Chomsky talking about ron paul (new video)

[zweezey]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30251.htm

 

[Dsylexic]

looking at the comments there,i did not realize chomsky is an israeli firster? is he? he thinks people should be saved from their foolishness by well intentioned angels in washington. dont such sheep every grow brains?

 

[LawnWake]

Chomsky is entitled to his opinions, but he fails to entitle people to theirs. He digs so deeply into his own philosophy and refuses to look beneath the surface of, let's say, Ron Paul's and automatically equates it to being uninformed simply because Ron Paul (or any other capitalist for that matter) relates to a more propertarian position.

A lot of people do, including our wing of libertarianism. But you'd think that a supposed intellectual such as himself knows better than to do that.

And you know, when he's giving speeches or writes books, he comes across as this intellectual heavyweight, but put the guy in a debate and all of his retorts boil down to 'no you're wrong, I'm right'.

He's such an overrated "intellectual". He needs to debate Tom Woods some time just so people can watch him fall flat on his face.

 

[JuicyG]

Oh not the uninsured guy analogy again.

Again, coming from people who have been college teachers for most of their life and had zero or very little contact with private sector.

Actually, I`m pretty sure there would be a good market for uninsured people having some car crash. In a total free market system, I`m pretty sure companies offering to pay for the service of "fixing" the uninsured person would arise and try to collect payment later. I think most would be eternally grateful and willing to pay for saving their lives.

Also Ron Paul said it quite well. There are some, like the church that need more members and will do charity aid like that in exchange for a possible future membership thus a potential investment.

Just imagine guy waking up from a coma asking :

"who saved my life as I didn`t have insurance".

"Oh it was Save my ass company or Church of celestial dingdongs. "

"Yes sir and they`ve left you a brochure with their services."

"Great, I`ll check them out and see how I can thank them".

I`m pretty sure many charities, NGOs, churches or even companies would offer to cover for uninsured guy in a coma scenario. Actually, I think as a business model it might work pretty well. Even if say you get 2-3 ungrateful ones who wouldn`t pay for saving their life, I`m very sure most will overpay even and/or offer to work in exchange or some other possible arrangement.

Under the scenario described above, if I were to create such company to save uninsured folks from death, I`d also most likely hook up with insurance companies. I`d probably make a killing from selling insurance.

"My company saved your life for free. Consider this a free trial of our service. Our emergency hospital and response teams are most advanced and high tech you can find. "

"If you close a 10 year life insurance policy with us, you can make sure next time such unfortunate accident happens, you`ll end up in our care and not with low quality emergency services provided by NGOs or charities, which are a sad reminder of times when state used to run the system.

"We have high speed army helicopters that can take you to our hospital in minutes and not waste dozens in traffic jams with car ambulances, like the ones the charities and NGOs use. You were very lucky we got to you first. You wouldn`t have survived an ambulance hospital trip in your condition. As I was saying earlier, if you close insurance policy with us, we`ll make sure to be the first to pick you up in the future. "

"If your financial situation doesn`t permit regular payments for an insurance policy, you might want to consider our "work for insurance policy program". It only requires 1h/week of work from home and it`s quite fun."

I imagine such scenario is quite possible in a free market. Problem with understanding free market is that requires some imagination and thinking exercise. Most feel it`s unnatural to do so and feel they have to resolve to very simplistic explanations. Human mind is made in such way that we often prefer very simple explanations and reasoning versus complex ones. But most of the times life can be quite complex and a short explanation just won`t cut it.

 

[Conza88]

Refuted Chomskys previous bs here. This time - 0 references to the actual principles.

Strawman with the medical healthcare question.

I am reminded of a talk given by Frank Chodorov many decades ago. Chodorov was being very critical of government welfare programs in general, and was asked by a listener: “but what will happen to sick, elderly people?” Chodorov replied: “they’ll be left to die in the streets the way they used to.” The listener retorted: “when did that ever take place?,” to which Chodorov answered: “exactly."
— Butler Shaffer

 

[Marky]

Chomsky is just one of the establishment’s gatekeepers. He despises any critique of the Federal Reserve system or the international banksters. He defends the UN, and doesn’t think the CFR is anything to really worry about. The guy is a tool, and his books are snooze-inducing.

 

[Mikakaze]

Hard for me to listen to all this Chomsky hate from my fellow Paul supporters and not chime in. I consider both Paul and Chomsky to be my two major political influences (they are the ones who continue to fuel my fire, so to speak). Those who are dismissive of Chomsky should really give him an honest chance. Watch/read Manufacturing Consent or check out his debates on YouTube (like the one with William Buckley). I don't know how anyone could not have a ton of respect for people like Chomsky, Zinn, Paul, etc. They have been fighting for the people and against establishment for so long and all worthy of high praise in my mind.

 

[Muwahid]

I thought Chomsky was very much critical of Israel Why are people calling him a zionist?

 

[JuicyG]

I thought Chomsky was very much critical of Israel Why are people calling him a zionist?

Yep, he actually is critical of Israel.

Chomsky is a left wing anarchist basically. This is why when it come to capitalism and free markets, he`ll flip. He believes in an anarchist system, European model as he calls it where people work together for common good and where money is no object(no need for money).

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand briefly describes such anarcho-socialist society as she was very familiar with it from Russian politics. Many Russians philosophers were basically the parents of social-anarchism.
When Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden go in that quest to find the high tech engine, they find this village where people didn`t use money and only exchanged stuff among them. Everything was damp and lifeless. That`s the kind of society Chomsky would like to see.

 

[Dsylexic]

i am an anarcho capitalist too.chomsky is nothing close to an anarchist.he wants the UN and the govt to do things he prefers.he prefers aggression as long as he is in control. old failing of self important men.
his take on foreign policy is excellent.guess he didnt feel the need to extend the same logic to economics domestically

 

[JuicyG]

i am an anarcho capitalist too.chomsky is nothing close to an anarchist.he wants the UN and the govt to do things he prefers.he prefers aggression as long as he is in control. old failing of self important men.
his take on foreign policy is excellent.guess he didnt feel the need to extend the same logic to economics domestically

He is some kinda` anarchist, but the type who hates capitalism.

Chomsky is critical of the American "state capitalist" system and big business, he describes himself as a socialist, specifically an anarcho-syndicalist, and is critical of "authoritarian" communist branches of socialism.[citation needed] He also believes that socialist values exemplify the rational and morally consistent extension of original unreconstructed classical liberal and radical humanist ideas to an industrial context. He believes that society should be highly organized and based on democratic control of communities and work places. He believes that the radical humanist ideas of his two major influences, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, were "rooted in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and retain their revolutionary character."[92]

Basically anarcho-syndicalists belive that:

Syndicalism is an alternative co-operative economic system. Adherents view it as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society, democratically self-managed by workers.

Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery, and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Ralph Chaplin states that "the ultimate aim of the General Strike as regards wages is to give to each producer the full product of his labour. The demand for better wages becomes revolutionary only when it is coupled with the demand that the exploitation of labour must cease."[2]

Additionally, anarcho-syndicalists regard the state as a profoundly anti-worker institution. They view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when such defence denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it.[3] In contrast to other bodies of thought (Marxism-Leninism being a prime example), anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers' state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the powerful. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism holds to the idea that power corrupts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

 

[AParadigmShift]

It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it
through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier
to corporate tyranny.

But, it's all academic. The business world would never permit it to happen
because it would destroy the economy. They can't live without a powerful
state, and they know it.

Cognitive dissonance much, Noam?

 

[LawnWake]

He is some kinda` anarchist, but the type who hates capitalism.

I think Dsylexic's point is more that he wants to replace the government with mob rule. To an-caps such as myself, this merely takes out the middle man but creates the same problem.

 

[jcarcinogen]

Before I understood and embraced individualism and libertarianism I studied socialist philosophy and naturally read some of Chomsky's books. His criticism on Israel and American foreign policy is based on his belief that corporations driven by profit drive foreign policy. He is anti-corporation but pro government (although he favors a world government because the American government is poisoned by greed). The type of self-described anarchist that follows Chomsky and you can find at occupy protests think they are anarchist because they disagree with the current government but they usually strive for a 'Harrison Bergeron' type of government that is egalitarian and enforces its fairness with price/wage control and redistribution. Even the voting rules that multiple occupy protests that I have been to implement workers-socialist union frameworks not anarchist as the ones that get all bent out of shape about the rules claim.

 

[Dsylexic]

why do 'workers' have a special place in chomsky's world? i assume ,it is because the marginal revolution passed him by.he probably still thinks that value originates from labor(LABOR theory of value).since that has long been dismantled by austrian economics,he is woefully behind times.

 

[tsetsefly]

CHomsky was a pro stalin communist, and according to me still is as well as a supporter of other horendous communist dictatorships that have existed, including the khmer rouge. His positions reek of intellectual dishonesty, as much as he suppport legalizing drugs (to what extent im not sure) and speaks against US foreign policy, it comes from a vile hatred to western values as oppposed to why RP is against it.

 

[febo]

Chomsky - it's not that he disagrees that astonishes me its that he doesn't understand.
His argument is actually circular (a reflection of unconscious doubt I'd hope) - he says RP's philosophy is "shocking", "savage", but then says "they wouldn't allow it anyway" - what does he mean by that? What "enlightened authority", "saving us from ourselves" would we all believe was being enforced if people's legitimate support/votes for Ron Paul were ignored?
... People who presumably don't see Paul's ideas as shocking or savage ...

He sneers at the idea that people are capable of charity, fails to see that corporations are nothing other than communities of people, capable of change.
Chomsky is usually quite upbeat but his failure to consider the growth of community as a possible outcome of liberty is totally depressing, defeatist.
And what about the pragmatic argument that is begining to bore into the consciousnesses of (clearly entrenched) left wing intellectuals, journalists etc like him? If not Ron Paul, then who? If not Ron Paul, then who?
Drill baby, drill..

 

[goldpants]

Chomsky is just one of the establishment’s gatekeepers. He despises any critique of the Federal Reserve system or the international banksters. He defends the UN, and doesn’t think the CFR is anything to really worry about. The guy is a tool, and his books are snooze-inducing.

I always saw chomsky in the same light. His being that of little brightness.

 

[otherone]

He believes in an anarchist system, European model as he calls it where people work together for common good and where money is no object(no need for money).

Chomsky does not believe that owning property is a 'right'.
Chomsky has an amazing understanding of the world around him. He understands the nature of power IMO, better than anyone I've read. He is no patriot, however....he's a globalist. In addition, his 'european model' is actually communism...not the totalitarian socialism that we're used to, but the utopia that Marx envisioned.

 

[LawnWake]

I'm pretty sure that Chomsky is opposed to a Lenist-Stalinist model of state capitalism? As much as I dislike the guy's beliefs.. where do these arguments stem from? Like him supposedly being pro-Israel?

He IS pro-globalism, though. Oddly. And like a lot of people who share his beliefs, incapable of seeing that he doesn't have the answer for everything.