freedom of speech, or of the press or of movement suffer much of the same problem. My speaking may not entirely preclude you from speaking, but it may very well preclude you being heard --- this is much worse at some manner of forum, public or private. There, one's freedom to speak before the crowd is controlled. By whom? The owner or organizer of the forum.
Freedom of the press is even more clear. Freedom of the press doesn't mean that you will be provided a press for free ... it means that you are free to buy or rent a press to print what you like. Even if presses were provided by the government, their use would still have to be rationed in one way or other.
Freedom of movement is also obvious. If I am occupying a particular point in space-time, clearly you cannot occupy the same point. And from my point of view, you have no right to move me ... unless you own the ground I stand on.
In the final analysis, all other so called "rights" depend on property ... there *is* no "right" except the right to own property. This simplifies all theory of rights considerably.
The property rights are bound to the specific property, which is always unique property. You can not have the same property twice, thus two persons can not exercise the same property rights. In contacts, right to free speech, press etc. can be exercised reasonably equally, via physical or electronic media. The main difference is between rights to control and use something versus rights to do something.
Even though he grew up jewish, his upbringing is to serve America and not Israel.
I don't think he serves America, he's against almost everything modern America stands for.
He's said that every single president since ww2 is responsible for war crimes.
Uh.... loyalty to a nation is not genetic. Some of the fiercest opponents/critics of the State of Israel are American Jews. In contrast, the biggest supporters of Israel are American evangelicals.
Very nazi-esque take. Why is that suprising? The biggest critics of Israel's atrocities are anti-zionist Jews. You need to do some research on Zionism and the beginnings of the occupation of Palestine. It's not Jews vs. the world, that's Nazi propaganda that is apparently still effective...
Chomsky... the real sudo-intellectual....
@Aaron S Not ancap=stupid
You can't even spell "pseudo-intellectual" and you're gonna call someone out for being pseudo-intellectual
@@kyled1673
who knows..
" sudo (/ˈsuːduː/[4] or /ˈsuːdoʊ/ command for Unix-like systems that allows users to run programs with the security privileges of another user, by default the superuser. It originally stood for "superuser do"
a sudo-intellectual !
:D
@@aerobique lol
This of course ignores the reality that in fact it is the poor who suffer most when property rights are trampled upon. When land is confiscated by imminent domain laws from a property owner who rents out to the poorest, the land owner suffers sure, but those poor individuals suffer more as they might not be able to find another place to live.
In that example, yes.
What about in countries like Austria when property controlled by the state has affordable and high quality housing built on it to house the poor and benefit the society as a whole?
Context matters.
@@itcouldbelupus2842 What about it? The outlier proves the rule, the outlier isn't the rule. I'm totally fine with the US government using land they already own to build the housing you are talking about. I am not fine with them using imminent domain to buy someone's property on the cheap.
Chomsky was firmly in his ivory tower with little understanding of the lumpen proletariat.
Care to elaborate?
@@davidalvarez7262 There are about 50 million dead in China and the USSR that would probably have lived if private property rights had not be replaced by collectivization.
@@christopherglenn5599 That's false. Both Russia and China have been impoverished and then battered by war.
In both of those famines were a regular thing, people died in their millions every year. You have to take into account the total population of each, as well.
The Russian empire had somewhere around 200+ million people, China had 700.
Yes, there were large famines which naturally come with industrialization, specifically of agriculture. The Chinese also screwed up big time with their extermination of sparrows, which brought about the proliferation of locusts and other crop devouring pests (so a big oopsie based on a false premise with disastrous consequences and an exorbitant death toll).
Every country went through a period of that while industrializing.
Britain had an empire to feed it so her populace (at least on the island) did not starve, but that meant its colonies had to starve (especially Ireland, India, Africa, and China), where food was being taken to be given to the imperial core.
And yet those were the last famines each of those two socialist countries experienced. And they didn't need to starve the third world to achieve it.
@@ineshvaladolenc6559 Mao's famine killed about 100 million and even the CPC admitted it was due to Mao's policies. Read a little history.
@@christopherglenn5599 100 million? Where is the source for this?
2:30 Mr. Chomsky is an ideological prisoner of his doctrine of "popular longing for equal distribution". In practice, average people hardly think or obsess about "inequality". Popular preoccupation is by far about "the standard of living". Chomsky completely obfuscates the factor of "personal wealth and freedom of choice". That is why societies with large "middle class" are so successful. There is poverty everywhere, but it is mostly by choice, not some conspiracy of oppression by "power and corporations" - the idea of which is a rea "limit" in Chomsky's thesis.
Chomsky demonstrates an incredible (and probably misplaced) faith in the general population. Most people have no real interest in politics or economics so it is unreasonable to expect them to participate in a democracy
I agree with his description of the problem but not his solution.
*Most people have no real interest in politics or economics so it is unreasonable to expect them to participate in a democracy*
Most people have never had any real opportunity to participate in any such thing. Most people's apathy is defined by the fact that the system is not in their hands, that they cannot control it and that they see how major attempts to do so are mostly failures.
People participate in their own lives don't they? Well if democracy became part of your life, became as much a part of your day to day life as visiting your children's teachers and interacting with the school administration or working with your coworkers and all that then why wouldn't they participate?
The fear of democracy was never that people wouldn't participate in it. The fear and danger was that people would.
A well presented point but not one that I agree with for 3 reasons;
(1) I think it is disingenuous to say that most people would be actively engaged with democratic institutions. If they were no forced to engage, I doubt that many would avail themselves of the opportunity. If they were forced, many would do so perfunctorily.
(2) I think that governance and statecraft require specialised understanding and skills. Not something that the broader population has in the capacity for. I do not want to dictate policy to my government for the same reason that I do not dictate what medicines I should take to my doctor.
In a democracy, complex political realities are reduced to buzzwords and slogans to capture popular opinion. I think this is very dangerous. As a consequence of which, people find themselves voting for what sounds good rather than what IS good. Short term goals and objectives are privileged at the expense of long term goals, which is no way to run a society.
(3) An effective democracy constrains the policy options of governments. They may no longer take necessary actions if they cannot first be reconciled with (an often whimsical) public opinion. If I am not mistaken, Hans Morgenthau talked about this concept in terms of diplomacy. He lamented the fact that Western diplomats on the world stage lacked maneuverability on important issues because they were worried about how they would be misconstrued at home.
The account
*I think it is disingenuous to say that most people would be actively engaged with democratic institutions. If they were no forced to engage, I doubt that many would avail themselves of the opportunity.*
Why? You offer no argument. My argument was that the mode of participation would be fundamentally different and people would be more willing to participate. Local municipal politics are always much more active with people because you can have a real effect. Every day you can find an example of how people have influenced the direction of their local area through interacting with this local democratic institution.
They participate because they have a vested interest in the specific policies that are local and everyone knows you can, despite the idiom, actually fight city hall now and then.
All that comes with a not particularly democratic institution of municipal politics. Properly democratic beyond disenfranchising representation would be much more effective and therefore less alienating.
*I do not want to dictate policy to my government for the same reason that I do not dictate what medicines I should take to my doctor.*
I see that as profoundly misguided. Doctors are habitually incorrect and many simply overprescribe or overdiagnose illnesses while underdiagnosing others. Patients who merely go with the flow are actually at greater risk than those who inform themselves and speak on their own behalf. Afterall its your body. You know more than the doctor does about it so when he's wrong you can be better ina position to question him.
The culture of not questioning doctors is part of our twisted culture of not questioning authority figures.
Also the idea that people don't know whats good for them or can't participate in policy decision making is nonsense. You don't have to be the one who crafts the policy to give input, to directly involve yourself is expressing needs or dissatisfaction with outcomes from certain policies. That's what representative democracy is supposed to be about anyway, the people bending the ear of the one who does form the policy.
Instead we've had it taught to us that we're not supposed to meddle in the work of those who know better than we do.
*In a democracy, complex political realities are reduced to buzzwords and slogans to capture popular opinion.*
In great part because of the nature of how our democracies work. You cannot take the current reality for being exactly the nature of an alternate one.
Afterall juries are made up of the same people you're talking about and they are far more reliable in that context than elections. That's because we give people responsibility, whereas modern democracy is all about telling us we have none, that its not ours to have, and we have to pick someone else to tell us what to do.
*Short term goals and objectives are privileged at the expense of long term goals, which is no way to run a society.*
And yet thats what we get now with poor democracy run by people who malign the interests of the many much of the time. I don't see where you get this.
*An effective democracy constrains the policy options of governments.*
Yes, for good reason. The people do not want to do what the government wants it to do. That's not irrational. Not wanting to be a military interventionist culture is not irrational. It is after all the people who pay in blood, not the leaders making those choices.
If people had been able to stop the 2003 invasion of Iraq think of how many lives could be saved. Instead a very small cadre of extremists got to make the call, and so the world tumbled into chaos.
I think the people in charge are more dangerous than what the people would want if left to decide themselves much of the time.
Your first two points make sense but I am actually arguing my points in the context of national or transnational policy (forgive me as I should have made that clearer). Yes, there can be a degree of meaningful input at the local level but not when these problems start to affect mass populations. People are too removed from the subject in hand or there are too many different preferences vying for representation that it is impossible to accommodate all of them. This is why a society confers responsibilities onto a governing institution to reconcile the many disparate opinions in a society. With these responsibilities come asymmetric information. Perhaps you are familiar with principal-agent theory(?) Well this effectively characterises my opinion on the matter. Citizens are not privy to all the facts, governments are. I do not see how a different model could exist.
*You cannot take the current reality for being exactly the nature of an alternate one.*
Well then we are in the business of debating a hypothetical situation and it would be very difficult to do so conclusively.
I’m not an idiot who is advocating blind deference to authority. I understand the risks that such a system would entail and this is why I advocate a strict system of checks on government authority. That said, the reality is that citizens are not clamouring for political participation and few really care about these issues. Whether that is a part of human nature or comes from the mundanity of everyday life I do not know. But I do recognise this to be the majority.
Also, I trust from your Iraq example that you are American or British, well both the recent Brexit campaign and US presidential election showcase the problem with democracy. Both campaigns descended into farce with important issues being obfuscated by sensationalism and slogan. No doubt you will blame this on the powers that be, however, the people need to take some responsibility as well. You get the politicians you deserve.
*Yes, for good reason. The people do not want to do what the government wants it to do. That's not irrational. Not wanting to be a military interventionist culture is not irrational.*
I don't care to disagree with you here. But that is not the point. It is not always possible to govern innocently. International politics is anarchic and, put simply, one can find themselves compelled to do bad to do good. This is not the case in day to day life and few citizens can understand this reality. It takes a special type of moral fortitude to do well in politics.
Politicians of this type are few and far between in the modern context. But this is also the fault of the people, who would prefer to elect an charismatic man with a nice smile rather than a man of moral conviction.
I am dealing with empirical reality here, you are talking about fantasy.
S Tillman another of his videos disputes this claim. Apparently, in the 1820s, workers were far better educated than today, and created their own publications, many run by women.
Chomskys claim, which I haven't verified, is that this urge to educate oneself and one's kids has been supplanted through years of constant propaganda, in the form of advertising and other media.
He wrote the book on this (literally, he wrote Manufacturing Consent with Hermann en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent?wprov=sfla1)
Again, no idea of risk, sales or negotiation... Oh Noam...
@OMINOID How so?
Everyone involved in enterprise takes on risk, from the owner(s) to the lowest laborer. The difference is that our society has protections in place for owners who lose on a bet, whereas we have very few support systems in place for the workers. There's also the fact that an owner is "risking" becoming a worker if they go under, whereas the workers are potentially out of health insurance, food, shelter, and other basic necessities. Labor fears starvation; owners fear becoming part of the laboring class they once commanded.
In addition, it could be said that slaveowners took on risk when they purchased and housed slaves. Does that justify the institution of slavery? Maybe so if you're an "anarcho"-capitalist or someone who enjoys giving boots a new spit-shine. Not so much if you recognize the concept of coercion.
@@SouthCom1917 None of that is even close to a guy who sinks in every penny that he has into an enterprise. The owner can be out of all of those necessities too if the business fails. You talk as if all owners are rich and only using risk capital - that is extremely rare. I should know - I owned a business and my ass was on the line 100%. No biz, no health insurance, food, shelter, etc. etc. Try it yourself sometime.
@@TheLoyalOfficer That's neither here nor there. Laborers sink their time and, in many cases, their wellbeing and personal health into their work. Are those not a form of risk or liability assumed by the workers, or are they somehow less important than investing capital to you? We also engage in risk all the time in our personal lives. Why should capital risk take primacy over those other forms of risk? What makes capital investment more legitimate as an argument for total ownership of enterprise than any other form of risk? The fact that some say it should be that way?
Plenty of slave owners were small plantation owners or owned slaves for light commercial use. Were they justified in owning those slaves because they accepted initial risk? Of course not. Not too interested in your anecdotes.
@@SouthCom1917 LOL! Small biz owners = slave owners... Ah... spoken like a true leftist. Nice try. What's next, you calling me a racist or sexist?
Again, you are not looking at DEGREES of risk. Losing a job is a pain in the ass, but you can get another one. Losing a business is almost always devastating for the owner.
ahh bollocks.. No one has the right to property, they have the right to own property. I have no right to my neighbours sports car but I the right to own one if I am able to. Sure the right to property is very different from the rest of the rights but the right to own is not....
Own means to have property.
Own comes from the same root as against meaning: closely separated.
Property is idiotic (in the latin sense)
Nice straw man, and you are unwittingly talking about what Chomsky is talking about though you think he is talking about something different. Chomsky is pointing out that if people own property their 'property right' is to do what they want with that property, even if that means it will effect you. So for instance if someone buys the land and whatever water supplies on it and in it, then they can keep others from having water there by claiming it is their property. Now depending on the situation, this can be devastating, especially in places have little water, or in areas where other natural water sources are property of the same or other individuals.
This is not like the old west where people were going to places mostly unused. With the amount of people we have, there is only so much land to go around. Also if someone owns land, they are under the dominion of whoever controls the land they live on. You would have the very rich buying huge amounts of land and the very poor with little or none. Since it is not publically shared, unless the poor got lucky to be on the land of a beneficent land owner, they are doomed, or would be forced to take the land themselves in order to use the resources. So the idea of property for Dictators, Kings, Lords, and Capitalists is that if you use land that they own, you will either submit to them or you will pay.
Aria Invictus
You have the right to own property but not a monopoly. That would be a monopolised situation due to there being no alternative choices.
I have this 20 acre land. U don't!
That's what he's saying.
Corporations are not autocracies, they are subject to and regulated by the laws of the jurisdictions in which they conduct business. Their internal governance is determined by a board of directors, who are elected by shareholders. Is this system perfectly democratic? No. But it's a major stretch to say that corporations are akin to private governments that are unelected, unaccountable, and not subject to any external constraints.
xxcrysad3000xx corporations are only subject to shareholders no one else so no its not a Democratic organization that is subject to the community.
xxcrysad3000xx
In one key way shareholders (in effect the corporation) do have reduced constraints thanks to limited liability. That is, they're gifted with an unbalanced risk/reward ratio. Hypothetically unlimited reward, limited risk.
Corporations are run autocratically, as is the state - although strictly speaking 'representative' democratic states allow electing leaders on policy 'promises' that are not legally binding.
xxcrysad3000xx the analogy is exact. Corporations are only subject to external forces, and those forces they have imposed on themselves. An autocrat can kill any of his subjects. A corporation can fire any employee. There are almost NO conditions on this. A manager can fire any employee for any reason, except various forms of discrimination. That prohibition, like the prohibition states place on other states for things like ethnic clensing, are imposed by outside the corporation.
Corporations are NOT democracies. They are autocracies, or at best oligarcies.
No THING as a "DEMOCRACY" Is this KARZIAN Propaganda?? sa
This fella never produced a single thing. Never held an honest job.
Well, yhere is one problem here. Those that plan, invest, and risk, which is to build should have a greater stake in their efforts than typically the average laborer, that is, if the laborer wants his/her opportunity to earn a living. But as to a balance that involves first knowing the environment in which one lives, which involves basic honest macroeconomics. That is not happening, and academics seem useless in this regard--as well as the media. To any problem of values they need prioritizing according to there significance. Economics seems like a legal system that can't prioritize which comes first: shoplifting or mass murder. In 25byears,the federal government spent the equivalent of nearly 10 years worth of total IRS Adjusted Gross Income (Individual, Corporate, Social Security payments, Inheritance, etc) unaccountable off-budget. This isn't rocket science.
Everyone should earn 100% of the value they produce. If someone buys a bunch of machinery, hires 5 workers to work along side them, and then that person works harder, they should earn more. If someone buys a bunch of machinery, hires 5 workers and then sits at home they should be entitled to 0 profit.
@GlassesAndCoffeeMugs Naah. They had to go through the trouble of convincing the financial powers that the extended loan was worth the value extended, and they are on the hook for repayment plus interest. Capital and labor both have an interest in ventures. As to the latter, I think profit sharing and the right to invest in, if not outrightly own, a business by workers is empowering as well as works towards a better economic venture for all involved.
@@user-lr2ib1cv4d Getting a loan isn't a strenuous or arduous task. People get loans every day. Doesn't entitle you to profit generated by somebody else physically working.
In the context of a worker cooperative, if the workers democratically decide that someone should get a larger share of profits, for example because they provided some of the machinery, I'd have 0 problem with that
what's your point dude? the majority HAS property in any developed or developing country