Videos


https://youtube.com/devicesupport



https://youtube.com/devicesupport
http://m.youtube.com


Views: 31,390,990
Added: 1 month
Runtime: 3:56
Comments:

Tags for this video:  



Find more videos in the: "Howto"
Uploaded by: YouTube Help
See more videos uploaded by YouTube Help


Related Videos:

https://youtube.com/devicesupport

Views: 31390990
https://youtube.com/devicesupport http://m.youtube.com

Comments:

Author Simon Željko (7 months)
Anarcho-capitalism stands on one false assumption - it assumes that only
states can be the aggressors and only states can abuse their powers and
strong-arm citizens into submission. I don't know what it the basis for
this belief, but I have yet to see an anarcho-capitalist justify it. But
belief in that is greater than any religious belief, greater even than
belief in afterlife of suicide bombers. Chomsky is right, it's
totalitarianism in it's purest. No other ideology is more fundamentally
anti-democratic. Every single libertarian focuses solely on real or
imagined state atrocities, only the power of governments is illegitimate
everything else is perfectly acceptable just because it isn't committed by
the government.

What is incredibly transparent to everybody except anarcho-capitalists (at
least those that actually believe it, not the overwhelming majority of
cynics and sociopaths) is that it's actually based in fundamental rejection
of accountability. Accountability is "violence" for anarcho-capitalists. A
feudalist monarch as a ruler and owner of all land and to some extent even
all the people is perfectly compatible with anarcho-capitalist views. There
were no states back then so it's basically an anarcho-capitalist utopia,
given that they literally don't care about about anything else. Owner has a
right to dispose of his property as he pleases after all. It was only after
the evil revolutionaries stole the land from the owners that the awful
states were founded. These states of course brought accountability, and as
little as that might be or even as feigned, corrupted and imperfect as it
may be, it's universally despised by anarcho-capitalists.

Author ryan neitzel (5 months)
free market capitalism is the most oxy-moronic term i've ever heard.
there's nothing free about it, and it's designed to circumvent and destroy
markets.

Author calfor1991 (4 months)
Right libertarianism and anarcho capitalism are truly despostic ideals that
only wants "freedom" and "liberty" for the privileged and corporations. 

Author David Kramer (1 month)
BTW, Noam Chomsky is a multimillionaire. I don't see him sharing any of his
own wealth with the proletariat.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/noam-chomsky-net-worth/


Author Joe Schmoe (1 day)
So, as smart as he is he doesn't know what libertarianism is ? I'm shocked.
I really like Noam.

Author Charles Brown (5 months)
here libertarian means something different... Americans define words to
suit themselves

Author successfulbuild (3 months)
"Chomsky refutes "libertarian" "anarcho"- capitalism"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ#t=18

Author c4p0ne (4 months)
As of the year 2008, civilization has been armed with an economic tool
which has the potential to be so potent, so powerful as to, for the first
time in the history of our species, actually *allow* for the creation of
the conditions Smith talked about, and that professor Chomsky agreed "could
be possible but just isn't in the cards". Well, there's a fresh new deck,
it's called *Bitcoin.* The only showstopper: People need to wake up out of
their propagandized, consumer comas and recognize the enormous scope &
scale of Bitcoin's potential, and start learning and using it.

Could *Bitcoin* finally transform the fantasy of Laissez-faire into reality?

*BTC: 1PADNHhze28JLnXkvhKa6PjMVzspAnwgkH*

Author Jairah Jones (1 month)
I always hear libertarians these days taking about ancap, and free market
is absolute and should not have any regulations ever, I'd rather see them
encourage people to start their own businesses and use some of the profits
to put towards good causes. Part of the reason the American government is
so corrupt is money. Put money in the hands of good people! The left often
think the Government should fix everything, where the right thinks the free
market will fix everything. Both will screw you if good people do not get
involved in these things themselves and let either the Government or the
corporations take their course.

Author Don C (3 months)
"Chomsky refutes "libertarian" "anarcho"- capitalism"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ#t=18

Author Uber Genie (25 days)
Chomsky is a cunning linguist, full of bluster and rhetorical flourish.
Name-calling seems to lead his methodology. After taking all the advantages
of a limited government for his entire adult life, he never the less can
remains the darling of a fading so-called intellectual elite that defend
socialism, not with data but bombast. Locke and Natural Rights are at the
core of Libertarianism, not a President that was pro states rights and
thought wage labor was a crime and solved that latter problem by owning
over a hundred slaves and not paying them a wage! Socialism makes a method
of slavery whereby "The State" owns all the slaves.

There are serious discussions about how effective governments and markets
are at producing the things we desire in culture. But Chomsky is, and
always has been a propagandist worthy of Pravda! 

Author Nebojsa Galic (5 months)
Anarchy=/=Chaos
Anarchy=/=Society without government
Anarchy=Society with no HIERARCHY

Or, to elaborate:
You see the Greek word anarchy, would literally translate to English as
``Non-above-ness``Meaning no human beings are to be ``above`` others in any
way. If it was for society with no rulers or no-one being ruled it would be
called something like ``Ancracy`` or ``Anacracy`` Because the Greek word
for the verb ``to rule`` is ``kratein`` The very word which gave us the
word ``Democracy`` which means ``rule of the people``

And does n`t capitalism have quite a bit of hierarchy? How can you have
Anarchy, which means Non-Archy with so much hierARCHY??!?!!How can you have
a Non-Archy with so much Archy in it?

Author Ben Clark (3 months)
You must have a broad definition of "refute"

Author Uber Genie (25 days)
Anarcho-capitalism serves as a straw man for socialist attacks. These types
of libertarians represent less than 1% of libertarians on the street. One
can engage Hyack or Milton Friedman on libertarianism but David Friedman is
not of the same intellectual quality as his dad. And outside the academy I
have never run into a libertarian who is a Anarcho-capitalist. 

Author MillionthUsername (3 months)
Why does Chomsky exploit workers and starve poor people? Can anyone answer
that? How do we stop him? Chomsky engages in Total Tyranny when he fleeces
institutions for $12,000 or more when he speaks. He says that it's a
"voluntary" arrangement, but we all know what that means. What he's really
saying is that it's okay for him to engage in exploitation and systemic
coercion for the sake of Global Capitalism in order to fund his lavish
spending on personal luxury. That money comes out of the down-turned mouths
of the poor who have no one to defend them against capitalist exploiters
like Chomsky. They never agreed to have the value of their labor stolen by
Chomsky. He doesn't offer them democratic control over this stolen loot and
his other stashes of Private Wealth. No, he profits off of their toil and
sweat. His fancy sweaters and high tech glasses are bought with ill-gotten
capitalist gains and then hidden away in private bank accounts while people
starve daily in the poorest countries.

Author Nebojsa Galic (3 months)
Funny thing about you AnCaps. You sound an awful lot like the people you
hate most, socialists. When someone points out flaws in capitalists
societies you scream``BUT THAT WAS NOT OUR REAL SYSTEM! EVERYTHING THAT`S
EVER GONE WRONG IN THE WORLD HAS GONE WRONG BECAUSE OF ELEMENTS OF YOUR
SYSTEM!!!`` And then you lecture everyone else on how bad their systems are
and when they try to say ``BUT THAT WAS NOT OUR REAL SYSTEM!`` you say that
is no excuse.
So basically you are always right and everyone else is always
wrong......because freedom.
Why the hell do you think government forms in the first place?
To protect massive accumulations of wealth that arise from a small elite of
people owning the means of production.
Your ideas and conclusions are not illogical, they are wrong because they
are based on a grossly oversimplified model of the human being.
You basically believe people always strive towards their own immediate self
interest at the cost of everyone else, utterly disregarding the long-term
consequences, and that this is great as long as there is no violence
involved.
Hence all employees will always compete with each other for jobs and all
companies will always compete with each other for market share and
employees.

Which is absurd.

People band together based on common interests, and cooperate to achieve
them.
That is what has made us successful as a species. That is the fundamental
trait that has allowed us to become what we have become.

What do we see in real life with employees? They unionize. They perceive
their common interests and they cooperate, seeing how they would be harming
themselves in the long run by competing, and driving down wages.
What do we see in real life with capitalist enterprise? They do the exact
same thing. They know it is in their interest to drive down wages and
production costs and jack up prices.

Sure they compete sometimes. A company that is far superior to all others
will compete because it is sure it will WIN in the end. All empires want to
expand, but they only go to war against small states they know they can
absorb at a manageable cost to their resources, and a long term benefit.
They want to avoid wars with empires of equal size.

Competition is harmful, and the capitalist class knows it. You can beat a
kid up and take his lunch money, but he might ambush you tomorrow with a
couple of his friends.

You can compete with other companies and take away their market share and
have an immediate benefit, but it is suicidal in the long run. Your
competitors will match you. You would have severely harmed the other
members of you social class, and handicapped your ability to make a profit

The capital owning class has its interests, the working class has its. The
former is far more aware of them and far more capable of furthering them,
while the working class is often oblivious of them and each individual
worker competes against his class.

Author Cipher Veri (1 year)
Let me guess, Stefan Molyneux Fanboys flooded the comment section of an
outstanding clip of chomsky refuting Anarcho-Capitalism and proceeded to
demonstrate how little they actually know about the definitions of words.

Author BurningPyramid (2 months)
Chomsky is absolutely right. "Anarcho" capitalism is just fascism and
neo-feudalism. 

Author Jorg Ancrath (1 year)
Coming from someone who tried to downplay the Cambodian genocide to talk up
the potential for collective farming in the region I am little and less
convinced.

Author jadwiga0700 (5 days)
what an idiot.

Author Johny Diala (10 months)
Libertarians have this nutty delusion that there is some sort of "free
contract" between a potentate and his poor workers. This is largely due to
the fact that they are white, upper-middle class males who have never
endured real poverty. I'd suggest these people try going without food for a
week and see how "free" they are to say no to it once it is offered to
them, even if the person offering them the food is forcing them to do
egregious labour. Capitalism is simply a form of structural coercion; it
exploits the dire situation people are in. It's the farthest thing from
"voluntary"; it's like saying if somone put a gun to your head to try and
mug you, you would be "free" to not give him the money.

Author MARK KULTRA (3 months)
Those who cannot do, teach. Those who cannot teach or do real work,
conspiracy theorize.
Thank heaven that Chomsky is not a good orator- he is a proficient writer-
but one very bad speaker.
He's just someone who helps poor people feel sorry for themselves, and he
might not intentionally do it- but he keeps those who subscribe to his
theories in a state of fear.

Author The Critical G (1 year)
So, according, to Comrade Chomsky, libertarianism means "...power ought to
be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies..."

When was the last time a Starbucks employee held a gun to your head and
ordered that you buy coffee?

"...even worse than state tyrannies, because there the public has some kind
of rule..."

Excellent, I'm sure that the FDA considers itself very accountable to
citizens who write letters, as do the Federal Reserve, the enforcers of
federal anti-drug laws in States that legalised marijuana, etc.

Why do people listen to this guy?

Author Matthew Hayden (3 months)
"tyrants do what they feel like... they're global..."

Or just don't buy what they're selling. Bye-bye market power.

Author exbronco1980 (8 months)
people who live in a pure capitalist nation (libertarian according to the
american definition) would have some choice. they could choose what
products to buy, some people could also choose where they work. one
example, let's say you hate mcdonalds- don't ever go to mcdonalds. example
2, you think movie tickets cost too much- don't go to the movies. i know
sometimes it's really hard to avoid products from a company one might not
like, but usually one has some kind of choice. you don't always have to do
what some corporation wants you to do.

Author G. Gibson (6 months)
Chomsky refutes "libertarian" "anarcho"- capitali…:
http://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rcQ

Author Lars Hallberg (Play is life) (6 months)


Author eyeseethroughyou (1 year)
Gotta love all the right wing proprietarians trolling Chomsky videos. Why
aren't you pseudo-intellectuals off watching Molyneux and Schiff videos,
wanking off any time one of them mentions "FREE MARKETS" and "LIBERTY" ?

Author Jacob Zolt (6 months)
Chomsky refutes "libertarian" "anarcho"- capitali…:
http://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rcQ

Author Tippersnore (8 months)
Chimpsky Rothabrd/Mises smack-down?

Author Gufberg (1 year)
Its truely comedic to see half-assed idiots, who can barely type out a
grammatically correct sentence, talk about how "stupid" this guy is or how
"he is just and old man who doesn't know what he is a talking about".
He is one of the most renowned and respected Professors in the world. His
ideas have sent reverberations through the fields of History, Economics,
Philosophy and ofcourse linguistics. He is daily invited to University
Symposiums all across the world ... What about you? What are you doing that
gives you the authority to call this guy an idiot? Get out of here.

Author JML (25 days)


Author Michael Giove (1 year)
Chomsky refutes "libertarian" "anarcho"- capitalism

Author Svelt Man (5 months)
it really doesn't matter what you call private property rights and the
absence of a state coersion. call it bongoism if it makes you happy.
'conditions of perfect equality' entails private property and voluntarism
at the very least as adam smith knew. chomsky's reading of adam smith is
evasive and spurious. i encourage anyone who really wants to know about
this to read Adam Smith and see if you think Chomsky is representing him
fairly here. 

Author Rich Beer (8 months)
Assumptions about libertarians in this thread are among the most laughable
I've read. Statetheism is strong here. Regardless decentralization on a
massive scale is just around the corner. Decentalization of the internet
(ala MaidSafe), decentralization of the marketplace (ala Open Bazzar),
decentralization of currencies (ala cryptocoins), decentralization of
government (ala Sea Steading Institute) ... but who will build the roads?
You are absolutely right, scratch everything I said, we as a species could
never get along without a coercive central planning agency. How foolish of
me.

Author sam little (4 months)
Chomsky's a little contradictory here. On the one hand, he says third world
capitalism is free market capitalism, but that the powerful wouldn't let
that happen here. Well, why not? Wouldn't the wealthy have more power,
according to Chomsky's view, if the system was completely unregulated? Or
is he making some weird argument that the powerful are actually altruistic?
It would probably be more accurate to describe what we in the US call
libertarianism as classical liberalism. But then what does Chomsky think
about that? Is classical liberalism tyranny? Of course, now people call
classical liberalism neoliberalism, to hide the fact that classical liberal
thought is a rich part of the enlightenment tradition that Chomsky claims
to respect.

I say claims because on many occasions Chomsky has said the enlightenment
tradition was about promoting bogus western cultural centrism/imperialism
and not a genuine improvement in the way that socialism/communism and later
movements were (this even puts him at odds with Marx). He has also said the
American war for Independence was basically bullshit, while at the same
time here, claiming to respect Thomas Jefferson. So basically, Chomsky will
claim the enlightenment when it suits him, to make himself look like the
reasonable man and claim that others have perverted and co-opted the
philosophy which he readily tosses aside much of the time. Gotta love the
guy. Having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing all at the
same time.

Oh, and by the way, just remember this guy who hates rich capitalists who
hide their money in tax free offshore accounts does the same thing with his
money to avoid being taxed. But of course, that's the left for you. If you
resist a tax because the coercive government messes with people's lives and
the economy, then you're a crony. But if you resist a tax because the same
corrupt government is involved in a ridiculous and unjust war, well then
that's heroic. What an asshole.

Author Blake Seener (7 months)
Check out "The state is too dangerous to tolerate" by Robert Higgs.
Organized evil individuals who would otherwise have the same amount of
power and designated authority over anyone else during anarchism, wreacks
the ultimate havoc as they wield state power. Would you rather have
voluntary actions with other individuals and the right to that liberty, or
have a state with a monopoly over violence that steals, kills, and robs
people to maintain its power, get involved and force one group or
individual to preside over another. I would much rather live under a
society where individuals were responsible for their own future, and not
have this factually extremely violent entity get involved claiming to have
some legitimate authority under the guise of keeping everyone safe. 

Author Vuk11 (1 year)
2:40 he is saying unsubsidised capitalism has existed as if that is a claim
that a free market has existed. Africa being the continent with the highest
regulation I don't know how we can say that it's an example of a free
market.

Places like "muh Somalia" were failed states instantly taken over by
warlords. To an Ancap, Statism = Violent Coercive monopoly, which is
exactly what a Warlord it. We do not advocate revolt, as that does leave it
open for Warlords and outside states, we advocate gradual
multi-generational change, towards a more morally based society, one based
on principle and free association. 

Author powergirl901 (5 months)
Your Doctor Chomsky, the original economic Tummler...

Author Philippe James (5 months)
'Anarcho-capitalism' is a serious personality disorder characterised by
constant, pathological lying on the part of the sufferer. People who suffer
from this disorder also tend to manifest a greatly reduced capacity for
logical thought and human empathy. This is a very damaging personality
disorder which has ruined many lives and families. We need to take this
problem seriously, and should stop mistaking this disorder for a 'political
ideology'. People suffering from this disorder need our help. They need
professional psychological therapy and support, and above all they need
love.

Please donate now to the charity Curing Anarcho-Capitalism. They are doing
great work to help mend the shattered lives ruined by this terrible medical
problem. Thank you. 

Author RAMONREVOLUTION PUNK (6 months)


Author ChasingTruth TakingFlak (1 year)
This is the biggest and most important socialist deception, that
capitalists have distorted language.

Socialists are the true culprits of language confusion, they will tell you
that libertarianism means being the property of your fellow man. They will
tell you that liberty takes the form of mutual societal bondage.

Chomsky is an intelligent man, which is why he's able to pass this bullshit
right under people's noses without them noticing. He turns the expression
of concepts through language into a "he said, she said" pissing contest
about "X" political ideology owning "Y" words.

Author Pedro Vaz (1 month)
Anarchism...Jewish style. Bakunin had some nice words concerning the Jews
go read them for yourself.

Author Joey Clavette (1 year)
It cuts off at the good part. Where is the rest?

Author Durruti Bielski (1 year)
Do you know where i can read the stuff from chomsky?
Some internet library somewhere?

Author Matthew Hayden (5 months)
What Chomsky quotes at roughly 4:00 would come to pass in a free (ancap)
society anyway. Productivity increases would eventually reduce all prices
to the point where there poorest people in the world would be living like
the American upper middle class.

Upper middle class in 2014 = 100k - 300k per year household income.

The reasons would be complex but ultimately boil down to unimpeded division
of labour, everybody actually enjoying the fruits of increasing
productivity over decade-plus timescales due to the absence of inflation,
and the constant process of invention, innovation, and opportunity
discovery as, day by day, people discover more and better ways to provide
each other with goods and services in ways which are mutually beneficial.

Since the questioner asked about Chomsky's self-identification as a
'libertarian' I feel the good professor missed a trick by explaining that
anyone who prizes liberty above authority is a libertarian. I mean it just
means one who is 'into' liberty.

I refer to myself usually as a voluntarist / voluntaryist / ancap /
austro-libertarian / austro-liberal / palaeo-liberal / liberal. The word
liberal, in American usage, is bent out of shape as well. I am an economist
by knowledge and skill base and tend to think of my approach as
palaeo-austrian to mean I use the Austrian method in the Austrian way to
divine everything I dare to divine about human behaviour and interaction.
It's served me far better than the methods I learned in my Econ BSc.

I've always liked Chomsky's reading of history and of characters from the
past, and I think he gets Jefferson in ways my own tribe (the saucy saucy
ancaps) perhaps doesn't. Jefferson did indeed despair of the division of
labour, but since division of labour saves me having to grow my own food,
and is the reason for all progress ever, I feel I can treat Jefferson, like
anyone I have read, with an open mind, but not obsequious adulation.

Author RAMONREVOLUTION PUNK (6 months)


Author muledunn (1 year)
What a crock of shit, was hoping for something challenging. Libertarian
ideas such as not locking ppl up for smoking weed is tyrannical ? Noam
Chomsky is the dumbest intellectual's intellectual 

Author esmifrado (1 year)
Why is this guy so respected? I never heard him saying anything sensefull
or based in real facts...

Author To Hell With Our Orders (10 months)
Private, unaccountable tyranny.... sounds more like the NSA than best buy

Embed Video:

URL 
Link 

Search Video

Top Videos

Top 100 >>>

Videos

Analyse website