Or The Nation, or The New Republic, or Vox. If you're trying to say that I don't understand leftism, why don't you simply correct my misunderstanding?
Yeah, that's what it looks like. It looks like you read the New York Times. Saying the New York Times is a leftist newspaper is like saying Fox News is a libertarian TV station. If I want to read libertarian thought, I go to Reason magazine or something similar. IN the same vein, if I want to read leftist politics, I don't go to the New York Times. I read Noam Chomsky or I go to Democracy Now.
Or The Nation, or The New Republic, or Vox. If you're trying to say that I don't understand leftism, why don't you simply correct my misunderstanding?
The Nation is legit. It's a serious news source and it's leftist. I don't know about Vox, and I stopped following The New Republic when they had their editorial changes.
Well, I don't think everything you say is incorrect. Correcting everything you do misunderstand isn't something I can do anyway. It takes research which you can obviously do. I'm just alerting you to the fact that what's usually presented as leftism on these boards is not leftism or is a small part of the leftism movement. I'm assuming that you would rather deal with real people instead of caricatures and strawmen. Maybe that's wrong. I wonder sometimes if you and others who are libertarians have read work from leading libertarians like Murray Rothbard. I also wonder if you've read the classical liberals like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt who advocated less government interference. They're the ones who both socialists and libertarians claim as intellectual forefathers. I think there would be some common ground or at least understanding if we were talking about actual leftists and actual libertarians as opposed to caricatures and straw men.Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
If there was one thing I think you don't get about many leftists, it would be why they dislike businesses, and you're not going to find this in the New York Times. Again, this is interesting because it comes from the same writings which libertarians use to justify their ideas of freedom and individual liberty. Here are two short videos from Noam Chomsky which hopefully explain it well. Keep in mind that this video doesn't explain everything, just a few basic ideas. I'd also be surprised if you tell me that Chomsky's dishonest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_ze4AA-p8w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk
My wife said something funny the other day when we were watching a news story about North Korea possibly testing a hydrogen bomb.
"Thank God they don't have an estrogen bomb."
The most I've heard about Chomsky was in grad school, from anarchist friends that liked to drop his name.
Googling, I find the article linked below, where Chomsky sounds honestly naive. Particularly where he says Iran supports a nuclear-free zone in "the region".
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-electing-president-empire
Could be that he's naive or an idiot savant, or that he's gone off the rails in his senior years.
Elsewhere in the article he draws an equivalence between Eisenhower and Bernie Sanders. That's supposed to be broad thinking.
Is this the best the left has to offer?
Vince