Noam Chomsky: Poser Anarchist

Mike Morris, June 2018
Colorado Springs, Colorado

There’s a new piece out with MIT professor Noam Chomsky, adapted from a previous interview, titled Noam Chomsky Explains Exactly What’s Wrong With Libertarianism . He doesn’t do this, but instead, characteristic of Chomsky, goes on vague rants which appear to offer no real, workable solutions to the problems in the world. Indeed, Chomsky would appear quite favorable to the state; at least, relative to the market economy which he fears would be a unchecked force without the state.

The first non-argument set forth by Chomsky, intended as a way to make libertarianism seem so obscure that it must be illegitimate, is to say that, “what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, [it] doesn’t really exist anywhere else.”

This would be the same as to say that, since only few people have acknowledged the validity of something, that it’s not valid. This is often invoked as a case against free-market (Austrian) economics. “If it’s correct/the best way,” the opponent will claim, “why isn’t it the prevailing doctrine?” Well, because there is nothing to stop bad ideas from taking over.

Left-anarchists overall like to use this Chomsky non-argument to say that, since “anarchism was historically socialist,” therefore “anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism.” It is true that anarcho-capitalism is more modern relative to anarcho-socialism, but historical or etymological origin doesn’t change meanings. It doesn’t change that the anarcho-capitalist is extremely hostile to the state (more so than Chomsky), and that it emerged from centuries of anti state classical liberalism.

Thus, even if we grant the validity of the argument, it isn’t even true the anarchists always cited — or the ones existing in the 19th century — were opposed to individualism, free-markets, and property rights. As anarcho-capitalist Bryan Caplan noted, “ despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favor of private property (merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing private property as such).

Caplan goes on to quote the American anarchist Benjamin Tucker, who, writing in 1887, said that,

“it will probably surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that ‘property is robbery’ to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products.” Continue reading “Noam Chomsky: Poser Anarchist”

Restoring the art of argument

He focused on making a good argument.
Paul Sweezy

The intellectual and political climate today is toxic. As rare as it is to see dialogue between those who disagree with each other, rarer to see are attempts to understand the views of an intellectual or political opponent. Far too many professors are more interested in using their positions to pursue their political agendas than developing and sharing knowledge in their respective fields. While one can observe around the edges of public discourse calls for constructive dialogue (by, among others, Dave Rubin, Stefan Molyneaux, and Bishop Robert Barron), social media is drowning in political correctness, demonization, and guilt by association.

Therefore, when I came across a genuine dialogue among intellectuals who disagree with each other, I found myself refreshed by the manner in which their ideas were discussed.

A civilized response to a civilized argument

While beginning work on my largest project for this blog to date, I read Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk in a book published in 1949. The book also included two essays written in response to it. Specifically, the volume included “Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx” by Rudolf Hilderling and “On the Correction of Marx’s Fundamental Theoretical Construction in the Third Volume of Capital” by Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz. The volume was edited by Paul M. Sweezy, who was a Marxian economist and founding editor of the socialist Monthly Review magazine.

Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk

Sweezy created the volume to address the criticisms Böhm-Bawerk raised against Marx’s economic theory developed in his three-volume work Capital.[i] He did so because Böhm-Bawerk was considered by supporters and opponents of Marx alike as an authority among opponents of Marxist economics:

So far as the United States is concerned, all the serious criticisms of Marxian economics with which I am acquainted recognize the authority, if not the primacy, of Böhm-Bawerk in this field; while the similarity of the anti-Marxian arguments in the average textbook to those of Böhm-Bawerk is too striking to be easily accounted a coincidence.

From the Marxian camp the testimony to Böhm-Bawerk’s pre-eminence as an opponent is at least as striking. Louis B. Boudin, in the economic chapters of his important survey of the Marxian system and its critics, pays most attention to Böhm-Bawerk’s arguments: “First because Böhm-Bawerk is so far superior to his comrades in arms and his authority is acknowledged by them to such an extent, that it can hardly be claimed to be unfair to these critics, to pick Böhm-Bawerk as an example of them all. Second, because there seems to be quite a good deal of unanimity among these critics on this particular point [value theory], and the arguments advanced by the others are either directly borrowed from Böhm-Bawerk, very often with an acknowledgment of receipt, or are variations on the same tune deserving no particular attention.” The situation did not change greatly in this respect in the following decades. William Blake, writing in 1939, could say: “Böhm-Bawerk anticipated nearly all the attacks on Marxism from the viewpoint of those who hold political economy to center on a subjective theory of value. On the whole, little has been added to his case by other critics; their important contributions are outside the theories he chose to contest.” (Introduction, ix-x)

Sweezy clearly did not agree with Böhm-Bawerk’s analysis of Marx. However, he accurately articulated those criticisms and the approach from which Böhm-Bawerk wrote. Sweezy was familiar with the history of economic thought in general, and the Austrian school in particular. While Sweezy was critical of the approach used by the Austrian school, he focused on the substance of Austrian arguments, and did not use pejoratives. He was also sufficiently honest to identify mistakes Marx himself made in his work.

Sweezy also appreciated the manner in which Böhm-Bawerk dealt with his intellectual opponents, including Marx. In a footnote, he observed:

Franz Weiss says, with justice, that “Böhm-Bawerk’s criticism of Marx contrasts favorably with much that has since been written, both for and against Marx, by its dispassionate tone. Standing in complete opposition to Marx’s teachings, Böhm-Bawerk was extremely careful to be fair to him as a person. (Introduction, xiv, footnote 1)

Models for this toxic age

It is a credit to both Böhm-Bawerk and Sweezy that both writers sought to tackle challenging issues with the civility both demonstrated. They focused on developing and answering arguments. They did not let their, or any one else’s, personalities get in the way of addressing ideas that require serious attention.

Their conduct serves as examples for improved public discourse so that ideas are addressed in the manner they deserve.

[i] Marx died before the second-volume of Capital was published. Frederick Engels completed and published the second and third volumes based on Marx’s notes.

The post Restoring the art of argument appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Restoring the art of argument

Womp For Victory

On the June 19 episode of Fox News Channel’s “The Story with Martha MacCallum”, substitute host Sandra Smith had former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and Democratic Party strategist Zac Petkanas on for a segment about Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policy, which at that time included separating children from adults when they cross the border illegally. Petkanas began with a story he read about a 10-year-old girl with Down syndrome who was separated from her mother. He neglected to mention that the mother was suspected of involvement with a child trafficking ring and was detained for that reason. Lewandowski responded by rolling his eyes and making his now-famous retort, “womp womp”, as in a sad-trombone effect that follows a failure of some kind. This caused Petkanas to completely lose his composure as he raised his voice, “How dare you! How dare you! How absolutely dare you, sir! We have infants that are being taken from their mothers! We have infants that are being stolen from their mothers and put into cages! And you go ‘womp womp’?! This just exemplifies…how dare you, sir, how dare you! She has Down syndrome and she was taken from her mother. How dare you.” Meanwhile, Lewandowski maintained composure and softly continued, “What I said is you can pick anything you want to, but the bottom line is very clear: when you cross the border illegally you have given up the rights of that country. When you cross the border illegally, when you commit a crime, you are taken away from your family because that’s how this country works.” Smith tried to keep them from talking over each other, to little avail. The next day, Lewandowski appeared with Smith again on FNC’s “America’s Newsroom” as well as on Chris Cuomo’s show on CNN to clarify his remarks, saying that “womp womp” was directed at Petkanas for politicizing children and not at the young child. The great and good of the Cathedral brahmins reacted predictably. On June 20, Lewandowski was released by Leading Authorities Inc., a Washington, D.C. firm that helps political figures get speaking engagements. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow cried at the end of her show over the issue of child detainment centers. David Perry expressed dismay over the Trump administration’s “white nationalist agenda” in CNN’s opinion column. The harridans of ABC’s The View were outraged. NBC’s Megyn Kelly called Lewandowski a coward and said that he should be de-platformed. Read the entire article at

The post Womp For Victory appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me – Womp For Victory

Socialist defeats incumbent Democrat in New York Congressional primary


In a result is describing as “the most shocking upset of a rollicking political season”, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th congressional district on Tuesday.

There are two significant aspects of this election result. First, not only did a newcomer defeat an incumbent, but Crowley is currently a senior member of the House Democratic leadership. Before his defeat, he had been considered a possible candidate for speaker if Democrats won a majority in the fall. Second, Ocasio-Cortez openly presented herself as a socialist. Like Bernie Sanders, when he ran for the Democratic nomination for president in the 2016 election, Ocasio-Cortez won the primary for a party for which she is not a member; she is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

While Crowley outraised Ocasio-Cortez by a 10-to-1 margin and spent heavily on television advertising, she prevailed through a grass-roots campaign and support from national progressive groups such as Black Lives Caucus and

Ocasio-Cortez has been running a hard left campaign. Her platform calls for, among other things, universal health care, a federal jobs guarantee, and the abolition of ICE.

While the particular result of this election may be surprising, it certainly fits within the prevailing trend of socialism becoming increasing popular among the rank-and-file of the Democratic party. The trend began when self-described Marxist Kshama Sawant convinced the Seattle city council (of which she is a member) to establish a $15-an-hour minimum wage in 2014, and continued with the Sander presidential campaign.

This trend has taken place notwithstanding not only the overwhelmingly clear arguments that socialism can never work, but the implementation of socialism during the twentieth century has led to nothing but economic and environmental destruction and the deaths of over 100 million people. In other words, there is no rational basis to believe, under any circumstances, that socialism will work. The fact that socialist policies continue to be attractive to a far-too-significant portion of the American electorate raises serious questions about the quality of education provided through government schools.

Regardless of whether Ocasio-Cortez wins the general election, her primary victory is yet another indication that socialism continues to be far-too-attractive to far-too-many voters.


The post Socialist defeats incumbent Democrat in New York Congressional primary appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Socialist defeats incumbent Democrat in New York Congressional primary

FPF #213 – Russiagate: No Collusion guest Dan Wright & Joanne Leon

On FPF #213, Joanne Leon and Dan Wright join the show for the third in a three-part series covering the many claims that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to win the 2016 election. In part three, Joanne and Dan break down the FBI IG report on the Hillary email investigation. They explain the biased activities of the FBI. We give our final thoughts on Russiagate and how all the current evidence fails to prove the claims of Russiagate. 

Joanne Leon and Dan Wright are the cohosts of the Around the Empire podcast. 


Around the Empire #57 – Garland Nixon

Around the Empire #54 – Crossfire Hurrican 

Aaron Mate – No proof of collusion 

Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #213 – Russiagate: No Collusion guest Dan Wright & Joanne Leon

Refuse to Click on Anti-Trump Hysteria until Journalists Start Writing With integrity


Tom Woods Liberty Classroom

Full Biased Article in question: David Lynch pens open letter to Donald Trump: “You are causing suffering and division”

Look, I get it.  I have low expectations of our president being a competent, rational, professional human being…

BUT I didn’t get past the first eight words of this article. 

“In typical Trump fashion, America’s first illiterate president…”

These articles are a dime a dozen.  They take no mental fortitude, and take no journalistic bravery to write.

Journalists have far too long insulted our intelligence with this hyper-partisan, divisive drivel.

Call them out when you see them, demand journalism, because it’s lacking today. 

Stop clicking on it

The link above is an archived link so they get no analytics and no clicks for their advertisers.

This whole ‘everything about trump is bad and horrible’ hysteria drowns out real issues. It’s quite clear it’s not going away and is part the media’s strategy until 2020. 

It’s similar to the ‘George Bush Stole the Election’ cadence that was incessant from 1999 until September 11, 2001 when pushing the media’s support of never-ending war rose above all else.

For example…

  • We just started a Space Force with no credible space threat. For the record, we’re already $20+ trillion in debt. Why is there no Tea Party, ahem, fiscally responsible voices on either side? Write THAT article and I’d read it.


Think this father in the image below could care less about the Trump Soap Opera that CNN and MSNBC uses to feed 90% of their coverage?  You’re probably right.  He probably doesn’t.  He’s a man trying to live some semblance of life.  It’s probably a challenge.


What would the United States (and the world) look like had we invested that money in, you know, humanity?  

But instead, we are 20+ TRILLION in debt.  With what to show for it?

This nation was founded by a class of people who saw a long train of rights abuses. They sought refuge from a government that had a blatant disregard of their rights, their privacy and their tax dollars. 

Start supporting real journalism

Start supporting real journalism everywhere you can find it. It’s a shame that actually ‘finding it’ takes effort. 

​When your friends share it, call our any blatant partisan ‘team sport’, Republican-Democrat partisanship.  Demand more.

What media do you follow?

I like Geopolitical Futures and Stratfor for worldwide geopolitical events without left-right political bias. 

Domestic soap opera?

I’m stuck with just have to mash together what I’m offered and realize that there is media bias implicit in each outlet.


View RSS feed

Enter your email address for Liberty Articles sent DIRECT to your inbox!

Source: Liberty LOL – Refuse to Click on Anti-Trump Hysteria until Journalists Start Writing With integrity

Ep. 44 – SCOTUS – Big Win Against Public Unions

itunes pic

Jeff and Tony are back.  First on the docket is the latest Supreme Court decision, which will now stop public unions from forcing non-members to pay fees.

We also cover the showdown of Rand Paul vs. Lindsay Graham (see YouTube video below).

Other issues discussed: Trump’s plan to slash and consolidate a bunch of federal agencies, police shootings, and Jocko Willink.

Recorded 6/27/18 – Show Links Below

Check out Rand Paul vs. Terrible Lindsay Graham:

Project Veritas Exposes Corrupt NJ Teachers’ Union:

Reason discusses Trump’s massive consolidation plans:

Check out Jocko Willink:

Extreme Ownership by Jocko:

Joe Rogan with Mike Dowd (Of The Seven Five documentary):

In case you missed it, check out our last show at

Support us at



Source: Don’t Waste Your Hate Podcast – Ep. 44 – SCOTUS – Big Win Against Public Unions

FPF #212 – Russiagate: Crossfire Hurricane guests Joanne Leon & Dan Wright

On FPF #212, Joanne Leon and Dan Wright join the show for the second in a three-part series covering the many claims that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to win the 2016 election. In part two, Joanne and Dan break down the FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation. They explain how the FBI spied on and attempted to put informants into the Trump campaign. We also discuss the role of Carter Page, Peter Strzok, and John Brennan. 

Joanne Leon and Dan Wright are the cohosts of the Around the Empire podcast. 


Around the Empire #57 – Garland Nixon

Around the Empire #54 – Crossfire Hurrican 

Aaron Mate – No proof of collusion 


Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #212 – Russiagate: Crossfire Hurricane guests Joanne Leon & Dan Wright