"Libertarina's [sic] and the right wingers throw around the word freedom all the time and have no friggen idea what they are talking.
"You want freedom, well existentialism is the ultimate freedom!!! ...
"It should be clear to anyone thinking about it, the thesis today is how do we meld the needs of social order with the needs of people to be free.
"It is the only equation. Chomsky knows this cold. That is why he calls himself a libertarian socialist. It is an ideal. Individual freedom combined with necessary social order.
"Getting just the right blend of both, first requires people to understand this equation."
What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah. Gobbledygook.
Look. With 50 years on this planet, 12 of them spent in higher education, I think I can grasp most any concept reasonably well. But what you've written above is a lot of words that together say nothing.
Specifically, what "equation" are you referring to? Order equals freedom? Existentialism IS freedom? "Existential freedom" equals ... something? What? You've cited no equation.
More generally, you talk about "melding" and "getting the right blend" of freedom and order, and you assert that libertarians "have no friggen idea" what freedom is. Yet you offer nothing as to how one finds or creates "the right blend", and you offer no definition or description of what it means to be free. Just a lot of vague references to existentialism and put-downs of libertarians, "right wingers", churches, cultures, etc.
Oh, and talk about "world's cultures metamophesing from a world where everyone lived according to scripts", as if reading from a script yourself.
PS: Chomsky also describes himself as an anarcho-syndicalist, which tells me he doesn't understand squat about economics or freedom.
Oh, and he described existentialism (along with other philosophical schools popular among the French) as an "absurdity", noting also its "pomposity and self-importance". But then, absurdity is part of existentialism, so maybe he is what he criticizes. |
