Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

chomsky.info

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

#41

So, you go back to the mid-nineteenth century and these so-called "factory girls," young girls working in the Lowell [Massachusetts] mills, were reading serious contemporary literature. They recognized that the point of the system was to turn them into tools who would be manipulated, degraded, kicked around, and so on. Source? My impression was that the point of the system was to make money, and that the girls were a…

>> It's basically court decisions and lawyers' decisions, which created a form of private tyranny which is now more massive in many ways than even state tyranny was. > That's simply false. And the massive corporations that seem most soulless and Dilbert-like, often are basically arms of the state ( ie, government contractors like IBM). No, wrong. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/index.html Corporate personhood…

A corporation is simply a contractual agreement between people. If a husband and wife share ownership of a house, the government cannot search or seize the house. If a hundred shareholders share ownership of a factory, they are still protected from the government searching or seizing the factory.

Perhaps the judge in the Santa Clara case made the right decision for the wrong reason. I do think it's incorrect to view the corporation as a "person". A corporation is a contractual agreement concerning shared property. A corporation does not have rights, the people who own it have rights (which in practice is the same thing).

Re: Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

#42
I was intrigued by the Adam Smith quote:

>[Adam Smith] says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.

I read the context around that Adam Smith quote. As I interpret it, Smith's solution was not preventing the division of labor; it was improving education.

The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations...generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.

...

[C]ommon people...have little time to spare for education. Their parents can scarce afford to maintain them even in infancy. As soon as they are able to work they must apply to some trade by which they can earn their subsistence.

...

But though the common people cannot, in any civilised society, be so well instructed as people of some rank and fortune, the most essential parts of education, however, to read, write, and account, can be acquired at so early a period of life that the greater part even of those who are to be bred to the lowest occupations have time to acquire them before they can be employed in those occupations. For a very small expense the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.

The public can facilitate this acquisition by establishing in every parish or district a little school, where children may be taught for a reward so moderate that even a common labourer may afford it...In Scotland the establishment of such parish schools has taught almost the whole common people to read, and a very great proportion of them to write and account...If in those little schools the books, by which the children are taught to read, were a little more instructive than they commonly are, and if, instead of a little smattering of Latin, which the children of the common people are sometimes taught there, and which can scarce ever be of any use to them, they were instructed in the elementary parts of geometry and mechanics, the literary education of this rank of people would perhaps be as complete as it can be.

...

The public can impose upon almost the whole body of the people the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education, by obliging every man to undergo an examination or probation in them before he can obtain the freedom in any corporation, or be allowed to set up any trade either in a village or town corporate.

Smith just wanted public education. He didn't mention preventing the division of labor.

Re: Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's basically court decisions and lawyers' decisions, which created a form of private tyranny which is now more massive in many ways than even state tyranny was. > That's simply false. And the massive corporations that seem most soulless and Dilbert-like, often are basically arms of the state ( ie, government contractors like IBM). No, wrong. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/index.html Corporate personhood…

A corporation is simply a contractual agreement between people. If a husband and wife share ownership of a house, the government cannot search or seize the house. If a hundred shareholders share ownership of a factory, they are still protected from the government searching or seizing the factory. Perhaps the judge in the Santa Clara case made the right decision for the wrong reason. I do think it's incorrect to view…

A corporation has legal "personhood" independent of its managers and stockholders, in the sense that if the corporation becomes insolvent, its creditors can only get at the assets of the corporation itself. You can't get this kind of protection with contracts alone, which is why a new legal structure was created for corporations.

Re: Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

#45
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A corporation is simply a contractual agreement between people. If a husband and wife share ownership of a house, the government cannot search or seize the house. If a hundred shareholders share ownership of a factory, they are still protected from the government searching or seizing the factory. Perhaps the judge in the Santa Clara case made the right decision for the wrong reason. I do think it's incorrect to view…

A corporation has legal "personhood" independent of its managers and stockholders, in the sense that if the corporation becomes insolvent, its creditors can only get at the assets of the corporation itself. You can't get this kind of protection with contracts alone, which is why a new legal structure was created for corporations.

Limited liability is simply a matter of contract between the lender and the owners of the corporate structure. When a bank lends money to an LLC, the contract is that the bank can only seize the assets of the corporate structure, not of the owners. If the bank does not like this deal, they can refuse to make the loan. In fact, many banks will refuse to lend to small LLC's. They will insist that the owner pledge his own assets.

Another way of thinking of it, is that equity holders hold the most junior debt. The idea that senior debt holders could come back and make the junior debt holders pay up more is ridiculous.

Now, I do think that owners (and bond holders) should in some cases be liable for third party torts and criminal activities of the company. I don't know what the actual law is about this issue. If there is never any liability, that's a mistake. But I doubt that's the case.

Re: Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

#46
"Which is a sign of how efficient the educational system has been, and the propaganda system, in simply destroying even our awareness of our own immediate intellectual background."

lord god the sky is falling.

my response to ridiculous statements such as this one is always "where the holy fuck do you live"???

teachers struggle to get 99% of the kids to give a damn about anything beyond sports sex music and games. the few who do give a damn can find and read anything they want.

where is it different?

Re: Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

#47
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust a scientist who's "usually fuming inside". People who fume inside are people who are already pretty sure they're right about everything, which is not an appropriate disposition for a scholar.

I passionately disagree that the intellectual must remain dispassionate. But what you are saying is in fact considered a rarely challenged truism in humanities departments. It is considered very distasteful for an academic to speak publicly about current events, politics, or really anything controversial. But I think, and I know there is a very strong anti-academic current here on HN, that the intellectual plays a si…

I know there is a very strong anti-academic current here on HN...

You know. Really? How? What's the basis for your claim?

I confess I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

Three of YCombinator's founders have PhD's from Harvard. A number of other users are graduate students, professors, or researchers in industry, and I've never noticed any animus toward them. A significant fraction of the submissions to this site deal with new research, and generally cast it in a positive light. Doesn't all this suggest HN would be more than ordinarily sympathetic to academics, not less?

Re: Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

#49
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A corporation has legal "personhood" independent of its managers and stockholders, in the sense that if the corporation becomes insolvent, its creditors can only get at the assets of the corporation itself. You can't get this kind of protection with contracts alone, which is why a new legal structure was created for corporations.

Limited liability is simply a matter of contract between the lender and the owners of the corporate structure. When a bank lends money to an LLC, the contract is that the bank can only seize the assets of the corporate structure, not of the owners. If the bank does not like this deal, they can refuse to make the loan. In fact, many banks will refuse to lend to small LLC's. They will insist that the owner pledge his o…

I agree with you, and unfortunately I must tell you that liability is indeed limited or erased. So, yes, it's a mistake.

Re: Noam Chomsky: Education is Ignorance (1995)

#50
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A corporation has legal "personhood" independent of its managers and stockholders, in the sense that if the corporation becomes insolvent, its creditors can only get at the assets of the corporation itself. You can't get this kind of protection with contracts alone, which is why a new legal structure was created for corporations.

Limited liability is simply a matter of contract between the lender and the owners of the corporate structure. When a bank lends money to an LLC, the contract is that the bank can only seize the assets of the corporate structure, not of the owners. If the bank does not like this deal, they can refuse to make the loan. In fact, many banks will refuse to lend to small LLC's. They will insist that the owner pledge his o…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN