Noam Chomsky on US Libertarianism vs Libertarian Socialism

[Dr. Acula]

Not a long video, so should be easily digestible.

 

[Dr. Acula]

Looked this up after reading this excerpt from one of his books recent which is from a different talk

MAN: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?


There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist-because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority. If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"-but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice-it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though-nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"-but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff. Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard [American academic]-and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it.

This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.19 The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second-and if it could, all you'd want to do is get ~ out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

 

[DEAD7]

 

[Dr. Acula]

No rebuttal or deeper thoughts?

Usurping power to unanswerable corporate entities is even a more extreme form of tyranny than a state. Any thoughts on that one ?

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

No rebuttal or deeper thoughts?

Usurping power to unanswerable corporate entities is even a more extreme form of tyranny than a state. Any thoughts on that one ?

"But you see, my unanswerable corporate entity will be on top, so it's okay."

 

[DEAD7]

No rebuttal or deeper thoughts?

Usurping power to unanswerable corporate entities is even a more extreme form of tyranny than a state. Any thoughts on that one ?

Usurping power?
Corporations are unanswerable?
More extreme tyranny than a state?

Utter bullshyt.
Please tell me you’re joking with this.

 

[DEAD7]

"But you see, my unanswerable corporate entity will be on top, so it's okay."

they are already on top with an ever expanding over regulating government.
Derp derp!!!


We can’t deregulate because the evil corporations that run the country will run the country.

 

[Dr. Acula]

Usurping power?
Corporations are unanswerable?
More extreme tyranny than a state?

Utter bullshyt.
Please tell me you’re joking with this.

The argument is that at the bare minimum, a government that has some democratic roots at least is still answerable to people. Whereas, deconstruction of the state along with removing regulations and controls on corporations and a "few elites" (which US Libertarians operate under) can lead to a system that is tyrannical and everyday people are removed from the equation. In these terms, I agree this is the natural consequence of libertarian dreams. Many of the issues with the American government and how it operates today is due to the removing of restraints on corporate power with the most notable and frequently cited case being citizen's united. As we see our government relinquish controls placed on corporate power, that is when we start to see politicians and the government become more disconnected from the average person and more answerable to corporate power since their influence is increased. Even in this context you can see the progression of isolating the individual from being able to participate in the society at large outside of either being a worker or consumer to support the corporate power structure in place.

In the most extreme case, libertarianism as preached by most people in the US will more closely resemble a feudal system where a few feudal lords were the power brokers while the average person had no say in the society they live in. Lets play the game of moving a society closer to a libertarian ideal. Power structures will form and usually these form around who controls the resources and they usually utilize force to prevent any threat to their power. In a libertarian society, the wealthy few will do whatever is needed to maintain power and expand it while with the removal of government checks as advocated by libertarians, there is no recourse for most people to do anything to fight it.

 

[DEAD7]

The argument is that at the bare minimum, a government that has some democratic roots at least is still answerable to people. Whereas, deconstruction of the state along with removing regulations and controls on corporations and a "few elites" (which US Libertarians operate under) can lead to a system that is tyrannical and everyday people are removed from the equation.

Libertarianism is a broad ideology and you have chosen to use anarchy/stateless society(the most extreme and impractical version) to define it...
I understand why though and I’ll play along.




1. Please explain(in detail) how the stateless libertarian utopia you described with elites and corporations running society differs from what we have today under our centrally planned economy and ever expanding government?
Sounds like you’re critiquing the status quo not libertarianism

2. Give me a specific example of corporate tyranny(in America) absent the state. Corporate tyranny is a reoccurring theme in your argument/position, so surely it is based on something empirical...
If not, give me an example of corporate tyranny in theory.
Which corporation(s), what they would do, and how they would do it, and how they are/would be unanswerable.

3. And most importantly how has statism benefited blacks? The median black family net worth is on route to zero under the state... please explain why you feel the state should be supported, trusted, and/or defended by blacks?
In my opinion big government has simply made our suffering palpable to us and the rest of the world.
I reject statism completely

Spoiler

Statist claiming we need more regulation/more government while also claiming corporations write the regulations/run the government never gets old

 

[88m3]

A few more conservative scotus picks and we can see it in action. It may be a done deal already.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Big fan of Noam Chomsky here, but I disagree with almost everything he said.
He said that Libertarianism here promotes tyranny, but no it does not at all, and there's no evidence of that.
In fact I think that Libertarianism could significantly reduce the amount of tyranny in the U.S.

The argument is that at the bare minimum, a government that has some democratic roots at least is still answerable to people.

How can you help make government answerable to it's people? Maybe by not allowing it to grow so largely in size?
Is corruption and tyranny increasing in the United States? Is the size of govt. increasing on an almost parallel growth phase?
Is limited government to blame for that?

Whereas, deconstruction of the state along with removing regulations and controls on corporations and a "few elites" (which US Libertarians operate under) can lead to a system that is tyrannical and everyday people are removed from the equation.

Nah, not really breh!
It is in fact socialism and central planning that causes all of this.
Take Obama for example, he talked alot about deregulation. When he got into office he put corporate cronies of megacorps in leadership positions acting as heads for these regulatory bodies. You cannot argue about libertarianism when it comes to regulations without first tackling the topic of cronies in executive positions in socialist regulatory bodies. Many of these bodies has someone in the 1% to ensure they grow in power.

As we see our government relinquish controls placed on corporate power,

Relinquish control or transfer control?

that is when we start to see politicians and the government become more disconnected from the average person and more answerable to corporate power since their influence is increased.

You mean since govt. size has increased?

Lets play the game of moving a society closer to a libertarian ideal.

ok

Power structures will form

You mean like now?
Who gave them power? Big Govt.?

and usually these form around who controls the resources and they usually utilize force to prevent any threat to their power. In a libertarian society, the wealthy few will do whatever is needed to maintain power and expand it while with the removal of government checks as advocated by libertarians, there is no recourse for most people to do anything to fight it.

Everything you mentioned here is again Big. Govt.

See listen breh, what are politicians?
They are auctioneers, they are there to auction off their vote/decisions to the highest bidder.
Remove power and transfer it to the people, not to corporations.

In my opinion small govt can do that not big govt

 

[Dr. Acula]

Libertarianism is a broad ideology and you have chosen to use anarchy/stateless society(the most extreme and impractical version) to define it...
I understand why though and I’ll play along.




1. Please explain(in detail) how the stateless libertarian utopia you described with elites and corporations running society differs from what we have today under our centrally planned economy and ever expanding government?
Sounds like you’re critiquing the status quo not libertarianism

2. Give me a specific example of corporate tyranny(in America) absent the state. Corporate tyranny is a reoccurring theme in your argument/position, so surely it is based on something empirical...
If not, give me an example of corporate tyranny in theory.
Which corporation(s), what they would do, and how they would do it, and how they are/would be unanswerable.

3. And most importantly how has statism benefited blacks? The median black family net worth is on route to zero under the state... please explain why you feel the state should be supported, trusted, and/or defended by blacks?
In my opinion big government has simply made our suffering palpable to us and the rest of the world.
I reject statism completely

Spoiler

Statist claiming we need more regulation/more government while also claiming corporations write the regulations/run the government never gets old

Lot to unpack here. Will give you a thorough answer though out of respect soon once I feel less lazy.

 

[Dr. Acula]

Libertarianism is a broad ideology and you have chosen to use anarchy/stateless society(the most extreme and impractical version) to define it...
I understand why though and I’ll play along.




1. Please explain(in detail) how the stateless libertarian utopia you described with elites and corporations running society differs from what we have today under our centrally planned economy and ever expanding government?
Sounds like you’re critiquing the status quo not libertarianism

2. Give me a specific example of corporate tyranny(in America) absent the state. Corporate tyranny is a reoccurring theme in your argument/position, so surely it is based on something empirical...
If not, give me an example of corporate tyranny in theory.
Which corporation(s), what they would do, and how they would do it, and how they are/would be unanswerable.

3. And most importantly how has statism benefited blacks? The median black family net worth is on route to zero under the state... please explain why you feel the state should be supported, trusted, and/or defended by blacks?
In my opinion big government has simply made our suffering palpable to us and the rest of the world.
I reject statism completely

Spoiler

Statist claiming we need more regulation/more government while also claiming corporations write the regulations/run the government never gets old

Finally got energy and patience to respond, if there is still interest in my response. I'm sure there are some points I'll think of later that I wish I would have hit.

1.) I am critiquing the status quo along with libertarianism. You're right that as of now, the government does not differ in a lot of ways of what will occur in a stateless libertarian society. What seems to be where we differ is what the status quo is. You seem to think the current situation with our government is an issue of over-regulation and increasing regulation while I think the opposite. You've had decades now, starting with Carter even, but really ramping up with Reagan, of deregulation on businesses and at the same time removing of social programs and institutions (such as unions) that benefit most people in this country where you essentially see business interests through this process attain more influence in our political process and government.The reason why our government is progressing towards more of tool of the corporations and elites is due to American libertarian influenced ideology pushing the idea that government is a plague in all avenues and that tilting various aspects of our government towards corporations in lieu of everyone else will lead to prosperity.

To avoid contradiction in beliefs here though and to basically concede a point here, no system is perfect. Its a question of which one is preferred and each one will have its downsides, you have to make a choice of which one is more tolerable. However, the closest time in American history to a "libertarian utopia" would be the gilded age. It's telling the worker protests, publication of massive worker abuses and slave like conditions, and one of the fastest rate of wealth disparity occurred during this time. To top it off, the time period ended with a global depression and the response to address all these issues that arise in this system was massive socialization of American society in various aspects by FDR to address the problems it caused. A lot of these reforms stayed in place and many of these issues disappeared until Reagan came and ever since then Republicans has made it a mission to undermine these social reforms since then. The response to an unaccountable wealthy elite.

2. Corporations are fairly new in history, but the coincidence here is that you can look at the very first corporation, East Indian Trading Company, for how a corporate power with minimum state action to act as a COUNTER, not in conjunction, can lead to a type of tyranny. Not acting on behalf of a state, it proceeded to basically colonized most of India, hired mercenary forces who weren't answerable to anyone and committed atrocities, and was an overall bully in how it operated. But like I said, the state isn't innocent either. The argument being made in this thread is that at least, at the bare minimum you can make a state accountable to people and while western "global powers" aren't good examples of this, you can look to maybe scandanavian countries and other countries that don't seem to have much interest outside of providing services to its population.

3. Black Americans should not fully trust the state, but the contradiction is that unfortunately, many of the rights protected are only protected through the state also.

 

[DEAD7]

Finally got energy and patience to respond, if there is still interest in my response. I'm sure there are some points I'll think of later that I wish I would have hit.

1.) I am critiquing the status quo along with libertarianism. You're right that as of now, the government does not differ in a lot of ways of what will occur in a stateless libertarian society. What seems to be where we differ is what the status quo is. You seem to think the current situation with our government is an issue of over-regulation and increasing regulation while I think the opposite. You've had decades now, starting with Carter even, but really ramping up with Reagan, of deregulation on businesses and at the same time removing of social programs and institutions (such as unions) that benefit most people in this country where you essentially see business interests through this process attain more influence in our political process and government.The reason why our government is progressing towards more of tool of the corporations and elites is due to American libertarian influenced ideology pushing the idea that government is a plague in all avenues and that tilting various aspects of our government towards corporations in lieu of everyone else will lead to prosperity.

To avoid contradiction in beliefs here though and to basically concede a point here, no system is perfect. Its a question of which one is preferred and each one will have its downsides, you have to make a choice of which one is more tolerable. However, the closest time in American history to a "libertarian utopia" would be the gilded age. It's telling the worker protests, publication of massive worker abuses and slave like conditions, and one of the fastest rate of wealth disparity occurred during this time. To top it off, the time period ended with a global depression and the response to address all these issues that arise in this system was massive socialization of American society in various aspects by FDR to address the problems it caused. A lot of these reforms stayed in place and many of these issues disappeared until Reagan came and ever since then Republicans has made it a mission to undermine these social reforms since then. The response to an unaccountable wealthy elite.

2. Corporations are fairly new in history, but the coincidence here is that you can look at the very first corporation, East Indian Trading Company, for how a corporate power with minimum state action to act as a COUNTER, not in conjunction, can lead to a type of tyranny. Not acting on behalf of a state, it proceeded to basically colonized most of India, hired mercenary forces who weren't answerable to anyone and committed atrocities, and was an overall bully in how it operated. But like I said, the state isn't innocent either. The argument being made in this thread is that at least, at the bare minimum you can make a state accountable to people and while western "global powers" aren't good examples of this, you can look to maybe scandanavian countries and other countries that don't seem to have much interest outside of providing services to its population.

3. Black Americans should not fully trust the state, but the contradiction is that unfortunately, many of the rights protected are only protected through the state also.

1. The libertarian goal is to diminish the influence of government in the market so that there isn’t such an incentive to lobby.
Under big government, there is nothing that can offer as big a ROI as lobbying... and one would be neglecting their fiduciary duty by not lobbying.
By allowing govt to pic winners and losers you create the “swamp” we see now... which classical liberals believe to be worse than a freer market, where govt only interjects in non competitive industries.


Also there is this constant suggestion that control/power will be turned over to corporations(absent strong regulation) but no one can seem to explain what this power is, who will wield it, how it will be wielded, and to what ends?
It’s a boogeyman that seems to be completely fabricated to support statist claims.

2. How would corporations not answerable to consumers?...

3. I believe the state to be ai net negative...
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Yapdatfool]

MAN: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?


There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist-because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority. If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"-but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice-it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though-nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"-but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff. Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard [American academic]-and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it.

This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.19 The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second-and if it could, all you'd want to do is get ~ out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

Not one lie was spoken in this statement IMO.