CHOMSKY Archives

The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky

CHOMSKY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
NationalAnarchist <[log in to unmask]>, anarchynz <[log in to unmask]>, anarchism list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 May 2000 17:20:46 +1200
Reply-To:
"The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (64 lines)
If anyone is interested... there's a group, many of them scientists, none of
them comprehensive dullards, trying to engineer our social future. It has
only been going since Monday. Jay Hanson of www.dieoff.com fame is the
Moderator. Funnily enough, Jay disaproves of my contributions to his utopian
view, and I may find myself persona non gratis shortly, but if any of the
rest of you feel like helping these scientists get their addled skulls
around the concept of freedom... [log in to unmask] It's
almost worth subscribing to gain an insight into the psychology of elitism -
albeit Hanson style - see attached posting... amazing shit!!

Regards

b

Discussion as follows...

b:
>The alternative to this is the broad dissemination of Power and
>the absence of a sovereign elite. Societies based on this
>principle are inherently stable, albeit increasingly rare in
>the aftermath of colonisation. If we're looking for a durable
>future, we won't find it through deifying yet another elite.

Scientists must establish behaviorial limits.  Administration must be
by computer and inherent in the system itself.

We don't care who or what people deify.

<snip>

>I use the term in a precise way - being totalitarian means dictating,
>effectively, the Weltanschauung of the citizenry... do this, and you have
>complete control. USSR was closer to this than most through the

We don't need that kind of mind control.  We don't care what people think or
say. We do need strict limits on behavior.

>The question I would ask, first up, is 'has not history shown
>up attempts to make people subject to ideology to be an abject
>failure?' It is precisely this will to 'control' that has created the

We don't care how people rationalize their behavioral limits.

>There is far more to politics than this, even if one allows it to
>run into the 3-dimensional arguments of theorists like Lukes. I
>am happy to provide examples.

The reason I defined politics as "coercion", is because that's how I use the
word, and is the most important aspect of politics.   We don't care about
the rest.

Coercion is the only solution to the tragedy of the commons.

Jay

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win $500 at freewarranty.com!
Click Here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4031/1/_/_/_/958016087/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2