Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Noam Chomsky: What's Wrong with Libertarians

During an interview with Michael S. Wilson, Chomsky said:
 Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power:  so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.  The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society.[...]
Yes, and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.
It just doesn't seem that Chomsky gets it. Libertarianism is about the lack of coercion.In a libertraian society no one would have to deal with any private entity that they did not want to deal with, unlike a government where taxes and regulations are forced on us.

Of further note, he calls himself an anarchist in the interview but then seems to favor government by mas srule :
 Well I think because freedom is better than subordination.  It’s better to be free than to be a slave.  Its’ better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them.  I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that.  It seems like … transparent. The thing you need an argument for, and should give an argument for, is, How can we best proceed in that direction?  And there are lots of ways within the current society.  One way, incidentally,  is through use of the state, to the extent that it is democratically controlled.  I mean in the long run, anarchists would like to see the state eliminated.  But it exists, alongside of private power, and the state is, at least to a certain extent, under public influence and control — could be much more so.  And it provides devices to constrain the much more dangerous forces of private power.  Rules for safety and health in the workplace for example.  Or insuring  that people have decent health care, let’s say.  Many other things like that.  They’re not going to come about through private power.  Quite the contrary.  But they can come about through the use of the state system under limited democratic control … to carry forward reformist measures. 
Some anarchist, he has no idea how rules for safety and health would develop on a free market. And, he wants a democratic state, which by definition limits freedom!

18 comments:

  1. I've never understood the scholastic fascination with Chomsky. I've read some of his work and what I've read has been underwhelming.

    I've also always laughed when he refers himself to an anarchist and he's done so many times before. In fact, the very cognitive dissonance that allows him to refer to himself as such is a pretty good indicator of the quality of much of his work from my perspective.

    If he didn't work @ MIT he'd be nothing more than a laughable blowhard.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find that his work in linguistics is quite good. Sure, politically he's a hack, just like Pinker. But both of them are very good when they stick to their academic discipline.

      Delete
    2. His linguistics is rubbish as well. Sorry.

      Delete
    3. His linguistics is rubbish? You should be sorry. You have no idea what you are talking about.

      Delete
    4. Chomsky's linguistic contributions are being heavily debated and criticized today. His legend is far greater than his actual contributions.

      Delete
  2. Like a lot of people who talk about dropping the reins, they just can't quite bring themselves to do it. He thinks in terms of 19th century robber barons and the horrors that they brought when he talks about Libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To be an responsible anarchist in good standing at a university, one must believe in coercive control by the state.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Spot on Robert, Chomsky is very confused. Rather amazing for a guy whose whole career is based on providing very clear definitions for the symbols (i.e. the words) used in communication .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chomsky is the most overrated intellectual ever. I just don't get the fascination with him. He has never impressed me. An "anarchist" that calls for increasing the power of the state, a "pacifist" whose research was funded by the Pentagon, and an academic that tries to squash scholarly dissent to his cockamamie universal grammar theories. Really impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I interpreted the quoted text as saying that we can use the current government structure against itself (as it has some public influence) to slowly minimize it and eventually remove it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how is that contrary to libertarian or anarchist philosophies? I'm all for "dropping the reins" but all that looks like to me is a proposal for a pragmatic solution and speaks nothing of Chomsky's personal beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Libertarianism is about the lack of coercion.In a libertraian society no one would have to deal with any private entity that they did not want to deal with, unlike a government where taxes and regulations are forced on us."

    How would you achieve that? What would stop that private power from FORCING you to deal with it, if its bigger than you are? For example, under a complete libertarian society, if a corporation raised a private army and tried to force you to give them their house, what is the channel by which you would seek to prevent this? Who would you complain to if some person or organization aggresses on you? That's what I don't understand about libertarianism...

    Also, I think the traditional difference between "anarchy" and "libertarianism" is that anarchy means "no ruler" (from ancient greek - the "an-" prefix means "no" and "archy" means "ruler") whereas libertarian means "no rules".



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess libertarians have more faith in humanity than leftists and think that humanity could handle itself just fine without a violent, coercive monopoly dominating society.

      Delete
    2. Luke, you aren't right, you're so not right you aren't even wrong! Your limited understanding of liberty, social systems, linguistics and reality makes me wonder how you can even breathe without someone telling you how to do it.

      Delete
  9. Luke: I love this: "anarchy means "no ruler" (from ancient greek - the "an-" prefix means "no" and "archy" means "ruler") whereas libertarian means "no rules""

    ReplyDelete
  10. Noam Chomsky never claimed to be a pacifist. He is a brilliant linguist, I don't care what you say. I doubt any of you have even read anything he's written. His logic is perfectly consistent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can someone believe that it is wrong for a state to initiate force on another state yet believe that it is perfectly fine for a state to initiate force upon an individual?

      His logic is perfectly consistent as long as you don't look too deeply into the confused depths.

      Chomsky is a tool.

      Delete