Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

>> I don't think they understand that without individual freedoms reigning supreme, we'll have monopolies, lack of innovation, taxes, etc.

Agreed.

>> Oh, and don't forget tracking/passport/entry visas because of taxes

Yep, it's about taxes in the sense that Tax Farms want to retain their cattle, so they make it difficult for the cattle to leave, while still maintaining an illusion of freedom. Even a complete sheep would realize he's a slave if he weren't free to leave "his" country.

>> Oh and don't forget mandatory "collective" (but NOT state) schooling.

Mandatory collective schooling, but imposed on everyone by something else than the state? .. That doesn't sound right either. Anything that is based on aggressing against people is immoral.

>> Taxes = Theft

I'm fine with "robbery", "rape", and "theft" and so on. But extortion is more accurate.

>> Government = the Monopoly on Violence

Yes, and thoroughly immoral.

>> Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power

This is where we disagree, it seems. You seem to be referring to Crony-Capitalism, or "Crapitalism". Corporations buy State power and using it to their own benefit, and of course, that will continue for as long as there is power to be bought. If there's nothing to bribe, then you can't bribe.

But in reality, Capitalism is just what people do in their pursuit of personal gain: voluntary exchanges, contracts, agreements, and investments, etc. All backed by respect for property rights, of course. Without property rights, there would be just about no wealth in the world, because no one could expect to benefit from any value they might produce.

The absence of coercion ~ a free market ~ freedom ~ Capitalism. They all go hand in hand.

Right on the mark there.

>> I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts?

My suggestion would be to embrace anarcho-capitalism fully, if you're not quite there yet. It's the only moral, reasonable, logical, and consistent way of viewing societies. The Non-Aggression Principle explicitly forbids the initiation of force, which includes any coercion. The flipside of that is that everything should be voluntary, which should be really hard to reasonably argue against.

Are you already aware that free markets produce the most wealth to the largest percentage of people anyway? It's all about letting people produce wealth and spread it around through voluntary exchanges, after all. Check out http://mises.org

If you go back and look at my comment history, I think you will see that I engage with people in a thorough, honest, and often self-critical way. I don't think your Dunning-Kruger idea is actually plausible. Are you thinking of that based on this one post, or do you remember me from other discussions?

Anyway, I do make pithy comments that are not intellectually thorough from time to time. And if you were to look at my post history, I'm sure you'd find some things that I wouldn't be proud of. But in general, I don't try to "win" arguments; I try to learn, and I try to help others learn, which requires connecting to their current context of knowledge, not just making hand-wavy arguments.

> I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism

The word means "without power" or "without government." So I'm not sure why you say I misunderstand it.

That said, I do think many "anarchists" actually mean something else. For instance, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong--I'm not at all certain), Chomsky is actually advocating devolved communalism, which is a form of coercive government. For some reason, he wants to call that "anarchism." I want to call him on that. I don't think it's right to take the word "anarchism" and have it mean local communalistic government.

Maybe when you say I don't understand "anarchism," it's because I interpret it to mean "without power," and you interpret it to mean some kind of devolved communalism.

I have talked to anarcho-syndicalists and they claim that there is no government and no force. Oh, except yes, the syndicate exercises police power and taxes people and decides on wealth distribution. And if you don't like the syndicate, you can go join a new one. Well, guess what? That is government. It is not anarchy, except if "anarchy" does not mean what its Greek root words mean.

I agree with "anarchy" as anarcho-capitalists describe it, but I just don't think it would be stable for more than 5 minutes. That is precisely the thing I was pointing out in my comment.

> Let's say the US retaliates against Iran's threat of force (let's just assume it makes a legitimate threat of force) and kills uninvolved Iranian citizens as a side-effect. Assume the US made reasonable attempts to minimize civilian casualties. > Was the US's force against those civilians retaliatory, or initiatory? I would say the former. Iran initiated the force and is morally culpable for those deaths.

Eh, why do you think Iran is responsible for these deaths and not the US? Threats and disagreements are between the rulers of both countries, why on the earth should civilians be somehow involved and the slaughter be justified?

> If you agree with me here, we can procede. But this is important. I am saying that when the US (for example; imagine, now, that it is a mininal government) levies taxes to establish basic, necessary protection of rights (minimal police, courts, and military), it is analogous. It is retaliatory.

Why should some group of people decide what personally I need and impose payments for that "service" upon me? Did I have a say?

> The threat of initiated force being retaliated against is robbers, theives, foreign countries that would invade, etc. We know all these will run rampant without government (at least you can agree with me that that is true given the way society is now). It doens't have to be a specific thief or other rights-violator; we know they are out there, and that government is necessary to protect rights.

So, basically, to protect the people from robbery, we need to institute a larger theft body? Sounds like a good plan.

Now, what if I don't like the way government does its job protecting my rights? What if I find the govt performs this task in an inefficient and quite costly manner? What is I'm a pacifist and I don't want anybody to protect me? I can't opt out of the government "protection"; I can't switch the provider either.

> Would you agree with yourself if we were all in North Korea knowing what we know?

That's what I'm saying. I wouldn't agree if we were in North Korea, but I will if we're talking about a third world country where the alternative to no public education is simply no education. What I see where I live is that where there is no public education, kids end up joining drug trafficking gangs, or end up crack addicts. If we're talking about Northern Europe, sure, go ahead, abolish public education, I won't be worried, I'm all for personal freedom from the state where it isn't irresponsible. It's just that some places, if you take away the state's presence, there are other forces with high interests in taking over that space where the state used to be.