What does Noam Chomsky think about Ron Paul?

[Edward777]

He seemed to be quite favorable to him in reference to foreign policy in this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlWqItsDHxg&list=WL0E100504AC4201ED

 

[compromise]

Chomsky is a hard leftist and his neo-Marxist views are dangerous.

He is no friend of the liberty movement. He's been pretty explicit that he would never support Ron Paul in any circumstance...if a Republican had said that you'd probably all be hating on that Republican...Why does this guy get a pass?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Chomsky is a hard leftist and his neo-Marxist views are dangerous.

He is no friend of the liberty movement. He's been pretty explicit that he would never support Ron Paul in any circumstance...if a Republican had said that you'd probably all be hating on that Republican...Why does this guy get a pass?

Because his foreign policy is outstanding.

 

[Antischism]

Chomsky is a hard leftist and his neo-Marxist views are dangerous.

He is no friend of the liberty movement. He's been pretty explicit that he would never support Ron Paul in any circumstance...if a Republican had said that you'd probably all be hating on that Republican...Why does this guy get a pass?

I don't care what he thinks about Ron Paul, I agree with a lot of Chomsky's views, too. He has a lot more in common with Ron than any of these establishment hacks in Washington. The way you're trying to smear him sounds like what people do with Ron Paul.

"Ron Paul is a hardcore right-winger and his neo-confederate views are dangerous."

 

[gwax23]

Chomskys a collectivist moron. Who cares what he thinks.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Chomskys a collectivist moron. Who cares what he thinks.

Facts don't change because of the person conveying them.

When Noam Chomsky says something right, especially with regards to foreign policy, I'll listen. He is one of the best on the subject. It is the same way I read Greenwald, Scahill, or Balko. As if they have to have a spitten image of my views for me to take in the information they've gathered, research it independently, and educate myself on another aspect of the topic.

You're missing out if you completely write these guys off.

 

[gwax23]

Facts don't change because of the person conveying them.

When Noam Chomsky says something right, especially with regards to foreign policy, I'll listen. He is one of the best on the subject. It is the same way I read Greenwald, Scahill, or Balko. As if they have to have a spitten image of my views for me to take in the information they've gathered, research it independently, and educate myself on another aspect of the topic.

You're missing out if you completely write these guys off.

I just feel thats a low bar to set. Plenty of leftist idiots might seem to be good on foreign policy...but so what? Tyranny at home through collectivism but freedom from interventionism abroad? Why have a trade off? Why even bother praising this guy.

We have great minds in our own movement. Ron Paul being one of them. Whos right and consistent across the board in terms of freedom. These are the people we should care about and listen to, not some hack who says a few things right here and there.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Facts don't change because of the person conveying them.

When Noam Chomsky says something right, especially with regards to foreign policy, I'll listen. He is one of the best on the subject. It is the same way I read Greenwald, Scahill, or Balko. As if they have to have a spitten image of my views for me to take in the information they've gathered, research it independently, and educate myself on another aspect of the topic.

You're missing out if you completely write these guys off.

I had shared a recent discussion with Noam here... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Regarding-Drone-Technology&highlight=Chomsky

Is a pretty good discussion, I thought.

The United States is not the first superpower to act as if it's exceptional and will likely not be the last, although US leaders could be squandering a fruitful opportunity for improved international relations, Noam Chomsky said in an interview

 

[Antischism]

I just feel thats a low bar to set. Plenty of leftist idiots might seem to be good on foreign policy...but so what? Tyranny at home through collectivism but freedom from interventionism abroad? Why have a trade off? Why even bother praising this guy.

We have great minds in our own movement. Ron Paul being one of them. Whos right and consistent across the board in terms of freedom. These are the people we should care about and listen to, not some hack who says a few things right here and there.

So would you be against individualist socialism? In a stateless society, people are free to organize and practice voluntary collectivism, which in reality is simply individualism. Are you going to put a gun up to their heads and force them to stop forming communities that work for the whole? What's more idiotic is people who equate libertarian socialism with forced collectivism and use it as a way to ignorantly dismiss anyone who doesn't adhere to their preferred source of information or ideology.

Benjamin Tucker put it well in chapter IV of Liberty.

Let us narrow it a little: Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change in man’s environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute.

I doubt not that this definition can be much improved, and suggestions looking to that end will be interesting; but it is at least an attempt to cover all the forms of protest against the existing usurious economic system. I have always considered myself a member of the great body of Socialists, and I object to being read out of it or defined out of it by General Walker, Mr. Pentecost, or anybody else, simply because I am not a follower of Karl Marx.

Take now another Twentieth Century definition,—that of Anarchism. I have not the number of the paper in which it was given, and cannot quote it exactly. But it certainly made belief in co-operation an essential of Anarchism. This is as erroneous as the definition of Socialism. Co-operation is no more an essential of Anarchism than force is of Socialism. The fact that the majority of Anarchists believe in co-operation is not what makes them Anarchists, just as the fact that the majority of Socialists believe in force is not what makes them Socialists. Socialism is neither for nor against liberty; Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else. Anarchy is the mother of co-operation,—yes, just as liberty is the mother of order; but, as a matter of definition, liberty is not order nor is Anarchism co-operation.

I define Anarchism as the belief in the greatest amount of liberty compatible with equality of liberty; or, in other words, as the belief in every liberty except the liberty to invade.

It will be observed that, according to the Twentieth Century definitions, Socialism excludes Anarchists, while, according to Liberty’s definitions, a Socialist may or may not be an Anarchist, and an Anarchist may or may not be a Socialist. Relaxing scientific exactness, it may be said, briefly and broadly, that Socialism is a battle with usury and that Anarchism is a battle with authority. The two armies—Socialism and Anarchism—are neither coextensive nor exclusive; but they overlap. The right wing of one is the left wing of the other. The virtue and superiority of the Anarchistic Socialist—or Socialistic Anarchist, as he may prefer to call himself—lies in the fact that he fights in the wing that is common to both. Of course there is a sense in which every Anarchist may be said to be a Socialist virtually, inasmuch as usury rests on authority, and to destroy the latter is to destroy the former. But it scarcely seems proper to give the name Socialist to one who is such unconsciously, neither desiring, intending, nor knowing it.

 

[malkusm]

What is with all these old threads popping back up?

He is wise; he has foretold the future.

 

[gwax23]

So would you be against individualist socialism? In a stateless society, people are free to organize and practice voluntary collectivism, which in reality is simply individualism. Are you going to put a gun up to their heads and force them to stop forming communities that work for the whole? What's more idiotic is people who equate libertarian socialism with forced collectivism and use it as a way to ignorantly dismiss anyone who doesn't adhere to their preferred source of information or ideology.

Benjamin Tucker put it well in chapter IV of Liberty.

What are you talking about? How does me not liking Noam Chomsky has anything to do with stopping people from forming communes? In my ideal society if a group of idiots wanted to form a commune based on socialism/communism, theyre free to give it a go.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

What are you talking about? How does me not liking Noam Chomsky has anything to do with stopping people from forming communes? In my ideal society if a group of idiots wanted to form a commune based on socialism/communism, theyre free to give it a go.

You assumed that all leftists were nanny-staters.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Chomsky is a hard leftist and his neo-Marxist views are dangerous.

He is no friend of the liberty movement. He's been pretty explicit that he would never support Ron Paul in any circumstance...if a Republican had said that you'd probably all be hating on that Republican...Why does this guy get a pass?

I'm not a big fan of Chomsky but he's not nearly as evil as any Republican Senator not named Rand Paul.

I hold politicians to a higher standard. Even still, I'm not a huge fan, and don't view him as being in the liberty movement, but at least he's not voting to kill people every day.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You assumed that all leftists were nanny-staters.

Because its true

(Not defending the right either. I hate them both.)

 

[gwax23]

You assumed that all leftists were nanny-staters.

Well most of them are despite the fact I never said that in my original post.