Chomsky destroys Ron Paul

It's a bit layered, but it's very cogent.

Quote: "here (the US) Libertarian means extreme advocate of total tyranny..."

Damn straight.

US Libertarianism is not real Libertarianism. Laissez Faire capitalism is NOT the basis for real Libertarianism and is in fact simply the handing of power from a vaguely accountable system to a completely unaccountable system. The fantasy that "unfettered" markets will produce wealth for the masses in a globalized economy is dangerous and is undermined by the realities shown time and time again in our relatively unregulated market; given the chance corporations choose their shareholders over their employees.

A truly unfettered market would simply take the power away from elected politicians and give it over to the Mitt Romney's of the world, and worse.

That is NOT what Libertarianism is about. Well, it is, but only in America.

I expect this to drop like a stone, because just like with Obama, people want to BELIEVE is something. In this case it's Ron Paul and his so called "libertarianism".

The fact is that Ron Paul, and his fantasies (remember Ayn Rand ended up on government welfare) are dangerous. The US (I'm a US expat) and it's people desperately need to educate themselves and stop running from one messiah to another.

(43% of Americans polled thought God helped Tebow play football. This is pretty shocking stuff.)

Should the world's police really be so ignorant and superstitious?

There's an old saying, "Might makes right". That's the US' real slogan. The world lives in fear of her weaponry ... and her collapse.

Anyway, this will all fall on deaf ears I'm sure.

Chomsky speaking words of wisdom since... well... forever.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

I'm sure people are contemplating the deep wisdoms from Mr Chomsky still, hence no comment yet. I think you made one valid statement though, I have to give you credit for that.

Anyway, this will all fall on deaf ears I'm sure.

Well, let's hope so anyway.

What the hell, it looks like I might actually be a true Libertarian.

Who knew?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

It's a bit layered, but it's very cogent.

US Libertarianism is not real Libertarianism. Laissez Faire capitalism is NOT the basis for real Libertarianism and is in fact simply the handing of power from a vaguely accountable system to a completely unaccountable system. The fantasy that "unfettered" markets will produce wealth for the masses in a globalized economy is dangerous and is undermined by the realities shown time and time again in our relatively unregulated market; given the chance corporations choose their shareholders over their employees.

A truly unfettered market would simply take the power away from elected politicians and give it over to the Mitt Romney's of the world, and worse.

That is NOT what Libertarianism is about. Well, it is, but only in America.

Since you titled your post "DESTROYS" Ron Paul in a sensationalist wishful thinking manner, I would like to address your fallacies, since you started it and opened yourself up.

1) Your fallacy is that the current system in America is "Unfettered". Error: this is a highly regulated system for the smaller business ventures but unregulated for a certain clique of CRONIES. This is Crony Capitalism, with no real competition in a market for a few in the club. Bankers, Mega Corporations, Subsidized Corps., Special Interest Corps, Venture Capitals, Hedge Fund Managers, Insurance, Energy, War, Etc.

The laws and tax codes are also written and FAVOR the major players by the very Government itself.

This is Fascism, Cronyism, Oligopoly. I knew from reading your post the first SECOND you were going to tout the meme of "Capitalism".

2) Libertarianism is for Government honoring contractual agreements and prosecuting FRAUD. A major tenant of Libertarianism,. I should know, I am one. Wall Street under a Libertarian/ Constitutional Presidency would be slapped like a red headed step child.

3) Chomsky is a "Left Libertarian". We're not one monolithic myopic entity. Chomsky's brand is based on the European style, which is "Classical Liberalism". Ron Paul is a CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTARIAN. Since the U.S. Constitution is only a U.S. document, of course Ron Paul is not styled after the Europeans.

4) Your OP assumes or hints that Libertarians are for the current state of economy with respect to Corporatism and Globalism. If anything Libertarians are Localists. So you're right, it's NOT Libertarianism.

5) Libertarians believe in VOLUNTARY based ideas, private property, fraud prosecution, honoring contracts, smaller government, individual rights, Some of us are Mincarchists, some Anrchists or Anarcho Capitalists.

***Hence why my Ron Paul avatar is YELLOW and BLACK*** (wink wink wink)

Like I said, we're not monolithic.

6) You say that we have been shown "time and time again" that unfettered Capitalism doesn't work. yet all the failures have Central Banking, an Elite Cartel of money creators, or Government intervention and allowance of bad practices WITH those people. Also monetary policy and central planning is at the middle of ALL of the failures. So we haven't seen a pure MARKET BASED economy for a long long time, specifically in America.

7)

A truly unfettered market would simply take the power away from elected politicians and give it over to the Mitt Romney's of the world, and worse.

Looked into Mitt Romney's past? Bain Capital? Do you think entities like this thrive and grow without Government help or cronyism? HAhahah? Romney would be the perfect melding of Fascism and Corporatism.

And power away from elected politicians? That's a bad thing? what have they done so far?

You act like a Free Market system would enhance Crony Capitalism or Corporatism yet it's nature is a filter against the failures and reward good practice, fair prices, and quality products? Not HEDGING bets and raking in margin profits based on leverage in a gambling casino.

reply to post by PaxVeritas


I said "relatively unfettered". And it obviously is.

As for the rest of your nonsense about a true free market rewarding good behaviour, will it's completely obvious that a true free market is amoral. It rewards profit. If that is impeded my moral considerations than they would simply be ignored.

On another note, posting one 5 minute video of Chomsky doesnt even come close to the complexity of Market Economics economic history or economic theory.

Chomsky is a LINGUIST with a passion for history and right on many things. He sees the solution as different as he's a Syndicalist Socialist Anti Statist "Libertarian".

It' doesn't 'destroy Ron Paul" as Ron is not even mentioned in the video, and there is no comparison to Ron Paul's actual fiscal and economic policies.

You didn't 'destroy' anything. You hyperBOWLED your way into a fallacious assertion without proper research and got some stars for it.

What's new on ATS?

reply to post by PaxVeritas


The fact that you want to ignore how this directly relates to Paul makes it clear how much it does destroy Paul and his fallacious definition of Libertarian.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by PaxVeritas

 

I said "relatively unfettered". And it obviously is.

As for the rest of your nonsense about a true free market rewarding good behaviour, will it's completely obvious that a true free market is amoral. It rewards profit. If that is impeded my moral considerations than they would simply be ignored.

edit on 16-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

it's completely obvious that a true free market is amoral.

Supported by what DATA? Lemme guess. The current economic crisis and Wall Street? LOL
You''ve already lost the argument if so.

Profit based Capitalism bought nearly all of us out of the dark ages and increased GDP, life expectancy, health, innovation and quality of life by leaps. But that's just an overall system. We have TWO economies here in America, they don't tell you that in school.

The top 1% of 1% has their own and THAT economy is super imposing OURS. Different rules and different worlds. There is no such thing as a "free" market based economy in America, that myth is hilarious.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by PaxVeritas

 

The fact that you want to ignore how this directly relates to Paul makes it clear how much it does destroy Paul and his fallacious definition of Libertarian.

And the fact that you opened yourself up to an economic debate with a simpleton's "Chomsky" (College Political Science 101 For TEH NOOBS) with an excerpt from a 5 minute video, claiming it "destroys" Paul, and not able to debate the content.....shows you're in way over your head.

Care to debate Economic theory? Modes/Means of Production?

Oh and, before you trip yourself up, just know that Libertarians, Anarcho capitalists, Anarcho Syndicalists, have a common bond in being Anti Statist in nature and seeing the detriment of "GUBERMINT" in our finances.

Chomsky just nostalgically longs for the days of common localist production, which actually could be cool and might be ENCOURAGED even further under a "Ron Paul America".

VOLUNTARYISM for the MUTHA F'IN WIN!! YALL!!!

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by PaxVeritas

 

The fact that you want to ignore how this directly relates to Paul makes it clear how much it does destroy Paul and his fallacious definition of Libertarian.

hmmm so if it "directly relates to Ron Paul" you would think that his name would have been mentioned, or his specific beliefs, platform would have been referenced. it was not however, Mr Paul is a Constitutional Libertarian, nowhere in that video does Mr Chomsky refer to Constitutional Libertarianism, so...


FAIL

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
Granted, I'm not an expert in economics, and I will need to give this more due attention in the future - but isn't this more or less a moot point at the current time?

Paul's running for president, and there are many more pertinent issues we're dealing with - as well as the fact that the presidency doesn't really have an whole heck of a lot to do with the economy directly beyond educating people via the bully pulpit of the presidency, as well as vetoing budgets, legislation, and budgets, etc.

I'm a bit fuzzy from lack of sleep now, but is this thread meant mainly to focus on the hypotheticals of Paul's peripheral views? I just don't see the application at the moment, apologies.

I have no idea who this guy is, or why he's important. But I just sat through that whole video and walked out of it a damn stump stupider...

Not even a minute into the video I already get the impression that this guy is a commie.


USSR Russian Commie plant bastard! That's my take on em. Old KGB.

I Russia, we dont bring the Newz to you.. We bring you to the Newz! Hahahaha

Originally posted by theRhenn


Chomsky isn't a Marxist.

He just skirts around right underneath a Marxist model. But he's of the "Anarcho" breed , so I give him a pass...begrudgingly.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


So you take a youtube heading, you read libertarian, your knee-jerks, you loosely associate to Ron Paul and constitutional libertarians, you quickly and suddenly spill your froth here. I bet that frustratingly happens from time to time, huh?
The linguist from M.I.T. Mr Chomsky, is simply stating a historical representation of the word libertarian , the word conservative and its historical significance and contemporary significance.
it has nothing to do with Ludwig Von Mises, the constitution, Austrian Economics, nor Paul's platform. Where do you read tyranny in anything Paul says? The Von Mises Institute in Alabama would be a great resource to start. Or his voting record. Or a simple speech or debate. The isn't social studies. This Dr.Paul is a scholar, a gentleman, a man of high intellect, understanding, and compassion. You see the country is in post-traumatic state. We have left a system of checks and balances and have moved to cheques that bounce and balnces that don't add up. For a Dr. his goal is homeostasis or the prognosis is death. He takes his Hippocratic oath seriously and his oath of office.
Wise up kiddo...the big leagues are a ways off. You won't find answers on Youtube. You gotta crack a book, learn to site sources, read a few critical thinking essays or something or you will retreat to defining intellectual flit being an anonymous user name on some websites trolling for some over knee jerkers who won't make feeling like a one minute man so lonely.

reply to post by sirjunlegun


Another person twisting what Chomsky says to try and distance Paul.

Chomsky is very deliberately discussing the US Libertarian party and it's views. Paul is the face of this party and shares the same views as are discussed by Chomsky.

There's no accidental way to miss his point. One has tonassume you're internationally muddying the waters to defend Paul's belief in tyranny, not state run tyranny, but the tryanny of the wealthy corporate elite.

reply to post by CaDreamer


You'd thnk that only if you're simple minded.

Ron Paul is the face of US Libertarianism. He espouses the views of the US Libertarian party. Those views and that party are directly, not implicitly, but directly discussed in that video.

A=B, B=C, A=C

reply to post by Praetorius


The beliefs of a candidate running for President, esp the CORE beliefs as defined by the candidate himself, are def not a side-show.

Look at this thread; Paul supporters bash democracy, they admit that amongst their ranks are anarcho-capatalists.

Who protects the majority when the minority has no voice?

How can a man that claims to support the ideals of the founding fathers have supporters that want to suppress democracy?

It's easy; as Chomsky states, the real ideals of Libertarianism, as with democracy, can be defined as protect with the interest of individuals, within a group. Remove the group, in this case, government, or society, and you remove these protections.

The US right has extrapolated that because the core unit of society is an individual, the core purpose of society is to somehow destroy itself FOR individuals. But without society, without democracy, without the group protecting it's constituent parts, there is no Libertarianism.

This is why Chomsky says that US Libertarianism is an advocate for extreme tyranny. US Libertarians believe in the individual OVER the group. They also believe in the right of business to act as an individual. In other words they believe in the right of the wealthy elites to behave as they desire, with no checks imposed by society, for it's own protection. The idea of laissez faire capitalists choosing to be "self-destructive" to protect an "other" person is laughable and delusional.

reply to post by PaxVeritas


You want me to provide data that free market capitalism is amoral? Have you not been paying attention?

The goal of capitalism is profit.

Profit is an amoral construct. But it's also brutal in human terms.

Move a business off shore to increase profits? Brilliant! Except for the employees without jobs.Who can't afford to be retrained as there's no access to "for profit" education, with no access to a social safty net, as that's an "entitlement," and with no access to "for profit" healthcare.

But sure, who could care about the thousands in Detroit whose "amoral" business leaders chased profit as an ideal? That's the (fantasy) American way.

So let these employees starve and be thrown into a paupers grave.

If an employee can not produce excess capital and if the state has no responsibility except to protect the "rights" of individuals, then the unemployable, no mater the cause, are useless, like excess fat... or a parasite.

Right?

And sure, the Employer may create an environment in which an employee is deliberately injured or lied to or undereducated, as it generates more profit, even though that will destroy them, and not figuratively. Sure that's grand. As long as it increases profit.

At some point under a laissez faire capitalist system business IS government, but without the pesky mandate of protecting anyone. Forget the whole, "everyone is created equal" illusion, forget it completely. Under a business government you're born into a caste.