If you HAD to vote for one of these as President?

Yeah apparently I work for the Government simply because I use the internet.

That Chomsky. What a tool.

 

You know he opposes free trade, correct? I thought you would be a fan. A respected intellectual who opposes free trade, and free trade agreements.


http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Free_Trade.htm


I thought you, of all people, would love this!!

 

Only two that have NO votes.

One surprises me (or maybe not?), while the fact that the other has no votes is a small mercy!

 

If this post was meant to be condescending, you fell short of pulling it off.

My post was simply showing that not only is Noam a hypocrite, but philosophically has thought himself to the point of zero practicality.

 

It is an assumption, but an assumption I am comfortable making.

Please for once in your life, be specific and provide evidence.

Bill Maher is in no way like Noam Chomsky. I like Bill Maher, I think he is funny, but politically he is often totally misinformed. I think he gave up that libertarian nonsense, but the fact is Maher was never actually a libertarian. Wanting Marijuana legalized does not make a person a libertarian. Maher is a pretty standard liberal. Chomsky is anything but.

 

Yeah, my post was illiterates that as well. I'm certain you are aware that Chomsky suggested that you are a Government employee if you use the internet.

 

Anyone with a brain and not making a profit off of it opposes free trade. However, I don't now how on earth you could stop free trade without protectionism, since, you know, it is the opposite of free trade and requires, you know, A STATE. LOL

 

Where exactly?
His belief on the welfare state is that it is only needed because we are capitalist. Meaning that his ultimate goal is actually to eliminate it.

He's basically just as ridiculous as the far-right libertarians. No more, no less. He thinks everything would magically be better if not for the capitalist system we have in place, just as libertarians think capitalism would magically work for everyone if not for the government.
Their goals are the same.
It's just the expectations of what will happen and the order in which they remove parts of modern society that differs.

Just as Chomsky would require growth in the welfare state in the transition, libertarians would require growth in the violent institutions of government during the transition as their only "justifiable" method of dealing with the ones who fall between the cracks and don't conveniently die.

 

Oh, ok. My bad. I thought you were being sarcastic towards mine. You and I agreeing? Hold on, Yellowstone is about to blow.

 

Can't help ignorance I suppose.

For once in your life take your own advice. All you said was that he is anti military. What liberal isn't.

They are both two sides of the same coin. One is just more extreme than the other.

 

And yet Chomsky is one of the few significant intellectuals in this country opposed to free trade. Yet according to you, anyone with a brain opposes it?? I am confused.

 

He supports a welfare state under socialism as well, although everything would just be community run and collectivized.

Their goals are the same because they are Anarchist, not Libertarians.

 

I am right though. So I am fine with it.

Most of them. Barrack Obama has increased the war effort in Afghanistan, reduced troop levels in Iraq, but not that significantly(he also increased the number of independent contractors at the same time he reduced the troop levels, so the numbers were far less significant than has been reported. He bombed Libya. He killed Bin Laden. Kennedy stared down the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile crisis, and got us into Vietnam. FDR oversaw us winning the war. Johnson got us into Vietnam in earnest. Clinton bombed Serbia. In fact, mainstream liberals are only slightly more opposed to the military than mainstream Republicans. It is just a talking point, in practice their is no difference.





They are both two sides of the same coin. One is just more extreme than the other.[/QUOTE]


This shows why I am certain my above assumption is accurate. You can say it is ignorant, but it isn't. It is an assumption based on reading your posts, and seeing that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about on this issue. There is very little similarity between the 2, something anyone with any familiarity with their work understands. Which would lead anyone of intelligence to assume, you don't know anything about Chomsky's work, and likely you don't really know anything about either of their work.

 

Economists can be bought. Just like scientists. Just like preachers. Obviously, the guy is a good dude if he is part of the intellectual scene and openly opposes it. I give him respect for his honesty towards something that is blatantly destroying the standard of living in developed nations. However, that doesn't give his ideology any more validity. Libertarian socialism is a joke. Libertarian socialism, if applied on a national scale, would do nothing to stop free trade. Would he use private owners to help destroy the state, making him a hypocrite on half of his beliefs and leaving no tools to destroy private ownership? Or would he use the state to destroy private ownership, making him a hypocrite on the other half of his ideals, and then have no tools left to destroy the state? This is business, as we are on a political forum, not personal. I'm sure he is a good person.

 

Wut? Living in a cave has nothing to with Libertarian socialism, do you mean Anarcho-Primitivism?

 

If that's what you wanna believe.

I guess this is suppose to mean something. The fact that politicians lie for votes means that all most liberals are not anti-military. Gotcha.

And we know Chomsky practices what he preaches because it is a talking head and never given the opportunity to put his rhetoric to the test.

Nope, the fact that he is a hypocrite pretty much shows that it is not immune to mainstream talking points either.

*yawn* More ignorant opinions.

And yet you haven't proven that my assessment is incorrect. Yet you have barely shown that he objects to as much government as Bill Maher. In fact he is just as much as a protectionist as Bill Maher is. Chomsky supports big government just as much as Maher. One is just very open about it.

You have yet to prove me wrong. All you have is a baseless opinion. Let me know when you have something which is not baseless. I'll wait.

 

No state. No private ownership. 6 billion people as flawed as a car with no wheels. Figure it out.

 

It depends what you mean by the state. Left Anarchism (AKA, libertarian socialism) would dictate that people freely associate into their own communes where they would democratically control the industries and means of production, and trade with other communes. Does it sound impossible? I don't know, but anything outside the current conservative-liberal paradigm is shut down as being "unrealistic".

 

Now note this thread




http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/210299-while-debate-rages-about-thread.html

 

Stop creating useless threads.

 

There are communes all over the world. Show me one with any form of "industry". If they can simply feed themselves it's a success story.

Side note: I appreciate your sentiment with wanting change. Please don't take my discrediting of libertarian socialism as advocating for the status quo and/or that I think Noam is evil like that that of the status quo. He most obviously is not. I just think people can be so isolated from the real world that their thinking can become extremely unrealistic. However, these people are more often than not the best at pointing out the flaws. Their analysis of society is almost always spot on, it is their solutions that tend to be impractical. While he hasn't been in prison or a hut on a mountain for his life, 50 years in academia can serve the same level of isolation.

 

I agree about the part about academic isolation. I'm not a libertarian socialist as of now, but I think their ideas have some merit.

Well, there was the anarchist communes during the Spanish revolution that lasted from about 2 to 3 years, and the Paris Communes, just as historical examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

 

Well, after reading, I must say I think those examples prove more that libertarian socialism is absolutely a joke. As totalitarian communism proved, even without an official state or dictator, the collective becomes the unofficial state and unofficial dictator, the people of enterprise eventually flee and surrender what they built to said collective. No growth is realized, mediocrity sets in with declining circumstance, and the short term gains add up to long term destruction. I think small communes where a bunch of people who want to live off the grid self-sufficiently are much more long lasting, though it is a meager existence undesired by most, and can exist under a capitalist system, where as when collectivism takes over, no capitalism can exist within it. Making capitalism, with a state not for hire, inherently a better M.O. for all.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean, "totalitarian Communism" HAD an official state or leader-- These collectives didn't have one. I should also point out that there was much greater economic growth under the Spanish Communes then before hand. It's end was met because of Francisco Franco. The Paris Commune met a similar fate because of warfare, not because the people were leeches. I hear what your saying about capitalist collectives though.