RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Intro: "Ron Paul's a nice guy. If I had to have dinner with one of the Republican candidates, I'd prefer to have it with him - but, his policies are off the wall."

Portrait, Noam Chomsky, 06/15/09. (photo: Sam Lahoz)
Portrait, Noam Chomsky, 06/15/09. (photo: Sam Lahoz)

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul

By Noam Chomsky, Information Clearing House

18 January 12

Also See Below: Scott Galindez | Occupiers Converge on Washington


HOMSKY: Ron Paul's a nice guy. If I had to have dinner with one of the Republican candidates, I'd prefer to have it with him - but, his policies are off the wall.

I mean, sometimes I agree with him. I think we have to end the war in Afghanistan. But, if you look at the other policies, I mean, it's kind of shocking and principles that lie behind them (shakes head).... I don't know what to say about them.

In the Republican debates, at one point - and this kind of brought out who he is - he is against Federal involvement in health, in anything. He was asked something like, "Well, what if some guy's in a coma, and ... uh ... he's going to die and he never took out insurance. What should happen?"

Well, his first answer was something like, "It's a tribute to our liberty."

So, if he dies, that's a tribute to how free we are?

He kinda backed off from that, actually. There was a huge applause for when he said that. But later, reactions were elsewhere. He backed up and said, "Well, the church will take care of him ... or charities or something or other.... so, it's not a problem."

I mean, this is just savagery.

And it goes across the board. In fact, it goes through the whole so-called Libertarian ideology. It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny.

But, it's all academic. The business world would never permit it to happen because it would destroy the economy. They can't live without a powerful state, and they know it.



Occupiers from around the country gathered in Washington DC on Tuesday for an event they called Occupy Congress, 01/17/12. (photo: Scott Galindez/RSN)
Occupiers from around the country gathered in Washington DC on Tuesday for an event they called
Occupy Congress, 01/17/12. (photo: Scott Galindez/RSN)


Occupiers Converge on Washington

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

18 January 12


undreds of Occupiers from around the country converged on Washington Tuesday in an event billed as Occupy Congress. Despite rain and cold weather hundreds gathered on the west lawn of the Capitol. They participated in teach-ins and non-violence trainings before a National General Assembly that began at noon.

The General Assembly broke down into four working groups. The working groups were: National Actions, Interoccupy Communications, Differing Tactics, and those staying in DC to Occupy.

At around 2 pm the Occupiers broke down into three groups: Red, Black and Green, and headed to Congressional office buildings. They broke down further in the buildings as they met with members of Congress.

One group held a street theatre in Sen. Carl Levin's office that ended with Sgt. Shamar Thomas arresting someone who was acting the part of Senator Levin.

There were no arrests in the Capitol, but throughout the day a handful of protesters were arrested on the Capitol lawn. The demonstrators had a permit for a certain section of the Capitol lawn and whenever anyone strayed off that section they were told to move back by the police. At times it was reminiscent of a game of Red Rover, with protesters toying with the police and a few being arrested.

After the afternoon meetings in Congressional offices, the Occupiers gathered in front of the Rayburn Building and marched back to the west lawn of the Capitol.

At 6 pm hundreds of protesters marched to the Supreme Court where they Occupied the steps chanting, "Money is not speech." One protester was reportedly arrested on the steps.

At 7 pm they left the Supreme Court steps and marched to the White House behind two banners, Occupy Wall Street and Occupy United. As they arrived at the White House the crowd chanted, "Banks Got Bailed Out - We Got Sold Out."

Another prominent chant was "We are unstoppable, another world is possible."

Once at the White House the chant changed to "Obama Beware, Occupy is Everywhere." One protester threw a "Colbert for President" sign on the White House lawn. Occupiers also placed colorful postcards on the White House fence with their personal wishes.

After leaving the White House the Occupiers headed back to the Capital for a National Occupation party that included music and dancing.

All in all, everyone who participated was talking about being inspired by the solidarity between the different Occupations that took part. For many, yesterday was about building for the future. One participant in the breakdown group for National Actions was inspired by the plan for a National Occupation of Washington scheduled for March 30th - April 15th. Others were just happy to meet Occupiers from other cities.

Many will be staying around for Move to Amend's Occupy the Courts action at the Supreme Court on Friday.

Scott Galindez is the Political Director of Reader Supported News, and the co-founder of Truthout.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+42 # bugbuster 2012-01-18 15:27
Hearing about Occupy Congress is a ray of sunshine on a rainy day.

On Ron Paul's "Well, the church will take care of him ... or charities or something or other.... so, it's not a problem,"

No they won't. Churches and charities provide about 6% of needed help according to one statistic I read, and I think that's more than they do. When my wife and I were feeding homeless kids in our town, we couldn't get any of the churchy types to lift a finger to help us.
+19 # RMDC 2012-01-18 15:30
I agree with Chomsky and he is right about Ron Paul. But I think it is a more practical issue than Chomsky suggests. Paul's libertarian philosophy is a dumb as Chomsky says, but in the real world there will never be the radical everyone for himself that Paul sometimes alludes to.

Chomsky used to identify himself as an "anarcho syndicalist." Anarchism and libertarianism are related. Libertarianism has been hijacked by the really idiotic views of Any Rand. But if anarchism can be joined with its near opposite syndicalism, then so can libertarianism. Syndicates is the old name for union organization. The 19th century movement of anarcho-syndica lism was simply radically individualized people joining together for common interests and goals, as in a labor union. What they did not want was the top down organization of the communists or socialists. Most libertarians organize together, too. Very many of the Teaparty demonstrators were receiving social security and medicare and wanted to defend it. These people were both libertarians and socialists or unionists. they understand that people must ban together to do things that benefit all. Many have not though through syndicalized healthcare enough to realize that if you don't have healthcare for all you don't live very well as an individual. The number of homeless that are bringing back anti-biotic resistant pneumonia and tuberclosis should scare anyone with healthcare.
+1 # tomo 2012-01-20 13:14
RMDC: Yours is a startlingly thoughtful commentary.
+21 # Larry 2012-01-18 15:47
It seems that Dr. Paul loves liberty but hates people.
+7 # lincolnimp 2012-01-18 17:39
Very well put! He also treasures civil liberties but despises civil rights. He's definitely at odds with himself. As a doctor, he should recognize this as a real problem and make an appointment to see his psychiatrist.
+10 # Martintfre 2012-01-20 07:16
Quoting Larry:
It seems that Dr. Paul loves liberty but hates people.

your statement is an irrational contradiction since the fact is
Liberty IS about people.

Liberty is about freedom FROM others oppression - remember unfettered democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
+1 # Bill Clements 2012-01-21 01:06
Liberty may be about people, but Paul's brand of libertarianism shows a shocking lack of compassion for the suffering (and welfare) of others.
+25 # lcarrier 2012-01-18 17:05
Libertarianism stresses property rights above all else. Libertarians, such as Paul, although they're right about not going to war with other nations, and right about not invading the privacy of others, are wrong about almost everything else. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
+7 # epcraig 2012-01-18 17:34
The thing libertarians forget is that corporations are just government organs that are mostly funded by other means than taxes.
+7 # RMDC 2012-01-18 20:45
epcraig -- excellent point. And yes it is forgotten that corporations are chartered by governments and are thus part of the function of government.
+8 # soularddave 2012-01-19 22:43
Corporations are like little governments, themselves. They tell their people what to do, what they can say in public, decide how much money they get, and when to go. Their commercials are basically "press releases", and their "foreign aid" amounts to tax deductable contributions to sponsorships, and support to NGOs. They also have the means to invade other corporations and kill the peoples' jobs by putting them out of business.

There's little LIBERTY in corporations.
+5 # tomo 2012-01-20 13:19
Good enough, epcraig and RMDC. But as Nader has tried endless to teach us, today's corporations ARE (in more ways than you can easily count) funded by taxes
(your taxes and mine). What is genuinely private about corporations concerns the PROFITS.
0 # Martintfre 2012-01-20 07:19
Taxation is force - go to your county court house and look at the tax foreclosures if you think I am full of it.

Corporations are legal fictions as such they have no special rights (yes Citizens united was wrong) and unless the corporate profit was via government it is earned by voluntary choice.
0 # 2012-01-18 18:03
Chomsky is my hero. What a brilliant man and humanitarian! His is right about Ron Paul and LARRY says it best...

"It seems that Dr. Paul loves liberty but hates people."

Ron Paul does not have a good heart or he would care about people.He doesn't respect or understand the constitution of the US or he'd believe in equality for people of all races, religions, both genders, homosexuals and he would have an instict to help people in our country who need assistance. This is what has made America great.
+8 # twnzach 2012-01-18 18:06
Ron Paul believes that the govts tend to screw up thIngs for the rest of us. That is the main point behind nearly everything he believes. Now go to and read the report. You'll find that all the things that are believed to hurt us competitiveness are basically monopolized by the govt. Ron Paul wants to scale that involvement back partly because he believes in free markets and partly because we are going bust. To Chomsky: The business community cannot survive without a powerful state because the state has entangled them. Make a choice, central party planning or a free market. I vote, and believe, in free markets. Ps. The way the Fed currently operates makes a free market system impossible. Now just think about how we wouldn't have known that had Ron Paul not been so insistent that we audit their books... Ron paul is not as wrong as mAny think, just lonely
+15 # reiverpacific 2012-01-18 18:11
I can't wait to see what "Occupy the Supreme Court" brings about. Hope they stomp all over it and stage an "Arrest Clarence Thomas and Scalia" for blatant in-your-face corruption.
If I could afford it and was a bit younger, I'd be right there with them, as I did in the 60's and 70's.
Ron Paul is a spent force -forget him and concentrate on keeping Obama in a progressive mode (like he just did with the Tar Sands pipeline). Romney will destroy his own credibility.
+13 # William Bjornson 2012-01-18 18:11
Ron Paul's value is in his message but he will never be elected. BHO is the anointed successor to BHO and none of the misfit gops is going to overcome his incumbent advantage, especially after trashing each other as thoroughly as they have. For the next few months, BHO will seem like the guy we all voted for and not like the gop he has been. Supporting and nominating Ron Paul does not mean you are required to vote for him. We know the elite hates him just by the way he is treated by them. He is ignored, trashed at every opportunity, and, generally, seems to make the gops very nervous. If he shows a large following despite all of the political forces attacking him, America's awakening, and in a very crabby mood, is going to be impossible for the status quo parasites to ignore. As Chomsky said, they need Big Gov because Big Gov feeds them better than any other single source. If the impossible happened and Ron Paul were elected, he would be murdered very soon. We need to destroy the Fed, and goldman sucks, and all of the other psychopaths if we are ever to free ourselves and bring back our democracy. And, support for Paul now would only strengthen BHOs hand if he decides to be the guy he portrayed pre2008. Ron Paul is a political chip that, if played properly, could be very beneficial to all of America. Again, he is the ideal gop candidate who can't get elected but who will force serious change against the parasites. Think like rove, support Ron Paul in 2012. For now.
+5 # lcarrier 2012-01-19 08:04
You simply don't get it. Although Paul makes good points about avoiding foreign wars, his near-libertaria n views (except for being anti-choice with respect to women's rights)mirror those of the Social Darwinists: dog eat dog, and if you happen to be a smaller dog you won't be around long. You should look up all the things Paul wants to eliminate, starting with the Department of Education. When we're in competition with China and India, this is the wrong way to go. Educate yourself.
+8 # futhark 2012-01-19 14:15
I recently retired from being a classroom teacher for 32 years. I never saw anything come out of the Department of Education that made me a more effective instructor. Talk to the teachers at your local schools and try to find one who can point to something from the federal Department of Education that helped them or their students. In my opinion the Dept. of Education is nothing but a flim-flam boondoggle.

Eliminating the Department of Education should come right behind getting our military out of other sovereign nations, passing the Sovereignty of the People Amendment, and getting our surveillance agencies out of the business of spying on U. S. citizens. Auditing and controlling the Federal Reserve system is another item high on Dr. Paul's list that I endorse.
+24 # Patch 2012-01-18 18:21
Ron Paul wants to take the country back to the 18th century. At that time people had to rely on themselves for pretty much everything. It worked to some degree in rural areas with sustainable living. It works when a person chooses to live in the wilderness because they are consciously taking that risk. But it doesn't work beyond that and today's world simply has too many people for Libertarianism to work.

I believe you can't have true freedom without risk, but I also believe that to have a healthy society where 90 percent of the population prospers you need to band together into a social network that looks out for everyone and does its best to level the playing field.

The countries that Americans call Socialist like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, etc. are the countries that care for their population best while giving them the most personal freedom.
+11 # Douglas Jack 2012-01-18 18:41
I believe we are all trying to come to understanding for Paul's gifts for the times we are in. I hope the following gives meaning to what Paul says within the context of our present limitations.

Ron Paul has given America its most widely considered 'peace' and 'prosperity' statement of the past 70 years. His tone and method of delivery are exceptionally attractive to everyone. Paul's analysis to remove government subsidies which support war, corporations and inequality are worthy of our consideration. Paul's questioning of the subsidized roles of diverse institutions in education, health, research etc and the perversion of their services are the level of discussion we all should be having. That Paul has caused all of the Republican and Democrat world-bullies to stop in their tracks and reconsider what their corporate masters are telling them, is undeniable. Paul's organizing strength among veterans is giving voice to their witness of travesty and murder, unequalled in our time. However . . .

Paul's beliefs on the right of the individual to the fruit of his or her labour and subsequently no income or sales tax, stands in the face of the collective nature of the economy and society. Humans like many other social-creature s are interdependent. Each of us contribute our specialized complementary gifts and services to complex developments and ultimately consumer products and services.
+8 # Douglas Jack 2012-01-18 18:50
Human economy is part of a chain of interactions, energy & material movements which presently include every person on earth inter-dependent ly. Because of human support & connection my every labour is blessed with the support of seven billion other specialists, connaisseurs and collaborators. Thus the fruits of my labour are something that I consider the whole world having a part in. Western aggression & control dominates governments & trade agreements everywhere, leaving those with some of the most important biosphere systems productivity & management knowledge severely under-compensat ed & starving. It's up to all of us & our governments to address making the system work for everyone.
Contrary to Paul's reactionary analysis against, governments are 'corporations' (Latin 'corp' = 'body') which oversees other corporations. Our colonial society with genocidal roots doesn't presently have a good foundation to effect good government. We can't assume a blank-slate as Paul proposes, with western military-indust rialized corporations & their national government pawns on top of the heap. Perversions to present systems of accounting, education, medicine, industry, commerce, economy are now so vast to be unconscious for us, yet determine the system we are part of. War is caused by imbalances in processes & resulting perceptions. Our 'exogenous' (Latin = 'other-generate d') 'operating system' is perverted by centuries & millennia of exploitation & oppression.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-18 19:01
I can't think of ANYONE with better PEACE credentials to point out what a load of b.s. paul is up to than Noam Chomsky.

+8 # Martintfre 2012-01-20 07:23
Quoting Billy Bob:
I can't think of ANYONE with better PEACE credentials to point out what a load of b.s. paul is up to than Noam Chomsky.


BB - while Chomski can say anything and some of might even be connected to reality ..
Paul has been in the political trenches - fighting big brother lovers both republican and democrat who are enslaving us with the welfare/warfare state. They debt they have saddled us with and an endless array of privacey invading laws rules and regulations is Proof that big government works best fior big government and those who directly profet frmo it (is Why are the clintons super rich? - and soo many other entrenched politicians from BOTH parties?)
+8 # lin96 2012-01-18 19:03
Ron Paul doesn't believe in charities. I think his values are more inline with Ayn Rand. Aside from removing the Fed his is the same selfish attitude as the Republicans and that's why he remains in that party. If he didn't have something in common with them he wouldn't be there. I had a thought after watching Stephen Colbert and John Stewart. Why can't the OWS create a super pac? That would be interesting.
+11 # heraldmage 2012-01-18 19:33
Its great that OWS is meeting with Congress the problem is they (Congress) are use to making promises but not keeping them.
The only way to pass legislation that publicly funds elections is to replace all legislators with 99% candidate from a new Green Party. The Party Platform written to accommodate both traditional & 99% members must be signed by every candidate. No compromise to legislation without approval of populus by referendum.
We also need to change from the economic system that has kept the 1%, ruling class in power for 100's of years. Why should 1 person who drilled an oil/gas well subsidized with our taxes profit from all the oil/gas in the petrofer?1000's of miles throughout the entire nation, under your house & mine. Is it wrong for the profits from natural resources found throughout the nation to be used by the people to fund health care, education, rebuild infrastructure, modernize communications & transportation systems rather than to line the pockets of the 1%?
We have been brainwashed into thinking that when GeorgeIII was overthrown colonial leaders & economic policies changed. Only the name on the deeds changed.The economic system has been around since the Dark Ages the ruling class owned everything. Isn't it time for a change? We need to throw off the propaganda of fear from the 1950's & consider what's best for the nation as a whole not just the 1%
+5 # Rita Walpole Ague 2012-01-18 20:05
Paul's No Pal to Liberty & Justice For All.

And, with his no healthcare for all as a human(e) right, no regs. and/or reg. agencies, (scares me big time), Paul's No Pal to caring for the safety, protection from defrauding by greed and power addicted banks/insurance agencies/ corps., etc., and placing humans and the planet in grave danger and wide open to enslavement and destruction.

-19 # Martintfre 2012-01-18 20:41
Taking a linguist medical opinions over that of the medical Doctor .. I will go with Dr Paul
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-18 22:18
Maybe paul should stick with what he's qualified for (i.e. being a doctor).
-1 # soularddave 2012-01-19 22:52
Nobody's asking anyone for a medical opinion here. You're thinking of some other conversation.
0 # BradFromSalem 2012-01-20 18:13

The study of Linguistics is related to anthropology, all of the humanities including art and history, Computer Science, among many, many fields of study.

And Dr. Chomsky is one of the greatest linguists ever. True, his field of study alone does not elevate his political opinions to Gospel, but in no way does it disqualify him.
-13 # Coleen Rowley 2012-01-18 21:29
Chomsky should watch this presentation to see why so many people are endorsing Ron Paul for President: Sure it's a political ad, but the former patients talking about Ron Paul's paying for some of his poor patients' medical care directly contradicts Chomsky's points.

It's too bad Chomsky bases his opinion on superficial critique of libertarianism without bothering to research Ron Paul's history a little better. And I always thought Chomsky prioritized the Military Empire issues, but maybe that's not so important anymore with the Democrat war president.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-01-19 00:05
Chomsky knows paul personally. Do you?
+2 # cordleycoit 2012-01-18 22:55
Ron Paul has one set of answers some good some not so good. More with less, a good. Lets say we re think economics so they work for the people. And I do not have have the answer. But I'll and many others will recognize the right answer. It's not to be found on the Left or Right.
+4 # Yani305 2012-01-18 23:59
Even as most likely Paul doesn't win his party's nomination, he has inserted some crucial topics into the political debate(albeit against the wishes of MSM), such as put an end to this interventionist /war-hawk foreign policy, end the Fed, the continued devaluation of the dollar, Repeal the Patriot act? Are you really telling me these all suck? We shouldn't dismiss these ideas, just because the messenger isn't "sexy." He's obviously head and shoulders above his peers who have remained on their broken record message of abortion bad, gay marriage bad, God says kill the poor people, etc. etc...

While Mr. Obama has thrown a few small pebbles like Keystone...Item s like NDAA and his largest donor Goldman Sachs are troubling...oh and the Bank of America stadium for the Democratic convention. They're not even trying to hide it anymore. Well, atleast he's not Bush. Well, atleast not in name anyway...I say we try to throw a wrench in this machine anyway we can.
+6 # kyzipster 2012-01-19 07:12
Pure libertarianism is incompatible with true democracy. People demand answers from the government when the 'free market' screws them over like with health care. The reason we have Medicare is because no insurance company can cover elderly people at an affordable rate and hope to make a profit and the 'free market' won't force them to. Libertarianism can only work when the wealthy and corporations control all of government and the majority has no say.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-19 09:18
Thank you for that comment!

That was the best comment I've ever read about libertarianism on these threads. It would have taken me 2,000 words to say the same thing.

After a few go arounds with libertarians on the same grounds, I always, eventually get the admission that they don't really believe in democracy anyway.
+3 # Richard Raznikov 2012-01-19 17:06
Maybe the problem with libertarianism (and Paul, to a degree) is that it works on paper but not in the real world, just as communism and socialism do. Any system which is theoretically perfect depends on an enlightened society. We're just not there yet. In a perfect libertarian world, Paul would be right about everyone helping everyone and no need for the government to handle health care or, for that matter, road building or anything else. It's just that we're not living in that world.
Please keep in mind, however, that the rabid right-wingers out there HATE Ron Paul –– check out what the FOX idiots say, for example, and how he is treated –– and there's a good reason for this. He does nail them (and Obama) on civil liberties, the constitution, the Patriot Act, and the imperialist wars. So give him credit on those things, please.
+2 # Martintfre 2012-01-19 21:06
If Government was the magical genie that could grant wishes and needs and any one opposed to that in any form could be properly branded as ' just savagery' but reality is government is not a magical genie that grants wishes unless evil republicans stop it.

Government must take from some by force (go to your local court house and look at tax forclosuers if you don't believe me) before government can give anything to another - and that force is truly savage.
0 # Linda 2012-01-20 08:55
Thank you Mr Chomsky and Scott for clearing up the false statements that Ron Paul supporters have been making about Mr. Chomsky supporting Ron Paul !They have a habit of using prominent peoples names who aren't really supporters of ALL of Ron Paul's agenda,like Kucinich and Nader .
These people like Mr. Chomsky agree with him in some areas as most of us do but in others they absolutely think he is way off the mark and his ideas are dangerous and actually cruel when it comes to the treatment of the most vulnerable in our society .

I have been trying to tell these Ron Paul supporters to think through Ron Pauls agenda but they are just as stubborn as the Tea Party people who voted against their own best interest and will not think for themselves.

William Bjornson you said : And, support for Paul now would only strengthen BHOs hand if he decides to be the guy he portrayed pre2008. Ron Paul is a political chip that, if played properly, could be very beneficial to all of America. Again, he is the ideal gop candidate who can't get elected but who will force serious change against the parasites. Think like rove, support Ron Paul in 2012. For now.

Have you ever thought that maybe Ron Paul is actually the Republican's Trojan Horse in this race ,hoping he will take enough votes AWAY from Obama so they can get Their nominee elected ? This could be the backlash you Ron Paul supporters who want to send a message could be gambling with .
+3 # tomo 2012-01-20 14:12
While I may amaze myself by voting for a "Republican" for the first time in my life, I concede that Chomsky has put his finger on the main weakness in the Ron Paul program. Correctly, Chomsky says that if the program were really implemented in its whole range, there would be no governmental controls left to block our descent into a full-fledged corporatocracy. As the occupiers are aware, we're not far from that now. But Ron Paul seems unaware of this corollary
to his system.

Also, though, Chomsky is correct when he says the corporatocracy would never allow this particular withering away of the state. They would not allow it for the reasons Nader mentions over and over: that the corporations love (and deeply depend upon) corporate welfare--a socialism for entrepreneurs. Much as corporations complain about government regulation, the complaints should not be taken at face value; much of it is crocodile tears--mere showmanship. Our government has evolved into one which is far more generous in gifts to corporations than it is a burden by reason of regulation. In fact, "regulation" like "corporate taxes" has become a dirty word--even to Democrats.

That Obama can be counted on to perform a pantomime fight in which corporations are chastised while their benefits are being increased, THIS is what makes me think it plausible Obama will be the NEXT President of the United States--and is why I am currently intending to vote in November for Ron Paul.
-3 # Fight Back 2012-01-21 02:01
Ron Paul is a phony Libertarian.

He decries government overstepping the bounds of what he considers its proper areas of activity, and most especially excludes from that realm interference in personal decisions.

But there's one personal area where he wants total government control in the form of blanket prohibition - abortion.

Some Libertarian! it's a sick enough philosophy to start with, but he makes a mockery of it's unique good point,which is that it extolls individual choice. But he rules out individual female choice in the most personal part of a woman's life!

Fie upon him and his ilk and upon so-called progressives who praise him.
0 # Bruno24 2012-02-23 09:40
Not sure I follow Chomsky on this. I might disagree with Ron Paul on many points, but since Obama signed the bill NDAA, I tend to believe that the war on terrorism is as much fake as the war on drugs. That is, pure fear selling criminal business. I am afraid the choice is between the bandits of the establishments and what looks like what might be the last hope for freedom in America, and elsewhere. Got the feeling that Ron Paul is the only one in the GOP believing in the constitution and the human rights. I would not vote for anyone having the slightest air of complacency with the prohibitionists gangsters.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.