What does Noam Chomsky think about Ron Paul?

In my sociological studies... Noam always sounded like a socialist... an anti-establishment socialist... though a very good linguist.
I don't see how he has any connection with ron paul. true socialism and true personal liberties can't trully co-exist.
 
I think if Chomsky had to pick a candidate (that could actually win) it would be Ron Paul.

Maybe that is wishful thinking
 
I posted this topic a while back. The only reason I did so was that I was curious to what Chomsky though about Ron Paul, more specifically his comments about Blowback and US foreign policy.

I'm still curious.

I think someone should go to Chomsky and just ask him, get a debate going.

Also I am curious to what someone like Christopher Hitchens thinks of Ron Paul.

The more takes on Ron Paul the better.
 
"Chomsky is a collectivist and an America Hater."

I agree. Hes just another Moore.
 
Ron Paul and Chomsky have both diagnosed the problem with our foreign policy the same, but have extremely different views on how to cure the problem. Chomsky wants global government.
 
Enzo said:
Someone did ask Noam Chomsky:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=571422&blogID=326180908
Click to expand...

That's hilarious, I expected better of the guy. He sounds like a left wing Hannity with his fallacies. It makes me happy to vote for Ron Paul knowing that Chomsky is threatened by him.

Anyway, my argument against Chomsky is that private property is the natural result of life (time) and liberty (the freedom to use that time however you want). Life + Liberty + the apparently natural human urge to create things = property. If individuals possess these two rights you can't stop them from owing property (either singularly or collectively through free association) without violating them. This is assuming that all people are created equal, if Mr. Chomsky believes that's not the case and that he has special rights I'd like to know where he gets them.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to bring up an old thread.

I was actually curious about the same thing. What does Chomsky think of Ron Paul?

So after seeing the same question here, I found the answer elsewhere, and posted what I found.

Chomsky has been a great resource for me, and I consider his work, research, and writings on the Middle East, and US foreign policy in general, to be invaluable.

Ultimately, Noam Chomsky is not a politician, and is in no position to do anything but inform, and educate people. (which he does a great job of) Fortunately, Ron Paul is in a position to make a real change.

I donated $100 to Ron Paul's campaign earlier today, and I'm telling everyone I can about him.
 
Chomsky is a world socialist. He is perfectly consistent, and nearly perfectly wrong all the time. In fact, he's a good barometer for Ron Paul. The more Chomsky disagrees with Ron Paul, the more correct Ron is likely to be.

In fact, if you asked Ron Paul, he'd probably tell you that corporations are an entity that doesn't need to exist and are pretty counterproductive. On this, Chomsky would probably agree with Ron. But because Chomsky doesn't believe in private property, their agreement on the topic would last about five seconds and mean nothing. Ron would end the corporation because private property is important, but limiting an entity's liability is wrong. Chomsky would end corporations because they control private property and that property is not in the hands of the collective.

And that may be the only place they'd agree. In fact, my guess would be that Chomsky is fine with fiat currency because it's the best way to create wealth and stick it to the man. The fact that people even know who Chomsky is means our educational system needs a massive overhaul.
 
Enzo said:
Sorry to bring up an old thread.

I was actually curious about the same thing. What does Chomsky think of Ron Paul?

So after seeing the same question here, I found the answer elsewhere, and posted what I found.

Chomsky has been a great resource for me, and I consider his work, research, and writings on the Middle East, and US foreign policy in general, to be invaluable.

Ultimately, Noam Chomsky is not a politician, and is in no position to do anything but inform, and educate people. (which he does a great job of) Fortunately, Ron Paul is in a position to make a real change.

I donated $100 to Ron Paul's campaign earlier today, and I'm telling everyone I can about him.
Click to expand...

Good for you.
 
Chomsky has a ton of value in today's society, if only for his foreign policy analysis. He's not a "blame America" guy, he's just boldly honest about what's going on in the world, and the fact is, the Thugs in Washington have done a LOT of bad shit throughout the world since WW2. It sounds like blaming America, but that's just because his focus is on America, since he lives here. But he is equally as honest about the brutal foreign policies of other governments when it comes up.

However, he's so wrong on domestic policy, it's absurd. He constantly rails against the initiation of force in America's foreign policy, but then says the government should use that force on its own population in order to get rid of property rights and help the poor. Not only is this a gross hypocrisy (outward violence is bad but inward violence is good), but it also misses one of the most obvious facts of history: only with the growth of property rights beginning in the Renaissance has humanity been able to pull itself out of the brutal, oppressive conditions that were so prevalent when the state owned everything and the individual was *allowed* to live where he slaved away for his masters.

The whole approach of most leftist anarchists is contradictory. They always talk about the evils of the state because it uses force but then say that private property cannot exist. Well, if it cannot exist, yet it is even a baby's tendency to keep what's theirs (try taking candy from a baby!), then the only way to make it not exist is to use force. So the question is, what will a group of individuals that has a monopoly on the initiation of force, if not a state?
 
NMCB3 said:
I don't know mush about Chomsky, but anything with socialist in it cant by definition be good for individual freedom. Ditto for "libertarian socialists"
Click to expand...

"Libertarian socialist" sound like an oxymoron to me.
 
I have not read enough to give a solid opinion about this guy, but from everything I have read he sounds like a communist. He can take the word libertarinism and dress it up all he wants, the reality is he writes like he wants communism. I'm honestly not saying this to sound demeaning or anything like that.

The person he would annoy(if he were alive) is Karl Marx, since Chomsky speaks like he wants some form of Socialism and not Communism. Socialism is a softer form of Communism(too soft for Marx). Funny, how this is rarely addressed in modern thought.
 
Last edited:
Gee said:
They aren't polar opposites. Libertarian socialists argue that capitalism (and its in-equality of classes) cannot survive without coersion. "Normal" libertarians argue the free market will arise in the absense of coersion. Both want to get rid of coersion, the arguement is over what coersion is, and how to get rid of it, IMO.
Click to expand...

really? I believe people should be free to be capitalist....or socialistic. their choice
 
I've learned a lot from Chomsky, I've read a bit and listened to hundreds of hours. I don't look for him to solve problems. He's better at diagnosing problems and presenting patterns and history lessons. He is best at deconstructing the media and the way propaganda works.
 
Enzo said:
Someone did ask Noam Chomsky:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=571422&blogID=326180908
Click to expand...

lol wow. Chomsky really hates libertarianism.

2) 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.
Click to expand...

"free communities"

what the hell lol

I really want to see them debate!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Tucker: Margaret Roberts says most of what you think you know about the Oklahoma City bombing is a lie
Replies
1
Views
86
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
J
What the Media is Not Telling to You About Trump’s Fascist Real ID, Made Easy
Replies
1
Views
23
James_Madison_Lives
J
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
What Was Said - And Wasn't Said - In Trump's TV Speech
Replies
0
Views
85
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
What the Founders Feared
Replies
5
Views
106
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Former Trumpers Join "No Kings" (I attended)
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
684
PAF
PAF
Back
Top