Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul & his supporters

[low preference guy]

Ya, makes one miss Conza88, a former student of Chomsky's belief system who grew out of it.

So Chomsky has an actual "belief system"? I thought his modus operandi was nothing more than acting like a child and being scared of everything.

 

[rnestam]

And don't get me wrong, I actually do fucking hate the guy now. Every time he mentions Ron Paul it is negative. You would think that if someone that dedicated to non-intervention would at least give Paul some props. But that is the beauty of it. I actually used to watch Olbermann too, but his whole hack shtick of being anti-war was clear after not even once mentioning Ron Paul and his stances on the War going back before the bombs fell, I literally sat there waiting for all these people I used to watch to do a Cafferty type piece on this Republican who was Anti-War, yet they avoided mentioning him at all costs, and when they couldn't avoid him anymore, they trashed him as kooky. Boy, what a blessed eye opener the 2008 Campaign was.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, according to Chomsky, if we had a "real" democracy people would be happy to pay their taxes? Yeah, right.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Chomsky is delusional if he believes democracy is anything, but the tyranny of the mob. We are not a hive collective to be prodded around like cattle by 50.1% of the people. Not to mention, that democracy, by its very nature sows seeds of discontent and conflict, moreso than any other type of State-system. Moreover, the guy is even more delusional the moment he says we have been brainwashed to hate the Government, and hate taxes. Yes, we have to be brainwashed to hate being stolen from. What a buffoon.

Let's not even go into how a program can never benefit everyone. As Bastiat rightfully pointed out, democracy is essentially the plunder of everyone by everyone. It is why democracies stagnate and eat themselves. This is what is wrong with modern day socialists. I have sympathy with the Orwell-syndicalists, because they are truly anti-statist. Chomsky though is the equivalent to a hard-line bolshevik who seemingly rails against the State, but doesn't. He chastises the truly anti-statist, because we don't believe in forced collectivisation, egalitarianism, and the pet projects of the left like "public" healthcare. He hates anti-statist, free-marketeers more than anyone else because we are his ideological threat. Go away Chomsky. The only thing you are good for is writing books on our Foreign Policy, other than that you contribute nothing.

Like any good socialist the man knows nothing about economics.

 

[FrankRep]

So, according to Chomsky, if we had a "real" democracy people would be happy to pay their taxes? Yeah, right.

When 51% of the population oppresses the other 49%, happiness will not be the result.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

- John Adams​

 

[BarryDonegan]

Pure democracy can't be a serious system being considered by anyone. It failed on the launch pad. It was the Apollo 1 of government systems. Greece had one in the classical period, and you could go to a city hall meeting and request a bounty on your neighbors head, who was not present, and the council, who largely did not know that person and only heard your accusation, could declare them a persona non grata and that person's tax funds were now being used to pay a bounty on his own head, and the killer would be shielded from punishment. It was an absurdly broken system where the mob could literally turn and kill anyone. You had to be a politician just to keep from being killed in that system.

 

[hugolp]

I generally agree with Chomsky here. What he is saying is that most people who so ardently oppose government are opposing it for the wrong reason (for a better/more extreme example of this, see the tea party movement - I think that most Ron Paul supporters are actually closer to Chomsky that he realizes). In other words, Chomsky has just as much disdain for the federal government as most right-wing libertarians, but for different reasons. For example, he hates the government:

Not because of taxes, per se, but because the taxes are spent for the benefit of a small, tyrannical, ruling elite instead of for more general purposes that benefit all. (not that "no taxes at all" wouldn't be ideal - he is an anarchist, after all, but he also realizes that anarchism isn't something that is right around the corner, unlike many idealists).

Not because of regulation, per se, but because regulation (like all government policies) are written by and enforced on the behalf of the economically-powerful and not the common person. Remember, if a particular economic class (as a purely hypothetical example, say the top 1% who have controlled the wealth and politics of a nation for centuries) is allowed to simply run nilly-willy with all of their special privileges, they will end up fucking a lot of shit up. There are two things to do: eliminate their privileges (intelligent/strategic free market reforms), and/or curtail their the power they've already accumulated (regulation). It's the same reason that no true libertarian should be automatically opposed to regulations which tie the hands of banks who are members of the Federal Reserve system - with all of the privileges they have been granted by the state, it is reasonable to expect some basic limitations on that power.

The primary problem, as Chomsky argues, is that these limitations of corporate power, these regulations, and these tax policies, etc are promulgated by an undemocratic system - that is, a system wherein the masses, the common people, are not in charge. I think we should all be able to agree that that is the case. But if "the people" (who the Constitution claims are directing affairs) were to, say, tax corporate welfare recipients harder, or regulate the banks in such a way to negate the bullshit mortgages they claim to hold - that would be a form of taxation or regulation that libertarians should support although as merely an intermediate and temporary step. The long term goal is still the abolition of the state (and/or local/direct government), but if a step in that direction is a democratization of the system we ought not to oppose the reaping what has been sown; to relinquish (and distribute back to a truly free market), by the hands of the state, that power which has been bestowed, through the power of the state (over many centuries)to the few corporatist, even though they will suddenly become the most ardent supporters of "the free market" in an attempt to protect their privileged position (see: Wall Street CEO's arguing about the sanctity of contracts with respect to their bonuses).

Revolution is a complicated thing, and there are certainly valid differences of opinion on the question of strategy. My main departure from Chomsky is that I believe that the revolution will be far underway before the political realm can even reform itself to the point at which it might be called "democratic."

Calling Chomsky an anarchist is an insult to all anarchist.

Chomsky is a statist apologist claiming to be an anarchist. He always supports more government intervention, he always supports the government steping in more areas, he refuses economics in general (he has said that he does not understand economics and does not like them...). He has always asked for more taxes for the rich, but he send the money he got from those books to a fiscal paradise to avoid paying taxes (if that is the type of coherence you can get from him, I dont want to know what would happen if he got any type of real power). Chomsky is a linguist that knows how to write books in a way that inspires people. Language and how it affects the people is his thing. Reality is not.

As I said calling Chomsky an anarchist is an insults to all anarchist. Socialist would make themselves a favour by distancing themselves from a charlatan like this.

That said, as some people has said before in this thread, the war and the military policy of the USA is the best way to get to the people manipulated by this guy.

 

[Captain America]

Norm is not stupid by any means but he is wrong. A federal Democracy does not work. Only a Republic as imagined by Monroe.

 

[teacherone]

Every Election in my lifetime--- what a fucking joke. This is us "collectively" choosing our representatives????

2008 Barack Obama : Winner: 69,297,997 Main Opponent: 59,597,520

2004 George W. Bush: Winner: 60,693,281 Main Opponent: 57,355,978

2000 George W. Bush: Winner 50,456,062 Main Opponent: 50,996,582

1996 Bill Clinton: Winner: 45,590,703 Main Opponent: 37,816,307

1992 Bill Clinton: Winner: 44,908,254 Main Opponent: 39,102,343

1988 George Bush: Winner: 48,886,097 Main Opponent: 41,809,074

1984 Ronald Reagan: Winner: 54,455,075 Main Opponent: 37,577,185

1980 Ronald Reagan: Winner: 43,904,153 Main Opponent: 35,483,883

Millions upon millions unrepresented every election.

 

[00_Pete]

"Anarcho-Socialist"

"Im heterosexual but love looking at male ass!"

Silly chomskynites...

 

[Trimbeaux]

socialism, communism and Nazi are the same....

Chomsky is just another wrong turn for intellectuals to follow like they always do.
The goal of the elite is a totalitarian socialist world government and if you research back far enough these elite societies created socialism and communism long before we were born or Karl Marx was paid to write the manifesto. Our founders where part of these societies that wanted to bring down the monarchies of their time and they gave us a chance to prove, once and for all, if man could govern and live in freedom. We failed the experiment and the elite believe we are getting what we deserve for the mob needs some form of government. Our Republic could of been the New Order of the Ages, but we will get the same rulers that have always ruled and now they have the technology and psychology to shackle the mob again. The key is we live in a world far different than what was taught too us.

 

[jmdrake]

Noam Chomsky also doesn't want you to believe "conspiracy theories".

YouTube - Noam Chomsky Debunks 9/11 and JFK Murder

 

[Mr.Magnanimous]

Norm is not stupid by any means but he is wrong.

There's a difference between intelligence and knowledge. In my opinion, if a person can't grasp the failures of socialism, they're either an idiot or an oppurtunist.

To me, Noam Chomsky is just a knowledgable idiot.

 

[jmdrake]

Don't know why people on this board regard Chomsky as an ally. The guy is a communist fucktard who thinks he knows how to run the lives of others. Watch him talk about why free speech shouldn't exist:

YouTube - Penn Teller 1st Amendment

Nice video. There's someone I'd love to send it too. Unfortunately I can't because all of the f@#$ing language. :o

 

[ChaosControl]

In the end he is just another fascist.

 

[Todd]

Watching Noam Chomsky instantly triggers my bile duct. Can you give us a summary?

Same lofty equivocating bullshit he's famous for.

"Anarcho-Socialist"

"Im heterosexual but love looking at male ass!"

Silly chomskynites...

Yep.

 

[eproxy100]

Totally agree with you guys about how wrong Chomsky is when it comes to style of government. According to him it was a bunch of evil rich white folks who made the constitution for the sole purpose of protecting their own interests. That's his spin on it and there are people here on RPF who buy that BS.

Funny thing is a lot of the founding fathers ended up poorer after being presidents - they sure protected their interests well

 

[thehunter]

He's certainly done well in this white tyranny which brainwashes people into hating taxes...

 

[TNforPaul45]

I am stunned.

He says that, those people who want a central-power state are the ones that actively campaign against an income tax, because they do not want a "democratic" state where everyone loves contributing an income tax to fund "generally agreed upon programs?" Did I really just hear that? Does he even know the definition of a "totalitarian state"? He really thinks we are just freely and happily giving up a quarter, or more, of our incomes, to the state, out of the love of our hearts, and that there are people, mean, selfish people, who dont want that free money love to happen?

Lik I said, I am stunned. He is completely lost in the fairy tale of the collective.

 

[osan]

I normally would agree with Noam in his comments if our government really did do only the things we all "mutually agreed upon".

A practical impossibility, so why even mention it?

As bad as a pure democracy is at protecting individual liberty, its still better than what we have today -- a corporatist oligarchy.

You could not be more wrong. A pure democracy would descend into anarchical chaos so fast you would not be able to keep up with it. The current corporatism is ulta-shit, but it is a world better than what a pure democracy would be.

And for my money, Chomsky is an asshole.