If we limit the Self Interest Ontology to
just the players Chomsky mentions (directly or indirectly), the set of agents
could be organized thusly:
-government
-legislators
-judiciary
-cabinet
level executives
-employees
-NGOs
-corporate
-stockholders
-directors
-executive
management
-lobbyists
-employees
-individuals
-taxpayers
-adults
-minors
-beneficiaries
-adults
-minors
This gives one view for the Ontology which
identifies the agents that participate in the Chomskyesque materials.
Does anyone want to suggest additions, deletions, or changes to the list above?
Activities of the Self Interest Ontology
might include:
-government
-taxation
-regulation
-legislation
-enforcement
-judgments
-corporate
-markets
-monopolies
-competitors
-persuasion
-operations
-finance
-capital
-revenues
-costs
-lobbying
-employment
-taxation
-Individuals
One way to develop materials for filling
in the lower levels of the ontology might be to process NLP from Chomsky’s
books and articles, and news stories, including daily news articles from
individual reporters, articles from corporate news sources (e.g., WSJ, NYT, LA
Times, etc). By identifying the named entities that correspond to the
agent classes above, it should be possible to organize news stories to deepen
the Self Interest Ontology to include lower level subclasses. This is a
very limited first step in identifying the actors and activities that play
identifiable roles a la Chomsky’s viewpoint. It should also
identify the news sources which are biased in each direction for each class of
agents.
Has anything serious been left out of the
top level for the Self Interest Ontology? Again, suggestions are
appreciated,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:46
AM
To: '[ontolog-forum]
'
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
Chomsky’s theories of the
corporate-state partnership, and how it concentrates power in the hands of
large corporations, are well known, especially:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TieGj2Yi5r8
But neither Rand nor Hayek subscribed to
corporate-state partnership. In both cases, they value the individual,
not the corporation and not the state and certainly not the combination of the
two. So I don’t think that is the reason why he is unhappy with
both Rand and Hayek.
From the above video “elections are
always bought”, “President Obama’s election was funded by
corporate interests”, and numerous other examples indicate his deep
displeasure with the state-corporate binding.
I would like to see quotes from Chomsky
that specifically describe his displeasure with both Rand
and Hayek rather than trying to predict his rationale. Chomsky is always
very deep in his rationale, so I don’t think that we can simply say the
corporate-state binding is why he is against either Rand or Hayek.
Mike Pool quoted this short paragraph from
the article, which is somewhat enlightening:
"Hayek was the kind of 'libertarian' who
was quite tolerant of such free societies as Pinochet's Chile, one of the most
grotesque of the National Security States instituted with US backing or direct
initiative during the hideous plague of terror and violence that spread over
the hemisphere from the 60s through the 80s. He even sank to the level of
arranging a meeting of his Mont Pelerin society there during the most vicious
days of the dictatorship. "
But that critique is not directed at
Hayek’s ideas about economics in general, only about his interpretation
of Hayek’s poor showing in the political area, specifically in supporting
Pinochet and the US
methods of supporting property owners at the expense of the average
citizen.
His description of how democratic groups
in Haiti were overturned by
the US
government and a dictator was reinstalled under US actions, is typical Chomsky,
and very clearly in line with his past work. But in broad brush strokes
in the article, he paints both Rand and Hayek (neither of whom are known for
their political wisdom) as evil without considering the kudos they gave to the
individuals.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Menzel
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:30 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Rich Cooper
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thanks – a very interesting article. I’m
surprised at how vehemently Chomsky shrugs her off as evil. He
doesn’t give any explanation in the article; do you have any information
about WHY he thinks Rand is evil?
It's obvious if you read Chomsky's (vast) work on political theory and
American social and political history, especially his writings on social
security, taxation, corporate welfare, the massive redistribution of
wealth from the middle class to the top income brackets engineered by
conservative tax policy over the last dozen years, etc, all of which are in
vehement opposition to the social darwinism that lies at the heart of Randian
economic theories (and current GOP economic politicies).