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 Weÿrdgliffe & 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 Weÿrdgliffe & 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'.