Still missing the point.

The "Libertarians"-- who are not nazis-- are suckering quite a few people with their so called "small government" "free market capitalism" message. Why aren't more people from here, in there recruiting to our side? These people are open to new ideas. This is a golden opportunity. Instead of cursing the dark, start spreading some light.

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.
I thought this guy (Chomsky) was supposed to be an intellectual? I mean this dribble is so far outside reality, it's laughable. You mean to tell me that there is only one possible place of employment for this "typical" worker? Then why is it in our modern "economy" most people (with the exception of tenured college professors) change jobs every three to five years. As far as people starving, when is the last reported case of that happening in the United States, unless it was some creep doing it to someone on purpose? I guess this "worker" has no family, no friends to help him or her out temporarily?
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?
So what your saying here is you want firms to have government protection against liability? Are you for licensed monopolies too? You're all over the freakin' board dude. You seem to want to be frightened by corporate tyranny, but then you want them to sanctioned by the state? You mean the state(government) that have caused every war, and famine in human hiin story? I would rather take my chances on "Allegheny".
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)? Heres how it works outside the irony tower. Guy sticks his hand in machine, guy loses a finger. Guy sues company, insurance company pays. Insurance company says install guard to make sure nobody else fingers get caught in machine. While it sucks that the guy lost his finger, corrective action has been taken, the company unbelievably has self regulated itself! And at this point we would be done. Except for:
Bureaucrat wants to keep job, sees story man loses finger, light goes on. If I break balls I keep job, next thing you know OSHA is born. Think of that dope in "Ghostbusters" from the EPA, everything was cool and handled until he got involved. Next thing you know chaos abounded, and marshmellow bloodied the streets. They are just like that.
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?
Wonderful we can have politicized science and all live like happy campers. But then who decides? Al Franken wants to know why grass is green, but Rush Limbaugh really wants to know why fried potatoes turn brown? Is this really how the way to have R&D?
Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….?
No we should free market schools, and roads though. Public transportation rapes poor people. How is that so you ask? Most poor folk live in the inner city, most jobs are in the suburbs. Public transportation (buses, trains)doesn't work well getting them to these jobs,(long rides, no direct routes). Cabs because they are STATE (government) licensed are too expensive. So the people that need the jobs the most, are whipsawed by the very system, that is supposed to help them. But suppose we had dozens or hundreds of hacks, instead of just a few or for "profit" carpools? Which way would prices go? Hell it might even pay to work.
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.
Hmm, choice what a dirty word. Wranglers fit too tight so I buy Levis. Acme has dirty, high priced stores so I go to Piggly Wiggly. Toyota makes better cars then Chevy so I buy a Nissan. Please tell me where, oh where is the "private tyranny" here. The market sans state(government) intervention will never be a tyranny, its impossible. Of course the more you regulate society, the more barriers you put up, the less choice you have, the better the chances for tyranny to take hold. Statists are like all addicts. You put in one law, and something else works around it, so you have to put in another then another and another. It's a never ending cycle. But more then that it's insane.

Wow, nice riposte, mate. Couldn't have said it better myself. What an incredible mass of contradictions.

"Guy sticks his hand in machine, guy loses a finger. Guy sues company, insurance company pays. Insurance company says install guard to make sure nobody else fingers get caught in machine."

Why would the guy win the suit? If it is not in the original contract, which it isn't in this example, the company has broken no law- losing a finger is simply a hazard of the job. So...guy sues company, loses suit and loses job. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

No PDd here:

You completely fail to understand the points Chomsky was trying to make. First of all, the example of the 12 hour factory job was a HYPOTHETICAL example. His main point here is to show (quite rightly given Ron Paul's ideological commitments) that according to Paul, this situation would be considered perfectly acceptable and the government should do nothing to prevent it. Many people would find this objectionable (myself included); maybe you don't mind if that is allowed, but the whole point is that as long as private property isn't threatened, ANYTHING GOES in Ron Paul's world. It has nothing to do with whether or not those conditions actually do or could exist in this country.

Of course your response to the point you THOUGHT Chomsky was making shows your naivety: sure there are multiple jobs available to people in the US, but for many people all of their choices are shit so the fact that they can choose between shit job #1 vs. shit job #2, 3, 4 is pretty irrelevant. Luckily for people in the United States, where we have labor laws (enforced by the GOVERNMENT), none of these jobs will be nearly as shitty as they may be to a factory worker in the third world, where sadly, the hypothetical situation described by Chomsky DOES actually exist. And not surprisingly this is the result of "FREE TRADE" which values property rights above all else (just like Ron Paul) -- basically proof that Chomsky's example is not only tolerated but actually occurs when governments are not permitted to create and enforce labor laws, because of some kind of abstract philosophical commitment to property rights.

Also, you fail to realize that when Chomsky asks if "dismantling of big government" means "corporations go out of existence", he IS NOT saying that the government SHOULD protect corporations and limited liability. The point he is making is that while Ron Paul may act as if he is opposed to all government interference in the economy, he in actuality would be much more selective. It is rather doubtful that he would support the disestablishment of the corporation (which is of course an artificial legal entity supported and protected by the GOVERNMENT), but he is perfectly happy disestablishing any government regulations which protect workers. Chomsky's point is that this is a hypocritical and misleading position. Economic and political power would STILL be inequitably distributed and even a supposedly non-interventionist Ron Paul government would just re-enforce this arrangement (both by doing nothing to combat it and continuing governmental interference that supports it).

Finally, you again miss the point with regards to research and development. Chomsky is not saying that R+D SHOULD be publicly funded, he is saying that it already IS! The internet and computers would not exist were it not for substantial governmental support directed at research and development. Same goes for most aeronautical technology, which also gets almost all the money necessary for development through government subsidies (via defense contracts). Chomsky is pointing out that government intervention was REQUIRED for the development of these technologies; the market was unable to produce this outcome on its own. Ron Paul probably does not appreciate this. Of course Chomsky is opposed to the way in which the fruits of these publicly funded research efforts have almost always become the intellectual property of private companies which are then permitted to profit off of them as they wish; whereas the public that funded the initial research sees none of the billions of dollars made off of it. So while Chomsky may use the example to show why its necessary (and blindly accepted by or is unknown to many who call themselves Libertarians) to publicly fund certain efforts, he does not mean to support the manner in which the American government is currently doing it.

All in all your supposed "rebuttal" of Chomsky's points is completely ineffectual because you did not even understand his arguments to begin with.

Anybody who has spent more than a few minutes learning about the differences between traditional libertarianism, e.g. anarchism, and the kind of nationalist big "L" Libertarianism favored by Ron Paul would understand why Noam Chomsky doesn't support Ron Paul. Anarchists don't support Ron Paul, but then we don't support anybody running for political office. Paul is a fake libertarian taking advantage of the fact that many Americans are disgusted by their political system.

Fine.

So what is anyone from this site going to do about it? Recruit, attack, or sit.

It is against the editorial policy of DC Indymedia, to endorse anyone for electoral office.

I don't think anyone is endorsing Paul, the article is an anti-Paul statement to make some points why Paul isn't for many of us.

Question: Who was one of the challengers to Rep Ron Paul for President in 1987 on the Libertarian line?

Answer: Russel Means (Oyate Wacinyapin).

Now it is not suggested that anyone should join the Libertarian Party (or any party) or vote (since it is a farce anyway) or that Russel Means is/was a progressive.

What is suggested is that more people from around here get into that and start an attempt to recruit from those people.

First of all, compare Paul with the other candidates. A big L libertarian is still better than any other choice. LoL.

is any other candidate going to make government smaller? no.
they are all going to expand it. more coercion, more programs.

remember that many people who support Paul are small L's, anarchists, disgruntled Republicans, democrats, etc.

i am registered republican to vote for paul. i started out as a green and quickly turned libertarian once i started talking about the nature of government, taxes, etc. at heart I am an anarchist. if you claim to be an anarchist you have to believe in free entry in to the market. why do you think the internet rocks!!!

Paul has been fighting statism and for that reason alone he gets a lot of support.

chomsky doesn't believe in private property.
ron paul does.

that is the major difference.

what do you own?
you have rights don't you? now explain how and why?
you can't do it without owning yourself first.

now what about your labor. do you own the house you built?
you should shouldn't you?
you would fight for your home and family, right?
without property you don't own anything and must cede what you own to authority.

hence, I support Ron Paul and fight big government, i.e. statism.

You can't fight big government by even bigger government. Ron Paul doesn't want an end to big government he just wants to be the one in control. Noam Chomsky is better and bigger L Libertarian than you will ever be, he can understand libertarianism and a lot more and he is a professor of numerous years at MIT and is probably one of the smartest minds in the libertarian movement!

"chomsky doesn't believe in private property.
ron paul does."

Translation: Chomsky believes in public schools and libraries and Ron Paul doesn't.

"jls" must be one of those condo developers who is getting aid from Fenty in highjacking public property.

One question that hasn't been asked or answered is where did all of Ron Paul's $Millions in Internet "donations" really come from? The Internet is the perfect vehicle for disguising corporate donations or even for laundering "dirty" money!

RE Mr.Paul: Like the old saw that when something or someone seems to be too good to be true - it is and they are!

So when are you going to get out and start recruiting? The skinheads are down there attempting to recruit, so why aren't you? There are many more people there open to your message than theirs.

EXCELLENT POINT.

No PHd here said, "You mean to tell me that there is only one possible place of employment for this "typical" worker?"

Should a person who is working somewhere for $20 per hour be forced to work in a convenience store for minimum wage? How can they support their family? Let's suppose that a woman is sexually harassed by a superior at work. She cannot take it anymore and therefore, quits. Then what? Perhaps she had worked for five or ten years before being forced to quit. The former employer refuses to give her any good references. Maybe she's a single mom. Then what? If Dr. Paul gets his way, she will be totally fucked.

"As far as people starving, when is the last reported case of that happening in the United States...."

Are you kidding? There are millions of homeless people on the streets of the United States. Many of these are veterans who after being used by the government, were essentially thrown away. The ranks of hungry children and elderly folks who have to choose between food and medicine are growing at an alarming rate.

"Bureaucrat wants to keep job, sees story man loses finger, light goes on. If I break balls I keep job, next thing you know OSHA is born."

Back in my younger days I worked in electroplating. This is a process by which junk jewelry and such things are made to look appealing enough to sell and then wear. It is a process by which workers must use many toxic chemicals. I worked in the wash room. In other words, I was one of the people who used and was exposed to those chemicals. OSHA came in and made the company put in a large exhaust fan - something that we welcomed. Unfortunately, I worked the graveyard shift from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The company installed a lock on the fan in order that we couldn't turn it on at night. It was a money-saving measure. They knew that OSHA wouldn't come in after business hours. You support Dr. Paul's efforts to bring us back to this? Sure, I could have quit, but would only have to face similar situations at the next job.

"Please tell me where, oh where is the "private tyranny" here. The market sans state(government) intervention will never be a tyranny,"

This tyranny is the reason that so many people from Mexico are being forced to cross over our border illegally. OUR corporations, and government, in conjunction with the Mexican government, have taken over the people's lands under the auspices of NAFTA and other free-trade agreements. They are destroying the people's self-sufficiency and are forcing them to work for slave wages. The tyranny also exists in the Appalachians where big coal companies are literally removing the tops of mountains and pushing the debris into streams and valleys. They are running people off their lands and spewing toxins right next to elementary schools. I could go on and on about this but enough said. Wake up!

thanks for posting. chomsky is the man

let's not forget-Ron Paul is on Stormfront, perhaps the #1 Nazi site in the US, and is not comnplaining about this. That can be interpreted and should be interpreted as support or at least acceptance on Nazism on his part. Shit-he's made plenty of anti-immigrant remarks the Nazis are just lovin him for...

Ron Paul will use white supremacist's $500 to spread 'message of freedom'

By keeping a white supremacist's $500 contribution, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul will be taking that money away from someone with "small ideologies" and using it to "spread the message of freedom," Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton tells the Associated Press.

If supremacist Don Black thinks he can influence Paul, "he's wasted his money," Benton adds.

The story of Black's donation has been around for a while now -- LoneStarTimes.com broke the news Oct. 25. Today's AP story, though, underscores again the unorthodox nature of the Paul campaign since it's safe to say most other politicians would have returned the $500.

The larger problem is, Stormfront now can be "out" under their name. It matters way less how Paul spends the money.

It MATTERS way more that a white supremacist group is considered "acceptable" as a donor.

Mr. Chomsky lost my respect a long time ago with his perverse form of Gatekeeping. He's the worst kind of authoritarian in my view and a growing number of others. He pretends to be radically progressive when in fact what he really does is "bait and switch" in order to keep us looking at issues that won't effect real change.

Read Barry Zwicker's book called "Towers of Deception". Mr. Zwicker, by the way, is a former fan of Chomsky's.

That sounds familiar.

I do see the differences to Chomskys views, but IMO he should still support Ron Paul, even if it's just for one reason: Ron Paul talks about real issues, and his ideas of solutions.

And I am sure that is as good as it can get in America right now. So if Chomsky has the choice between just criticising everyone and supporting no one - or supporting Ron Paul, the second is much preferable.

No what is more preferable is that Chomsky not support a racist right wing extremist nor should he support any candidate and people should not tell Professor Chomsky how to think and who to vote for. If voting changed anything it would be illegal.

Here is a quote from Chomsky about voting:
"Unfortunately, you can't vote the rascals out, because you never voted them in, in the first place."-Noam Chomsky

I don't tell him what to think, I just say my opinion what I see as preferable. I also tell my reasons - I don't see why a discussion of that sort would be wrong.
I wouldn't even suspect that Chomsky changes his opinion, but he could and should consider arguments of other people.

I don't know about "racist" and "extremist". So I cant judge about that. Also obviously certain views of Paul are deeply opposite of Chomsky. Especially the idea to empower corporations. On the other hand - there are parallels (true free markets, no support for regimes in the world).

It's just that right now I see no options for Ron Paul. And if all he really changes at the end would be that people look at issues and not just personality traits, then it would be worth some support.

Just like I've said before his real policies are only a further manifestation of far right conservative facism. It's bullshit from start to finish. He's got somebody manning internet voting who votes a hundred times instead of once.

It's their constitutional right to vote as many times as they want, just please make sure they are white and preferably male and maybe have some money, if not they should be kept away from the polls, just in case they don't vote for me. That whole Voting Rights Act is a bunch of crap that the Zionist Neo-Cons are cramming down our throats to protect the poor and colored, rather than the most oppressed white middle class. So just remember to vote for me and vote often assuming you fit qualifications and if not you can give me your money and give me lots of it and keep giving.

Merry Christmas,
Dr. Ron Paul

Rofl. I guess he also has 50k or so minions donating hundreds of dollars to him too? did you forget about 11/4 and 12/7? He is the man who raised the most money ever in a single day. yet its probably just some online spammers..

I've been leery of Ron Paul from the git go, this just confirms it more. Sad thing is people actually believe what he has to offer is better.

What's interesting about Dr. Paul is the coalition he has managed to mobilize, a combination of libertarians, nativists, populists, and assorted radicals and misfits ("truthers", the illuminati/Trilateral Commission/Federal Reserve obsessed, etc.)

Thankfully this is an incredibly unstable coalition and Dr. Paul has very little chance of winning in any primary contest. I suspect he will receive a slightly higher percentage of the popular vote than Nader did in the previous election.

Ron Paul and the Paulistas: Populism and the Paranoid Style in American Politics
newcentrist.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/ron-paul-and-the-paulistas-populism-and-the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

"Paul’s policy proposals and certainly his style, are paranoid populist rather than libertarian. After all, what’s libertarian about restricting women’s reproductive rights and not allowing GLBT folks to serve openly? What’s libertarian about militarizing the border? Paul’s voting record on trade is not incredibly libertarian either.

In fact, when you strip away the libertarian polish, Paul emerges as an economic and political isolationist. Likewise, most of Paul’s supporters—the people who will actually vote for him—are right-wing populists."

Chomsky is just another socialist moron.

Well,
Actually Noam Chomsky is an old time anarchist and he is just pointing out the facts. The truth is that private property in Ron Paul's mind is more important than the people who own it. He has no regard for human life in general only his and his friends. Anarchism on the other hand values and protects human and all life and to hell with materialism and capital. Now Noam Chomsky is only trying to minimize human suffering when he tells people to vote or not to vote he is not a voter or a socialist in any sense of the term. He like most anarchists believes that people should take care of each other with love and dignity and the fullness of human compassion.

Oh yes clearly he must be a moron, because he is an institute professor of linguistics at MIT as well as a professor emeritus, has 32 honorary degrees from around the world and has written countless books and articles and gave probably even more lectures! I doubt you could understand a lot of what he writes and talks about!
If you still think he is a moron then lets see how many degrees and how many professorships you have and how many books have you written in any field. Also how many legitimate theories have you come up with??? I think because you cannot understand Chomsky rather than taking the time to try and learn about it and attempt to understand things you would rather just act immature because it is easier and more simplistic, then reading one of his books or listening to one of his lectures.

Aspies for Ron Paul

Wow I thought he would be for Ron Paul. He's probably against him because of the Israel lobby comments, since Chomsky has consistently been supportive of Isreal no matter what it does. He is quick to judge America in everything, but when it comes to Israel, hands off!

No, actually if you read any of chomsky's books you will learn that he is extremely critical of israel and their lobby! He would not support ron paul because ron paul does not represent anything good!

Final Nails in Ron Paul’s Racist-sexist-homophobic Campaign Coffin

By STEVEN ARGUE

Since I wrote this article new information has surfaced regarding Ron Paul’s pro-fascist agenda.

That information is discussed in the following January 7, 2008 MSNBC interview conducted by Tucker Carlson with the New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick. In it he gives an inside look into his controversial piece on presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, due to hit newsstands on Friday.

antironpaul.com/

The following are newly released copies of Ron Paul’s extreme right newsletter to which Jamie Kirchick refers:

www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf
www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf
www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf

In addition to these revelations, in New Hampshire Ron Paul also failed to repeat anything close to the 10% vote he achieved in Iowa.

Somewhat surprisingly, there are a large number of liberal minded anti-war people who have urged a vote for Ron Paul.

They are liberal "support the lesser viable evil" types that see Ron Paul as more viable than any anti-war Democrat (arguably Kucinich and Gravel).

Additional questions have always existed if Ron Paul really was viable, or if he really was a lesser evil. New Hampshire and the latest revelations ought to put both questions to rest.

But for me there are always more important questions than if a candidate is viable or a "lesser evil". I think that building a long-term movement for real change is much more important than backing a candidate of any degree of evil. For me that includes deflating illusions in the corporate politicians of the Democrat and Republican Parties, getting out information on candidates to the left of the Democrats (the real anti-war and anti-corporate candidates), and urging further actions such as protests, strikes etc.

Simply put, there is nobody worth supporting in the racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-poor, and capitalist Republican Party. Never has been, never will be. Get over it. In fact, there is nobody in the corporate Democrat and Republican Parties that are worth supporting. I discuss some of the candidates that may be worth supporting in the following article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
And the Struggle to Achieve It
By STEVEN ARGUE
www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

I admire Mr. Chomsky for many reasons; one of them is not his Ron Paul dissertation.

When posed a hypothetical situation Mr. Chomsky states "it is impossible to respond to what [one] [may believe] in abstraction from circumstances"; however, the concept seems to apply only when convenient and not to himself. Mr. Chomsky on the offense in response to Ron Paul's view that a basic function of the federal government is enforce of contracts between willing parties: "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."

Chomsky seems he has a bone to chew. He choses to believe in extremism and the carrying of ideas to a radical conclusion.

However, we are not electing a dictator nor mandating a form of anarchy. 200 years of laws passed by Congress and the assumed oversight of the Supreme Court would not allow the extremism proposed by thr good professor.

It is no wonder the Libertarian Party is laughed at by the Main Stream Media and the two major parties. When a party has so much individualism instilled within it that compromise cannot be reached. Support should be given to a representative of its core beliefs and not scorn.

The chance to act,to strengthen and recruit new believers to the Libertarian way of thought is met with didain. Or, is it, the Libertarian Party feels theatened that their Lofty Ivory Towers of self importance is threatened and inclusiveness is harbinger to being normal rather than eccentric and special.