-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
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
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).