What does Noam Chomsky think about Ron Paul?

[swatmc]

Seriously. Any guesses?

[ARealConservative]

He would hate him.

Chomsky is a collectivist and an America Hater.

[furface]

>>>He would hate him.<<<

I'm not sure you can say that. I would tend to think the opposite. However, Noam and I are two different people, so I can't say.

[cujothekitten]

I would guess he agrees with a few things but Chomsky is an anarcho-socialist so he probably disagrees with a totally free market.

[coplinger]

I would think that he would be right in line with him on foreign policy, but on economic policy, they would have much disagreement.

[swatmc]

What do you think Chomsky's reaction would be about the mini debate with Ron Paul and Giuliani last night?

[abouthadit]

Got to be polar opposites. Chomsky is a blame America first kind of guy, whereas Paul is a "blame the anti-federalists, empire building, fiat printing, debt building, war mongers" kind of guy.
:D

[ARealConservative]

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist.

Libertarian socialism includes a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies - a society in which individuals co-operate freely as equals. This would be achieved through the abolition of private property, thereby giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes.


They are polar opposites.

[furface]

>>>This would be achieved through the abolition of private property<<<

Has Chomksky ever said he was for the abolition of private property? I'm not sure you can say that about him, but I could be wrong. Private property is a basic human right. I think there's not doubt about that at this point.

[zMtLlC]

I think Chomsky would certainly like Dr. Paul's tirade last night on US foreign policy, no question.

[ARealConservative]

>>>This would be achieved through the abolition of private property<<<

Has Chomksky ever said he was for the abolition of private property? I'm not sure you can say that about him, but I could be wrong. Private property is a basic human right. I think there's not doubt about that at this point.

His book entitled "Government in the future" deals with the concept.

[Gee]

They aren't polar opposites. Libertarian socialists argue that capitalism (and its in-equality of classes) cannot survive without coersion. "Normal" libertarians argue the free market will arise in the absense of coersion. Both want to get rid of coersion, the arguement is over what coersion is, and how to get rid of it, IMO.

[NMCB3]

I don't know mush about Chomsky, but anything with socialist in it cant by definition be good for individual freedom. Ditto for "libertarian socialists"

[Horace]

They disagree over basic human nature. Mainstream libertarians follow the bouncing ball of Mises economics and Murray Rothbard's polemical presentation of the free market leading directly to democracy. Chomsky -- when he's being coherent at all -- follows traditional socialist doctrine and believes in organizing powerless segments of the population (women, minorities, the poor) to defeat the natural tendency of powerful interests to, effectively, enslave them through superior ability and force.

Paul wants us out of NAFTA because it's governmental. Chomsky wants us out of NAFTA because it's capitalistic. They would be a seriously strange pair of bedfellows.

[Brandybuck]

Anarcho-capitalists say one thing, anarcho-socialists say another. But until we get a true modern anarchist society, no one knows for sure what it would be like. I would bet the result would be closer to the anarcho-capitalist's vision, however.

But beyond that, I have one huge beef with anarcho-socialists: they want to get rid of all hierarchies, not just government. Including voluntary and non-coercive hierarchies. They would get rid of churches by force. They would get rid of employers by force. They would get rid of all inequalities by force. They are in essence anti-anarchists, mobocrats. They would replace the state's hierarchical monopoly on coercion with the decentralized distributed coercion of a mobocracy. But the coercion would remain. It would be Lord of the Flies writ large.

[NMCB3]

Anarcho-capitalists say one thing, anarcho-socialists say another. But until we get a true modern anarchist society, no one knows for sure what it would be like. I would bet the result would be closer to the anarcho-capitalist's vision, however.

But beyond that, I have one huge beef with anarcho-socialists: they want to get rid of all hierarchies, not just government. Including voluntary and non-coercive hierarchies. They would get rid of churches by force. They would get rid of employers by force. They would get rid of all inequalities by force. They are in essence anti-anarchists, mobocrats. They would replace the state's hierarchical monopoly on coercion with the decentralized distributed coercion of a mobocracy. But the coercion would remain. It would be Lord of the Flies writ large. Thats what I`m saying, sounds bad for liberty. All it would take is one guy like me who wanted to be free to make my own choices, then what would they do. What about 100, 1000 ?

[Stan Hunter]

Chomsky does in fact believe in free markets, but he thinks the state needs to be expanded to meet this end, rather than eliminated or reduced.

In a free market society, people can create a socialist farm, town, or society, if they choose, from the ground up, as opposed to the top down (as a democratic or neo-con president would like to do). That is because it is their choice, as opposed to being forced upon them.
Those who do not choose to participate do not have to. People can make socialist factories and businesses if they want, but they'll have to compete with a traditional factory or business of voluntary heirarchy led by someone who is experienced in leading a business.

In a free society, people are free to do and live as they like.

If that means making a commune, than who are we to say they can't?
A true commune can only exist -and sustain itself- in a free society to begin with. So to criticize the free market, for a socialist or communist, is detrimental. I don't think Chomsky criticizes free markets, so much as what is currently called "the free market" that we see now.

I have hang ups with the abolition of private property, that's a dangerous thing to come from a government. If Chomsky does his homework, as a scholar should, he'll probably consider Ron Paul the way to go tactically speaking, but I'm not Noam so who knows.

[LibertyEagle]

What do you think Chomsky's reaction would be about the mini debate with Ron Paul and Giuliani last night?

What debate? What did I miss? :eek:

[kylejack]

I would guess he agrees with a few things but Chomsky is an anarcho-socialist so he probably disagrees with a totally free market.

I've thought about this a little. Aren't ancaps and an-socialists essentially the same thing? The only difference seems to be what they think will happen if the State is eliminated.

[beermotor]

There's a huge difference, I think. I think the natural condition is capitalism. I think socialists disagree. they're wrong. :)

[torchbearer]

In my sociological studies... Noam always sounded like a socialist... an anti-establishment socialist... though a very good linguist.
I don't see how he has any connection with ron paul. true socialism and true personal liberties can't trully co-exist.

[austinphish]

I think if Chomsky had to pick a candidate (that could actually win) it would be Ron Paul.

Maybe that is wishful thinking

[kylejack]

I think if Chomsky had to pick a candidate (that could actually win) it would be Ron Paul.

Maybe that is wishful thinking

Kucinich, more likely.

[swatmc]

I posted this topic a while back. The only reason I did so was that I was curious to what Chomsky though about Ron Paul, more specifically his comments about Blowback and US foreign policy.

I'm still curious.

I think someone should go to Chomsky and just ask him, get a debate going.

Also I am curious to what someone like Christopher Hitchens thinks of Ron Paul.

The more takes on Ron Paul the better.

[Enzo]

Someone did ask Noam Chomsky:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=571422&blogID=326180908

[Flash]

"Chomsky is a collectivist and an America Hater."

I agree. Hes just another Moore.

[Dustancostine]

Ron Paul and Chomsky have both diagnosed the problem with our foreign policy the same, but have extremely different views on how to cure the problem. Chomsky wants global government.

[LibertyOfOne]

What is with all these old threads popping back up?

[Shii]

What is with all these old threads popping back up?

Enzo bumped it because someone got a response, which was very interesting.



Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you've already mentioned.

I guess he doesn't want to eliminate the state after all :confused:

[Matt]

Someone did ask Noam Chomsky:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=571422&blogID=326180908

That's hilarious, I expected better of the guy. He sounds like a left wing Hannity with his fallacies. It makes me happy to vote for Ron Paul knowing that Chomsky is threatened by him.

Anyway, my argument against Chomsky is that private property is the natural result of life (time) and liberty (the freedom to use that time however you want). Life + Liberty + the apparently natural human urge to create things = property. If individuals possess these two rights you can't stop them from owing property (either singularly or collectively through free association) without violating them. This is assuming that all people are created equal, if Mr. Chomsky believes that's not the case and that he has special rights I'd like to know where he gets them.

[Enzo]

Sorry to bring up an old thread.

I was actually curious about the same thing. What does Chomsky think of Ron Paul?

So after seeing the same question here, I found the answer elsewhere, and posted what I found.

Chomsky has been a great resource for me, and I consider his work, research, and writings on the Middle East, and US foreign policy in general, to be invaluable.

Ultimately, Noam Chomsky is not a politician, and is in no position to do anything but inform, and educate people. (which he does a great job of) Fortunately, Ron Paul is in a position to make a real change.

I donated $100 to Ron Paul's campaign earlier today, and I'm telling everyone I can about him.

[aksmith]

Chomsky is a world socialist. He is perfectly consistent, and nearly perfectly wrong all the time. In fact, he's a good barometer for Ron Paul. The more Chomsky disagrees with Ron Paul, the more correct Ron is likely to be.

In fact, if you asked Ron Paul, he'd probably tell you that corporations are an entity that doesn't need to exist and are pretty counterproductive. On this, Chomsky would probably agree with Ron. But because Chomsky doesn't believe in private property, their agreement on the topic would last about five seconds and mean nothing. Ron would end the corporation because private property is important, but limiting an entity's liability is wrong. Chomsky would end corporations because they control private property and that property is not in the hands of the collective.

And that may be the only place they'd agree. In fact, my guess would be that Chomsky is fine with fiat currency because it's the best way to create wealth and stick it to the man. The fact that people even know who Chomsky is means our educational system needs a massive overhaul.

[aksmith]

Sorry to bring up an old thread.

I was actually curious about the same thing. What does Chomsky think of Ron Paul?

So after seeing the same question here, I found the answer elsewhere, and posted what I found.

Chomsky has been a great resource for me, and I consider his work, research, and writings on the Middle East, and US foreign policy in general, to be invaluable.

Ultimately, Noam Chomsky is not a politician, and is in no position to do anything but inform, and educate people. (which he does a great job of) Fortunately, Ron Paul is in a position to make a real change.

I donated $100 to Ron Paul's campaign earlier today, and I'm telling everyone I can about him.

Good for you.

[nexalacer]

Chomsky has a ton of value in today's society, if only for his foreign policy analysis. He's not a "blame America" guy, he's just boldly honest about what's going on in the world, and the fact is, the Thugs in Washington have done a LOT of bad shit throughout the world since WW2. It sounds like blaming America, but that's just because his focus is on America, since he lives here. But he is equally as honest about the brutal foreign policies of other governments when it comes up.

However, he's so wrong on domestic policy, it's absurd. He constantly rails against the initiation of force in America's foreign policy, but then says the government should use that force on its own population in order to get rid of property rights and help the poor. Not only is this a gross hypocrisy (outward violence is bad but inward violence is good), but it also misses one of the most obvious facts of history: only with the growth of property rights beginning in the Renaissance has humanity been able to pull itself out of the brutal, oppressive conditions that were so prevalent when the state owned everything and the individual was *allowed* to live where he slaved away for his masters.

The whole approach of most leftist anarchists is contradictory. They always talk about the evils of the state because it uses force but then say that private property cannot exist. Well, if it cannot exist, yet it is even a baby's tendency to keep what's theirs (try taking candy from a baby!), then the only way to make it not exist is to use force. So the question is, what will a group of individuals that has a monopoly on the initiation of force, if not a state?

[couvi]

I don't know mush about Chomsky, but anything with socialist in it cant by definition be good for individual freedom. Ditto for "libertarian socialists"

"Libertarian socialist" sound like an oxymoron to me.

[dspectre]

I have not read enough to give a solid opinion about this guy, but from everything I have read he sounds like a communist. He can take the word libertarinism and dress it up all he wants, the reality is he writes like he wants communism. I'm honestly not saying this to sound demeaning or anything like that.

The person he would annoy(if he were alive) is Karl Marx, since Chomsky speaks like he wants some form of Socialism and not Communism. Socialism is a softer form of Communism(too soft for Marx). Funny, how this is rarely addressed in modern thought.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I would guess he agrees with a few things but Chomsky is an anarcho-socialist so he probably disagrees with a totally free market.

he's an anarcho-syndicalist. basically, everything will be a union

[JosephTheLibertarian]

They aren't polar opposites. Libertarian socialists argue that capitalism (and its in-equality of classes) cannot survive without coersion. "Normal" libertarians argue the free market will arise in the absense of coersion. Both want to get rid of coersion, the arguement is over what coersion is, and how to get rid of it, IMO.

really? I believe people should be free to be capitalist....or socialistic. their choice

[son of liberty]

I've learned a lot from Chomsky, I've read a bit and listened to hundreds of hours. I don't look for him to solve problems. He's better at diagnosing problems and presenting patterns and history lessons. He is best at deconstructing the media and the way propaganda works.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Someone did ask Noam Chomsky:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=571422&blogID=326180908

lol wow. Chomsky really hates libertarianism.


2) Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of "Libertarianism"?

That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

"free communities"

what the hell lol

I really want to see them debate!!!!!!!!!!!

[jenius]

Marx did not "want" Communism; he simply believed it was the inevitable evolution of a society that begins as a feudal state, then becomes a Capitalist state, and eventually a Communist state.

Marx himself famously said, "I am not a Marxist," and for good reason: primarily in that people kept trying to label him as a Marxist, based on what their limited notion of what "Marxism" is all about. And secondly, because his ideas were constantly evolving throughout his lifetime - at few points did he ever state his positions as static. Communism is merely a form of socialism that a number of countries in the last hundred years have attempted to install through forced revolution (as opposed to the revolution Marx claimed would eventually occur at the end of a Capitalist state).

Communism, as most of us know it, has very little to do with Karl Marx.

[couvi]

Question to Chomsky:

"Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of "Libertarianism"?"

Chomsky's reply:

"That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously."

The statement "it would be impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances" says everything. Essentially his ideas--his "abstract" preference--are utopic and unachievable in an unbrainwashed society.

Thankfully, Ron Paul deals in reality.

[Conza88]

Well I've been a fan of his for awhile, definitely about the Foreign Policy aspects which is predominately what I have read from his material. It's all I thought he was about, so all this socialist concerns go way over my head here. Don't know how you could call him un-American... simply because of dissent and calling out the administration for its shortcomings over the years. He rips into other countries aswell, its not all focused on the world super power, but it often is because of that simple reason.

I was also interested in this; thank you for the link - http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=571422&blogID=326180908
was good read. Glad someone bothered to write him a letter. I have before and got a good reply, was going to do so again if no one had yet.

So by his answer in that blog, he would not support Ron Paul... doesn't say he would support Hillary supposably.. by default.

I think he's just scared he'll lose a whole massive section of commentary about Fpolicy once Ron gets into power. :D Alternatively, I continue to find it hard to peg myself down with any label.. I would listen to chomsky and agree totally.. then I listen to Ron Paul & http://youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A (Milton Friedman - Greed) and then I totally agree with him... lol *sigh* RP ftw though, that never changes.:p

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why are Noam Chomsky books...good? What is so good about them? Are there any online? So many people keep telling me this

[nexalacer]

Why are Noam Chomsky books...good? What is so good about them? Are there any online? So many people keep telling me this

You can find his books on torrent sites pretty easily, as he's really popular on the internets. As far as what's good about his books, he is the best critic of foreign policy and propaganda today. Like I said, his domestic policy analysis is way off-base, but he can't be beat as far as foreign policy and propaganda critiques.

Manufacturing Consent, Failed States, and Rogue States are my three favorite.

[ACJohn]

Agree or Disagree love them or hate them, But Oh to have discussions like this again:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=buckley%20chomsky&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1

[Highmesa]

"Libertarian socialist" sound like an oxymoron to me.

Like having the freedom to repeatedly punch yourself in the nuts. :D

[ACJohn]

one more Buckley's position on drugs, I remember watching this and it had an influence on me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNw2r-qmopI

[Enzo]

Why are Noam Chomsky books...good? What is so good about them? Are there any online? So many people keep telling me this

Chomsky's books are so "good" because the man is so thorough and exhaustive in his explanation, historical background, research and references. Many find this to be "boring" but facts do matter.

Specifically with regard to the Middle East, he's been one of the few people that has consistently laid out exaclty what is happening, how it happened, who is responsible for it, and who is enabling it to continue.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Ron Paul gets a great deal of his information on US foreign policy from Noam Chomsky's books.

[J4ck]

I have lots of respect for Chomsky but he wouldn't support the good doctor. He doesn't believe in private property, is a fan of welfarism and he is against a strengthening of the states. (he fears that the price level for corrupt influental politicians will rapidly go down)

[dspectre]

Marx did not "want" Communism; he simply believed it was the inevitable evolution of a society that begins as a feudal state, then becomes a Capitalist state, and eventually a Communist state.

Marx himself famously said, "I am not a Marxist," and for good reason: primarily in that people kept trying to label him as a Marxist, based on what their limited notion of what "Marxism" is all about. And secondly, because his ideas were constantly evolving throughout his lifetime - at few points did he ever state his positions as static. Communism is merely a form of socialism that a number of countries in the last hundred years have attempted to install through forced revolution (as opposed to the revolution Marx claimed would eventually occur at the end of a Capitalist state).

Communism, as most of us know it, has very little to do with Karl Marx.

Sure he didn't want it. He preferred the current conditions of his time. Give me a break.

His arguments of the inevitability of communism didn't derive from evolution of society. It comes from the idea of Historical Materialism, that is the whole conflict of the social classes.

Marx called for the violent over throw of the middle class. This was the necessary great change to install a Communistic society. Marx saw socialism in his time as a compromised form of communism. It had similar ideas, but without the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the true communistic society could not be achieved(since socialism compromised itself to the middle class). How can one believe that someone who states that a "violent overthrow of the ruling class is a necessity" does not have a desire or want for change? If it was just a social evolution, it could happen with or without violent revolution.

Communism changed over the years, but its core ideas and goals remained the same.

[LBT]

Chomsky would support Ron Paul's positions on a lot of things. He is quite good in some areas of analysis, but he has no idea of economics.

One thing for sure, is that in a Chomsky world, we would not be free to do as we please with what is our own. He would not leave us alone, unless we followed his directive (slavery).

Ron Paul's ideology is to leave people alone as much as possible, except when they interfere with other people or their property.

[chrismatthews]

I've thought about this a little. Aren't ancaps and an-socialists essentially the same thing? The only difference seems to be what they think will happen if the State is eliminated.


Not even close man.

ok.

classic libertarianism or minarchism is what Ron Paul alludes to when he says, ideally i would do this but as president i'll aim for this instead(for example a competing currency to fiat money vs the abolition of fiat money.)

That's the sect of the libertarian party that Paul subscribes to.

The central tenet being that government has a monopoly on force, and exists to defend its peoples individual rights, which include protecting you from aggression, both foreign and domestic, enforcing property rights, and enforcing contract law and tort.

Property rights is the platform the rest of the ethos derives from, if someone assaults you, that's an invasion of your property(because in libertarianism, you own yourself and the fruit of your labor) for example.

Anarcho-capitalism takes it one step further.

Government does NOT have a monopoly on the use of force, in fact, there is no government.(because, at it's essence a government is the only agent that can employ force legally) Private companies provide services for contract arbitration, Private companies provide for a "national" defense. Laws are enforced by private security companies, etc...


The libertarian ethos is divided into these two general camps.


You have a third camp, which used to be much more prevalent than it is today.(it peaked in the late 1800's). This camp believes that property is theft. The most famous example is Proudhon if you want to look into the philosophy. Chomsky is from this camp.

Without property, you can not have capitalism, and as a result(in my opinion), they deem capitalism as antithetical to freedom.

One can not own anything, period, you only "possess" things, until you put them down, at which point they are public goods again, whether this be land, or the clothes on your back.


They use the labor theory of goods to establish a barter system for exchange. In essence, it's marxism, except marxism is a graduated evolution/devolution through the state, while libertarian socialism is strictly implemented by a coerced revolution or strictly utopian.

The capitalist based ideologies have a canon of economic theory and developmental science.

The socialist based ideology is vacuous in this regard.


So Ron Paul is classic libertarian, meaning, the government should be kept small enough you can drown it in your bathtub.

Murray Rothbard is anarcho-cap, meaning, no agency or person has a monopoly on force.

Chomsky is a utopian marxist, property is theft, one can not own, only possess.

[LBT]

Sure he didn't want it. He preferred the current conditions of his time. Give me a break.

His arguments of the inevitability of communism didn't derive from evolution of society. It comes from the idea of Historical Materialism, that is the whole conflict of the social classes.

Marx called for the violent over throw of the middle class. This was the necessary great change to install a Communistic society. Marx saw socialism in his time as a compromised form of communism. It had similar ideas, but without the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the true communistic society could not be achieved(since socialism compromised itself to the middle class). How can one believe that someone who states that a "violent overthrow of the ruling class is a necessity" does not have a desire or want for change? If it was just a social evolution, it could happen with or without violent revolution.

Communism changed over the years, but its core ideas and goals remained the same.

Marx was hesitant to put forth policy goals on how to establish communism because when he tried to in earlier writings the economists would shatter his ideas and prove them ridiculous.

He even developed the concept of polylogism (different truths for different classes) to avoid the arguments of economists. Hence he dismiss their arguments as untrue simply because they represented the capitalist class. He was a piece of work.

At least that's what I've garnered from some studies.

[LBT]

Not even close man.

ok.

classic libertarianism or minarchism is what Ron Paul alludes to when he says, ideally i would do this but as president i'll aim for this instead(for example a competing currency to fiat money vs the abolition of fiat money.)

That's the sect of the libertarian party that Paul subscribes to.

The central tenet being that government has a monopoly on force, and exists to defend its peoples individual rights, which include protecting you from aggression, both foreign and domestic, enforcing property rights, and enforcing contract law and tort.

Property rights is the platform the rest of the ethos derives from, if someone assaults you, that's an invasion of your property(because in libertarianism, you own yourself and the fruit of your labor) for example.

Anarcho-capitalism takes it one step further.

Government does NOT have a monopoly on the use of force, in fact, there is no government.(because, at it's essence a government is the only agent that can employ force legally) Private companies provide services for contract arbitration, Private companies provide for a "national" defense. Laws are enforced by private security companies, etc...


The libertarian ethos is divided into these two general camps.


You have a third camp, which used to be much more prevalent than it is today.(it peaked in the late 1800's). This camp believes that property is theft. The most famous example is Proudhon if you want to look into the philosophy. Chomsky is from this camp.

Without property, you can not have capitalism, and as a result(in my opinion), they deem capitalism as antithetical to freedom.

One can not own anything, period, you only "possess" things, until you put them down, at which point they are public goods again, whether this be land, or the clothes on your back.


They use the labor theory of goods to establish a barter system for exchange. In essence, it's marxism, except marxism is a graduated evolution/devolution through the state, while libertarian socialism is strictly implemented by a coerced revolution or strictly utopian.

The capitalist based ideologies have a canon of economic theory and developmental science.

The socialist based ideology is vacuous in this regard.


So Ron Paul is classic libertarian, meaning, the government should be kept small enough you can drown it in your bathtub.

Murray Rothbard is anarcho-cap, meaning, no agency or person has a monopoly on force.

Chomsky is a utopian marxist, property is theft, one can not own, only possess.
Great analysis!

May I add, that if Murray Rothbard were alive today, I expect he would be jumping up and down with excitement at the growing success of the Ron Paul campaign, and the fact that it is spreading ideas about liberty.

As for Chomsky, I'm not sure if he sees Ron Paul as a net positive or negative.

[chrismatthews]

Great analysis!

May I add, that if Murray Rothbard were alive today, I expect he would be jumping up and down with excitement at the growing success of the Ron Paul campaign, and the fact that it is spreading ideas about liberty.

As for Chomsky, I'm not sure if he sees Ron Paul as a net positive or negative.


Rothbard is my personal rockstar.

I think of him as von Mises with the benefit of having been able to read von Mises before you develop your own theories. :)

I do stray from straight Rothbardian philosophy though. I can't logically make the step to no monopoly on force.

Rothbards motivation was that all monopolies spring from government(which is obvious), but more specifically, they spring from a monopoly on force.

I'm not certain if i'll someday make that connection and fully understand his philosophy or if ill expand and improve that philosophy someday, as he did von Mises'

Thanks for the compliment. I wish he were still alive, can you imagine Rothbard as Secretary of Treasury? :)

[Joby]

It would be extremely interesting to find out, or if Paul and Chomsky did an interview together.

I'v read a lot, a lot, of Chomsky's work, and he is intelectually stimulating, I'll give him that. If he and Dr. Paul debated, it would be an instant classic. A discussion for the ages, not the "I'll eat the testicles of terrorists vs. I'd find Jack Baeur vs. I'd just nuke 'em all vs. Y'all are frickin crazy!" debates that we have now.

[Joby]

I think Chomsky would certainly like Dr. Paul's tirade last night on US foreign policy, no question.

What tirade?

[d'anconia]

What tirade?

Look at the date of the post. Back in May after the Fox debate.

Anyway Chomsky is a joke. He's also a global warming alarmist. Basically his answer to everything is "force everyone to be nice" LOL what a joke. No wonder he's become a public intellectual, he advocates more and more government and of course governments in general love to hear that so they push for his prestige.

[chrismatthews]

Look at the date of the post. Back in May after the Fox debate.

Anyway Chomsky is a joke. He's also a global warming alarmist. Basically his answer to everything is "force everyone to be nice" LOL what a joke. No wonder he's become a public intellectual, he advocates more and more government and of course governments in general love to hear that so they push for his prestige.


He's antithetical to what I believe but he is brilliant in his own right. I'd rather commit murder than live under his ideal society but that doesn't make him stupid.

A lot of the rhetoric he uses is aimed at shaping the people that follow him closely's opinion rather than being based on his actual philosophy.

So anything he can beat the state on, whether it's in line with his actual belief is fodder. He thinks of himself as more a prophet than a polemist.

[d'anconia]

Well here's what I wrote for those in our Facebook group who were wondering about Chomsky's reply. If someone with a MySpace account wants to copy and paste it into that discussion that'd be great cuz I don't have a MySpace account. Don't be shy! Pretty sad that this guy is held as some Jesus-like intellectual or something when his arguments are those of a 12 year old:
(His post is in red, mine is in blue)

"Under all circumstances? 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. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consent is consent. A person has the ability to opt out of any contract they want at any time but will be held accountable for opting out according to the terms of agreement. A more important question might be why someone who has no skills and no ability to make income or provide for a family has gone ahead and started a family anyway. Plus General Electric is a monolith purely because they have used lobbyists to manipulate the "would-be-for-the-public-good" bureaucrats who pass legislation in the industries within which GE competes. They also receive subsidies from the government. The government that Chomsky advocates is the same one that is used against the people because politicians can multiply their income via lobbyists (who are hired by corporations like GE).
Of course this all neglects the fact that generally people are good and willing to donate money to private charities like for this guy's family to survive so that his working for GE would be unnecessary in the first place. The government certainly won't help, in fact in the United States the poverty rate was declining by roughly 1% per year until LBJ's war on poverty stuff got passed in the (not-so) "Great Society". I find it rather curious that poverty was declining on its own before government intervention and then has really failed to produce any further decline since then.

""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? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded -- like what we're now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,....? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise."
----------------------------------------------------------------
No it means that corporations will no longer be able to survive because they can't lean on the government for help any more. No more lobbyists pushing pro-oligopolistic legislation (including barriers to entry), no more corrupt government contracts, and no more subsidies going to those who don't need them. Every business now becomes accountable because for once the people can actually withhold funds from specific companies (whereas they can not control where their taxes dollars are given). You think corporations would mess up the environment? Right now they are protected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who, when first created, started off their career of mucking things up by making it impossible to file class-action lawsuits against polluting factories. Is there ANY entity that pollutes worse than the US government? (Hint: no). EPA are the ones who make it illegal to use bio-diesel without special permits (which cost extra money by the way) and, again, Chomsky completely ignores the role of lobbyists in politicians (WTF I expected better from the supposed smartest intellectual on Earth).

Chomsky talks about "accountability" while wholly ignoring the fact that governments are the least accountable entities on the face of the planet. You can not withdraw funds from the government. If you try to defend yourself against the US military you'll find that you're just a tad bit out-gunned. The US government has not been, and will not be, held accountable. Should we get rid of schools? No, just privatize them. Should we get rid of roads? No, just privatize them. If Chomsky really believes that R&D only happens because of the government then it's up to him to prove it. R&D with government help is more wasteful than it should be, only when a company calculates the option to be worth it should they invest in a technology.

"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. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power -- itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what? Workers can strike and cause an owner to go bankrupt over night. Again Chomsky talks about private companies as if they're all Haliburtons and GM's while wholly ignoring the fact that most companies are small Ma & Pa stores that are just trying to offer a product that the public wants. He talks about the inequality between workers and owners while wholly ignoring the even bigger inequality between politicians and their constituents. He opposes evil owners (don't get me wrong, they exist) exploiting their workers while ignoring the fact that around 1/3 of the work that Americans do is given to the government without any possibility of consent.
As I've said before workers have the ability to go work for another owner. The consumers also now have the incentive to favor products of good companies over those of companies who treat their employees badly. But let me guess, Chomsky is probably wearing Nike shoes and drinking a fresh Coca-Cola while he wrote out this response.

"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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You can always expect Chomsky to take a philosophy and automatically turn it into some sort of statism. Ron Paul doesn't advocate "ultranationalism", he just thinks if you want something to happen with respect to foreign policy that you shouldn't be forced to do something else. Everyone is more than welcome to head to Darfur to fix everything if they want but for someone to force income away from me and put it toward something that I don't believe in is completely unethical. If I disagree with the Iraq War then why should money be forced away from my hard work to fund it?

And more importantly Chomsky, AGAIN, forgets the role of lobbyists in the government (seriously WTF it's not that hard). Once you set out upon an interventionist foreign policy and certain entities make a profit off of war then you will find yourself in a perpetual war. This is what has happened in the United States. Heck even back in the Marshall Plan tons of politicians and big corporations made a ton of money by skimming off the top of taxpayer money. Nowadays we have corporations like KBI, Haliburton, Blackwater, and Lockheed-Martin, all of whom make a ton of money off of war, always pushing for war. They stand to make tons of money off of war so what do they do? They lobby the powerful politicians in Washington to push for war. The corporations get huge bullshit contracts, the politicians increase their income big-time (the amount usually is proportional to their power in the government), the lobbyists make tons of money, and of course the soldiers and taxpayers get shafted. Doesn't Chomsky find it at least somewhat dubious that the US is now in a perpetual war against an invisible enemy with no clearly stated goal and thus no real end in sight?

Plus Chomsky is ignoring the fact that foreign aid (not talking military) tends to hurt more than it helps. We send foreign aid (I'm talking in the form of taxpayer money or supplies given away by our government) to nations and what happens? The people in power on both sides skim a bunch off the top, in Africa especially the warlords take a bunch of the aid and use it to buy guns that repress the people.
Let's try another viewpoint: if you're an African farmer and a bunch of foreign aid, in the form of food, comes to your village, how does that affect you? I'll tell you how, the supply for your product has now gone up and thus you won't made a cent off of your harvest. You've been run out of business by your government and the US government. You'll switch to another job and then what happens? Foreign aid stops, for whatever reason because it can't go on indefinitely, and no one has planted any crops so the people are in danger of starvation and it still takes several months for the crops to be planted and eventually harvested. If you have been a farmer in the past but now work as a carpenter you'll probably stay carpenter because why would you farm when you could just be pushed out of business again if the government starts to give more foreign "aid"?

"There's a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn't themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being "broken" are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based -- the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we're at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?)."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Again the hypocrisy is astounding. We should all love each other so we're going to force money away from you, at the point of a gun and with the threat of imprisonment, and give it to others. What kind of logic is this? Social security IS broken, I don't know what fantasy-land Chomsky is living in, he must not have realized at the time of typing his stuff out that the dollar is plunging (yet somehow Ron Paul knew this would happen years ago, hmmmm...) and since just about all products are based on some sort of imports (don't forget oil) then everyone's dollar-based retirements are going to get wiped out.

The bottom line still holds: if everyone thinks people *should* help each other out then there is no reason to enforce that because people will be willing to do it anyway. If private organizations picked up where things like social security left off then the people would finally have an ability to create real competition within the field of charity and thus efficiency would be optimized. The current government-based "charity" system works backwards where the worse you do the more money you get. Where on Earth do you think the incentive lies?

Chomsky's form of libertarianism ISN'T libertarianism. It's not even close.
The fact that abstraction and circumstance are so different to Chomsky is because HE HAS NO CONSISTENCY. There are NO underlying consistent logical theories that his philosophy advocates. Logic is always consistent and that's the one thing Chomsky has failed to use. He's just re-iterating what the government-sponsored media tells him to think (hint: it's all advocating more government = more funding and power going to governments).
He wouldn't support Ron Paul over Hillary? Hey that's his call but I think it goes to show how out of touch he really is.

Chomsky... great at linguistics but completely oblivious to how the political world actually works. Not one reference to lobbyists. Not one reference to corruption. The problems that Chomsky tries to focus on are the same ones that his type of "solutions" have created in the first place.

[tsetsefly]

He would hate him.

Chomsky is a collectivist and an America Hater.
even worse, a supporter of pol pot, mao etc.

He supports the use of force to get people to do the "right" thing, according to him off course...

[RegularRon]

Chomsky? Oh God....He would hate the Doc. And I don't want him anywhere near him. Are you crazy??

[nexalacer]

even worse, a supporter of pol pot, mao etc.

He supports the use of force to get people to do the "right" thing, according to him off course...

Yes, his solutions support the use of force to get people to do the "right" thing, but if you believe in the state, so do yours. The fact is, regardless of the uselessness of his solutions, his analysis of the problems in America, especially in the foreign policy and media control fields, are spot on. I think most people on this board would agree with him in these two aspects and these are his greatest(i.e. only) contribution to the field of politics.

Oh, and by the way, d'anconia, spot on analysis of his comments on Ron Paul. Kudos.

[Conza88]

It would be extremely interesting to find out, or if Paul and Chomsky did an interview together.

I'v read a lot, a lot, of Chomsky's work, and he is intelectually stimulating, I'll give him that. If he and Dr. Paul debated, it would be an instant classic. A discussion for the ages, not the "I'll eat the testicles of terrorists vs. I'd find Jack Baeur vs. I'd just nuke 'em all vs. Y'all are frickin crazy!" debates that we have now.

Yea my god, it would be an insane debate. The typical 'idol voter' is going to struggle to keep up with that one. lmao. I don't know who would win... I think Ron Paul simplifies things to a degree (he has to in a sense) he's running for president. But Noam, can do what he always does and bash it out at length. I would have to literally sit back in awe.. and after it all I don't think they would have converted each other on any point, and remain adamant their positions are correct. lol

[TooConservative]

I've read many Chomsky books, largely because his style of argument is interesting and his mustering of little-known historical material forces readers to re-examine the pap they call history in the public schools. It's not history, it's civic indoctrination designed to avoid the real history of the country.

I have few doubts that Chomsky favors in a general way the issues Ron Paul raises and speaks to so well on empire-building, legitimate defense, wars of aggression, the growth of a surveillance society in America, and so on. And the same neoconservatives that hate and fear Ron Paul so much have always been Chomsky's biggest enemies and critics.

Chomsky would agree with Ron Paul largely on Israel, foreign aid, etc. He's written extensively on this subject.

As for domestic and economic policy, Chomsky would not be fully in agreement but he would weigh a restoration of constitutional policy and the overall change in the country as compared to what the two major political parties offer currently.

Chomsky's greatest area of disagreement with Ron Paul would be over pro-life issues and just possibly his hands-off education policy at the federal level. IOW, on essentially peripheral issues for Chomsky.

It would be interesting to hear Chomsky discuss Paul's campaign and positions.


In a general election where Ron Paul was the GOP nominee against a Clinton, Chomsky would choose Ron Paul.
In a general election where Ron Paul was the GOP nominee against a Clinton and Nader was running third-party, Chomsky might pick Nader but I wouldn't bet that he wouldn't endorse Paul.
In a general election where the two nominees were Rudy and Hillary and Ron Paul was running third-party with no Nader in the race, Chomsky would favor Ron Paul, possibly endorsing him explicitly or tacitly.


I base this on having read all of Chomsky's major books, at least a dozen of them, over the past 20 years. I've read his major books like Manufacturing Consent two or more times.

[chrismatthews]

I've read many Chomsky books, largely because his style of argument is interesting and his mustering of little-known historical material forces readers to re-examine the pap they call history in the public schools. It's not history, it's civic indoctrination designed to avoid the real history of the country.

I have few doubts that Chomsky favors in a general way the issues Ron Paul raises and speaks to so well on empire-building, legitimate defense, wars of aggression, the growth of a surveillance society in America, and so on. And the same neoconservatives that hate and fear Ron Paul so much have always been Chomsky's biggest enemies and critics.

Chomsky would agree with Ron Paul largely on Israel, foreign aid, etc. He's written extensively on this subject.

As for domestic and economic policy, Chomsky would not be fully in agreement but he would weigh a restoration of constitutional policy and the overall change in the country as compared to what the two major political parties offer currently.

Chomsky's greatest area of disagreement with Ron Paul would be over pro-life issues and just possibly his hands-off education policy at the federal level. IOW, on essentially peripheral issues for Chomsky.

It would be interesting to hear Chomsky discuss Paul's campaign and positions.


In a general election where Ron Paul was the GOP nominee against a Clinton, Chomsky would choose Ron Paul.
In a general election where Ron Paul was the GOP nominee against a Clinton and Nader was running third-party, Chomsky might pick Nader but I wouldn't bet that he wouldn't endorse Paul.
In a general election where the two nominees were Rudy and Hillary and Ron Paul was running third-party with no Nader in the race, Chomsky would favor Ron Paul, possibly endorsing him explicitly or tacitly.


I base this on having read all of Chomsky's major books, at least a dozen of them, over the past 20 years. I've read his major books like Manufacturing Consent two or more times.


Chomsky was asked, and under no circumstances would he support Paul, his response is linked earlier in this thread.

He blathered on about social justice, corporatism, the greed of people that want to actually own stuff etc...

[LBT]

Rothbard is my personal rockstar.

I think of him as von Mises with the benefit of having been able to read von Mises before you develop your own theories. :)

I do stray from straight Rothbardian philosophy though. I can't logically make the step to no monopoly on force.

Rothbards motivation was that all monopolies spring from government(which is obvious), but more specifically, they spring from a monopoly on force.

I'm not certain if i'll someday make that connection and fully understand his philosophy or if ill expand and improve that philosophy someday, as he did von Mises'

Thanks for the compliment. I wish he were still alive, can you imagine Rothbard as Secretary of Treasury? :)

I also love Murray. If he were alive today he'd be posting the top article on LRC everyday and thrilling us with interesting insights.

I also have never made the step to anarcho-capitalism due to not being able to perceive, try as I may, how some form of state (monopoly of coercion) could not exist.

But I'm sure the picking at the fringes of Murray's ideas will enlighten us for many years to come:)

[chrismatthews]

Well here's what I wrote for those in our Facebook group who were wondering about Chomsky's reply. snip...

that's the basic demonstration of the utter lack of an economic theory, it's a social theory, but doesn't extend to the most common social interaction, which is barter.

Since there is no property there is no wealth. Individuals(which he abhors) would have incentive to grow enough food for themselves, but the Achilles heel is that there is no incentive to create capital goods.

Why create the plow when any food greater than what you can hold in your two hands isn't yours? You can't sell it, you can't store it for later, and if you try, anyone walking down the road is just as entitled to it as you.

Innovation would cease to exist, technology would revert to stone tools, and men would be communal tribal.

Native Americans lived in a somewhat similar social setting before Europe settled North America, however, they underpinned there societies with war amongst the tribes, and maintained a strict hierarchy among themselves based on age and accomplishment.

[Shii]

even worse, a supporter of pol pot, mao etc.

He supports the use of force to get people to do the "right" thing, according to him off course...

As long as a leader is scrupulous he should be willing to use force when necessary... that's why Lincoln was a great president. If Ron Paul were witness to a terrorist attack I would expect him to use his Constitutional authority to save lives.

That being said, Chomsky does not support Pol Pot, etc. He merely questions the official story about their reign, kind of like 9/11 truthers.

Example: http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomcambodforum.htm

[Flash]

I went to a fan website of Chomsky and it was full of ultra- Jewish supremacist radicals. I don't like Chomsky whatsoever, he must be a complete nutjob. And I guess racism comes from all groups.

[jj111]

I think Chomsky is controlled opposition. A puppet of the powers that be. Bought and paid for. Not what he appears to be. Chomsky is not for freedom. If he were, he would have jumped on the Ron Paul wagon long ago and made a formal endorsement of Ron Paul. Best advice regarding Chomsky: ignore him.

[Enzo]

I really don't understand all the "With Ron Paul or Against Us" sentiment.

I think the great thing about Ron Paul, is that he has such widespread support from so many different groups of people.

A lot of people that support Paul probably don't agree with everything he has to say.

If anything, dissent from someone like Chomsky towards Ron Paul, makes me want to take a closer look at just exactly what Ron Paul's positions are, to gain a better understanding for myself.... and to be able to more clearly articulate my understanding of those positions to other people.

Simply calling Chomsky Un-American, or Crazy because he doesn't agree with Paul, is exactly the kind of dead-end tactic used by people that want to silence or discredit Ron Paul.

Some of the questions Chomsky raised in response to the questions asked about Paul sounded pretty valid, and prompted me to want to take a look at more detailed explanations of Paul's positions, and that of other Libertarians.

I really appreciate those who've taken the time to give their own analysis, of why they think Chomsky is incorrect in his, without simply dismissing him and calling him crazy.

[lucius]

Chomsky is comfortable in what he has created, obtained and now plays a role, we owe him a debt for his earlier work, but Dr. Paul is the real deal, pretty terrifying to the status quo.

[Flash]

**delete**

[BlindWeb]

Chomsky was asked, and under no circumstances would he support Paul, his response is linked earlier in this thread.

He blathered on about social justice, corporatism, the greed of people that want to actually own stuff etc...
Don't blame Chomsky...Didn't anyone notice how bad the interviewer was? If he had mentioned Ron Paul's voting record and stance on Iraq, Iran, and running a global empire that would have easily trumped the domestic issues, especially when comparing him to Hillary.

[jon_perez]

I would guess he agrees with a few things but Chomsky is an anarcho-socialist so he probably disagrees with a totally free market.Heh heh I just realized that whereas Chomsky is an anarcho-socialist, Paul would be an anarcho-capitalist.

Interestingly, it seems that I have have been exposed to libertarian writings so much recently that I find I anarchy and socialism to be mutually incompatible (!)

Hmmm... I wonder what that says...

[RonPaulFTFW]

I think chomsky would admire things about paul.

but they wouldn't see eye to eye on many things.

I'm a fan of both men.

[johngr]

I think Chomsky is controlled opposition. A puppet of the powers that be. Bought and paid for. Not what he appears to be. Chomsky is not for freedom. If he were, he would have jumped on the Ron Paul wagon long ago and made a formal endorsement of Ron Paul. Best advice regarding Chomsky: ignore him.

I agree with you there. As one of the posters on majorityrights.com said, Chomsky serves as a "debate ceiling" on certain matters, particularly to do with Israel. The furthest permissible criticism of anything the actual power holders do (or is "theorized" they do) is whatever Chomsky articulates. He ridicules ideas that let the cat too far out of the bag.

According to the poster: "When people ask questions regarding the 9-11 attacks he’ll always dismiss them as “conspiracy.” The role of a debate ceiling is to never allow the debate to pass a certain level. The thinking being “if Chomsky [dismisses it as being to far out] it [couldn't] be true because Chomsky is a ‘radical’ who [is not afraid of telling] the truth."

[Sir VotesALot]

I agree with you there. As one of the posters on majorityrights.com said, Chomsky serves as a "debate ceiling" on certain matters, particularly to do with Israel. The furthest permissible criticism of anything the actual power holders do (or is "theorized" they do) is whatever Chomsky articulates. He ridicules ideas that let the cat too far out of the bag.

According to the poster: "When people ask questions regarding the 9-11 attacks he’ll always dismiss them as “conspiracy.” The role of a debate ceiling is to never allow the debate to pass a certain level. The thinking being “if Chomsky [dismisses it as being to far out] it [couldn't] be true because Chomsky is a ‘radical’ who [is not afraid of telling] the truth."

Bingo.

[Edward777]

He seemed to be quite favorable to him in reference to foreign policy in this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlWqItsDHxg&list=WL0E100504AC4201ED

[compromise]

Chomsky is a hard leftist and his neo-Marxist views are dangerous.

He is no friend of the liberty movement. He's been pretty explicit that he would never support Ron Paul in any circumstance...if a Republican had said that you'd probably all be hating on that Republican...Why does this guy get a pass?

[kcchiefs6465]

Chomsky is a hard leftist and his neo-Marxist views are dangerous.

He is no friend of the liberty movement. He's been pretty explicit that he would never support Ron Paul in any circumstance...if a Republican had said that you'd probably all be hating on that Republican...Why does this guy get a pass?
Because his foreign policy is outstanding.

[Antischism]

Chomsky is a hard leftist and his neo-Marxist views are dangerous.

He is no friend of the liberty movement. He's been pretty explicit that he would never support Ron Paul in any circumstance...if a Republican had said that you'd probably all be hating on that Republican...Why does this guy get a pass?

I don't care what he thinks about Ron Paul, I agree with a lot of Chomsky's views, too. He has a lot more in common with Ron than any of these establishment hacks in Washington. The way you're trying to smear him sounds like what people do with Ron Paul.

"Ron Paul is a hardcore right-winger and his neo-confederate views are dangerous."

[gwax23]

Chomskys a collectivist moron. Who cares what he thinks.

[kcchiefs6465]

Chomskys a collectivist moron. Who cares what he thinks.
Facts don't change because of the person conveying them.

When Noam Chomsky says something right, especially with regards to foreign policy, I'll listen. He is one of the best on the subject. It is the same way I read Greenwald, Scahill, or Balko. As if they have to have a spitten image of my views for me to take in the information they've gathered, research it independently, and educate myself on another aspect of the topic.

You're missing out if you completely write these guys off.

[gwax23]

Facts don't change because of the person conveying them.

When Noam Chomsky says something right, especially with regards to foreign policy, I'll listen. He is one of the best on the subject. It is the same way I read Greenwald, Scahill, or Balko. As if they have to have a spitten image of my views for me to take in the information they've gathered, research it independently, and educate myself on another aspect of the topic.

You're missing out if you completely write these guys off.

I just feel thats a low bar to set. Plenty of leftist idiots might seem to be good on foreign policy...but so what? Tyranny at home through collectivism but freedom from interventionism abroad? Why have a trade off? Why even bother praising this guy.

We have great minds in our own movement. Ron Paul being one of them. Whos right and consistent across the board in terms of freedom. These are the people we should care about and listen to, not some hack who says a few things right here and there.

[Natural Citizen]

Facts don't change because of the person conveying them.

When Noam Chomsky says something right, especially with regards to foreign policy, I'll listen. He is one of the best on the subject. It is the same way I read Greenwald, Scahill, or Balko. As if they have to have a spitten image of my views for me to take in the information they've gathered, research it independently, and educate myself on another aspect of the topic.

You're missing out if you completely write these guys off.

I had shared a recent discussion with Noam here... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?430221-Why-So-Quiet-Regarding-Drone-Technology&highlight=Chomsky

Is a pretty good discussion, I thought.


The United States is not the first superpower to act as if it's exceptional and will likely not be the last, although US leaders could be squandering a fruitful opportunity for improved international relations, Noam Chomsky said in an interview

[Antischism]

I just feel thats a low bar to set. Plenty of leftist idiots might seem to be good on foreign policy...but so what? Tyranny at home through collectivism but freedom from interventionism abroad? Why have a trade off? Why even bother praising this guy.

We have great minds in our own movement. Ron Paul being one of them. Whos right and consistent across the board in terms of freedom. These are the people we should care about and listen to, not some hack who says a few things right here and there.

So would you be against individualist socialism? In a stateless society, people are free to organize and practice voluntary collectivism, which in reality is simply individualism. Are you going to put a gun up to their heads and force them to stop forming communities that work for the whole? What's more idiotic is people who equate libertarian socialism with forced collectivism and use it as a way to ignorantly dismiss anyone who doesn't adhere to their preferred source of information or ideology.

Benjamin Tucker put it well in chapter IV of Liberty.



Let us narrow it a little: Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change in man’s environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute.

I doubt not that this definition can be much improved, and suggestions looking to that end will be interesting; but it is at least an attempt to cover all the forms of protest against the existing usurious economic system. I have always considered myself a member of the great body of Socialists, and I object to being read out of it or defined out of it by General Walker, Mr. Pentecost, or anybody else, simply because I am not a follower of Karl Marx.

Take now another Twentieth Century definition,—that of Anarchism. I have not the number of the paper in which it was given, and cannot quote it exactly. But it certainly made belief in co-operation an essential of Anarchism. This is as erroneous as the definition of Socialism. Co-operation is no more an essential of Anarchism than force is of Socialism. The fact that the majority of Anarchists believe in co-operation is not what makes them Anarchists, just as the fact that the majority of Socialists believe in force is not what makes them Socialists. Socialism is neither for nor against liberty; Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else. Anarchy is the mother of co-operation,—yes, just as liberty is the mother of order; but, as a matter of definition, liberty is not order nor is Anarchism co-operation.

I define Anarchism as the belief in the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty; or, in other words, as the belief in every liberty except the liberty to invade.

It will be observed that, according to the Twentieth Century definitions, Socialism excludes Anarchists, while, according to Liberty’s definitions, a Socialist may or may not be an Anarchist, and an Anarchist may or may not be a Socialist. Relaxing scientific exactness, it may be said, briefly and broadly, that Socialism is a battle with usury and that Anarchism is a battle with authority. The two armies—Socialism and Anarchism—are neither coextensive nor exclusive; but they overlap. The right wing of one is the left wing of the other. The virtue and superiority of the Anarchistic Socialist—or Socialistic Anarchist, as he may prefer to call himself—lies in the fact that he fights in the wing that is common to both. Of course there is a sense in which every Anarchist may be said to be a Socialist virtually, inasmuch as usury rests on authority, and to destroy the latter is to destroy the former. But it scarcely seems proper to give the name Socialist to one who is such unconsciously, neither desiring, intending, nor knowing it.

[malkusm]

What is with all these old threads popping back up?

He is wise; he has foretold the future.

[gwax23]

So would you be against individualist socialism? In a stateless society, people are free to organize and practice voluntary collectivism, which in reality is simply individualism. Are you going to put a gun up to their heads and force them to stop forming communities that work for the whole? What's more idiotic is people who equate libertarian socialism with forced collectivism and use it as a way to ignorantly dismiss anyone who doesn't adhere to their preferred source of information or ideology.

Benjamin Tucker put it well in chapter IV of Liberty.

What are you talking about? How does me not liking Noam Chomsky has anything to do with stopping people from forming communes? In my ideal society if a group of idiots wanted to form a commune based on socialism/communism, theyre free to give it a go.

[Rothbardian Girl]

What are you talking about? How does me not liking Noam Chomsky has anything to do with stopping people from forming communes? In my ideal society if a group of idiots wanted to form a commune based on socialism/communism, theyre free to give it a go.

You assumed that all leftists were nanny-staters.

[Christian Liberty]

Chomsky is a hard leftist and his neo-Marxist views are dangerous.

He is no friend of the liberty movement. He's been pretty explicit that he would never support Ron Paul in any circumstance...if a Republican had said that you'd probably all be hating on that Republican...Why does this guy get a pass?

I'm not a big fan of Chomsky but he's not nearly as evil as any Republican Senator not named Rand Paul.

I hold politicians to a higher standard. Even still, I'm not a huge fan, and don't view him as being in the liberty movement, but at least he's not voting to kill people every day.

[Christian Liberty]

You assumed that all leftists were nanny-staters.

Because its true:p

(Not defending the right either. I hate them both.)

[gwax23]

You assumed that all leftists were nanny-staters.

Well most of them are despite the fact I never said that in my original post.