"Privatization does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person, it means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyranny." --Noam Chomsky
iMaDeMoN2012 I think it's just the slogan "Government is bad and private industry is good" has just been beaten into our heads (at least in US) for so long, but the notion doesn't hold under any scrutiny. Just look to real world examples (war industry, medical industry/healthcare, prisons in US) and you will find that they are less efficient than the government because it would go against their interests to actually work efficiently (ex. Private war industries trying to actually achieve any sort of progress in the occupied regions would go directly against their interests because they make so much profit from the wars we're in. The list goes on an on but I will save myself some typing).
I think its really something unique here in the US because of our national history and culture. People here have very little trust in government because, after all, didn't the founders of this nation rebel because of tyrannical government (not completely true btw)? I believe the reason that socialized programs and even higher taxes to pay for them is so much more acceptable to people in other parts of the world is because those parts endured so much in the way of social upheaval and military conflict for so long that, in their eyes, it it is their duty as citizens to provide for each other to prevent it from ever happening again. Whereas we in the US have actually endured very little of it in our short history, so we have a more individualist outlook and don't see it as our duty to look out for anyone but ourselves.
No use arguing about things that can be proven with data. The problem is finding quality, truthful data. It's important to remain skeptic... and his insights are valuable. Where governments are inefficient, the free market solves a problem, arguably with even more inefficiency... but at least it gets solved. But Robert Kiyosaki makes a compelling pojnt when he says that governments are not incentivised to be efficient... and your success in government is measured by how many people you can put to work, rather than in the private sector where it's about how few people you need to get a job done. The problem with government is that the central nervous system that tells it when it messes up (voting, politics) is way too retarded - in a private sector company, if it is not profitable, it goes out of business and fails... yes people suffer but there'll be other alternatives. The problem is that when a government fails, it's too late... having your government do something, it's often run by people without experience or expertise, and if it fails its an all-eggs-in-one-basket problem. And this is all talking about extremes... there are very few absolutes or extremes in the real world... whats good can be bad, and vice versa, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
Coenraad Loubser you say you have to go on a case by case basis then you generalise about both private markets and public ones too. Lol talk about hypocritical pseudo-intellectualism
Because we havnt been given full disclosure... if your not working in the higher levels of the system, then your not going to be educated on how it works, where all slaves, so we’re told what we need to know in order to perform whatever assigned duty(work) we have fallen into... the technology and the ‘age of information’ is all facilitated and controlled by ‘them’ and they have no problem revealing themselves and how the fraud and lies of the system that controls us works, to those who are invested enough to do the research and connect the dots... because once you get full disclosure of what the agenda is and what’s actually going on, it’s so horrific, it’s so dark, it’s so corrupt, it’s almost unbelievable, and would make most people want to end their own life, because you realize they are running the show, and there’s nothing you can do about it... because for anyone to be motivated enough to actually stop them, it would take every single human being on planet earth to have the same level of knowledge and to cooperate... and the system has already infected everyone with mind control, that keeps us at odds with each other... Noam Chomsky himself is apart of ‘them’ ...
Recently read an interesting editorial about "A Conservative Case for the Welfare State." The author made a lot of very good arguments in favor of things like socialized health insurance-and all actually from a conservative standpoint. In many ways socialized insurance actually is a perfectly conservative concept, and that really the only problem is a conflict of what sounds the most appealing from an anti-government, pro free market standpoint and what is actually possible to do politically. And the author really made a good point in emphasizing how US conservatives love to toss around Margaret Thatcher's famous remark about "the problem with socialism," yet they deliberately ignore how she never dared touch the UK's socialized insurance and even had to promise she wouldn't in her election campaigns-to do so would have been political suicide. Its really ideology vs pragmatism.
Daniel Ryan The original idea behind state welfare came from Otto Von Bismarck. And he specifically implemented it to thwart and quiet the cooperative socialist labor movements that threatened to take over industries. No historian or German would consider Bismarck a leftist. In the USA the same thing happened. The labor unions, socialists, and communists basically said if something was not done they would start a revolution which would mean worker control over industry. FDR like Bismarck established welfare statism rather than allow a socialist revolution. But unlike Germany’s Bismarck, FDR is considered “left”. And FDR’s claim was he saved capitalism. Welfare statism often has very culturally conservative effects in many ways, by creating stability within a capitalist society. It also preserves many conservative institutions which would never survive within a free market. The issue is the USA maintains huge welfare for corporations and an elite who don’t feel the effects of the destruction of the welfare state institutions that everyone else needs and wants.
If you hear Chomsky is other interviews, he tells you that he is a conservative, believes in traditional values and that Conservatism has an honourable tradition. The issue is that those who call themselves conservatives now are basically Neo Liberal statists who's ideas of conservatism is locked with religious fundamentalism.
Brilliant characterization of the fallacy of privatization Sir, I am an admirer of yours since I crawled out the caves. Wade Goodwin, The FAIR Digest, South Africa
Government being run by and for the people. Private businesses owned and controlled by the workers collectively. "None of the above" would be an answer favored by some Anarchic idiots.
considering dozens of fallacies in this tiny bit it is far far from brilliant. Chomsky doesn't realize that he is advocating for tyranny. The State will usurp power much sooner than we can imagine, we should not give it any opportunity. no subsidies to industries and no privatization of any sector of society were meant when Constitution was written, in fact the whole of a preceding century was one big deliberation on the limited government and separation of powers, now this old bag comes and preaches public (State) transportation, public (State-run) education, public (State) pension plans. to heck with it and with him, privatize the heck out of State run monopolies and State run business collaborations. Nowhere did Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek advocated for businesses to run crying to the government to bail them out - this is pure lies this Chomsky asshole is saying. Milton Friedman cautioned against businesses having their pockets lined up with State funds as a result of State "regulation" and Hayek wrote a bestseller "Road to Serfdom" to caution against overreaching government control that Chomsky is really fighting for, whether the senile asshole realizes it or not.
Bernise Anders I disagree. I've watched many social and political critics totally wreck up the scene. Chomsky is a leftist powerhouse, but he isn't the only one. :)
Being good at pointing out the traps and historic errors does not make for a good manager or executive... as an advisor, yes. As an executive... what has he built?
It's actually a dumb idea to point at people and demand them to do something. It would only ruin every possible way of authenticity. Your job is not to do that. Your job is to grow and do the things that you feel are right. Someone of "us" will then someday have the impulse to step forward, and it will be pure because it stood authentic.
just how would he be any good? he doesn't get simple solutions to idiotic problems he invents... oh wait that would make him ideal president of the US :D
I like the point about how privation of schools increases cost on the single family because they have to pay the brunt of costs, if we collected taxes everybody pays for it, and the price for the single family goes down.
+Roderick Garcia Not true. Private schools are more expensive and unless you walk, you have to drive to your private school on public roads. The public fire dept. has to put out fires in your private school. If you have any kind of terror in your private school like a shooting, the public police dept. has to show up. Facts can be a bitch sometimes don't you think. Should the rest of us taxpayers refuse services to private schools?
considering the amount of taxes that goes to supply the bureaucracy and the resulting fraud and waste should be one heck of a reason to fight "public" education. Let alone that Department of Education gets to decide what to teach your kids and in case you disagree with their curriculum they can interfere into parenting rights should be another and a final reason why we should stick to private schools. If government makes education mandatory and already collects taxes for it then it would be a much better education if we are to choose the schools we take our kids to. Voucher system is a much better alternative to what we have right now where the rich parents don't really care anyways since they can afford it, but it is the poor that could really benefit from the freedom of choice, as always. Government, the way it behaves now, trying to grab all the power it can, really do not give those with lower income much of the choice - you are assigned a school district based on your zip code - this is why kids in richer areas will always be better spoken, know more math and be well-behaved compared to those in the lower income areas thanks to the Department Of Education's CONTROL - this is what this old idiot advocates for. is this something you really want? I don't.
@HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. I don't buy your argument on the costs being out of control with private education. on the other hand, the current system is really twisted - here is how. every tax-paying citizen pitches in for the costs of mandatory education. now, how are the funds distributed? Equally? Doesn't look like it. Not only are the students with lower income parents are locked in the school districts without much choice to move into private education if they wanted to, but on top of that some poorer school district parents end up bearing the costs of the richer zip-codes. Dept Of Ed should be put out business or at least should be given an opportunity to compete with private schools. How can this done? Very simply by a voucher system. Since a fixed amount is spent on a statistical student each year by Dept of Ed why not give every family a voucher each year or a semester or even a quarter to spend in any school family sees fit for their kids. If the parents are satisfied with an existing public school under the CONTROL of DeptOfEd then let them pay to that school district, if not - they can take their voucher to whatever school they want to. On the other side, if the school is so spiffy that it decides to provide more than the basic requirement/sum of the Voucher let the parents make a FREE CHOICE and pay extra for their kids, however, I doubt that the majority of new private schools will want to rid themselves of the business that the vouchers will bring. There is nothing wrong viewing education as a business, in fact, the dollar incentive and a factor of competition should be another factor of quality control, not the CONTROL Of the GOVERNMENT. it is the GOVERNMENT that is not accountable since it is time and again found ways to fail it's subsidized industries. It is the Business that throughout it's history in all it's industries managed to provide value and increase quality. Unless of course the big brother's overreach allows it to fail. In the business setting there is always responsibility, it doesn't succeed otherwise. Fuck big unscrupulous, wasteful, unaccountable government, it's CONTROL, it's UNIFORMITY. Let competition bring value and quality to the market of education. There is nothing wrong with a teacher wanting to make money out of his/her profession. In fact, there is nothing wrong with a professional willing to be well compensated for his efforts - this is much a better incentive to provide value than CONTROL.
We should not lump these things in together. Social security and basic pensions should be funded from a land value tax as Tom Paine originally advocated. Then we would not be taxing today's labor to fund others who labored in the past, but would be collecting a socially created value for the public benefit. Railroads are licensed right-of-way monopolies and should be publicly owned, just like water and sewer lines, streets and roads, etc. Schools are a very different thing. It is in the public interest that people be educated, but it is not in the public interest that the state have control over what they are taught. Voucher education is not giving the student less, but giving him control over is own education.
Yes, all you have to do is lift the cap. A person making around $120K a year pays the same amount of SS tax as people making $500K@ year, $1M@ year, $5M @ year, $100M @ year and so on.
Jesus I am ambivalent on Noam Chomsky. His reasoning on some of the data he's looked it seems to be a mix of some correct analyses WITH some weird and, I kinda wanna lean towards, skewed misanalyzation. I wonder if they're deliberate. Kinda conspiratorial. That in itself is encouraged for honesty, but I feel like he lets his personal feelings dilute his reasoning. Almost like he isn't aware of, or not wanting to confront, how he feels really.
I am ambivalent about Jesus. He seemed like a nice enough guy, but the "son of God" stuff seems like an over-the-top, cultish ego trip, and a lot of his devoted followers seem like total a**holes.
I can understand hating privatization, but I don't know how you can hate it and speak favorably of the public sector. Private : Make something you want and you willingly give your money for it. Public : They take your money by force and give you shit in return. And if you argue we can change the public sector by voting it's the same. Don't like a company, don't buy from them. If everyone else still does and your monetary vote doesn't matter, guess what, same in the public sector. At the pinnacles of power are evil people, private or public.
i think you fail to understand that capital is anti democratic at it's core and the only goal of a private business is making as much profit as possible
@@xavier4519 1. Democracy isn't necessarily good. You wouldn't want a janitor voting on what techniques your surgeon can use. 2. Capital is nothing more than voting for the existence of a company, except there are actual consequences because if the company tanks you lose your money, as opposed to the morons in the public sector. 3. Money is the main goal, of course, but there are many companies that strive to help society in addition to earning money, and even if they don't the goods/services they provide are good for society. If they weren't people wouldn't buy them and the companies would collapse.
The only way those stocks for my pension plan are gonna go up is if all the people around me are making more and more money all the time. This way they will be able to afford to buy my stocks from me at ever higher prices which is what i need. If they are making very low wages as you would suggest Mr Chomsky then no one would be able to afford to buy the stocks from my pension plan and i will not make any money from it.
Your “pension plan”? You do know that the 401k was the privatized replacement for the traditional pension right? The one which guaranteed you a decent retirement. Now you’re retirement is at the mercy of a fund manager who may or may not pick the right portfolio, which is in turn at the mercy of the stock market, which nobody can accurately predict. Are you advocating that you’d rather be at the mercy of this tyranny than have your retirement backed by the same government that can print its own currency and invest in those retirement accounts at any time of its choosing?
@@ledgohan Do you know which Pension Plan you are talking about? Did you know that Pension plans for private corporations invest in stocks,bonds etc. during your employment to provide you with income during retirement? There is or was no absoulte guarantee. Most government pension plans like state, county, and city do the same thing and or rely on taxing(robbing) the citizens. So they too invest in stocks bonds etc. as well. So your pension is still in the hands of some fund manager you just dont know it. These governments have no ability to print their own money and can run out. Go look at the state of Illinois, it is common knowledge that the state pension is going bankrupt its only a matter of time now, many other governments are in the same boat as well. The only government that can print money at will is the federal government. The USA is one of the few governments in the world which can do this for any length of time without destroying the value of the currency. Go look at what has happened in Venezuela from printing money at will. A person that retired there 20 years ago can no longer buy a cup of starbucks coffee with his monthly pension check. You must learn to think global dude. Also the days of the the US dollar being the worlds reserve currency are rapidly drawing to a close and so will its ability to print money at will.
TikiHut Dweller There’s a lot to unpack there so I’ll just stick with the main thread here regarding pensions. What we have in the US now is no longer a pension. It is a tax-advantaged investment account. Previously (and it was by no means perfect), employers would provide pensions because they could write that off against taxes at a time when they were taxed nearly 90% on PROFITS (not revenue), therefore the tax code incentivized them to invest and reinvest in employees so as to maximize their P&L. I’m going to take a stab and guess you are an American “libertarian” (even though libertarianism, originally is a left concept which was manipulated by the oligarch Koch family to become a 3rd party that could steal away independent voters from the left)...so as a “libertarian” your argument is for ultimate individual freedoms yes? So how does one get ultimate individual freedom when we acquiesce the same rights of individuals to corporations that are only beholden to wealthy shareholders? Your de facto position creates a vacuum for those with wealth and power to purchase or take what they wish, with not a care about your “freedom”. Those pesky government regulations are the only thing that stands in the way if you being able to breathe clean air and eat safe food. Or do you think the wealthy shareholders will out your safety ahead of their profit?
@@ledgohan I see you said you were going to remain on topic with pensions and then went completely off topic. The USA still has pensions and you dont seem to know it. Some people in private corporations still have pensions and most government employees, federal, state, county,city still have pensions. No they did not all disappear and many of them can go bankrupt. Illinois has its pension plan funded to only 38% of what it needs to pay the pensions they promised. So when the money is gone then what?? Its a big powerful state there working to help and protect the people. Yet Why are they failing?? Perhaps you have the answer?
TikiHut Dweller Happy to move to government pension programs if that’s where you’d like to go, however you haven’t addressed the corporate pension plans that I was referring to since the beginning. The federal government (congress specifically) is granted the ability to create new monies through the power of the treasury. In fact, the powers of Congress are the first article in the constitution. State and local government, are therefore at the mercy of either federal monies, or local taxation. It’s a separate fiscal issue to that of corporate pensions. As someone who believes taxation is theft, how would you propose funding local government employee pensions?
NO. Privatizing a school system doesn't mean that you don't care about the other guy is he is or not going to school. In pure and simple money terms privatizing the school system means that each individual parent decides where he is going to spend the money allocated to the family for education. it is a private interest of a parent as well as his/her right to give whatever education they decide their children is to have - this is one of the perks and rewards of having kids - a mom and dad were responsible and altruistic enough to bring a new soul into this world, no State should now tell them that their kids are property of a State and therefore are to be educated as Stated sees fit. NO! NO! NO! Chomsky, again, through his sloppy fallacies, are on the side of tyranny. Privatizing a school system means simply that since government of USA (or any other country) makes H.S. education mandatory for it's citizens and decides to allocate funds to the purpose it would be wise to let parents decide which school they want to send their kids to, under a current system this choice is limited and often parents are stuck with schools where they don't want to send their kids to. It is parent's kids, not the State's. Get it, Chomsky. Just because parents naturally want to take care of their kids the best they can doesn't at all mean they absolutely don't give a damn about the kid next door. Chomsky is a senile old fool, advocating for tyranny.
@@ledgohan My mom has been commenting on the Dallas Cowboys since the 60s. Being in love with the sound of your own voice for 50 years doesn't make you an expert. Sowell would level him.
David Lindsay That’s a fun comparison, though not quite apt. I doubt your mom has over a hundred publications on the Cowboys and gets invited to speak on the subject worldwide. Whether or not Sowell would “obliterate him”...I guess we’ll never know.
@@magnus100100 What, do you think someone needs to be a doctor to have knowledge about how to threat people? What s stupid notion. The guy has no knowledge about economics, which is pretty evident by the arguments he makes and how he talks. He may be a brilliant linguist, but economist - not so much. Not only that, he talks about privatization and ex socialist countries - he has no idea about that either. How do I know? Well, I live in an ex socialist country, those socialist appologist have no idea how things were in reality, they just talk slogans they have heard or read in a book somewhere. And since Chomsky is obviously good with words, you may think that he actually knows what he is talking about, and in reality - he has no idea!
NO, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek DO NOT advocate private businesses to run for help asking a State to bail a failing business out. Nowhere do these two men said or meant such a thing. Milton Friedman specifically cautioned against a collaboration of business and government. Chomsky is AGAIN willingly and knowingly mixing up facts that do not exist. A very sloppy argumentation on his part against these two brilliant men. Why would a professor of linguistics be so vocal about economics where he is making simplest mistakes escapes me, but I do think he is going senile, never mind a seeming clarity of his speech. Speech is only a cover for ideas and concepts and here he is making mistakes, leading a whole generation of headless followers astray.
I think you are absolutely right about Milton Friedman etc. because they obviously do not support government intervention, which should be obvious to anyone even without expertise in economics. I think Chomsky is being sarcastic there when he say "you pick up your copies of Milton Friedman etc. and you run to the nanny state that you've nurtured and you make sure that they bail you out." It's sarcastic because previously the big businesses supported privatization (which is supported by economists like Milton Friedman) because those policies are profitable for them, but when the economy tanked and their companies are losing money they will ignore their previous ideals and ask for a bailout from the government.
Oh wait let’s here the cry once again, “That’s not real libertarianism!” Is that similar to the cry, “That’s not real Marxism?” The answer is YES. In theory the USA libertarians married to Hayek, Mises, Rand etc. have a theory that ends up ultimately producing unaccountable tyrannies in the real world. In a similar way that Marxism a theory that advocated for STATELESS society and not central government control. And yet Lenin and Mao etc. implemented Marxist theory contrary to the basic tenants of the theory. Honduras is a government that is largely libertarian in ideology. But to institute and maintain a libertarian ideology the government murdered left wing activists in their sleep. But... But... Venezuela. The issue is in the real world there is not much real libertarianism not much real Marxism and socialism. What there is are different forms of welfare states. And I think we should use the welfare state as a distinct category rather than calling it “socialism” because it was set up first by Bismarck in 1875 to thwart the anti-state socialist cooperative movements. The USA happens to be a welfare state for corporations that generally likes to overthrow foreign governments that don’t comply to corporate power through the use of military power. And that Chomsky and others have demonstrated over and over again. In reality USA’s Version libertarianism has resulted in unaccountable tyranny. It should be noted that Orwell warned about this: “in the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of." Yet, "A return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because it is more irresponsible, than that of the state."
Governments fuck up free markets because it is and always was a monopoly creator. It's a myth that monopolies have their existence stimulated by free markets, so the problem is simply the unaccountable involuntary coercive modus operandi of the State, damn it.
How about this. I keep my 100 dollars. I give 10 to someone in need. That is a better idea than the government taking that 100 and after administrative cost and that person ending up with $3.
The government doesn’t have administrative costs in the way a business does. Thinking the government runs (or should run) like a business is a common fallacy.
@@ledgohan The government doesn't have administrative cost? yes it does. thats were most of the money pit goes. it should be run at least comparably efficient to a business. Its not hard to run a business without profit motive and veiled levels of accountability.
David Lindsay “In the way a business does” is what I said, and you correctly pointed to profit as being one key distinction. Whether or not something is a money pit, I’d argue depends on whether or not said costs are providing desired benefits, and for whom in the way it was intended to. So in the case of schooling, the beneficiary of services are the children (and logically the society which benefits from their education when they grow up and enter the workforce). Using your logic would you agree that the military budget is a “money pit”?
and then he contradicts the very himself in Social Security bit. He is a fool, this Chomsky. How did it happen that so many youngsters listen to him?! (without understanding what exactly he is saying).
i dont agree with noam. if i care about the people in my community getting educated at a school, whats to stop me from organizing with my members of my community and funding a school system to educate the kids in that community? why is a system of taxation so necessary in order to fund schooling? it doesn't make it any cheaper. in only makes it cheaper for some at the cost of others. in infers no social benefit in terms of making everyone more wealthy. and whats wrong with people having full control of the dollars in their wallets? if tyrannical behavior is manifesting in a community, then people could stop funding them. the market process of competition will keep the tyrants in check as long as people are empowered and have a real free market. the more the state is empowered to try and best decide how to use and spend people's i think is money is where the problem is coming from. and since when am i responsible for all the children out there in my community? why should i be obligated through taxation to fund their schooling? im responsible for my own child and other parents out there are responsible for theirs. if people out there can't afford the fund their own kids schooling maybe we ought to look at how heavily the state is taxing people either directly or through the inflation tax. maybe there is something wrong with the currency. but the last thing we ought to resort to in that situation is using violence to expropriate funds from people in the community to pay for children's education. as if kids don't learn things every day regardless of whether or not they are in a school building.
I'm not sure I agree with you on how competition will keep tyrants in check. How can the people have real power when the elite have so much, and the common man has so little? I imagine a person in their community, wanting to bring education to students, starting up a private system with the utmost intentions, being bought out by a corporate powerhouse like walmart, costco, or whichever corporation might be able to swing a small profit from education. Maybe it's not even profit driven from the corporation. Maybe they want to invest in "educating" our youth into becoming good little consumers and enlightening the youth on the health benefits of gatorade and krispy kreme donuts. In my view, it seems like parents would have to find new schools that don't brainwash students and competition would drive up demand for schools that offer a real education. Those schools would be eventually bought out by the profit driven elite and real schools would eventually become so expensive that average working Americans wouldn't be able to afford it and our youth would be subject to even lower education standards. I imagine a snake eating its own tail in regards to privatization of education. I'm not arguing for publicizing everything but I feel like there are some things that shouldn't be profit driven.
I think you guys are missing my point.... taxation is involuntary, It is money expropriated from the public by use of force and violence, not by voluntary free choice, therefore organizations or Services paid for by tax dollars are not services or organizations that were purchased by the public. within the definition of purchase is the implication of choice. tax funded schools they are funded by money that came from the public yes but not purchased by the public. so if we have a society of public schools that are funded by tax dollars, its not funded voluntarily out of choice on the free market and we essentially lose that mechanism of competition that provides a Discovery process that shows us what is the best, most efficient way to educate our kids.
well thats your perspective ! if you watched science channels and tech programs you wouldnt know what stupid people are doing ! but my point still holds everything has benefits and costs if you want to watch color tv surf the net and learn you can ! and if you want to just bullshit on the net you can thats the beauty of it
Very narrow views on the private enterprise and capitalism in general, inmediatelly relating private business to tyranny and public controlled as the best that could happen to society which as really naive. In every serious country bussinesses must answer to the state regulations otherwise they are subject to serious sanctions, meanwhile a state controlled institution has to answer to who??? to another state controlled institution, that always goes very nicely to them. Also serious countries protect the workers against any attempt of businesses to step over their rights. The thing is US citizens are not used to serious moderate rulers which have caused their society to deal with the worst face of corporatism.
So are we agreed then that ultimately the state must regulate private corporations? That mechanism is a measure against what Chomsky would call a tyranny - an autocratic capacity from said corporation. Without UL such measures they would merely do whatever the authority (shareholders) want, which is usually as simple as maximizing profit.
Chomsky is a bit late with privatization. The first privatization in US happened when the settlers bought what is now New York from the Indians for a few dollars and other plastic toys - then it became New Amsterdam. Ever since, the city, a private property was traded, changed hands, etc. Is there a different story with any other land area or other types of private property in US? Expropriating private property is robbery, for at least, most industries have it's owners - they invested their money in it, developed it, traded it, etc. just as is done with private property. Some were more industrious, some were less, some were lucky, some were not so much, but to assume that we can figure why some prospered and why some didn't based on injustice is not preposterous, not ludicrous, not ridiculous - it is plain STUPID. Chomsky, with his "privatization" theories is STUPID. Are you also? US is not a monarchist Russia in 1861 with slavery just abolished and peasants were let go off free, and free of possessions. Neither is US a tyranny like Cuba, where a national revolution deposed of a ruling party and now is willing to divide the stolen spoils. US is in fact the first country on Earth that said no to special privileges. Those that wanted had a chance to make something out of it and left their children the spoils of their hard work, those that didn't - left their kids with LIFE and ability to make what they want out of it. Privatization is only done once in the history of any given social formation. If the citizens, for the lack of better options decided to submit their private property to a State, and then the industries failed like in England - they privatized and it was a good thing, never mind the details of how it was done - everything can be done better or worse, but the important thing here is once the property became private - there is no reason to privatize it anymore - reprivatizing private property is called robbery, theft. Chomsky seems to be all for it. who is he? an intellectual? no! a person who advocates robbery and theft is a criminal.
It's strange, the things he is saying are perfectly obvious, the thought has occurred to every one of us, yet he is the only one saying them.
iMaDeMoN2012 I think it's just the slogan "Government is bad and private industry is good" has just been beaten into our heads (at least in US) for so long, but the notion doesn't hold under any scrutiny. Just look to real world examples (war industry, medical industry/healthcare, prisons in US) and you will find that they are less efficient than the government because it would go against their interests to actually work efficiently (ex. Private war industries trying to actually achieve any sort of progress in the occupied regions would go directly against their interests because they make so much profit from the wars we're in. The list goes on an on but I will save myself some typing).
I think its really something unique here in the US because of our national history and culture. People here have very little trust in government because, after all, didn't the founders of this nation rebel because of tyrannical government (not completely true btw)? I believe the reason that socialized programs and even higher taxes to pay for them is so much more acceptable to people in other parts of the world is because those parts endured so much in the way of social upheaval and military conflict for so long that, in their eyes, it it is their duty as citizens to provide for each other to prevent it from ever happening again. Whereas we in the US have actually endured very little of it in our short history, so we have a more individualist outlook and don't see it as our duty to look out for anyone but ourselves.
No use arguing about things that can be proven with data. The problem is finding quality, truthful data. It's important to remain skeptic... and his insights are valuable. Where governments are inefficient, the free market solves a problem, arguably with even more inefficiency... but at least it gets solved. But Robert Kiyosaki makes a compelling pojnt when he says that governments are not incentivised to be efficient... and your success in government is measured by how many people you can put to work, rather than in the private sector where it's about how few people you need to get a job done. The problem with government is that the central nervous system that tells it when it messes up (voting, politics) is way too retarded - in a private sector company, if it is not profitable, it goes out of business and fails... yes people suffer but there'll be other alternatives. The problem is that when a government fails, it's too late... having your government do something, it's often run by people without experience or expertise, and if it fails its an all-eggs-in-one-basket problem. And this is all talking about extremes... there are very few absolutes or extremes in the real world... whats good can be bad, and vice versa, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
Coenraad Loubser you say you have to go on a case by case basis then you generalise about both private markets and public ones too. Lol talk about hypocritical pseudo-intellectualism
Because we havnt been given full disclosure... if your not working in the higher levels of the system, then your not going to be educated on how it works, where all slaves, so we’re told what we need to know in order to perform whatever assigned duty(work) we have fallen into... the technology and the ‘age of information’ is all facilitated and controlled by ‘them’ and they have no problem revealing themselves and how the fraud and lies of the system that controls us works, to those who are invested enough to do the research and connect the dots... because once you get full disclosure of what the agenda is and what’s actually going on, it’s so horrific, it’s so dark, it’s so corrupt, it’s almost unbelievable, and would make most people want to end their own life, because you realize they are running the show, and there’s nothing you can do about it... because for anyone to be motivated enough to actually stop them, it would take every single human being on planet earth to have the same level of knowledge and to cooperate... and the system has already infected everyone with mind control, that keeps us at odds with each other... Noam Chomsky himself is apart of ‘them’ ...
Recently read an interesting editorial about "A Conservative Case for the Welfare State." The author made a lot of very good arguments in favor of things like socialized health insurance-and all actually from a conservative standpoint. In many ways socialized insurance actually is a perfectly conservative concept, and that really the only problem is a conflict of what sounds the most appealing from an anti-government, pro free market standpoint and what is actually possible to do politically. And the author really made a good point in emphasizing how US conservatives love to toss around Margaret Thatcher's famous remark about "the problem with socialism," yet they deliberately ignore how she never dared touch the UK's socialized insurance and even had to promise she wouldn't in her election campaigns-to do so would have been political suicide. Its really ideology vs pragmatism.
Daniel Ryan The original idea behind state welfare came from Otto Von Bismarck. And he specifically implemented it to thwart and quiet the cooperative socialist labor movements that threatened to take over industries. No historian or German would consider Bismarck a leftist.
In the USA the same thing happened. The labor unions, socialists, and communists basically said if something was not done they would start a revolution which would mean worker control over industry. FDR like Bismarck established welfare statism rather than allow a socialist revolution. But unlike Germany’s Bismarck, FDR is considered “left”. And FDR’s claim was he saved capitalism.
Welfare statism often has very culturally conservative effects in many ways, by creating stability within a capitalist society. It also preserves many conservative institutions which would never survive within a free market.
The issue is the USA maintains huge welfare for corporations and an elite who don’t feel the effects of the destruction of the welfare state institutions that everyone else needs and wants.
If you hear Chomsky is other interviews, he tells you that he is a conservative, believes in traditional values and that Conservatism has an honourable tradition. The issue is that those who call themselves conservatives now are basically Neo Liberal statists who's ideas of conservatism is locked with religious fundamentalism.
welfare is a patch; it's purpose is to save and extend the life of capitalism instead of trying something post-capitalism
Brilliant characterization of the fallacy of privatization Sir, I am an admirer of yours since I crawled out the caves. Wade Goodwin, The FAIR Digest, South Africa
Exactly, just ask Eastern Europe
Noam Chomsky is right. This is how happened in my country Romania.
Go back to the USSR, chump.
The reason why it happened was that the public sector was not privatize fast enough. Look what happened in Chezh and Slovakia?
He can't go back to the USSR because it doesn't exist, chump.
@@hoogmonster exactly!
Currently science is being privatized
Who would you like to be ruled by?
A: Government
B: Private business
C: None of the above
There will always be an entity that controls you with violence. Faces change but the game doesn't.
@@makokx7063 *tries to control you with violence
Government being run by and for the people. Private businesses owned and controlled by the workers collectively. "None of the above" would be an answer favored by some Anarchic idiots.
Important points still
Excellent comrade!
considering dozens of fallacies in this tiny bit it is far far from brilliant. Chomsky doesn't realize that he is advocating for tyranny. The State will usurp power much sooner than we can imagine, we should not give it any opportunity. no subsidies to industries and no privatization of any sector of society were meant when Constitution was written, in fact the whole of a preceding century was one big deliberation on the limited government and separation of powers, now this old bag comes and preaches public (State) transportation, public (State-run) education, public (State) pension plans. to heck with it and with him, privatize the heck out of State run monopolies and State run business collaborations. Nowhere did Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek advocated for businesses to run crying to the government to bail them out - this is pure lies this Chomsky asshole is saying. Milton Friedman cautioned against businesses having their pockets lined up with State funds as a result of State "regulation" and Hayek wrote a bestseller "Road to Serfdom" to caution against overreaching government control that Chomsky is really fighting for, whether the senile asshole realizes it or not.
very rarely does a political commentator hit the nail so squarely on the head.
Bernise Anders
I disagree. I've watched many social and political critics totally wreck up the scene. Chomsky is a leftist powerhouse, but he isn't the only one. :)
Does prof. Chomsky write in detail about this topic in any of his books?
Hr. Kontrolminister yup he has ! he's written about 100 books
Devastating.
If Noam Chomsky had been president of the US, the world would have been a much more peaceful place.
Ai Zhongguo
Not quite. Popular support is a bigger, more long-term factor to consider when making political and social changes.
Being good at pointing out the traps and historic errors does not make for a good manager or executive... as an advisor, yes. As an executive... what has he built?
It's actually a dumb idea to point at people and demand them to do something. It would only ruin every possible way of authenticity. Your job is not to do that. Your job is to grow and do the things that you feel are right. Someone of "us" will then someday have the impulse to step forward, and it will be pure because it stood authentic.
just how would he be any good? he doesn't get simple solutions to idiotic problems he invents... oh wait that would make him ideal president of the US :D
he nailed it
I like the point about how privation of schools increases cost on the single family because they have to pay the brunt of costs, if we collected taxes everybody pays for it, and the price for the single family goes down.
Sand Theb Public school cost more then private school. Parents who send there kids to private schools should not have to pay taxes for public schools
Roderick Garcia Why not?
+Roderick Garcia Not true. Private schools are more expensive and unless you walk, you have to drive to your private school on public roads. The public fire dept. has to put out fires in your private school. If you have any kind of terror in your private school like a shooting, the public police dept. has to show up. Facts can be a bitch sometimes don't you think. Should the rest of us taxpayers refuse services to private schools?
considering the amount of taxes that goes to supply the bureaucracy and the resulting fraud and waste should be one heck of a reason to fight "public" education. Let alone that Department of Education gets to decide what to teach your kids and in case you disagree with their curriculum they can interfere into parenting rights should be another and a final reason why we should stick to private schools. If government makes education mandatory and already collects taxes for it then it would be a much better education if we are to choose the schools we take our kids to. Voucher system is a much better alternative to what we have right now where the rich parents don't really care anyways since they can afford it, but it is the poor that could really benefit from the freedom of choice, as always. Government, the way it behaves now, trying to grab all the power it can, really do not give those with lower income much of the choice - you are assigned a school district based on your zip code - this is why kids in richer areas will always be better spoken, know more math and be well-behaved compared to those in the lower income areas thanks to the Department Of Education's CONTROL - this is what this old idiot advocates for. is this something you really want? I don't.
@HEAVY SYSTEMS, Inc. I don't buy your argument on the costs being out of control with private education. on the other hand, the current system is really twisted - here is how. every tax-paying citizen pitches in for the costs of mandatory education. now, how are the funds distributed? Equally? Doesn't look like it. Not only are the students with lower income parents are locked in the school districts without much choice to move into private education if they wanted to, but on top of that some poorer school district parents end up bearing the costs of the richer zip-codes. Dept Of Ed should be put out business or at least should be given an opportunity to compete with private schools. How can this done? Very simply by a voucher system. Since a fixed amount is spent on a statistical student each year by Dept of Ed why not give every family a voucher each year or a semester or even a quarter to spend in any school family sees fit for their kids. If the parents are satisfied with an existing public school under the CONTROL of DeptOfEd then let them pay to that school district, if not - they can take their voucher to whatever school they want to. On the other side, if the school is so spiffy that it decides to provide more than the basic requirement/sum of the Voucher let the parents make a FREE CHOICE and pay extra for their kids, however, I doubt that the majority of new private schools will want to rid themselves of the business that the vouchers will bring. There is nothing wrong viewing education as a business, in fact, the dollar incentive and a factor of competition should be another factor of quality control, not the CONTROL Of the GOVERNMENT. it is the GOVERNMENT that is not accountable since it is time and again found ways to fail it's subsidized industries. It is the Business that throughout it's history in all it's industries managed to provide value and increase quality. Unless of course the big brother's overreach allows it to fail. In the business setting there is always responsibility, it doesn't succeed otherwise. Fuck big unscrupulous, wasteful, unaccountable government, it's CONTROL, it's UNIFORMITY. Let competition bring value and quality to the market of education. There is nothing wrong with a teacher wanting to make money out of his/her profession. In fact, there is nothing wrong with a professional willing to be well compensated for his efforts - this is much a better incentive to provide value than CONTROL.
More please that was interesting I prefer small snippets than a full discussion
Social democracy that sounds good.
Public bus routes get cut due to low amount of riders too doesn't it?
We should not lump these things in together. Social security and basic pensions should be funded from a land value tax as Tom Paine originally advocated. Then we would not be taxing today's labor to fund others who labored in the past, but would be collecting a socially created value for the public benefit.
Railroads are licensed right-of-way monopolies and should be publicly owned, just like water and sewer lines, streets and roads, etc.
Schools are a very different thing. It is in the public interest that people be educated, but it is not in the public interest that the state have control over what they are taught. Voucher education is not giving the student less, but giving him control over is own education.
Social security is in good shape we just have to fund it more ?
Mmmmh 'kay
Yes, all you have to do is lift the cap. A person making around $120K a year pays the same amount of SS tax as people making $500K@ year, $1M@ year, $5M @ year, $100M @ year and so on.
Jesus I am ambivalent on Noam Chomsky. His reasoning on some of the data he's looked it seems to be a mix of some correct analyses WITH some weird and, I kinda wanna lean towards, skewed misanalyzation.
I wonder if they're deliberate. Kinda conspiratorial. That in itself is encouraged for honesty, but I feel like he lets his personal feelings dilute his reasoning. Almost like he isn't aware of, or not wanting to confront, how he feels really.
I am ambivalent about Jesus. He seemed like a nice enough guy, but the "son of God" stuff seems like an over-the-top, cultish ego trip, and a lot of his devoted followers seem like total a**holes.
I can understand hating privatization, but I don't know how you can hate it and speak favorably of the public sector.
Private : Make something you want and you willingly give your money for it.
Public : They take your money by force and give you shit in return.
And if you argue we can change the public sector by voting it's the same. Don't like a company, don't buy from them. If everyone else still does and your monetary vote doesn't matter, guess what, same in the public sector.
At the pinnacles of power are evil people, private or public.
i think you fail to understand that capital is anti democratic at it's core and the only goal of a private business is making as much profit as possible
@@xavier4519 1. Democracy isn't necessarily good. You wouldn't want a janitor voting on what techniques your surgeon can use.
2. Capital is nothing more than voting for the existence of a company, except there are actual consequences because if the company tanks you lose your money, as opposed to the morons in the public sector.
3. Money is the main goal, of course, but there are many companies that strive to help society in addition to earning money, and even if they don't the goods/services they provide are good for society. If they weren't people wouldn't buy them and the companies would collapse.
The only way those stocks for my pension plan are gonna go up is if all the people around me are making more and more money all the time. This way they will be able to afford to buy my stocks from me at ever higher prices which is what i need. If they are making very low wages as you would suggest Mr Chomsky then no one would be able to afford to buy the stocks from my pension plan and i will not make any money from it.
Your “pension plan”? You do know that the 401k was the privatized replacement for the traditional pension right? The one which guaranteed you a decent retirement. Now you’re retirement is at the mercy of a fund manager who may or may not pick the right portfolio, which is in turn at the mercy of the stock market, which nobody can accurately predict. Are you advocating that you’d rather be at the mercy of this tyranny than have your retirement backed by the same government that can print its own currency and invest in those retirement accounts at any time of its choosing?
@@ledgohan Do you know which Pension Plan you are talking about? Did you know that Pension plans for private corporations invest in stocks,bonds etc. during your employment to provide you with income during retirement? There is or was no absoulte guarantee. Most government pension plans like state, county, and city do the same thing and or rely on taxing(robbing) the citizens. So they too invest in stocks bonds etc. as well. So your pension is still in the hands of some fund manager you just dont know it. These governments have no ability to print their own money and can run out. Go look at the state of Illinois, it is common knowledge that the state pension is going bankrupt its only a matter of time now, many other governments are in the same boat as well. The only government that can print money at will is the federal government. The USA is one of the few governments in the world which can do this for any length of time without destroying the value of the currency. Go look at what has happened in Venezuela from printing money at will. A person that retired there 20 years ago can no longer buy a cup of starbucks coffee with his monthly pension check. You must learn to think global dude. Also the days of the the US dollar being the worlds reserve currency are rapidly drawing to a close and so will its ability to print money at will.
TikiHut Dweller There’s a lot to unpack there so I’ll just stick with the main thread here regarding pensions. What we have in the US now is no longer a pension. It is a tax-advantaged investment account. Previously (and it was by no means perfect), employers would provide pensions because they could write that off against taxes at a time when they were taxed nearly 90% on PROFITS (not revenue), therefore the tax code incentivized them to invest and reinvest in employees so as to maximize their P&L. I’m going to take a stab and guess you are an American “libertarian” (even though libertarianism, originally is a left concept which was manipulated by the oligarch Koch family to become a 3rd party that could steal away independent voters from the left)...so as a “libertarian” your argument is for ultimate individual freedoms yes? So how does one get ultimate individual freedom when we acquiesce the same rights of individuals to corporations that are only beholden to wealthy shareholders? Your de facto position creates a vacuum for those with wealth and power to purchase or take what they wish, with not a care about your “freedom”. Those pesky government regulations are the only thing that stands in the way if you being able to breathe clean air and eat safe food. Or do you think the wealthy shareholders will out your safety ahead of their profit?
@@ledgohan I see you said you were going to remain on topic with pensions and then went completely off topic. The USA still has pensions and you dont seem to know it. Some people in private corporations still have pensions and most government employees, federal, state, county,city still have pensions. No they did not all disappear and many of them can go bankrupt. Illinois has its pension plan funded to only 38% of what it needs to pay the pensions they promised. So when the money is gone then what?? Its a big powerful state there working to help and protect the people. Yet Why are they failing?? Perhaps you have the answer?
TikiHut Dweller Happy to move to government pension programs if that’s where you’d like to go, however you haven’t addressed the corporate pension plans that I was referring to since the beginning. The federal government (congress specifically) is granted the ability to create new monies through the power of the treasury. In fact, the powers of Congress are the first article in the constitution. State and local government, are therefore at the mercy of either federal monies, or local taxation. It’s a separate fiscal issue to that of corporate pensions. As someone who believes taxation is theft, how would you propose funding local government employee pensions?
NO. Privatizing a school system doesn't mean that you don't care about the other guy is he is or not going to school. In pure and simple money terms privatizing the school system means that each individual parent decides where he is going to spend the money allocated to the family for education. it is a private interest of a parent as well as his/her right to give whatever education they decide their children is to have - this is one of the perks and rewards of having kids - a mom and dad were responsible and altruistic enough to bring a new soul into this world, no State should now tell them that their kids are property of a State and therefore are to be educated as Stated sees fit. NO! NO! NO! Chomsky, again, through his sloppy fallacies, are on the side of tyranny. Privatizing a school system means simply that since government of USA (or any other country) makes H.S. education mandatory for it's citizens and decides to allocate funds to the purpose it would be wise to let parents decide which school they want to send their kids to, under a current system this choice is limited and often parents are stuck with schools where they don't want to send their kids to. It is parent's kids, not the State's. Get it, Chomsky. Just because parents naturally want to take care of their kids the best they can doesn't at all mean they absolutely don't give a damn about the kid next door. Chomsky is a senile old fool, advocating for tyranny.
we support private Enterprise only
Ritesh Kumar Soni we don’t
So a expert in Linguistics is an expert on Economics how? Thomas Sowell would obliterate him in a debate.
He’s been commenting on social and economic issues since the 60s. You must be new to this.
@@ledgohan My mom has been commenting on the Dallas Cowboys since the 60s. Being in love with the sound of your own voice for 50 years doesn't make you an expert. Sowell would level him.
David Lindsay That’s a fun comparison, though not quite apt. I doubt your mom has over a hundred publications on the Cowboys and gets invited to speak on the subject worldwide. Whether or not Sowell would “obliterate him”...I guess we’ll never know.
@@ledgohan She chose not to be a con artist on a mass scale is a good thing.
David Lindsay That’s a very good thing! What does it have to do with Chomsky?
Noam Chomsky is not an economist and should not speak about things which he obviously has 0 knowladge!
Clearly Chomsky has a great understanding of economics because everything he said in this video is a fact.
vitor_8889 so you mean someone has to be an economist to have knowledge about economics? What a stupid notion.
@@magnus100100 What, do you think someone needs to be a doctor to have knowledge about how to threat people? What s stupid notion. The guy has no knowledge about economics, which is pretty evident by the arguments he makes and how he talks. He may be a brilliant linguist, but economist - not so much. Not only that, he talks about privatization and ex socialist countries - he has no idea about that either. How do I know? Well, I live in an ex socialist country, those socialist appologist have no idea how things were in reality, they just talk slogans they have heard or read in a book somewhere. And since Chomsky is obviously good with words, you may think that he actually knows what he is talking about, and in reality - he has no idea!
NO, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek DO NOT advocate private businesses to run for help asking a State to bail a failing business out. Nowhere do these two men said or meant such a thing. Milton Friedman specifically cautioned against a collaboration of business and government. Chomsky is AGAIN willingly and knowingly mixing up facts that do not exist. A very sloppy argumentation on his part against these two brilliant men. Why would a professor of linguistics be so vocal about economics where he is making simplest mistakes escapes me, but I do think he is going senile, never mind a seeming clarity of his speech. Speech is only a cover for ideas and concepts and here he is making mistakes, leading a whole generation of headless followers astray.
exactly he knows linguistics but knows little about economics compared to say Thomas Sowell. He is a charlatan.
I think you are absolutely right about Milton Friedman etc. because they obviously do not support government intervention, which should be obvious to anyone even without expertise in economics.
I think Chomsky is being sarcastic there when he say "you pick up your copies of Milton Friedman etc. and you run to the nanny state that you've nurtured and you make sure that they bail you out." It's sarcastic because previously the big businesses supported privatization (which is supported by economists like Milton Friedman) because those policies are profitable for them, but when the economy tanked and their companies are losing money they will ignore their previous ideals and ask for a bailout from the government.
Oh wait let’s here the cry once again, “That’s not real libertarianism!”
Is that similar to the cry, “That’s not real Marxism?”
The answer is YES.
In theory the USA libertarians married to Hayek, Mises, Rand etc. have a theory that ends up ultimately producing unaccountable tyrannies in the real world.
In a similar way that Marxism a theory that advocated for STATELESS society and not central government control. And yet Lenin and Mao etc. implemented Marxist theory contrary to the basic tenants of the theory.
Honduras is a government that is largely libertarian in ideology. But to institute and maintain a libertarian ideology the government murdered left wing activists in their sleep.
But... But... Venezuela.
The issue is in the real world there is not much real libertarianism not much real Marxism and socialism.
What there is are different forms of welfare states. And I think we should use the welfare state as a distinct category rather than calling it “socialism” because it was set up first by Bismarck in 1875 to thwart the anti-state socialist cooperative movements.
The USA happens to be a welfare state for corporations that generally likes to overthrow foreign governments that don’t comply to corporate power through the use of military power.
And that Chomsky and others have demonstrated over and over again.
In reality USA’s Version libertarianism has resulted in unaccountable tyranny.
It should be noted that Orwell warned about this:
“in the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of." Yet, "A return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because it is more irresponsible, than that of the state."
@@fietspompje259 THATS WHY THERE SHOULD BE NO GOVERNMENTS. JUST FREE ENTERPRISE.
Governments fuck up free markets because it is and always was a monopoly creator. It's a myth that monopolies have their existence stimulated by free markets, so the problem is simply the unaccountable involuntary coercive modus operandi of the State, damn it.
How about this. I keep my 100 dollars. I give 10 to someone in need. That is a better idea than the government taking that 100 and after administrative cost and that person ending up with $3.
The government doesn’t have administrative costs in the way a business does. Thinking the government runs (or should run) like a business is a common fallacy.
@@ledgohan The government doesn't have administrative cost? yes it does. thats were most of the money pit goes. it should be run at least comparably efficient to a business. Its not hard to run a business without profit motive and veiled levels of accountability.
David Lindsay “In the way a business does” is what I said, and you correctly pointed to profit as being one key distinction. Whether or not something is a money pit, I’d argue depends on whether or not said costs are providing desired benefits, and for whom in the way it was intended to. So in the case of schooling, the beneficiary of services are the children (and logically the society which benefits from their education when they grow up and enter the workforce). Using your logic would you agree that the military budget is a “money pit”?
and then he contradicts the very himself in Social Security bit. He is a fool, this Chomsky. How did it happen that so many youngsters listen to him?! (without understanding what exactly he is saying).
i dont agree with noam. if i care about the people in my community getting educated at a school, whats to stop me from organizing with my members of my community and funding a school system to educate the kids in that community? why is a system of taxation so necessary in order to fund schooling? it doesn't make it any cheaper. in only makes it cheaper for some at the cost of others. in infers no social benefit in terms of making everyone more wealthy. and whats wrong with people having full control of the dollars in their wallets? if tyrannical behavior is manifesting in a community, then people could stop funding them. the market process of competition will keep the tyrants in check as long as people are empowered and have a real free market. the more the state is empowered to try and best decide how to use and spend people's i think is money is where the problem is coming from. and since when am i responsible for all the children out there in my community? why should i be obligated through taxation to fund their schooling? im responsible for my own child and other parents out there are responsible for theirs. if people out there can't afford the fund their own kids schooling maybe we ought to look at how heavily the state is taxing people either directly or through the inflation tax. maybe there is something wrong with the currency. but the last thing we ought to resort to in that situation is using violence to expropriate funds from people in the community to pay for children's education. as if kids don't learn things every day regardless of whether or not they are in a school building.
I'm not sure I agree with you on how competition will keep tyrants in check. How can the people have real power when the elite have so much, and the common man has so little? I imagine a person in their community, wanting to bring education to students, starting up a private system with the utmost intentions, being bought out by a corporate powerhouse like walmart, costco, or whichever corporation might be able to swing a small profit from education. Maybe it's not even profit driven from the corporation. Maybe they want to invest in "educating" our youth into becoming good little consumers and enlightening the youth on the health benefits of gatorade and krispy kreme donuts. In my view, it seems like parents would have to find new schools that don't brainwash students and competition would drive up demand for schools that offer a real education. Those schools would be eventually bought out by the profit driven elite and real schools would eventually become so expensive that average working Americans wouldn't be able to afford it and our youth would be subject to even lower education standards. I imagine a snake eating its own tail in regards to privatization of education. I'm not arguing for publicizing everything but I feel like there are some things that shouldn't be profit driven.
Blue Mountains Unionists no he doesn't😂
I think you guys are missing my point.... taxation is involuntary, It is money expropriated from the public by use of force and violence, not by voluntary free choice, therefore organizations or Services paid for by tax dollars are not services or organizations that were purchased by the public. within the definition of purchase is the implication of choice. tax funded schools they are funded by money that came from the public yes but not purchased by the public. so if we have a society of public schools that are funded by tax dollars, its not funded voluntarily out of choice on the free market and we essentially lose that mechanism of competition that provides a Discovery process that shows us what is the best, most efficient way to educate our kids.
name a highly mechanized high tech rich or stable society that has got there by your methods
well thats your perspective ! if you watched science channels and tech programs you wouldnt know what stupid people are doing ! but my point still holds everything has benefits and costs if you want to watch color tv surf the net and learn you can ! and if you want to just bullshit on the net you can thats the beauty of it
Very narrow views on the private enterprise and capitalism in general, inmediatelly relating private business to tyranny and public controlled as the best that could happen to society which as really naive. In every serious country bussinesses must answer to the state regulations otherwise they are subject to serious sanctions, meanwhile a state controlled institution has to answer to who??? to another state controlled institution, that always goes very nicely to them. Also serious countries protect the workers against any attempt of businesses to step over their rights.
The thing is US citizens are not used to serious moderate rulers which have caused their society to deal with the worst face of corporatism.
+Daniel Gp ............ Seriously?? Under capitalism one must not care for children education?? Reading a lot of book doesn't make you smart.
Aactually reading lots of books does make you smart. That's why they make you do it at school and university.
So are we agreed then that ultimately the state must regulate private corporations? That mechanism is a measure against what Chomsky would call a tyranny - an autocratic capacity from said corporation. Without UL such measures they would merely do whatever the authority (shareholders) want, which is usually as simple as maximizing profit.
Chomsky is a bit late with privatization. The first privatization in US happened when the settlers bought what is now New York from the Indians for a few dollars and other plastic toys - then it became New Amsterdam. Ever since, the city, a private property was traded, changed hands, etc. Is there a different story with any other land area or other types of private property in US?
Expropriating private property is robbery, for at least, most industries have it's owners - they invested their money in it, developed it, traded it, etc. just as is done with private property. Some were more industrious, some were less, some were lucky, some were not so much, but to assume that we can figure why some prospered and why some didn't based on injustice is not preposterous, not ludicrous, not ridiculous - it is plain STUPID. Chomsky, with his "privatization" theories is STUPID. Are you also? US is not a monarchist Russia in 1861 with slavery just abolished and peasants were let go off free, and free of possessions. Neither is US a tyranny like Cuba, where a national revolution deposed of a ruling party and now is willing to divide the stolen spoils. US is in fact the first country on Earth that said no to special privileges. Those that wanted had a chance to make something out of it and left their children the spoils of their hard work, those that didn't - left their kids with LIFE and ability to make what they want out of it. Privatization is only done once in the history of any given social formation. If the citizens, for the lack of better options decided to submit their private property to a State, and then the industries failed like in England - they privatized and it was a good thing, never mind the details of how it was done - everything can be done better or worse, but the important thing here is once the property became private - there is no reason to privatize it anymore - reprivatizing private property is called robbery, theft. Chomsky seems to be all for it. who is he? an intellectual? no! a person who advocates robbery and theft is a criminal.
Chomsky, what did he ever produce except discontent?