Noam Chomsky talks a lot about "Manufacturing Consent" (he wrote a book with this title). He says that in a democratic society you can't use force to control people, so you have to control them by controlling attitudes an opinions instead.

It works well, and the people of the United States are heavily controlled by the elite, who in this case are the corporations and the media companies they control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG5YTEOWCpE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kusAX4Th4N8

I tend to agree with Chomsky's views, but sometimes I feel he's too extreme and that makes him lose credibility. Maybe it's my misunderstanding, but he often sounds like there is a bunch of people, "the elite" that plan together how they are going to control the rest of the world. I see this instead as a natural, non-coordinated phenomenon caused by various powerful people trying to serve their self-interests.

If you read more of what he says, you'll find Chomsky says exactly this.

So you might summarise Chomsky's book as "some people are more persuasive than others"

Does he also say that these people may be powerful because they are persuasive?

I think it's more along the lines of they are persuasive because they are powerful. The golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Well of course they're persuasive because they are more powerful. That's the main theme (as I understand it) and agree.

I was suggesting the other way is true too.

It is easy to be persuasive when you are asking people to simply remain as they are: uninformed on important matters.

David Hume came to this conclusion in OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT (in the 1st paragraph).

people of the United States are heavily controlled by the elite is too simplistic and some "elites" make the world better.

Isn't "making the world better" a value judgment that can be shaped by your peers and by your environment, and also not mutually exclusive with making the world worse?

Thus, if an elite makes the world worse in my opinion by reducing diversity of competing opinions in mass media, they could use that platform to propagandize and publicize any philanthropic efforts they may also involve themselves with, such that your opinion of them is neutral or positive.

Do you derive from first principles what things would make the world better and then check to see who might be doing any of them, or do you hear about what certain people are doing, and then make value judgments on their public activity?

An example from the set of making the world better would be Bill Gates' foundation which is helping eradicate polio [0]. If that is not a good thing I give up.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20080414095646/http://www.polioe...

Giving these individual examples, anecdotes really, is even more simplistic in a sense. Within just about any social phenomenon, you can find examples of practices/effects that are incongruent, or even opposite, to the “main gist” of the phenomenon itself. It's really not about what any particular individual does at some particular time, it's about the collective effect a certain social group.

Of course, having the state of affairs as we currently have it, B&MGF's efforts are certainly to be saluted, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't contemplate and work towards a world where you don't need to depend on the good will of a billionaire to have a chance of people not dying of various preventable diseases; Or, indeed, even to recognize that such a state of affairs is unacceptable.

Bear in mind that the BMGF is a separate entity from Bill Gates and Melinda Gates, albeit nominally controlled by them. It may control funds that do not even come from the Gates family (most notably Warren Buffett).

It isn't clear to me that establishing yet another donor-advised trust is making the world a better place, and it seems to me as though the foundation funded by the trust is not taking action on its own initiative, but instead just giving money to those people and organizations who are already actually expending the effort in making the world a better place.

Yes, it is a good thing, but don't go overestimating the wattage of that halo on Bill Gates's head. I give most of the credit to the people who actually uproot their lives, go to Pakistan and similar environments, and try to administer vaccines to people who deeply mistrust their motives.

In what way is it too simplistic? Is it not correct? I don't think I commented on whether or not it's good. Though I happen to think we'd be better off with a more democratically organized society.

You are giving them too much credit, we live in a system of rules (loosely speaking) and it is these rules which have the power. In fact "elites" are probably more frustrated by them than the average citizen because they stumble onto them more quickly.

Who is too blame for advertising to children directly? Is it a few people? Probably not, in fact it brings in a lot of talented people, of whom each may in fact have a negative opinion of advertising to children when asked.

If you are talking about giant corps that can influence rule(s), then ok, but these are not individuals but are the stakeholders and can be large swaths of people.

We also compete to rise to the elite ranks, demote persons and families who prove themselves incompetent and boast a competent (a function of competition, in contrast to Europe) and diverse (a function of not killing each other, in contrast to China or Russia) elite.

I think the meaning of “elite” is clear from context here (i.e. C. Wright Mills' economic, government, and military elites). He certainly didn't mean elite academic mathematicians, etc.

As an independent/libertarian, I find this distinction lost on most democrats. Sadly, it seems they define people by income - thus the income inequality debate - which, among other confounding variables, completely ignores things like mobility.

This remark of yours is truly an ideological minefield!

I completely agree that the debate on income inequality and the resulting sorting of people is irrelevant. Income inequality itself is irrelevant, it's just an ideological misdirection. But, since you proclaim to be libertarian, I suppose you wouldn't agree with me on why it's irrelevant: it's being pushed to actually preserve overall capitalist relations. Sacrificing low taxes of a billionaire or two is a small price to pay to help the ruling class keep ruling. This is practically the central theme of Keynesian economics, and thus of a great deal of 20th century. The strategy is still extremely effective, and so in this election cycle we had good old Bernie Sanders act as an acceptable vent for social and economic discontent of working people by ranting about “the billionaire class”. To anyone not horribly politically illiterate (sadly American culture is generally grotesquely politically illiterate) it was painfully clear from the moment he entered the primaries how his “revolution” will end. So income inequality discourse not only does not help alleviate the problem, it maintains it.

Democrat-style liberalism is so effective because it's an ideological Escher drawing. To even start to explain why it's wrong (or even better: why it's not even wrong!) and even in many cases harmful, you have to rewind the arguments aaaall the way to first principles (let's ignore the likely case that then you end up with the problem of getting people to universally agree on a coherent set of first principles) while constantly being under the threat of being, 1930s Pravda style, denounced as pro bigger evil. As a friend of mine recently semi-jokingly said: “There are no bad guys, just a liberal hell in which all is mixed, a hell in which evil people do good things and good people live in a fantasy.”

As for mobility, there really isn't any significant mobility, this is empirical. Unless you count moving from lower middle to upper middle class (I'm not sure even that is a significant case, I just assume it is, but even then it's likely plastered with all kinds of demographic qualifiers). But still, income inequality in and of itself is not a cause of this, it's one of the symptoms, and not a particularly onerous one.

"The elites" are sure changed out a lot.

It's worthwhile thinking of advertising as a persuasion technology ( because that's what it is by definition ) and adjusting your expectations accordingly. A wise man once told me "If yer at a poker game and you don't know who the sucker is, you're it." Or, if you prefer, "Learn or be sold to."

It really helps a lot when you have huge swaths of the population that are simply stupid and you can turn them against minorities to further manipulate and control them. I think the US is far and ahead of all other nations in such means of control and has been employing it for hundreds of years. The difference now is that they have realized that they do not have to control all speech or even most speech and they do not have to use violence to suppress speech. It's a lot simpler to just mark people who the government doesn't agree with as conspiracy theorists or nut jobs and let the idiot masses discount them with their idiocy.

As an US citizen, I no longer salute that piece of cloth or sing the national anthem at sports games. I don't even bother standing for it and encourage others to do the same to show our distaste for how our own government treats us.

I was disgusted in the 2000's when being against the Iraq war was not only being flaunted unpatriotic but not supporting our troops. That's BS. I support our troops and would rather not have seen them deployed to conduct Cheney's bidding.

I will sign the petition and if some asshole gives me trouble at the border for it, so what? I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country. F them.

"If patriotism is 'the last refuge of a scoundrel,' it is not merely because evil deeds may be performed in the name of patriotism, but because patriotic fervor can obliterate moral distinctions altogether” ~ Ralph B. Perry

> I will sign the petition and if some asshole gives me trouble at the border for it, so what? I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country. F them.

I posted this reply earlier too, but figured I'd respond here also. The US government has, in the past, refused entry to US citizens. They do this not at the border, but at the foreign airport. Say you fly to Germany, and then try to come back. They'll tell the airline to refuse to board you, and then you're stuck there. Sure, if you managed to somehow reach a US land border, they would have to allow you in (after a lengthy interrogation, I imagine). But that's not very practical or economical.

That's exactly right, here's a real-world example:

But the worst cases are those like Long's: when the person is suddenly barred from flying when they are outside of the US, often on the other side of the world. As a practical matter, that government act effectively exiles them from their own country. "Obviously, I can't get to Oklahoma from Qatar if I can't fly," said Long. "Trying to take a boat would take weeks away from work just for the travel alone, and it's not affordable. If I can't fly, then I can't go back home."

- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/05/muslim...

This is most probably because no-fly list is a pile of steaming crap, they had Senators, Congressmen, military veterans, toddlers, etc. on the list. 99.99% it has nothing to do with this specific person (though of course not being a Senator, but being a Muslim from Qatar doesn't exactly help). It's not targeting, it's the opposite.

I'm not sure though why he couldn't fly to Mexico instead - is DHS no-fly list mandatory for other countries?

Fly to canada / mexico and then take a bus?

> As an US citizen, I no longer salute that piece of cloth or sing the national anthem at sports games. I don't even bother standing for it and encourage others to do the same to show our distaste for how our own government treats us.

The fact that you can do this and face no consequences says something about our freedoms though. At the very least we have a foundation that is worth taking the effort to improve.

"I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country"

they think otherwise. they rightfully own you and can do whatever they please with you. feel free to try to prove me wrong and not to sound like minuteman.

I think you are mistaking the resulting meta-consciousness created from the game theory in society and government with individual's based consciousness and some internal intent to deceive. While I would agree the government may try to deceive us, it does so by formally rationalizing government individual's actions as needed to "protect" us from threats. There is likely not one or two people "plotting" out what is happening. It's more probable that something like the angry meme phenomenon[1] has taken root in our government and is now attempting to isolate itself from harm. I think this came about because we tend to become fearful about things that may happen if we don't do X, Y and Z to stop them before they happen and those X, Y and Z things are now hard coded into our government and affecting the game theory around it. As a result, you get a meta-govt-conscious thing acting irrationally and making everyone very nervous as a result.

Or as Gene Belcher put it, "Everything is randomness and chaos."

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

>"... meta-consciousness created from the game theory"

Could you elaborate on what this is?

A Turing machine is a good example of a construct that is able to self reference and take action based on measurements. In a Turing machine, one can model other machines.

With human consciousness, this analogy would be applied to a "higher level" of consciousness forming around/on top of the human's interaction with that particular "thing" that allows the thing to take action on given metrics and share it among other consciousnesses which are in communication with it and assist with sustaining it's existence. In a business, for example, the game theory/model would govern the way the business makes money and the processes in which the company provides product or services to a customer which best ensure the future success of the company as an entity.

If the founders/influencers in the company approach building the model with the assumption the customer facing processes are mutable (which itself is dissonant in nature without customer approval), the resulting "consciousness" of the business might focus on building value by marketing means and acquisition (both viral based growth methods). This "intent" is then translated into the day to day processes required for raising additional awareness of the company's product in the market, again at the customer's cost. In extreme examples where such entities can survive long term, such as with the government, these intents may extend well beyond any intent by the individual's involved. I don't think anyone working for the government really wants to violate your privacy, but they are heavily influenced in their need to rationalize it given they wouldn't want the same thing happening to themselves, nor would they want fail at stopping a terrorist blowing up something on American soil. So, they make it "OK" to deal with personally, and the government entity is able to survive symbiotically with the host which is currently being kept in "stable" condition.

Richard Dawkins calls them memes, but they are likely capable of more complexity than we realize, given the somewhat substantiated claims in the video titled This Video Will Make You Angry on YouTube. It would also make a lot of sense if they worked toward escaping attention, given the awareness of them by the host is akin to inoculation.

>We salute the flag and sing the national anthem at games. We have the presidents' pictures on the walls of our classrooms. We chant "USA" at political rallies.

That does sound very authoritarian, honestly. Maybe that's why there are so many libertarians in the US - it's a reaction to the authoritarianism in American culture.

The word you're looking for is "nationalist", not "authoritarian". Authoritarianism is when you're commanded to do the stuff you quoted. Nationalism is when you do it of your free will or out of peer pressure from others who do it of their free will.

Nationalism is more insidious than authoritarianism. When you have an authoritarian government, you have an enemy you can clearly identify and the resistance feels morally justified. Resisting nationalism often elicits negative reactions, such as branding you as "unpatriotic" and such.

Except that this behavior is not indoctrinated by an "authoritarian" state, publishing you with death, but rather by a omni-present culture punishing you on social grounds.

IMO libertarianism that gives corporation more freedom than people, just make it easier for them to push through any legislation and "cultural propaganda"and they want, not so much solving this problem.

Which country would you suggest is the most free today? Not trolling, just wondering if I was going to move somewhere else, where would I go?

If you want freedom from government interference in your life, Somalia is still a pretty good bet.

And no, I am not being facetious. People like to think of freedom as a scalar, but it's actually a vector with complex interactions among its various dimensions, one of which is the government.

That said, I am absolutely signing the petition. Ed Snowden put a lot more on the line by blowing the whistle than I am by signing.

The question is not "most free from government", but "most free". It's like answering the question about which restaurant is most sanitary by suggesting to eat nothing at all - of course, you'll starve to death but at least no chance for food poisoning!

And you're wrong about Somalia btw: they do have a government, which collects taxes, introduces regulations and does all good government supposed to do, including corruption. [1][2][3]

> Ed Snowden put a lot more on the line by blowing the whistle than I am by signing.

Well, yeah, by signing you are putting absolutely nothing on the line so that's true :)

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5176102.stm

[2] http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2011/jan/17383/somalia_s_govern...

[3] http://goobjoog.com/english/?p=20975

You're right, the halcyon days of the 1990's, after the complete collapse of the Somali government, do seem to be drawing to a close. You might try Yemen or South Sudan.

Erm no.

In Somalia you do have a lot of government interference - you just have many smaller (wannebe) ones there, fighting against each other for power, vs. one big.

But "one big" vs "wannabe" is the defining characteristic of a government. The reason that Somalia is universally considered a failed state is precisely because it has many smaller wannabe governments fighting each other rather than one big government maintaining order.

And that is precisely my point: people think of freedom as a scalar, as the absence of constraints on their personal decision-making. But this is wrong. Your decisions are always constrained, if not by "government" (however you choose to define it) then by your fellow humans. And if not by your fellow humans (e.g. if you go live in the middle of Nunavut) then by the laws of physics.

That's exactly the scenario that would happen in a libertopia most libertarians describe - minimal government.

It's an incentive for other actors to try to imitate the role of government through other means.

Actually, not just Somalia - Africa is ripe with examples of these.

Power vacuums are not left unfilled for long.

Also, I've never met a "true" (in the sense that they tell you about it as soon as you talk to them) libertarian who isn't also a raging asshole.

But there are assholes on all points of the spectrum, so I'm not sure what that proves. :D

Depends on what kind of freedoms you are looking for. Many European countries, Germany for example, have better protections from law enforcement and crime. On the other hand free speech is more restricted by libel or hate speech directives.

The previous poster was correct - it depends on what sort of things will make you, personally, feel free.

I wound up in Norway, and find a certain freedom here. I don't mind the taxes and such, and I rather enjoy the general equality in opportunity sort of thing. I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable (though it might make it harder to find work). But other Americans here simply hate it and can't wait to wind up going back to the states.

The best bet is if you have some choices in the matter - and know it - join some groups with other americans living there and talk to them about their experiences there.

> I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable

This is also absolutely true in US. Of course, that differs whether you're trying to be a graphic designer or a banker or a trial lawyer. Blue-haired trial lawyer probably would raise more eyebrows.

I was lucky enough to work at a pharmacy that didn't mind the bright hair in the US, but heard a good number of folks lament their employers wouldn't allow such things. I always found it somewhat sad.

Don't get me wrong, there are still some quirks with it here, but it isn't the same sort of hindrance as it was in the states.

It's kind of cool that there are so many different countries with different variables and that some people are fortunate enough to be able to pick the one that suits them best.

Homogeny in this case would actually be a bad thing.

The Heritage Foundation published its Index of Economic Freedom[1], which tracks various factors for many nations. While not a direct analog to personal liberty, economic freedom certainly is something to strive for.

Take a look for yourself and see if their rankings make sense.

[1]: http://www.heritage.org/index/

You can't even chew gum in Singapore. Australia probably is free if you are not an Aboriginal. Hong Kong Free as long as China doesn't want you. This list is crazy. The free countries are probably all third world but then people are free to literally eat you without punishment.

It's the economic freedom index, not personal liberties index.

It is an economic freedom index from a conservative American organization's point of view, actually. Part of the metric is government spending: Another portion rates laws about firing folks, minimum wages, and other such things.

It is unfortunate that the heritage organization is one of conservative leanings and that their chart is definitely skewed in that manner. This chart is really helpful if you think high government spending or having small government is a marker of your personal freedom, economic or otherwise.

I'm not: I'm all for government health care, government supported time off work for sickness or children, and other such things. These push up government spending, but yet can mean freedom from financial burden. When I consider what I paid for health care in the US, the tax rate isn't a big deal at all. For my personal economy, i'm actually more free because I don't have to plan for being sick and going broke from it - I gained some economic stability.

Also interesting is the "labor freedom" metric - basically, laws making it more difficult to fire folks and things of that nature. While there are occasionally downsides to this, it also means there is a sense of job security. If your personal beliefs are such that this is a hinderance, it might be a bad thing, but I suspect most folks would find this to mean more actual economic freedom because there aren't so many surprises to plan for.

I seriously doubt that Singapore is even in the top ten for personal liberty, much less #2. I have heard good things about their economic policies though.

High freedom from corruption in Chile, a country whose government is essentially a kleptocracy? Yeah, I would take that with a hefty dose of sodium-chloride.

Canada?

"The Legatum Prosperity Index" (1), states that: "Canada is now the freest (sic) country in the world, having risen five places to 1st in the Personal Freedom sub-index." (2)

see this also. "Freedom in the World 2015" (3)

1. http://www.prosperity.com/

2. http://www.prosperity.com/#!/headline-findings

3. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-...

The Nordic countries probably. Throw in Holland or Germany maybe. Another commenter said there's a bit less room for speech and press but you you're not constant target of police and government. Sounds accurate. It's what I was considering thinking of U.S.'s recent elections plus me being on their shitlist.

They say Switzerland is not too bad. Good luck getting their citizenship though.

Iceland maybe?

Hard to move to as a non-native speaker though.

Yeah, destruction of evidence and seafood smuggling are just everyday activities.

(those are both real examples from the book...whether there was a great deal of intent in the lobster tail case is disputed, but it was a pattern of shipments involving thousands and thousands of pounds of tails)

I've read the book and I agree that a lot of it concentrates on cases which are rather unusual for a common person. Not all of it though.

E.g. evidence rules mean you can be committing a felony just by deleting an email that some prosecutor may consider important - even if you haven't been under investigation at the time. And you can be investigated for things as simple as depositing sums under $10000 in the bank on routing course of business - just because it looks like "structuring". And you can also be prosecuted if you make any false statement to a government employee, no matter if it relates to any crime.

hacker news is becoming crazier every day