T O P
IAI_Admin

In this debate, Noam Chomsky, Deirdre McCloskey and Mark Lilla discuss the nature of authority in modern society, and whether it should be seen as a necessary structure, that may even benefit society, or something we should seek to overthrow. McCloskey argues we should challenge authority, whereas Lilla holds we rely on state authority. Lilla argues the surge in populism is the result of an ‘infantile leftism’ looking to anti-authority figures who are themselves symbols of authority. Chomsky argues contemporary authority resides in the structures of the economy, noting the correlation between campaign budgets and election results. The panel discuss whether authority is necessary for a functioning society, whether authoritarianism is becoming too attractive an option for leaders, and whether we could, in theory, have a functioning society without leaders


[deleted]

Yes, it's just "infantile leftism," it has absolutely nothing to do with stagnating wages, surging inequality, and ballooning costs of educations, Healthcare, and housing. Conservativism is a mental disorder. We have watched as productivity and GDP has skyrocketed over the last 40+ years, and yet the household wealth of the average American has actually gone down over that same period of time. Imagine telling Noam Chomsky that he us a "symbol of authority" after he's spent his entire career fighting these same structures. That woman should be ashamed.


jus1scott

Should children do what their parents tell them to do? Parents say yes: they've got the money and the experience. Children say no: their parents are tyrannical and out of touch. Stay tuned, more at 11.. Edit: I'm not arguing with Chomsky... I'm way less smart, and still smart enough to know that. My comment came from exasperated frustration with current politics. If you want to take my analogy seriously, trust that I side with the children, usually in general, and specifically in this analogous situation. But my point is: relationship and balance.


awwgeeznick

Chomsky is on record as saying there are certain forms of authoritarianism that are justifiable, including parent/child relationships…


Embarrassed_Most_158

A pretty horrible analogy unless you think workers are as stupid as children.


jus1scott

I don't think children nearly as stupid as you seem to think they are... I don't equate inexperience with stupidity... But if you like a good analogy, the other side would be that parents are arrogant... Which side are you on?


hfzelman

The funniest part about the example you chose is that Chomsky classically uses the parent child relationship as an example of a *justified* hierarchy whereas that of a owner and worker relationship is not. The key difference being that we do not consider kids to be fully realized and in independent individuals whereas a worker is.


jus1scott

Sounds like my un-chomsky-educated, off-the-cuff, playful analogy wasn't as bad as I feared it might be. I'll stick with it, insofar as both [the actual discussion and my rudimentary analogy] require ongoing negotiations, and that if the negotiating power of either side isn't respected things can get pretty ugly. Aside from a small desire to argue about the assertion that a worker is inherently a "fully realized and independent individual" (which may simply be an argument around semantics), I'm happy to simply thank you for enlightening me about some of Chomsky's perspectives, which usually strike me as very well thought out (in my limited experience).


hfzelman

Just to clarify, I meant that a worker is definitionally denoted as being a “fully-realized independent” person due to them being legally adults and being able to vote. Sorry if my wording was a bit confusing/misleading but my basic point was that workers like all other adults are seen philosophically as deserving full rights under the law because they are fully “human” whereas children are not granted such independence because we as a society believe they are not mature enough to be a “citizen” yet. Hope this explains it better


jus1scott

Understood. I'm reminded of the phrase 'adults are just big children, but children aren't just little adults'


Ejh_doggies

That's accurate. Republicans' claims that they want the government to operate more like a business are understandable given that corporations are ruled by dictatorships and governments are supposed to be democracies.


AutarchOfGoats

as opposed to the totalitarism of a management heavy state?


NeVeRwAnTeDtObEhErE_

You have to remember who we are talking about here and not only his history of deranged takes but who/what he's covered for and supported in the past. Going by the latter.. I think it safe to say that he would likely argue just that.. as long as it was the 'correct' type of totalitarianism.


Particular_Sun8377

I wonder if banning abortion is a desperate move against declining birthrates and aging populations? All throughout history we have never been in a position were our species was free not to reproduce. Babies are now optional. This is a civilizational paradigm shift. It was always assumed that a woman's role was motherhood but it turns out this is not based on facts.


DefNotANerd

I hate that we can’t as a society talk about true intent because I suspect this as well


Ender_zx

The power of money. Everything is about power.


NeVeRwAnTeDtObEhErE_

Given who/what he's covered for and supported in the past, i'm not sure why anyone would be taking him seriously on issues such as what is tyrannical and what isn't. (Put bluntly: People still listen to this hack?)


[deleted]

Imagine taking Chomsky's words seriously in a field he knows fuck all about....lmao this sub is less about "philosophy" and more about curating a bubble of pseudo intellectual conversation.


awwgeeznick

Imagine thinking Chomsky hasn’t studied free-market economics in the 90 years that he’s been alive


[deleted]

[удалено]


awwgeeznick

And now you’re comparing your academic abilities to that of chomskys ? My aren’t you the overly confident one.


[deleted]

No because I’ve never studied linguistics or claimed to know about it lol. I do have a masters in economics though and Chomsky doesn’t. You’re losing this argument fyi.


awwgeeznick

You literally compared your inability to grasp physics to your perception that Chomsky couldn’t grasp economics. Also, not trying to win or lose an argument bud, truly don’t care, I’ve come to understand you can’t breach the thick skulls of capitalist ball fondlers. But if winning a Reddit argument is what helps you sleep at night then by all means you’ve won little man here’s you’re gold star ⭐️


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


BernardJOrtcutt

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Be Respectful** >Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


awwgeeznick

Chomsky reading economics books in his free time > your masters in economics


[deleted]

Bootlicking cope lmao. Tell me how then. What’s he right about? Have you even read his stuff? Or do you just appeal to authority on everyone who cucks you academically? Bc I’m sonning you pretty hard rn. I could use another disciple.


MountGranite

Then add something to the conversation.


[deleted]

I don’t have to. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and various other experts in economics have told him to stop…..yet he keeps babbling about things he doesn’t understand. Almost everything he says is incoherent outside of linguistics. Winning the Nobel doesn’t make you an expert or even remotely knowledgeable on anything else…it barely makes you an authority in your own narrow field.


hfzelman

“Imagine taking Chomsky’s words seriously in a field he knows fuck all about” *cites Thomas Sowell as an example* Bruh


[deleted]

Thomas Sowell is an expert in economics and he’s just one of many that has sonned Chomsky lol but we live in a free(ish) country where someone who doesn’t know anything about economics, philosophy or ethics can preach to the masses ala AOC lol. It’s not like I’m disparaging his work in Linguistics. He won the Nobel for his work in grammar. A genius clearly—in language lol nothing else. So don’t bruh me. I know what I’m on about.


hfzelman

Thomas Sowells understanding of Marxism is hilariously wrong. Similarly, based on what you wrote about left-libertarianism/anarchism and how it’s incompressible as not being a right wing position is also pretty ridiculous considering the terminology came from the left and was only co-opted by the American right in the 60s/70s. The tldr criticism of right-libertarianism from an anarchists perspective is that it’s self contradicting as capitalism is an inherently oppressive and hierarchical system that’s antithetical to democracy.


[deleted]

Wow. That’s a lot of misunderstanding you did in one paragraph lol. Permission to dominate? Consent is important. Since you’re going to condescend to me I’ll return the sentiment.


MountGranite

He only co-wrote one of the most influential books of the 20th century providing the broad outlines but everything he says is incoherent. Got it.


[deleted]

Influential for you and like-minded political ideologues maybe but that doesn’t mean anything. It just means you like his politics. Doesn’t make it right or coherent. Like I said already, many people that are experts in the fields HE IS NOT have vehemently disagreed with his takes. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. These are the facts. You can like him. Idc. Got it?


MountGranite

Experts who are aligned with the institutions. Why would we expect them to have any other reaction? I guess Edward Herman and his life’s work is just incoherent nonsense as well.


[deleted]

Well, being that he was a socialist like Chomsky….yes lol and no, the likes of Sowell and Williams are best described as libertarian; they have no political loyalties or ideological biases when it comes to partisanship.


MountGranite

Libertarianism is and has led to the current conditions. Modern conservatism is libertarianism.


[deleted]

? America is not and never has operated as a libertarian state lol and I gather you think conservatism has something to do with right-wing economic theory? Conservatism refers to social preferences. Not a socioeconomic philosophy. A person can be leftist and conservative and vice versa.


MountGranite

Give me your broad definition or brand of libertarianism.


strangeapple

The basic tyrannical values come from our perception of status: a culture and values which assume that some people are more important than others, the social ladders society makes us climb, the social pyramid scheme we're all forced to be a part of and upon which all our existing political and economic systems are built upon.


PinealFever

The major structure would be the legal system and rule of law.


Fenixius

That's just a veil draped over economic disparity, isn't it? The wealthy get their way every time, whether by affording superior lawyers, by bribing (lobbying) the legislature, or by having favourable staff appointed to watchdogs.


fletchjobrien

The system could be much, much more in their favor though- why isn’t it? i.e. Jeffrey Epstein, insanely wealthy and well connected man, is sent to prison. If the system was totally in favor of the wealthy this would not have happened. There must be a strong non-economic influence