Blacks and Latinos with no high school diploma are two of the groups least likely to vote. So I guess 9/7/12 will be forever known as the day that ly2 let WF know that those are his peoples. :banana_sml:
Peter Schiff at the DNC - Let's Ban Profits!
- Thread starter JarredLv
- Start date
Blacks and Latinos with no high school diploma are two of the groups least likely to vote. So I guess 9/7/12 will be forever known as the day that ly2 let WF know that those are his peoples. :banana_sml:
Actually, anarchists like Noam Chomsky have endorsed voting for Jill Stein and others have supported Ron Paul and Gary Johson, and at least one member of the forum here believes that Paul himself is an anarchist. If we really want to get specific, there's probably not many homeless drug addicts or Amish people who vote either.
Chomsky sounds more like an Obamatron. From a Chomsky interview:
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
OP video reminds me of the petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw&feature=player_detailpage]Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw&feature=player_detailpage]Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition - YouTube[/ame]
It is kind of hard for an outspoken critic of Obama to be an Obamatron. It's similar to how certain quotes from your guy Hoppe about democracy might make it appear that he supports monarchies, but in his overall views he is critical of both.
"Chomsky reserves his fiercest venom for the liberal elite...
Chomsky, because he steps outside of every group and eschews all ideologies, has been crucial to American discourse for decades, from his work on the Vietnam War to his criticisms of the Obama administration. He stubbornly maintains his position as an iconoclast, one who distrusts power in any form."
Noam Chomsky Has ‘Never Seen Anything Like This’ - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig
If Chomsky is against anarcho-capitalism I have a feeling he supports some kind of government intervention.
And this on Chomsky's "anarchism" from Rothbard:
And when the left-anarchists can be pressed for an answer, the response is disturbing indeed. Take for example one of our most distinguished socialist-anarchists, Professor Noam Chomsky. Professor Chomsky has recently expressed a great deal of worry about the recent rise of our “right-wing” libertarian movement; apparently he is – I am afraid unrealistically – concerned that we might succeed in abolishing the State before the State has succeeded in abolishing private property! Secondly, Chomsky has written that the anarcho-capitalist society would constitute “the greatest tyranny the world has ever known”. (What, Noam? Greater than Hitler? than Ghengis Khan?)
Whether or not anarcho-capitalism would be tyrannical is here irrelevant; the problem is that, in so expressing his horror at the possible results of complete freedom, Professor Chomsky reveals that he is not really an “anarchist” at all, indeed that he prefers statism to an anarcho-capitalist world. That of course is his prerogative, and scarcely unusual, but what is illegitimate is for this distinguished linguist to call himself an “anarchist”.
And I very much fear that the same can be said for the other varieties of left-anarchists: communal, syndical, or whatever. Beneath a thin veneer of libertarian rhetoric there lies the same compulsory and coercive collectivist that we have encountered all too often in the last two centuries. Scratch a left-wing “anarchist” and you will find a coercive egalitarian despot who makes the true lover of freedom yearn even for Richard Nixon (Arghhl) in contrast.
And when the left-anarchists can be pressed for an answer, the response is disturbing indeed. Take for example one of our most distinguished socialist-anarchists, Professor Noam Chomsky. Professor Chomsky has recently expressed a great deal of worry about the recent rise of our “right-wing” libertarian movement; apparently he is – I am afraid unrealistically – concerned that we might succeed in abolishing the State before the State has succeeded in abolishing private property! Secondly, Chomsky has written that the anarcho-capitalist society would constitute “the greatest tyranny the world has ever known”. (What, Noam? Greater than Hitler? than Ghengis Khan?)
Whether or not anarcho-capitalism would be tyrannical is here irrelevant; the problem is that, in so expressing his horror at the possible results of complete freedom, Professor Chomsky reveals that he is not really an “anarchist” at all, indeed that he prefers statism to an anarcho-capitalist world. That of course is his prerogative, and scarcely unusual, but what is illegitimate is for this distinguished linguist to call himself an “anarchist”.
And I very much fear that the same can be said for the other varieties of left-anarchists: communal, syndical, or whatever. Beneath a thin veneer of libertarian rhetoric there lies the same compulsory and coercive collectivist that we have encountered all too often in the last two centuries. Scratch a left-wing “anarchist” and you will find a coercive egalitarian despot who makes the true lover of freedom yearn even for Richard Nixon (Arghhl) in contrast.
If so, to him it is in a "lesser of two evils" kind of way. Anarchy is "without rulers", and I don't agree with him, but he sees the owners of a factory as being rulers, with or without a government present.
He supports "voluntary socialism." People criticize working anarcho-capitalism as a utopian idea, but Chomsky's version of anarchy is even more so in that everyone voluntary agrees to group ownership of the factories and such.
Anarchist schools of thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And to take Chomsky's point further (even if he avoids admitting as much), the owner of a house should be considered a ruler, and thus a tyrant. The only solution is to force him to relinquish his property to the collective, or specifically to an order of rulers given the authority to manage it for the collective.
lol Good 'ole Chomsky.
On a serious note, the fact that there are different schools of thought on anarchy complicates argumentation. It's necessary to clarify the principles at the heart of a person's political philosophy, and begin debate from those points. These days, to hear someone declare himself an anarchist is like hearing that person declare himself a christian, libertarian, foodie, or music lover. What does the label mean to that individual?
(ex. If the libertarian ethic is based on the axiom of non-aggression, and voting is defined as choosing rulers who rule others by force, what does the Libertarian Party stand for? And how does a libertarian justify the act of voting, even if he is voting for an anarchist?)
Orwell spoke to the problem of imprecision in language in his essay "Politics and the English Language." There is much in his piece that rings true today. The less precise we are with the words we choose to discuss topics, the more difficult it is to maintain a logical and productive discourse.
A casual tour through any STS thread discussing political philosophy and ethics demonstrates this problem.
I'm starting to think that voices that oppose the real routes to freedom, like those of Chomsky and Keynes, and even many of our presidents lately, are given the spotlight by TPTB for the purpose of squelching access to the ideas of freedom.
However If that's really the case, wouldn't it just be easier for them to assassinate people like Hyeck, Rothbard, and Ron Paul, or even drop a bomb on the Cato Institute and Mises' campus? They could just be done with us quickly instead of spending generations seeking out and promoting these people that lead us in the wrong direction.
:\
However If that's really the case, wouldn't it just be easier for them to assassinate people like Hyeck, Rothbard, and Ron Paul, or even drop a bomb on the Cato Institute and Mises' campus? They could just be done with us quickly instead of spending generations seeking out and promoting these people that lead us in the wrong direction.
:\
I see your point, but do you really believe that our dumbing down is so complete that there is no threat to them at all?
No need for any of that.
Ron Paul woke up MILLIONS of people, away from that Brave new world. Sure, some will sink back into it, but most can't. Especially now with the economy going down the drain... More will wake up on their own, in fact.
I hope they think BNW is all it will take, but I doubt it.
I studied under Rothbard at UNLV and he used to joke that the entire Austro-libertarian movement could be wiped out by just hitting one Mises conference. I used to pack heat on occasion to Hoppe's classes, just in case.
The thing is, this whole movement has happened way too fast. Peter Schiff was being laughed off MSM 5 years ago. They never expected him to gain a huge following like he has. I don't they have even had time to plan to isolate him and the whole Austrian movement. I mean, they're still working on passing a SOPA-like bill to shut down IM