Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul
Submitted by Mikey da Murph on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 17:01
I used to read stuff from Chomsky a few years back. I gather he fancies himself a type of libertarian, but he seems more socialist-leaning to me. I've been told that he has hidden agendas, so I'm unsure of what to make of him.
What do you think about his arguments? I don't agree with them.
http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/transcript-of-noam...
»
Noam calls himself libertarian??!!
I have my doubts even an idiot like Noam Chomsky would have the audacity to call himself a libertarian. He would be mocked endlessly by actual libertarians. Noam is a socialist, full stop.
Register as Republican and Vote for Ron Paul
Socialist "leaning"??
He is a full blown socialist.
He calls himself a libertarian socialist. By "libertarian" he means anarchist.
-------
The Fed is not a private bank. PRIVATIZE THE FED!!!
"The Federal Reserve Banks should simply be regarded as governmental agencies." -Murray Rothbard
"I now call the Federal Reserve the fourth branch of government." -Ron Paul
Who said they were even on the same page?
The answers are completely unresponsive to the questions, too.
Chomsky
From what I read, I sense that he is disconnected from the average individual and the sense of urgency we are confronted with.
He seems to be a dreamer.
Where is the money going to come from to support his positions?
donvino
He's a "libertarian socialist,"
which apparently a lot of Paul supporters lean toward too, from the people I've come across on this website. Kucnich would be something of a libertarian socialist.
They believe in civil liberties but they're against economic liberty (unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism, private property in natural resources, etc).
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.
----
Don't blame me if there's no voice for liberty opposing McCain and Obama in the Presidential debates. I donated to Ron Paul Libertarian, Bob Barr's campaign.
I've noticed that too
A lot of Paul supports seem to be into libertarian socialist philosophy, like Zeitgeist, etc. Go figure.
-------
The Fed is not a private bank. PRIVATIZE THE FED!!!
"The Federal Reserve Banks should simply be regarded as governmental agencies." -Murray Rothbard
"I now call the Federal Reserve the fourth branch of government." -Ron Paul
Kucinich is not a libertarian socialist
A libertarian socialist is one who advocates socialism without the State.
chomsky is an NWO shill.
chomsky is an NWO shill. always has been, always will be
Point by Point
---------------------
1) "Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago."
----------------------
This "what if" scenario incorrectly assumes a free market forces people to starvation. It also assumes there'd only be one job available. I'll play along with Chomsky in a moment, but keep in mind this starving scenario makes sweeping assumptions with no support. We could imitate Chomsky and make baseless "what if" scenarios about socialism, but we could also open a history book and read about the 10 million Russians starved to death in one year, or the countless millions that starved under China's "Great Leap Forward" or the generations of compassionate socialism in India starving millions, North Korea's uncounted starving peasents, and so on. Chomsky's starvation nightmare is common, but only under socialism.
Anyway, playing along with Chomsky. A man signs a contract (his only option, poor guy!) under the influence of starvation. In America this would be considered Economic Duress, causing a state of psychological weakness, making the contract void. And under Ron Paul the company would be held liable for any injuries.
--------------
2. ““Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability?
---------------
Paul is abnormally clear (for a politician) in what he means by dismantling big government. If you honestly don't know what he means, here is a good place to start,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
As for limited liability, that's a hot topic with true conservatives, and most would agree that it, and the protections it offers corporations, should go. Owners need to be held responsible for their companies. However, Paul has not stated his stance on this issue.
--------
Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government
--------
No. That's not a part of government Ron Paul has shown any interest in dismantling during his presidency. You're trying to set Paul up as your straw-man.
It would be nice if Chomsky - or any Paul critic - stuck to issues Paul has shown interest in, rather than issues they heard a libertarian talk about once.
--------------
"- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).
Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.
There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely."
---------------
If only it were that easy. If you've ever had a skilled employee (or you've been one), you know what I mean. My employees could put me out of business whenever they please by doing one of the following:
1) Striking for a month (even if I hired scabs on the first day, these are highly skilled jobs that would take at least 1 month to train, which would put me in the red for the whole year)
2) leaving to join a rival company
3) starting their own company
They don't, not because they're stupid, but because they enjoy and believe in their company.
----------
- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).
He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.
----------
A socialist calling someone nationalistic? Now that's ironic. What isn't ironic is a big-government lover like Chomsky claiming that peace is immoral. That's expected.
Also, I'm not sure on this, but didn't Paul state he'd go to war if Congress actually declared war for once? As unlikely as that would be, still interesting.
Anything I missed?
~
Ban Everything
~
Ban Everything
Brilliant!
I felt exhausted reading that piece and thinking of all the misconceptions. You did a nice job at an acceptable length.
My augmentation would be to argue that the
Be similiarly dismissed as it assumes that *government* created these benefits, in opposition to the evil corporations. No, these things were produced by the wealth generated by free people. These benefits were already being implemented by companies to attract workers and becuase their processes were so efficient when government jumped in and claimed the credit.
It reminds me of the union bumper stickers that claim that unions hadd brought us the 5 day workweek. No, an extra day off was brought about by free people acting entrepreneurially enough to create sufficient wealth such that humans no longer had to work 6 days to continue to exist. With government, but without wealth generators, you could force at the point of a gun 5 day workweeks, but we'd then all starve.
Government cannot produce wealth. It is wealth that allows us the slack to do other things. Without wealth we starve and scrimp and labor far into the nights only to watch our children die. Only free people producing products and services for other free people can create greater social wealth quickly as wealth is the excess over today's necessity.
Government's primary role is not efficiency or greater service or higher quality product. Government's essence is to take, to destroy, and to threaten. That creates no wealth.
reLOVEution, Dennis
State education: "The best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in nursery." - Disraeli
Parenting: http://p196.ezboard.com/bafterschoolers
Don't Vote For Ron Paul for anything less than
Re[love]ution & Renaissance
Dennis
Check the source folks
It's not real. Have Mikey da Murph verify source at the illustrious Geekarmy blog.
Thresh
I wrote to this exact post ten days ago, what's up?
Get rid of this post. It's not Chomsky. I answered back to this same "Geek Army" some time ago. Weird.
Thresh
A hoax?
If it's a hoax, why not post a link proving that it is a hoax? I've been googling your "geekarmy" site and I've come up with nothing.
On the other hand, this link here would suggest it is not a hoax.
http://www.anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=75.html
Yeah, I know this forum topic is old, but I thought I'd do this in case someone else browsing around shows up here and gets bad information.
For the record though, a commenter here claims Chomsky says pretty much the opposite.
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6347r/noam_choms...
Both base their claims on supposed private email correspondence with Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky is no
Noam Chomsky is no libertarian, primarily because libertarians believe in private property, socialists do not.
Noam Chomsky and even Michael Moore are very adept at describing the problems in our current system, however their proposed solution is always more government control and less liberty.
They generally believe that a capitalistic system is "unfair" and that we must use government to create a fair system. (not that I'm saying our current system is capitalism..) In that respect they are right, some people are just better at some tasks, or harder working or even just plain lucky and they will obtain more wealth than others but to believe that government can lift all of humanity up is false.
Socialism requires central planing, and mandating equal outcome, so those that can do better have no incentive to do so. This has the effect of forcing people to accept not a higher standard of living, but a lower standard of living. All of the great innovations of the 20th century have been created by people seeking a profit. Socialism is incompatible with a free society because every decision about what one buys, sells, and even the work they do is controlled by the government.. you are not allowed to simply buy and trade with others on your own, so it must force all people to accept the system, with the end result if you resist it, being brutal force.
What has always made a hell on earth has been that man has tried to make it his heaven.
-- Friedrich Holderin
Sounds like....
Sound like the 9th plank of the communist manifesto...The redistribution of wealth.
http://www.2008SuperBoycott.com
We Just want Fair Coverage
http://www.2008SuperBoycott.com
We Just want Fair Coverage
Well.. hehe.. there is not
Well.. hehe.. there is not much of a gap between communism and socialism. The philosophy is the same.
What sort of "caring system" would shoot you if you did not accept it? None, socialism's end result is widespread poverty, brutal government force, and a slow technological innovation.
You simply own your life and thus you own your labor, you are never a word of the state and they do not lay claim your labor.. Liberty is not merely a means to a prosperous ethical society, it is the most prosperous and ethical society.
why do "smart" Ron Paul supporters...
even respond to this type of bait? Chomsky is a socialist, not a libertarian. Just ignore this thread and it will be relegated to the dust bin of history, just like the ilk of Chomsky.
Freedom Bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0qiURceBX0
"Cheers for liberty, my man."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qpVWPlqSAw&feature=related
The revolution will not be televised.
http://www.myspace.com/goldenstategalt
"Cheers for liberty, my man."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qpVWPlqSAw&feature=related
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." - Ayn Rand
http://www.myspace.com/goldenstategalt
What do you think about his
What do you think about his arguments?
First and foremost, Chomsky isn't making arguments; He's giving you his opinion.
For example, Chomksy says:
Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters.
and that's not true; More specifically, if an owner requires "skilled labor," then the skilled labor can intimidate the owner; For example, a nurse can threaten to "stop working" if his/her wage isn't raised.
Thus, for Chomsky's "argument' to make sense, you have to accept his assumptions.
This analysis and conclusion can be applied to every question that Chomksy answers.
Essentially, the only way that I can explain my philosophical preference to Ron Paul's position is through a story: "I was a student teacher in k/12 mathematics; Initially, I tried to be responsible for 200 students but I quickly realized that I had to 'push back responsibility' to my students because the burden was too big."
As far as I could tell, Chomsky implies-- but doesn't prove, that centralized government can bear the burden of whatever its citizens throw at it. Since inequality is growing in America, Chomsky's implication seems dubious.
To further give credibility to Ron Paul, consider Obama's latest email message that had the subject:
and the message:
As we all know, imitation is a form of flattery and it seems obvious to me that Obama's campaign is following the model which Ron Paul chose-- the model of decentralized control, because:
In general, Chomsky doesn't seem to appreciate a "decentralized process" which creates stuff through swarm--- how flocks of birds migrate and how ants march in straight lines w/o centralized control and, in our case, without central control, we money bombed; we made commericials; we blogged; we planned our caucuses; we went to meetups, etc.. in order to create a swarm that enabled Ron Paul's campaign message to resonate.
Whoever wrote that....
He's not a libertarian, and he's not a friend of liberty.
From what I know...
...about Chomsky, it definitely sounds like something he would say. He is a Marxist, and his philosophy requires a massive police state to enforce all of the "rights" of all the different interest groups that he'd recognize. That's the falicy of all collectivists, and many of the are well meaning but don't understand what they are advocating. Others know exactly what would happen and are just plain evil people. As we all know, and Ayn Rand said it best, the only "group" that can have rights is the smallest minority possible, but one that also includes every person in existence, and that is the individual.
Chomsky is confused in this article
Almost all of the things he is saying we shouldn't get rid of, could be, or already are provided by the state governments. Ron Paul is just saying get the federal government out of it, if it is not provided for in the Constitution, or amend the Constitution using the proper procedures.
Chomsky is a Zionist
Chomsky will not support Ron Paul and is making up lies about him because Chomsky is a Zionist. He supports unconditionally the continual ongoing exploitation of American taxpayers to subsidize Jewish settlements built on the stolen property of Christians and Muslims who are being imprisoned and starved inside the walled ghettos of Palestine and deliberately deprived of access to their own private property. This stolen property is, with our tax dollars, being bulldozed and condos are being built on them. American Jews are then receiving mortgages at interest rates of 3% or lower - less than any mortgage rate available to any other American, in order to encourage them to move into these condos. Then, US taxpayers fund their living expenses for a year while they get settled and take language classes. It goes on and on.
Chomsky is philosophically opposed to ending the US tax funding of Israel. He is also opposed in principle to equal rights for Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. If the US ends funding of Israel they will be forced to make some kind of settlement that will likely be a simple "one person one vote" solution. The Israelis will also have to go through years and years of court battles, just like after WWII, when people came back to their homes in Germany and Poland that they had been forced to vacate. Chomsky doesn't believe in upholding the property rights of Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. He actively and philosophically opposes upholding the property rights of non-Jews in the Holy Land, it's not that he just doesn't care.
Chomsky supports the Israel Lobby's ability to continually launder billions of US taxpayers money through Israel which ends up in the pockets of our Congresspeople influencing their decisions on whether the US should go to war. What they are doing is nothing less than treason & international organized crime. I hope when Ron Paul is president, AIPAC and its local equivalents will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I would personally support execution by live televised public hanging. When the neocons start going to prison, Chomsky will suddenly shift position and say he was always opposed to the US funding of Israel.
Karin Friedemann
This is probably the most
This is probably the most ignorant post I had ever read on this site. I won't deny your assertion that Chomsky is a zionist. If anything, he has repeatedly stated that he was a zionist since his teenage years. So at least you got your title right.
But then how come that for more than 30 years he has been one of the most vocal critics of the state of Israel and it's occupation. Is it a coincidence that one Chomsky's protege Norman Finkelstein, was just banned from entering Israel for 10 years because of his unfavorable views on the Israeli occupation. Chomsky has been one of the most ardent supporters of Palestinians in America. You can read The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, or watch Chomsky's debate vs Alan Dershowitz on youtube and tell me if you still believe what your fabrications.
I just watched Occupatoin
I just watched "Occupatoin 101" on Google Video last night and agree that although I don't know much about Chomsky, the bit I do know tells me that I differ in my views. However, in the video, he is featured a few times speaking out against the Israeli occupation.
If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend this video.
Noam Chomsky Never Made an Honest Dollar
Chomskys problem is that he doesnt believe in economics. There are 'goods' and then there are 'scarce goods'. Scarce goods are what economics studies. A scarce good is any good for which there is not enough of it to go around. Air is a good, but not a scarce good. a Chomsky book is a scarce good. Once a good is scarce, no "democratic mechanism" for the distribution of goods can ensure everyone gets one. A rule must be put in place to decide who gets what. But that means behind every egalitarian democratic socialist utopia is an economic hegemon (ha). In other words Chomsky could easily have said: Democratic Mechanisms for the distribution of economic goods in all circumstances? Suppose there is a desperate man and there is a shortage of food. Why that man would be willing to do anything the Democratic Committee for the Distribution of Economic Goods (DCDEG) asked him to do, just to feed his starving children. That is not my cup of tea!
Of course I am kidding. This is precisely CHomsky's cup of tea. Since he is an academic, he undoubtedly visualizes himself as chair of the DCDEG deciding whose children starve, and what work desperate men must do to prevent that. Worse yet he imagines making those decisions more efficiently than the distributed decision-making of the free market.
gatekeeper
next.
Chomsky is osrt of a left-wing anarchist. . .
But he has his priorities all screwed up because he believes private property is evil, government -- though it's evil too -- needs to be big enough to quash big aquirers of private property.
I always like reading Chomsky though.
Tracy
PS I am suprised Chomsky says Hillary is better then Paul though. Hillary represents the authoritarian left that left-wing anarchists abhore. TS
Chomsky no anarchist
Chomsky believes in a powerful government that protects the powerless from the powerful (as if the government, the ultimate agency of power, would ever not be run by the powerful: sheesh!). Sometimes, he writes very cogent pieces about the misbehavior of governments and corporations (sadly, many large corporations are the worst enemies of the free market), but he has never offered any coherent prescriptions that would give him the right to call himself an anarchist.
Many libertarians, of course, ARE free market anarchists, believing that protection from violence, dispute resolution, and defense from invasion can be better provided on the free market without taxation or other government coercion. Such anarchists believe that a social consensus that people own themselves and the fruits of their labor (property) are sufficient for a society of peace, prosperity, and freedom. This includes many Christian anarchists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, leader of the abolitionist movement to end slavery, and Leo Tolstoy, the well-known Russian author and pacifist.
Left-wing anarchists believe that people own themselves, but that property rights are unnecessary (they consider occupancy and usage to be the only valid form of property ownership, rejecting rent, interest, and profits and essentially attributing all value to labor). They're wrong, in my opinion, but at least they are consistent in opposing the use of government coercion.
Chomsky is not. He is a statist, and his support of Clinton over Paul is evidence of that. Dr. Paul is no anarchist, but reminds me of Milton Friedman who, when asked that question, said, "No, but I'm on their side!"
Chomskey
After watching some of his viewpoints and asorted videos I find this could be legit. I find Chomskey to be affiliated directly to The Bilderberg group and that alone would be cause for concern to dismiss this mans views on what a free society should consist of..
Chomsky
His replies don't seem legit. Is this authentic stuff?
The Chomsky I read would love Ron Paul for his one declaration to bring all troops home from around the globe. That would literally save the earth for at least fifty or a hundred years. The greatest threat to the world's existence is the American Empire. Chomsky knows this. He also knows that as President most of what Paul desires as an individual is meaningless. He is limited as executive. Yet the one grand thing he could do would be to cut back on our military. Chomsky doesn't sweat the small stuff—like social security. We are a massively armed nuclear nation. New York State as of this writing has no nuclear ambitions. Paul wants to channel power out of the Federal governemnt. That is definitely a Chomsky ambition.
Also, he would love to hear Paul's take on ending our multi-billion dollar support of Israel, Pakistan, India.
I could go on. I don't believe the legitimacy of the "interview"
Thresh