?Dismantling of big government? sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded ? like what we?re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,?.? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.
-
-Noam Chomsky -
it means its a government that is bigger than a large but smaller than a gigantic
Email: Clicky on Me -
dopes like chomsky always pretend its all or nothing.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
don't worry the mises robots will be in here soon to set your straight.Comment
-
-
It is the opposite of oligarchy ...
The middle ground is "politics as usual" or "political deadlock."Comment
-
As posted before, Noam Chomsky is a hypocrite and a war profiteer. No wonder he's a fan of big government:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/h...t/article/6222
One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky?s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the ?massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich? and criticized the concentration of wealth in ?trusts? by the wealthiest 1 percent.
But trusts can?t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself.
-------------------
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: ?I don?t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,? he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam.
-------------------
Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public. You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: ?If you look at the things I write?articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever?they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I?m kind of a parasite. I mean, I?m living off the activism of others. I?m happy to do it.?
Chomsky?s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.Comment
-
To call a person a war profiteer because they give speeches campaigning against war is to give stupidity a new low meaning.
Chomsky is interesting because not only does he write original and interesting material but how he is kept off the TV. Proving what he writes, that democracy, in the form of choosing between Pepsi and Coke every four years is a very stunted form of democracy.
The people who talk about BIG Gov never want to close down the military, and that is the biggest part.Comment
-
Who is calling him a war profiteer for giving speeches against war?
Let me try and break it down for you:
Days prior to 9/11
Chomsky's speaking fee: $9,000
Days after 9/11
Chomsky's speaking fee: $12,000
An act (which many considered to be of war) occurred on U.S. soil, and the War on Terror was ready to begin. Chomsky, being more in demand, decided to profit off of this ensuing war to the tune of an extra $3,000 a speech. Sounds like a war profiteer to me.
That is, unless you have a better term for what he did.
Last edited by acrylix; 08-15-2011, 03:35 PM.Comment
-
There are so many logical fallacies in that quote I don't even know where to begin, LOLICQ: 258-202-811 | Email: eric{at}bestxxxporn.comComment
-
Limited liability should be defined by a contract between buyer and seller... the government doesn't need to oversee this process by injecting regulation that lobbiests are paid to promote. Let the consumer choose, not the companies themselves forcing legislation that favors themselves.
Why would a smaller government ever mean that health, safety, and worker's rights go out the window? This doesn't even make any logical sense.
Corporations are beholdent to the dollar. If consumers don't like the company, they don't buy from them and the company goes out of business. Corporations shouldn't be able to hide behind government protection they themselves created...
Is this guy smoking crack?! You think computers and the Internet were publicly funded?! Sure the Internet started as ARPANET but that was a long time ago and was so rudimentary it doesn't even begin to TOUCH what the private sector has done. The only tax dollars going into the Internet these days are programs like carnivore and this giant kill switch they want to put in place. Let's not kid ourselves, the private sector drives the Internet AND computer hardware.
Every notice the nicest roads are the roads right around malls, grocery stores, etc...? That's because they're paid for independently. Before tax dollars went to creating roads private companies paid for roads because it benefits their business. Easier access means more business. Rail road companies back in the day actually paid people to build towns near the railroad because it was good for business. Also, state sales tax and tolls pay to build roads and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think roads, schools, and public transportation is what is in mind when people talk about big government. Even so public transportation often times (and should) operate at a profit... nothing wrong with that. It's not consuming tax dollars.
Are you shitting me? Someone show me a single "tyrannical" company that ruled over people... If you do, I'll show you a company that never lasted.
I'll say it again, companies are beholdent to the dollar and the only thing that creates TRUE monopolies is the government itself. We see this with electric companies, we see this with cable companies, we see this with the USPS, we see this with passenger trains in the US. All these companies, these government sanctioned monopolies... are the ones that people complain about the most. A true tyrannical monopoly can only exist under the government's authority.ICQ: 258-202-811 | Email: eric{at}bestxxxporn.comComment
-
As I have met Noam Chomski, and he gave his time for nothing, I feel I can tell you that you are talking total utter bollocks.Who is calling him a war profiteer for giving speeches against war?
Let me try and break it down for you:
Days prior to 9/11
Chomsky's speaking fee: $9,000
Days after 9/11
Chomsky's speaking fee: $12,000
An act (which many considered to be of war) occurred on U.S. soil, and the War on Terror was ready to begin. Chomsky, being more in demand, decided to profit off of this ensuing war to the tune of an extra $3,000 a speech. Sounds like a war profiteer to me. That is, unless you have a better term for what he did.
You organise an meeting and Noam Chomsky will speak at it if you ask nicely, for nothing.
Compare that to the fees the War mongers Blair Bush etc charge. They make war and profit from it.
You insult the man as you cannot deal with his ideas.Comment
-
funny to see the mises robots smoke and sputter like christians at a porn convention.Comment
-
I actually enjoy the irony of those who make a living off of "caring about the little guy" which have absolutely no problems getting rich by exploiting the little guy by explaining that the little guy is being exploited by the rich.
Its quite a mind fuck.
Bono for example, cares more than anyone in this world. He just doesn't care enough to give up his private jets and multiple estates and luxury cars to put food in someones mouth. He has no problem guilting you into thinking you should give up your Corvette and leather jacket to put food in someones mouth. He cares enough to tell you how much he cares and takes time from his busy schedule of increasing his wealth to tell you to give up a part of your income to do so. He even cares enough to sing songs for free sometimes to help others. Yay Bono!
Liberal thinking is always the same. Everyone's "compassionate" except when it comes to personal sacrifice. Everyone should sacrifice. I have yet to see the guy who got rich because he cared (Michael Moore etc) and who gave all their money away and continued driving their shitty Toyota Corolla and continued living in squalor because it "really isn't about the money... its about doing whats right"..
Yes, fewer illegal immigrants working equates to more job opportunities for American citizens.
RochardComment
-
BIG government is a government ran by a black man
I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !
But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....Comment
-
A big government is like a big dick, it is useless until you find someone to fuck with.Comment
-
Judge people by the ideas and the we they behave sure.
Black propaganda that Trade Unionists, Strikers or Revolutionaries were secret millionaires is as old as the Zinoviev letter.
Make sure you get the facts.Comment
Comment