Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul

Zen · #1 (**permalink**) 11-16-2007, 08:21 PM

"Chomsky in Znet sustainers forum responding to an argument for Ron Paul

Chomsky's response to this letter on Paul is in bold;

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?

No.

"

----------------------------------------------

That was through a bulletin on myspace, and thought i'd share....

This is the first time i've seen an intelligent person bashing Ron Paul...
What i've read of Chomsky, i've always liked, but thought this was pretty childish...
It made me question if he did in fact write it, and then made me question his intelligence after all...

For one, why did he choose some kid's argument to debate in a forum on the internet?
I would be interested to hear him talk directly to Ron, or at least with someone that has more intelligent points, and a way to respond…

While Chomsky is famous for bashing most politicians' views, I'm surprised he would target the one candidate that is proposing any real change...

The truth is Ron's supposed positions wouldn't all of sudden manifest our society to these hypothetical dark ages...
While he may have some radically different approaches, these approaches are just to try and stable a system that has radically shifted the other way, way way way off course...

While he isn't offering the impossible utopian society, he is offering change in the right direction...
If we continue on the current course, which i see all the other possible candidates still following, we'll see a lot worse hypotheticals than the ones Chomsky is arguing with...

I'm all about bashing politicians, but there are a lot worse ones to be bashing, and right now there is enough misconceptions/lies from the corporations' media box...

**Brother of Yeshua** · 11-17-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zen

"Chomsky in Znet sustainers forum responding to an argument for Ron Paul

Chomsky's response to this letter on Paul is in bold;

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?

No.

"

----------------------------------------------

That was through a bulletin on myspace, and thought i'd share....

This is the first time i've seen an intelligent person bashing Ron Paul...
What i've read of Chomsky, i've always liked, but thought this was pretty childish...
It made me question if he did in fact write it, and then made me question his intelligence after all...

For one, why did he choose some kid's argument to debate in a forum on the internet?
I would be interested to hear him talk directly to Ron, or at least with someone that has more intelligent points, and a way to respond…

While Chomsky is famous for bashing most politicians' views, I'm surprised he would target the one candidate that is proposing any real change...

The truth is Ron's supposed positions wouldn't all of sudden manifest our society to these hypothetical dark ages...
While he may have some radically different approaches, these approaches are just to try and stable a system that has radically shifted the other way, way way way off course...

While he isn't offering the impossible utopian society, he is offering change in the right direction...
If we continue on the current course, which i see all the other possible candidates still following, we'll see a lot worse hypotheticals than the ones Chomsky is arguing with...

I'm all about bashing politicians, but there are a lot worse ones to be bashing, and right now there is enough misconceptions/lies from the corporations' media box...

I think what the issue really is, is Ron Paul has this vision for America, and people can't see how we could ever get there. Do I agree with everything that comes out of his mouth? Definitely not. Why should he get a privelege no one else is given from me? My reasons for supporting Ron Paul is simply that he understands critical issues, and has a vision of a smaller and severly more limited federal government.

Let's assume Paul was elected. It's not like every single thing he wants is going to just happen (who do you think he is, GWB?). It's going to be give and take. He'll push against congress, they'll push back. Remember checks and balances, when they are being used properly, accounts for the situations that Chomsky brings up. Obviously going from the government proverbially wiping all of our asses to us being ripped off their teat kicking and screaming left in the wild to survive or die is not going to work. We need transition. During that transitory time, we will be able to have debate and discussion, looking at what we need, what we want, what our goal is, and what we have to do to get there.

This is the way a Republic is designed to work. Sometimes elections aren't always about the person you agree with everything on, but the person who is the right person for the time.

With as ultra pro-government and pro-corporation as our federal government has become (across both major parties), we need a visionary like Paul to remind us of where we come from, and where we will be headed to if nothing is done to change.

While I respect Chomsky, and even concede he makes some valid points, I will still be voting for Ron Paul.

RATSOADM · 11-17-2007, 10:56 PM

Not paying someone properly, not caring for the health of those working for you etc. would be a problem because you are not respecting others rights.. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is why land rights being strict will improve the environment. You cannot do anything which will damage the others property... leave trash on your own... be a waste of space, that's fine.. just dont' effect any property around you.