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

Yeah, I can be a bitch (or dick), too. I just choose not to be right now.

?

I'm not being a bitch about anything. I'm just pointing out that for me to say 'Socialism is morally bankrupt' is the easy part. Justifying it is the hard part. Isn't that what this place is for?

I never espoused socialism per se. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that what I call “right-wing libertarianism” is the same thing as what you call “right-wing libertarianism,” just as what you mean by “socialism” is not what I mean by it.

Of that, I have no doubt. May I ask which right-libertarians you have read?

Of that, I have no doubt. May I ask which right-libertarians you have read? — Virgo Avalytikh

I am only familiar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and the many right-wing politicians who espouse that philosophy.

It's strange, Ayn Rand seems to be a household name in the USA. In the academic literature, she is hardly influential at all. As is often the way. I had been studying libertarianism for a long time before I had even heard of her. Robert Nozick is of course a milestone, but I would recommend Murray Rothbard and David Friedman as an entry point. Rothbard's 'The Ethics of Liberty' and Friedman's 'The Machinery of Freedom' are both very good, and all a lot more profound than Rand.

If I ever get out of this quagmire of apathy that I’m in, then I will read those thinkers’ works. As of now, I’m just trying to survive each day.

Is David Friedman the one who writes for the New York Times? Whichever Friedman that is, I like what he has to say.

I don't know, I don't read the New York Times.

Who wrote “The World is Flat”? I think that is the guy who writes for the NYT.

I don't think it's the same person.

Just looked him up. It’s not the same person.

Are you interested in anyone besides Chomsky? The immediate counter-part to Nozick that comes to mind is John Rawls -- though he is not a left-libertarian by any means.

In the video @Baden posted Chomsky drops some names of left-libertarian/anarchist/etc. thinkers that might appeal more to your sensibilities, too.

What are Grab, Lyft, Uber, Airbnb, et al if not corporations listed on stock exchanges? — Bitter Crank

We are also working diligently on that "stock exchanges" issue.

If you are a bit adventurous and not too scared of Big Brother -- and if you are, do it from Malta -- then issue an ICO instead (Initial Coin Offering) of listing on a bankster-controlled stock exchange.

Yeah, as Donald Trump recently clarified, we still have work to do.

So, according to our beloved Donald, bitcoin is not money, but you still need a "money" transmitter license, or else, you apparently qualify for an extra round of face fisting.

So, yes, things are getting better and better. We are getting increasingly close to the point where our beloved Donald will have to admit that his views, "la chose et son contraire", have finally become openly trivialist.

State-ochestrated fiat banksterism is undoubtedly in its last laps. With a bit of patience, we will be able to stare with awe and admiration at some more bouts of frantic bug fixing. Not that is going to make any difference, obviously, except for its capacity to amuse us.

Nozick is in the "Know Your Enemy" section of the Anarchist bookstore that I go to sometimes. I haven't actually read Nozick, though. I've only read Ayn Rand as well, I guess. I was thinking of reading Rothbard's Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature so that I could level a polemical onslaught against it, but will probably ultimately dismiss such notions as being rather childish. There is no real reason to sift through the pathology of so-called Anarcho-Capitalists. Libertarianism is an appropriated political concept in my opinion, but I just simply generally accept what the Wikipedia article has to say about it. I don't think that Chomsky ever outlined what he particularly means by Anarcho-Syndicalism. I would honestly bet that he could only tell you so much. His political work is much more in the way of social critique. Manufacturing Consent is fairly popular because it was made into a documentary. Chomsky is in the IWW which, I would bet, is why he is an Anarcho-Syndicalist. I think that the IWW is pretty alright, but don't really agree with Anarcho-Syndicalism, myself. The IWW isn't strictly Anarcho-Syndicalist, but Anarcho-Syndicalism is the prevailing ideology within the IWW. Your critique seems to be something along the lines of that left-wing libertarians have no model of what kind of society it is that they would like to create which is more or less just true. We honestly don't know what it precisely is that we do want. We are just simply critical of everything. To me, it stands to common reason to conclude that society should be as liberal and egalitarian as possible. Whatever social configuration acheives this is best. I don't really have a model of what Anarchist society should like aside from "a loosely affiliated set of freely associated societies" who engage in participatory democracy. I haven't really gotten too much further than that. I write off everything else that I come up with as being "Fascist". Who knows if I or anyone else will ever be able to give you an answer?

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.

It's hard to imagine how one manages to overlook this, given Chomsky's presence over the years and his hundreds of books, articles, and YouTube videos.

Xtrix makes a very good point, and also if I am recalling correctly, Chomsky has been open about not thinking that he personally knows the exact correct political system, but only that he has well-founded criticisms of existing systems and proposals that together point in the general direction of where a better system may be found. I think this falliblilist, falsificationist approach is the right one: we progress in any field not by building up from nothing to the one certain and perfect solution, but by ruling out swathes of possibilities and narrowing in on a smaller and smaller range of remaining possibilities. Chomsky gives sound arguments why the correct solution cannot be statist or capitalist and probably narrows in even further in the realm of libertarian socialism, but so far as I know never claims that some exact political structure is definitely the sole best one.

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.

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

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?

Chomsky has been both "clear" and "systematic" for 60 years. If you deign to read anything he's written, you'd quickly find that out.

As far as a "systematic political programme" -- this is meaningless, until it's explained what you mean by it. Chomsky has addressed specifically the idea that workers (of a factory or a business) who run the company should own the company. This has very specific and real-world applications which we could get into. As opposed to sophomoric academic political system-building which may be fun, but which are both easy and useless.

So much is left unsaid — Virgo Avalytikh

No. So much is left unread. By you.

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. Libertarian writers of the Austrian school provide such formal treatises, for instance Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, and The Ethics of Liberty. What would be a refreshing breath of air is for Chomsky to produce something similar. I make this observation constructively, not as an enemy of Chomsky, but as an academic with an interest. This is why I do read him.

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.

If you want philosophical principles on which his anarchism itself is based, Chomsky discusses this too -- at length.

I didn't accuse you of being an enemy of Chomsky, but I am a bit skeptical about how much you've read- since so far what you've claimed he's lacking he's expressed consistently and clearly throughout his writings.

If you want it formatted differently - like in a list or something, fine. But that's hardly a fair criticism. Chomsky's principles and political philosophy can be understood despite not writing like Rothbard.

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. And what of 'justification'? What, in principle, would or could constitute a 'justification' of a coercive institution? As for the claim that workers should own the companies in which they work, there is nothing axiomatic about this. This claim must be arrived at on the strength of a robust philosophy of property, which as far as I am aware Chomsky does not lay out.

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. It is the strength of libertarianism's/liberalism's intellectual tradition that it tends to present its thoughts in this way. Why the shunning of this would be a 'strength', I haven't a notion. 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). 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.

https://entertainment.theonion.com/noam-chomsky-announces-las-vegas-residency-1819578692

There is no escaping Chomsky. Like God, he's omnipresent.

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

Which is why I explained earlier what is meant in this context by power: structures of hierarchy and control. In any situation, from families to businesses. In the workplace (the most relevant here) you have bosses giving orders to people below them in rank, etc. You see people organized like this everywhere - in the church, in the military, in corporations, and so on.

You can claim it's all "vague" and play philosophical games with semantics, but it's not vague at all. Spending a little less time in the classroom or library, you'll see it all around you. You'll see it in academia as well. To claim these principles are "vague" is to claim anything is vague. Fine, we all know that's a move for philosophy students -- and not always a useless one. But in this case, my sense is you're not confused at all. You're just playing games.

And what of 'justification'? What, in principle, would or could constitute a 'justification' of a coercive institution? — Virgo Avalytikh

Chomsky often uses the example of his granddaughter running into the road. If he grabs her arm and pulls her back -- that's control, use of force, etc., but he could give a justification for its use. Hence why he's not a pacifist -- war can be justified. Although it's rare, it can be done. As far as coercive institutions -- you can invent all kinds of scenarios where they could be justified, although admittedly it almost never happens in the real world. There's a lot of pretense, of course, but we easily see through that. Going to war is a good example -- always some "justification" for it, usually pretty flimsy.

As for the claim that workers should own the companies in which they work, there is nothing axiomatic about this. — Virgo Avalytikh

You didn't ask for an axiom. The world is a complex place, and this isn't mathematics. You asked for various principles on which Chomsky bases his critiques and political philosophy. I've given some.

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

And I gave you some principles. Must every thinker lay out his thoughts like the libertarian thinkers you happen to admire? Who says philosophy benefits greatly by laying it out in this way? Remember your original post:

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

And again I ask: what exactly are you looking for? You asked for principles, claiming Chomsky doesn't lay them out -- I've given them. Then you claim those principles are too vague and aren't "axioms." It appears all you're really saying is "anyone who doesn't lay out their political philosophy like my favorite political thinkers is unclear." Fine. But Chomsky isn't unclear to me, and I've both talked with him and read him widely.

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

Vague. What is the "free market"? How can a "system of property" (vague) be "aggressive"? What in Locke are you referring to?

It seems exactly like another "banner behind which to rally," only for some reason you think it more axiomatic than "systems of power/authority/domination/control should be justified," which is kind of ridiculous considering the latter is a principle you yourself live by every day.

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

I did not show up to Chomsky "already convinced," by any means. It took some effort to understand his thought, an effort which apparently you're unwilling to make.

That's funny.

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:

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'. You might have lots of reasons excusing the fact that this is the answer, but that really isn't relevant, which is why I have to confess some bemusement at your passion, especially so late in the day.

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.

Vague. What is the "free market"? How can a "system of property" (vague) be "aggressive"? What in Locke are you referring to? — Xtrix

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.

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

How the World Works, Understanding Power, American Power and the New Mandarins, Powers and Prospects, Who Rules the World?, Government in the Future, Because we Say So, etc. I skipped the recommendations and went straight for an answer to your question about principles, since I've read Chomsky widely. But nevertheless, here you go.

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

They have been defined. It's quite true that there are no easy definitions that accounts for all situations, and in fact one can define a word anyway one likes. What's interesting is finding out why the notion is defined in this way in a larger theory and ask about the theory itself, whether it's sensible, etc. Regardless, if you knew that "power" -- in the same way as "truth" or "beauty" or anything else -- is multivalent, then why ask for a definition at all?

Also, to say "power is indeed everywhere" is already admitting there's something you believe to be "power," something that allows you to pick out those examples as examples of power.

I don't know what you mean by "justification condition." The point isn't to create a rule that one can follow in every situation. If that's what you're asking, then neither you nor I can provide it. You have to look to specific situations, not abstract fantasies. Chomsky excels, more than any living writer, in precisely that: the real world and the effects of policies on real people, all around the world. Worrying about "principles" and abstract philosophizing doesn't concern him much, it's true. That's not to say he doesn't have them or hasn't discussed them, but something like "the workplace should be democratized" and "structures of hierarchy and control aren't self-justifying" are clear enough formulations for what should be done.

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

Still undefined. Sounds rather vague, as well. What is a "market"? Why should Von Misse's definition of "free market" be any more important than anyone else's? "Free market" is multivalent, after all. I recommend reading less of these "libertarians," but feel free to synopsize-- perhaps there's something interesting there. Personally I think the ideas thrown around over the years about "free markets" is pure fantasy; they've seemingly never existed except in libertarians' imaginations. In the real world, there's almost always strong state intervention in the economy.

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

I don't see what was "prickly." The problem is that you've asked a question, received an answer, and then changed the question.
(1) You asked for principles, claiming you couldn't find any in Chomsky. I gave several.
(2) You then ask for "definitions," which I gave.
(3) Then you say they're not definitions because they don't account for all the data, that the terms are "multivalent." You ask for "axioms" and dismiss Chomsky as "informal" writing and not presenting his views "systematically" enough (which, it seems, only means "Not in the fashion of my favorite libertarian writers").
It's a little circular.

More importantly, I have also said, repeatedly, that I'll answer any specific question you have about Chomsky's political philosophy. You've failed to ask one. Instead you ask for books where he lays this out, which I gave (above). I assume you'll next say that those aren't good enough because they're not written in the style of Rothbard? But then all this has boiled down to is: "I don't think Chomsky is as clear as Rothbard et al." Which is fine -- but that's not really a "query" is it?

Of course I'm putting words in your mouth there, so maybe I'm wrong about the last part.

The best exploration of the nature of a 'market' is Ludwig Von Mises's Human Action. — Virgo Avalytikh

Oh, and what exactly makes this the "best exploration"? According to who? You?

(You see how easy it is to play these philosophy games.)

I'm sorry, but you are making a storm in a teacup here. This wasn't even a debate or discussion post until you unearthed it after I don't know how many months. I can see that Chomsky is your favourite, but I can't tell you how uninteresting this conversation is. Thank you for your book recommendations.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 am not sure that this is the case. While libertarians do indeed hold to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, they are not simply taken as self-evident axioms. Rothbard, for instance, argues for self-ownership from the impossibility or arbitrariness of the alternatives. One alternative would be that one part of humanity begins by owning another part of humanity, and the other would be that every person in the world is jointly co-owned by everybody. Rothbard argues that the former is arbitrary, since some members of one and the same natural kind are afforded a 'natural right' that others are not, and he argues that the latter is impossible to implement, for all sorts of reasons which I won't rehearse here. Whatever we make of his arguments, the point is that they are not simply stipulated.

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

Just a nit-pick: libertarians don't claim to have any idea how society should be organised. That is why they are libertarians. Libertarianism is really just classical liberalism in this respect: there is no 'blueprint' for making the world a better place, that is housed in the head of a genius somewhere. There is knowledge which is capable of making the world a better place, but it is de-centralised, spread across many individuals. This is why markets work as miraculously well as they do (see F. A. Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in Society), whereas collective decision-making processes tend towards market failure and function less and less well as the scale increases (see my topic, Anarchy, State and Market Failure).

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

This is quite right.

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

That would depend on the left-libertarian. I love to read Hillel Steiner, for instance. I am greatly appreciative of his The Structure of a Set of Compossible Rights.