For the fun of debunking, duty of skepticism, and love of science. It is difficult to say what truth is, but sometimes it is so easy to recognize a falsehood. Are you seeking knowledge and tools to help refute such foolishness?
One can easily concoct imaginary situations in which it would be inadvisable, even immoral to do so [ The Responsibility of Intellectuals: I don't feel that they deserve a blanket condemnation at all.
There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable. But I do think that China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.
Skinner's Verbal Behavior" in Language, 35, No. Summation by Noam Chomsky: Rereading this review after eight years, I find little of substance that I would change if I were to write it today. I am not aware of any theoretical or experimental work that challenges its conclusions; nor, so far as I know, has there been any attempt to meet the criticisms that are raised in the review or to show that they are erroneous or ill-founded.
Skinner's Verbal Behavior ," in Leon A. Jakobovits and Murray S. I'm of course opposed to terror, any rational person is, but I think that if we're serious about the question of terror and serious about the question of violence we have to recognize that it is a tactical and hence moral matter.
Incidentally, tactical issues are basically moral issues. They have to do with human consequences. And if we're interested in, let's say, diminishing the amount of violence in the world, it's at least arguable and sometimes true that a terroristic act does diminish the amount of violence in the world.
Hence a person who is opposed to violence will not be opposed to that terroristic act. Noam Chomsky interviewed by William F. Does anyone know the context of the following Noam Chomsky quote about violence? After the first International Days of Protest in October,Senator Mansfield criticized the "sense of utter irresponsibility" shown by the demonstrators.
He had nothing to say then, nor has he since, about the "sense of utter irresponsibility" shown by Senator Mansfield and others who stand by quietly and vote appropriations as the cities and villages of North Vietnam are demolished, as millions of refugees in the South are driven from their homes by American bombardment.
He has nothing to say about the moral standards or the respect for international law of those who have permitted this tragedy. I speak of Senator Mansfield precisely because he is not a breast-beating superpatriot who wants America to rule the world, but is rather an American intellectual in the best sense, a scholarly and reasonable man -- the kind of man who is the terror of our age.
Perhaps this is merely a personal reaction, but when I look at what is happening to our country, what I find most terrifying is not Curtis LeMaywith his cheerful suggestion that we bomb everybody back into the stone age, but rather the calm disquisitions of the political scientists on just how much force will be necessary to achieve our ends, or just what form of government will be acceptable to us in Vietnam.
What I find terrifying is the detachment and equanimity with which we view and discuss an unbearable tragedy. We all know that if Russia or China were guilty of what we have done in Vietnam, we would be exploding with moral indignation at these monstrous crimes.
The war is simply an obscenity, a depraved act by weak and miserable men, including all of us who have allowed it to go on and on with endless fury and destruction - all of us who would have remained silent, had stability and order been secured.
What can one say about a country where a museum of science in a great city can feature an exhibit in which people fire machine guns from a helicopter at Vietnamese huts, with a light flashing when a hit is scored?
What can one say about a country where such an idea can even be considered? You have to weep for this country. No less insidious is the cry for 'revolution,' at a time when not even the germs of new institutions exist, let alone the moral and political consciousness that could lead to a basic modification of social life.If you appeal to a non-moralized notion of coercion, then it becomes clear you need more argument to show that libertarianism is the least coercive political system.
I think you can make the argument, but it’s a hard one, made harder by (1). When I was an undergraduate, I believed that the prevalence of positivism in the social sciences – the idea of studying social phenomena in an “objective” or “value-free” manner – .
Jun 14, · On the contrary, I thought libertarianism offered a robust and complete analysis of society. I suspect others do, too. And this isn’t just a case of convenient specialization. From the era of slavery to the rise of Donald Trump, wealthy elites have relied on the loyalty of poor whites.
All Americans deserve better. I’m just a poor white trash motherfucker. An introductory overview of the basic philosophies of libertarianism. As a political philosophy, libertarianism, in the broadest sense of the term, places liberty first.
The role of the state is to protect the liberty of its citizens and its citizens must respect the rights of each other. This is. For the fun of debunking, duty of skepticism, and love of science. It is difficult to say what truth is, but sometimes it is so easy to recognize a falsehood.