Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Maybe you'd care to elaborate on what you think is nutty about it. I wasn't able to watch the Chomsky video, but maybe you'd like to tell me who Chomsky is and what he has to say.

Noam Chomsky is probably best known in academia as a pioneer in (or even the "father" of) the field of linguistics. To us regular dopes he's somewhat equally well known as an American dissident, critical of the US government's foreign and social policies.

The video is only 17 minutes long but it does a pretty good job of highlighting some of what Chomsky has said about the tendency of so called "libertarianism" and other far right movements to distract themselves from the real enemies of ordinary people. There are two major sectors in American society; the corporate sector and government. Although our government is essentially far from a democracy (due to the effects of corporate media propaganda) it is more democratic than a corporation is. Corporations are authoritarian structures. In Chomsky's view, If ordinary people want to change their plight, getting rid of government in the favor of exploitive corporations is the wrong way to go about it.

You might enjoy reading some of Chomsky's political works. It might open some new perspectives on things. It did for me when I first started reading him in the 1990s. I still find his views surprising and enlightening to this day. He's in his late 80's now and still sharp as a tack. Very admirable old man.

I'm sorry, but it is quite apparent that Mr. Chomsky should stick to linguistics. If he believes that the U.S. is not a democracy because of corporate advertising money, he must think Americans could be swayed to vote for Satan if they saw enough of his ads. His idea that corporations are exploitative and should be democratic only betrays his economic ignorance.

Obvious Leo wrote:Good on ya, Bob. Democracy is for pussies.

Obvious Leo wrote:I take it you don't get out much, Gary.

Obvious Leo wrote:Rest easy, Gary, I'm only pulling your chain and I should be ashamed of myself for doing it because taking the piss out of Americans is just shooting fish in a barrel. I know perfectly well that you guys don't get irony.

henry quirk wrote:Hobbes,

I'm confused: are we talkin' about nonprofits, or, are we talkin' about what is, or isn't, a legit function of government? I thought we were talkin' about nonprofits.

If you wanna talk about the legit functions of government you could open up another thread, or - to avoid adding to the clutter - find an existing one and revive it.

Okay - this is a thread started by BobE, who is "we"? You can't expect anything meaningful or serious to be the result of one of his crack-pot ideas, surely?

#


Hobbes, Leo,

Planned Parenthood, which I mentioned up-thread, is good example of a nonprofit that could get along without tax dollars. There's apparently a big market for dead baby parts cuz P.P. IS makin' a profit on on those post-abortion pieces and parts. Seems to me, with a little re-jiggering (and aggressive marketing), P.P. could get off the guvment teat and self-suffice.

And: if Planned Parenthood (or any nonprofit) can't self-suffice, then 'boo hoo'...add it (them) to the list of businesses that couldn't make the grade.

P.P. (and nonprofits in general) can keep the tax exemption...again: I want that sweet deal for myself.

henry quirk wrote:'We', since I'm talkin' to you and you're talkin' to me, would be 'Henry and Hobbes (and mebbe Leo)'.

This seems obvious. After all, who am I addressing my posts to?