Noam Chomsky

ecqkch escreveu:

wew...chomsky, zinn, and davis now in lastfm too??? LOL

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para ecqkch

genghis_average escreveu:

Compare Chomsky's ideal voluntary collectivism to the coerced collectivism of states, corporations, and other power-structures. The first may not turn out to be viable, but the second we know to be vile.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para genghis_average

le_shambles escreveu:

v last.fm debate! titillating.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para le_shambles

BlackBloc escreveu:

On modern servitude: http://vimeo.com/5921565 ;)

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para BlackBloc

ZackP1992 escreveu:

You make far too many assumptions. Far too many.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para ZackP1992

tudormocanu escreveu:

Wow, you thoroughly refuted my argument with that first sentence there. Good one. Again, you seem to not understand what slavery means. If one has sold himself into slavery he is no longer in "control" of his body. He is property, to be used in whatever way the owner desires. He cannot just "decide" if he wants to go on or not. Frankly, I don't even know why I bother anymore, I don't think there's any point in continuing this.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para tudormocanu

ZackP1992 escreveu:

You have no understanding of self-ownership. Good day. Lol, yes. Voluntary slavery. What is wrong with that? Giving your body up to slavery because you want to (you know, humans act with self-interest, this is econ 101). You also realize said voluntary slavery becomes useless when the "slave" decides he wants to be free again (as long as you have a proper society, not some bastardized form that the collectivists love).

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para ZackP1992

tudormocanu escreveu:

It's funny you should mention R. Nozick, because he himself agrees that self-ownership would allow for voluntary slavery.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para tudormocanu

tudormocanu escreveu:

Self-ownership is irrational because it implies a separation of body and mind. The body cannot be property because property cannot own itself. If the body is property then it means that there is some external thing (call it mind, spirit, soul etc.) that actually is the owner of the body. So the concept of self-ownership logically assumes the separation of body and mind, which is based on no evidence whatsoever. In John Locke's 17th century, this cartesian dualism (body-mind) was preavailing, largely because physics hadn't advanced as much as it has now. That is not to say that there definitely is no such thing as the mind (spirit, soul), but the problem is that we can't accurately distinguish between what is physical and what isn't. There is no way to define what is physical, because going deep down in subatomic physics odd things happen. Also, ownership is a concept borrowed from law, not philosophy, and your equating it with "controlling" is superficial.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para tudormocanu

ZackP1992 escreveu:

Lol, I wrote Union. UN*

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para ZackP1992

ZackP1992 escreveu:

I dismiss the majority of the things by the union. Not because of NWO theories, but because I believe it is a bullshit, failure of an organization. If you have a right to life, do you not have a right to controlling (aka ownership) of your body? To assume the Austrian School is filled with major philosophers would be a terrible thing. It's an economic school. I was talking about people such as John Locke, Henry David Thoreau, Robert Nozick. Hell, even G.A. Cohen spends considerable time attempting to dismantle the right to self-ownership (though he ultimately fails every time).

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para ZackP1992

tudormocanu escreveu:

Well, I usually think someone who dismisses anything by the UN is a conspiracy theorist. You know, that world government, NWO stuff. I may be wrong though. I never said anything about the right to life, that's just a cheap trick on your part. Self-ownership is a whole different matter, and you continue to provide no source for the concept (Austrian School economists are not major philosophers).

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para tudormocanu

ZackP1992 escreveu:

Huh? Conspiracy theorist? Lol. How? You're the one who said ideas of right to life/self-ownership is ignored by major philosophers. Hah, ignoring so much philosophy.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para ZackP1992

tudormocanu escreveu:

Coming from you, it's funny you should accuse ME of providing no backup for my claims. Also, you should've said from the start that you're a conspiracy theorist, so I wouldn't have bothered responding to anything.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para tudormocanu

ZackP1992 escreveu:

Deleted like all others for a silly reason, not because of content. Lol, making claims with nothing to back them up. Typical collectivist, one who also cites the U FREAKING N for backup.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para ZackP1992

tudormocanu escreveu:

There's no such thing as "self-ownership", it's just an irrational concept fabricated by propertarians to justify some of their claims. Delete your shout again and come up with a better answer.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para tudormocanu

ZackP1992 escreveu:

If you deny the right to self-ownership you believe in ownership by all. You are for slavery. Wonderful.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para ZackP1992

tudormocanu escreveu:

I wasn't trying to justify anything, I simply reject this "right to self-ownership" thing you speak of, which no real political philosophy takes seriously. Go read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Exibir perfil | Deixar uma mensagem para tudormocanu