>But then, even those who prefer a "minimal" state are no longer
>anarchists, since "anarchy" by it's very definition is the absence of a
>state. Chomsky, on the other hand, has advocated *expanding* the
powers
>of the government in order to curb the power of multinational
>corporations (a proposal that I actually agree with; but then again, I
>don't consider myself an anarchist).
>
>
I don't think Chomsky has ever been one for idealogical niceties. He wants to go with whatever increases freedom at a particular point in history.
With regard to the state and corporations, I once read him as giving the analogy to being in a cage - one might think that people shouldn't be in cages, that cages are illegitimate, but if there is a lion outside the cage, you'd prefer the door is locked. Once the lion is taken care of, then you can worry about the cage.
Jim Baird (who's beginning to think he sounds like a Chomsky groupie...)
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com