23 votes

The Chomsky Contradiction

While I do have a large amount of respect for Noam Chomsky, I find it somewhat troubling that one of our "greatest minds" doesn't seem to understand the concept of liberty. Here is a clip where comments negatively regarding Ron Paul and the libertarian philosophy:


http://youtu.be/3B0Q109uQ7o

In it he says "This goes for the whole libertarian philosophy... if you think it through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny"

Obviously here would be a good time to ask why corporations don't support the libertarian philosophy, since they would gain total control according to Noam. But he goes on to state why:

he says "but it's all academic, because the business world would never allow it to happen... they cannot live without a powerful nanny state."

So Noam just explains why the corporate world is against liberty - because they "cannot live without a powerful nanny state", but fails to realize this completely contradicts his statement that libertarian philosophy is a call for "corporate tyranny".

This is a contradiction that so many, especially "progressives", make. I refer to it as the "Chomsky Contradiction". Now Noam is a smart guy, and I'd love to hear him (or anyone) explain it too me (maybe I am missing something)... but maybe it's Noam who needs to "think it through".

Keep thinking Noam, keep thinking.

UPDATE: I used to have respect for Noam Chomsky, but after this discussion I no longer feel that way.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Very Interesting But Subtle Moment In That Chomsky Video

At the 1:27 mark of the Chomsky video, he says (quoting Ron Paul's words) "well the church will take care of him, or charities will take care of him or something or other. So it's not a problem."

The subtle, but interesting point was that there was some laughter in the audience when they heard that point. I wish somehow they could have heard Ron Paul's actual words about how he was a doctor prior to the existence of medicaid (in the 60's) and the hospital he worked at never turned away patients.

Chomsky's Words Vs What Ron Paul Actually Said

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

CHOMSKY:
You probably saw or maybe read in the Republican debates at one point. And this kind of brought out who he is. He was asked...he's against federal involvement in health - in anything. He was asked something like "well what if some guy is in a coma and he's going to die and he never took out insurance, what should happen?"

Well his first answer was something like "it's a tribute to our liberty. So if he dies, that's a tribute to how free we are. He kind of backed off from that. Actually there was huge applause when he said that. But after later reactions from elsewhere he backed off. He said "well the church will take care of him, or charities will take care of him or something or other. So it's not a problem."

I mean, this is just savagery. And it goes across the board. Through the whole so-called Libertarian ideology. It may sound nice on the surface but, if you think it through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny. It's a step towards the worst.

But it's all academic. Because the business world would never permit it to happen since it would destroy the economy. Now they can't live without a powerful nanny state. They know it.

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

WOLF BLITZER:
Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy 30 year old young man has a good job, makes a good living. But decides, "you know what. I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy. I don't need it. But you know, something terrible happens. All of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay for it if he goes into a coma, for example. Who pays for that?

RON PAUL:
In a society that you accept welfare-ism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him. What he should do is whatever he wants to do but assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy.

WOLF BLITZER:
But he doesn't have that. He needs intensive care for 6 months. Who pays?

RON PAUL:
That's what freedom is all about - taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody

WOLF BLITZER:
But congressman, are you saying society should just let him die?

RON PAUL:
No. I practiced medicine before we had medicaid, in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa hospital in San Antonio. And the churches took care of him. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea that - that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because they dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interest. It kow-tows to the insurance companies and the drug companies. Then, on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar. We have lack of competition. There's no competition in medicine. Everybody's protected by licensing. We should actually legalize alternative healthcare, allow people to practice what they want.

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

Offers or Demands?

If Chomsky and left leaning people deride so called Capitalism by making references to criminals taking over voluntary government, then they mistake crime as being something other than crime, they fall for the trick of criminals hiding behind false labels.

If Paul and right leaning people deride so called Socialists by making references to the criminals taking over voluntary government, then they mistake crime as being something other than crime, they fall for the trick of criminals hiding behind false labels.

Once in a long while there are neither right or left leaning people who find the voluntary parts of any social network having any labels used to accurately identify those voluntary social networks, and those few people are able to get past the trick of criminals hiding behind false labels.

Two examples of people managing to get past the falsehoods that inspire people to jerk their knees and blame everyone for the crimes of the criminals are Josiah Warren and Erich Fromm.

"Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all." Josiah Warren wrote that in Equitable Commerce.

Warren goes right to the heart of the problem of crime and kills it by proving how absolute Free Market Banking removes the most criminal aspects of any government effort whereby the concept of government is synonymous with defense against crime, and whereby the criminals take over voluntary government and turn voluntary government into a crime monopoly or legalized crime organization.

So all the stupid left leaning people blaming everyone for the crimes perpetrated by criminals hiding behind a false Capitalism label are no different in principle than all the stupid right leaning people blaming everyone for the crimes perpetrated by the criminals hiding behind a false Socialism label.

If anyone has ever voluntarily sent any measure of any power whatsoever into a "collective" fund to then be used for "the greater good" such as defense against organized criminal armies of aggression, then that unit of measure voluntarily sent into that "collective" fund confesses that such a person is by that act a voluntary socialist.

The most obvious example of voluntary socialism is insurance.

If anyone has ever stopped payments into a voluntary collective fund for mutual defense so as to divert those units of power to a higher quality and lower cost alternative, then that individual human being confesses, in fact, that they are a voluntary capitalist exerting units of market force that forces suppliers to compete in a free market of insurance.

So insurance can easily be understood as voluntary defensive government, or socialism, in a free market made free by capitalists.

http://filozofia.3bird.net/download/filozofia/fromm/filozofi...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sane-Society-Erich-Fromm/dp/080501...

When the worst examples of human being ever to exist reach a level of power that affords them the opportunity to destroy everyone, including themselves, it may be a good time to stop obeying the orders dictated by those criminals.

Or

Proceed as directed without question.

Joe

Noam Chomsky

This is a relatively old thread, but I ran across it and have a comment---which probably no one will read. Anyway...

I think a relevant factor here (and a very relevant factor with most academics) is that they know their contribution would not command much support in a free market. In the current system, they are big winners. They spend all their time with liesure to do things essentially no one would voluntarily pay for, while the people who are actually productive---producing something that people will work to voluntarily pay for, that is the suckers---have what they produce taken from them to support the Chomsky's of the world. As a consequence it is just too scary for worthless poeple like Chomsky (who have never done anything anyone would willingly sacrifice to have done) to imagine life without the big nanny state. Therefore, they dismiss that possibility and look for arguments to defend the status quo.

The same argument goes for almost anyone who argues for the state. It's self-interest in the sense that they hope to get something for nothing. They're not counting on the eventual collapse which results when the suckers/slaves stop being productive either because they realize they are getting the shaft in an immoral system or because too many of them join the parasite class.

The good news is that the most any of these parasites can do is verbally defend the status quo, while living on the wealth produced *entirely* from the voluntary interaction they (verbally) attack in their defense of the state. And they're wrong. And, as you point out about Chomsky, as soon as one sees the source of wealth in society, it's really easy to see they're wrong (and point it out). So we can win this argument, and we need to win this argument.

Self-confession?

"which probably no one will read"

"They spend all their time with liesure to do things essentially no one would voluntarily pay for"

My observation is such that the number of people speaking for Chomsky as if they were Chomsky is proportional to the discredit of Chomsky.

My own criticisms of Chomsky have to do with the words he says or publishes.

"As a consequence it is just too scary for worthless poeple like Chomsky (who have never done anything anyone would willingly sacrifice to have done) to imagine life without the big nanny state."

My life is much richer for having Chomsky offer so many useful viewpoints. The viewpoint above, in quotes, is accurately measurable as being false, by my measure.

"The same argument goes for almost anyone who argues for the state. It's self-interest in the sense that they hope to get something for nothing. They're not counting on the eventual collapse which results when the suckers/slaves stop being productive either because they realize they are getting the shaft in an immoral system or because too many of them join the parasite class."

The point there, perhaps missed by many, is that the most powerful of the criminals are the ones who do know that, and so they have a tendency to cash out and go where they make the grass greener by their accurate measures of what they consider to be rich, wealthy, or powerful.

"So we can win this argument, and we need to win this argument."

It may be a good idea to realize that the argument (so called) is based upon falsehoods parroted by dupes, as the inventors of the falsehoods know better than to believe their own falsehoods.

Of course it is far easier, perhaps in the short term, to merely jerk the knee, discredit the source of discomfort, and succumb to the song of that siren.

1.
Socialism can be voluntary. Those who make socialism involuntary tend to gain their power by offering a false version of voluntary socialism.

2.
Capitalism can be voluntary. Those who make capitalism involuntary tend to gain their power by offering a false version of voluntary capitalism.

3.
Those who control the voluntary and the involuntary socialists tend to feed off the conflict caused by the infighting among the voluntary defenders and the involuntary aggressors contained within socialism.

4.
Those who control the voluntary and the involuntary capitalists tend to feed off the conflict caused by infighting among the voluntary defenders and the involuntary aggressors contained within capitalism.

5.
Those who control the voluntary and involuntary socialists and capitalists tend to feed off the conflict caused by the infighting among the voluntary and involuntary socialists and the voluntary and involuntary capitalists.

Group 5 above or group 7 below constitution the smallest group in number of members.

1.
Voluntary socialists
2.
Involuntary socialists
3.
Voluntary capitalists
4.
Involuntary capitalists
5.
Those who control and feed from the socialist argument
6
Those who control and feed from the capitalist argument
7.
Those who control the One Legal Money Supply Fraud and Extortion racket.

Anyone can be in any of those groups at any given time depending upon the flow of power, how it is transferred, as it is transferred, from one person to another person.

Following the (one false) money accurately is precisely what the really evil ones prefer not to happen.

Joe

yep, you got it

It's just a new incarnation of the old alliance of Throne and Altar.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

hmmm.

It does seem sort of conflicting, but I don't think it's a direct contradiction. The business world might be comprised of several businesses, while the corporate tyranny might be from a single corporation. In that case, the business world and the corporate tyranny might be separate kinds of things. Perhaps he means that the business world wants government to protect it from the the tyranny of a particular corporation which would want to put everyone else out of business. I don't know if that's what he means, but just the fact that a possible harmonization can be made means it's not a direct contradiction. But this not being a contradiction doesn't mean he's not wrong.

Chomsky is a sticky wicket indeed.

Indeed, a sticky wicket is Noam Chomsky.

Potential Annualized National Debt Allowance - a look back at 40 years of PANDA diplomacy next Pandaline

I lost respect for Chomsky a long time ago.

When asked who was responsible for 911, he responded "What difference do it it make? That happened a long time ago," or words to that effect.

Chomsky is a "safety valve" mouthpiece for Israel. He criticizes Israel just enough to have credibility when he is deflecting criticism for the Zionists.

I will add one more thing to

I will add one more thing to what I said below and that is Chomsky's audience is made up of 90% people who either work in the public sector(teachers, social workers, professors..etc) or are part of the educated class (i.e. doctors lawyers etc) and have been taught to believe Chomsky is the highest form of thought. In other words Chomsky does not have a lot of small business owners coming to his talks. Ha! can you imagine? So they are in their own little self congratulatory insular bubble of a liberal circle jerk.

I think a lot of them have their heart in the right place but truly don't understand that funding this huge government redistribution of wealth system fills the government coffers for war, surveillance..etc., all the stuff they complain about in the next breath. Their solution is to get the right people in government or protest in the streets...etc instead of dismantling the killing machine itself as Ron Paul talks about.

people can vote with their

people can vote with their dollars in an even more effective way than with their one vote a year or every 4 years. A libertarian society would require a little more homework but a society that votes them into power are ready to do that work because things have gotten that bad.

Chomsky is good at waking up liberals to the military industrial complex, but that is about the most he can do.

His solutions are terrible. He would have the US be taken over by the UN and a world government handle disputes between nations...etc.

I don't agree with some that he is actually controlled opposition because he doesn't need to be controlled. He really believes this stuff and has been embedded deep in left wing academia since the mid 60's. He is however raised to a level of godhood in leftwing circles that is a problem for people who listen to him and take everything he says as gospel.

Like I said he points out a lot of important stuff and if you can listen to him with a high level of discernment you can actually learn a lot about how Washington works when it comes to foreign policy. Just every time he starts talking about UN and World Court and solutions in general tune out.

BTW his real contribution to the world has been linguistics.

False Constradictions

Also known as The Man of Straw Argument (for the sake of argument, or for other purposes not confessed by the user).

Here may be a human being named Noam Chomsky, and following the path to that human being, if taken, places another human being face to face with that human being, and then one human being can see another human being face to face.

Accuser and accused so to speak, is not unheard of speech.

There may be a Man of Straw, and the creator of that Man of Straw creates that Man out of whole cloth, fiat, counterfeit, and stuffs that Man with Straw, and the Straw is as illusory, as deceptive, as smoke, as mirrors, and fiat, and arbitrary, as any lie told by any liar ever in the history of human unkind.

So the inventor of this Man of Straw takes his, or her, creation and places a name on his, or her, creation.

In this case the Man of Straw produced by those creators of this Man of Straw label their Man of Straw with the false label Noam Chomsky, and then, as if by some magic trick, Noam Chomsky is ripped apart, as if Noam Chomsky could not speak for himself, defend himself, and protect himself from such barbarity.

Neat trick.

Joe

Noam did speak for himself,

Noam did speak for himself, see link above, I pointed out the contradiction in Noam's words... Not so much a trick as a man who talks in circles getting called out.

Step by Step?

"This goes for the whole libertarian philosophy... if you think it through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny"

If you are speaking about the whole libertarian philosophy and Noam Chomsky is speaking about the whole libertarian philosophy are you speaking about the same thing?

Example;
A person who has been called The First American Anarchist wrote this:

"496. Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it."

If Noam Chomsky says something that he understands to be true, such as the fire is hot. Here is the fire. Here is the temperature of the fire. Then that is true, and demonstrably true.

If you pick up the word "fire" as meaning "ice" then your version of what Noam Chomsky says is false, and Noam Chomsky is as you say "talking in circles" or whatever, when in fact the problem is miscommunication.

_______________________________________________________
So Noam just explains why the corporate world is against liberty - because they "cannot live without a powerful nanny state", but fails to realize this completely contradicts his statement that libertarian philosophy is a call for "corporate tyranny".
_______________________________________________________

If Noam Chomsky is allowed to demonstrate how his words communicate accurate, demonstrable, facts, then there can be a demonstration done so as to reach that goal.

An example of a person who is part of "the whole of libertarian thought" can be pointed at, and then that person can be quoted as saying this or that, and that person can be shown to have done this or that, and then this or that leads to this or that, and there is a Nanny State.

Example:

Between the time where there was British Rule and then there was Rule by The Nanny State called The Constitution was a time period between 1776, with The Declaration of Independence, and 1787 with the Secret Meetings and Dirty Deals that produced The Nanny State under The Constitution.

Person A, could be the person known as Alexander Hamilton who was chomping at the bit to create a so called Libertarian government, which just so happens to create a National Debt.

So Alexander says this, and that, and it is all part of the whole libertarian philosophy thing and then this and that is done, and then there it is, in your face, Nanny State, all nice and Legal behind the False Federal Government under The Constitution; nullifying or taking over The Articles of Confederation.

Now, that is not Noam Chomsky demonstrating anything, that is just me demonstrating what could be demonstrated if Noam Chomsky was able to demonstrate that he was not doing as you say he was doing, since the obvious problem here, a measurable problem, is the creation of a Man of Straw, whereby definitions of words are defined by the reader, not the author, and there is no confirmation, or agreement done, so as to authorize those definitions, and therefore the potential for error in defining the words by the reader is a potential that can easily become a source of error.

If Noam Chomsky accesses the concept of "The Wisdom of Crowds" as a means of "The whole" of Libertarian thought, then that measure of all that collective thinking, followed by all that collective action, inevitably involves individual people doing the thinking, a list of names, and a list of names acting out their thoughts along the lines of libertarian thinking, and libertarian actions.

So the question then becomes, if you will, may, or wish, are there any counterfeit versions of anarchists, libertarians, federalists, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, who may move the aggregate measure of "the whole" in a direction that is opposite the genuine principles of the philosophies exposed by the original, or genuine, people who started such inventive ideas such as liberty, or liberalism, or liberated people who are liberated from something specific?

If the answer is yes, yes by this measure, and yes by this precise measure concerning this individual, and this one, and this one, and this one, yes, see here, see this demonstration right here, this individual TURNED "The Whole" from genuine liberty, and instead of genuine liberty "The Whole" was turned in the opposite direction, which is a direction that flies many false flags.

Tyranny
Despotism
Monarchy
Monopoly

Why not call it Legal Crime and be done with all the false flags?

Why create Men of Straw?

"This is a contradiction that so many, especially "progressives", make."

Case in point. When someone uses the word "progressives," then someone either means something or someone means nothing. What does someone mean?

If I wake up with less, and through my honest work I produce more out of less, and I go to bed with more instead of less, because I produced more out of less, then that is a possible definition of progress, so I am therefore a progressive.

Is that what you mean?

What is "The whole" of these progressives, as you define the word?

What is "The whole" of these many progressives as I define the word progressive?

Is your word definition the same as Noam Chomsky defines the word?

Is your definition the same as my definition of the word?

If you are talking about one thing, and someone else is talking about another thing, then it is a demonstrable error to claim that you are both talking about the same thing.

Straw Man.

"UPDATE: I used to have respect for Noam Chomsky, but after this discussion I no longer feel that way."

Case in point: what is the definition of the word "discussion"?

If this, here, is a discussion, then to me it looks like argument for the sake of argument, and it looks like a lot of people dictating to a lot of people.

Dictators tend to create Men of Straw, as a rule, not an exception.

Actually facing the accuser, defending the innocent, presumed to be innocent, is worth something, if those age old principles mean what they mean, and are not falsified by dictators who create men of straw as a rule, not as an exception.

Joe

oh,

so you are saying noam built a straw man, gotcha.

Anyone

The thing about liars is such that they lie.

Liars lie.

Liars define the meaning of lies, they invent lies, they produce lies, and they maintain lies, it is their nature.

My words, or what I said ("you are saying"), is contained in the form of my replies, such as this one, these words, I write, are my words.

The false version of my words are written by the person who writes the false version of my words, as if there were some pay off associated, or credited to, the author of false words, such as the false words that are used to construct a Man of Straw.

Joe

sorry, I didn't realize you were so sensitive

I am admittedly a little snarky some times, but understand my position. I made an observation on what Noam said and you came on here and accused me of making a straw man.

I would like to rephrase that to 'so are you saying noam built a straw man?' which is what it appeared that you described in your response. You accused me of making a straw man because I didn't interpret what naom meant by libertarian philosophy correctly, or the way he may have intended. But what Noam did, and what you described, is create a version of libertarian philosophy that libertarians don't agree with, and is in contrast to libertarian philosophy, a straw man.

It seems as though it would be hypocritical, if you believe I created a straw man, to not also point out the straw man I was responding to.

Lessons in Straw Man Construction?

If I am accurate, then I am accurate, and accuracy can be demonstrated.

If you then take my accurate statements, written in English, and twist my accurate statements into a personal attack upon me, whereby I become "sensitive" according to you, then that is a lesson in the creation of a Man of Straw.

You demonstrate how to twist accurate words published in English into a personal attack upon the person who authored those accurate words whereby the attack is an example of a Character Assassination, and since the words published are not personal, intentionally not personal, you are thereby required to create a fictional being that is in some way negative. Your Man of Straw is sensitive. I may or may not be sensitive, depending upon what you intend with the word you choose, and you choose to attack my character with the word sensitive. According to your words, I, me, this person I know, is now a person who is sensitive, for some nebulous reason.

Instead of you being accurate with language you are "a little snarky some times," and your words appear to suggest that I do not understand your position, or I may not be able to understand your position without something happening that allows me to better understand your position, despite whatever may happen that defines the meaning of you being a little snarky at times.

An accusation that is true is not the same thing as an accusation that is false.

The construction of a Man of Straw is demonstrated by the constructor of a Man of Straw, so there will be a Man of Straw Constructed, and there will be a person who constructs the Man of Straw, and there is no need to make it personal, the constructor of the Man of Straw knows what he, or she, constructed, as does anyone else caring to know.

1. Man of Straw is here, having arrived on the scene by way of construction.

2. Constructor of the Man of Straw is here, having brought the Man of Straw to the scene.

Cases in point, or examples, are what they are when they are what they are, and that has nothing to do with me, or you, if in that case that Man of Straw has nothing to do with you or me.

"so are you saying noam built a straw man?"

How can a Straw Man be a Straw Man if there is no person attached to the Man of Straw? If Noam Chomsky names a person, such as Ron Paul, and then blames Ron Paul for things done by an imaginary being, which has been the case, then the answer is yes, but if you are referring to your exposure of Noam Chomsky as having talked in circles, with quotes by Noam Chomsky, then I do not see a case of Noam Chomsky constructing a Man of Straw.

When a group is being spoken of then there are at least 2 possible intentions behind speaking of a group.

1.
A group is a single entity that is responsible for anything done by any person in the group, while the people in the group may not be held accountable, which is the motive behind this type of misdirection.

2.
A group is merely an easy way to convey all the people who belong in the group because all the people who belong in the group are accountable for their specific thoughts, actions, characteristics, whatever, that places them in the group.

Example:

1. Exxon Mobile

2. Natural Blue eyes

A person who may order the extremely risky, but cheap, drilling methods and end up making a very costly mistake involving the dumping of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico and be held unaccountable for that thought and action because it was Exxon Mobile that did it, not that actual person.

A person may wear a contact lens whereby the color of the persons eyes are made blue because the lens is blue colored. If someone were to blame that person for not being a naturally blue eyed person it would make no sense, rationally, to blame the group called Natural Blue Eyes for having falsies. A person belongs in the group or not.

"It seems as though it would be hypocritical, if you believe I created a straw man, to not also point out the straw man I was responding to."

When you create a Man of Straw it has nothing to to with me, or belief, it is what you do, and that is what that is, as to what you mean by hypothetical, there can be such a case demonstrated, and that would be what it is; where is it?

If I point out that you are making a Man of Straw, and it is one, then that is what that is.

If you demonstrate where Noam Chomsky has demonstrated where Noam Chomsky has constructed a Man of Straw, then you do that, or I can do that, with a quick search and a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI

"His policies are off-the-wall."

That is a demonstration of the creation of a Man of Straw.

I think you may be onto something I did not think about concerning the often resort to this creating of an Entity, and then blaming the Entity for things done by the individual people, as being a Man of Straw type construction.

Demonstrated as: Black people are Lazy.

Demonstrated as: Jewish people are stingy.

Demonstrated as: Libertarians are Conspiracy Theorists.

That can be understood as having the same common denominator as the often demonstrated Man of Straw demonstration; the common denominator being deception, but in one case it is an Entity or Prejudice created to take on false responsibility and accountability for all the people who actually belong in that group, and the other one, the Man of Straw, is personal, it is individual, as an individual is the target of the Man of Straw created by the person who creates the Man of Straw.

If Noam Chomsky is ever talking in circles, then he can either defend himself or not, as to what he really meant by the words he spoke in any particular instance.

In the instance I just linked the sentence is a demonstration of the fabrication of deceit for the purpose of attacking Ron Paul, and were Noam Chomsky to defend such things, then he would be resorting to deceit, unless there is a positive connotation to the term off-the-wall.

There is no positive connotation to off-the-wall, in reality, so what does that leave as to the actual facts of the matter, no matter what Noam Chomsky may invent to excuse such a false statement?

On the other hand Noam Chomsky, if asked, face to face, might admit, yes, I was not being very accurate, and I was not being at all kind, to Ron Paul when I resorted to deception against Ron Paul, in that case where I did, in fact, construct a Man of Straw used by me to discredit the good name of Ron Paul.

Joe

First off, how is being

First off, how is being sensitive a bad thing, or a personal attack?? I was merely observing that I need to be more careful with my words because you are very sensitive to them. I'm realizing that when I talk the straight interpretation of my words could be different than the overall meaning that I am attempting communicating.

For example: I said "oh, so you are saying noam built a straw man, gothca", I realize that wasn't what you were trying to say in your response, but that is how I chose to point out that if he wasn't contradicting himself then he had to build a straw man to get seemingly contradictory statements to make sense, and you built that straw man for him in your response.

Then you called me a liar. I was not lying, I was misinterpreted, which is why I observed that you are sensitive to face value interpretation of words, and also brings me to my next observation - you are holding a double standard.

When I make a statement that you interpret to be false I am not being asked to clarify meaning, I am being judged to be building staw men or flat out lying.

When Noam makes questionable statements, you with hold judgement because he could possible be misunderstood, or there should be clarification to what he really meant.

This is interesting when you consider he is the linguist and I have never claimed such title, shouldn't we assume that his words should more likely convey the message he intends than mine?

Step by step

"...how is being sensitive a bad thing..."

Am I what you say I am when you say I am what you say I am?

How is it that my words are no longer good enough to represent what I offer, and how is it that my words are no longer the focus of attention, and how is it that instead of my words being the focus of attention the focus of attention becomes my personal feelings, my personal sensitivities, instead of the meaning intended to be conveyed in the words that I offer, that I write, that I authorize as being my words?

1.
The intended meaning offered in the words published by me.

2.
Your estimate of my personal feelings.

One is not Two.

When One is set aside and when Two is your response, to me, that is yet again another example of a Man of Straw, whereby the meaning I offer, in the words I chose, are out of focus, ignored, discarded, whichever words focus on the movement from One (above) to Two (above) exemplifies exactly that, moving focus from meaning of words offered and moving of focus toward my personal sensitivities, as you create that focus of attention upon my personal character, feelings, sensitivities, whatnot.

Your word choices, your invention, your response of setting aside the words I wrote, setting aside the meaning of the words I wrote, and your word choices attaching the word "sensitive" to me, the person me, as you connect "sensitive" me, to me, whereupon the routine, to me, is familiar.

1. Discard the point, the meaning, the topic, the focus of attention upon information separate from me.

2. Attach your personal description of my personal feelings, or sensitivities, as you estimate my personal feelings, or my personal sensitivities to be, according to your judgment of my personal sensitivities, feelings, whatnot.

Out with the point of discussion, in with fabricated judgments of my personal character, as a routine of such obvious measure as to be routine, as to having terminology invented, produced, and used to label that specific routine.

1.
Man of Straw argument.

2.
Shoot the messenger

3.
Bait and Switch

4.
Smoke and Mirrors

5.
Distraction

6.
Diversion

7.
Character Assassination

The word choice being of a character that is Plausibly Deniable is a sign of a well chosen word, to me, fitting the routine like a glove.

What, I can ask, seeking an accurate, honest, answer, does my personal feelings, my personal sensitivities, have to do with the topic, and what is your interest, what is your goal, what is your purpose, want is your intent in publishing your judgment of my character involving what I am, as a measure of sensitivity?

Why do you bring up the topic of my relative sensitivity to anything?

"I was merely observing that I need to be more careful with my words because you are very sensitive to them."

If you bring up the topic of my relative sensitivity to anything then you bring that topic up, not me, so a response by me to the Topic you bring up is then a response by me to the topic that you bring up, and again the word choice of "sensitive" is plausibly deniable as a negative, and if not negative, then it is positive, and if neither positive or negative, then why bring it up, why not speak about the price of tea in China instead?

Why do you discard the topic of discussion and why do you bring up the topic of my personal relative sensitivities, and I can ask you so as to then afford me the accurate, honest, answer.

If you bring up another topic, such as the price of tea in China, then I can offer a response of relative sensitivity concerning the price of tea in China too. Then you can choose to discuss the price of tea in China, or you can choose to move the topic of discussion back to how sensitive, or how insensitive my answer is concerning the price of tea in China.

"I'm realizing that when I talk the straight interpretation of my words could be different than the overall meaning that I am attempting communicating."

I ran into 2 sources of information that confirm, or reinforce, the words you just wrote above, and if you could do me a favor, please, consider commenting on these 3 things.

1.
"I'm realizing that when I talk the straight interpretation of my words could be different than the overall meaning that I am attempting communicating."

2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce20oLUymgM
Language is a dull tool?

3.
http://one-heaven.org/canons/sovereign_law/article/161.html

From that I want to zero in a a quote cut and pasted as follows:

____________________________________________
(xx) One of the most extraordinary contributions of the unnamed Jesuit scholars in Rome through the Shakespeare brand of the 16th Century was the use of no less than twenty eight thousand eight hundred twenty nine (28,829) unique word forms, effectively doubling the vocabulary of English since the time of Chaucer and introducing an entire and completely new framework of law, social sciences, history, commerce and trade, accounting and reckoning. Such words as accused, addiction, assassination, bandit, bar, cause, case, contract, court, courtship, crown, employer, investments, law, bond, lawyer, majestic, judgment, negotiate, security, inhabitant, resident, submit, understand were all borne out of Shakespeare. This was achieved mainly through the combining of Latin words as abbreviations to create new English words but also through the introduction of ancient Persian words as well as even Hebrew and Ancient Greek words; and

(xxi) A significant departure through the works of the Jesuits in the 16th Century as Shakespeare compared to the earlier works inventing English at the end of the 15th Century was the ascribing of meanings to the twelve thousand (12,000) to fourteen thousand (14,000) new word forms introduced through Shakespeare that completely contradict the meaning of their etymological roots. In other words, the way in which many of the words introduced by Shakespeare are defined in public is completely opposite to their secret or private meaning – thus converting the English language to the most occult language in history; and
__________________________________________________

I am not asking for help in judging the personalities of any human beings, of which I have my own judgments, like it or not, they are my own judgments. I am asking for your viewpoint on what appears to me to be a common denominator concerning the device that we pick up and the device is called English.

Your words appear to suggest that English may be problematic.

David Wynn Miller appears to suggest that English may be problematic.

The author of the History of English in the last link above suggests that English may be problematic, and that is the extent of my request to you concerning this move by me off of the topic and onto a new topic, where there may, or may not be, a relation back to the original topic.

"Then you called me a liar."

I tried to avoid doing so, in fact, as I think it is important to presume innocence, so the accusation, such as it was, was intending to leave ample room for defense, by the innocent, presumed to be innocent, and as far as my judgement is concerned, your word choices are what they are, do what they do, and I can be completely left out of the fact of the matter.

"you are holding a double standard"

That is written as a statement of fact, and so I am found guilty, sentenced as being guilty, and publicly hung by you for that wrongdoing where you are judge, jury, and executioner of the sentence of punishment.

I tried not to do that, and if I failed to do that, it was not a willful act on my part, so where is this double standard? If I find it, I can try not to repeat the error, which was an error, not an intention.

I do not intend to hold a "double standard," especially since I have really no way of knowing what you mean by "double standard," which may or may not be a goal I can reach, to know, at some point in time, what you mean when you report to the world at large this thing that I am holding, according to you, this "double standard" exemplified by something I wrote?

"When I make a statement that you interpret to be false I am not being asked to clarify meaning, I am being judged to be building staw men or flat out lying."

I can try to be clear in stating my actual viewpoint, which is a viewpoint that I authorize to be my viewpoint as the intending meaning of my own words as I intend my words to mean. What I meant was what I wrote and I can quote what I wrote as being what I meant, no need for me to rewrite what I wrote, and no need for you to rewrite what I wrote either. So, whatever inspired you to write the following words, that you wrote, are words that you can quote if the inspiration for you to write the following words are words I wrote.

"When I make a statement that you interpret to be false I am not being asked to clarify meaning, I am being judged to be building staw men or flat out lying."

If those words you wrote above are words that you write in response to words I wrote, then you can quote the words I wrote, and then we can both know what inspired you to write those words.

My point was, and is, that my words are my words, and I don't need you, or anyone, claiming that your version of meaning is superior to my version of meaning, so why rewrite my words with your words and then claim that your version is superior to mine, since mine are in fact my word choices, and your version of my words are, in fact, not my version of my words, and a commonly used word for replacing the genuine meaning with something other than the genuine meaning is counterfeit, which is related to the term Man of Straw.

"When Noam makes questionable statements, you with hold judgement because he could possible be misunderstood, or there should be clarification to what he really meant."

Again, my word choices intend to covey open ended possibilities, as to motive, and liar can be a liar as a liar lies, but the motive has to be determined, and how can that be done? Confession?

If a person merely parrots a lie, as if a person believes a lie, then how can a person be said to be a liar, if there is no proof of motive?

In the case of Noam Chomsky claiming that Ron Paul's policies are off-the-wall, or whatever he said, it is, and will be, my opinion that Noam Chomsky willfully resorts to falsehood, or lies, which may be tailor fit to be plausibly deniable, or said to be just little white lies, or some other watering down, the principle, to me, remains the same. I don't think that Noam Chomsky, as old as he is, is not fully aware of his distortion of the facts in that specific case in reference to Ron Paul's policies.

Here is Ron Paul.

Here is false information intending to discredit Ron Paul.

Here is Noam Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky connects Ron Paul to the false information with the willful intent to discredit Ron Paul.

That is my considered opinion, stated as fact, I have enough evidence discovered in the record the records that which did happen, but as with any case, in my opinion, Noam Chomsky aught to be given the benefit of self defense, despite my conviction that he did resort to lies in that case.

As to your motives, I have no idea, I don't know you. I've read some of Noam Chomsky's work, I think I am in a reasonable position to judge the intent in the case of Noam Chomsky and his willful lie told about Ron Paul.

I'd really like to see Ron Paul face Noam Chomsky and be allowed to defend his policies to see just how off-the-wall Ron Paul's policies are in fact.

"This is interesting when you consider he is the linguist and I have never claimed such title, shouldn't we assume that his words should more likely convey the message he intends than mine?"

I quoted your words specifically, and I replied to your words specifically, and my intent was not to replace your words with my version of your words, and as far as your claims of Noam Chomsky "taking in circles" all I saw was Noam Chomsky's words speaking for Noam Chomsky, without your version of Noam Chomsky's words being superior to Noam Chomsky's words, or in other words, I saw no "talking in circles" concerning the words you quoted as being words accountable to Noam Chomsky as an example of "talking in circles".

Compared to the video record of a speech by Noam Chomsky offering information, judgments, of Ron Paul's policies, they are self evident as being what they are, with or without my input, or my personal sentiments, feelings, or subjective opinions.

Joe

There are principled collectivists

Chomsky is not one of them.

As previously discussed the problem is economics, and to a lesser extent history. Once you understand economics there's no way to avoid the perpetual fact that the real function of the state is to protect capital from competition of the free market. There are many different ways it can do this but that's what it always does and it's all the state can do.

Taxes are the price we pay for an impoverished society. (to steal the theme of a recent LVMI lecture series)

Which is why it's sad when you find principled ones who sadly support the very power they say they oppose, and I really believe they do oppose it on principle.

Chomsky is too smart for that, and too hostile to the truth. He's the priest of an extreme leftist state. "If you think it through" as he says in the name of 'liberty' he's calling for the absolute state.

This Snowden thing is also a bellweather. Leftists and righties who are outraged at the government spying are principled. They just could use some economic education.

Lefties and righties who call for beheading the 'traitor' are the bad guys.

They certainly want the power for themselves, but even if they can't have it right now, they want the power to exist and continue to grow and will defend it at all costs.

It seems there are quite a

It seems there are quite a few DP members who are Chomsky-style socialists and don't even know it. See the comments here: http://www.dailypaul.com/288277/insane-new-technology-worse-...

He never analyzes the economics

and generally rejects any economic theory.

But the reason these so many reject free market economics is because libertarians can't explain how we get from our corporatocracy to a true free market, with out compensating for the theft that has already occured. For example, haliburton (and a few others) has had huge advantages in getting gas well leases in PA, giving them a huge advantage in this market, and letting them have a hand in writing state laws regulating hydraulic fracking. SO if you open up the market, they will already have huge competitive advantages, and the market is still screwed up. Sadly, most libertarians answer is "so what, life isn't fair, it will eventually work itself out, etc. etc. -- for most people that's not good enough. Its like a monopoly game where one player starts out with the best properties.

Halliburton is not an oil company

Halliburton (two ls) is not an oil company and thus do not purchase land nor mineral leases (if they have any it's because it was a barter for services and not they themselves purchasing them). They are a service provider and compete with dozens of other service providers. Kellog, Brown and Root or KBR is a construction company that was purchased by Halliburton under Dick Cheney as CEO and "given" government contracts for construction in Iraq and Afghanistan (some of those contracts were grandfathered from the Clinton and previous administrations). KBR was sold by Halliburton and Halliburton is now just an oil field service company.

I know this is beside the point that you are trying to make, but too many people get their media from HBO and it's just propoganda. Please watch "Fracknation" a documentary which airs on Mark Cuban's AXS channel. It is much more factual than Gasland. Oil and gas is one of the few tangible things America produces. Please do your research before slandering.

ironman

I appreciate your post, but I disagree with your evaluation of the libertarian response to your Haliburton example. Maybe many Libertarians aren't well rehearsed in a response to such an issue , but I'd point to reading the detailed work of Murray Rothbards "A New Liberty" and " The Ethics of Liberty". While I don't have time now to give a detailed response, the answer lyes in the principles of unjust/ invalid contracts. they should be nullifiable to Halliburton for how such contracts came about in the first place, and they should forfit there the property they obtained through coercive and monopolistic measures. For such oligarchaic companies they should be punished proportionately, perhaps barring them from being able to own such lands .

Does Haliburton lose their

Does Haliburton lose their advantage with continued state interference? If the state simply lets the market work, is totally hands off, what's to stop you from organizing a viable boycott and/or information campaign? What's to stop you from figuring out how to compete and undermine Haliburton in other ways? What's to stop you from getting a citizen CIA operation together and getting rid of the criminals who run Haliburton?

You know what makes you completely helpless now? Regulations controlling information, regulations making the legal system inaccessible, state cops who will shoot you to protect Haliburton's illegitimate claim to certain property.

Remove the state from the equation, allow the market to function in a thousand ways it doesn't now, and a bad actor like Haliburton will be in a daily fight for survival, and will eventually lose.

Noam Chomsky is nothing more

Noam Chomsky is nothing more than a mental masturbationist. Is he smart? Yeah, what of it? Elitist, supercilious scumbag.

Chomsky

brings up the old bit about Ron Paul's response to the health care question. I'm presuming that he supports universal insurance coverage. Does he ever acknowledge that increasing requirements for health insurance coverage is a major factor in the constantly increasing price of health care services?

Does he ever show concern that the marketplace intrusions that have already occurred are responsible for making it so the hypothetical coma patient's family can't afford to take care of him?

Guys like this have been advocating policies for decades that have resulted in these problems, causing real people to suffer on a daily basis. Yet, rather than show regret for those mistakes, he wants to stand behind a podium and pretend that the government can afford to save all of the hypothetical coma patients.

Simple illustrations

The concept of insurance offers a simple illustration concerning the concept of voluntary government.

But that does set aside the Elephant in the room, which is what I call Legal Crime.

If government could be ideal, could it be as simple as insurance?

If so, how do the current victims of Legal Crime get past what exists, and go to voluntary government, as voluntary government could be illustrated with the example called insurance?

Confused?

I have trouble reaching other people with my viewpoint, but it is easy to understand.

Example:

Suppose it was not against the law to pay into a new insurance product, a policy that is not mandated by anything other than common sense, and this insurance policy is offered by 10 competitive insurance providers.

A person paying into the collective collection of money, or insurance fund, will receive a benefit if the policy holder is injured by any law enforcer who enforces an involuntary law, such as the enforcement of collecting a Federal Income Tax payment from someone who refuses to pay such a payment, knowing that such a payment is no different than an extortion payment.

A person shopping for this policy has 10 competitive providers of this insurance policy offering a rate of payment and a rate of return, and the highest quality product is higher in quality than the lowest quality product in both cost and benefit, relative to the 9 lesser providers, until such time as the bar is set higher by another competitor.

Examples can be imagined as to a cost and benefit.

Premium:
20 Dollars a month paid in, or any amount less than the rate being paid as "Federal Income Tax".

Claims Paid in full:
Relocated out of the Country until such time as the Legal Trial is settled in favor of the accused, and the accused is relocated back home.

Why can't insurance be voluntary and why can't it apply to any form of threat to one's well being?

Joe

I think your right, it should be able to apply.

One aspect missing though, to keep it entirely voluntary, has to be the ability to just cover your loss on your own terms. If insurance is the only means to a service, then it won't be kept in check with the actual service cost. In other words, you still have to be able to pay your doctor, your road maintenance, your bridge builder, etc. directly. You should be able to finance the serves the way you deem best.