Chomsky on Ron Paul

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

The lot of you bashing Chomsky because he dares to call himself an anarchist without worshipping private property rights = dumber.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone here bashing him for that reason?

[Kirkland]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This whole scenario is beyond foolish. He has no understanding of how the job market works at all. It's not like a libertarian society is without want ads and services like monster.com(that site sucks, but you get the point) a starving man with children would be able to find some type of job that would not have him contracting himself out as a slave.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Chomsky has written some smart stuff before, I'm a little amazed at just how idiotic this is. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this was not written by Chomsky at all.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
His comments on property rights are most certainly not why I think he has no business being called an anarchist or a libertarian something. I actually don't even think his answer to the question about what property rights would look like is necessarily wrong...

[/ QUOTE ] What comments trouble you, then?

[ QUOTE ]
, but it is an absurd answer given his other comments about "what anarcho capitalism would look like", especially since he doesn't even elaborate after saying how bad he thinks it would be.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you think it's absurd. Property rights would have to be worked out by free communities through voluntary means.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
The lot of you bashing Chomsky because he dares to call himself an anarchist without worshipping private property rights = dumber.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really care about that. I've read some of his stuff before and watched him speak a few times and felt I could agree with a lot of things he was saying.

But then when he turns around and writes this and then says at the end he'd vote for Hilary over Ron Paul, I'm led to believe the guy is just either a gigantic fraud or incredibly misinformed (or perhaps doesn't care to inform himself), because I know he is intelligent.

Someone who responded to his blog post had a good point about how Chomsky appears to be in a fantasy world where democracy is winning out over corporate interests and the preferences of the elite. It's simply not the case. Of all people, he should be able to spot the kind of corruption that goes on between corporate interests and politicians. Yet he chooses to ignore all that and when asked about government he only cries for more of it.

[wtfsvi]

Oh, he actually said he would rather vote for Hillary than Paul? I didn't click the link [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

That's retarded.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
What comments trouble you, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

He says this

[ QUOTE ]
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)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Leading us to believe he's not really an anarchist, as government intervention that produces results to his liking are perfectly acceptable. But we're also led to believe this is the only aspect of government that is accountable. But wait! He goes on to say in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE

[ QUOTE ]
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,....?

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, that's quite a list! It looks like he believes many aspects of government are accountable to the people.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, he actually said he would rather vote for Hillary than Paul? I didn't click the link [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

That's retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I made a slight mistake I guess. The exact wording is

[ QUOTE ]
3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate...and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?







No.




[/ QUOTE ]

So he never said he would actually VOTE for Hilary over Ron Paul, but judging from his past endorsements (someone said he support Kerry?), I think we can connect the dots.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This whole scenario is beyond foolish. He has no understanding of how the job market works at all. It's not like a libertarian society is without want ads and services like monster.com(that site sucks, but you get the point) a starving man with children would be able to find some type of job that would not have him contracting himself out as a slave.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Chomsky has written some smart stuff before, I'm a little amazed at just how idiotic this is. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this was not written by Chomsky at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

When someone writes as many words as Chomsky, you have to ignore obvious misstatements like these [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
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)?

[/ QUOTE ] Ok yes, that doesn't sound very anarcistic.

[ QUOTE ]
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,....?

[/ QUOTE ] Anarchism and taxation are not mutually exclusive. But I agree that these statements are very strange from someone who calls themself an anarchist. I spoke too soon here.

[ QUOTE ]
So he never said he would actually VOTE for Hilary over Ron Paul, but judging from his past endorsements (someone said he support Kerry?), I think we can connect the dots.

[/ QUOTE ] Picking Kerry over Bush is very different from picking Hillary over Paul.

[Moneyline]

The 2+2 reactions to Chomsky's blog post are sad and funny. His objections to Paul's candidacy are not only cogent, but pretty much what you would expect him to say if you were familiar with his work. Here, however, his statements are met by insults and ad hominem attacks. I don't expect everyone to agree with Chomsky, but contrary to the claims here he is certainly not stupid, and he does have an idea of how the job market works.

Many of the libertarians and ACists on this forum come off as exhibiting extreme hubris and closed-mindedness. It's sad that it happens, but amusing in its predictability.