Noam Chomsky

[Schmelzer]

Not very realistic. Bank robbers rarely are more than a three man team. "Second story thieves" work alone. In general, the reverse is true - i.e. the most violent ones are not well socialized.

So how is this in conflict with my claims? Violent guys are not really strong - your bank robbers run away because they are weak, instead, the police forces the bank to pay taxes and does not run away. So, who is the strong one, and who is the weak one?

The Mexican drug lord who recently escaped, has killed several thousand people. He gets lots of cooperation, via terror; as evidenced by multi-year construction of a mile long tunnel 30 yards below the surface with lights, ventilation shafts and air conditioning! - Not a weak guy at all.

Of course. But organizing drug trade is, in itself, a highly social activity, it creates a lot of jobs, a lot of people live from this. This is a quite general effect: Organised crime appears where the state forbids something which would exists in a free market society on the base of volitional contracts - prostitution, gambling, drugs, alcohol and tobacco, all this requires cooperation to be provided to willing customers, thus, is in this sense an illegal form of social, cooperative behaviour.

You may need to pay a little more (now because of governments making it a crime with huge penalty if caught) but even now, "contract killers" are for hire. With your system, getting someone killed you don't like would be cheap, it you don't want to do the job yourself.

No. The security firms would, of course, offer also defense against such killers, and this defense would be as dangerous for the contract killers than police today, if not more. One can expect that the contract killers will make different prices for killing customers of different firms in dependence of this danger, and that, in reaction, these prices can be used as arguments in the competition between security firms.

Not true. Bad people may just pay more, especially to firms that supply rock solid alibies for crimes the bad guys commit. Without punishment crime, including violent crime, rates would soar. True that without government vigilante groups would form a they did in the early days of the "wild west" but quite often they are vindictively used.

Sorry, but this is wild phantasy. Alibis is something which works only if people believe them, but if a firm offers them for money nobody will believe them, thus, this is nothing which could be openly sold. Then, there is, of course, punishment of crime, always has been, even without states. And democratic law is also vindicatively.

In fact, gated communities will be much safer than states today, because they are based on volitional agreement of all who live there with the rules of the community, and banishment would be a possible cheap penalty for those who violate the community rules. This would allow the people to leave their doors unclosed and let their children play outside without supervision. And, no, gated communities are not only a possibility for the rich, the costs for them are not that big.

 

[Schmelzer]

They do not.

They do. Of course, industries supported by the state develop better - at the cost of other, not supported industries - because they receive subsidies from taxpayer's money and are protected from external competitions by regulations and custom tariffs. But this does not mean that without the state there would not be any development, but only that different industries would develop. The state only redistributes, but never creates.

Why yes, it is. Especially when accompanied by reason and mechanism, as they have been in my posts. Worth answering?

What I have found worth answering I have answered. (And there was more worth answering in your posts in comparison with others, I have to admit).

I have made none. I am arguing in the opposite direction: not that the deeds of Lester Maddox were bad because he and his ideology did them, but that he and his ideology were bad because they did those things; not that the consequences of your ideology are bad because you share the ideology with a bad person, but that the people who share your ideology are bad because the consequences of the ideology they share with you have been bad.

But this has been hidden, or at least not supported by arguments. I have up to now only identified the ad Hitlerum part of references to Lester Maddox.

Your ideology has had bad effects, seriously harmed people, in others' hands. Yours will continue the pattern.

This remains to be shown. And this is certainly not trivial. Using 2+2=4 instead of 2+2=5 would certainly improve the power of the Hitler Wehrmacht, and, therefore, cause a lot of harm. Thus, you have to show more than Lester Maddox has somehow caused some harm (which, by the way, you have not even done, but, please, don't do it, I anway accept for the sake of the argument that this Maddox is the incarnation of evil on Earth without any proof).

 

[iceaura]

They do not.
They do.

No, they don't. You continue to make assertions about physical reality which are false.

But this does not mean that without the state there would not be any development, but only that different industries would develop

In the real world, it means no industries would "develop".

I have up to now only identified the ad Hitlerum part of references to Lester Maddox

There were none.

Your ideology has had bad effects, seriously harmed people, in others' hands. Yours will continue the pattern.

This remains to be shown.

Examples have been provided you, and a major mechanism delineated (collusion among bigots in contracting, collusion among thieves in contracting, collusion among the wealthy in contracting, etc).

Thus, you have to show more than Lester Maddox has somehow caused some harm (which, by the way, you have not even done, but, please, don't do it, I anway accept for the sake of the argument that this Maddox is the incarnation of evil on Earth without any proof).

Lester Maddox is simply a famous and easily researched member of a large group of racially bigoted Americans who explicitly advocated, and overtly acted according to, your ideology in the doing of great harm to many people.

 

[Michael]

In the real world, it means no industries would "develop".

They did, do and in all likelihood would continue to do so.

This is why I refer to the State as a religion. The Senators play the role of Bishops. The POTUS plays the role of Pope. The State being the all knowing benevolent God. Generations of children are sacrificed/sold to the State via it's Central Bank T-Bonds. Instead of "Christians", we're "Americans". Instead of Christendom. We live in America.

You take it on faith that State violence is required to ensure 'industries develop'. (a) I find that disturbing. (b) It's impossible to 'know' what would or would not develop industrially without a State or with a limited State (Problem of Induction, See: Hume).

What we do know is that when given a monopoly on violence, the State expands until like any other cancer, it kills it's host.
Will it again?
Probably.
This is what has happened throughout history.
The US Constitution was written to LIMIT the Government.
The first 10 Amendments were written to protect us FROM the Government. Not from cheaply made Chinese electronics, not to 'ensure industry' develops, not from the rich - but from the Government itself.

A lesson society appears required to learn once every 250 years or so. Presently, according to the DoED, 1 in 5 Americans graduate from a Government 'high' school functionally illiterate. THAT is the quality of 'industry' that 'develops' under the State.

 

[iceaura]

They did, do and in all likelihood would continue to do so.

No, they didn't. None of them, anywhere, at any time.

You take it on faith that State violence is required to ensure 'industries develop'. (a) I find that disturbing. (b) It's impossible to 'know' what would or would not develop industrially without a State or with a limited State (Problem of Induction, See: Hume).

I take nothing on faith. I reason from theory and history and physical fact.

Certainty is not possible in the non-mathematical world - what is meant by "know" in this context is not certainty, not the establishment of impossibility, but the banishment of reasonable doubt via reasoning from evidence and agreement between theory and fact.

What we do know is that when given a monopoly on violence, the State expands until like any other cancer, it kills it's host.

You are far too optimistic: most States through history were killed by other States, the remainder by internal violence or natural disaster. Few if any seem to have expired simply by killing their host - the most miserable of tyrannies seem to be able to drag on forever unless forcibly removed.

The dependence of industrial development on State services and facilitation is one of the reasons the libertarian Chomsky (like Dwight Eisenhower, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus Christ, Lao Tzu, and many others) warns us against careless industrial development, btw - it often involves the State in such abuse of the citizenry that its benefits vanish in the net.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, they don't. You continue to make assertions about physical reality which are false.

Simple assertions do not count as arguments.

In the real world, it means no industries would "develop".

No, it would mean that industries would develop which have locational advantages. Like small distances to natural ressources they need.

Examples have been provided you, and a major mechanism delineated (collusion among bigots in contracting, collusion among thieves in contracting, collusion among the wealthy in contracting, etc).

Such a collusion in contracting is unproblematic for others, given that there are enough other people open to contracts. It has even advantages if people contract only with people they feel comfortable with, for various reasons, in particular that working together with their customers will be more comfortable for them.
So, the only point is that the techniques available to everybody would be available to bad guys (thieves) too. This is correct for every technical innovation, thus, I couldn't care less.

Lester Maddox is simply a famous and easily researched member of a large group of racially bigoted Americans who explicitly advocated, and overtly acted according to, your ideology in the doing of great harm to many people.

I think differently. The simple search I have made does not show some sufficiently obvious great harm he has done, so it seems you have personal reasons for hating him. Probably simply ideological - he has favoured a segregation you hate. Maybe the additional hate against those who have arguments one was not able to reject argumentatively. Maybe simply because he was one of the last politicians who had not accepted political correctness about racial questions, and who was quite successful with this, and is therefore considered as the worst danger for proponents of political correctness.

 

[iceaura]

Simple assertions do not count as arguments.

And yours are false. So?

No, it would mean that industries would develop which have locational advantages. Like small distances to natural ressources they need.

? Locational advantages are standard aspects of industry. No industry develops without government, because they all involve investment and public infrastructure of various kinds.

Such a collusion in contracting is unproblematic for others, - -

It blighted the lives of hundreds of thousands of black people in the American south. Escaping it created one of the largest human migration in the history of the world.

I think differently. The simple search I have made does not show some sufficiently obvious great harm he has done, so it seems you have personal reasons for hating him.

Who said I hated him? He's long dead, lived in the former Confederacy, SEP.

And if you really can't find any harm done by the racial bigotry justified by the "libertarian" ideology of the white people Lester Maddox represented, your ideology, here's a tip: don't admit it.

 

[Schmelzer]

And yours are false. So?

You claim they are false. So?

No industry develops without government, because they all involve investment and public infrastructure of various kinds.

Ok, by definition of the state monopoly, they have to use state police to protect their ownership of the fabric, thus, use something provided by the state. And all the workers have finished obligatory public schools, thus, have used something provided by the state. LOL. I have thought you have in mind all these measures used by many states - following suggestions of the various lobbies - to use taxpayers money to support their industries with subsidies or tax external competitors and so on. But it seems you are talking simply about the things even the most independent citizens of the state have to accept because they are obligatory by law.

Who said I hated him?

Your constant use of him in ad Hitlerum arguments presupposes your negative relation to this person. A Nazi would not argue "your argument has been proposed already by the Führer", except if he wants to praise me.

And if you really can't find any harm done by the racial bigotry justified by the "libertarian" ideology of the white people Lester Maddox represented, your ideology, here's a tip: don't admit it.

Racial bigotry is IMHO simply stupid, and stupidity will, of course, cause harm. So, the question is how to minimize this harm. Education would help, but it is very difficult and expensive. And if it is only "education", but really nothing more than enforcement of political correctness, it is even counterproductive. Forced cooperation is also, IMHO, counterproductive, creates even more hatred. Libertarian ideology supports a peaceful separation, which is IMHO the best way to handle this particular type of stupidity.

If I would be an American gay, I would seriously think about preparing a possibility to emigrate. Because this political correctness will end in a backlash, and what happens with gay rights after such a backlash is completely open, they may be happy if they survive this. This is not because there is something inherently wrong with gays, not at all, I would wish them all a similar status like they have in traditional Thailand, where being gay has never been a problem at all. It is because of the way they act today - which is a way which creates hate against them.

 

[iceaura]

You claim they are false. So?

So I have no special duties of argument or support.

And because your positive claims would be so much easier to support via theory and example and argument from evidence, etc, and you are unable to do so, the absence of adequate support is far more telling for you;
while the presence of overwhelming quantities of evidence as well as plausible reasoning from theory from me, despite the greater difficulty of the negative claim, is far more telling for me.

No industry develops without government, because they all involve investment and public infrastructure of various kinds.
Ok, by definition of the state monopoly, they have to use state police to protect their ownership of the fabric, thus, use something provided by the state. - - -

Why are you changing the topic to "state monopoly"?

Racial bigotry is IMHO simply stupid, and stupidity will, of course, cause harm. So, the question is how to minimize this harm.

The bigotry itself is not the harm. The question is how to protect the targets of racial bigotry from the worst of the effects of collusion by racial bigots, in a situation in which the racial bigots own or control almost all of the society's resources.

Forced cooperation is also, IMHO, counterproductive, creates even more hatred.

That's another of your long-falsified "opinions", but it's irrelevant anyway: as actual libertarians - people interested in maximizing liberty in real life - we're not interested in the hatred per se. We care about the oppression of our fellow citizens. Preventing people from colluding in the oppression of their fellow citizens is hardly "counter productive".

Libertarian ideology supports a peaceful separation, which is IMHO the best way to handle this particular type of stupidity.

And the fantasy theater set of the rightwing libertarian once again takes center stage, with stilts for all actors.

You might as well support anti-gravity boots as the best way to travel, so the government will not need to build roads.

The oxymoronic fatuity of "peaceful separation" of the races in the US is called "segregation", and the vicious dishonesty inherent in the promulgation of it has long been the cornerstone of the self-described libertarianism of your ideological fellow travelers, such as Lester Maddox.

There is no such thing as "peaceful separation" of sociological races of human beings. It's a contradiction in terms, in the US quite dramatically. All such separation is and always has been violent, involving dispossession as well as physical abuse.

 

[Schmelzer]

Why are you changing the topic to "state monopoly"?

Because this seems to be all what remains from your claim that no industry develops without the state: No industry develops which does not use, somehow, some services which the state provides using state monopoly.

The bigotry itself is not the harm. The question is how to protect the targets of racial bigotry from the worst of the effects of collusion by racial bigots, in a situation in which the racial bigots own or control almost all of the society's resources.

In this case, emigration may be a good idea. In general, separation. The world is big, may be the majority follows some stupid ideas, but usually not the same stupid idea, thus, if the particular stupid ideas of the local majority are directed against me, I can improve my situation simply by emigrating.

as actual libertarians - people interested in maximizing liberty in real life - we're not interested in the hatred per se. We care about the oppression of our fellow citizens. Preventing people from colluding in the oppression of their fellow citizens is hardly "counter productive".

The problem is that refusal to cooperate is not oppression. For a simple logical reason: Oppression is asymmetric - there has to be one oppressor and one oppressed. But refusal to cooperate may be completely symmetric. There are more differences: A refusal to cooperate is usually stupid (if there is no reason), sometimes reasonable and justified (nobody wants to be cheated, thus, one refuses to cooperate with known cheaters, if the cooperation has to be very close, it is reasonable to choose somebody one likes to cooperate with). Oppression is always unjust, but usually not stupid, but giving advantages to the oppressor. Thus, to name the refusal to cooperate oppression is pure demagogy.

The oxymoronic fatuity of "peaceful separation" of the races in the US is called "segregation", and the vicious dishonesty inherent in the promulgation of it has long been the cornerstone of the self-described libertarianism of your ideological fellow travelers, such as Lester Maddox.

Sorry, but there is a large difference between the peaceful separation of those who do not want to cooperate, which appears quite naturally in a world with property and freedom of contract, and racial segregation, where the state forbids people to cooperate even if they want to cooperate.

This is typical for statists, they know only two modes: Non-cooperation enforced by the state, or cooperation enforced by the state. The natural freedom for everybody to choose himself with which people he wants to cooperate is nothing a statist would accept.

There is no such thing as "peaceful separation" of sociological races of human beings. It's a contradiction in terms, in the US quite dramatically. All such separation is and always has been violent, involving dispossession as well as physical abuse.

Of course, and nobody is propagating here such a stupid thing. But there is a possibility for peaceful separation between the stupid bigots of above races who are full of racial hatred. And this is very simple: Allow them to separate, do not force them to cooperate with people they hate.

 

[iceaura]

Because this seems to be all what remains from your claim that no industry develops without the state: No industry develops which does not use, somehow, some services which the state provides using state monopoly.

I used "government" instead of "state", and did not use the word "monopoly". Use "government" rather than "the state", and leave out the word "monopoly", and you have my claim - which has not been diminished at all, but remains in full and free of contradiction by you so far.

You also have seen many illustrative examples, and argument from this evidence based on economic theory and a couple of the mechanisms involved. Do you have any counter argument or counter examples? As I pointed out, their continued absence is telling when the claim is a positive one.

In this case, emigration may be a good idea. In general, separation.

1) You can't do that without coercion. People will not make homeless and impoverished refugees of themselves and their children voluntarily - they have to be threatened. 2)Been there, done that: the diaspora of black people from the former Confederacy into the North was one of the largest emigrations in human history. But if you talking about shipping millions of people across the Atlantic ocean, you have to realize that it's not going to be cheap.

The problem is that refusal to cooperate is not oppression.

Yes, it is, sometimes. In the US it has been a major means of racial oppression, blighting the lives of millions of black people for many generations.

For a simple logical reason: Oppression is asymmetric - there has to be one oppressor and one oppressed

Exactly what we see in the colluding racial bigots of America, where the whites own or control almost all the economic resources of large regions.

Oppression is always unjust, but usually not stupid, but giving advantages to the oppressor

It's common to call racial oppression in the US "stupid", and it is - but that doesn't mean the oppressors are. They are as trapped as their victims, often - suboptimal equilibria are not merely theoretical possibilities, in market economies. They can get a pretty good grip.

Sorry, but there is a large difference between the peaceful separation of those who do not want to cooperate, which appears quite naturally in a world with property and freedom of contract, and racial segregation, where the state forbids people to cooperate even if they want to cooperate.

Racial segregation is abuse and dispossession of the subordinate race, by the dominant one.

And for the last time, please pay attention: the oppressive segregation of black people in the US has been largely voluntary, not State law. It is accomplished by racial bigots freely entering into voluntary contracts with each other and other voluntary cooperators, based on their collective ownership and control of most of the resources of American society. Quit trying to claim that one of the dominant structural aspects of American society, politics, and economic life, does not exist.

Of course, and nobody is propagating here such a stupid thing. But there is a possibility for peaceful separation between the stupid bigots of above races who are full of racial hatred.

1) What's with this constant "hatred" theme? 2) All racial segregation is violence of a kind, and in the US it has been and is and will be dramatically violent.

And this is very simple: Allow them to separate

Allow the white bigots to make homeless and impoverished and desperate international refugees of the black people in the US - sounds like a plan. I believe Lester Maddox favored that approach among others, as well.

As for making refugees through "libertarian" terrorism, Chomsky and a coauthor has written about the refugee boat people from the American Revolution: have you read his stuff?