Chomsky on Ron Paul

[The Truth]

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=326180908

Chomsky interesting as always. He is extremely critical of Paul, as expected. I can't say I disagree with many of his points, although his word choice is intentionally inflammatory as always.

I am sure he isn't advocating the current administartion over Paul (maybe in rare instances), but I am unclear which politian he would support.

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]

Chomsky hopeless as always.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(Ron Paul) 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?).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of thought?

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ALawPoker]

Chumpsky reminds me of our very own Phil153. He uses his wild imagination to dream up "problems" that A.) would not be likely to happen in a free market and B.) become more likely to happen when you introduce state oppression and C.) would not necessarily be any sort of problem if they did happen, all in an odd attempt to lead the reader to believe he is actually making a sound point. He makes the general mistake of assuming solutions that come from his mind must be better than solutions other people come to when acting freely in their own best interest. And he uses the implied delusion that human life could possibly be without problems to justify it.

What I really wonder is if people like Chomsky actually believe in the logical merit of what they say, or if his interest is merely to represent the views of people who actually think like that. It just baffles me that a supposedly smart person could make so many theoretical gaffs.

Also, I now rock the Jim Croce avatar, and (even dead) he is 10 times the man Chomsky will ever be.

[owsley]

For the life of me I cannot understand how Chomsky ever passes for anything but a big statist. How he can say all these things and be considered a libertarian or anarcho anything really doesn't make any sense at all.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
For the life of me I cannot understand how Chomsky ever passes for anything but a big statist. How he can say all these things and be considered a libertarian or anarcho anything really doesn't make any sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same can be said of Bill Maher.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of thought?

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.


[/ QUOTE ]


Yet again he is on record saying that free societies should be able to define property as they wish. And then he turns around and bashes them because the don't choose this dimwitted version of property that he likes.

What a D-bag

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
For the life of me I cannot understand how Chomsky ever passes for anything but a big statist. How he can say all these things and be considered a libertarian or anarcho anything really doesn't make any sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky appears to dislike the existence of freedoms unless they are freedoms he personally agrees with. His "free community" would be anything but...yet, it would seem free to him.

Chomsky is the soul brother of the big statists, just within his own paradigm.

[mosdef]

I would just like to point out that this:

"Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely."

is patently false. "Fire" is just a perjorative word for "terminate a contract", and certainly workers can quit most any time they want. Furthermore, if anyone thinks that workers can't intimidate employers they have never participated in a collective bargaining process.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the life of me I cannot understand how Chomsky ever passes for anything but a big statist. How he can say all these things and be considered a libertarian or anarcho anything really doesn't make any sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same can be said of Bill Maher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian because he's for the legalization of marijuana. That seems to be his only "libertarian" virtue.

[Case Closed]

[ 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.