Letters to the Editor

• Well LWM is again a slime-boy

  [Read the article: Why has world opinion of the U.S. changed dramatically since 2000?]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Slime-boys for Chomsky? (I think he would disown you)

  LWM claims ---> I provided you with that link.

  You provided this?

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/wall/wall26.html
  Who’s Afraid of Noam Chomsky? by Richard Wall
  Damn, I did not think you read lewrockwell.com!

  Did you provide this one also?
  http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/
  Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5843

  Chomsky's does recommend, as critics have pointed out, seemingly arbitrary support for coercive or aggressive state action, in situations where state action is deemed the lesser of two evils. As Mao always said, "all government flows from the barrel of a gun."

  If you want to be an anarchist, you must answer why you want a state killing people to enforce the lack of state!

  --------------

  Question to Noam C. :

  Critics complain that anarchism is "formless, utopian." You counter that each stage of history has its own forms of authority and oppression which must be challenged, therefore no fixed doctrine can apply. In your opinion, what specific realization of anarchism is appropriate in this epoch?

  Noam Chomsky:

  I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain. The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.

  Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.

  Tell us LWM; why do you want a state to force others to bend to your will? Chomsky said that the burden of proof is yours. :-)

  ===

  Note: The idea of you complaining about data-mining or cherry picking was hilarious. Next you or a cabal member will complain about all the anonymous guys that started up after your little "vacation" antics as anonymous.

  Permalink Saturday, July 7, 2007 05:03 AM

• standing

  [Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I wonder how everyone is loving this 'democracy' thing; how is it working out for you?

  I am told that I have a 'contract' with my federal government called the 'constitution' and it says in there somewhere that I can go to prison if I chew on a weed in my garden that the overlords consider 'bad for me' and yet; and yet, I have no 'standing' to ask the courts to make sure actions by the federal government are legal.

  Down here where I live a man was treating poor people with the best care he could render; he never pretended to have certified paperwork from the government. He treated people who had no access to 'legal' care and the poor seemed to love his service. Alas; this threat to our way of life was caught and now is in jail where they say he belongs, and some of the poor get no treatment at all. These poor have no 'standing' to be assured that their government acts legally.

  The central government as a whole is above all law and morality as if it were the Demiurge himself. Just great. As a citizen, I have no 'standing' to ask the courts to rule on the actions of the central government.

  (and people wonder why we think all governments are evil incarnate)

  Permalink Saturday, July 7, 2007 11:13 AM

• William Timberman

  [Read the article: Why has world opinion of the U.S. changed dramatically since 2000?]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  And I would give a months pay to see you ever be for a specific proposal rather than just the gutless snipping you do. Oh, I know you think you sound intellectual, but it is just evasion. Hell William, I have never read you or any of the cabal be for anything. Do you have a position on something? Are you for apple pie?

  Oh, and I'd give a month's pay to see what those Greeks would have done with the likes of you. But do not kick the pig, that may be a relative of yours. :-)

  Note: Much better to be free in hell than serve in heaven.

  Permalink Saturday, July 7, 2007 12:41 PM