Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul
 

Questioner: 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).

Noam Chomsky: 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)

Noam Chomsky: "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).

Noam Chomsky: 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).

Noam Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, 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.

Noam Chomsky: 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?

Noam Chomsky: 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?

Noam Chomsky: 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?

Noam Chomsky: No.

i will honestly cry when Noam goes, he is one of last thinkers in our world. he will devour anyone in argument.

Caligari questions Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul-

Mr. Chomsky, you've talked about the potential for workers losing their rights and "working 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits" if Ron Paul gets elected, but in reality we've already shifted that burden to other countries such as China where slave labor is a standard practice. So you are saying that's fine, just don't bring it back here?

Chomsky: Mrmeeee...Mrmeeee...

Mr Chomsky, you say Ron Paul is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN etc., but in reality what has current policy brought us thousands of U.S. deaths and millions of foreign casualties (through terrorism and war) not to mention trillions in tax dollars wasted in futile attempts at foreign intervention.
So keeping this in mind, how can you possibly say that Ron Paul's idea of staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations is a bad thing? In other words you would prefer the status quo of death and destruction to continue?

Chomsky: Mrmeee...Mrmeee...

etc etc etc


.

You're retarded. HTH

No you're retarded! You're retarded!:1orglaugh

.

So basically Coup does not support Ron Paul... but does not want to support anyone else either and just wants total anarchy. From the link in his sig which he calls himself to be a Libertarian Socialist:

So you are a communist/socialist/marxist/anarchist or some combination, does that about cover it? And we are supposed to actually listen to your incoherent ramblings about how bad Ron Paul is? LOL

Ok kiddie. Time for bed. Let the grown-ups talk now :1orglaugh

Good ideas must be spread at all costs. Thanks for helping call attention to them :)

__________________________________________________ ______________________


Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes what it sees as the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[5] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[6][7] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][8]

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[9] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised".[10] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[11]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[12] mutualism[13]) as well as autonomism, communalism, participism, some versions of "utopian socialism[14] and individualist anarchism[15][16][17]., and also libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism.[18]

the voice of reason. thanks for posting.

Private property ownership is very closely aligned with political and economic freedom.

There is even a word for it: liberty

Noam is a clever man, but he doesn't fool me. At some level he is a socialist, and socialism devalues the individual and destroys vibrant economies. Noam is not a libertarian.

He's a libertarian socialist with an affection for anarcho-syndicalism. HTH

_-----------------------_

Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism.[20] Adherents propose achieving this through decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism tends to deny the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, viewing capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual freedom.[21]

Private property ownership is very closely aligned with economic inequality, poverty, control of the state by the wealthy, wars of conquest and imperialism.

There is a word for it capitalism.

Commie hogwash..

Libertarian socialism is a western philosophy with diverse interpretations, though some general commonalities can be found in its many incarnations. Its proponents generally advocate a worker-oriented system of production and organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production (socialism).[19] They propose that this economic system be executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Libertarian socialists assert that when power is exercised, as exemplified by the economic, social, or physical dominance of one individual over another, the burden of proof is always on the authoritarian to justify their action as legitimate when taken against its effect of narrowing the scope of human freedom.[29] Typical examples of legitimate exercise of power would include the use of physical force to rescue someone from being injured by an oncoming vehicle, or self-defense. Libertarian socialists typically oppose rigid and stratified structures of authority, be they political, economic, or social.[30]

Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power, that an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few and the centralization of political power both reduce the bargaining power—and thus the liberty of the other individuals in society.[31] To put it another way, capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles concentrate economic power in the hands of those who own the most capital. Libertarian socialism aims to distribute power, and thus freedom, more equally amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and capitalist libertarianism is that advocates of the latter generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the former focus on freedom of choice. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize "free creativity" in a society in preference to "free enterprise."[32]

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

It isn't.. if the govt wasn't borrowing money from it. SS is not broken, the government however has just about caused it to go broke.

Noam Chomsky: My school of Libertarianism is extreme liberalism disguised as Libertarianism. None of my opinions actually work in real world scenarios but I spout them off because by doing so, a small portion of society is tricked into thinking I'm some sort of cerebral societal sage.
And I like that.

What you're pitifully describing has a name

Libertarian socialism.

Nothing is impossible :)

dear leftist stooge, here's a factual reading of what you wrote:
Private property ownership is very closely aligned with economic achievement, upward mobility, control of the state by the productive and intelligent.

Libertarian socialists regard all[citation needed] concentrations of power as sources of oppression that must be continually challenged and justified. Opposition generally first begins with large corporations for inherently being designed as private tyrannies; and secondly the state, because citizens can vote for their state's representatives and often have some means of democratic participation, even if a nation state is violating its social contract.
In lieu of corporations and states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary associations (usually collectives, communes, municipalities, cooperatives, commons, or syndicates) that use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations.[36] Spanish anarchism is a major example of such federations in practice.

Property rights in the means of production isn't essential for anything except for economic oppression.

When an economic elite class is allowed to concentrate wealth and permitted rise, It's bad for the rest of us.


Workplaces should be owned and controlled by the workers themselves. No one needs Boss Hogg.

why do the unintelligent, unable think they're being oppressed by the intelligent able?
As recent as 200 years ago most of you were just allowed to die off. Now the intelligent, able, and compassionate prop you up to survive and even reproduce with genes that really weren't meant to survive the rule of nature.

More appropriately
Mr. Chumsky

Elitism is so ugly. lol

only for the bottom of the gene pool

What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine, and what's ours is ours.

It's not that hard to understand :)

it seems it IS hard for YOU to understand.

Thanks for the bump :)

Although critics claim that they are avoiding questions they cannot answer, libertarian socialists believe that a methodological approach to exploration is the best way to achieve their social goals. To them, dogmatic approaches to social organization are doomed to failure; and thus reject Marxist notions of linear and inevitable historical progression. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, "I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal" (The London Years, 1956).

I think I'm about to piss my pants. LMAO

http://brice.the-asw.com/images/fan_...0001.Shane.gif

I dont think of people as a group. I think of groups as groups and people as individuals
I could not agree more.

What a funny idea that the 1% who own most of the wealth are the most able and intelligent. They are not responsible for any scientific discovery's, they do not do brain surgery, they don't write the best books or make the best films....In fact they have just caused the biggest economic disaster by their greed and stupidity.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Thanks for your stunning endorsement of Noam Chomsky :)
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18641266&postcount=58

Thank you for supporting Noam Chomsky and his ideas stickygreen :thumbsup

Thanks for being such an anti-American tool, "Coup."

It's always nice to mix it up with some nutjob anarchists like yourself.

lol @ "libertarian socialism."

Again, thank you for your support. :)

Time to cut to the chase here:

Please provide me historical examples of nations/states/governments that were operated under the Libertarian Socialism model. Also please add how long these societies were in existence under this system. Thank you.

Tick tick tick tick......anyone? Bueller?



PS: You all do realize it matters NOT who anyone actually votes for anyway, right? It's like "voting" for the CEO of General Electric. LOL

Paris Commune · February Revolution · Bavarian Soviet Republic · Biennio Rosso · Free Territory · Spanish Revolution · Hungarian Revolution of 1956 · May 1968 in France · Zapatista Uprising · Argentinazo

LOL @ Libertarian Socialism

All destroyed/being destroyed by Authoritarianism unfortunately

First, you did not provide the length of the governments. How many lasted more than a handful of years, in very small countries? Also, I would dispute that many you listed (especially Hungary) operated under "true" Libertarianism. But nice list. :)





First, many "slaves" in ancient times were the defeated peoples from wars. But I see your point. Therefore you must think Ron Paul is a true visionary, an Abraham Lincoln (or Napolean) for our time? HE will bring about a form of Government unseen in human history, untried on a mass scale, RON PAUL will revolutionalize human civilization.

Are you fucking high dude? Oh right, 'stickygreen', gotcha, gotcha.

You probably just dig Ron Paul because he seems like Timothy Leary to you, all old and cool and 'let them do drugs!'. It's all just a smokescreen tho bro. Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke weed and get laid. Don't be fooled.

Or, BE fooled. None of this matters because the game has been over for a very long time now. Only the feeble and futile fight this fact.

If you're interested in learning go learn. I ain't gonna stop you.

True Libertarianism isn't even being discussed in this thread. What's being discussed is Libertarian Socialism, which in itself is a retarded paradox. Socialism, in any form, is pretty much on the exact opposite side of Libertarianism, socially and, more importantly, economically.

glad to see you agree with your hero newt:

Gingrich: Ron Paul's base is "people who want to legalize drugs"‎

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...egalize-drugs/

Libertarians are people who believe in LIBERTY.

If that means liberty to smoke a plant, then so be it.

Saying that ALL Libertarians are pot smokers is pretty fucking stupid. It's sad that it has to be pointed out. lol

Liquid drugs that completely impair your ability to do anything and make you violent are good.

Natural plants that open your mind and make you peaceful are bad.

the LIBERTY to SMOKE WEED.