Chomsky explains the US democratic system, its historical roots in theory and practice, along with a discussion of its origins back to Aristotle's politics, comparing and contrasting Aristotle with Madison through to the present day.This is all done in a matter of fact way from someone who knows and understands the literature and can convey the basic messages easily and understandably without resort to self-serving and incomprehensible verbiage.All that in just 10 minutes.
Indeed, listening to Chomsky discussing philosophy, history, and politics is as concise as listening to Nader discussing law, and what you can do to create change. Those two are always the best go-to's, for any topic that actually matters.
myroseaccount :: Isn't it amazing ? He not only gives concise recitals of history, but delivers the message in a non-chalant, cold-blooded monologue w / o himself being a reptile.
CHUMPsky blah blah blah the Democrats executed Socrates for pointing out their lunacy and stupidity EXACTLY from the likes of Noam Zero Sum Intellectual from political Hell.
Chomsky is one of the few people who can clearly explain concepts, policy aims and their effects in a way that is readily understandable. Thank you for uploading this.
But is also amazing how deep he can go in the arguments he defends. Always will make sure that he has data and facts supporting them. This is easier to do when you pursue truth, and just have to seek for the facts, not cooked them!
@@gh5972 get full at the trough pig. Ask chomsky what he was doing on Epstein island! He tells the Washington post “it’s none of your business”. Keep sniffing a child molestor’s shit lib cuck.
The command of concepts and communicative ability of this man is unparalleled by just about anybody. I have tremendous respect for people like Chomsky who have this rare talent.
Yeah, I'm interested in finding more like him. I like to listen to other activists, but none of them are scientists. I feel like it's being both a scientist, specially in fields like theory of mind, and an activist what gives this rare talent you're talking about.
He is fucking Brilliant.I love listening to him explain and differentiate the various meanings of political systems and putting them in their natural historical context.
All life is cheap and replaceable. Priceless? How much does steak or hamburger cost. There's your cost for that life. How much for carrots? Humans are a little different as we no longer allow slavery.
Rock Anderson Tell that to the countless livestock currently residing in corporate farms lol.I think you ment human slavery.Of course we do allow human slavery just not in the U.S;atleast not as a legal institution anyway.
Socrates died by democratic decision. Bernie who also talks new ideas may be defeated by a wealthy elite. All they need do is persuade enough people that new ideas MAY be bad for them. Nothing much has changed. Many are afraid of new ideas, of the unknown. The problem today's elite faces is that everything Bernie preaches is already practiced successfully somewhere on the planet. THAT IS WHY THIS NOVEMBER 4TH WILL BE SO INTERESTING TO ME.
I've watched a lot of Chomsky posts and always found him to have brilliant insights. At times in some of the posts of his speaking engagements he rambles on a bit before getting to the point but he's always well worth taking the time to listen to. In this post I have to say he cuts right to the bottom line. The implications of what he's saying about the international flow of capital are amazing. Noam should have hired a food taster a long time ago. lol
i enjoy his ramblings since they're usually to provide context to a point he's about to make.. so i end up learning about 10 other things i was't expecting :)
Amanda Nichols I was just about to say this (Although, Plato was a pupil of Socrates not the other way around). In “The Republic” Plato argues against all forms of bureaucracy and wealthy people holding public office. Through his eyes, middle class philosophers and logicians of the time were best suited for leadership.
Agreed, but we'll likely have to settle for the broad collection of RU-vid videos of him speaking, like this one. Cherish them, save them, help them survive going forward
Sure, Aristotle wrote books on logic, physics, metaphysics, morality, and politics. But he didn't end slavery. Just like this Chomsky fellow. Wrote a hundred books blah blah blah revolutionized linguistics. Call me when you've ended slavery. Chomsky and Aristotle: history's greatest failures because they didn't eradicate slavery.
Chomsky is the only high-profile intellectual I can easily understand. The rest of them write and speak in such a thick language that laymen like me can't even fathom half of what they're saying.
Which is deliberate. Their professional credentials lose value if "commoners" can reach and even supersede their insights (the few valid ones) without the aid of formal study. So they pretend to a specialized competence they don't really have.
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability." -James Madison (Hailed as the "Father of the Constitution")
Appreciate the clip. Just started reading Aristotle's Politica and I've but one comment. Chomsky says that we can't fault Aristotle too much on the issue of slave vs freeman and man vs woman, but these issues are addressed by Aristotle himself in book 1 starting in chapter 3, he defends slavery with lengthy arguments and responds to arguments against the institution of slavery, the main argument against being that no man is a slave by nature and hence slavery is unjust, to which Aristotle responds that some men are slaves by nature. On the issue of women's rights he mentions that equal virtue ought to imply equal rights and that it seems absurd to say that women have less virtue but ends up convincing himself of this anyway. My reading suggested that discourse on these matters was very much in the air but because such discussions were confined to the circles of slave holding patriarchs there was little chance of moving beyond minority dissent.
I was just watching a documentary about Chomsky where he was discussing Aristotle and Madison. Makes me wonder if my mind is making random connections. Or if my phone really tracks my interests that well...huh...
All here, For any which have yet to read his books, I recommend using time doing so in contrast to writing posts & dialoguing digitally here on this RU-vid thread. Cheers, Marc
Opinion is all that matters now. Facts are discredited, and buffoons blossom thus. I wonder if our leaders are the one promoting this, or just a mere reflection of it. But then, who is the responsible for nurturing our society in such idiocy?
Not for nothing , for every ten crappy youtubers, there’s one good one. Kyle kulinski, Justin Jackson n Jackson Hinkle all have great content on their videos cuz they actually speak up for the majority of the country which is the low/middle class. I know kulinski idolizes Chomsky, rightfully so.
I love Chomsky, he represents for me minimalism in philosophical activism, such a deep background gatherer for a natural set of powerful conclusions. I will assume here the role of the devil advocate; if the global virtual Senate represented by the elites would be overwhelmed by real democracy shall we be still able to consider our planet (natural environment) a sustainable world (human environment) ? 8 billions of human claiming for equality in a process of economic growth could be educated in a short period of time to become reasonable when it comes to taking care of our planet resources and not only reduce our consumption but as well understand the need to go toward a cradle to cradle industrial paradigm. I will fight for this Idea in the sense that Chomsky Ideas spreading will take as much time as demographic and democratic ideas spreading over the world. Chomsky organic understanding of the world is in many extends similar to the biomimicry perspective in Permaculture movement.
I don’t read Aristotle in the same way, Aristotle still advocated for a type of intellectual elitism but not wealth elitism. Jefferson did too. Marx believed in enlightenment to be a prerequisite for functioning socialism for example “class consciousness”. They believed in the hegemony of a type of “enlightenment leadership”. It is flawed idea but not entirely inaccurate. The problem is the communist bureaucrats and the liberal politicians often believed they were enlightened. The enlightenment still has a hubris problem.
So, what is the hope, Mr. Chomsky? Reminds me of George Carlin who didn’t expect civilization to improve, regarding freedom, equality and such, but he was only there to observe and document; both in their own style (comedy or intellect)
Chomsky has been asked about this many times. His answer is that people ought to get together using existing organisations (like trade unions and political parties) or by creating new ones and agitate for change. He says it is not easy
The concept of the "Virtual Senate" is well worth considering and somewhat like the current considerations of the Central Bankers being to blame for all murder, inequality and war.
Indeed. The cabal of money changers, debt as money, and leverage coupons on money created out of nothing...what is a government that has to borrow money..the begger to the lender...all roads lead to ROME...
When powerful men strive for their own self interest it is considered "for the common good". When ordinary folks work for their own self interests it is considered against the common good. That's what I heard.
Aristotle once made the point that if you have, in a perfect democracy, a small number of very rich people and a large number of very poor people, the poor will use their democratic rights to take property away from the rich. Aristotle regarded that as unjust, and recommended reducing poverty as a solution. The other solution would be to reduce democracy James Madison, noted the same problem, but unlike Aristotle, he aimed to reduce democracy rather than poverty and believed that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority
Now 100,000 people know that Democracy has a problem...Madison wanted a democracy that limited freedom and Aristotle wanted to bring up the unequal to stop voting against the rich. Plz spread the word about a community of equals AND free. NOT a system where the owner makes 658 times the lowest paid. Lawson di Ransom Canyon
He hit the nail right on the head! We need a pure and equal democracy in the US and first world countries. The key is to eradicate illiteracy, once illiteracy is eradicated then all other countries should also have a pure and equal democracy.
Mind blown 🤯 I learnt about the 2 conceptions of democracy. And possibly why countries have upper house and lower house in parliament. And got curious about corporates, classical liberalism and conservatism.
The founding fathers were heavily influenced by Polybius, a Greek historian who wrote about the Roman Republic in its development, for example. They were influenced by the histories of Rome in general and Hellenic philosophical theories of politics, continually discussed by the English and French at the time. The origin of the American Republic had a deep Graeco-Roman and Judaic or Biblical influence out of the ancients, even through England and France. To say it was 'entirely based on the english system with a couple of french bits' is utter claptrap. The English and French influences of the founding fathers are soaked in the ancients and so were they.
What 'French bits,' by the way? French was a profoundly corrupt monarchy at the time of the American revolution. French politics had no positive practical influence on the founding fathers. French writers and thinkers did certainly, to some extent. The French revolution was more immediately significant but it came later. The English revolution and short-lived Commonwealth had already happened though and that was obviously vivid in their thoughts.
This part of the talk is about the democratic ideology and how two of the world's leading thinkers, Madison and Aristotle recognised the problems with democracy and their ensuing solutions for establishing true democracy. Madison deciding to control and reduce democracy, basically a false democracy as in the modern day UK/US because democracy would result in a redisruption to the wealth distribution, the wealth going from the few to the majority and Aristotle who suggested full equality and democratic process to be established by total wealth equality, pure socialism and welfare support which can be seen in most of today's Scandinavian states and Germany, or as close as it is possible.
The funny thing about American democracy is that many people vote against their own interests. The philosophy that people will vote out of self-interest ignores the existence of mass-ignorance.
Well America is a terrible example because we only get to vote for the legislative branch and the president, we get no say in judicial and a lot of other extremely important positions. Also there is nothing that holds a politician to their word. They can say swear on their life they will lower taxes, get elected, then vote to increase taxes and we can't do anything about it until next election. Our voted would have to have meaning before we can be voting against our own interests lol
If people are comfortable and feel they have things to lose, they won't want change, those who have nothing want minuscule change, the few that have everything want everything
Nah. We laugh that this guy has a clear liberal bias and its really funny. Because the republic lays the foundation of any bit of the arguement to develop henceforth and is more political science than the hollow virtues of aristotle, no matter how well intended they may be.. And No, we dont swallow that book whole either. But it clearly defines how democracy is madness for a functioning state and welfare states do no create equality, they repress the incentive to be an upstanding individual. As clearly witnessed today in america. Why would the common average selfish human bother for prestigous success with little reward for their efforts? Eventually the populace becomes fat and saturated with luxury for the efforts of others and elect for their emotions, not reality. And thats how you get a popularity contest that turns into uneducated tyranny not a well thought out calculated effort to find the most rational and reasonable man for the job. Ship captains and whatnot.
@@richardwhite6062 er yeah, I posted this 3 years ago and its not that serious xD Plato is obviously essential reading and has shaped my thoughts a lot. I do also believe in individual autonomy and democracy as an approximation of that
Americans in most states after 1781 were able to vote albeit in the very undemocratic system that remains in place in the United States. Writing in his memoirs, Madison regretted the checks and balances that were placed in the US system after he served as president. He would have preferred democracy.
But the thing with Aristotle is that his democracy is one of the free and property-owning „citizen“ of the Polis (city-state), not in fact the whole population. Even then it‘s radical, since for that group the system really is democratic and there is no state apparatus to keep them in line-they are themselves the state. But literally everyone else is completely excluded and not only are there slaves who have no rights at all, no rights are also extended to neighboring population who may have to be subjugated to finance the whole thing. So it‘s the opposite of a univeral system. Just a part of the population of a single city. You can’t even build a larger state on this specific version of democratic principles.
I've read that part in Aristotle's Politics - wherein the middle class should be the great majority if democracy is to work, and the 'state' should do whatever necessary to assure there was no rich or poor class. That's modern democratic socialism or the welfare state.
Great. Until Socialists spend all the money that someone else earned U.C.C. Free Speech and Trade Capitalism and Progressive taxes feed 2 BILLION human beings from nutritional starvation for FREE the last 50 years. 2 BILLION MIDDLE CLASS human beings were created in the last 20 years by CAPITALIST WESTERN TRADE. NO SOCIALIST COUNTRY EVER WILL OR HAVE COME EVEN CLOSE TO THE RECORD OF CAPITALISM FREE TRADE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRADE COMMERCE LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS.
My take on choosing a best system...so long as there are money mad scheming rich in the world... "Laugh about it, Shout about it; When you've got to choose, Anyway you look at it, you lose." ...Paul Simon
"The beginning of reform is not so much to equalize property as to train the nobler sort of natures not to desire more, and to prevent the lower from getting more; that is to say, they must be kept down, but not ill-treated. Besides, the equalization proposed by Phaleas is imperfect; for he only equalizes land, whereas a man may be rich also in slaves, and cattle, and money, and in the abundance of what are called his movables. Now either all these things must be equalized, or some limit must be imposed on them, or they must an be let alone" - Aristotle aka Darth Vader
I don't think Aristotle's political thought ever had any impact on Greek or Macedonian political organization-- much like Plato, though Plato tried with Syracuse. Madison did have a tremendous impact.
I’m not sure that you need to contextualize Madison’s arguments here as some sort of early and fundamental inequality-preserving ideals meant to hurt the masses from the beginning. It’s clear from the federalist papers that he feared the full and complete kind of democracy Chomsky seems to believe Aristotle promoted (I trust Chomsky here, since I haven’t read Aristotle yet) because of its tendency to factionalize and cannibalize. Honestly, looking at countries like India or simply considering how quickly and radically public opinion can change, isn’t concentrating power to some extent to create the kind of grinding, intractable governmental mechanism like the US senate a necessary evil to prevent the far more terrifying possibility of actual complete democracy of the masses? Human beings are so easily corrupted towards racism, sexism, tribalism, etc. the world’s biggest democracy (India) is moving towards a future great crime against its Muslim population. Also- not to diminish the value of intellectualism, but when an argument this complex, creative, and nuanced as the virtual senate so perfectly fits the speaker’s ideology, I just have to subject it to some kind of eye test. Yes, I’m sure you could come up with ways it was the fault of corporations that socialist democracies have failed. But the obvious existence of 1) successful socialist democracies 2) a plethora of other reasons why the socialist democracies which failed did (clearly some flaws in Marxist ideology, especially in the way it radicalizes) and most importantly 3) the ways in which the “corporatization” of America and its subsequent economic domination of the world has led to unimaginable improvements for billions of people make me fundamentally reject the sort of insidious, structural criminality which he tries to associate with corporations. I think, like most things, the truth is in the middle. I can’t tell if this incredible mind has simply picked an ideology and because of his intelligence is able to sort the evidence into that ideology, or if he approached the evidence objectively and it ended here naturally.
i wonder what the two of them saw in one another. Aristotle and Alexander were thinking about totally different things. Creating a reasonable government was not on Alexander's to do list.
I think gnome is a little off subject here because Aristotle was also an elitist and felt that justice only applied to equals. So if Aristotle was to harm someone of a lower status than him then that person of lower status did not have significant measure or justice to take action against him because they were not equal
90% of assets are owned by 10% of the population. Billionaires run countries. "Democracy" is a cute word that implies we vote for who we want running the country.
This is interesting for sure, but Aristotle has no idea what was to come. I wouldn’t claim anachronism here but these concepts changed since Aristotle. Chomsky didn’t give much context to the differences in the ways Madison and Aristotle thought.
Free men who r equal nd participatiory - radical inequality, it would lead poors side - democracy would settle it up. Reduce inequality rather than reducing democracy. Democracy should be going to everyone if everyone can't come to democracy. Moderate nd sufficient income should be their, while the Plato gives all strings to rulling class the Aristotle believes in equality nd formation of strong society.
I'll never understand how people can say he's a CIA plant or whatever when everything he says leads one to the only logical conclusion which is to over throw everything lol Unless that's what the state wants us to do. Then perhaps they gotta point but I'd call it weak given everything else he's said about how to go about it.
Aristotle? Hey, that’s my dad’s first cousin! He runs the souvlaki joint down the street from my place; I never knew Uncle Ari was so politically savvy - always took him for a Trump supporter...
Honest, albeit likely naive question. In the United States what would be considered a "liveable, sufficient wage"? I make a modest living; I am able to pay my bills, taxes, rent, food, entertainment( also modest) etc. I would have no problem paying my fair share of taxes to assist my fellow man out from, let's say, the poverty line. Establishing the quoted criteria above seems quite difficult though. The concept of opportunity, like my own(contentment and security with the life I have and must continue working at to sustain); being available to all, seems noble and well-intentioned. Although any set amount of money/ opportunity seems hardly qualifiable for the individual living today in current American society (I am). I suppose writing this out I've sort of answered my own question lol. The opportunity, regardless of circumstance(my own included); should be the basis. However, looking beyond that benchmark seems difficult, particularly, going beyond whatever arbitrary figure that would be established. What someone will do or want or even expect in the present-day society is sort of an interesting, yet unrelated question. I suppose that is up to them.
Well, we should start abolishing the rentiers. Let's socialize home, energy and food production (at least at a certain level) and, even if you maintain the same wage, you are far more richer. Rent is a thing of the past, in fact your landlord even in the name is an aristocratic character. Food should not be produced with profit in mind, but with quality and people wellbeing as targets; food industry is highly concentrated and it's in fact an oligopoly, let's remove the profit motive and will be radically cheaper. The same with energy sector. You have removed, by doing so, things that are by nature rent seeking sectors (you extract literally wealth from soil, that is of all humans, and people's work) and you put a strong control on inflation (look at energy sector's profit when oil prices goes up impoverishing the working majority). Then take care of healthcare. With shelter, food, health and energy you satisfy everyone's basic necessities. Then let's use higher productivity to reduce working hours, machines and ai should improve working conditions as they reduce time to produce things and not be seen as a threat. The fact is that we need to radically change the system, of course we need to get rid of capitalism and of course there will be less billionaires.
@@Domionico I agree with your assessment. Removing the profit motive from those areas seems sensible and morally correct. Sadly, moral reasoning in the states is the worst I've seen in my lifetime and I'm not sure it will improve. Thanks to Capitalism, and a government that is equally motivated by profit instead of public service, morality is now (almost exclusively) in the hands of the immoral. Covid has affirmed this for me. Instead of realizing the shared interest that all have in an interconnected society, and understanding the consequences of our actions, our shared mortality, and of those we love, it became immediately politicized (thank you, Trump). There are bulwarks of moral (and just plain) stupidity forming all over the country, and we (The US) might never recover from it. Piss poor education (not through the fault of teachers); tech monopolies; a warped, partisan, and discriminate justice system; laughably bad and ineffective healthcare and social services; a massive, and fundamental misunderstanding of freedom and liberty; nominal Christians/ evangelicals trying to bring us back 100 years into the past; an unwillingness to call out acts of moral cowardice and bad-faith actors, who manipulate millions every day into believing all these faults lie at the feet of one person or party, and get obscenely rich doing so.
+Callme Ishmael The point is not whether a political system has a body called a senate or not. The problem was it was designed with the functions Madison mentions in mind. The problem isnt there being "a Senate", but it's statutes.
+Callme Ishmael But that's not what it was for. The purpose of the Senate was to make sure property had an equal say in the government to the people. The people with property didn't think it was fair that every single little poor person would have an equal say in government as they did. The Senate takes care of that. (Don't forget, originally the Senate was not elected by popular vote; it was elected by some sort of electoral college--the wealthy/powerful in each state, in other words.)
Therefore Aristotle is call the God of melancholy. (( BG: translate " Kato CI paye6 penkele, Koi li te slusha.)) We do not play games when We say :" Dano Dnes Da Vi Doide Kusmeta , u vseki ot Vas da si nameri maistora ".
Sounds like Soveirgnty and the fact that humans are imperfect. As well we would all know Aristotle and Madison if the TV turned off and go read some NON FICTION.
+Eric John I think it comes down to certain conceptions of property rights, in Law. Madison wrote about protecting minority rights from the majority. Sounds Lefty? Specifically, protecting the "Opulent" minority from the majority he called the Rabble. Madison reasoned that as the working class and middle class small landowners, farmers, tradesmen, artisans, etc. gained more wealth of the vast bounty, they could also gain political power. And with political power, they could lobby for economic and property reforms, to take away profits or simply take away some plantation wealth that had been acquired as Tory wealth, as servants of the King of England. The Founders were ex-Tories. I'm not going to attempt to write you some essay, but -- ironically -- the anarcho-capitalist Austrian Economics right wing site Mises dot org (which Chomsky dismisses as the opposite of what libertarian means everywhere else in the world) features some essays a/o books by cynical curmudgeon historian Albert J. Nock. If you can locate Nock's book "Jefferson", and chapter 5 (and 4?) (which is all I've read so far), Nock describes Jefferson as having returned to America from the Paris at the end of the French Revolution. Jefferson he was briefly jailed (iirc). He found that a new federal Constitution has been ratified and adopted. Jefferson had expected to engage in the old idealistic talk that enthused him about democratic principles, rights of Man, all that Locke stuff in the D of I. Instead, he found all his friends hanging in the then-capital New York and being obsessed business, trade, deals, money. Nock explains, *it dawned on Jefferson slowly that the Constitution was not merely a political document, but mostly an economic document*, and he describes a stratified structure of wealth with the power and means to run business for the good of elites and owners. Pleasing the top 1%, and somewhat the top 10%. Beyond that, who cares? That's from memory, so please don't argue with me about details, just go read the book. Here. I found an excerpt Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson] The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production - Vilescit origine tali.In the second place, the old Articles of Confederation, to which the states had subscribed in good faith as a working agreement, made all due provision for their own amendment; and now these men had ignored these provisions, simply putting the Articles of Confederation in the wastebasket and bringing forth an entirely new document of their own devising.Again, when the Constitution was promulgated, similar economic interests in the several states had laid hold of it and pushed it through to ratification in the state conventions as a minority measure, often - indeed, in the majority of cases - by methods that had obvious intent to defeat the popular will. Moreover, and most disturbing fact of all, the administration of government under the Constitution remained wholly in the hands of the men who had devised the document, or who had been leaders in the movement for ratification in the several states. The new president, Washington, had presided over the Constitutional Convention. All the members of the Supreme Court, the judges of the federal district courts, and the members of the cabinet were men who had been to the fore either in the Philadelphia Convention or in the state ratifying conventions. Eight signers of the Constitution were in the Senate, and as many more in the House. It began now to be manifest, as Madison said later, who was to govern the country; that is to say, in behalf of what economic interests the development of American constitutional government was to be directed.Mr. Jefferson was slow to apprehend all this.
+Eric John well only land owning white males could vote when the country was founded. soooo, thatd be one way... but even that subtracted, the entire way our system is structured restricts democracy, in that we dont get a direct say in much of anything. instead, we elect party representatives that make decisions for us. thats pretty undemocratic, at least if youre comparing it to a direct democracy where every issue would be taken to a direct vote. the senate, as he said is another way.
+dilbertgeg - Thanks for the comprehensive answer, DB. I would expect a comment like that on Quora, not youtube. So basically, Madison was a kind of nouveau riche, Royalist 2.0. Interesting quote: ' Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers.' Kind of says it all, right there, doesn't it. Will download Nock's book now... Thanks again.
@@gg_rider :: Thank you for taking the labor-intensive work & time to provide your summary of this history. I would like to show my appreciation by recommending the book by Charles A. Beard :: "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States". After reading your out-line, I think you would be bored reading almost identical information from two different historians ! But I hope you give "Amos Singletary" a chance to give you historical collaboration of those times :: " These _lawyers_ and men of learning and moneyed men, that talk so finely and gloss over matters so smoothly to make us poor, illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves ; they expect to be the managers of this Constitution, and get all the powers and all the money into their own hands, and then they swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan ! " ---- _Amos Singletary ( Anti-Federalist ) Sutton, Massachusetts !_
@@cliffgaither anti-Federalist. Interesting. Mencken's biography of Jefferson was about how much the founders wanted to be private creditors to America itself. Now they really aren't. John Jay said something like "those who own this country ought to run it", not those who didn't own productive land, ie property. Madison had similar concerns about the Minority of the Opulent.
Listen folks. I love Noam and have spoken to him a few times even. But he is actually human and actually does make plenty of mistakes. Not saying there is anything wrong with this talk just that you should heed his own words and check this stuff out this stuff for yourselves.
