It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chomsky destroys Ron Paul

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:46 AM

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
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.

This is THE reason I have withdrawn my support from Paul.

I agree completely with your opinion here in this thread. Yes, many ears here will be deaf, but there are many who recognize the failure of a government that refuses to protect the rights of ALL the people, not just the majority group.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The older I get the more I understand not wanting to support folks who choose to not work, when I work so very hard to achieve what I want, but I also have the humility and clarity to realise my base instincts are not the stuff government policy should be made of.

The government should reflect the best of humanity, not the worst, but we all know it is often corrupted for selfish ends. People want power and control. Often those people are doing it for other entities, like corporations. We all see this.

But too often we get frustrated that so much of government is bad, and, instead of trying to fix the problem, by controlling the amount of influence people can wield for selfish ends, we say, # it, let's destroy government.

This impulse, born of frustration, is then co-opted by many who would benefit financially by less regulation, lower taxes etc., and channeled deliberately into corrupt political candidates. They're lobbyists really.

These folks are lobbying for a false ideal, using the language of "freedom" and populist rage, (which should be pointed at them, for breaking government for selfish ends), and turn it into fake grass roots campaigns, fake political parties and BS spouting talking heads.

In other words, they turn your rage against you. They create a massive societal suicide machine and convince you to push the button.

Then they sit back and laugh at your stupidity.

There's no freedom in US Libertarianism, only a path to corporate government, replacing democracy with an unaccountable board of directors.

Paul is right about a few bits of foreign policy, but his (US) Libertarianism is dangerous pro-business lobbying hidden in the language of a populist freedom fighter.

edit on 17-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
First off, thanks for your response, and secondly I'll preface this by saying I'm not being INTENTIONALLY dense.

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?

Could you please clarify the first question for me?

As to the second, unless I'm astray here, the founding fathers actually spoke out fairly strongly against general democracy, in viewing it as an affront to personal liberty by way of being the tyranny of the majority over the minority, or various minority views - this being why they gave us a constitutional republic as compared to a simple democracy. Granted, we have somewhat devolved into the latter, but I don't see that as having had much of a positive effect.

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.

I'm not aware of anyone wanting to remove government or society...I merely see Paul's (personal) views as generally wanting people to be free to do as they will with themselves or their property, as long as they're not intruding on anyone else's ability to do the same, or negatively impacting the property of others. More clarity, please?

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.

You're totally losing me here. No one - as far as I'm aware - is advocating a destruction of society. Paul himself, to my knowledge, is looking mainly for a...urgh...'constitutional renewal' of our society, with the federal government returned to its original bounds and limitations, and with the states and people being able to self-determine. Somewhat akin to the nations in the EU having their own rights and responsibilities, for the largest part, while there is an overarching unity with other nations handling some various other matters in common.

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.

I can't really see much problem with the first bit, honestly. I want to be free to do as I will, as long as I don't step on anyone else's toes - and I want everyone else to have the same right.

As to the rights of "businesses"...well, businesses don't have rights, but I also can't argue with a business owner being free to do as he wants with his own property (the business), as long as the same concept applies - the business can't infringe on the liberty or property of others. People are free not to work for the business, and not to do business with it.

Regardless of Paul's views and my own on the matter, though, Paul is also running for the presidency and operates according to the strictures of the constitution - this is not the realm of the federal government, but that of the states and the people (much as the same would not be the realm of the EU, but that of Switzerland and its people). Paul would have no authority - or real desire, given his indications - to challenge the states or people from passing any laws or protections as they saw fit to address these concerns, as long as they otherwise operated in accordance with the constitution.

Please forgive me if I'm just not catching the point here, I'm tired and haven't felt well this last week to be honest. Can you offer some dumbing-down into very much layman's terms and simplification for me? Even if I don't end up agreeing, I do want to understand so I can properly discuss this in the future.

Thanks in advance, and take care.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Hello BH...

This is THE reason I have withdrawn my support from Paul.

I agree completely with your opinion here in this thread. Yes, many ears here will be deaf, but there are many who recognize the failure of a government that refuses to protect the rights of ALL the people, not just the majority group.

I'll also apologize to you for my mental limping in this thread - it's been a long week for me.

Regarding your withdrawal of support for Paul based on this reasoning, could you clarify a bit, as Paul doesn't advocate governmental protection of ANY group, aside from that of americans in general against the overreach and intrusion of the government itself?

This goes back for me to discussions we've had elsewhere on related matters. I hear you and others say you cannot stand thoughts of a government that fails to offer such protections, but seem to not realize that for a VERY large part, this is what we already have on so many issues - the government keeps getting larger and consuming more of our money (and going further into debt by spending and borrowing more, hence devaluing our remaining wealth and indirectly driving up our costs of living via inflation, medical expenses via tinkering in the healthcare realm, and educational expenses through its involvement in the schooling realm), universally intrudes on our privacy and restricts our right to choose our own way on so many topics (even threatening us with imprisonment if we choose to do certain things to none but ourselves), and opens us up to retaliation and attack via foreign adventurism and interjection (while also diluting our actual defense capabilities and the vitality of our defenders).

Why do we accept and make apparent peace with so many refusals to protect so many of our rights and liberties to such a serious degree? All the alternatives to Paul offer continuations and even expansions of such refusal to protect these and other things.

As long as they - at the moment, anyway - will protect abortion services, or set business regulations (which in large part backfire in quite a few ways), we can turn a blind eye to the rest - or even worsenings of it?

It seems to me there should be a very strong cognitive dissonance here. Instead of trusting that the states and people can work these things out for themselves, we have a blind hope that the federal government will do a trustworthy job of it while caving in on so many other abuses?

No offense intended. I just don't seem to have any luck wrapping my head around it as yet. I hope you're well.

EDIT: brain. For clarity, what's I'm getting is "If situation a/b ever came up, Paul might do/not do c/d offensive things - so I'm at peace with the definite continuation of x/y/z offensive things for the time being so I don't even have to chance it."
edit on 1/17/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:57 PM
Great thread. Haven't read all posts, or watched the vid yet, so I apologize if this has been covered.

The term 'Libertarian' was originally a left-wing term. The first use of the term was by an anarchist publication, 'La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social'. Published in New York in 1858.

After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274

The term was used as an alternative the term 'Anarchism', because of it's negative connotations at the time. So we get the term 'libertarian socialism'. Libertarian as in no-state, and socialism [the workers ownership of the means of production], no private property/capitalism. That is basic anarchism, that was formed around the writings of Proudhon, especially 'What is Property'.

B.3 Why are anarchists against private property?

Private property is one of the three things all anarchists oppose, along side hierarchical authority and the state. Today, the dominant system of private property is capitalist in nature and, as such, anarchists tend to concentrate on this system and its property rights regime. We will be reflecting this here but do not, because of this, assume that anarchists consider other forms of private property regime (such as, say, feudalism) as acceptable. This is not the case -- anarchists are against every form of property rights regime which results in the many working for the few.

Anarchist opposition to private property rests on two, related, arguments. These were summed up by Proudhon's maxims (from What is Property? that "property is theft" and "property is despotism." In his words, "Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism. . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." [Proudhon, What is Property, p. 251] Anarchists, therefore, oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority as well as exploitation and, consequently, elite privilege and inequality. It is based on and produces inequality, in terms of both wealth and power.

Anarchism is stateless socialism Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876

Stateless Socialism: Anarchism by Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.

Ron Paul should not be trusted imo. Anyone in authority claiming to be 'libertarian' is either ignorant of history, or trying to fool people. A good politician knows the right thing to say to garner support, remember that little guy with the funny mustache, that started that big war a few decades ago? Well, he said all the right things also.

edit on 1/17/2012 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

I am extremely impressed.

Still reading. But Star 4U.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:37 PM

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
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.

Explanation: Uhmm?

How can there be any tyranny of the wealthy corporate elite if YOU THE CONSUMER have the ultimate power to choose VOLUNTARILY what products and services you buy and consume?

Personal Disclosure: Try out a Tyranny of Voluntary Consumerism!

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:28 AM
reply to post by OmegaLogos

Because you don't REALLY have a choice if there's only one supplier. Once a large corporation corners the market with cheap stuff and once they control the means of production to create similar products you will have no choice.

You act as if Apple wouldn't hobble all it's competition if it could. Apple and all of these companies regularly try and buy their competition, but the government stops them.

Take away the government and you'd have the Wal Mart effect, but to a much greater degree.

The second the government lost it's ability to force corporations from gaining unfair monopolies you'd loose all choice.

It's fairly obvious.
edit on 18-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:41 AM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Exactly. If my local electric company charges outlandish rates because they're not regulated, I don't have an option to go elsewhere. Only the rich will be able to afford to do business with them.

reply to post by Praetorius

I have not made peace and I am not comfortable with the current situation. Just because someone doesn't support Ron Paul, that doesn't mean they are happy with the status quo. I just don't think Ron Paul is the answer.

I know you've spoken of likelihoods before and after research on state legislation that's been happening recently, I'm not willing to hand the reigns of discriminatory powers over to the states. What the states have been TRYING to do (but cannot because of federal government protection of the people's rights) would be done if the states had the power to do it.

24 States Enacted 92 Abortion Restrictions in 2011

Ron Paul SAYS he is against government intervention, but he's all FOR state government intervention. He supports Texas' law of forcing doctors to do sonograms and forcing women to view the results and wait 24 hours before having an abortion.

The LIKELIHOOD of states passing discriminatory and invasive laws is VERY high!

edit on 1/18/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by Praetorius

I'll just try and respond to your post without excessive quoting, as I find that a bit.. tedious (for me personally... I CAN be lazy).

Basically, like I said, Paul is a fake populist. His rhetoric is one of personal freedom for the masses, but like Socialism his "ideal" is unreachable.


Because power is already distributed disproportionally. If all people were suddenly equal, in that no one one was given ANY protection under the law, the first thing that would happen would be that the strong would gobble up the weak.

Protection is a drain on those that don't "need" it, but it's also crucial for those that are unable to compete.

Paul's "freedom" is actually shorthand for giving the powerful the ability to become tyrants.

It sucks that I have to help the lazy, drug addicts, mentally ill people, wounded vets, single moms, people that make bad decision, etc., but me not wanting to pay for something I see no immediate benefit from is not analogous to me ACTUALLY seeing no benefit. Our society functions at about the level of the weakest member.

We have, for too long already, allowed basic elements of our society (e.g. prisons, schools) to be either run for profit, or function with the same standards as a business. i.e. if you don't turn a profit you are failing as a "business".

Should schools really be judged that way?? What's the goal of schools? It just seems to me that many of the BASIC elements of society have been shoved from being judged on how they serve a community, into a more "corporate" model.

One of the largest unions in America is the prison workers union. They were one of the strongest PRO-"three strikes you're out" groups, because the more people in jail, the more profit the jails made, the more money employees made. And all of that came on the back of the privatization of prisons.

Paul and the Libertarians assume that, basically, competition will out. The invisible hand will produce a good result.

In fact, the invisible hand very quickly learns how to cheat to destroy it's competition. Then it figures out the cheapest way to make the most profit.

That's the outcome, the eventual outcome of US Libertarianism.

Cheap crap (read: education, healthcare, actual crap) made by the cheapest labour, sold in bulk to ensure maximum profits for a tiny majority.

Oh and the first question you asked..

Democracy protects the majority from the minority. Without this protection the strong will simply destroy the weak, if they serve no purpose.

This is because the whole concept of business ethics is one imposed on business. Business, is inherently a "boom and bust" system. The boom and bust of the recent banking/housing debacle was caused by lack of regulation/regulation designed by business folks who'd become politicians.

Sorry, this is rambling. I'll go back and make sure I addressed everything then edit where necessary.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:53 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

This is the OTHER side.

Once a corporation has destroyed it's competition it simply raises prices. It doesn't matter once they control the means of production. We see this with prescription drugs, don't we. Canada subsidises meds as it feels that that is better for society and that healthcare is closer to government, not business.

The US sells meds like sneakers and as such, you pay less for popular stuff. Hope you get a popular disease.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:59 AM
reply to post by Annee

Thanks. I assumed this thread was dead. Glad people are reading and thinking

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:43 AM
I really don't think Ron Paul supporters (in large numbers) have a CLUE of what this country under his presidency would be like. I don't think they've thought it through. Sure there is some attraction to an 'every man for himself' sort of lifestyle, but there's so much that would happen that people haven't thought about...

Memo To America: Ron Paul's Ideology Is As Dangerous As The Tea Party

Libertarianism is a wealthy person’s dream with no regulations or taxes and no concern for anyone but themselves. The wealthy have financial security to pay for private schools, private security, private fire departments, private roads, and private airports and for them, go it on your own works well; especially when their corporations avoid regulations, consumer protection laws, and taxes. However, for everyone else, Libertarianism means a return to frontier America where each family provides all the services the government provides today. There are few Americans who can afford to individually pay for services their tax dollars provide as part of being an American citizen, and yet it is astonishing the number of supporters Ron Paul has amassed over the years.

People don't realize that roads, bridges, parks, fire and police would all be available to only those who could afford it.

Ron Paul’s idea of returning power to states means that cash-strapped states and communities that cannot fund basic necessities such as fire protection will have no option but to allow homes to burn to the ground unless individuals band together and pay, by subscription, for a fire truck and fire fighters.

Two weeks ago in Tennessee, a couple watched their home burn to the ground as firefighters stood by and watched because the couple did not pay an annual subscription fee. The local mayor defended fire fighters and said if they responded to non-subscribers, no-one would have an incentive to pay their fee. It is the second time in a year that South Fulton policy allowed first responders to watch, with equipment in hand, as a home burned to the ground. In Ron Paul’s Libertarian vision for America, homes burning to the ground and vicious rapes would be spectator events for first responders if residents could not afford to buy a subscription for law enforcement or fire protection.

I wish people would THINK more long-term about the repercussions of a Paul presidency. I am 100% behind stopping the wars on terror and on drugs, but the rest of it is too much for our country to take. A Paul presidency would bring the collapse sooner rather than later and many poor people and minorities would suffer.

It's not realistic to take 2012 America and thrust it back to the 1700s.

My husband has speculated that the GOP is actually hoping for a Ron Paul nomination and this article explains why that may be true:

Republicans could not care less about whether or not a home burns down or gays are executed by stoning. Their main impetus is eliminating regulations that prevent corporations from unfair business practices and ending taxation for the wealthy. Ron Paul’s small government has identical goals as Republicans and except for his idea of greatly reducing defense spending and foreign aid, he will garner support from many main-stream Republican voters; especially the racists and homophobes in the extremist Christian conservative segment of the population.

edit on 1/18/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Not to mention the civil rights abuses that would run RAMPANT under this kind of situation... cop-types are bad enough now in terms of considering poor and minority people to be just a little bit less important in terms of civil rights and abuse.

Under a Paul country, with private security organizations taking the place of police, this would be orders of magnitude worse, as the security types would not be working for the general public even in theory.

Not a good scenario.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The basic reason why Paul stands no chance is that, as it stands currently, the politicians who are essentially lobbyists for big business, people like Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, etc., have constructed a system wherein taxes are funnelled through government to business, with little or no oversight.

For these people Paul would mean a net loss, as their businesses could no longer just hoover up tax dollars, but would instead be forced to compete. They know that, just like I'm saying, under Paul, monopoly would rain supreme, which means most of them would loose their shirts. The whole socialism for the rich thing would go out the window (as well as a decent standard of living for the vast majority of everyone else) and that would mean that instead of their being power and money concentrated in the 1% they inhabit, it would move to the .000001%, and they'd no longer be a necessary (and expensive) cog in the machine.

The very top of earners would love for the US to be China, with no protection or regulation, but ask the Chinese workers who'd rather commit suicide than build iPods just how well the masses get on when the government offers no protection for anyone but the ruling elite.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:08 AM
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

Spot on.

(US) Libertarianism is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:09 PM
This is just an opinion piece, but he makes a lot of sense and is a good read on the subject. (I have learned a lot just in researching for this thread. Thanks for that!)

Why Ron Paul is Dangerous - And Why He's Not

On Libertarian Economics and its appeals to Republicans:

Applied economically, it amounts to denying people a living wage purely by dint of the fact that the industrialists were savvy or lucky enough to make their money. It’s all dressed up in portentous language about personal liberty and the rights of the individual, but in practice, libertarian economics is mostly about giving rich men the freedom to get richer without any government to regulate them into giving rights, protections or dignity to their employees.
The GOP endorses libertarian economic principles whether it admits to it or not, and it dominates the whole discourse. So while Paul is labelled a kook by the establishment, it’s only really because he’s honest about what he wants.

So, while I don't think Paul will make it to the general election, nor do I think he even WANTS to, some of his positions are seen by many as "dangerous" or "kooky" or "out there"... And that means he's fairly benign. But the one thing that actually does concern me is this:

The real danger from Paul, though, is his religion. God was never a part of (Ayn) Rand’s blueprint. She rejected it, most likely because it’s easier to justify madcap selfishness if you don’t have a cosmic chaperone breathing down your neck. But her vision has been mingled thoroughly into the American political bloodstream, whose other great pathogen is incessant, militaristic God-bothering. Paul represents one outcome of this miscegenation – an objectivist theocrat, welding two of America’s ugliest tendencies under one oxymoronic umbrella.

So while he hullabaloos libertarian principals like ‘States’ Rights’ – taking as many governing decisions from the Federal Government as possible – when challenged about his stance on abortion, it boils down to allowing the more religious southern states the legal right to do what they want: banning it entirely, alongside contraception for good measure.

And once the religious southern states ban abortion, what's to stop them from banning anything they don't morally agree with? Right now, states are banning gay marriage and the federal government is doing NOTHING about it. Who is to say they'd protect the civil rights of people in states that chose to discriminate against black people, women, or even white men (heaven forbid!)...

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Excellent find...

And when we add in the reality of a President's power, the scenario gets even more scary...

Remember that a President must work with the Congress. Bush had a Congress full of Republican drones for most of his regime, so he was able to push through many of his policies, and we are still trying to dig out from that.

Obama also at this point has a Congress full of Republican drones, and so he can't get anything worthwhile accomplished.

So the full danger of a Paul presidency won't be known until the results of the Congressional elections are known. If Congress again consists of nothing but drones, I'd predict:

- Stop drug war - FAILED
- Stop the wars, bring troops home - FAILED
- Eradication of federal environmental protections - PASSED
- Eradication of labor laws - PASSED
- and etc.

So with a Paul presidency and a Republican drone Congress, we might be looking back at the Bush years with nostalgia.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:45 PM
I would agree Paul would make Bush seem relatively benign.

Bush wasn't an ideologue, Cheney was.

Imagine Cheney as President and add Bush's pseudo-religiousity and you've got Paul. Only worse.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:09 PM
Here the deal as I see it, Ron Paul is trying to sell more liberty for capitalists to exploit labour, by wrapping it up in more liberty for people such as drug legality. He's knows what people want, he also knows if he became president these points he is selling will become very low priority, and nothing will change as usual.

Does everyone forget what Obama promised? For example, no more federal interference in state law allowed Cannabis clubs. But guess what? It increased. Know why, cause it is out of the presidents hands. He is not all powerful as people assume. The people who really control policy are those we don't see, those of the capitalist class who are at the top of the pyramid, which gives them the power to control.

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."-- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." -- James A. Garfield, President of the United States

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

edit on 1/18/2012 by ANOK because: typo

<< 1    3 >>

log in