tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post114983107803165926..comments2024-03-21T02:16:25.967-07:00Comments on Freethought Weekly: Book Review: Government in the Future by Noam ChomskyDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-41700102909750707222010-06-12T03:29:01.199-07:002010-06-12T03:29:01.199-07:00travian beyond program eklenti
Araba yarisi oyunla...<a href="http://travianprogram.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">travian beyond program eklenti</a><br /><a href="http://araba-yarisi-oyunlari-oyna.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Araba yarisi oyunlari</a><br /><a href="http://hdonlinefilmizle.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">HD online film izle</a><br /><a href="http://bagkurborcsorgulama1.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Bağkur borç sorgulama</a><br /><br />thanks adminAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-68023659451859102102008-06-19T09:36:00.000-07:002008-06-19T09:36:00.000-07:00thank you nice sharingaraba resimlerithank you nice sharing<BR/><A HREF="http://maswey.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">araba resimleri</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1150505916990452902006-06-16T17:58:00.000-07:002006-06-16T17:58:00.000-07:00Hey AK,But Chomsky doesnt understand the key moral...Hey AK,<BR/><BR/><I>But Chomsky doesnt understand the key moral issue here: that the only legitimate transaction is one that is consented upon by all involved parties. Thus, a socialist anarchy would be bad, bad, bad.</I><BR/><BR/>What makes you think that a socialist anarchy is going to be imposed on anyone?<BR/><BR/><I>Chomsky needs to realize that a free market anarchy would be superior because it provides for the most freedom</I><BR/><BR/>Like I've said other times, I don't see any reason to believe that free markets can exist. And even if they were possible, it'd be another question as to whether they would be desirable.<BR/><BR/><I>Freedom means freedom of choice, which means consent is paramount, which means a socialist state would not be moral, because a socialist state would ignore consent</I><BR/><BR/>Neither I, nor Chomsky, is advocating a socialist state. And so I agree with you that this would be immoral in my opinion. But socialism from below, chosen by those who are participating, is certainly not immoral.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Consent = private property = competition = free association = free market = freedom = moral</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see how you could tie "consent" with "private property". Property over your personal items fine, but over the means of production? Property that you simply use to get the work of others to benefit you? <BR/><BR/>Even if you were to advocate this type of property protection, it seems like you would have to be outraged at the current system and want all the land to go back to the Native Americans. Or does their property not count? If property theft is okay, then I say let's do it one more time.<BR/><BR/><I>Coercion = socialism = force = monopoly = no choice = slavery</I><BR/><BR/>Again, socialism with coercion isn't what anyone is looking at.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1150474736198764682006-06-16T09:18:00.000-07:002006-06-16T09:18:00.000-07:00Chomsky is such a brilliant critic of government. ...Chomsky is such a brilliant critic of government. I love so many things he has written. But Chomsky doesnt understand the key moral issue here: that the only legitimate transaction is one that is consented upon by all involved parties. Thus, a socialist anarchy would be bad, bad, bad. Chomsky needs to realize that a free market anarchy would be superior because it provides for the most freedom. And freedom is something that Chomsky is a strong proponent of. Freedom means freedom of choice, which means consent is paramount, which means a socialist state would not be moral, because a socialist state would ignore consent. <BR/><BR/>Consent = private property = competition = free association = free market = freedom = moral.<BR/><BR/>Coercion = socialism = force = monopoly = no choice = slavery.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1150341653134679262006-06-14T20:20:00.000-07:002006-06-14T20:20:00.000-07:00Thanks for the article about Chomsky. I was perso...Thanks for the article about Chomsky. I was personally interested in his defence of classical liberalism, which the rightwng has managed to pervert so that it means something entirely different.<BR/><BR/>I have always considered myself to be a liberal under this definition. <BR/><BR/>LIBERALISM: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.<BR/><BR/> A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology. <BR/><BR/>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism<BR/><BR/>Certainly the propagandized version from the rightwing, is nothing like this definition.beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1150164283833909122006-06-12T19:04:00.000-07:002006-06-12T19:04:00.000-07:00Thanks for the comments drunken tune! I'm current...Thanks for the comments drunken tune! I'm currently reading <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0853451753/104-1461193-9322317?v=glance&n=283155" REL="nofollow">this</A>.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1150120812905140972006-06-12T07:00:00.000-07:002006-06-12T07:00:00.000-07:00Wonderful review! It's sad that the book isn't lon...Wonderful review! It's sad that the book isn't longer, but I'll definitely see if it's at my local library. Years ago I picked up my first Chomsky book, enjoyed it immensely, then delved deeper into the libertarian socialist literature. His argument of the progression of individualism, from liberal to libertarian, from libertarian to libertarian socialist, is inspiring. You touch on it for a good deal and give a nice collection of quotes. I'll be steering some friends over to read your review.<BR/><BR/>I’ve loved his talks so much that I’ve even considered applying to colleges that have joint classes with MIT to get his linguistic lectures. He gives a very persuasive argument, but as I've said occasionally to those that inquire, I consider myself an agnostic libertarian socialist. I'd like to see our government retrofitted to that economic and social structure, yet I fear it's a mere utopia. I don’t know what would happen in reality if it were to be implemented, but it sounds like a good turn of events. Until then, I'll be voting for either the Green or Libertarian tickets. I'm not ready to be completely disenfranchised. I can’t wait for your next review. Will you give us a little hint on the author?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the book would serve better as a birthday gift or stocking-stuffer than a real read. Someone in my family is getting a 67-page present for Christmas!tnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150533469330483877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1150070935458635412006-06-11T17:08:00.000-07:002006-06-11T17:08:00.000-07:00Delta, I am by no means an expert on the subject a...Delta, <BR/><BR/>I am by no means an expert on the subject and I too need to spend some time looking into available/proposed solutions. I'll be looking forward to your posts on this subject and will try to provide my uneducated opinions when I can. :-)<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1150009654047797002006-06-11T00:07:00.000-07:002006-06-11T00:07:00.000-07:00sh,I'm not sure that I agree with you that there a...sh,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that I agree with you that there aren't any good alternatives out there. Perhaps some of the ideas don't seem perfect and you might say "well how the hell is this part of it going to work?" And it may be a valid point, but we don't need perfection to improve on the current situation. However, I have a lot of reading and thinking to do before I can really say with confidence that I believe such and such system is the best. I haven't looked at parecon and other alternatives in a very deep way yet, and I look forward to exploring some of these issues with you as I do so.<BR/><BR/>lbbp,<BR/> As I mentioned above, I have a ways to go before I feel completely comfortable saying that I advocate libertarian socialism. I've reading various books and juggling some ideas in my head. However, it seems to me that once the dust clears I'll consider myself an anarchist, particularly of the anarcho-syndicalist variety. In fact, I already do label myself as such but haven't posted it anywhere on my blog because I'm still in a cautious, transitional stage. <BR/><BR/> I do not feel that this is something that can be done immediately. I think a libertarian socialist system would be the ideal with which to make progress towards, but I do not believe that implementing it tomorrow would work. Luckily the change needed for it to come into existence can't really even occur until a large enough portion of the population understands it well enough to make it work. I was going to cover this in more detail come election time, but I am also supportive of voting in elections. I see the point of view of those who say that it's a waste to vote and simply endorses the current system, but I think that voting can have at least some small positive effects. While democrats are very similar to republicans, they are a little different, and this difference can translate to important differences in policy and its affect on people. But I only think voting for democrats makes sense if they stand to lose to a republican. Otherwise I support voting for 3rd party candidates, like the Greens. This has the dual advantage of 1) voting for candidates that actually represent some of your views in at least a watered down way and 2) it forces the democrats to look to the "left" in a hope to get some of the votes. <BR/><BR/>So yeah, I don't feel that implementing it <I>now</I> is a good idea. But it's important for me to understand if I think those concepts are something to work towards, or whether they are things with which I should avoid. When I do my book review of the anarchism book I'm reading right now I'll try to make sure to discuss the issue of it being against human nature.<BR/><BR/>And thanks for the comments everyone, I appreciate it!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1150004617657649922006-06-10T22:43:00.000-07:002006-06-10T22:43:00.000-07:00Just curious, do you personally advocate libertari...Just curious, do you personally advocate libertarian socialism, or are you just interested in it from an intellectual perspective. From your other posts, I have always considered you a progressive democrat. Whereas, I can appreciate an intellectual interest in libertarian socialism (anarchism), I find efforts to try and convince people to convert <I>now</I>, such as <A HREF="http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo59.html " REL="nofollow">Lew Rockwell</A> or <A HREF="http://www.donotvote.net" REL="nofollow">DoNotVote.net</A> etc., to be rather naive. I am particularly interested in the section of the book you mention which addresses the "against human nature" argument, because to me, that is <I>the</I> principle argument against anarchism.LBBPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11489069649700724120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1149861095393625292006-06-09T06:51:00.000-07:002006-06-09T06:51:00.000-07:00It truly is a great speech, and if you have read a...It truly is a great speech, and if you have read anything by Chomsky, and would like to hear him expand on his political/philosophical perspective, this is a gem.<BR/><BR/>I didn't realize that it had been published in book form. It is freely available audio at Znet here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.zmag.org/altradio/0212nc1970.mp3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12177833.post-1149860134606534682006-06-09T06:35:00.000-07:002006-06-09T06:35:00.000-07:00Thank you for the review. The book/talk sounds int...Thank you for the review. The book/talk sounds interesting. I will definitely at least listen to it some time soon.<BR/><BR/>It is true that it is up to us to decide what the next economic/government/political system would be, but I think that part of the reason why many of the critics of the current system are reluctant to offer concrete alternatives is that there aren't many/any...<BR/><BR/>I took an extremely brief look at Parecon a few years back and I wasn't very impressed, yet Chomsky had this to say about it:<BR/><BR/>"A great many activists and concerned people ask, quite rightly, what alternative form of social organization can be imagined that might overcome the grave flaws -- often real crimes -- of contemporary society in more far-reaching ways than short-term reform. Parecon is the most serious effort I know to provide a very detailed possible answer to some of these questions, crucial ones, based on serious thought and careful analysis."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com