Chomsky backs most statist candidate

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

It’s puzzling that he supports politics at all. Even if one was forced into it, like so many chumps, you’d think he’d support one of the two main candidates. But his support for Jill Stein is both pointless and statist. She polls at less than 1%. (funny the number of meanings 1% takes).

However, she represents almost the maximum of left-wing statism. The Green New Deal is a totalitarian hippie doctrine.

Here’s a list of what I could culled from Green New Deal.

http://www.jillstein.org/summary_green_new_deal

Banks and universities would be controlled by the state exclusively. For the first one, under the pretext of ‘democratic decisions’ and the latter under the pretext of giving you education for free.

All energy and utilities run by the state. Under the pretext of making things affordable and not for evil profit. It will only run at ‘cost’.

Green fascism: government having it’s own sector of arbitrarily defined and supported jobs. Which is never outlined. But is clearly beyond any non-government organization to undertake.

Force towards sustainable agriculture and ‘permaculture’ that is untested. Banning of nuclear energy and ‘dead ends’ like fossil fuels. As well as soviet-style planning to get people working on correct methods.

Banning of all non-government speech about politics. “Money is not speech”, they say. The implications being that it is illegal to speak if you used your own money to make the speech. Since that is unfair. Say goodbye to internet, books, documentaries, and virtually any media except speaking to the person next to you.

In the full version she also says she wants the government to decide which ‘substances’ are harmful and to be able to ban them from states, cities, or municipalities. Not just sales, but storage, usage, or anything else. That word could mean anything from food to people to marijuana to alcohol, obviously. They say it as if it wouldn’t open up a can of worms, and that it could only obviously mean something so obviously bad.

She is only so-so even on foreign policy. On the one hand she is against the wars and our mind-bogglingly numerous overseas bases, but supports our foreign aid schemes. Instead of backing out of aid to Israel, she proposes ‘equal aid’ to Israelis and Palestinians which would accomplish nothing except double the theft from the American public.

This sounds suspiciously like a nanny:

"

  • Immediately legalize medical use of marijuana and move to permit general legal sales under suitable regulatory framework.
  • End the ineffective and costly War on Drugs and begin to treat drug use as a public health problem, not a criminal problem. "

So basically you can get marijuana under extremely limited circumstances which are more difficult than the black market today. Which would in effect keep the drug war violence in place. And in every other circumstance, the government can force you to seek ‘treatment’ for your recreational activities. And since alcohol and cigarettes are worse than many of the drugs in the drug war, you can probably expect people to be rushed to ‘treatment’ for these offenses as well. Drinking beer at a football game? You need help buddy! The public is here to nurse you back to health!

And who said that the war on drugs was ineffective? Is that and the cost really the primary problem? So if it costed 5 bucks and completely eliminated drugs, it would be good? Even if said program used an unlimited amount of violence and destruction of civil liberties, and not to mention cartel violence? It would be worth it? sheesh. What if there was inexpensive and ‘effective’ method to eliminate other things we don’t like?

She sort of goes half way on federal reserve policy. Saying that it is bad to be ‘private’, but would reorganize it to be based on public decision. But what does it mean for the public, largely ignorant of it to begin with, to publicly decide monetary policy? It seems that all of the moral hazards of it remain, but with an added hazard of pitting people with different time preferences against each other in the voting booth. Either way, no one can possibly know what the correct rate should be. Nor can they possibly predict the effects of ‘helicopter drops’ and ‘quantitative easing’ and other nonsense. Not that anyone would ever think to vote for that.

2

Thats a pretty good take on stein. As for gnome chomsky, everyone knows his claim to “anarchy” is just for shock value, he is an authoritarian totalitarian to the core.

3

Every reform that state does under pressure from the people, and not from groups wanting to exploit people is a good reform. State welfare is not good, but it’s better then privatization.

Only capitalists “know” that.

4

I stopped taking Chomsky seriously quite a long time ago.

5

“Everything reform that state does under pressure from the people, and from group wanting to exploit people is a good reform. State welfare is not good, but it’s better then privatization.”

First sentence makes no sense. Unless you’re trying to make Noam Chomky’s brain explode through linguistic trickery.

Second sentence had nothing to do with what I wrote.

6

Every reform that state does under pressure from the people, and not from groups wanting to exploit people is a good reform.

She advocates the state doing stuff to appease the workers, mainly state welfare, that’s why you say she’s the “most statist”, right?

7

Lol that whole thing is so absolutely pure left that it’s insane.

“Every reform that state does under pressure from the people, and not from groups wanting to exploit people is a good reform.”

Isn’t anyone who wants to perform a plan which will increase taxes and spending exploiting other people. And who are the people?

“She advocates the state doing stuff to appease the workers, mainly state welfare, that’s why you say she’s the “most statist”, right?”

Yea. Around here increasing the power of the state and the influence that it has over people’s lives is pretty generally agreed upon as being considered relatively in the vicinity of being just a tad statist.

8

sure, the press is “free” but they cant buy paper or ink. Or a printing press.

9

^

Lol you forgot about

“Revoke corporate personhood by amending our Constitution to make clear that corporations are not persons and money is not speech. Those rights belong to living, breathing human beings - not to business entities controlled by the wealthy.”

So the wealthy are not living, breathing, human beings?

10

Here is a short refutation and expounding of some of the tenets of the “New Geen Deal”

She is basing her policies off of some scholar’s economics book. It is horrendous.

11

“The wealthy are reptilians” is the implied message, I suppose.

12

“She advocates the state doing stuff to appease the workers, mainly state welfare, that’s why you say she’s the “most statist”, right?”

No. She is the most statist because her policies imply more state power than the other 2012 candidates. Sometimes for reasons she understands, and other times for reasons she doesn’t. It has nothing to do with workers or welfare.

All of what I said above in the original post should be understood the same, whether it is anarcho-syndicalists or market anarchists.

13

The only thing we might agree with her is not bailing out companies.

It feels scary to even hear her mug speak.

14

‘Green’ is all about using crisis to create political will.

If you have an excuse that sounds good, people will let you violate the rights of other people. That’s all it boils down to.

If you say that the oceans are going to rise 20 feet and we’re all going to die unless we do x, y, and z statist policies, then people feel like they have their back to a wall, and the pragmatists who buy the premise will feel they have no choice.

It’s all bunk of course. Now it’s the green crisis. Previously it was the Red scare. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Increasingly it’s going to be the financial crisis.

There’s only one thing that connects all these crises: they’re government created, and the supposed solution is more government.

Conflict of interest anyone?

15

She supports bailing out auto companies. Of course, as long as the companies then get more rules from the state.

16

Just because she supports unions. If unions lose influence, the left does as well, as the unions funnel stupid amounts of money to them.

17

It seems to me that even Green foreign policy would devolve into a type of paternalism and imperialism. Check out her views on Israel/Palestine situation.

She seems to take a pretty aggressive stance on this, as well as opening the door for ‘humanitarian’ wars in the middle-east.

“On taking office, I will put all parties on notice – including the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, and the Hamas administration in Gaza – that future U.S. support will depend on respect for human rights and compliance with international law… Failure by any party to demonstrate sufficient material progress will result in the end of U.S. military and economic aid to that party.”

This is basically the same foreign policy we use on others: obey or else.

" Material progress will be understood to include… disarmament of all non-state militias."

Gee, so they can submit to authority more easily.

“Consistency in U.S. policy regarding human rights and international law will begin, but not end, with Palestine and Israel. I will apply this same approach to other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen, among others. I will also ensure that the United States begins to honor its obligations to protect human rights”

Basically, another blank check to ‘approach nations’ all over the globe like the current policy. This is the dead give away that the hippies will justify their own endless series of wars in the middle-east. These are not peaceful hippies. Doesn’t she know the US gives billions in aid to all of three of those Arab nations? And that’s why they exist.

The approach is like Obama’s: make it seem more humane, but keep killing.

“Material progress will be understood to include but not be limited to an end to the discriminatory apartheid policies within the state of Israel, the removal of the Separation Wall”

Without the wall and the apartheid discrimination, there is no Israel. Because Israel’s sole goal is for only Jews to be worthy, and for there to be no reconciliation with Arabs. This is by definition of having a Jewish supremacist state. The wall was built to coerce that situation. But she can’t just go ahead and say that. Probably for the same reason Gary Johnson can’t, sadly. But at least Johnson for the most part resists the urge towards involvement in the middle-east hornet’s nest.