-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

 
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
 

--
Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102