On Paul's central views, it seems to me that Chomsky has it right in the following exchange, from the Z Sustainers Forum:
> Here is my summary of Mr. Paul's positions - He values property
> rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement
> and courts).
> 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)
>
> Chomsky: "Dismantling of big government" 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 we're now using, computers and the internet? Should we
> eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental
> regulation,....? 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).
>
> Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you've
> 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).
>
> Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, 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 can't find differences between your positions and his.
>
> Chomsky: There's a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what
> he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn't
> themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course
> those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being "broken" 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 we're at it,
> why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and
> amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).
>
> Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of
> "Libertarianism"?
>
> 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.
>
> Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership"
> have in your school of "Libertarianism"?
>
> 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...
On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Ravi: "Why is the left’s fascination with Ron Paul puzzling? This
> thread has, I think, generated more email on this list in the last 24
> hours, than we have seen in the week before! :-)"
>
> [WS:} Yup. There is a clear elective affinity there - David Harvey
> argues this point quite effectively. Americans are infatuated with
> libertarianism because they instinctively love private initiative and
> hate government (cf. Thoreau.) American lefties tend to be first
> Americans and only second lefties, which may explain the fascination.
>
> Wojtek
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk