Noam Chomsky on: libertarianism is tyranny

Yes, and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal to private power concentrations. So why should we prefer it? Well I think because freedom is better than subordination. It’s better to be free than to be a slave. Its’ better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them. I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that. It seems like… transparent.

6 thoughts on “Noam Chomsky on: libertarianism is tyranny

  1. AnonyMoose February 20, 2014 at 21:44

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t anarchists just social libertarians? I think that the term, “libertarianism”, on a purely denotative, conceptual level describes what Chomsky is advocating, so perhaps it can be reclaimed.

    • Francois Tremblay February 21, 2014 at 01:34

      The term “libertarian” as originally used, and as still used in many parts of the world, does convey it yes. But if you mean social libertarians in the sense of Libertarian Party, then no.

  2. AnonyMoose February 20, 2014 at 22:09

    Also, some of Chomsky’s positions appear to be very inconsistent. He claims to be a social libertarian/anarchist, yet favors big government.

    • Francois Tremblay February 21, 2014 at 01:35

      Chomsky is a libsoc (libertarian socialist), like myself. He does think government could be used to suppress capitalism, and in that regard he’s not entirely wrong. But I think he’d agree that it’s not by far the best solution.

  3. AnonyMoose February 21, 2014 at 07:35

    “The term “libertarian” as originally used, and as still used in many parts of the world, does convey it yes. But if you mean social libertarians in the sense of Libertarian Party, then no.”

    Yes, I was describing libertarianism on a purely conceptual level, not the context in which it has been used or which group it has been associated with. I agree that most modern-day “libertarians” are far from being egalitarian-minded. But do you stop identifying as an anarchist due to “manarchists”? Do you stop identifying as an anti-natalist due to the Church of Euthanasia?

    The point is that it’s nonsensical to stop identifying as a libertarian/anarchist because the terms have been distorted and are now associated with unfavorable groups. If you are true to your ideology, you should continue to identify with it, despite its connotations.

    • Francois Tremblay February 21, 2014 at 13:35

      No, I’m not saying you need to stop identifying as libertarian or anarchist. I’m on your side on this.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: