Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:25 pm Post subject: Chomsky on Ron Paul...
Hello Mr. Chomsky. I'm assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I'm also assuming you have a general idea about his positions.
Here my summary of Mr. Paul's positions: - He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).
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. He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government) "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.
He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it). 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.
He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).
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.
I really can't find differences between your positions and his.
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?).
So I have these questions: 1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of "Libertarianism"?
There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion -- on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.
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.
3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate...and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?
thanks salim, i'd been waiting to see what chomsky had to say on ron paul. where did you get this from? i see a copy that said it came from chomskys zmag blog, but its been down for the last couple of weeks so i wonder where this originated from
edit - looks like it came from the zmag sustainer's forum, which you have to be a paid up member to see - be interesting to see the following discussion
for someone who is funamentally libertarian and getting mainstream coverage i think chomsky should just show some support and not just be entirely critical, its this sort of quibbling that causes factions and prevents mobilisation. If the left and right could just form a loose alliance and support this guy on two major issues i.e war and civil liberties... then you can have all these academic debates afterwards!!
The person who wrote that article said it came from Chomsky's blog on znet. I searched his blog manually at znet and with google and see nothing about ron paul. I do see some of the things quoted in this article actually came from Chomsky but not in any context related to Ron Paul. There are multiple bits and parts mixed together here.
Now you go search and see if you can find it anywhere.
1. The article referenced in this thread said these remarks came from Chomsky's znet blog. I don't see it.
2. The unofficial Noam Chomsky myspace user says it comes from the Chomsky in Znet sustainers forum. I searched there and did not find it.
3. Google searches on the remarks in this document either find them related to nothing to do with ron paul or only reproductions of this article where people are saying noam chomsky is talking about ron paul when he wasn't.
Maybe I didn't really do my due diligence? You're jumping to conclusions about my investigative nature lol.
so it seems it may be made up. why someone would want to is beyond me though - it's already clear that Chomsky and Paul would be at odds on a lot of matters.
This is likely to be an attempt to smear Ron Paul amongst the left. Though whoever did this must have realised it would be found out. Though a similar "false-flag" type smear appears to have been done in Australia :
Australia's ruling Liberal Party is facing accusations of race hate and dirty tricks by two of its members just days before the general election.
The party members were caught distributing bogus leaflets purporting to be from an Islamist group.
In the leaflets, the fake organisation applauds the opposition Labor Party for supporting Islamic extremists.
The Liberal party has expelled the members and said it condemns their "offensive" and "unauthorised" actions.
Several people were seen by supporters of Kevin Rudd's opposition Labor Party handing out the mock pamphlets in the Lindsay area of west Sydney.
The incident is expected to be a serious blow for Prime Minister John Howard, who is already behind in the polls for the general election on Saturday. "
Reminds me of the "Black Panthar" book "false-flag".
In this video he admits himself that he is 'the most conservative person in congress'
If that implies Bush & Clinton are less "conservative", and I had a choice between the 3 of them, then it is no contest.
I agree with Salim "If the left and right could just form a loose alliance and support this guy on two major issues i.e war and civil liberties... then you can have all these academic debates afterwards!!"
Many moons ago, I raised the issue that many points raised by the "constitutionalists" in the US chime with my views.
tbh from the first time I read this a while ago it wasn't convincing as totally authentic, it sounds a lot like chomsky, but I'm not sure if it was put together or something. I'm hoping it is fake because if Chomsky was going to give his oppinion on Ron Paul I would have hoped it would be more contructive and at least a little complimentary on some of his stances surely! It would help boost his support aswell, it really is overwhelming at the mo!
They are both libertarians .. Chomsky should have supported Ron Paul as the lesser of evils. That he didn't undermines my support of Chomsky. Maybe Chomsky has become too used to his role in the existing political and industrial structure, i.e. he has become institutionalised, whilst Ron Paul appears to be a catylst for change.
i don't quite agree with that - it's like i was saying in the other thread the other week;
although i'd still like ron paul to win, because i'm not in america, yesterday listening too and reading some naomi klein got me thinking of his free market stuff and limited spending by government on public services for the people - like privatized disaster response - i don't know, but i wonder if thats the kinda route he'd take - everything would be out there and up for grabs, for those that could afford it ...
the reason i'd like him to win is purely selfish really, end the war, a non interventionist foreign policy for america will mean brown or who ever is next can't take us into these wars - theres no way we'd be doing it on our own without america
but if i was in america, i'd be a bit worried about some of his ideas ...
everythings going to be up for grabs in ron pauls america. social security, any chance of free health care - wave goodbye to it all. if you got money in ron pauls america, you'll be alright - if you don't ...
also, the way ron paul is going to withdrawal america from the un and other international institutions - although i don't like the current setup of the un, we do need institutions like that in a globalised world - they need to be fixed, be more democratic, not just ignored. if we wanna survive as a planet, we need to work together as a planet - not have america close itself off - with only access to those that can afford it.
i guess chomsky see's it as day to day, the poor in clintons america will be better off then in ron pauls free market hyper capitalist one ...
i'd still like ron paul to win though, out of the ones that have a chance - because i'm not there. like i said, purely selfish reasons. if paul did win, it'll be interesting to see how things worked out ...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
