Why Noam Chomsky Is Wrong About LibertarianismSubmitted by thenung on Sun, 08/10/2014 - 01:57
"For a man so renowned for his work in linguistics, Noam Chomsky certainly seems confused about the definitions of 'libertarianism' and 'anarchy.' And despite his accuracy on foreign policy, he's completely lost on economics and social policy. It's actually incredibly disappointing to see someone who so correctly recognizes so many problems in the world but consistently comes up with awful solutions.
In an interview with Michael S. Wilson, Chomsky comments:
Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society . . . and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.
As I've explained in a previous article, libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle: No one can initiate force against another person or their property except in self-defense. It's the maximum amount of personal (and economic, if you insist on that false dichotomy) freedom for you and I to achieve our own purposes any way we see fit as long as we don't interfere with each others ability to do the same. Everyone owns themselves and the fruit of their labor. There are very clear boundaries: for example, my freedom to move my fist through the air ends where your face ends. In a libertarian society, people can choose not to associate with whomever they please for whatever reason, instead of being forced to pay taxes that pay for things they don't support or follow laws passed by politicians they didn't vote for. How a society based on every interaction being completely voluntary could possibly be bastardized into 'a very high level of authority and domination,' or 'unaccountable private tyranny,' is beyond me. The state is authority. Period."