Activism Discussion: Noam Chomsky On Ron Paul

Noam Chomsky On Ron Paul
Posts: 69

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2007-11-22 00:46:13 EST
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

[I haven't been able to verify that this is authentic.--DC]

http://tinyurl.com/2doatn
chomsky on ron paul
Posted by luke on November 21, 2007, 4:02 pm
User logged in as: luke

chomsky in znet sustainers forum responding to an argument for ron paul

--

I'm assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I'm also assuming you have a
general idea about his positions.

Here is 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:

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.

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.

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

No.

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord We├┐rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
























Curly
2007-11-22 15:22:47 EST
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:46:13 -0800, Dan Clore wrote:

> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> [I haven't been able to verify that this is authentic.--DC]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2doatn
> chomsky on ron paul
> Posted by luke on November 21, 2007, 4:02 pm
> User logged in as: luke
>
> chomsky in znet sustainers forum responding to an argument for ron paul
>
> --
>
> I'm assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I'm also assuming you have a
> general idea about his positions.
>
> Here is 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.

I'm going to cease reading Chomsky now, here are my reasons:

Noam likes to create straw men to rail about. In this case he's chosen a
ridiculous scenario which is contrary to Ron Paul's stated, published,
position.

The US Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, clearly states that slavery is
not permitted. No one can sign away their freedom.

Then Noam begins to heap abuse upon his straw man. A deceitful attack
upon Ron Paul that is blatently untrue. This is one reason I dislike
Chomsky, he's a fanatic armed with substantial intellect and able to
confuse his readers or interviewers with manifestly untrue diatribes.

> Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential
> candidate . . . and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?
>
> No.

Great example. After lambasting Ron Paul for fabricated, untrue,
extrapolations Chomsky returns to directly disparage Paul while floating a
hypothetical black and white choice with Hillary.

Yes, I would take Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton. Any day.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off Madam Guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
2007-11-22 15:49:26 EST
On Nov 22, 3:22 pm, Curly <curly.is....@home.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:46:13 -0800, Dan Clore wrote:
> > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> > [I haven't been able to verify that this is authentic.--DC]
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2doatn
> > chomsky on ron paul
> > Posted by luke on November 21, 2007, 4:02 pm
> > User logged in as: luke
>
> > chomsky in znet sustainers forum responding to an argument for ron paul
>
> > --
>
> > I'm assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I'm also assuming you have a
> > general idea about his positions.
>
> > Here is 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.
>
> I'm going to cease reading Chomsky now, here are my reasons:
>
> Noam likes to create straw men to rail about. In this case he's chosen a
> ridiculous scenario which is contrary to Ron Paul's stated, published,
> position.
>
> The US Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, clearly states that slavery is
> not permitted. No one can sign away their freedom.
>
> Then Noam begins to heap abuse upon his straw man. A deceitful attack
> upon Ron Paul that is blatently untrue. This is one reason I dislike
> Chomsky, he's a fanatic armed with substantial intellect and able to
> confuse his readers or interviewers with manifestly untrue diatribes.
>
> > Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential
> > candidate . . . and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?
>
> > No.
>
> Great example. After lambasting Ron Paul for fabricated, untrue,
> extrapolations Chomsky returns to directly disparage Paul while floating a
> hypothetical black and white choice with Hillary.
>
> Yes, I would take Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton. Any day.
>
> -- Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Time to dust off Madam Guillotine
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Three evil Humanists:

The anti-abort 'mind of small'-- Ronnie Paul
Chomsky The Horrible (as in chronic liar)
Killary Klinckton

Peder B. Pels
2007-11-22 16:56:52 EST
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:

> 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.

Oh dead god I'm tired of the icon of the "left" having nothing to resort
to than that tired old cliche - the starving worker vs. the evil
capitalist.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

Peder B. Pels
2007-11-22 16:56:52 EST
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki <sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Three evil Humanists:
>
> The anti-abort 'mind of small'-- Ronnie Paul

So opposing publicly funded abortions makes you "nati-abort"?

Sigh.

> Chomsky The Horrible (as in chronic liar)
> Killary Klinckton

Try real arguments instead of namecalling.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
2007-11-22 18:16:37 EST
On Nov 22, 4:56 pm, pe...@nospamplease.dk (Peder B. Pels) wrote:
> Ronald 'More-More' Moshki <sector_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Three evil Humanists:
>
> > The anti-abort 'mind of small'-- Ronnie Paul
>
> So opposing publicly funded abortions makes you "nati-abort"?
>
> Sigh.
>
> > Chomsky The Horrible (as in chronic liar)
> > Killary Klinckton
>
> Try real arguments instead of namecalling.
>
> --
> regards , Peter B. P.http://titancity.com/blog,http://macplanet.dk
> Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
> "I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!



Pee-dee The Puffery have spoken.

Peder B. Pels
2007-11-22 19:58:00 EST
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki <sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 22, 4:56 pm, pe...@nospamplease.dk (Peder B. Pels) wrote:
> > Ronald 'More-More' Moshki <sector_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Three evil Humanists:
> >
> > > The anti-abort 'mind of small'-- Ronnie Paul
> >
> > So opposing publicly funded abortions makes you "nati-abort"?
> >
> > Sigh.
> >
> > > Chomsky The Horrible (as in chronic liar)
> > > Killary Klinckton
> >
> > Try real arguments instead of namecalling.
> >
> > --
> > regards , Peter B. P.http://titancity.com/blog,http://macplanet.dk
> > Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
> > "I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
>
>
>
> Pee-dee The Puffery have spoken.

Ah, maturity.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

Dan Clore
2007-11-23 04:44:58 EST
Peder B. Pels wrote:
> Ronald 'More-More' Moshki <sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Three evil Humanists:
>>
>> The anti-abort 'mind of small'-- Ronnie Paul
>
> So opposing publicly funded abortions makes you "nati-abort"?

Ron Paul doesn't just oppose publically-funded abortion. He wants to see
abortion outlawed outright (though he opposes doing so at the federal
level, he wants it done at the state level).

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord We├┐rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

Peder B. Pels
2007-11-23 05:20:11 EST
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:

> Peder B. Pels wrote:
> > Ronald 'More-More' Moshki <sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Three evil Humanists:
> >>
> >> The anti-abort 'mind of small'-- Ronnie Paul
> >
> > So opposing publicly funded abortions makes you "nati-abort"?
>
> Ron Paul doesn't just oppose publically-funded abortion. He wants to see
> abortion outlawed outright (though he opposes doing so at the federal
> level, he wants it done at the state level).

Oh? Even assumign that that is bad, what does a president have any power
over that whatsoever considering RP's stanc support of states rights?

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

*Anarcissie*
2007-11-23 10:41:48 EST
On Nov 22, 4:56 pm, pe...@nospamplease.dk (Peder B. Pels) wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Oh dead god I'm tired of the icon of the "left" having nothing to resort
> to than that tired old cliche - the starving worker vs. the evil
> capitalist.

Well, there are certainly a lot of people who are not very well
off, and are kicked around by those who are. However, I
think the significant thing here is that Chomsky has not
criticized Ron Paul from an anarchist point of view but from
that of a welfarist or social democrat -- the solution to the
problems of inequality and unfreedom is to be found in
expanding the government. He even speaks up in favor
of interventionism.

In general, the response of leftists to Ron Paul, which has
been mostly like Chomsky's, shows that the visible left is
still pretty much devoid of ideas. When challenged they
fall back, not even to socialism or Marxism, but to the
dole and the tender mercies of bureaucrats. _This_ war
is bad (because a Republican started it) but _others_
will be fine, virtuous undertakings where we bomb people
for their own good.

It's been a long time since Chomsky has had anything
interesting to say. The message that starts this thread
is a sad cliche'.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron