@@ellencantarow5160 dissident intellectual. The distinction is important. Lot of "Madisonian" sympathizer like calling themselves intellectuals as well
@@CvnDqnrU He's just an average man who reads several newspapers a day. You can do the same thing, and interpret them as you please. Just know that the majority of news is PR to indoctrinate you. You can also read whatever else from whatever other sources you please. It's a free country, for the most part.
Sigh, I think it helps to do some close listening, a skill that has sadly decreased in our world online, such as here, in the RU-vid comments section of a Noam Chomsky video. I read many comments critiquing Mr. Chomsky for saying that pre-capitalists societies believed in the "right to live". However, many failed to pick up his qualifying statement, starting at 0:50, that humans were thought to "deserve" their place in society and should be kept there. That is a pre-capitalist notion; maintain the serfs as serfs, slaves as slaves, etc., because it supports sand maintains those in power.
You are right, and that is probably why he already answered that question. Read or listen to the book Manufacturing Consent that he co-authored with Edward Herman. 100 years of propaganda is the reason no one realizes it. But how are people willing to submit to propaganda? Someone might say. Well, they called it PR. It's too easy when you control the sounds and images people see and hear every day.
no reason to think that there isn't (and hasn't always been) conscious efforts to keep Chomsky out of the mainstream. i wouldn't doubt views on youtube videos like this one being intentionally manipulated, depending on how "anti-narrative" they are. i also wouldn't doubt that channels posting videos like this are kept under a fairly watchful eye... and sometimes shut down if considered threatening enough to those in power. even more importantly, i wouldn't doubt that some channels producing videos like this ACTUALLY BELONG to associations of people with power for the sole purpose of forever limiting public exposure to lectures by someone like Chomsky (otherwise known as controlled dissidence). there is a state religion here in the U.S. (and in other countries - not just U.S. or western powers) that keep people quite dedicated (even at a fanatic level) to "king and country". here in the states, systems of power and manipulation like "homeland security" or the "central intelligence agency" and their decrees like the "the patriot act" are used to keep the majority of people subjugated and under continual "surveillance", more or less. i think millions and millions of people truly believe they are free and "blessed" to live in the U.S. but exposure to generous doses of Chomsky could destroy that faith fairly quickly. that is indeed a concern for those in power
This is the clearest explanation of the problem of modernity that I have ever heard. You have no right to live. The world doesn’t owe you a favour. This attitude is the problem.
No doubt that was the view of the planter class in the antebellum South, and their associated protestant sects (which morphed into modern day rightwing evangelical protestants).
I believe totally that this country's rules and law was outlined with the rich and powerful's interests at heart. Case in point: the recent 2nd impeachment trial of Donald Trump got me thinking. Obviously, in a criminal jury trial having a partial jury would be something that would not be considered acceptable. Why then should it be allowed in the trial of an impeached President? When the founding fathers must have realized that the eventually of a partial jury could and would exist in the case of an impeachment trial why not then allow such a trial be moved to a venue like a common trial court? Think about it this way, in trial law, as everybody already knows, it is a right to be tried by a jury of your PEERS. It was by design not a flaw that it was decided that a presidential impeachment trial could only be tried by the Senate. It is because they, not us normal schmucks, are peers of such an individual. So much for all men are considered equal eh?
Livable shelter for all under the sun, is a primary right for the dignity of all in an evolved humanity. What we see however, is the blatant exploitation of those who have to either live on rent, or slave as servants. Accommodation rent/EMIs are prohibitively expensive everywhere. Landlords rule supreme. A serious re look is needed on unfettered right to property and inheritance laws. In the relatively recent past, even as near as when the US constitution was framed, this was a matter of concern. Some founders endorsed such ownership with a kind of Hindu caste system analogy that 'land-owners' would be more responsible than the 'landless', who would, in a democracy, vote to distribute the wealth of the the materially rich who were 'uniquely' qualified to rule. Sounds much as the the much reviled 'caste' system in India but in fact is a reality all over the world
Fascinating. I'm a huge Chomsky supporter and I believe everyone should familiarize themselves with his views. In this case, he misrepresented Madison. Though he did intend to protect the minority of the opulent (as Chomsky quoted), he did NOT consider this a prime function of the government--at least insofar as the context of the quote implies. Madison was actually speaking about the function of the Senate--the chamber of the aristocracy-- as a counterweight to the House--the chamber of everyone else.
Romeo Gray :: I like Chomsky AND in my most humbling opinion, I don't always agree w / him ... but the man doesn't "misrepresent" anyone. " An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States " -- Charles A. Beard ( 1913 ) ; page 156.
Romero Gray :: ... a counterweight to the house of everyone else ? The wealth / land-accumulation / stock market investments / slavery / indentured servitude / land-speculation / banking interest, tied to the government / an economic system designed for the minority ... Why would these guys need protection from the counterweight of the less-well connected ?
@@cliffgaither English civil war 1651, relatively recent. French revolution occurred in 1789, trouble already brewing at time of writing of the constitution.
Another Chomsky video down the pipe. If you want to understand American Democracy it's a great start. Don't stop reading. Chomsky made a lot of his thinking available for free on his website. One of my favorite pieces is Force and Opinion. Read Chomsky and the others who have contributed to a better understanding of our world. 🤙🏿🤙🏿🤙🏿
Does Dr Chomsky have an assistant who can be contacted to find out what printing and edition of the Constitution Convention Debates is this stated in????? What part, what section and what page???? I have searched for where James Madison says this for years but have yet to find it!!! People never believe you unless you show them.
...Huggy... " An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States " -- Charles A. Beard ( 1913 ) :: _( heading title ) ::_ "THE UNDERLYING POLITICAL SCIENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION". _( page 156 )_ _A number of Madison's quotations._ ( Chomsky is paraphrasing Madison. )
@@bieddruhuggyfalsaperla5447 founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044 He does indeed say it. He also says the senate should be from people of this wealthy class.
Chomsky is treating Ricardos chapter of Malthus in “The Principals of Political Economy and Taxation” as his legacy and outweighing his fundamental contributions to the labor theory of value that was 95% of the book.
Can someone please explain to me his position on Madison? I was taught as a HS student that the Constitution was largely drafted by James Madison and that the inclusion of a senate (where population wasn't an issue, thus undermining democracy) WASN'T in his original ideas, and that he was pressured to include it. And that he was vehemently against it.
i'm not sure he takes a position on Madison. More like just stating what occurred. Chomsky says Madison debated for a system in which the wealthy class is protected. In order for that to be the case, the senate should be made up of the wealthy minority. Here's the source: founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044 I don't know where the idea that he was vehemently against it is coming from. MAybe from other debates. But in the source I linked, he is saying that the senate should be made of people from the opulent minority.
@@jazzyj2899 Thanks for the info. What I was taught was that Madison didn't like the idea of the Senate because a small state got the same number of senators as a large one, and that undermined his original intent of a "true" democratic system. Just trying to weed out the propaganda. Of course, we all learn the truth down the line it's a patchwork of compromises, but I definitely prefer a Westminster system in the end with a single body. The federal separation of powers tried to address a problem, but it has borne out that many other American countries have not been successful under this system. Many Latin American countries seem to regress into dictatorships due to the unequal power a president has in the Executive branch. When you command the military, the other branches don't really seem so scary.
i will always and forever be a fan of Noam Chomsky.. he’s a thinker. if you all need a leader, J.Peterson is totally herding his flock of sheeple.. the poor man’s intellectual? nah, he’s aight. he’s a thinker too.. people who think for other people have lots of power don’t you think?
Maintaining the serf, it isn’t everything, but it’s better than nothing, but then nothing is better than you, boom boom. Not democracy, monopoly. All power corrupts, wealth being one of the greatest. Earth generates enough wealth to maintain life’s decency. Lower the mountain. We have so much more than could have ever been imagined. Is it not time to redirect wealth’s aim to the most needy, lower the mountain, give less to they that have so much already, lower the mountain.
Believe and let believe. Eat and let eat. Think and let think. Live and let live. Give and allow to give. Take and let take. Lead and let lead. Learn and let learn. Teach and let teach. Work and let work. Talk and let talk. Bible, Koran, clergy, many politicians do not like these commands from nature.
Why does Chomsky believe that masses and majority is right?we don't have democracy in any other important institution in society,science for example,truth is not truth because of majority votes,or when you choose your partner to live with,you descriminate and choose the right one for you,hopefully your society does not vote for your partner etc..just based on historical data,majority is almost always wrong..what democracy allows today,is for that majority to use legal and political system to enforce it's own views..back in the day,at least if you are wrong in your views,you are the one who suffers,now under "democracy" you bring down everyone ellse with you.
Only in that the institutions, the lords, and the Church especially, reserved a place for you. You were inherently valuable to them because you were a human person, and a place was made for every citizen. This is contrasted with the capitalist system where a human has no inherent value, you are only valuable if you can labor for the capitalists, and trade your labor for their crappy goods, otherwise there's no place for you. Chomsky is not saying that feudalism was good, he even mentioned after saying that if afforded you a right to live, that it was"a right to a crappy life".
Tree Chomsky is pretty successful, I think he's the most cited academic alive and he's written over 100 books. Who are these successful people that he resents?
Just because Madison said wealth must rule? Wealth has Always ruled. Even in USSR & China the wealthy are the rulers or vice versa; and Rome, Greece, etc, etc. So how could libertarianism be any worse? It could only be Much better!
Guy name drops Malthas. Read him. His ideas specifically suggested killing the poor via starvation to avoid overpopulation because he feared the poor multiplying past food production. Guy was nuts. And a window into the soul of the upper classes, in our time the capitalists.
I know Chomsky has traveled for speaking, but it strikes me that he has probably never lived overseas as a member of other societies. The wealthy and the rulers are Always the same people or allied. That's natural. I don't think that is necessarily evil, because it's natural. But I think this is why, at the least, we need libertarian governments, if not Free Market Anarchism, because Socialist/Capitalist/Fascist governments enhance and amplify and multiply the advantages of the rich and powerful when they already have enough advantages and don't need more. Libertarianism or FMA would level the playing field which is exactly why the rich hate the libertarians generally. So whose side is Chomsky on? Because believe me, look around, the rich and powerful Love the current Socialist/Fascist/"Capitalist" system. This is Not a free market!
nleobold the trouble with the ‘free market Theory is that people keep getting in the way of a perfect theory: the theory is perfect it’s the people that are the problem.
nleobold You dont understand enough about chomsky yet. He is a libertarian. He also points out how markets aren’t inherently bad and how capitalism is predicated on underwriting and manipulating markets.
A right to live? Yes! A right to live at the expense of others? No! Offer something that someone wants in exchange for the resources you need to live. Your labor? If you must. Your creativity? If you have any! That's the beauty of our system. There are many creative people. Exploit your own talents to live on your own terms. I do. I have no boss. I have clients who want my services and are willing to pay for them. Dependence of exchange is the most independent you can be. Thanks for the video!
Paul Brown, what did you do to earn your genome? To earn the environment into which you were born that gave you the capacity to produce value? Do we creatures earn anything? Personally, I don’t think so. Privilege is not money; it is being an entity which is able to “make it work” in the system into which they were born, regardless of their circumstances. Given there are 7 billion people, it is absolutely necessary that there will be those who are not privileged-especially under the existing dominant social system, namely capitalism. Should we not strive to make a better system? In this inherently meaningless existence, it seems silly to not desire a better existence for those who currently suffer. Oh, I am so fortunate, so lucky-but why shouldn’t others be?
Hi Human Animal. Good questions. Your genome? Accident of birth. Shear chance. You cannot use that as an excuse not to try. Your environment? Again, chance. If yours sucks then do what many have done in the past and try to upgrade it without stepping on people (or those that are not exploiting you.) Do I earn something? Sure I do. My play by email games company created something that was not there before. I used my own creative efforts along with Mr. Torvolds, Mr. Dell, and the internet creators to create what a few hundred people find fun to play. I added my light to the sum of light and I do not take from others without compensation. I am not an exploiter of anything but my own talent. Everyone else I interact with are compensated for what I use: The computer, the operating system, MySQL, The hitachi router, the internet, the Free Software foundation, the developers of the C programming language, etc. Everyone got compensated. If y9ou cannot do that then what's it all about anyway? Whats the point if you cannot own your own efforts? Should we level the playing field for the 7 billion? Absolutely! I think we should all add our light to the sum of light. The more people are free to prosper the less people there are that need direct help. Lets not just give then unearned resources. Lets level the playing field so they can give themselves a hand up. Education? Absolutely! Access to the vast knowledge of the Internet? Absolutely. But these are not expensive relatively. Give both and you get so much more in return. Everyone wins! I get more players and you get the customers you need to become better off. This is the american way . . .or what I was told the ultimate american way? Do you see it differently? Thanks for the reply. It was fun to think about! :-)
Completely brainwashed by individualistic capitalist ideals... I pity you. You seem content in your I-earned-it-all bubble so I think we'll leave you be.
Did you earn your starting capital as a baby seperate from your family? no, they fed you, because their parents fed them, and their parents fed them, and their parents fed them, and if I go back far enough instead of saying "their parents fed them" it'll say "their parents exploited people in worse conditions to get food to feed them". Stop being so ahistorical with your I-earnt-it-all bullshit.
Thanks for all your replies. OK. If I didn't earn it, whom did I exploit? Who was not compensated for the already built-by-others tools that I used to create the game engine? The game came out of my head. I did not infringe copyright. Did other games give me ideas? Sure. All narrative strategy and diplomacy games are basically the same. Did I do everything in a vacuum? No. I stand on the shoulders of giants so that I may see just a little bit further. Hopefully some will stand on my shoulders and go just that little bit further. I stand ready to help. I guess I just don't understand why you all have an issue. Why would you not exploit your own talents to make a place in the world for you and your family? I owe no one a debt. No one owes me a debt. People interact with me of their own free will. I ask for nothing except a subscription fee for the use of my games. Simple. Effective. Satisfying. Please explain why you see things differently. Why are you not exploiting your own talents to carve a niche in this world for yourself? Thanks for all the replies. It's interesting and informative.
That's a load of horseshit, "a right to live". Nowhere in Europe was that enshrined in the feudal system, quite the opposite. What is so delusionally mixed up here with "the right to live" is the entitlement to be provided an arbitrarily defined standard of living by other people, which is a completely ludicrous thing to enshrine as a "right". Perhaps it is a wise thing to agree on to a certain extent, but you don't get to claim it by default.
yea yea i dont argue against idiotic strawmen ..you've set something up which he didn't claim or rather you've gloriously misunderstood and its tedious .Every Chomsky clip some jumped up comment missing the point pipes up and calls 'horseshit' and expects debate...nah dont think so.
turgid fungus He literally argued that the right "to live" includes more than a negative right against outside interference. Either you do not understand what that means, or we have watched separate clips.
1. If you allow people to vote for a redistribution of land, would that help? Look at the countries that did so, such as Ukrain and China. Millions starved to death. In a sense, the rich land owners were better people, they were better managers. 2. The opulent should be protected and the poor have no right to live? Odds of survival in the 19th and 20th century were better in the US than in any other country (maybe except switzerland or so) and certainly better than in the left-leaning countries. So Madisons prinicples seem to have benefitted the poor more than Marx principles. Odd, isnt it? 3. The "free society"... yes the important points Chomsky makes are not taught in school, but you can read them up and talk about them freely. In that sense the society is free, it just doesnt educate the kids to be critical of the very system that is teaching them, which is not that surprising. But even that is not true, children today learn about the extermination of the natives and about slavery etc. So what more do you want? Which country, besides Germany were I live, is more critical about its own society than the US? None! Chomsky is critical of everything, except of his own critical thinking. He should also think critically about his own views, once in a while...
I know where I live. But I also live in a capitalst society in which suposedly, according to chomsky, the rich can always buy politicians to do what is good only for the rich. Also, I am trashing collectivisation of land, not socialism. I kind of like socialism. Maybe you should be more precise in your thinking. The term socialism is so general that it could mean anything. Some of that is good, some is horrible. Taking away land or money from the rich and redistributing it to all is probably going to backfire. I dont oppose this, I dont think it is steeling (conservativs do think so) but I think it is incredibly stupid.
again, google the difference between collectivising land and social democracy. Also, live expectancy was better in the US than in germany or sweden until recently. Yes I prefer the german system to the US system but Chomsky is the one trashing a system, the US system. And I think he is a) to harsh and b) ignors the even bigger since of the alternatives he suggests. So talk to him, not me.
