Noam Chomsky versus Sam Harris

I have contacted Sam Harris through his site to discuss his meta-ethical example of the chess game. I’ll try to avoid this abstract and philosophical debate here, untill he has replied. I can accept he’s busy. I only mention this, so I won’t get a cease-and-desist for quoting almost an entire chapter from his (though outdated) book. First give me a reply Mr Harris! I’ve never mailed or contacted Noam Chomsky because I feel he’s busy enough, I have too many of his books to read first and he’s old (so I assume his time is too precious).
I’m also looking forward to reading Harris’ new book “Lying”. So far, he seems to be against it: “Even with Nazis at the door and Anne Frank in the attic, Howard [teacher of “The Ethical Analyst", the course Harris was taking] always seemed to find truths worth telling and paths to even greater catastrophe that could be opened by lying”. In the End of Faith, his utilitarian approach of equating do and allowing (which I agree with in principle mind you) is illustrated with Peter Unger, who “made a persuasive case that a single dollar spent on anything but the absolute essentials of our survival is a dollar that has some starving child’s blood on it.” (footnoting: P. Unger, Living High & Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996). Wikipedia (I admit not reading Unger’s book, because I agree as I already stipulated) says: “Unger argues that for people in the developed world to live morally, they are morally obliged to make sacrifices to help mitigate human suffering and premature death in the third world, and further that it is acceptable (and morally right) to lie, cheat, and steal to mitigate suffering”. Obviously, Harris either took the course after he wrote the End of Faith, or he’s using Unger to make a point. The point being that “intentions matter” (making Harris, at most, a rule-utilitarian; the rule being intentions matter, but letting people die is a bad intention and shouldn’t be a rule). However, as Chomsky points out in a conference (to be found on youtube, but I don’t think I need proof to make this general anarchist critique -if you find it; contact me, save me the hassle of looking it up myself and I’ll edit this part-), Hitchens (the war) and Harris are state apologists. I’ll quote Harris in the End of Faith: “But we are, in many respects, just such a “well-intentioned giant.” And it is rather astonishing that intelligent people, like Chomsky and Roy, fail to see this”. I’m currently reading Stephen Jay Gould’s book “The Mismeasure of Man” and most recently “The White Man’s Burden” of Rudyard Kipling was quoted. I don’t think I need to quote the entire poem of the response of Teddy Roosevelt (writing to Henry Cabot Lodge).
The next section of Harris’ book discusses “Perfect Weapons and the Ethics of “Collateral Damage”.
“Consider the all too facile comparisons that have recently been made between George Bush and Saddam Hussein (or Osama bin Laden, or Hitler, etc.)—in the pages of writers like Roy and Chomsky, in the Arab press, and in classrooms throughout the free world”. These “facile comparisons” are what most moral philosophers call “universality”. As Chomsky puts it:”That’s not what I was saying. The statement of mine that you just quoted is a very conservative statement, in fact it was articulated by George Bush’s favorite philosopher, Jesus Christ, who famously defined the notion of a hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person who focuses on the other fellow’s crimes and refuses to look at his own. That’s the definition of hypocrite by George Bush’s favorite philosopher. When I repeat that I’m not taking a radical position. I’m taking a position that is just elementary morality”. Harris continues “What would Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden do with perfect weapons? What would Hitler have done? They would have used them rather differently”. As if these people have a bloodlust and would not try to attain global domination/hegemony if it could be done without needless killing. They are the unhumans, it would seem. To claim the same of our leaders, is the make a mockery of democracy. However, if this is the argument which Harris proposes (and it’s not clear he does), then we are all indeed complicit in the crimes of our leaders and nobody in those towers was innocent. As the terrorists claim. I’d rather go with the analysis that half of the US population doesn’t even vote because “it doesn’t matter”. Of course, Harris claims they’re not crimes. They’re collateral damage. We just haven’t found the perfect weapon yet. But if our enemy had it, he would cause needless bloodshed. I won’t defend Islam. In fact, whenever I meet a believer of anything, I’ll discuss untill they kindly run away:”Any honest witness to current events will realize that there is no moral equivalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the internecine violence that is perpetrated by Muslim militants, or indeed by Muslim governments. Chomsky seems to think that the disparity either does not exist or runs the other way”. As if The Troubles were settled with atheists from the Continent and their critique of what was happening in between Europe and America. Perhaps this is a false comparison, but it’s the first one that came to mind and seems plausible enough. I invite you to explain in the comments what’s wrong with it and I’ll come up with a new one if needed. Perhaps I don’t need to. The very next paragraph in Harris’ work relates to Saddam’s rule (so faith seems to be false enemy, it’s secular rule by a mob style ganster and his posse):”Consider the recent conflict in Iraq: If the situation had been reversed, what are the chances that the Iraqi Republican Guard, attempting to execute a regime change on the Potomac, would have taken the same degree of care to minimize civilian casualties? What are the chances that Iraqi forces would have been deterred by our use of human shields? (What are the chances we would have used human shields?) What are the chances that a routed American government would have called for its citizens to volunteer to be suicide bombers ? What are the chances that Iraqi soldiers would have wept upon killing a carload of American civilians at a checkpoint unnecessarily? You should have, in the ledger of your imagination, a mounting column of zeros”. To answer the questions: 1) If they had the same military might, it might not have been so different. But I can’t say with the same certitude as Harris, because we don’t live anywhere near that kind of society. 2) Perhaps they’ve seen more misery than our volunteer army (called mercenary army by Chomsky) and they’ve lost all humanity. 3) Israel seems to be a good case study of doing more with less. They do use human shields. I’ve seen the pictures (teens on the hoods of cars, younger childeren in front of IDF forces). But this questions was in parenthesis. Pure rhetoric and deserves no response as none was expected. 4) Suicide missions only seem to exist in the movie version of the US Army. Marines never leave a man behind, so the issue doesn’t arise. However, if the military is broken and citizens are needed to bomb the enemy, I’m sure they’ll have to risk their lives too. 5) I’m not sure the tearducts or Iraqi soldiers are unable to function. We hear the same stories from anti-war soldiers returning from Iraq. The story being that most of the company don’t care that much about Iraqis and it’s hard to get these stories out. Hate breeds more hate. Being in the war won’t make ‘them’ better people. It’ll make ‘us’ worse. 0) This is the only zero. I’m sorry Sam, but I have some imagination. Harris continues to claim “But you would not know this from reading Chomsky. For him, intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all”. From reading Chomsky I get the feeling he’s saying the intentions of the population matters and if the population votes to go to war, maybe we should. Body count is relevant. ‘Liberals’ often take about the cost of war, never mentioning the human cost. He’s trying to side-step this “It’s moral, but we’re doing it wrong and it’s costing us too much money” discourse. He seems to be a ‘better’ utilitarian. Nevertheless, as a child of the Enlightement, Chomsky sees Kant as an extension of Hume and Mill and all those guys as one great tradition. He does not claim intentions are not important. He merely points out that geo-political interests (eg. oil) are often the true motivation and noble excuses are thought of later. Intentions are important for Chomsky when, say, he defends attacking fascism in the ’40′s after the fall of anarchism in the ’30′s. But Harris seems to be a libertarian and has his own ideological filter. One that allows for a Pax Americana it would seem. Or as he puts it:”We are now living in a world that can no longer tolerate wellarmed, malevolent regimes. Without perfect weapons, collateral damage—the maiming and killing of innocent people—is unavoidable”.

Second part of fiction

We always believe the masses were ignorant and the rulers unjust. But we now know better. There are no more rulers, yet everybody remains equally devoid of any sense of justice. Including the masses, whom were now everywhere and nowhere, had known for some time now what the problems were. To claim that they should have made radical changes, is to deny their humanity and the social and biological conditions we were faced with. But that’s all over. The radical change has occurred. A revolution, if that means a saltational evolution in the reverse direction. Even though it’s very clear that there was no direction. No progress, no obvious horizon.
It wasn’t always like this. But there’s no going back. We’ve gone back. In so many ways it has become unlikely… – nay – impossible, to revert to that ancient state of degradation. We have entered a new phase. Unwilling, yet fully conscious.

“Please, no more. This is torture”. The man nearest to me was visibly fatigued. After the exorbitant act of asking somebody to do something else -in this case me- than what they were doing, others nodded in agreement; only tempered by their shyness and sense of guilt to tell a dying human what to do. But we were all dying and I felt no sense of entitlement to say out loud what all already knew. They had gathered here precisely to make the last hours of their lives count, not the analyze themselves into a depression. When death is so imminent, there’s no longer any time for sadness.

We marched on. Leaving this group behind. Or so we thought. I talked aloud endlessly and my companions said very little of this habit. Ignoring my ramblings and being visibly enerved by some rants, they’d tell me to “be quiet for a moment”, but almost always because silence was needed to proceed. Never because the sounds I was making made a semantic impact. The meaning was already known to everybody. I was just contemplating out loud.

“Haboob!”, several exclaimed simultaneously. We saw the sandstorm in the horizon, rolling over the distant hill. It wasn’t going straight for us, but we were heading straight for it. There was no real cover to speak of and a sense of duty informed our actions to head back and help the others if they were still alive. They weren’t. By the time we had reached them, the sandstorm had passed outside our radius and they were all dead for all intents and purposes. That that there were many purposes left to help you motivate your intentions. We gathered all supplies we could find. But our group was over twice their size and they only planned on waiting to die for a couple of days. Needless to say there weren’t a lot of supplies to be found.

The cadavers made my companions uneasy and they wished to return to the city. There were plenty of people their in comparison, most of whom were alive. Unable to choose novelty over nostalgia, I remained silent and followed the group back to what seemed familiar, but had become as alien as the rest of the environment. To say I wanted to experience the rest of the world, to meet new people, would have been a fallacious statement. I kept my companions for the same reasons they headed back to the city dwellers. That is to say, I followed them and they me. To keep has lost its significance. It’s all so ephemeral. So finite. So very, very short. We did not tolerate each other out of some sense of justice. It was compassion and a lack of wanting to be just. For it was to cruel and vengeful. It was too late. The human race has reached to finish line. There’s no point in trying to be first, last, fastest or anything like that. Perhaps kindest. People remained kind and those who were kind were treated kindly. But how cynical it is to be kind to a member of a dying species. If we didn’t know better, we’d console one another with lies. Knowing the end is near and there’s no reason to be upset. The people who became upset were far too homo- and suicidal to have lasted this long anyway. We were free to do what we want, but nobody knew what they should want. All hope is gone now and people just want to be alive until they die. To hope for more is hubris.

Anarchism

Chomsky

Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.

3. What sort of conception of human nature is anarchism predicated on? Would people have less incentive to work in an egalitarian society? Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? Would democratic decision-making result in excessive conflict, indecision and “mob rule”?
As I understand the term “anarchism,” it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on.
Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, a kind of pathology, I believe, like the kind of pathology that leads some to take pleasure from torturing others. Those who find reasonable the classical liberal doctrine that the impulse to engage in creative work is at the core of human nature — something we see constantly, I think, from children to the elderly, when circumstances allow — will be very suspicious of these doctrines, which are highly serviceable to power and authority, but seem to have no other merits.
Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don’t know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed — there are many possibilities — to overcome this crime.
What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let’s try it and find out.

Rudolf Rocker

I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.
The London Years (1956)

We have come more and more under the dominance of mechanics and sacrificed living humanity to the dead rhythm of the machine without most of us even being conscious of the monstrosity of the procedure. Hence we frequently deal with such matters with indifference and in cold blood as if we handled dead things and not the destinies of men.

Constant tutelage of our acting and thinking has made us weak and irresponsible; hence, the continued cry for the strong man who is to put an end to our distress. This call for a dictator is not a sign of strength, but a proof of inner lack of assurance and of weakness, even though those who utter it earnestly try to give themselves the appearance of resolution.

Anarchism recognises only the relative significance of ideas, institutions, and social conditions. It is, therefore not a fixed, self enclosed social system, but rather a definite trend in the historical development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative, not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to broaden its scope and to affect wider circles in manifold ways. For the Anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all capacities and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. The less this natural development of man is interfered with by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more efficient and harmonious will human personality become, the more will it become the measure of the intellectual culture of the society in which it has grown.
Ch. 1 “Anarchism: Its Aims and Purposes”

Even revolutions can only develop and mature the germs which already exist and have made their way into the consciousness of men; they cannot themselves create these germs or create new worlds out of nothing.

Modern Anarcho-Syndicalism is a direct continuation of those social aspirations which took shape in the bosom of the First International and which were best understood and most strongly held by the libertarian wing of the great workers’ alliance.
Ch. 4 “The Objectives of Anarcho-syndicalism”

The peoples owe all the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser measure, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own strength.

This work is intended as fiction and is to bear no resemblance to reality.

There was nothing left. Nothing of value. After the crash.

I told them I used to live there and they asked me how. I didn’t know. I lied. I said the government provided for me. It provided for everybody. That what it was there for. Before. Before the crash.

They taxed the rich and that was enough, I explained. Enough for me to live here that is. The middle of the city. People close enough to provide for each other. All within walking distance. Able to provide the services needed to have some honor. Honor had become important again. And was distributed via the computing power the remaining technology had provided. The programs only worked with an equal playing field and we got it. Our history erased, our memories lost, our culture destroyed.

It had become a meritocracy. Not a democratic society, not a sudden apocalypse, no more violence, none of it. Life was too short and we’re all that’s left. “Is that why you take care of us?”, they asked. I shook my head, shoulders and body. It was a strange response to combine it all. I said nothing. I should have said, “Who says you’re not taking care of me?”. But I didn’t. And it never happened. A lost chance. One among many.

Though, perhaps, not that many.

I always thought the end of times, if it were to happen, would be an egalitarian society. Something we’d accomplished. We’d distributed everything fairly. But fair had become a different things. Sure, after the riots (and they were smal in scale compared to the significance of the event) there was no more violence. None. That was surely a good thing. It wasn’t demanded. Not be force. Perhaps by fear. Or worse, apathy. People had stopped caring enough to be willing to kill. Life had become finite and too precious. I say precious because it had a price. It was easily calculable now. There are X people. We don’t know how many there were. We know there will be no more people. We know what we have. There’s no more virtual economy. There’s no more real economy.

First there were news reports about bombs and murders and disasters. It all seemed normal. Nothing suspicious about that. But it was the last news we had before it all really went bad. After the internet pretty much broke down, electricity soon followed. There was screw ups in the food supply and soon everybody who wasn’t growing their own plants was dead. It all happened so fast. The disasters piled up and nature wasn’t pretty after our fragile last fragment of ecomanagement crumbled. The floods. I’ll never forget the floods. The floated around. I picked them up. We’ve been together since. It was touch and go there for a while. Where did that phrase originate from? I never bothered to learn. Good thing perhaps. None of the planes can fly anymore. None that depend on fuel anyway. Or can’t handle a decent storm now and then. The humidity was inhuman. It was always humid now. I looked at the building and realized that if I’d live there now, it would never be as it once was. Besides, the person who lived there now deserved it. I deserve a lot, but this was a little too lucky to be honest. We walked away. Too many building have collapsed in the city. With the quakes and the rats, we may as well leave and had for the nearest town. It would be difficult, no doubt.

The remaining people had huddled together and every nucleus of Peoples that remained had gathered all material wealth. Entire trucks of non-contaminated earth was brought in with the remaining bio-fuel. We couldn’t get to the fossil anymore. It was all gone, outside of reach. Since then, we’ve not had a chance to exploit our surroundings. We’ve failed as a race. Well, as the human race. The little race that could. A rat race. They’re the only ones that could have survived us. But they didn’t. Our lab rats were released and a success. Artificial animals, though not born alive, were among us for a long time. But to survive and adapt in this climate, they soon become movable molds. Clinging to whatever wasn’t blown away by the winds. It wasn’t the smell that bothered me. It was the air. It became hard to breath when they were around. Whenever humans were around too, but never that bad. And it was always worth it. If things still have value. But they don’t. They can’t. We moved on. A village with some people remaining had decided that all were equally worthy. They had no outside contact, so they were entitled to do so. Provided they didn’t need providing. But that meant death. Perhaps they were right. A quick death. They couldn’t have lived over a month after we passed through. It was impossible to survive without help. We asked how long they thought they’d last. A couple of days, a week tops they responded. They were all so calm about it. Everybody was, I suppose. There’s nothing to panic about anymore. It ends with us.

The West Wing: Big Block of Cheese Day

TOBY

[enters] Excuse me. I was waylaid.

C.J.

By what?

TOBY

30,000 tourists.

LARRY

You know, the protesters.

TOBY

No, don’t call them protesters, I’ve seen better organized crowds at the DMV.

LEO

Two tons this block of cheese weighed…

TOBY

[still muttering] In my day, we knew how to protest.

C.J.

What day was that?

TOBY

1968.

JOSH

How the hell old were you when you were protesting?

TOBY

My sisters took me. [staffers chuckle] Anybody have a problem with that?

LEO

No one has a problem with that.

TOBY

The police are always seven steps ahead of them. The cops know exactly where they’re

going to be and what’s going to happen. You know how they know? By logging onto their

website. We had the underground. We had rapid response.

C.J.

And by God, you were home by supper on a school night.

TOBY

These people are amateurs. What’s my assignment?

LEO

Meeting with the amateurs.

TOBY

Huh?

LEO

World Policy Studies is having a forum… there’ll be about a hundred of them.

TOBY

Doing what?

LEO

Listening to you conduct a free exchange of ideas.

TOBY

Really?

LEO

Josh thinks it’s a good idea.

TOBY

Oh well, if Josh thinks it’s a good idea, then you bet, I’ll do it.

LEO

Look…

TOBY

What else is there?

C.J.

I’ve got Cartographers for Social Equality.

JOSH

So, now you have two choices… meeting with an unruly mob or meeting with lunatic

mapmakers.

TOBY

Or getting paid a lot more money working almost anywhere else I want.

LEO

Seriously, Toby, there’ll be security there. But still…

TOBY

What about press?

C.J.

Just wires.

TOBY

No, I mean T.V.

C.J.

No cameras.

TOBY

You negotiated that?

C.J.

Yeah.

TOBY

They agreed to it?

C.J.

You want to make out with me right now, don’t you?

TOBY

Well, when don’t I?

—

CUT TO: EXT. WASHINGTON, D.C. – DAY

The protesters are on the sidewalks, yelling. Toby is sitting in a car, whistling. The

car stops, and he rolls the window down.

TOBY

Toby Ziegler.

OFFICER

Yeah.

Toby continues whistling as he gets out of car.

CUT TO: INT. BUILDING – CONTINUOUS

RHONDA SACHS, another police officer, is standing by the door.

OFFICER

[over radio] Rhonda, this guy coming in is Toby Ziegler.

SACHS

Copy that.

Toby enters.

SACHS

Mr. Ziegler?

TOBY

Yes, ma’am.

SACHS

Rhonda Sachs. They asked me to make sure you go home in one piece.

TOBY

You fully trained?

SACHS

Yes.

TOBY

How many different ways you know how to kill a man?

SACHS

How many different ways do I need?

TOBY

I like you.

SACHS

Thank you.

TOBY

Officer Sachs?

SACHS

Yeah?

TOBY

It’s going to be a day at the beach.

—

FADE IN: INT. A SMALL AUDITORIUM – DAY

The protesters are gathered, yelling. Toby and Rhonda are on stage in the front.

TOBY

Fire your gun.

SACHS

I can’t fire a warning shot indoors.

TOBY

No, I mean fire at them. [beat] Just kidding.

TOBY

[to lead protester Webber] Hey, Solzhenitsyn. Come here. You’re the group leader?

TERRY WEBBER

Yeah, I am. I’m Terry Webber.

TOBY

You know what you did today that was really stupid? You gave away the cameras. With

cameras in here I’ve got a problem ‘cause I don’t want to look like I can’t control

the crowd. Without the cameras, I can sit here, read the sports section for two hours,

walk outside and say we talked. So, if you guys want to talk, that’s fine. But you’re

in charge of crowd control, know what I’m saying?

WEBBER

Yeah. [over bullhorn] Folks. People, let’s listen up.

The yelling subsides.

TOBY

Good morning… [microphone doesn’t work, raises voice] Good morning, my name is Toby

Ziegler and I’m the White House Communications Director and a senior domestic policy

advisor to the President.

PROTESTER 1

Advise him we need clean air more than free trade!

Yelling begins again.

PROTESTER 2

How many 12-year-olds made your shoes, Toby!?

GROUP

Global justice now! Global justice now! Global justice now!

TOBY

[to Sachs] You want to send out for pizza or something?

GROUP

Global justice now! Global justice now!

Toby sits down with a newspaper and puts his feet on the table.

—

CUT TO: INT. WORLD POLICY AUDITORIUM – DAY

The crowd is still yelling. Toby and Rhonda are at a table on stage.

WEBBER

[to protesters] Look, I’m not saying that we’re going to like their answers. I’m saying

we’re going to give him a chance to talk. Now if you do have a question…

PROTESTER 4

Yeah, my question is who elected his boss the people or Kaiser-Permanente?

PROTESTER 5

He’s not my President, let’s vote.

PROTESTER 6

Who do you really work for?

More yelling.

SACHS

[to Toby] You’re having a pretty good time, aren’t you?

TOBY

Well, it’s not like being at a Yankee game.

PROTESTER 7

You suck!

TOBY

Well, actually… [chuckles] Yeah, it’s like being at a Yankee game.

SACHS

So, Toby?

TOBY

Officer?

SACHS

Since you’re not really doing anything right now, I was wondering, what’s this all about?

TOBY

It’s about the WTO, Rhonda, the World Trade Organization.

SACHS

Well, I get that from the signs and the newspapers.

TOBY

The World Trade Organization’s a group of 140 countries who have agreed to specific trade

policies.

SACHS

So, what’s wrong with that?

TOBY

Nothing’s wrong with that.

SACHS

What would they say if I asked them the same question?

TOBY

They’d say the WTO benefits corporations and not people.

SACHS

Does it?

TOBY

Benefits both. [pause] Look at them.

SACHS

Yeah.

TOBY

Philistines.

SACHS

Take my nightstick and go kick their ass.

TOBY

Yeah, make all the jokes you want but let me tell you something they claim to speak for

the underprivileged but here in the blackest city in America, I’m looking at a room with

no black faces. No Asians, No Hispanics. Where the hell’s the Third World they claim to

represent?

SACHS

Lot of Third-Worlders in the Cabinet Room today, were there?

TOBY

You’re starting to bother me.

SACHS

That’s ‘cause I’m armed.

TOBY

No, I like that. [pause] I’m going outside.

The crowd continues yelling.

—

CUT TO: INT. WASHINGTON, D.C. STREET – DAY

The protesters are shouting.

TOBY

It’s activist vacation is what it is. Spring break for anarchist wannabes. The black

t-shirts, the gas masks as fashion accessories.

SACHS

These kids today, with the hair and the clothes…

TOBY

All right, that’s it, flatfoot.

SACHS

I got great feet.

TOBY

You want the benefits of free trade? Food is cheaper.

SACHS

Yes.

TOBY

Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are cheaper, phone service

is cheaper. You feel me building a rhythm here? That’s ‘cause I’m a speechwriter and I

know how to make a point.

SACHS

Toby…

TOBY

It lowers prices, it raises income. You see what I did with ‘lowers’ and ‘raises’ there?

SACHS

Yes.

TOBY

It’s called the science of listener attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites

and now you end with the one that’s not like the others. Ready? Free trade stops wars. And

that’s it. Free trade stops wars! And we figure out a way to fix the rest! One world, one

peace. I’m sure I’ve seen that on a sign somewhere.

SACHS

God, Toby… Wouldn’t it be great if there was someone around here with communication skills

who could go in there and tell them that?

TOBY

Shut up.

Josh enters through the police line.

JOSH

Toby…

TOBY

What are you doing here?

JOSH

Came down to see how it was going. [to Sachs] How’s it going? Josh Lyman.

SACHS

Rhonda Sachs.

JOSH

Any trouble?

SACHS

No.

TOBY

[raises his hand] Josh. The WTO is undemocratic, and accountable to no one, decisions

are made by Executive Directors and the developing world has little to say about

institutional policy.

JOSH

What was that?

TOBY

I protested to you.

JOSH

Why?

TOBY

‘Cause I’m not allowed to get arrested anymore.

JOSH

Let’s go back.

TOBY

No, I hate these people with the heat of a nova. Yet here I go.

SACHS

Attaboy.

TOBY

Shut up.

SACHS

I got your back, man, you know? Or not.

All three enter the building.

TOBY [enters] Excuse me. I was waylaid.
C.J. By what?
TOBY 30,000 tourists.
LARRY You know, the protesters.
TOBY No, don’t call them protesters, I’ve seen better organized crowds at the DMV.
LEO Two tons this block of cheese weighed…
TOBY [still muttering] In my day, we knew how to protest.
C.J. What day was that?
TOBY 1968.
JOSH How the hell old were you when you were protesting?
TOBY My sisters took me. [staffers chuckle] Anybody have a problem with that?
LEO No one has a problem with that.
TOBY The police are always seven steps ahead of them. The cops know exactly where they’re going to be and what’s going to happen. You know how they know? By logging onto their website. We had the underground. We had rapid response.
C.J. And by God, you were home by supper on a school night.
TOBY These people are amateurs. What’s my assignment?
LEO Meeting with the amateurs.
TOBY Huh?
LEO World Policy Studies is having a forum… there’ll be about a hundred of them.
TOBY Doing what?
LEO Listening to you conduct a free exchange of ideas.
TOBY Really?
LEO Josh thinks it’s a good idea.
TOBY Oh well, if Josh thinks it’s a good idea, then you bet, I’ll do it.
LEO Look…
TOBY What else is there?
C.J. I’ve got Cartographers for Social Equality.
JOSH So, now you have two choices… meeting with an unruly mob or meeting with lunatic mapmakers.
TOBY Or getting paid a lot more money working almost anywhere else I want.
LEO Seriously, Toby, there’ll be security there. But still…
TOBY What about press?
C.J. Just wires.
TOBY No, I mean T.V.
C.J. No cameras.
TOBY You negotiated that?
C.J. Yeah.
TOBY They agreed to it?
C.J. You want to make out with me right now, don’t you?
TOBY Well, when don’t I?
—
CUT TO: EXT. WASHINGTON, D.C. – DAYThe protesters are on the sidewalks, yelling. Toby is sitting in a car, whistling. The car stops, and he rolls the window down.
TOBY Toby Ziegler.
OFFICER Yeah.
Toby continues whistling as he gets out of car.
CUT TO: INT. BUILDING – CONTINUOUSRHONDA SACHS, another police officer, is standing by the door.
OFFICER [over radio] Rhonda, this guy coming in is Toby Ziegler.
SACHS Copy that.
Toby enters.
SACHS Mr. Ziegler?
TOBY Yes, ma’am.
SACHS Rhonda Sachs. They asked me to make sure you go home in one piece.
TOBY You fully trained?
SACHS Yes.
TOBY How many different ways you know how to kill a man?
SACHS How many different ways do I need?
TOBY I like you.
SACHS Thank you.
TOBY Officer Sachs?
SACHS Yeah?
TOBY It’s going to be a day at the beach.
—
FADE IN: INT. A SMALL AUDITORIUM – DAYThe protesters are gathered, yelling. Toby and Rhonda are on stage in the front.
TOBY Fire your gun.
SACHS I can’t fire a warning shot indoors.
TOBY No, I mean fire at them. [beat] Just kidding.
TOBY [to lead protester Webber] Hey, Solzhenitsyn. Come here. You’re the group leader?
TERRY WEBBER Yeah, I am. I’m Terry Webber.
TOBY You know what you did today that was really stupid? You gave away the cameras. With cameras in here I’ve got a problem ‘cause I don’t want to look like I can’t control the crowd. Without the cameras, I can sit here, read the sports section for two hours, walk outside and say we talked. So, if you guys want to talk, that’s fine. But you’re in charge of crowd control, know what I’m saying?
WEBBER Yeah. [over bullhorn] Folks. People, let’s listen up.
The yelling subsides.
TOBY Good morning… [microphone doesn’t work, raises voice] Good morning, my name is Toby Ziegler and I’m the White House Communications Director and a senior domestic policy advisor to the President.
PROTESTER 1 Advise him we need clean air more than free trade!
Yelling begins again.
PROTESTER 2 How many 12-year-olds made your shoes, Toby!?
GROUP Global justice now! Global justice now! Global justice now!
TOBY [to Sachs] You want to send out for pizza or something?
GROUP Global justice now! Global justice now!
Toby sits down with a newspaper and puts his feet on the table.—
CUT TO: INT. WORLD POLICY AUDITORIUM – DAYThe crowd is still yelling. Toby and Rhonda are at a table on stage.
WEBBER [to protesters] Look, I’m not saying that we’re going to like their answers. I’m saying we’re going to give him a chance to talk. Now if you do have a question…
PROTESTER 4 Yeah, my question is who elected his boss the people or Kaiser-Permanente?
PROTESTER 5 He’s not my President, let’s vote.
PROTESTER 6 Who do you really work for?
More yelling.
SACHS [to Toby] You’re having a pretty good time, aren’t you?
TOBY Well, it’s not like being at a Yankee game.
PROTESTER 7 You suck!
TOBY Well, actually… [chuckles] Yeah, it’s like being at a Yankee game.
SACHS So, Toby?
TOBY Officer?
SACHS Since you’re not really doing anything right now, I was wondering, what’s this all about?
TOBY It’s about the WTO, Rhonda, the World Trade Organization.
SACHS Well, I get that from the signs and the newspapers.
TOBY The World Trade Organization’s a group of 140 countries who have agreed to specific trade policies.
SACHS So, what’s wrong with that?
TOBY Nothing’s wrong with that.
SACHS What would they say if I asked them the same question?
TOBY They’d say the WTO benefits corporations and not people.
SACHS Does it?
TOBY Benefits both. [pause] Look at them.
SACHS Yeah.
TOBY Philistines.
SACHS Take my nightstick and go kick their ass.
TOBY Yeah, make all the jokes you want but let me tell you something they claim to speak for the underprivileged but here in the blackest city in America, I’m looking at a room with no black faces. No Asians, No Hispanics. Where the hell’s the Third World they claim to represent?
SACHS Lot of Third-Worlders in the Cabinet Room today, were there?
TOBY You’re starting to bother me.
SACHS That’s ‘cause I’m armed.
TOBY No, I like that. [pause] I’m going outside.
The crowd continues yelling.—CUT TO: INT. WASHINGTON, D.C. STREET – DAYThe protesters are shouting.
TOBY It’s activist vacation is what it is. Spring break for anarchist wannabes. The black t-shirts, the gas masks as fashion accessories.
SACHS These kids today, with the hair and the clothes…
TOBY All right, that’s it, flatfoot.
SACHS I got great feet.
TOBY You want the benefits of free trade? Food is cheaper.
SACHS Yes.
TOBY Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are cheaper, phone service is cheaper. You feel me building a rhythm here? That’s ‘cause I’m a speechwriter and I know how to make a point.
SACHS Toby…
TOBY It lowers prices, it raises income. You see what I did with ‘lowers’ and ‘raises’ there?
SACHS Yes.
TOBY It’s called the science of listener attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites and now you end with the one that’s not like the others. Ready? Free trade stops wars. And that’s it. Free trade stops wars! And we figure out a way to fix the rest! One world, one peace. I’m sure I’ve seen that on a sign somewhere.
SACHS God, Toby… Wouldn’t it be great if there was someone around here with communication skills who could go in there and tell them that?
TOBY Shut up.
Josh enters through the police line.
JOSH Toby…
TOBY What are you doing here?
JOSH Came down to see how it was going. [to Sachs] How’s it going? Josh Lyman.
SACHS Rhonda Sachs.
JOSH Any trouble?
SACHS No.
TOBY [raises his hand] Josh. The WTO is undemocratic, and accountable to no one, decisions are made by Executive Directors and the developing world has little to say about institutional policy.
JOSH What was that?
TOBY I protested to you.
JOSH Why?
TOBY ‘Cause I’m not allowed to get arrested anymore.
JOSH Let’s go back.
TOBY No, I hate these people with the heat of a nova. Yet here I go.
SACHS Attaboy.
TOBY Shut up.
SACHS I got your back, man, you know? Or not.
All three enter the building.

Governance

What’s wrong

with open government?

321

00:17:32,200 –> 00:17:35,351

Why shouldn’t the public know

more about what’s going on?

322

00:17:35,880 –> 00:17:37,757

Are you serious?

323

00:17:39,080 –> 00:17:42,868

Well, I mean it’s

the Minister’s policy, afterall.

324

00:17:43,040 –> 00:17:45,270

It’s a contradiction in terms.

325

00:17:45,440 –> 00:17:47,715

You can be open

oryou can have government.

326

00:17:47,880 –> 00:17:53,193

But surely the citizens of a

democracy have a right to know.

327

00:17:53,360 –> 00:17:56,670

No. They have a right

to be ignorant.

328

00:17:57,280 –> 00:17:59,236

Knowledge only means

complicity and guilt.

329

00:17:59,400 –> 00:18:01,436

Ignorance has a certain dignity.

330

00:18:01,600 –> 00:18:03,192

But if the Ministerwants…

331

00:18:03,360 –> 00:18:05,430

You don’t just give people

what they want,

332

00:18:05,600 –> 00:18:07,352

if it’s not good forthem.

333

00:18:07,520 –> 00:18:10,273

Do you give brandy

to an alcoholic?

334

00:18:11,000 –> 00:18:14,356

Thatway people don’t know

what you are doing wrong.

335

00:18:16,920 –> 00:18:20,674

I am the Minister’s Private

Secretary, and ifhe wants…

336

00:18:20,840 –> 00:18:24,913

You must not help him

to make a fool ofhimself.

337

00:18:25,080 –> 00:18:26,877

Look at the Ministers we’ve had.

338

00:18:27,040 –> 00:18:30,032

They would have been

a laughing stock

339

00:18:30,200 –> 00:18:34,591

had it not been forthe most rigid

secrecy about theirdoings.

340

00:18:35,160 –> 00:18:37,196

What do you propose to do?

341

00:18:38,800 –> 00:18:41,189

- Can you keep a secret?

- Of course.

342

00:18:45,440 –> 00:18:47,158

So can I.

What’s wrongwith open government?
32100:17:32,200 –> 00:17:35,351Why shouldn’t the public knowmore about what’s going on?
32200:17:35,880 –> 00:17:37,757Are you serious?
32300:17:39,080 –> 00:17:42,868Well, I mean it’sthe Minister’s policy, afterall.
32400:17:43,040 –> 00:17:45,270It’s a contradiction in terms.
32500:17:45,440 –> 00:17:47,715You can be openoryou can have government.
32600:17:47,880 –> 00:17:53,193But surely the citizens of ademocracy have a right to know.
32700:17:53,360 –> 00:17:56,670No. They have a rightto be ignorant.
32800:17:57,280 –> 00:17:59,236Knowledge only meanscomplicity and guilt.
32900:17:59,400 –> 00:18:01,436Ignorance has a certain dignity.
33000:18:01,600 –> 00:18:03,192But if the Ministerwants…
33100:18:03,360 –> 00:18:05,430You don’t just give peoplewhat they want,
33200:18:05,600 –> 00:18:07,352if it’s not good forthem.
33300:18:07,520 –> 00:18:10,273Do you give brandyto an alcoholic?
33400:18:11,000 –> 00:18:14,356Thatway people don’t knowwhat you are doing wrong.
33500:18:16,920 –> 00:18:20,674I am the Minister’s PrivateSecretary, and ifhe wants…
33600:18:20,840 –> 00:18:24,913You must not help himto make a fool ofhimself.
33700:18:25,080 –> 00:18:26,877Look at the Ministers we’ve had.
33800:18:27,040 –> 00:18:30,032They would have beena laughing stock
33900:18:30,200 –> 00:18:34,591had it not been forthe most rigidsecrecy about theirdoings.
34000:18:35,160 –> 00:18:37,196What do you propose to do?
34100:18:38,800 –> 00:18:41,189- Can you keep a secret?- Of course.
34200:18:45,440 –> 00:18:47,158So can I.

Politics and work

I recently heard Plato’s idea reflected that politicians should have no stake in the decisions they make. That they ought to live in some proto-communist society. In most European countries bribing politicians is illegal, in north America it’s called lobbying. Here’s my innovation: Let’s all be politicians. No doubt, we’ll be at least just as flawed. But the main flaw is that power corrupts, therefor we should all be equally flawed. Being able to make decisions without fear of repercussion. Risk aversion is a real psychological phenomenon. We’re afraid or too busy to think about these things. Making a decision without any repercussion isn’t taking a risk at all, so how can this be possible? We can’t guarantee the survival of the human species without interfering (further) with our habitat. There’s only one planet, we can’t pretend our resources are infinite. So what’s the solution to this very basic problem? My premise is that it is shouldn’t be left to someone else. Somebody who will take the time to think, the risk, the energy to investigate, the blame, … for us. Because we ARE all involved, whether we like it or not. We ALL have something at stake here. So let’s be equals in being able to make a decision. This is not centralism, nor leadership in the sense that it implies followers. Rather it includes the willingness to follow ideas and therefor the leadership to challenge them where they are not yet perfected. And they will never be perfected. Which is why we all have to pitch in. It’s not enough to leave it up to the ‘leaders’. YOU are the leader, just as much as you’re the follower. We can’t elect leaders, because we’ll effectively elect ourselves out of ‘office’. Now, nobody wants to be in the office. Not even politicians, they’re humans too. Some dare say that’s what makes (some) politicians voteworthy. I say it makes them equal to use. And no less, nor more qualified than us. On a brighter note, one could easily claim this is already the case. Therefor there’s nothing to worry about. Those who CONSIDER themselves to be entities with something at stake – be it lifeform, human, westerner, politician, etc. – already have such a system. Bankers profit from the socialism for the rich and the retards who refuse to be engaged end up with what’s often called capitalism. Which, using the strict definition (as I do), implies that some people have the money and others have the labor. Both are equally interchangeable at the marketplace which as only rule has Demand versus Supply. In labor markets, this implies simple things like: The more people are willing to work, the less their labor is (per capita) worth. So get off your arses and stop working! There are things to be done! I’ll come down to earth for a minute and keep some facts in mind. The problem with government is governing. The same problem exists within any structure of decisionmaking. These can claim to be egalitarian. However, in a socialist party there’s often more hierarchy than in others. This is hard to explain. I’ll give it a shot. Everybody gets behind the ideology rather than behind the idea of having ideas. Of course, a party system isn’t the only way. Nevertheless, it’s the one we see most clearly in what’s called the (in my opinion, very narrowly defined) political arena. When we vote, we are part of that system. Only at this moment. When we are unable to vote or influence this sphere, we are by very definition not part of that network. However, most people are at work most of the time (not voting). Who will defend your rights there? So far, if you’re ‘lucky’, it’s the unions. These are filled with human flaws as well as organisational flaws. But one thing is often left out. You’re there more often. This seems to be obviously stated in the premise. However, we don’t consider ourselves to be voting for our job (and working conditions) by showing up. But this is what we implicitly do by not getting fired. Now, being without a job is no fun. But neither is a job. This is what I mean when I talk about wage slavery. Now, one could argue that paying people to do something is the only way to go about things. It’s true, that being productive could and perhaps should be rewarded. But what would be the value of that? Is it to simply make the system function? Sure, you’re functional. But only in the way that you’re perpetuating a system. You’re being payed to be obedient, not to think for yourself. That would imply that you’re paying yourself Being productive enough so you’ll have freedom to be [a creative creature]. Most jobs however consist mainly out of not questioning authority. Authority generally doesn´t stand for that. That´s what I`m talking about when I refer to anarchism. This is not the same as anarchy, which can be used to refer to chaos. This term is often used with the implication that some consistent theory exists which can state the full description of reality which we all know and abide by, thereby avoiding chaos. The world is transparant and already at an optimum. This is a view I´ve tend to adopt when concluding that thinking more about the issue would be of little use. In that it´ll be too hard, depressing or exhausting.

Chomsky quotes

I was looking for this quote, but it turns out it was on Wikipedia. So you can disregard the interview below. But not the quote!

If you had asked my grandmother whether she is oppressed, she probably wouldn’t have understood what you are talking about; that’s life. If you’d asked my mother, you’d have found that she resented it, but accepted it, as life. If you’d ask my daughters, they’d tell you to get lost. That reflects hard-won victories for freedom.

* ZNet forum reply, December 26, 2004 [163]

from an interview in 2004
We understand the crimes of others but canʼt understand our
own. Take that picture over there on the wall. What it is is the Angel
of Death, obviously. Off on the right is Archbishop Romero, who
was assassinated in 1980. The figures below are the six leading
Jesuit intellectuals who had their brains blown out in 1989, and their
housekeeper and her daughter, who were also murdered. Now, they
were murdered by an elite battalion armed, trained, and directed
by the United States. The Archbishop was murdered pretty much
by the same hands. Well, a couple of weeks ago there was a court
case in California where some members of the family of Romero
brought some kind of a civil suit against one of the likely killers and
actually won their case. Well, thatʼs a pretty important precedent,
but it was barely reported in the United States. Nobody wants to
listen. You know, Czeslaw Milosz was a courageous, good person.
And when he died there were huge stories. But he and his associates
faced nothing in Eastern Europe like what intellectuals faced in our
domains. I mean, Havel was put in jail. He didnʼt have his brains
blown out by elite battalions trained by the Russians. In Rwanda,
for about a hundred days they were killing about eight thousand
people a day. And we just went through the tenth anniversary. There
was a lot of lamentation about how we didnʼt do anything about it,
and how awful, and we ought to do something about other peopleʼs
crimes, and so on. Thatʼs an easy one—to do something about other
FinalEdition20041018.indd 15 10/19/04 12:46:44 PMWallace Shawn
16
peopleʼs crimes. But you know, every single day, about the same
number of people—children—are dying in Southern Africa from
easily treatable diseases. Are we doing anything about it? I mean,
thatʼs Rwanda-level killing, just children, just Southern Africa,
every day—not a hundred days but all the time. It doesnʼt take
military intervention. We donʼt need to worry about whoʼs going to
protect our forces. What it takes is bribing totalitarian institutions to
produce drugs. It costs pennies. Do we think about it? Do we do it?
Do we ask what kind of a civilization is it where we have to bribe
totalitarian institutions in order to get them to produce drugs to stop
Rwanda-level killing every day? Itʼs just easier not to think about it.
WS: Totalitarian institutions—you mean the drug companies?
NC: Yes. What are they? The drug companies are just totalitarian
institutions which are subsidized: most of the basic research is
funded by the public, there are huge profits, and of course from
a business point of view it not only makes sense, but itʼs legally
required for them to produce lifestyle drugs for rich Westerners to
get rid of wrinkles, instead of malaria treatments for dying children
in Africa. Itʼs required. Itʼs legally required.
WS: How do we get out from under that?
NC:Well, the first thing we have to do is face it. Until you face
it, you canʼt get out from under it. Take fairly recent things like
the feminist movement—womenʼs rights. I mean, if you had asked
my grandmother if she was oppressed she would have said no. She
wouldnʼt have known what you were talking about. Of course she
was stuck in the kitchen all day, and she followed orders. And the idea
that her husband would do anything around the house . . . I mean,
my mother would not allow my father, or me, for that matter, into
the kitchen. Literally. Because we were supposed to be studying the
Talmud or something. But did they think they were oppressed? Well,
actually, my mother already felt that she was. But my grandmother
didnʼt. And to get that awareness—you know, itʼs not easy.
India is interesting in this respect. There have been some very
careful studies, and one of the best was about the province of Uttar
Pradesh. It has one of the lowest female to male ratios in the world,
not because of female infanticide, but because of the shitty way
women are treated. And I mean, I was shocked to discover that in
the town where I live, Lexington, which is a professional, upper
middle class community—you know, doctors, lawyers, academics,
stockbrokers, mostly that sort of thing—the police have a special unit
for domestic abuse which has two or three 911 calls a week. Now,
you know, thatʼs important. Because thirty years ago, they didnʼt
have that, because domestic abuse was not considered a problem.
Now at least itʼs considered a problem, and police forces deal with
it, and the courts deal with it in some fashion. Well, you know, that
takes work—it takes work to recognize that oppression is going on.
This was very striking to me in the student movement in the ʼ60s.
I mean, I was pretty close to it, and those kids were involved in
something very serious. You know, they were very upset, and they
hated the war, and they hated racism, and their choices werenʼt
always the right ones by any means, but they were very emotional
about it, for very good reasons. . . .
I was involved particularly with the resisters, who were
refusing to serve in the army. Theyʼre now called “draft evaders”
and so on, but thatʼs bullshit. I mean, almost all of them could
have gotten out of the draft easily. A lot of them were theology
students, and others—youʼd go to your doctor, and heʼd say you
were a homosexual or something. It was nothing for a privileged
kid to get out of the army if he wanted to. They were choosing
to resist. And facing serious penalties. For an eighteen-year-old
kid to go to jail for years or live their life in exile was not an
easy choice—especially when, of course, if you conformed, you
would just shoot up there and be part of the elite. But they chose
it, and it was a courageous decision, and they were denounced
for it and condemned for it and so on. . . . At some stage of the
game, the feminist movement began. In the early stages of the
resistance, the women were supposed to be supportive, you know,
to these resisters. And at some stage these young women began
to ask, Why are we doing the shit-work? I mean, why are we the
ones who are supposed to look up in awe at them, when weʼre
doing most of the work? And they began to regard themselves as
being oppressed. Now that caused a rather serious psychological
problem for the boys. Because they thought, and rightly, that they
were doing something courageous and noble, and here suddenly
they had to face up to the fact that they were oppressors, and
that was hard. I mean, I know people who committed suicide.
Literally. Because they couldnʼt face it.
So, just in our lifetime, itʼs different. The kinds of things that
were considered normal—not just normal, un-noticeable, you
didnʼt see them—thirty or forty years ago, would be unspeakable
now. The same with gay rights. There have been big changes in
consciousness, and theyʼre important, and they make it a better
world. But they do not affect class issues. Class is a dirty word in
the United States. You canʼt talk about it.
One of my daughters teaches in a state college in which the
aspirations of most of the students are to become a nurse or a
policeman. The first day of class (she teaches history) she usually
asks her students to identify their class background. And it turns
out there are two answers. Either theyʼre middle class, or theyʼre
underclass. If their father has a job, like as a janitor, theyʼre middle
class. If their father is in jail or transient, then itʼs underclass. Thatʼs
it. Nobodyʼs working class. Itʼs just not a concept that exists. Itʼs
not just here—itʼs true in England too. I was in England a couple of
months ago at the time of the Cannes Festival, when Michael Moore
won, and one of the papers had a long interview with him, and the
interviewer was suggesting that Michael Moore wasnʼt telling the
truth when he said he came from a working class background. He
said he came from a working class background, but his father had a
car and owned a house, so, you know, whatʼs this crap about coming
from a working class background? Well, his father was an auto
worker! I mean, the whole concept of class in any meaningful sense
has just been driven out of peopleʼs heads. The fact that there are
some people who give the orders and others who follow them—that
is gone. And the only question is, how many goods do you have?—
as if, if you have goods, you have to be middle class, even if youʼre
just following the orders.
WS: What you possess determines how people see you and
how you see yourself. That defines you—your role in the social
structure does not.
NC: People are trained—and massive efforts go into this—people
are trained to perceive their identity and their aspirations and their
value as people in terms of the things they amass. Nothing else. And
in terms of yourself, not anyone else . . . Itʼs kind of interesting to
watch this campaign against Social Security going on, and to see the
attitudes. I see it even among students. And the reason certain people
hate Social Security so much is not just that if you privatize it, itʼs a
bonanza for Wall Street. Iʼm sure thatʼs part of it, but the main reason
for the real visceral hatred of Social Security is that itʼs based on a
principle that they want to drive out of peopleʼs heads—namely, that
you care about somebody else. You know, Social Security is based
on the idea that you care whether the disabled widow on the other
side of town has enough food to eat. And youʼre not supposed to
think that. Thatʼs a dangerous sentiment. Youʼre supposed to just
be out for yourself. And I get this from young people now. They
say, Look, I donʼt see why I should be responsible for her. Iʼm not
responsible for her. I didnʼt do anything to her. I mean, if she didnʼt
invest properly or, you know, something like that, thatʼs not my
business. Why do I have to pay my taxes to keep her alive? And
why do I care if the kid down the street canʼt go to school? I mean,
I didnʼt keep him from going to school.

Traffic quotations

Seth Abrahams is played by the same actor who played Eric Forman on that 70′s show, Topher Grace. Talk about typecasting. Unless you think vague cannabis references are different from using white chemicals that often include baking soda; sugars, such as lactose, dextrose, inositol, and mannitol; and local anesthetics, such as lidocaine or benzocaine, which mimic or add to cocaine’s numbing effect on mucous membranes. And almost always includes ether, ammonia, acetone and kerosine in transforming the coca paste.
Robert Wakefield is played by Michael Douglas. They couldn’t get Nicolos the Second for the part. Either way, the war is on. After all, drugs can ruin your life. And that’s the government’s job.
Source:
Seth Abrahams: [high on coke] We act like we have all the answers and we’re totally invincible, like our parents seem and their parents before them, and I’m sorry, that I have to be the one to say this, but it’s fucking bullshit. For instance I know that you jack-off to Caroline every night instead of Vanessa, who you’re supposed to be in love with. Whatever that… don’t even get me started on that convention, I mean, think about it. What is that convention? We’re this random collection of self-interest all of a sudden , and we just decide that we’re just gonna, we’re just gonna walk two by two down the fucking aisle to you know, Noah’s ark?

Teacher: [Robert Wakefield drags Seth out of class to help look for his missing daughter] Can I help you?
Robert Wakefield: Seth has to be excused. He’s going on a field trip.

Robert Wakefield: I can’t believe you brought my daughter to this place.
Seth Abrahams: Woah. Why don’t you just back the fuck up, man. “To this place”? What is that shit? Ok, right now, all over this great nation of ours, ‘hundred thousand white people from the suburbs are cruisin’ around downtown asking every black person they see “You got any drugs? You know where I can score some drugs?” *Think* about the effect that that has on the psyche of a black person, on their possibilities. I… God I guarantee you bring a hundred thousand black people into your neighborhood, into fuckin’ Indian Hills, and they’re asking every white person they see “You got any drugs? You know where I can score some drugs?”, within a *day* everyone would be selling. Your friends. Their kids. Here’s why: it’s an unbeatable market force man. It’s a three-hundred percent markup value. You can go out on the street and make five-hundred dollars in two hours, come back and do whatever you want to do with the rest of your day and, I’m sorry, you’re telling me that… you’re telling me that white people would still be going to law school?

[walks into building with daughter in it]

[Robert Wakefield has offered the drug dealer a bribe for information about his missing daughter]
Drug Dealer: Who in the FUCK do you think you are? Where the fuck do you think you are, and why the fuck don’t I just put your ass in a dumpster?
Robert Wakefield: [Shaking, scared] … I… I got money…
Drug Dealer: [Infuriated] I got money!
Robert Wakefield: I’ve got a thousand dollars in my pocket; it’s for you.
Drug Dealer: If I want your money man, I will TAKE your money!

Rome is on fire

If we fight fire, we reserve something for it to feast on later on. I do not suggest we let it burn, while building new societies. But there´s something do be said for prevention and leisure.