POLITICS: Lew Rockwell/Ron /Noam Chomsky

[Guest guest]

I often see Lew Rockwell's cite quoted by Ron fanatics...I found the

following disgusting little passage today. For one thing, it contains

irresponsibly false information. For another, it is flagrant red baiting...

" Comrade Noam

Posted by Lew Rockwell at December 23, 2007 01:11 PM

Noam Chomsky has written many brilliant books on US foreign policy, the

manufacturing of consent by the regime, etc. He holds himself out as

antiwar, though he is for UN wars. Murray Rothbard never forgot Chomsky's

endorsement of the Year Zero anti-economic policies of the Khmer Rouge.

Here's more proof of his belief in the state and its war on property owners.

He even says that he would support Hillary Clinton over Ron . In other

words, despite all his brilliance, Chomsky is a commie "

The 'chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge nonsense is absolutely false, and

disproven long ago. Anyone who cites it is relying on secondary sources, and

extremely unreliable ones at that.

Under 'more proof' above is a link that has the passages below. You'll also

see that he never says that he would support Clinton over Ron -

what he says is that he wouldn't support Ron over Clinton...not

the same to anyone with the most rudimentary logical skills.

I also find it amusing that apparently this is the culmination of his

argument that Noam is a commie...

From the znet sustainers forum:

Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I¹m assuming you know who Ron is. And

I¹m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here my

summary of Mr. ¹s positions:

- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law

enforcement and courts).

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. 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.

- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the

dismantling of big government)

Noam Chomsky: ³Dismantling of big government² 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? 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)? Does it mean that the economy

should collapse, because basic R & D is typically publicly funded ‹ like what

we¹re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads,

schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,Š.? 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.

- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to

argue against it).

Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you¹ve

already mentioned.

There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and

intimidate workers, not conversely. Just for starters. Putting them on a par

is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support

of state power ‹ itself largely under owner control, given concentration of

resources.

- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless

his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

Noam Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are

concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary

advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution

of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being

next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

I really can¹t find differences between your positions and his.

Noam Chomsky: There¹s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he

says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn¹t themselves pay

into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal

aliens). His claims about SS being ³broken² are just false. He also wants to

dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based ‹ the

real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having

them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision

based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He

wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the

basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we¹re at it,

why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments,

since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

So I have these questions:

1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of

³Libertarianism²?

Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of

libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion ‹ on the dubious

assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without

imploding.

2) Can you please tell me what role ³private property² and ³ownership² have

in your school of ³Libertarianism²?

Noam Chomsky: 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.

3) Would you support Ron , if he was the Republican presidential

candidateŠand Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

Noam Chomsky: No.