Noam Chomsky: The Race War of Drug Prohibition

Noam Chomsky: The Race War of Drug Prohibition


Hi, everybody. It’s Stefan Molyneux from Free
Domain Radio. I am extremely pleased, of course, to have the illustrious Noam Chomsky who,
I’m sure for my listeners, needs no introduction. A fellow anarchist, a great thinker, an ethicist,
study of language and so on. Thank you so much, Dr. Chomsky, for taking
the time today. Glad to be with you. So one of the things that I’ve always admired
in your analysis, particularly of foreign policy, is your statement that for a moral
principle in particular to have any validity it must be universal. And there’s a weird
kind of thing that happens where we have this private morality that we teach our kids and
we expect from each other, no initiation of force, a negotiation rather than aggression,
and telling the truth; and then we go into the public sphere and everything is completely
reversed. And now lying becomes diplomacy and aggression becomes defense. What do you think the primary mechanisms are
by which we can have these moral reversals and the general population doesn’t even seem
to notice it let alone question it? Well, I’m not sure that the population doesn’t
notice it. But remember, when you turn public policy, you’re not referring to the decisions
and choices of the general public but rather to those who dominate one or another system
of power that vary over the world. But where you look, there’s some kind of system of power
and hierarchy and domination. And that’s where decision making goes along
with the decision that there’s no reason to expect. Those with power may voice the kind
of ethical principles that people like to believe that they follow, but there’s no reason
to believe that that guides their choices and decisions. So for example, if you read even the worst
monsters: Stalin, Hitler, the Japanese fascists and so on; their pronouncements were most
elevated and loving democracy and freedom. Stalin’s constitution was a model of the humanity.
But, of course, it had nothing to do with their policies which have the honesty to recognize
the same is true with us; different structures, different mechanisms. Not everything is identical
but that basic property remains. It still remains true that the people making
the decisions they represent, first of all, the system of power that’s in the state itself
but also their own primary constituencies in the United States. It’s not a great secret,
what they are, the wealthy and the corporate sector, the primary constituency that’s usually
demonstrated and has been demonstrated that even in mainstream political science that
those are the voices — the part of the public whose voices are heard are essentially those.
Most of the public is basically disenfranchised. So the split between private morality and
public policy is not surprising for that reason alone. And then we have to add to it the techniques
that are used by the powerful to try to impose a conformity and obedience on the public often
simply by frightening them. So for example, it takes Obama’s terror campaign, global terror
campaign. Now that’s sold to the public in the basis of inducing fear, but we’re doing
it to protect you. It’s unpleasant, but we got to protect you. That just mirrors that apart from the fact
that this is a monstrous crime in itself, nevertheless it’s even understood by the directors
and perpetrators that they’re generating terrorists faster than they’re killing presumed jihadists.
In fact, they’re even developing a technology of terror which is just tailor-made for jihadists.
It won’t be long before they’ll be using smoke bombs to attack us. In fact, you can read
articles about this in the professional journals. It’s just not a concern. Security of the population
is simply not a concern for state power now. They have other concerns. But nevertheless,
inducing fear in the population is a common, often very successful way of gaining at least
public support for policies that people as individuals would not tolerate. Right, right. One of the things I think that
certainly gives me some hope is the reduction of the power of gatekeepers for cultural conversations.
You used to have to go through mainstream media to be able to get out. And I think you
had mentioned in one of your interviews how crossfire had little interest in you because
you didn’t have the kind of concision where they could fit you in between commercial breaks
and the fact that you can have extended and interesting conversations that can be broadcast
worldwide. We have very little equipment with very little money. To me gives a great deal
of hope that not having to go through the gatekeepers can really help us to elevate
the discussion. Does it give you similar hope or is there
something tragic that I’m sort of missing and looking at it this way? Well, I think it’s a part. What you described
is a very positive development. But as always, the world is complicated. So part of the — one
of the consequences of the proliferation of the media outlets is that it’s partly having
a tendency to try to drive, to compartmentalize people in the sense that people are very likely
to focus their attention on the kind of media outlets that reinforce their own beliefs and
biases and prejudices. So I’m subject to it too. All the blogs that
I look at I would think are the ones that I think I’m going to sympathize with what
the writers are probably saying. We all do that which is okay to a point, but it also
attempts to narrow our own perspectives. We often are not seeing other points of view
which we should expose ourselves to. I think we all are trying to compensate for that.
I tried my own ways and you’re free to do in yours. But there is one of the effects of the diversification
of media sources is the tendency towards becoming more proverbial and narrow in one’s perspective
on the world, the constant reinforcement of one’s own views less challenging. Right, right. Now, you’ve written quite a
bit about the kibbutzes and some of the ways in which you have admired them. I know you’ve
lived on one as well for a time. And you’ve talked about some of the negatives, some of
the racism towards the Arabs and the fact that they sort to be a feeding conveyor belt
to the Israeli military. But one thing I found quite fascinating with the degree to which
social norms in these organizations are reinforced through social ostracism, through conformity;
and that all sounds sort of bad and negative but compared to government laws which are
almost universally disastrous, it seems to me a very interesting way. And I think this
is one of the ways in which anarchism is supposed to be able to help reinforce social norms. How far do you think social ostracism can
go or volunteerism in one’s relationship can go in enforcing social norms? Well, it’s a double-edged sword. As you say,
it’s better than guns and clubs. On the other hand, it can be extremely psychologically
and personally harmful both to the actors and to the victims. So it’s the kind of thing
that I think one should consciously try to avoid as much as possible. I mean social norms,
they have to be basically accepted and at least to some degree we all have to agree
to drive on the one side of the road and so on, not anywhere we like. There’s many others but it can quickly be
overdone. It has to be tampered by a high degree of tolerance, of sympathy, of willingness
to question one’s own beliefs and the norms that one accepts to listen to, alternatives,
and to treat people with dignity and respect even if we don’t agree with them. So I think
there’s always going to be in a decent social organization, there will always be tensions
between these conflicting goals and resolving them in a civilized and humane fashion as
a real problem that people have to face. We can see it in all sorts of ways around the
world. So just to give one example, by accident I
happen to visit Norway on two recent occasions. One happened to be at the same time that they
apprehended Breivik, the perpetrator of that hideous massacre. And the second time happened
to be at the time when he had just been sentenced. I was quite struck by the attitude, as far
as I could tell, of the public towards these events. When he was apprehended, the attitude, as
far as I can tell and the media and all the people and so on, was not to throw him to
the dogs but he’s a human being. He committed a hideous crime. He has to be given his day
in court. In fact, he was given time to rant and rave in court. And then when I returned
at the time of the sentencing, in the United States he would have been probably hanged
and put in an electric chair in five minutes. He was given I think a 20-year sentence under
conditions that are so decent by our standards that are almost indescribable, not in a maximum
security prison with 24 hours a day of isolation but relatively civilized conditions and a
chance of rehabilitation which nobody expects. These are two pretty similar societies in
many ways, but the attitude of just respecting the rights of a human being no matter how
horrible his crimes to a dignified humane treatment and even potential rehabilitation.
These differences were startling, and it doesn’t go very far back in history. If you look into
the history of Norwegian criminology pretty recent, societies can change. Yeah, it is one of the things that stuck me
recently is Portugal has had a decade long experiment in the decriminalization of drugs
and have seen a 50% reduction in addiction and in drug use because they treat these people
as people who need help, who have some medical issues, who have dependency issues, compared
to this unbelievable gulag fest of the US industrial prison complex. It is positively
medieval. And this is again, as you’ve pointed out many times, how the US is so unbelievably
out of step with the rest of the western world in approaching these issues. That’s true. And it’s also, as you know, even
worse. The drug programs in the United States are basically a race war, and that’s been
true ever since Reagan. That’s true from the mode of police action that’s required to the
sentencing procedures to the form of criminalization and even to the treatment of people released
from prison. It’s, as you said, medieval, brutal, extremely harmful, and very race-oriented. You can see it in incarceration rates the
kind of reminiscent of what happened in the late 19th century after the Civil War. There
was about 10 years militia and freed slaves had kind of formal freedom. But right after
that, after instruction, there was a compact between the north and south which essentially
allowed the south to go over the line and they essentially criminalized black rights. So huge numbers of blacks, originally males
mostly, were sent off prison. In fact, they became kind of a slave labor force in many
ways even worse than slavery because for an employer’s point of view you have to maintain
your labor force in a state prison. And this went virtually to the Second World War. And
then there were a couple of decades of relative freedom again and now returning towards again
criminalizing black rights through the drug war. Now, it has almost no effect on drug use or
in the price of drugs, but it is devastating to the parts of the society that are attacked
by this and also it’s devastating to Latin America. It’s been extremely harmful. Latin
America, they’re the real victims, and you can see what you mentioned about the isolation
of the United States is becoming quite dramatic in the western hemisphere. So the last Hemispheric Conference a couple
of years ago in Zambia, the United States and Canada were completely isolated from the
rest of the hemisphere on the two major issues. One was permitting Cuba back into the hemispheric
organizations or Latin American is in favor of US agenda to refuse. And the second was
moved towards decriminalization of drugs which are going pretty far in some places, in Uruguay,
as far as legalization, other places, decriminalization; some following the Portuguese model but in
general towards more humane treatment and treatment that is in fact effective rather
than treatment that is destructive, harmful, brutal and in our case racist as well. Those
are real major crimes. And just to ask you one more question. I have
a fairly extensive audience that is generally on the libertarian, not the sort of European
libertarian but the American libertarian audience and I’m sort of like the pied piper trying
to get them to become anarcho-curious I guess is the best way of putting it. And one of
the questions that’s often asked is show us an example of successful anarchic experiments
in the world and everybody reads 1984 and animal farm, how many people read Homage to
Catalonia. I wonder if you could just touch on for our
libertarian friends the experiments that were really, really compelling and fascinating
that occurred in the ’30s in Spain in particular which could give people some thing to explore
or something to look at as an example of how effective these kinds of organizations can
be. Well, actually, there was one year of revolution
in Spain, mostly anarchist revolution in 1936, which was actually quite successful with those
crushed by force, and it’s striking that it was crushed by the combined forces of every
power system in the world: the communists, the fascists, and the liberal democracies.
And then they fought each other, pick up the spoils, but one thing they weren’t going to
tolerate was a free society of people running their own affairs. But there’s plenty more.
I call them pure anarchists by any means but the systems that have many of those characteristics. So take, for example, the Mondragon conglomerate
in Spain, Basque Country in Spain, big conglomerate, worker-owned, partially worker-managed, not
totally. It includes industrial production, including high tech industrial production
and banks, hospitals, living, housing and so on; and it’s quite successful particularly
what’s happening in parts of the old rust belt in the United States where there’s a
spread of the worker-owned enterprises. It’s not huge but developing, very successful.
There’s interesting work on this that are out there that’s particular. These all have a kind of an anarchist flavor
to them. It’s worth remembering considering the way you described your audience that there’s
one crucial difference between American libertarianism and traditional libertarianism. Traditional
libertarianism was opposed to any form of dominance in the hierarchy. One of the slogans
was “No god, no master,” meaning no ecclesiastical dominance, no masters in industry and personal
life and families, anywhere else. American libertarianism is quite different.
It’s perfectly happy to support masters. In fact, it extols them. It’s in favor of it.
It wants no interference with the domination and control of the people in the workforce.
That’s very counter to traditional libertarianism either in Europe or, for that matter, in the
United States. If you go back to the 19th century, early
days of the Industrial Revolution, there were mass popular movements which had their own
journals and so on. They were opposed to the way in which the industrial system was forcing
them to turn into tools of production under someone else’s control and destroying their
independence as free people and also destroying their culture. Their slogan was those who work in the mills
are taken for granted. In fact, it was what they called the wage slavery, wage labor.
It’s not very different from chattel slavery. There was such a popular position in the United
States in the 19th century that there was the slogan of the Republican Party. Wage labor
is tolerable because it’s temporary; that people should control their own industrial
fate. This is as American’s apple pie and quite different from what’s called libertarianism
today. Those are important things to bear in mind. So if I can just dig in for one last question,
it seems to me that the presidency of Barack Obama is quite important historically. One
of the cases I made years ago before he got in for even his first term was that you really
couldn’t have a greater divergence in stated principles or cultural backgrounds than between
the younger George Bush and Barack Obama. But a lot of the hopes of the left seems to
have really collapsed and Barack Obama has expanded a lot of the surveillance status,
you say the war on terror, foreign aggression and so on seems to have really grown. Do you think that this may tempt people on
the left to be more skeptical about political solutions? Is there going to be other things
bubbling up to try and find a way to move us towards a freer society without going through
the often Kabuki theatre of electoral politics? Well, electoral politics in the United States
has become a kind of a theatre. It’s nobody’s secret that it’s mostly bought and mostly
response to the very narrow sectors of wealth and private power. But I think there shouldn’t
have been illusions about Obama in the first place. I don’t say this in retrospect. Actually,
I was writing about them before the first primaries, 2008 Primaries, just looking at
the way he presented himself at his webpage where he was proud of and so on. I felt that
there were — he wasn’t George W. Bush, but I didn’t feel that there was going to be any
really substantial changes and much of what would happen would be negative. I mean I am surprised by some things. I have
been surprised by the severity of this attack on civil liberties. I didn’t expect that.
I don’t understand what’s driving it, not even politically what he thinks he’s gaining
from. But that’s often things that aren’t very well known, like one of the worst Supreme
Court decisions, in my opinion, was what’s called Holder. The Humanitarian Law Project
was brought by the Justice Department, by Obama’s Justice Department against the group
Humanitarian Law Project which was giving legal advice to a group that the government
put on its terrorist list. Terrorist list is something we should be pretty skeptical
about. So for example, Nelson Mandela was on it for
a couple of years ago. And it’s just pure executive authority with no supervision, no
recourse and so on. But the idea that providing legal advice to such a group is the government
calls material assistance to terrorism. That’s a really severe attack on civil liberties.
And in fact, if you read the colloquy of the judgment, it looks as if you, say, advised
one of these groups to turn to nonviolent methods or you just try to research what they’re
doing, that could be called material assistance to terrorism. Things like that are a major attack on elementary
civil liberties. It’s not the only case. And why the Obama administration is pressing this
so hard is a little hard for me to see. But I have to say that most of what’s going on
is not going to be a surprise unfortunately. And I don’t think it should tell people let’s
stop being involved in politics, but let’s stop having illusions about leaders. That’s
not the way things are going to change. Well, I certainly agree with that. And I know
that we’re a little short for time. I certainly do appreciate the conversation as I have for
many years who work particularly at the analysis of foreign policy. We’ll, of course, put your
website on the link to this and I would certainly invite all our libertarian listeners to check
out your work. The On Anarchism I found a great read. And thank you again for all that
you’re doing. Glad to be with you. Take care.

100 Comments

  1. yonis gure says:

    For a linguist, Noam mumbles a lot. 

  2. jeanyves651 says:

    "..if you read the manifestos of Stalin, Hitler, Japanese fascists.."   noticeable that Mr Chomsky chooses to go back in history to illustrate his point of the hypocrisy of a country's public morality in comparison to the obscenities of their practices.

    He could have used a more current example such as the public pronouncements of wanting peace by Netanyahu and his thugs but their private policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing by stealth of the Palestinians.

  3. jeanyves651 says:

    "hopes of the left have collapsed"  indeed they have, if ever a more explicit example of how powerless those who believe in this farce called democracy have become in the face of the relentless war and billions of $ spent on dumbing down the majority and maintaining the supremacy of the elite it is comparing what Obama originally said and what he has done to diminish the influence of the wealthy.  The elite will do all they can to promote the idea that change is possible within the system while quietly doing all they can to ensure it never happens. 

  4. Tyler Jordan says:

    The fact that Chomsky was surprised with Obama's civl liberties policy's demonstrates the illusions that Chomsky still holds about the 'left'.  The left and the right are just the two arms of the beast called the State.  It takes a large minded view to see the beast as a whole and to recognize that the two arms join in one place.

  5. ArtKrishnamurti says:

    Glad Stef didn't try to debate Noam on any number of topics, definitely surprised me. Noam is a mental giant, even in his old age. 

  6. jbfitters says:

    I really like Stephan's interview style! Letting the guest express his views without constant interruption! The internet, as Stephan states here, is a great medium for ideas to be expressed fully – without the usual "gate keepers" of MSM at best only allowing out-of-context snippets to be viewed …

  7. GeorgeAlexanderOz says:

    Interestingly, in one of his questions SM mentioned "gatekeepers", one of which is NC of course. Did SM lay out a little trap for the man? Indeed, it seems so, and NC didn't expand on that at all. In fact, his answer to that specific question was empty talk. Well done, SM.

  8. GeorgeAlexanderOz says:

    Btw, Stefan, how did it feel to talk to somebody who used NPR NLP MK voice technique on you to give you the impression he is an individual to be taken seriously? Boy, there is no virility in that man, compared to a human being such as you are. This video shows the dialog of a human being with a gatekeeper mushroom.

  9. CartoonMan! says:

    Molyneux, you are a genius. Chomsky is a great interview. Good job Stefan!

  10. thestonylein says:

    amazing interviewee you got there! too bad you didn't talk about your major differences (anarcho-capitalism vs. anarcho-syndicalism)

  11. Oli Barker says:

    This is a huge name for the channel! Shows how far it has come, amazing job Stef

  12. Oliver Westcott says:

    does chomskers even bitcoin?

  13. BrosdaleGov says:

    Noam is great at pointing out the glaring differences with the United States in the rest of the world.

  14. trev moffatt says:

    Lol – take a look at the world. We already have anarchy. 

  15. Nyran Stanton says:

    i cant believe theres people out there that think all humans have good intentions. Seriously, sometimes i wonder if the people that think this, realize the mafia IS actually real. its not fiction. There are people out there that ARE generally immoral and dont give a sht about others. There are bankers adn oil family people and drug dealers that would eat your family for a measly $100. There are parents out there that dont give a sht about their own kids. Its not fiction.

     Sometimes i think people live in a luxery bubble that has no reality in it. What about those kids that stormed that mall a few day sago and smashed everything? you think they are nice people?

  16. Nyran Stanton says:

    Theres a LOT of people that agreed with breivik. There are tons of people in Sweden that hate the muslim areas and in the UK aswell and completely support breiviks actions in Oslo. Its just a fact, hes not the only 1 that believes mixing white and muslims together well end up becoming just violence.

  17. MrVjl279 says:

    I have always wondered about America's tolerance for moral ambiguity. What this says is that the American public is insane.

  18. Michael Rice says:

    Chomsky was and is an apologetic for Pol Pot, denying the to this day the Cambodian Genocide.

  19. realdemocracy11 says:

    I know Chomsky's in his mid 80s but I'm sure he could handle a little more of a debate format. Maybe next time?

  20. dartek14 says:

    Wow Stefan. This truly is a pinnacle of your broadcast career. You did very admirably. You let Pfr. Chomsky speak at length and we must marvel at his lucidity. What a great year for you. If you got yourself on TVO or Vision I would watch you faithfully. Perhaps you can remember and mourn with me a long lost show called the Shulman Files with Dr. Martin Shulman. More contrarian than public host but the closest to witnessing the Dialectic method on television. 

  21. xb17 says:

    i think stefan must know aj called chomsky a gatekeeper some years ago and that the theory has been validated a couple of times in specific topics.i think that's the reason he brought up the word "gatekeeper" and it was nice to see chomsky had only negative things to say, and non empirical too! like internet makes it easy to find one particular thing therefore you're exposed to less things, is invalid, even without taking into account the history where 1 or 2 points of view was all there was, 1 for religion, 1 for politics, or nationality or stuff like that. today is better than ever, and the negatives are leftovers from our primitive past. spotted a couple other fallacious statements too but frankly it is half an unpleasant experience to watch the video again, for a profesor of linguistics, communicative skills were truly poor.

  22. Someguy says:

    Wow nice one Stefan 😀 anarchists don't have leaders but if they did Chomsky would be it.

  23. malsidiputs says:

    Mr. Chomsky is wrong!!
    Locking at the rate of incarceration does not indicate anything about rassism in the justice system!!

  24. TheNavigateur says:

    Stefan, it was extremely cowardly of you not to debate Chomsky on the issue of capitalism, which you KNOW is the sticking point between you and him. But I shouldn't really be surprised that a "capitalist libertarian" (an oxymoron) such as yourself would shy away from debating any anti-capitalist heavyweight on the issue most dear to your propaganda. I would debate you myself but I'm afraid I would embarrass you far too much. Having said that I would love that, if it could be arranged.

  25. Christina O'Shaughnessy says:

    Captions aren't always accurate here

  26. Christina O'Shaughnessy says:

    What an honest intellectual Chomsky is.  How right he is about our tendency to want to reinforce our own views rather that looking at other points of view. What a brilliant mind. Thanks, Stefan. 

  27. J.E. M.Saenz says:

    Noam Chomsky= American Hero

  28. J.E. M.Saenz says:

    let me refrase= A Hero of the World

  29. J.E. M.Saenz says:

    Did he just say the Norwegian killer of 77 CHILDREN got 20 years in jail?!
    ok, let me pause and check this out…..

    Oh my god…. what the…what is going on! what kind of world do we live in?!! (Cofused)

  30. Peter Nový says:

    Great to see Stef's respect to Mr. Chomsky. True is that Noam Chomsky is and was very loud voice of critical analysis of the forein policies od US and other issues which are related to force to others. Even thou his philosophical and economical aproach is not as consistent and leading to solutions as of Mr. Molyneux (or Mr. Sowell – great analyst of Economy and other social issues – based on scientific analysis). Thank you for great job!

  31. radscorpion8 says:

    heheh. This video generates so much anger. And he's such a mild mannered man, this Chomsky 😛

  32. anthemofadam says:

    how the hell did he get Chomsky?

  33. Bellantoni says:

    Umm who removed my comment??

    Then I'll say it again: @cerberustriarch 

    Waaaaaay too many assumptions made there. "Guy owns property"- Says who? "Builds factory on it"- How/where'd he get the means? "Hires people to work in it"- Where'd they come from? Why didn't they build it?

    See how the indoctrination works. In a single sentence you assumed a standing government and judiciary to decide on property rights, a system of finance already established, and that this was all taking place in the context of an industrial society with a hierarchical divide of owners and peasants.

    In other words you took the current capitalist system of the world as an a priori, state of nature somehow. Big NoNo. Let's start from the beginning…

    One person can't do everything, and that requires that some enterprises must be done collectively. The question is how are these associations to be organized are they to be done so autocratically with boss and serf like under capitalism or its predecessor feudalism. Or are they to be republican in structure and self-governing like in… well whatever you wanna call it.

  34. bircruz555 says:

    The drug war is a race war.  Chomsky called it right.  If Norway chose to be humane to the demon who mowed down 75+ Norwegians, it is because they feel they are a people of single stock. Not so America, no matter how upright people think the nation is, the majority benefits from the inequities of the system at the expense of minorities. Yes, whether it admits it or not, the mainstream public enjoys privileges minorities cannot even dream of.  Pot is an example. Lawmakers, judges, lawyers, policemen, the private prison business, and many others are in an unholy alliance in maintaining this medieval gulag.   What is the justification for condemning siblings who stole $11 to prison for life, but letting a rich brat waltz into a rehab after killing four people?  Chew on that.

  35. LibertyDownUnder says:

    Chomsky is effectively the godfather of modern day, left wing self loathing.
    He is a staunch advocate of universal healthcare, wasteful foreign aid programs, climate change alarmism, progressive taxation but then chooses to support 'anarchy' whenever it suits him.
    His views are all over the place, and he labels any fact doesn't fit his views as 'CIA / Mossad Propaganda'.
    The man is walking joke, an overgrown version of Peter Pan, and a perfect example of the useless, ivory tower so called 'intellectuals' in the western world.
    Even here at 19:50 he tries to hijack the term "Libertarian". He refers to work in the industrial era as "wage slavery", and Stefan does nothing to call him out on this.
    I'm not impressed at all by this interview, and see it as a cheap way by Stefan to suck up to radicals on the left.  🙁

  36. Kai says:

    Seeing these two debating ensures me that there is hope. Way to go Stefan, way to go. – And as always, nice, clean debate.

  37. 泉カルロス says:

    wow.. Noam Chomsky

  38. Carebearbull says:

    He is wrong on Breivik only getting 20 years.
    He got 21 years AND something called "Special
    Detention".
    This means that after 21 years, a court will consider if he is a threat to society, and if he is, he will get 5 more years in jail, and same thing happens the next 5 years, and so on.
    He can thus sit for life.
    He will probably sit for way longer then 21 years, according to most law experts in Norway.
    Though he will probably be let out some day, saw some expert guessing 40 years +, hard to say though.

    The difference between a jail sentence and a jail sentence + Special Detention is pretty different and he should have caught on to that when he was visiting Norway.

  39. Jon Hodin says:

    Umm…could you possibly get arrested more because you in fact commit more crime.

  40. JACK JOE says:

    Gnome Chomsky is blind: To let the Norwegian killer Breivik out of prison (after 22 years) is not an humanitarian act, but an act of terror. I claim the state terrorize the people with the help of scum bags like Breivik. I feel fear, when I now know guys like him can walk the streets. What is the aim of this state terror? The aim is to prevent individual liberty, and in general support socialist/internationalist policies.

  41. amilkywayhuman says:

    Noam Chomsky is a product of his time and it shows. Only took him 1 min and 55 seconds to mention "monster" hitler. I don't know much of him (Noam) and I do not deny his "greatness" but great people sometimes do stupid things and whenever I hear him talk I can't stand his dated political views. Just my opinion. 

  42. TakishidoKamen9193 says:

    So much hatred against Chomsky in the comments. Why are you guys so resentful? Is it because he points out the obvious, glaring contradiction between capitalism and freedom?

  43. TakishidoKamen9193 says:

    6:05 – 6:20 "Libertarians", he's talking about you.

  44. ShinEmperor says:

    Chomsky brought me to this channel. To this day, I consider myself the same style anarchist as Chomsky. I want freedom from ALL structures… including economic. No masters, just men. However, we have to give kudos where it's due. While I don't agree with Stefan on a lot of things, I do like this interview. Excellent work. I may not agree, but now, I officially respect you.

    Chomsky doesn't do debate any more really. Just does talks. He's sharp but debate is for men with sharp minds, the fire of youth and passion for competition. Chomsky is sharp, but he is not an orator. I personally prefer his style. It's dry, and usually clean of creative wording. He just talks and describes and links. Nice complete answers with no propaganda.

  45. Samuel Nord says:

    Oh no he's getting so old please don't ever die

  46. Jeffrey Pope says:

    I am ashamed to say, as much as I am dying to hear what Chomsky has to say, his delivery kills me.  Can you overdose on ambien?

  47. MrKalidestroyer says:

    Unfortunately most right-wing libertarians fail to acknowledge the degree to which much of what exists in the "free market" is a vestige of government coercion.  Have a look at: 1. government created and enforced limited liability which allows business owners, stockholders, ect to limit their personal liability for criminal or tortious committed by their business  and 2. intellectual property which limits the private property rights of individuals and businesses who seek to freely offer goods or services trademarked, patented, or copyrighted at lower prices than their monopoly suppliers.
    These are not small issues but fundamental to post-industrial revolution capitalism, certainly the capitalism one has seen in America in the last 100 years.  Before the civil war and commencement of the industrial revolution, limited liability was granted to entities by government only where there was a 'public purpose' where limiting liability could serve the whole population like for instance the building of a bridge, or railroad, ect.  Now any individual can create a corporation of llc or buy stock in a public company and not be personally liable for the criminal or civil wrongs of the corporation but the government, through legislation and court decision, has decided that corporations have almost all of the same rights as individuals.  This would shock Adam Smith and the classical economists as there was almost no experience with limited liability.  Limited liability has led to massive corporations and the massive reduction in the number of business owner/operators.  As for intellectual property law, modern biotech, pharmaceuticals, computer software, internet based companies and technology would look nothing like they do without government created and enforced intellectual property.  So when right libertarians defend the modern market they don't defend freedom as an absence of coercion but defend the corporate-government modern state.  I say abolish limited liability (or massively increase taxes on entities that want to use limited liability and decrease taxes on those entities that don't) and abolish ntellectual property and abolish all welfare programs.  In its place create a negative income tax and massively cut the warfare/drug war state.  This is a way to bridge the gap among the freedom loving on the left and right

  48. Gophering G says:

    Testing this.
    Testing this.

  49. Gophering G says:

    Testing this.
    Testing this.

  50. Gophering G says:

    Testing this.
    Testing this.

  51. dragknuckle says:

    You see, if you a liberal, you see everything through the lens of race. This somehow makes conservatives "racists."

  52. CaniPaul1 says:

    Two great thinkers of our time!

  53. klubkid46 says:

    didn't eric holder and BO let crack dealers out of jail……..give them free school,give them jobs? Now i see suburban kids get'n busted for weed. Wake UP america before these idiots steal your kids…………opps,too late. 

  54. Michael Woo says:

    I thought the two should have talked more about the difference between american and european libertarianism. Namly what chomsky mentions about hierarchy in the economic sphere.

  55. cravinbob says:

    I did not watch this yet but I can say 100 years ago drugs were made illegal out of racism which was aided by the media spreading propaganda. The premise for the fear-mongering was: black men would rape white women while under the influence of cocaine, heroin et al, which were legal. Law enforcement were then able to shoot blacks on sight. And they did. 1930 marijuana required a "tax stamp". The obvious target? Mexicans. Richard Nixon changed all that with his policy of drug schedules. Schedule 1 are heroin, cocaine and marijuana which Nixon deemed to have no value. He created this to target white youth, those unlikely to re-elect him. He declared marijuana a narcotic! He created the insanity called the DEA. People think the NRA is evil, you should thank the NRA. The DEA is hell on Earth. Thus, now drug violators are POLITICAL PRISONERS. That many were minorities was a bonus for that bastard Nixon.  Nixon was a criminal who should have gone to prison for conspiracy and his terms as President erased. His policies, laws should be cancelled. The DEA should be dismantled with extreme prejudice and FBI, ATF agents who committed murder (e g Vicky Weaver) should be sentenced to prison terms along with Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.
    It is a disgrace what our government has turned into and society has dumbed down to a level of mentally challenged 5 year olds, unable to see or care about anything other than Twinkies and television.
    The worst is just around the corner folks. Learn and exercise your Rights. Stop the gun banning nonsense and arm yourselves. That is the strongest message those in control of your life will understand and takes very little effort on your part. Demand change which is "Government-Butt Out!.. Do you know how many US Senators you have in your state? Their names? If you cannot answer that then you are a disgrace to your fellow citizens who put their lives on the line for Freedom. I will die for Freedom, will you?.

  56. Valelacerte says:

    Hmmmm, not sure about Chomsky's theory that the multitude of internet media outlets is compartmentalising and confirmation biasing its viewers. As opposed to what? When there were only huge media corporations, some of which were/are directly funded by the government? At the very least, now they can choose which outlet to be propagandised by.

  57. joshua626 says:

    finally someone who doesn't look like me speaks the truth about the political interests that has plagued my people since Recontruction. 

  58. Nunya Biznes says:

    Stefan, I really enjoy your channel. I detest Chomsky as much as I admire you. I tried  to use you as a bridge to Norm but he doesn't seem to have your pragmatism in my view.

  59. Tyronne Biggums says:

    Not sure you can fault Barack Obama for the erosion of civil liberties. The Patriot act was rubber stamped by the Bush/Cheney folks to placate the military industrial complex. They were also huge proponents of privatizing for profit prisons.

  60. Jake Witmer says:

    Great questions from Stef, Great answers from Chomsky! I was surprised, because I generally like Chomsky a lot less than Stef.

  61. Jake Witmer says:

    Chomsky is very wrong that Reagan made the drug war racist, sure he mindlessly continued the racism of the existing drug war, but it was racist before Reagan. It has been racist from the days of Harry Anslinger. Any fool who knows anything about history knows this.

  62. Jake Witmer says:

    Noam Chomsky doesn't understand Harry Browne or Samuel E. Konkin.

  63. ladedade23 says:

    im not a scholar or an academic.. but about 5 years ago I had to write a ethics paper and keep in mind ive heard of Chomsky but i never read his work and his outlook is basically my whole 10 page thesis.. proving that this stuff should be common sense and people who try to twist the morality argument to the left or a gray area basically lack that common sense.

  64. Matt Pell says:

    Thank you for getting Chomsky to give an interview Stefan. Is there a link to a website with more of his material?

  65. roottruthseeker says:

    he can't see where this is going?  they can just label you a terrorist and then deny you legal standing.

  66. Michael Gebhart says:

    Chomsky is not an anarchist.

  67. elephantwomen says:

    Thats why its so important for our generations and next to read!! Noam you are an inspiration 

  68. norseman bushcrafting says:

    chomsky is a dult.. Breivik did not "get 20 years" he got 21 with a reinspection. that is our governments longest sentence, and after those 21 are served, he will again be granted 21 and so on, so he basicly did get life.. and its so dumb how he glorifies norways pacifism… in an anarchist non coersive N.A.P based society, serial killers, rapist, pedophiles and other serious violent criminals with a high chance of re-occurrence wil not nessesarily be "treated" and fucking let back to society. private sector can regulate these viruses with force too if deemed nessesary. and in breiviks case, i would give him a bullet… HE KILLED OVER 80 KIDS IN MY COMMUNITY U OLD CLICHE FUCK, tell me he can be rehabilitated…  someone should fuck chumpsky up the ass, "get rehabilitated", then become his neighbour and greet him as he gets his newspaper in the morning, the old dult..

  69. amcynic says:

    Chomsky  is a communist. Watch his interview  with  William F. Buckley. He defended Soviet communism the entire time.

  70. kling claudia says:

    Uruguay is under SOROS /ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATIONS TO further liberalization of marihuana with a taste of US CRONY CAPITALISM!

  71. Paintball Videos says:

    Jew. 

  72. Chuck Morgan says:

    Chomsky doesn't have a lot of flattering things to say about Whites and America, but he doesn't have a lot of flattering things to say about Jews and Israel either.  So even though I despise the fact that he bashes America, he is just as critical of Israel.

    PS – I am Canadian.

  73. Nicole Saunders says:

    Drug prohibition is The New Jim Crow.

  74. MillionthUsername says:

    Chomsky isn't an anarchist. He says that libertarianism is "total tyranny." He says we should "celebrate" taxation. He says that state-run healthcare is "more efficient" than in a free society. He refers to every state intervention in the economy as "capitalism." The man is just a propagandist for collectivism.

  75. Andrew Rae says:

    Typical Chomsky childishness……. How do people actually take this guy seriously

  76. fred barns says:

    Chomsky says some sensible things but that majority of them are just crack potted conspiratorial bullshit. If you want the truth when it comes to race and drugs watch amren's video about it.

  77. Marco T. Zahn says:

    It's painful to hear chomsky speak nowadays. That dude is old as fuck.

  78. Luis Ochoa says:

    You don't get it!; Noam Chomsky want's you to ask:
    What drives you to them(drugs)?
    He's against of the roots!
    For example a little one; Don't you think that WAR can help on the use?
    No? Then what happened to those kids that rise in these families?
    What learned those kids from mentally sane soldiers?
    Another one: Parents That Gives them all & do not constrained nothing when his little demons asked them something.

    Children tyrants, obedient parents!

  79. adam ropp says:

    5:30 Sorry Steph, eventually the gatekeepers will crack down on youtube. They already are as well as social sites like facebook.

  80. Pia Nyström says:

    I just want Chomsky to stay alive. Intermittent fasting? Check it, it works.

  81. Rick Kaiser says:

    The more things SEEM TO CHANGE, the More They Remain The Same. Hooray for Cannabis! A Game Changer!

  82. dimitri says:

    45 years close to 3 trillion spent and drugs are more available and
    cheaper and more potent then ever… Imagine how prosperous our nation
    would be if we would tax and legalize drugs like tobacco… the further
    we take this stupid drug war the more America will suffer… think about
    it you get arrested get a record now you cant get a job and your a
    dealer now for LIFE…

  83. Anarcho Capitalism is Contradiction says:

    Nixon's Aide finally admitted that the Drug War was racist. So much for meritocracy.

  84. Ivor Cash says:

    It's a bit strange that when Chomsky is talking about great evils of the so called war on drugs the Stephan is quieter than a mouse.

  85. Nymeria Wolf says:

    How does he feel about Antifa?

  86. Ivor Cash says:

    On the flooding of black areas with all manners of drugs by the police and FBI.

  87. shadfurman says:

    I'm not educated enough to dispute whether or not traditional libertarianism was against any form of hierarchy.

    I don't understand how you prevent hierarchy without an equally powerful hierarchy and a violation of the rights of the individuals that assume and setup a voluntary hierarchy.

    Being culturally anti-hierarchical is fine, but it seems to me that hierarchies have a competitive advantage from competence specialization that is extremely economically advantageous.

  88. Graham Cracker says:

    "[5 Sentences that would take a normal person 10 seconds to speak]" said Noam Chomsky. "Zzzzzzzzzzz," said [the guy who fell asleep 26 minutes into the second sentence.]"

  89. Sean Doran says:

    its amazing how much mr. molyneux has changed in the last 4 years. not for the better btw.

  90. David Sims says:

    6:10. Some people's beliefs are well-examined and, thus, are mostly true. Other people, not so much. The opinions of different people are not equal in merit.

    7:15. Ayn Rand once said that truth should not compromise with lies. While one should be aware of the arguments against his beliefs, the truth is what it is, and it is the seeker of truth who is most likely to find it. Their opinions are the best ones, however glib those with opposed opinions may be.

  91. Tony Jabroni says:

    Chomsky-honk

  92. G Buz says:

    Chomsky is wrong about drugs arrests being racially motivated. Statistics show blacks commit far more crimes than anyway else and therefore drugs are found during the arrests and drug charges are added.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=518&v=3fkZUrT7t4o
    For a smart guy, he doesn't seem that smart. Somehow he reminds me of a timid Bernie Sanders.

  93. John Lawrence says:

    @5:45 " not having to go through gatekeepers " …… So says one gatekeeper to the next . Anyone who poses a real opposition wud never be given repeated platforms to speak out .

  94. John Lawrence says:

    No solutions no action Just stating the obvious which most already know just in a more precise way . But no questions that may reveal real answers just lip service . I would venture a guess a call to fan bases for help actually doing someone may be lil more productive then talking heads

  95. Georg Wilde says:

    Chomsky is a collectivist. Only think that needs to be added: "Life is complicated" is not an argument 🙂

  96. magicsinglez says:

    Even if you believe in the divinity of war, or in some kind of warrior ethic, what we’re doing with drones is a tragedy. It’s evil, killing people with drones from far away. It’s stupid, fighting such a mechanically weaker enemy face to face. The war has become absurdly, even for those who might apologize for its necessity.

  97. 888Gypsy888 says:

    Chomsky? Hmm. Chomsky is too kind.

  98. Valelacerte says:

    I wonder if Chomsky has noticed that if one chooses a drug that white people like, hey presto! Suddenly white people are arrested disproportionately for its possession. Is that also a race war? in violent crimes involving blacks and whites, 90% of the time it's blacks attacking whites. Is that a race war? I appreciate that Chomsky's far too nuanced and sophisticated to be a crude Communist, but an awful lot of his conclusions tend not to favour white Europeans or Capitalism.

  99. Bugout Bubba says:

    There may be a distinct advantage for outliers, to vent their opinion in the current social media atmosphere. Nevertheless, there is intrinsic danger in having a voice and having it silenced that did not exist before social media and the current censorship trend. These obliterated freedoms will surely be recorded by those who speak in retrospect, as the beginning to the end of America.

  100. D Personal says:

    Chomsky is a Zionist gatekeeper.  As such, he ultimately supports the Deep State because it supports Israel, The Homeland of the Jews, which is why he doesn't actively promote third parties.  He has openly said that he is a Zionist.  And he's a liar:  https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/chomsky-bds-and-the-jewish-left-paradigm.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *