Well, 'morally bankrupt' is quite a serious charge if you don't have anything with which to back it up. 'I wrote a book but then deleted it' isn't too impressive, you understand. — Virgo Avalytikh
Of that, I have no doubt. May I ask which right-libertarians you have read? — Virgo Avalytikh
What are Grab, Lyft, Uber, Airbnb, et al if not corporations listed on stock exchanges? — Bitter Crank
I don't know, it seems a little cheap to me. Critiquing the status quo - even voluminously or insightfully - is a relatively trivial undertaking. Justifying the principles by which one does so in the battle of ideas, where one has so many competitors, is more ambitious. Until he does so, he is leaving the substance of his philosophical system open to the reconstruction of an interpreter, and Chomsky's inner consistency, and even his first principles, are still very much in question. Simply, it is just not at all clear that Chomsky is right. — Virgo Avalytikh
Chomsky has repeatedly stated, for the last 60 years, what he sees as the essential principle of anarchism:that power should be justified. That is to say, that structures of power, hierarchy, domination, and control are not self-justifying -- that they have the responsibility to justify themselves and, if they can't, should be dismantled. — Xtrix
That sounds wonderful - the problem is that this is a statement which would also be endorsed by figures who arrive at radically different conclusions from Chomsky, figures who have written with far more clarity and systematicity. So much is left unsaid; hence why a systematic political programme would be welcome. — Virgo Avalytikh
So much is left unsaid — Virgo Avalytikh
You're moving the goalposts. You specifically mentioned his "principles." That's been given. Anyone who accepts this principle may arrive at different ways to implement it politically, but different conclusions? I don't think so - unless they're simply professing to believe in it. What "figures" who endorse this principle are you talking about specifically? — Xtrix
What I bemoaned was the lack of a work of systematic political philosophy in which the reader is led to anarcho-syndicalism from a set of first principles. I observed that neither Chomsky nor his heroes (Rocker, Proudhon, Bakunin) seem to have produced such a work. — Virgo Avalytikh
So the principle that power should be justified and the principle that workers who run the companies should own the companies is what, exactly? Gibberish? Seems very clear to me. The fact that he doesn't write in precisely the same way as the Austrian school is a merit, in my view. But even if you don't agree, what exactly are you asking for, specifically? As someone who has read Chomsky widely, I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability. — Xtrix
Not gibberish, just vague. Take 'power' for instance: 'power', like other foundational concepts in political philosophy, like liberty, rights, obligation, equality, etc., admit of numerous conceptions. They do not come pre-interpreted for us. — Virgo Avalytikh
And what of 'justification'? What, in principle, would or could constitute a 'justification' of a coercive institution? — Virgo Avalytikh
As for the claim that workers should own the companies in which they work, there is nothing axiomatic about this. — Virgo Avalytikh
Political philosophy in general benefits greatly from being presented in a cumulative, systematic form, beginning from first principles and making plain the assumptions at work. — Virgo Avalytikh
But, among his (more than 100) books, I have yet to find one in which he lays out his political philosophy with clarity, reasoning his way up from first principles. — Virgo Avalytikh
The point is, right-libertarianism's opposition to the State and advocacy for the free market are logical derivations from its more fundamental opposition to aggression. 'Aggression' is not left as a vague banner behind which to rally, but is defined in terms of a system of property which is explored and defended at length, and which itself has a tradition going back to Locke. And this is not unique to the 'right': Marxist philosopher Gerry Cohen also manages to present himself in this way (he is far and away the best Marxist, precisely on account of his clarity). — Virgo Avalytikh
The issue is that Chomsky is not particularly persuasive, except to the already-convinced, and this is owing to the relative informality of his approach. — Virgo Avalytikh
For anyone who knows, is there a book in which Chomsky lays out his own political philosophy (since he very clearly has one) from the ground up, as it were? — Virgo Avalytikh
Vague. What is the "free market"? How can a "system of property" (vague) be "aggressive"? What in Locke are you referring to? — Xtrix
For anyone who knows, is there a book in which Chomsky lays out his own political philosophy (since he very clearly has one) from the ground up, as it were?
— Virgo Avalytikh
It sounds as if the answer is 'No'. — Virgo Avalytikh
In any case, 'power' and 'justification' still have not been defined. Expressions of 'power' are indeed everywhere, which is why they are multivalent and don't admit of an easy, monolithic definition that unites them. I might be justified in pulling a child back from a busy road, but that still doesn't give a 'justification condition'. What precisely is the condition of justified coercion? Multiplying examples does not give us such a condition. — Virgo Avalytikh
The best exploration of the nature of a 'market' is Ludwig Von Mises's Human Action. A market is 'free' to the extent that it is not subject to invasion, and the best exploration of the nature of this invasion is Rothbard's Power and Market. For an application of Locke's classical liberalism to the ethical categories of libertarianism (e.g. property, aggression), see Ibid., The Ethics of Liberty. — Virgo Avalytikh
I really don't think it's necessary to get quite this prickly. I have not attacked Chomsky. My query was just that - a query — Virgo Avalytikh
The best exploration of the nature of a 'market' is Ludwig Von Mises's Human Action. — Virgo Avalytikh
When building a political system, there are starting assumptions that are taken for granted. That I own my own body is the starting point of Nozick, and that coercive control over another is illegitimate is the starting assumption of libertarians (both left and right). Suppose that I ask, why is it that you own your own body? If it a first principle, that I own my own body, then the question will be greeted with the reply that this is what has been taken for granted as true. — Walter B
I guess your issue is how is it that the left and right-libertarian, have similar-sounding starting assumptions, have differing levels of detail as to how society will be organized? — Walter B
If we compare Nozick with Chomsky, then Nozick sets out to make the case for minarchism in the form that trained philosophers go about in making the case for anything, but Chomsky doesn't have this background and may not have realized that anyone expected this of him. — Walter B
Or is your issue, that the starting assumptions of the left-libertarian seem to imply the conclusion that he wants to prove so that they seem too vague? — Walter B
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.