Videos





Views:
Added:
Runtime:
Comments:

Tags for this video:



Find more videos in the: ""
Uploaded by:
See more videos uploaded by


Comments:

Author Lee Soarez ( ago)
He didn't refute SHIT! As expected, of course.

Author Luis R Vera Suárez ( ago)
So you're a "Libertarian socialist" I am an octopus banana 

Author ProudBourgeoisie ( ago)
All relationships between individuals should be voluntary and consensual.
It doesn't mean they have equal bargaining power, equal skills, equal
talents. "Equality" is a nonsensical idea that can never exist because
people are not equal.

So long as there is not the initiation of physical coercion by either
party, individuals should be free to do whatever they goddamned well
please. Period.

Author Frederick Douglass ( ago)
Noam Chomsky is a statist socialist

Author Charles Krüger ( ago)
Yea he totally "refuted" it #not

Author Apihtawikosisaniskwew Ballantyne ( ago)


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

Author jadwiga0700 ( ago)
what an idiot.

Author JML ( ago)


Author Uber “Genius” Genie ( ago)
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 Uber “Genius” Genie ( ago)
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 David Kramer ( ago)
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 Jairah Jones ( ago)
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 Pedro Vaz ( ago)
Anarchism...Jewish style. Bakunin had some nice words concerning the Jews
go read them for yourself.

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

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

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

Author Nebojsa Galic ( ago)
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 MillionthUsername ( ago)
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 Ben Clark ( ago)
You must have a broad definition of "refute"

Author successfulbuild ( ago)
Noam Chomsky refutes "anarcho-capitalism."

#libertarian #economics #anarchocapitalism #socialism  

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

Author Jonny 5ive ( ago)
Nice strawman Mr1001nights. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are very
different! One uses the state, the other doesn't. One is fascism the other
is free markets and voluntaryism. One is minarchist the other is anarchist.
Is it that hard for you to understand?

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

Author c4p0ne ( ago)
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 Nebojsa Galic ( ago)
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 Matthew Hayden ( ago)
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 ryan neitzel ( ago)
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 Charles Brown ( ago)
here libertarian means something different... Americans define words to
suit themselves

Author Svelt Man ( ago)
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 Philippe James ( ago)
'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 powergirl901 ( ago)
Your Doctor Chomsky, the original economic Tummler...

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

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

Author Lars Hallberg (Play is life) ( ago)


Author RAMONREVOLUTION PUNK ( ago)


Author RAMONREVOLUTION PUNK ( ago)
why the moderator  deleted this video,,,this is not to much anarchist

Author RAMONREVOLUTION PUNK ( ago)


Author Simon Željko ( ago)
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 Blake Seener ( ago)
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 Tippersnore ( ago)
Chimpsky Rothabrd/Mises smack-down?

Author AcePL S. ( ago)
Chomsky is full of it. First example: corporations exist BECAUSE of state.
They feed each other. Same monopoly: unless forced by state, wouldn't exist
for long. Look what robber barons tried without state to back them up:
hired mercenaries, who more often than not were beaten back by ordinary
people.
Also: he can have socialism. But WHY I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT? F**k off!! My
property is mine. What he proposes is robbery. Plain and simple. Another
reason ANYTHING ELSE THAN FREE MARKET is immoral, wrong and simply put
unnatural.
Communism is form of socialism. Don't kid yourself otherwise. Also fascism.
And anything else that demands from one person to give to another, in the
process enriching POLITICIANS AND DECIDENTS.
Chomsky feeds his bullshit because it's politically in demand and he lives
off it.

Author exbronco1980 ( ago)
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 Rich Beer ( ago)
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 Edmond Dantès ( ago)
Okay, so he goes right off the bat, proving that he has no concept of what
"capitalism" actually means and gives his own definition to it, which
differs vastly from the definition anarcho-capatalists give it, making his
"refutation" utterly pointless. You also have to be one hell of a wanker to
attack people and movements on the basis of the vocabulary they use,
instead of the ideas they promote. And Chomsky obviously doesn't see beyond
the semantics/verbiage treshold. In an anarcho-capitalist society, "waged
labor", would just be "services exchanged over a period of time, with a
mutually voluntary contract signed by both parties to make sure it remains
mutually beneficial", implying no more hierarchy than there exists between
me and a car salesman when I buy a car from him. It's called free trade.
This doesn't change magically when you trade services instead of products.
It also doesn't magically turn into slavery because the trade lasts over an
agreed period of time instead of a single occurance. I seriously don't know
why people put this man on a pedestal, when his thinking process stops at
mere semantics and vocabulary. Contracted work in an anarcho-capitalist
society would be voluntary, mutually beneficial interaction, not a form of
hierarchy. If I pay an electrician to fix my electricity, I pay him because
I want his services more than I want my money and he performs the services
because he wants my money more than his time. Mutually beneficial win-win
voluntary interaction right there. Now, if the electrician needs a few days
to do this, and we agree to put this in a contract, does it suddenly imply
that either party "owns" the other now? Hell no. The only factors that make
our society fundamentally non-capitalist are government taxation,
regulation and favoratism. It's not capitalism, free trade or a free market
when government enforces monopolies or subsidizes privileges for one
economic player and steals from the rest to do this. The reason why we have
wage slavery is because government steals half your paycheck and makes
labor incredibly expensive for employers, meaning less jobs, meaning a
higher risk when you quit your job and a real possibility that you won't
find any better if you're dissatisfied with your compensation. Government
is a crucial factor in creating the phenomenon of wage slavery. Chomsky
differentiates between government and other forms of social hierarchy as if
they aren't one and the same, as if our current socio-economic problems and
current lifestyles aren't all just symptoms of having government as an
institution. And from the moment that a person denies that the mess we're
in exists BECAUSE we have taxation, overregulation and government
favoratism in the market, that's the moment I lose interest in the
fantasies he comes up with. I would even love to debate him on this if he
could just get rid of the whole "I was born before you and in MY time,
anarchists were more anarchistic than all these youngsters who use words
differently than I do" attitude.

Author jonas brave ( ago)
I think many of us are talking about MONEY - it has NO intrinsic worth, but
it is an excellent instrument of control (mind control, behavioural
control, attitudes.) We are being played by this game called money. The
slaves need not have chains, if they have a token value substitute they can
attach their mental slavery to.
Money is an instrument of control such that 'your' share can be constantly
hollowed out, devalued and rescinded by the government and industry, and so
arbitrarily - you may think you have a six figure income, but the more you
make the more ways they can effectively cancel it out. As in the former
Soviet Union, there is an attempt to 'make everyone the same' - and poor.
Why? It keeps us playing the game. The difference is in Soviet communism
nobody gave a shit about their job, and WE are motivated to work and
produce value by constantly chasing a false promise of money.
ONLY by constantly taking away what we earn can they keep us running after
it, rarely understanding what a bad deal it is. Then we die - and they
again take 40% away.

Author Jm Mac ( ago)
Libertarianism /capitalism is non-stop shape shifting /derailing
/misdirection to break "Socratic Questions" [++]. Specifically Soc Quests
to make them see how capi /libert uniquely creates and defends the
liberalism /feminism it bemoans. [++ Pop-corn trails of questions that try
to get the target to have epiphanies about the error(s) of their thinking.]

And if it dies, most things western culture hold dear will too...

Author Andrew Stergiou ( ago)


Author Andrew Stergiou ( ago)


Author Johny Diala ( ago)
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 serjthereturn ( ago)
the mafia and organised crime are perfect examples of 'anarcho' capitalism
in action

Author To Hell With Our Orders ( ago)
Ok wow so in a video titled "Chomsky refutes "libertarian" "anarcho"-
capitalism" He endorses a quote from Adam Smith "Under conditions of
perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality." First of all let's
forget the word perfect as we are dealing with reality and there are no
"perfect circles" and abstract concepts. If you abolish the state
completely and interactions between individuals could be completely
voluntary (which is about as close to perfect liberty as you can get), that
would lead to the highest level of equality. Chomsky follows by saying, "If
that were possible maybe so." - GREAT! "But it's not in the cards" - Why
not? "oh nevermind the argument probably doesn't work, its fallacious." -
Ok, go ahead and don't show why... and don't explain why your personal
belief of "a free society will never be possible" is more likely than not.

Meanwhile, the assertion that the highest level of liberty possible would
likely lead to the greatest amount of equality possible goes un-refuted.
Thank you, you've done some good work proving the ancap argument in this
video that you probably just named wrong.

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

Author wungabunga ( ago)
Chomsky owning you 'freedom!' drones. haha. Loving the shamefaced anger in
the comments section from undergraduate know it alls. 

Author Eric Schuchman ( ago)
Retard

Author Israel R (IsraeliConservative) ( ago)
propaganda. can't those socialist stop distorting everything?

Author Ian G ( ago)
Fooking commie spook. Time to go bye-bye already, no? Gei in dreard
already!!!

Author Why ( ago)
Governments are solely responsible for every evil known to man from the
plastic soup we call oceans to hemorrhoids. In fact, if it wasn't for the
dedicated efforts of the Koch brothers and a plucky band of oil companies
we would all be victims of the U.N. plot to bring the world to it's knees
with a carbon tax and ultimately take our guns away because, let's face it,
American citizens with their guns are the only thing preventing world wide
tyranny.

I just don't understand why Chomsky doesn't realize that the best way to
fix all problems is to allow corporations to do business as they see fit,
unfettered by nefarious concepts like the environment and social justice. I
mean really, what does he know? He's just some guy in youtube videos
whereas I've read Rothbard.

Author Procession of Chains ( ago)
I hate this pretentious person

Author Awesome Believer ( ago)
Chomsky is a boring yet attention seeking idiot who probably would not
survive a day trying to earn a living outside of the failed and highly
corrupted socialist welfare like system of academia today. 

Author eyeseethroughyou ( ago)
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 The Critical G ( ago)
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 Brooks Gorden ( ago)
any good videos of real libertarians owning this guy? 

Author ChasingTruth TakingFlak ( ago)
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 muledunn ( ago)
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 cerealbole ( ago)
This video is just full of ad hominem attacks. He hasn't actually
presented any arguments. Nothing to refute.

As to his claim to be an anarchist...the word "anarchist" comes from the
Greek word anarchos meaning "one without rulers." In other videos he has
described anarcho-syndicalism, proposing "democratic control" of all
institutions in society. He has also proposed forcing everyone to work the
jobs that nobody wants to work. What does "one without rulers" mean to
you? Does it mean that you are free most of the time but not all of the
time? If your peers have the right to vote to force you to dig ditches,
are they not ruling over you in this instance? My understanding of anarchy
is not that I sometimes get the right to rule you and you sometimes get to
rule me depending on how the mob votes. If someone who understands his
philosophy better could please clarify this for me I would greatly
appreciate it. 

Author TakishidoKamen9193 ( ago)
"Statism": A society dominated by authoritarian, collectivist, bureaucratic
institutions with limited democratic control.
"Libertarianism": A society dominated by authoritarian, collectivist,
bureaucratic institutions with ZERO democratic control.

Author Nick Coons ( ago)
In order to refute something, you have to make arguments. Chomsky made no
arguments in this video, he clarified what he believed historical people
meant when they wrote stuff, and provided conclusion that didn't draw from
those statements. Therefore, he refuted nothing. The title of this video is
misleading.

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

Author Juan Manuel Correa Caicedo ( ago)
The division of labour leads to so much efficiency that i can get 15 years
of education without working. That's not as stupid and as ignorant for a
human to be. If adam smith said it, adam smith was wrong

Author Vuk11 ( ago)
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 version191 ( ago)
he is right libertarian and anarcho capitalists are absolute fucktard
idiots 

Author Thomas “Down” m ( ago)
Ughhh i can't stand chomsky he talks such shiiiiiit 

Author Alfonso Gutierrez ( ago)
The tenets of anarchism is brutal and wreckless. Anarchism and its
perspective represent a society that has no accountability or
responsibility to its social compact. 

Author Mark V ( ago)
He just says that libertarianism doesn't mean the same thing as it does
elsewhere. I have yet to hear a solid ancap refutation from anyone
anywhere. All you can do is speculate on what the outcome would be from a
purely capitalist society, but that's pretty much it. Anarcho-Capitalist
ideas are theoretical at this point, you can't refute something that has
never been tried.

Author Mark V ( ago)
I don't see a refutation here.

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

Author Alfonso Gutierrez ( ago)
Libertarianism is full of shit...its premises are simply delusional and
idiotic like their gods Ayn Rand, Adam Smith and the worst of these clowns,
the crazed old man Ron Paul.

Author leGrand Fromage ( ago)
This makes me want to read Adam Smith. His philosophies sound more
complicated than I assumed.

Author Alfonso Gutierrez ( ago)
Anarcho capitalism= The tyranny of the elites.


Author Rich Beer ( ago)
Chomsky is brilliant on many levels but is not all knowing. He has ideas,
some good, some great and others maybe neither but at least he has ideas
that provoke others to question their own beliefs. Whether you agree with
the viability of anarcho-capitalism or not, it is worth looking at if only
because it is becoming increasingly popular with a subculture of highly
intelligent youth.

Author Cipher Veri (Urban) ( ago)
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 Alfonso Gutierrez ( ago)
Welcome to the machine! The power of the free-market and its grabbing of
our liberty and how we are all not free, just commodified products of a
factory...fabricated to produce destructive individuals. Without a
mechanism of power to control human behavior will eventually lead to more
killings. But it is sad how more of the people sell out to become part of
the machine of anarcho capitalism and give up their humanity for fortune.
Libertarianism a bastard ideology of the right-wing. 

Author 9thchild ( ago)
So because we can't reach perfect liberty (in his opinion), then we
shouldn't even bother to try for more liberty than we have? And because
capitalism can't work without perfect liberty we shouldn't bother with that
either? Very hard to follow his logic. I know he's famous and all, but
sometimes people are just wrong. 

Author zg76 ( ago)
It's too bad Prof. Chomsky has so little and so bad knowledge in Economy.

Author themi90 ( ago)
Adam Smith hated capitalism?

Author AskaLizzy ( ago)
A rich person or a large company, without government to service it and
protect its monopoly, can't cage you or kill you if you disobey it, and
governments only present the theatre, the appearance, that people get a
voice, that it isn't there to cage and murder those who disobey the one it
really serves, the special interests with pull. When he says "everywhere
else" he means in Marxist dominated countries, where the Frankfurt School
social engineering has mind controlled everyone.

Author 70matusz ( ago)
Nice title of the video, but highly deceptive.... he doesn't say anything
to refute anarcho-capitalism. He just says that words have changed
meaning.... yes that is what words do over time. 

Author Gufberg ( ago)
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 Travis Collier ( ago)
This analysis is spot on. In fact the first person to call himself a
libertarian was the anarcho-communist DeJacque who criticized the free
market religion triumphed by a-cap loons. Libertarian ideals in the most
simple sense are the antithesis of authoritarianism.

Author Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 ( ago)
Those who believe in attempting to bring about equality do not believe in
morality.

Collectivism is totally idiotic and to give an example, its proponents
simultaneously claim that bringing about a collectivist system is justified
because the "proletariat" have been wrongly treated by the "bourgeoisie",
and that collectivists are justified in seeking to establish totally amoral
and immoral equality because there is no such thing as wrong.

Author Metaterrestrial ( ago)
Anarcho-capitalist societies would never develop beyond scattered pig
farms. No roads, no internet – just a few unhealthy families living with
their backwards free trade indoctrination. The only question is whether the
government serves special interests or the population, because it's not
going anywhere. Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism isn't even worth a
debate, a total fantasy. The problem is there's enough propaganda victims
to take it all seriously and support destructive policies that serve the
corps and the elite.

Author Edward Welsch ( ago)
Chomsky is totally confusing and distorting what libertarianism means and
its history. This is a short definition, and it applies no matter the
location or time period: In a free society, we own our selves and our
property and we have the equal opportunity to exercise rights over those.
This is the "perfect equality" of rights. What it doesn't include, and is
the source of Chomsky's confusion, is equality of outcomes. We our selves
differ just as our property differs, and our outcomes differ as a result.

What people in free societies don't have a right to do is to take another
person's rights away in order to make outcomes more "fair," which is what
Chomsky is advocating. Free societies don't aggress on personal rights in
the name of making outcomes equal. Certainly the current societies in the
U.S. and Western Europe fall short of being completely free by this
definition, but they are an improvement upon the past.

Chomsky calls this free system of equal rights and inequal outcomes
"extreme tyranny." That does an injustice to the reality of real tyrannies
that existed for most of human history, and is ignorant of the history of
human deprivation that plagued the communist societies that tried to
guarantee the equality of outcomes that he advocates.

People should remember that Chomsky's expertise and brilliance is in the
field of linguistics. Unfortunately he's used his well deserved success in
that field as a platform to pronounce on politics and economics, where not
only is he not qualified, but he's barely coherent.

Author Alfonso Gutierrez ( ago)
Libertarians themselves are a big joke. Capitalism will always oppress the
working class threw private property and free-market which will convert
every aspect of life into a commodity. I never heard libertarians saying
anything sensefull or based in the real world...only delusional thinking.

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

Author Anes Kurtovic ( ago)
John Doe Jr. go play some moron games...

Author darrellray1964 ( ago)
He is a socialist, plain and simple. Anarchy means no government. As much
as you left-wing nuts like to think socialism is all about the workers
controlling the means of production, it isn't. Socialism will always need
government to force people into slave labor. If you think it is anything
other than that, then you are an idiot. There is no incentive in socialism
and therefore, for socialism to exist, it will need a police state to force
people into it. Because there is no incentive, there will be no innovation
and no economic growth unless people are force to produce. A system like
that isn't sustainable. Most countries today have mixed economies that are
partly state run and capitalism. They will all collapse without
capitalism. The left blame capitalism for things that government have
caused. Think about the housing bubble, that started because of low
interest rates. The low interest rates created speculative investment
which created malinvestment. In a free market, the interest rates would
have been at equilibrium. In a free market, we wouldn't be experiencing
boom and bust markets. In a free market, competition will keep prices
down. Prices go up when government gets involved in markets. And then you
can add inflation. Government creates inflation through monetary policy.
Inflation is getting out of control because government is printing too
much currency to pay for interest on their debt. Therefore, the purchasing
power of the U.S. Dollar diminishes.

Author theElasticJesuz ( ago)
Feudalism - sorry I mean't capitalism (as it's spelt in St Louis) - in a
nutshell.

1. I conquer your land.
2. I force you to pay rent for the land I stole from you.
3. I force you to produce my food of which, if you work hard enough, I'll
allow you 1 turnip as reward.
4. You start to breed since there's little else to relieve the tedium of
your slavery (*sorry I meant freedom* ) BUT YOUR incessant breeding gives
me a headache.
5. Some of my clever mates invent something called machinery and a
light-bulb starts to flash.
6. Machine makes items that the brats WILL need only they don't know it yet
since I haven't yet built the 17th century version of Saatchi and Saatchi.
7. Brats work in factories. Brats make products that they WILL need - OR
ELSE!!!

[note: I SET THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING SINCE I INVENT THE ECONOMICS THAT
INVENT THE INVIVIBLE HAND THAT SETS THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING.

C'mon!!! Keep up. It's not that difficult. I went to Oxford, you know!!! ]

7 cont... Brats get paid just enough to stop them revolting but not enough
to make them fat and lazy.
8. I win. They lose. I make plenty of profit and Saatchi and Saatchi get a
nice reward for convincing the plebs they're free to leave anytime they
want so long as they have the ticket fare to the non-Capitalsed Moon.

Three cheers for William the Bastard, as they sing down in Eton...and
Harvard...and Yale...and........... 

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

Embed Video:

URL 
Link 

Search Video

Top Videos

Top 100 >>>

Videos

Analyse website