Noam Chomsky's Views on Politics and Public Opinion

[Al68]

"Are you referring to entitlements or natural rights?

Entitlements don't exist "fundamentally", they are created by human contract or agreement, like you say. Natural rights by definition exist independently of any human agreement. "

If these rights by definition exist independently of any human agreement then I don't believe any such things exist. Rights, in my opinion, are like laws - they are only a set of rules people invented to live under.

It sounds to me that you're using the word "rights" only as a synonym for entitlements, in which case I would agree with you in principle (and I suspect almost everyone else).

But I have never used the word "right" as a synonym for entitlement. I use the word entitlement to refer to such things.

The concept of "natural rights" is a completely different concept, and their existence is independent of any human agreement, even if you think there are only zero of them.

 

[Al68]

Chomsky is a unique person - with as near a celebrity status as possible for an academic.

To comment directly to your post, it would be necessary to review the collective work of Chomsky across linguistics, science, psychology, and politics in order to form a coherent and specific response. Reducing him to a sound bite would be a mistake.

This is very good point. After a little research, it's easy to see he simply isn't a socialist by the common definition in any way.

He even claims that his views have origins in "The Enlightenment and classical liberalism", which is quite the opposite of socialism by the common definition.

He opposes "state capitalism" (as all libertarians/classical liberals do), but he's under the (false) impression that's what is practiced in the U.S. He claims to believe in anarchism, yet supports many government actions, like enforcing business regulations.

He clearly thinks people should not sell their labor to business owners (calling it "wage slavery"), but as far as I can see, does not advocate restricting the practice in any way.

It seems to me that maybe his vision of an ideal society is very socialist-like, but his political beliefs (libertarian?) prevent him from advocating any means to achieve it.

It's like an anti-abortion/pro-choice advocate that claims that there would be no abortions in his ideal society, but there would be no legal restrictions on them either. Like Chomsky, the society envisioned simply isn't the actual result of the political system advocated.

 

[Mattara]

He opposes "state capitalism" (as all libertarians/classical liberals do), but he's under the (false) impression that's what is practiced in the U.S. He claims to believe in anarchism, yet supports many government actions, like enforcing business regulations.

That position is fully consistent. Anarchism is against a central coercive monopoly, not the enforcement of voluntary agreed regulations.

 

[Al68]

That position is fully consistent. Anarchism is against a central coercive monopoly, not the enforcement of voluntary agreed regulations.

Who was talking about "voluntarily agreed regulations"? Chomsky wasn't.

 

[Sarpedon]

Chomsky does believe in human rights being universal among humans.
So claiming Chomsky supports the majority violating the humans rights of the minority is stupid. He doesn't. You would if you shared some of his views. But that's a different matter.

No one here really has been able to be critical of anything he has said. Chomsky never said he believes in ochlocracy. He supports the human rights violations of Hoxha because you predict he does..?

This is all pretty silly.

Even the stuff about physics that were quoted aren't really wrong if you take in mind he isn't a physicist.

And then we have someone trying to argue that those who support democracy actually supported Hitler because Hitler was voted into office. What more can I say...

Who was talking about "voluntarily agreed regulations"? Chomsky wasn't.

He doesn't have to mention it just because you think it's not consistent if he doesn't. How do regulations get into place when there is no power to force it upon the people? The only way it will happen is if the community itself agrees to put them in place.

He thinks a corporation or a factory is owned by the community it is part of.

 

[arildno]

. Anarchism is against a central coercive monopoly,

And what about a multitude of locally coercive structures?

That is the necessary result of anarchism..

 

[mheslep]

No one here really has been able to be critical of anything he has said.

Then you missed this above
http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/hitchens-3.htm

 

[Sarpedon]

I like some Hitchens every once in a while. But I can't really take him seriously. Especially not when it comes to Iraq.

 

[Mattara]

And what about a multitude of locally coercive structures?

That is the necessary result of anarchism..

DROs are not coercive, their use of violence is the result of voluntary contracts. A multitude of DROs is a great thing: better efficiency and lower price for customers and of course this removes the age old question of who will watch the watchers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes?

 

[arildno]

Well, and if we make it WAY more local than this DRO fantasy:

a)
Can a father be oppressive towards his family?

b) If a), can people in this anarchistic brave, new world force him to desist from such coercion?