Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky's Propaganda Model

Laughing Man:

This is strange though because we both want the same ends [ the end to 'isms' ] but I have a slightly different method.

Do you really want an end to all "isms?" I would hate it if swimsuit calendars didn't discriminate by looks and age. Ugh.

liberty student:

Why would you persuade people to stop acting voluntarily?

Why should we persuade people that government is immoral and wrong?

liberty student:

So you don't believe in voluntarism.  You think you know better what people should do.  They can't make the right decision on their own.  Correct?

Well obviously people still have free will and they can choose to end their racism. My arguments only go so far as to persuade them.

liberty student:

You can't have a free market, if you're going to push back against non-aggressive voluntary action.

I'm not coercing anyone. I'm using arguments as to why they shouldn't engage in some activity. If you see wrong in this then you see wrong in boycotting a business. That is essentially what I am doing, boycotting a social outlook and trying to convince individuals to boycott with me.

liberty student:

Labour has no property where a firm is concerned.

Labour  is property in the sense that it involves an employees time/effort and they can sell such on the market itself.

liberty student:

But in a free market, stupid people can't climb on my shoulders, so they will smarten up or breed themselves out.

Again we want the same end. The end to racism. I just think it will take a little more then just the market because like you said people can just compensate their racism with extra costs.

liberty student:

People who experience racism, aren't attracted to this anti-racism stuff.  No one with any self-esteem wants to be associated with being a victim or claiming their are dehumanized.

You think you know how people feel?

liberty student:

We humanize ourselves, no one else can do it for us.  Until leftoidal progressives get this, they will be forever tilting at windmills.

Hence why I talk about helping empower women to realize they no longer need be subservent to men. That can apply to any race or gender.

liberty student:

If you want to oppose racism, oppose the state.  There is no greater collectivist or racist entity than the state.

I totally agree.

Laughing Man:

liberty student:

So you don't believe in voluntarism.  You think you know better what people should do.  They can't make the right decision on their own.  Correct?

Well obviously people still have free will and they can choose to end their racism. My arguments only go so far as to persuade them.

What if they feel the racism is worthwhile?  What if they feel it is profitable, or an acceptable cost?  Who are you to determine that anti-racism should come before their own value judgments?

That is the question here.

The rest of your response was a lot of fluff except this.

Laughing Man:

Again we want the same end. The end to racism.

You're not listening.  I don't care about racism.  I don't care if it ends.  It's irrelevant to me.  And I'm a target for it in the west.

I don't have time for white-male guilt trips.  You can't correct any social woes until the state is overthrown.  Then everything will change, and it's impossible to know exactly what would be socially undesirable if people are interacting voluntarily, since it would be NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Peace.

What if they feel the racism is worthwhile? What if they feel it is profitable, or an acceptable cost? Who are you to determine that anti-racism should come before their own value judgments?

That is the question here.

Do you grant that racism is collectivism ?

Juan:

Do you grant that racism is collectivism ?

If I run a health insurance agency, and I know that asians are more likely to get diabetes, and africans heart problems, and set my rates based on those collective traits when my clients are african or asian, is that collectivist?

If it is, then all racism is collectivism.  If it is not, then all racism is not collectivism.  You tell me.  I don't care about race.

liberty student:

 

What if they feel the racism is worthwhile?  What if they feel it is profitable, or an acceptable cost?  Who are you to determine that anti-racism should come before their own value judgments?

Can you not say the same about violence? Injustice? State aggrandizement?

liberty student:

I don't have time for white-male guilt trips.

I don't care for the assumption that I am instantly white simply because I don't want there to be racism.

liberty student:

You can't correct any social woes until the state is overthrown.  Then everything will change, and it's impossible to know exactly what would be socially undesirable if people are interacting voluntarily, since it would be NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Well if I experience racism, can I not work against it to ensure I don't experience it again? And in working against it can I not enlist the help of others?

Think of it like this Liberty.

Let's say I dislike Corporation X. I want to boycott Corporation X for its high prices, unsafe work practices or because the parking lot is not big enough to fit my car. Now accordingly in waging my boycott cannot I say to those entering into Corporation X 'Hey this corporation has severly high prices so I am boycotting it because it knowingly overprices its customers. Would you like to boycott it with me in order to get them to lower prices?' That is what I am essentially doing with racism. I say unto the individual 'I think racism is wrong and I am boycotting those who think it is right, would you like to boycott it wiht me in order to try and stop it?'

Laughing Man:

Can you not say the same about violence? Injustice? State aggrandizement?

Racism is discrimination.   Discrimination is not a crime.  It is not violence.  And injustice as libertarians understand it, is tied to property.  You show me a property rights offense in racism and you might be able to make a case.

Laughing Man:

I don't care for the assumption that I am instantly white simply because I don't want there to be racism.

I assume you were always white, but if you can become instantly white, there might be a future for you in show business.

Laughing Man:

Well if I experience racism, can I not work against it to ensure I don't experience it again?

Obtain property.

Laughing Man:

And in working against it can I not enlist the help of others?

You can do anything you want.  In a free market, you can form a union, and picket.  Oh wait, you can't picket on private property.  Well, you can deter the scabs from taking your jobs.  But without violence.  So you can beg them not to make a living in solidarity with you so you can make more money.  You can stand on your head and smoke banana peels.  You can write left handed in hindi.  You can get big bone piercings in your nose.

LS:

If I run a health insurance agency, and I know that asians are more likely to get diabetes, and africans heart problems, and set my rates based on those collective traits when my clients are african or asian, is that collectivist ?

That's not the point. IF it really was a fact that some genetic traits lead to some diseases, so be it. However, that has no political relevance and is not usually called 'racism'.

You are complaining about the left because they are 'collectivist' - what do you mean by that ?

What is collectivistic about rejecting right-wing ideologies such as racism and nationalism which are, well, collectivist ideologies themselves ?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't ?

liberty student:

Racism is discrimination.   Discrimination is not a crime.  It is not violence.  And injustice as libertarians understand it, is tied to property.  You show me a property rights offense in racism and you might be able to make a case.

Yes but we are talking about value judgements towards profitablility or acceptable costs. Is not violence more profitable? If I mug 5 people and take their money instead of working a regular 8 hour job then I could potentially make more money and thus gain more profit. Why should our value statements of non-violence come before their value statement of violence with profitability?

liberty student:

I assume you were always white, but if you can become instantly white, there might be a future for you in show business.

You know what I mean

liberty student:

Obtain property.

Or just persuade others with my vast amounts of charisma

liberty student:

You can do anything you want.  In a free market, you can form a union, and picket.  Oh wait, you can't picket on private property.  Well, you can deter the scabs from taking your jobs.  But without violence.  So you can beg them not to make a living in solidarity with you so you can make more money.  You can stand on your head and smoke banana peels.  You can write left handed in hindi.  You can get big bone piercings in your nose.

Good. That's all I wanted to hear. So...you want to picket with me?

'the left' are collectivist in that they would violate the rights of the individuals, for the sake of the collective. 

its the violations that are immoral and anti-libertarian. the "for the sake of" is just whatever stupid reason.
if they did it for the reason of thinking its funny, they would be humourists. and the humoursits would be the bane of libertarians.

there are two types of 'racism' , thinking stupid stuff about people, and violating their rights. i wish we could easily coin two different words so that we couldnt sweepingly confuse the two. 

Nir:

there are two types of 'racism' , thinking stupid stuff about people, and violating their rights. i wish we could easily coin two different words so that we couldnt sweepingly confuse the two.

I don't think I'm confusing the two. Rights violation are rights violation - criminal behavior. Attacking a group of people because of 'stupid ideas' is both criminal and collectivist. Having stupid ideas about groups delimited by traits like skin color is collectivism.

Juan:

You are complaining about the left because they are 'collectivist' - what do you mean by that ?

They see women and non-whites as victims, regardless of the individual experiences or preferences of the individuals in those groups.

It is impossible not to be racist, because to ignore race, is a form of racism, as is to discriminate against it.  So the question becomes, is there benign discrimination?  To steal from Dr. Block, I'm a hetero, and therefore I discriminate against men in sexual relations.  Am I a sexist?  I am making a value judgment based on sex.

Congressman John Lewis on racism and affirmative action

Socratic method ftw!

Juan:

What is collectivistic about rejecting right-wing ideologies such as racism

The left has equal claim to racism.  Who keeps poor minorities on welfare plantations?  Kill them with kindness is their motto.  The left were the original eugenicists.

Juan:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't ?

*shakes fist* Damn you Juan!

Laughing Man:

Is not violence more profitable?

Maybe if you are a professional wrestler.

Laughing Man:

Why should our value statements of non-violence come before their value statement of violence with profitability?

You're so far from the original discussion I am losing interest.

Laughing Man:

Or just persuade others with my vast amounts of charisma

So you're going to go door to door?  Beware of dog.

Laughing Man:

So...you want to picket with me?

Never.  Waste of time.  You picket, I will accumulate currency and attract females.

liberty student:

To steal from Dr. Block, I'm a hetero, and therefore I discriminate against men in sexual relations.  Am I a sexist?  I am making a value judgment based on sex.

Well I think you are discriminating on which brings you the most pleasure sexually speaking so it is not a discrimination of their gender, just what brings you sensual delight.

liberty student:

Maybe if you are a professional wrestler.

Or an individual with a gun.

liberty student:

You're so far from the original discussion I am losing interest.

Hey we're just having a very deep and dispersed talk.

liberty student:

So you're going to go door to door?  Beware of dog.

I actually just stand behind the Jevoha's witnesses Ted and Ronald.

liberty student:

Never.  Waste of time.  You picket, I will accumulate currency and attract females.

Fair enough.

Laughing Man:

so it is not a discrimination of their gender, just what brings you sensual delight.

its obviously both, and obviously no problem-o

Laughing Man:

Well I think you are discriminating on which brings you the most pleasure sexually speaking so it is not a discrimination of their gender, just what brings you sensual delight.

So what if I discriminated for my profit delight?  Or my psychological delight?  Or my spiritual delight?

liberty student:

So what if I discriminated for my profit delight?  Or my psychological delight?  Or my spiritual delight?

Well it is your subjective preference.

Juan:

Having stupid ideas about groups delimited by traits like skin color is collectivism.

so was I strawmanning you when i assumed that this collectivism that does not involve rights violations but is 'having stupid ideas' was racism to you? Thats fine if its not racism to you, and you dont confuse it with the criminal rights violating racism.

 

note the reason that criminal rights violating racism is bad: it is because of the violation itself and not because of any  reason that the violator might have had for violating

Laughing Man:

Well it is your subjective preference.

Wait, so no more picketing?

Angurse:

Wait, so no more picketing?

No picketing continues if there are racist, sexist, xenophobic reasons.

so i get picketed if i dont violate peoples rights in one way, whereas i dont get picketed if i dont violate peoples rights in another way.

because somehow the way i dont violate peoples rights is important....?

nirgrahamUK:

so i get picketed if i dont violate peoples rights in one way, whereas i dont get picketed if i dont violate peoples rights in another way.

Well like Juan has been saying 'the isms' are collectivist but on my argument I would say that yes I have subjective preferences therefore why can I not picket racist businesses but not picket businesses that prefer blue stars in their store front rather then red stars?

Laughing Man:

Well like Juan has been saying 'the isms' are collectivist but on my argument I would say that yes I have subjective preferences therefore why can I not picket racist businesses but not picket businesses that prefer blue stars in their store front rather then red stars?

you can have whatever libertarian consistent hobbies you like. dont confuse them with libertariainsm itself is the only warning i would give.

nirgrahamUK:

you can have whatever libertarian consistent hobbies you like. dont confuse them with libertariainsm itself is the only warning i would give.

Well I see libertarianism as the advocation of individual rights, liberty and individualism. If you are a thin libertarian then anything I do that is not a violation of the NAP is libertarianism.

Laughing Man:

If you are a thin libertarian then anything I do that is not a violation of the NAP is  libertarianism.

its compatible with libertariaism. its not libertarianism itself.

 

Laughing Man:

Well I see libertarianism as the advocation of individual rights, liberty and individualism. I

when someone is not the victim of rights violations. then as you advocate to them (or their not-oppressor  ) individual rights, liberty and individualism, you add nothing, since they have all of that good stuff already.

Angurse:

Wait, so no more picketing?

Thank you.

nirgrahamUK:

you can have whatever libertarian consistent hobbies you like. dont confuse them with libertariainsm itself is the only warning i would give.

Thank you.

nirgrahamUK:

its compatible with libertariaism. its not libertarianism itself.

Bingo.  Thank you very much.

nirgrahamUK:

when someone is not the victim of rights violations. then as you advocate to them (or their not-oppressor  ) individual rights, liberty and individualism, you add nothing, since they have all of that good stuff already.

A valid point however isn't liberty the exercising of action without being coerced or coercing another? I guess it boils down to who you agree with more, the individual who experiences racism or the individual who engages in it. 

LS:

They see women and non-whites as victims, regardless of the individual experiences or preferences of the individuals in those groups.

Which is a mistake - I agree. However the fact remains, there are people who see ALL individuals belonging to race X as inferior. That's the sort of collectivism I have a problem with, and I don't think that makes me a 'left' anything.

And if left-libertarians object to that kind of collectivism, I'm not sure how they can be faulted.

The stuff about sexism is sillier, granted, although you'd probably find people who make generalizations of the type "women are more stupid than men" - which seems to be a stupid thing to say.

I'll mention that under so called english common law women's property was controlled by their husbands. I wonder why ? Because women were stupid ? Just like blacks were 'natural' slaves ?

It is impossible not to be racist, because to ignore race, is a form of racism, as is to discriminate against it.

Not sure that makes much sense...

To steal from Dr. Block, I'm a hetero, and therefore I discriminate against men in sexual relations. Am I a sexist? I am making a value judgment based on sex.

That's not an argument, but at attempt at ridicule. Which is fine, but misses the point.

Congressman John Lewis on racism and affirmative action

Funny. Of course Helfeld provides a correct definition of individualism at least five times - just one sample "your character isn't determined by your race"

The other guy, well, is a politician...and a bit dumb. But the problem with Lewis' position is that he wants affirmative action so he must violate his own rule - that's what Helfeld is getting at.

Also Lewis says that all people in a state which had racist laws are guilty of racism - another collectivist statement (though this one is closer to statistical truth) - bottom line is, Lewis is not that clever - but that doesn't mean that rejecting racism is at odds with libertarianism.

Laughing Man:

I guess it boils down to who you agree with more, the individual who experiences racism or the individual who engages in it. 

In a free market, why would anyone tolerate racism?  If they do, would it be safe to assume they are doing so voluntarily?

Nir:

so was I strawmanning you when i assumed that this collectivism that does not involve rights violations but is 'having stupid ideas' was racism to you ?

No you were not strawmanning me because "having stupid ideas about people based on race" is by definition racism.

racism : "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

Thats fine if its not racism to you,

It is racism.

and you dont confuse it with the criminal rights violating racism.

That's not racism, but crime. Granted, there's another definition

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

the bolded part is the rights-violation part, but even if going by this definition, rights-violation are a 'usual' part of racism, but not a necessary part.

Juan:

I wonder why ?

Me too.

Laughing Man:

A valid point however isn't liberty the exercising of action without being coerced or coercing another?

yes. and? 

Juan,

I cant get over the fact that you have moral objections to other people being stupid. whether or not they are rights violators.

Your moral objection to their stupidity arises at the point where you can confidently classify their stupid ideas as similar to the stupid ideas held by other people who did violate rights and propounded those stupid ideas as the justification for so doing.

Laughing Man:

No picketing continues if there are racist, sexist, xenophobic reasons.

What if the reason for racism, sexism, or xenophobia is ones subjective preference?

Nir:

I cant get over the fact that you have moral objections to other people being stupid. whether or not they are rights violators.

Well, I can't get over the fact that you seem to pretend that there's no such thing as collectivism - or that it's just an 'stupid idea' - you can't be that naive.

And you are sort-of strawmanning now. I'm not objecting to stupidity per se - I'm objecting to a particular set of stupid ideas.

Of course I'm not saying that people who only have racist ideas are no different than criminals who actually put their ideas in practice. I have really strong objections to the latter, but that doesn't mean I have any moral sympathy for the former.

Your moral objection to their stupidity arises at the point where you can confidently classify their stupid ideas as similar to the stupid ideas held by other people who did violate rights and propounded those stupid ideas as the justification for so doing.

I'm not sure if that's an assertion or a comment or something else ? Can you rephrase it ?

Angurse:

What if the reason for racism, sexism, or xenophobia is ones subjective preference?

I would ask them why they have it?

Laughing Man:

I would ask them why they have it?

Thats not quite picketing, but what if the responded by saying it was for their profit delight? Or psychological delight? Or my spiritual delight?

Its their subjective preference right?