No, dude already assumed about tenfold. Idc really

Nothing on germ theory there. Just common sense. Make society healthy and we don’t need professional interventions to keep us operational.

It may shock you to learn that most people are just as capable of critical thinking as you are, and not everyone who is is so impressed by Chomsky’s intellect.

"and medical professionals have nothing to do when the causes of sickness and madness are removed."

Also the bigger idea that public health is public. People's right to not vaccinate does not matter more to me than the preservation of herd immunity from disease, for eg.

> To the extent where he rejects the germ theory of disease?

I missed that. Where?

I agree with the central tenet he puts forward- that fully existing in the world and experiencing it is a radical act of good.

He does an okay job at refuting many common objections, but not all. My biggest concern being his contempt for medical science. To the extent where he rejects the germ theory of disease? (Society doesn't give people HIV, a virus does my dude).

Also missing from this is any discussion of how it's decided that someone is too young/stupid to make decisions. There's a lot of ways that can break bad extremely quickly.

I am astonished by your comment. Most people are indoctrinated by society and institutions to not question authority. Most people just get on with life with the mindset that 'this is the way the world is meant to be'.

Even take something like the family unit. Some cultures enforce absolute obedience and eliminate all capacity for critical thought.

I think what's happening here is the conflation of a seed and a plant, or an egg with a chicken.

Everything in the universal contains potentialities. A thing has the potential within it to become other things, as a seed could become a plant (or be an ingredient in a meal).

So what you're seeing here is that. The capacity for capitalism exists within certain dynamics. The seeds of capitalism existed within the feudal system, for instance, and they matured through the adolescence of mercantilism. This was a potential which was unleashed through historical events like the Bubonic Plague and technologies like the steel plow or steam engine or ideologies like the Enlightenment. Historical events seemed to predetermine a capitalist system, which is pretty much what Marx and Engels argued.

But other potentialities also existed, and still exist. What could mature into capitalism could mature also into something else. Humanity is roughly 100,000 years old and capitalism makes up about 300 of those years. It doesn't look like it's going to make it much longer than that either due to its unstable nature. So it could be that capitalism is just a potential, a very rare potential, for human populations. The conditions were met, and opposing forces were incapable of stopping it (they certainly tried), and so we get it for a short time. But it's not inevitable, and it's not permanent. It just seems like that because it's the globally dominant system and has been for some time now, and that makes it hard to imagine that the world was or could be any other way.

> Again, no. Capitalism has to be preserved by a powerful state able to enclose land and protect property through the state apparatus.

For capitalism to stabilize into something durable and predictable, and therefore to scale, what you're saying is true.

But this does no violence to my original point which is that capitalism will form organically. You can see the types of examples I outlined in places lacking an effective state apparatus. Consider Somalia. Or the American frontier (in particular Deadwood style illegal settlements in Indian territory).

Again, without an effective state to nurture and preserve it, capitalism is unstable and unlikely to scale. But it will occur organically. That's all I'm saying.

> Capital is a very complex concept, but it can be easily understood as private property which exists only for the purpose of producing more capital. So, a ranch is a capitalist ranch if it's someone's private property. If there's an employer and employees (which only exist under capitalism, as lords and serfs only do under feudalism). If the employee produces someone else's property through their labor which is sold as capital for the sake of capital accumulation.

All of this happens at a limited scale in the absence of an effective state. It will occur spontaneously, because that's what happens when people want to buy and sell things, and hire and work for wages. It just happens. It's been happening for thousands of years.

> For example, how can there be Christian physicists and cosmologists when basically all scientific findings counteract the bible?

This isn't a well thought out position to maintain, as there is technically no disconnect between observable and measurable science and the notion of a (possible) creator deity/deities since the presupposition there would simply be that our science is the practice of understanding the world/universe/multiverse that was made by that deity. Science, in this regard, effectively becomes a branch of theology (for those who subscribe both to religion and the sciences). The science (as understood today) also doesn't change just because I may not believe in a creator god origin...I could believe in spontaneous existence or a non-deity "alien" creator and the measurement of forces and chemical compositions of substances remain the same, regardless.

To that end, a devout physicist or chemist or biologist is just plying their trade to understand the world they believe was made by their supposed creator. The hypothesis, measurements, and conclusions don't really care what the genesis of the subject was, we're just trying to understand what is in front of us.

I'm saying this as an agnostic secularist and not a practicing anything...as far as I know we have not disproven any possibility of a "creator god" with science, we've just gotten really really good at dissecting and explaining how (some) things in the natural world work...even if we can't always conclusively say where they came from, or why.

Perhaps you could try articulating your point more, then, rather than assuming it was so well stated it should not have been missed?

> In what world is that not virtually guaranteed to happen for somebody?

No, capitalism is merely the existence of capital. Capital is a very complex concept, but it can be easily understood as private property which exists only for the purpose of producing more capital. So, a ranch is a capitalist ranch if it's someone's private property. If there's an employer and employees (which only exist under capitalism, as lords and serfs only do under feudalism). If the employee produces someone else's property through their labor which is sold as capital for the sake of capital accumulation.

> Basically, you want to make all of that illegal, and you stand ready to deploy state violence to ensure none of it is allowed.

No. Simply the secession of state protection of private property through violence (such as through the police) makes the existence of private property impossible. It requires violence to preserve, not end.

> Not only is it going to have to enforce these prohibitions on capitalism, now without anybody else to do them, the state is going to have to provide all of these goods and services itself.

Again, no. Capitalism has to be preserved by a powerful state able to enclose land and protect property through the state apparatus. No it's not as easy as just getting rid of the state, nor is it as easy as what the USSR attempted (they killed anarchists along the way you know). I'd recommend maybe A Conquest of Bread for a more thorough explanation of what an anarchist society might look like and how we might get there. It's not such a small subject that a Reddit post can be sufficient.

Brutal inter-species dominance hierarchies pervade the natural world. E.g., the food chain. And brutal intra-species competition for resources and mates determines who eats, and who fucks.

The fact that I happen to be a human at the top of the food chain just makes me an exception that proves the rule. I dominate most of the rest of the natural world.

But even I don't dominate all of it. Bacteria are constantly attempting to dominate me and my fellow humans. And sometimes they win.

The author said that an anarchism without domination is natural. It is not.

You don’t have to accept it. Feel free to dispute it

Suggests that "we" is an distinguishable entity from our body and consciousness and not just an emergent one from our body and/or consciousness. Why should we believe that?

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit 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.

No it’s not. Keep missing though

the answrs wont make sense half the time. it would be useless to use chat gpt to complete a paper for a university course as depending on the subject, you have to cite sources, and the task may ask for ones opinion.

using Chat GPT to do homework would be kinda pointless, as students wouldnt really be learning how to write an essay. the answer chat gpt may give wont always make sense. if the student isnt using what they have learnt, then what was the point?

Freedom to say no. Autonomy.

Even Thomas Hobbes, who believed in the absolute authority of kings, believed they had to justify their authority. According to Chomsky Thomas Hobbes would be an anarchist. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t believe authority needs to be justified.

He gave examples of independent and self-reliant (learn and make better informed choices). It means you do not rely on anyone's favor or permission. A child or a slave are not independent and self-reliant. Having to pay for Internet access is not the same as being a slave or a child.

The author makes the point that “technology” is far too broad of a category to be considered an unmitigated good, and once you allow something through the door simply because it is higher technology you’re basically fucked.

Wars worth lays completely on the concept of its better after; that survival of one’s kin or nation or creed is something so profound that it is worth more then one’s mortal flesh. It is tied to the warrior’s imagined worth that his cause is just. In this game of right and wrong, the noblest of souls just run away, to place where iron isn’t made into pointed swords and daggers

Not that I have a single citation on hand but, Nietzsche is all about the creation of new values. The Overman is so, not because he has monstrous strength, but because he is the creator of his own values. He bounds over the sclerotic values contemporary to himself that seek to chain him. It sounds paradoxical, but in order to fully imbibe Nietzsche's philosophy on vitality, value creation, Overman, etc, you will eventually come to the point of having to overcome Nietzsche as well. Its been about 140 years since his writings and many philosophers have built upon, expanded, written in reference/contrast to Nietzsche. The most Nietzschean thing to do is to break free from the crystallized form that the discourse has taken.