Chapman and Chomsky Discussions on Human Civilization

Splitting Hairs with Dr. Chomsky, I think the biggest difference between us is that I am a benevolent anarcho-capitalist (one who seeks private ownership in a non-corporate structure, giving from the heart), while Dr. Chomsky is a philosophical anarcho-syndicalist (one who seeks group ownership of the means of production but currently sees merit in the state conception of life).

We are both philosophical anarchists (those who muse about how to get to zero state from here but not prepared to do harm in the process). We are both like the proverbial brain surgeon, who seeks to separate conjoined twins without maiming or killing one or both.

We both oppose corporate capitalism, crony capitalism, just about every capitalism; however, I support a stateless competitive capitalism, a capitalism that is not a corporation/ state monopoly.

-----------------------------------

Dr. Chomsky's Reply:  

I am glad that you are a benevolent person who believes in giving from the heart.

But that has nothing to do with the merits of anarcho-capitalism, a radically anti-libertarian conception.

I have no idea what you mean by “state conception of life”.

---------------------------

Hello Dr. Chomsky:

1)  Well, "state conception of life" comes right out of the pages of Tolstoy's book, "The Kingdom Of God Is Within You."  His state conception of life is the oath-centric conception of life, wherein a group takes some magical control of the individual to go to war, vote taxes upon individuals, etc.

2)  The Kingdom, as I understand it, is a 'libertarian stateless society driven by your conscience.'  

3)  I do see how anarcho-capitalism could be co-opted by power structures that would counter libertarianism.  People would have to be truth-centric and non-violent in the most Gandhian/ Christian sense to justify a move to this benevolent anarcho-capitalist form of human society.  We are a long way off.

4)  I was watching you on youtube explaining Anarchism, and I being more definition driven, as I am, look at you more as a minarchist seeking zero:  philosophical anarchist.  You don't seem like Larken Rose, for example, who advocates for immediate abolition of the state without consideration to what it might tear apart. Gandhiji was a "philosophical anarchist,"  so you are in good company, I think. 

The individual has obligations to the collective under your anarcho-syndicalism that I find very un-libertarian. (To define, I suggest libertarianism is the belief that individual liberty is the highest human possibility.  From it, we may find our optimum life here on earth and seek out for ourselves what may me optimum for us.) Anarcho-syndicalism (stateless unions) suggests that I must go to an elder like you, for example, to get the keys to the communal truck to do my work each morning.  Because your system is not free market, human production being centrally planned, I am constrained to get the key to the truck in some long line of reasoning each day to do my job.  Very inefficient. Inefficiency kills people.  

A stateless union, operating as a group to bid on mowing my 20 acres out near El Paso, would be free market and a fine concept to use in my optimum human civilization.  However, if one man or woman wants to bid that same job, while it may take longer, they should have that right.  You may say that I am pro-union and anti-state. 

5)  My book is due in from the printer any moment.  I do thank both you and Dr. Cornel West in the front for you guidance. I'd be happy to forward you a free copy for your examination of my proposed societal structures. 

Most respectfully,

Gene K. Chapman

The Man Who Broke The Silence.