Chomsky on Ron Paul

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Great link, I was looking forwards to hearing Chomsky's views on Ron Paul. He basically points out the obvious about Paul's economic program but would have liked to of heard more concerning the legitamacy of his foreign policy which he accounts to being "ultranationalism".

[ QUOTE ]
It's useless, it's inflammatory, and frankly it's contrary to everything Chomsky has ever written if he would actually support Clinton over Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]
??? Just because he doesn't support Ron Paul doesn't mean he supports Clinton or the Nazi Party. When was the last time Chomsky endorsed any candidate? never

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you bother reading the blog post??

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irony much?

Why don't you actually explain what anyone has said that you disagree with and offer some sort of actual argument against it before you go around insulting people and dismissing our objections to what Chomsky said in that blog.

[/ QUOTE ]

More like not much irony.

I did say what I disagree with. I gave two examples (I could have given more). One poster called Chomsky stupid and another said Chomsky has no idea how the job market works. Both of the posts that made this claim were guilty of the charges I made. Both posts demonstrated hubris and closed-mindedness by making the attacks they did. Neither of the posts were atypical of the way many of the ACists and libertarians discuss politics on this forum.

And as a total aside, Chomsky has frequently written about his disdain for anarcho-capitalism and his support for social welfare programs that Ron Paul wants to eliminate. Like most who are against the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter), Chomsky has never advocated for the sort of non-interventionist foreign policy that Paul does. At least for me, the content of his blog post is not at all surprising.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
homsky does not call himself and an anarchist. I don't where you people are pulling this from. In one of his interviews which was made into a book he described himself as "a mix of libertarian and socialism" He has always been very reluctant to put any political label on himself. What chomsky does in his writing is he simply digs after the truth and lays the facts out on the table. He is also a critic of pretty much every political figure. Don't get so defensive of your Ron Paul. Chomsky goes after everyone. Even my man JFK. Again, there are some things I like about Ron Paul. What I don't like about Ron Paul is his grassroots fan base that uses all too predictable republican name calling like calling him "chumpsky" If you want to seperate libertarianism form republicanism stop using the standard republican attack methods.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I think you make some good points in your post, Chomsky has stated that his ideal political philosophy is a sort of anarcho-socialism. FWIW, this form of anarchism is very different form the anarcho-capitalist views frequently expressed in this forum.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
And as a total aside, Chomsky has frequently written about his disdain for anarcho-capitalism and his support for social welfare programs that Ron Paul wants to eliminate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul is in fact the only candidate who has a viable plan to let people choose to get out of the dependency trap WITHOUT throwing a single person "out on the street." Namely by saving a trillion or more dollars a year in wars, empire, and pork. He's even said that he would have considered *supporting* the expansions of some programs like SCHIP, if only Congress would pay for them by cutting the Pork & Empire. But it never does.

[ QUOTE ]
Like most who are against the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter), Chomsky has never advocated for the sort of non-interventionist foreign policy that Paul does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he hasn't. Because he's all for violent aggression when it suits him, just like the rest. Which from what I can tell, is all the time. As near as I can figure Chomsky seems to be for state intervention in everything, everywhere, everytime.

[ QUOTE ]
At least for me, the content of his blog post is not at all surprising.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not at all surprising to me, either.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
It's useless, it's inflammatory, and frankly it's contrary to everything Chomsky has ever written if he would actually support Clinton over Paul. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. I think it would be contrary to everything Chomsky has ever written if he would actually support Paul over Clinton.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great link, I was looking forwards to hearing Chomsky's views on Ron Paul. He basically points out the obvious about Paul's economic program but would have liked to of heard more concerning the legitamacy of his foreign policy which he accounts to being "ultranationalism".

[ QUOTE ]
It's useless, it's inflammatory, and frankly it's contrary to everything Chomsky has ever written if he would actually support Clinton over Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]
??? Just because he doesn't support Ron Paul doesn't mean he supports Clinton or the Nazi Party. When was the last time Chomsky endorsed any candidate? never

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you bother reading the blog post??

[/ QUOTE ]#

Someone else who needs a lesson from chomsky on liguistics. Re-read the blog post and tell me where it says that chomsky endorses clinton as opposed to ron paul. it doesnt.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Someone else who needs a lesson from chomsky on liguistics. Re-read the blog post and tell me where it says that chomsky endorses clinton as opposed to ron paul. it doesnt.


[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to be more uselessly clear. Chomsky not voting Ron Paul over Clinton would be counter to every political statement he has ever made, basically. Unless he has some sort of fetish for not voting, I suppose.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's useless, it's inflammatory, and frankly it's contrary to everything Chomsky has ever written if he would actually support Clinton over Paul. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. I think it would be contrary to everything Chomsky has ever written if he would actually support Paul over Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can one think this given Chomsky's stance on corporate ownership of media, propaganda and so forth. It's absurd.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Someone else who needs a lesson from chomsky on liguistics. Re-read the blog post and tell me where it says that chomsky endorses clinton as opposed to ron paul. it doesnt.


[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to be more uselessly clear. Chomsky not voting Ron Paul over Clinton would be counter to every political statement he has ever made, basically. Unless he has some sort of fetish for not voting, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Chomsky opposes pretty much everything that Ron Paul stands for. Regarding his foreign policy Chomsky is no fan either (which seems to be the only similarity drawn) stating that Paul is pushing for "ultranationalism" and getting out of the UN etc. to preserve the power of the US and losing its accountability.

I would have also predicted (pre-reading the link) that Chomsky would support Paul over Clinton due to Paul's foreign policy plans and the random libertarian values they share; however, Chomsky imo gives sufficient reasoning as to why this is not the case.

When someone regards the US democratic framework as a polyarchy and a tool for private power to manipulate and likening the elections to a 'toothpaste commercial' you will not find any serious endorsement for a candidate.

...Read the guardian link and yeah Chomsky said he supported Kerry giving the reasoning that although the differences are minute on a grander scale even minute difference can have a great impact. I guess thats an endorsement so I was wrong. I probably read that article when it came out too [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]-

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's useless, it's inflammatory, and frankly it's contrary to everything Chomsky has ever written if he would actually support Clinton over Paul. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. I think it would be contrary to everything Chomsky has ever written if he would actually support Paul over Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can one think this given Chomsky's stance on corporate ownership of media, propaganda and so forth. It's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky believes in humanity and welfare, he believes in non-oppression, non-hierarchy, and thus equality among men society and he finds an ACist society of feudal landlords even more exploitative, rule-based and oppressive system for a small men than any current form of government. He’s determined human rights and equality among men should prevail power of money, so I think he would rather choose a society with at least minimum human rights for the poor and weak.