Noam Chomsky destroys "Libertarians"

[DEAD7]

@Blackking


^Great post.

The entire debate over regulation is misconstrued. It is not the market, an efficient social institution, which is regulated. What is regulated is the behavior of people in markets. If you want good results from markets, good regulation of human behavior is a requirement.

The market is like a computer. Garbage in, garbage out.

If people who use markets are not regulated, they issue fraudulent financial instruments. They leverage assets with absurd amounts of debt. They market their instruments with fraudulent investment grade ratings. They deal themselves aces.

The fundamental difference is libertarians dont want preemptive regulation. If some one frauds or cheats, prosecute them for it, what is being called for by the left is regulation to prevent the fraud from happening... not really that far apart tbh.

No one is saying free markets are perfect(I apologize if anyone got that idea), what is being said, is that free markets are vastly superior towhat we have now.
on a side note we should all love wal-mart

 

[88m3]

Sorry i wasnt clear, Can you give an example that didnt involve government interference?

 

[No1]

Detroit isn't a hotbed of liberal policies. This is a convenient myth.

Even if it were the case, I'm struggling to figure out how the personal success of a few people who happen to be libertarian validates the entire ideology. I guess the personal success of George Soros validates liberal causes.

 

[DEAD7]

Even if it were the case, I'm struggling to figure out how the personal success of a few people who happen to be libertarian validates the entire ideology. I guess the personal success of George Soros validates liberal causes.

What -specifically- needs to be validated?

or what is it specifically that you have qualms with?

 

[badvillain]

I'm Independent, but my ideologies line up most with Libertarianism.

What's so wrong with believing that there is no such thing as a crime without a victim(stop the prison-industrial complex), prohibition of anything doesn't work, that fiat money is NOT money(I don't necessarily agree with the Gold standard, but do suggest that money should be based on something and /or not be allowed to be manipulated by private banking cartels), and that we should practice non-interventionism(trading without military interventions, unless directly attacked/provoked).

I'm also a staunch believer that this pay-for-play system cooked up by bi-partisan politics does not serve the public's interest at all. Lobbying, campaign contributions and PACs need to be eliminated or severely reformed. How can representative government work if only corporations, and not citizens, can influence drafting of new laws?

----

I'll tell you this, if a Libertarian was running this country we wouldn't be instigating World War 3 over petrodollars and corporate interest(but he'd probably be assassinated with the quickness).

 

[No1]

What -specifically- needs to be validated?

or what is it specifically that you have qualms with?

Whether or not libertarian ideology is correct is entirely separate from saying that the success of 3 people that adhere to ideology validates everything about the ideology. The problem is with that entire form of logic. The causal nexus between their success and ideology is not established in that statement. I can be Buddhist and successful and my success can be entirely unrelated to my religious belief. That was the problem.

 

[The 2020 New Member]

the man that got me into anarchy. subs.

 

[badvillain]

I just wanted to add onto @DEAD7's free market comments because he's absolutely correct. Libertarians want true free markets where the only regulation is used to promote fairness and to prosecute anybody rigging/frauding the game. Rather than the regulation we currently apply which promotes barriers to entry and corporate monopolies/duopolies.

We wouldn't even be having a discussion of Syria intervention if it wasn't for regulation that favors corporate spending and interest(the pipelines that flow from Iraq to Turkey and the Gloan Heights are why we are there, in addition to provoking Iran into war). If the Oil industry and bankers hadn't of rigged the game; we would have become an oil-free nation decades ago and wouldn't be overspending on military defense(which ultimately get's paid back at some ridiculous interest rate to the private central banking cartels we borrow from). Look what the auto/oil industry is doing to Telsa.

 

[jamalg]

i feel like anarchy is the end goal for everyone

 

[88m3]

I just wanted to add onto @DEAD7's free market comments because he's absolutely correct. Libertarians want true free markets where the only regulation is used to promote fairness and to prosecute anybody rigging/frauding the game. Rather than the regulation we currently apply which promotes barriers to entry and corporate monopolies/duopolies.

We wouldn't even be having a discussion of Syria interven

 

[DEAD7]

This is what passes for a coherent argument around here?

 

[badvillain]

This is what passes for a coherent argument around here?

Of course all he can do is use smileys to ridicule me, and not facts. The Left-Right paradigm has polarized people to be radical ideologists. I'm not even claiming some grand-tinfoil-global-government takeover; just stating our foreign and monetary policies are governed by the lobbying of MNCs and private banking institutions which are supposedly "too big too fail".

In regards to Syria, here's just the beginning of the rabbit hole:

- Cheney, Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch interest in Golan Heights:
http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2

-Attacks of oil pipelines:
http://www.businessinsider.com/socgen-on-the-oil-implications-of-a-syria-strike-2013-8

-BP and C.I.A responsible for the Iran Coup:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/08/201382062432443546.html

 

[DEAD7]

I'm torn on Syria

I think of America as a nation that should do whats right... and if innocent people are being attacked with chemical weapons , sitting back and watching them die, doesnt seem like the right thing...

Morally at least.

Fiscally we probably do need to fall back though

 

[badvillain]

I'm torn on Syria

I think of America as a nation that should do whats right... and if innocent people are being attacked with chemical weapons , sitting back and watching them die, doesnt seem like the right thing...

Morally at least.

Fiscally we probably do need to fall back though

Well doing what you're suggesting is "morally right" might consist of involving the 7 billion people of this world in a World War over a foreign region's internal turmoil/corporate interests. Could it be said that what is "morally right" is to let sovereign nations handle their own domestic issues with the only foreign intervention being that of diplomacy and humanitarian relief/aid(and by that I mean medical and food supplies, not financing the regions rebels)?

 

[DEAD7]

Well doing what you're suggesting is "morally right" might consist of involving the 7 billion people of this world in a World War over a foreign region's internal turmoil/corporate interests. Could it be said that what is "morally right" is to let sovereign nations handle their own domestic issues with the only foreign intervention being that of diplomacy and humanitarian relief/aid(and by that I mean medical and food supplies, not financing the regions rebels)?

So letting the people in Syria die could be morally right if we view those involved as "sovereign nations" rather than innocent human beings...?

Now if you are saying its for the greater good, you are probably right, but its still f*cked up. Especially if chemical weapons are being used.