NationStates Jolt Archive

So you've all managed to attack the easy target of Michael Moore. Why not try a real challenge. Find a lie or a logical fallacy in any of the following:

1. Noam Chomsky

2. Howard Zinn

3. Jello Biafra

4. Arundhati Roy

So you've all managed to attack the easy target of Michael Moore. Why not try a real challenge. Find a lie or a logical fallacy in any of the following:

1. Noam Chomsky

2. Howard Zinn

3. Jello Biafra

4. Arundhati Roy
Three is easy:

Cheated people out of their money :p

Three is easy:

Cheated people out of their money :pIs that the infamous "oppressing the rest of the band by not letting Dead Kennedy's songs be used in Levis ads" case? ;)

Is that the infamous "oppressing the rest of the band by not letting Dead Kennedy's songs be used in Levis ads" case? ;)
Why yes. ;)

Is that the infamous "oppressing the rest of the band by not letting Dead Kennedy's songs be used in Levis ads" case? ;)

Republicans think "selling out" is a compliment.

So you've all managed to attack the easy target of Michael Moore. Why not try a real challenge. Find a lie or a logical fallacy in any of the following:

1. Noam Chomsky

His argument against the free market is based on his claim that not giving someone a job is tantamount to coercion. He claims the "capitalist" gives the choice "work for me or starve".

In order to make sense this has to be grounded in some sort of general claim along the lines "Not doing someone a favour unless they return a favour is coercive". This is a riduculous claim since that means a wife who threatens to leave her husband unless he works around the house, not to mention his own cherished communes, would be acting coercively.

The choice is not "work for me or starve", it is "work for me or..... don't". Chomsky is of course free to define the word "coercion" however he likes, he may define it to mean "blue cheese" or "fishy aroma", but if he defines doing nothing as coercive then he's way off the track as far as I'm concerned.

Thus, he doesn't make any strict logical error, his theories could well be self consistent, but they are ridiculous.

Another error he makes is opposing govt on the grounds that it's violent while cheering on the govt when it advances anti-market policies. This is typical of many socialists, freedom is only for people who agree with them.

His argument against the free market is based on his claim that not giving someone a job is tantamount to coercion. He claims the "capitalist" gives the choice "work for me or starve".

In order to make sense this has to be grounded in some sort of general claim along the lines "Not doing someone a favour unless they return a favour is coercive". This is a riduculous claim since that means a wife who threatens to leave her husband unless he works around the house, not to mention his own cherished communes, would be acting coercively.

The choice is not "work for me or starve", it is "work for me or..... don't". Chomsky is of course free to define the word "coercion" however he likes, he may define it to mean "blue cheese" or "fishy aroma", but if he defines doing nothing as coercive then he's way off the track as far as I'm concerned.

Thus, he doesn't make any strict logical error, his theories could well be self consistent, but they are ridiculous.

Another error he makes is opposing govt on the grounds that it's violent while cheering on the govt when it advances anti-market policies. This is typical of many socialists, freedom is only for people who agree with them.

Chomsky is an anarchist not a socialist. And he only advances anti-market policies insofar as he is constrained by the political situation in hand. In general, when he tries to discuss philosophy (and not politics) he opposes the governemnt (cause he's an anarchist).

Also, his argument on coercion is a little more thorough than that; although, people can, and do disagree, on whether his definition of coercion is accurate. Calling it ridiculous, however, is in itself ridiculous. You can disagree, or you can agree, but that's a matter of opinion, not science.

Chomsky is an anarchist not a socialist. And he only advances anti-market policies insofar as he is constrained by the political situation in hand. In general, when he tries to discuss philosophy (and not politics) he opposes the governemnt (cause he's an anarchist).
He would probably claim Anarchist and Socialist to be the same thing. Opposing the govt in theory but not in practice is hypocritical. The fact is he regularly embraces govt violence.

Also, his argument on coercion is a little more thorough than that; although, people can, and do disagree, on whether his definition of coercion is accurate. Calling it ridiculous, however, is in itself ridiculous. You can disagree, or you can agree, but that's a matter of opinion, not science.
It is not ridiculous to call his definition ridiculous. If I say "cheese" means "rock" and then say "the moon is made of cheese" that would be ridiculous, because nobody else thinks "cheese" means "rock". I have yet to see any socialists' definition of coercion that wasn't ridiculous.

His argument against the free market is based on his claim that not giving someone a job is tantamount to coercion. He claims the "capitalist" gives the choice "work for me or starve".

In order to make sense this has to be grounded in some sort of general claim along the lines "Not doing someone a favour unless they return a favour is coercive". This is a riduculous claim since that means a wife who threatens to leave her husband unless he works around the house, not to mention his own cherished communes, would be acting coercively.



The difference being, one can live without a wife. One cannot live without food.

The difference being, one can live without a wife. One cannot live without food.
That's not the difference. Doing nothing is not coercive however you cut it. Feeding yourself is your own problem, one you should solve directly yourself or convince someone else to (perhaps via trade). Your dinner isn't my problem. Socialism is so loserish.

That's not the difference. Doing nothing is not coercive however you cut it. Feeding yourself is your own problem, one you should solve directly yourself or convince someone else to (perhaps via trade). Your dinner isn't my problem. Socialism is so loserish.Does your food arrive via goverment built roads?

Does your food arrive via goverment built roads?

Is it not inspected by government inspectors, and held to regulations that make sure it is handled correctly and contains (mostly) only what it is supposed to contain?

Why exactly are you challenging just the right with an anarchists point of view. Seems that anarchy would be a concern for both sides of the political spectrum no?

1. Noam Chomsky

Well first and foremost hes a commie. That alone is evil enough.

In order to make sense this has to be grounded in some sort of general claim along the lines "Not doing someone a favour unless they return a favour is coercive". This is a riduculous claim since that means a wife who threatens to leave her husband unless he works around the house, not to mention his own cherished communes, would be acting coercively.

Under what circumstances is a threat not coercive? All threats are coercive, that's the point of threats.

He would probably claim Anarchist and Socialist to be the same thing. Opposing the govt in theory but not in practice is hypocritical. The fact is he regularly embraces govt violence.


"He would probably claim..." is not an argument about Chomsky. It's an argument about your suppositions about Chomsky. I fnd it extremely unlikely that he would argue that anarchy and socialism are the same, as they very clearly aren't.


It is not ridiculous to call his definition ridiculous. If I say "cheese" means "rock" and then say "the moon is made of cheese" that would be ridiculous, because nobody else thinks "cheese" means "rock". I have yet to see any socialists' definition of coercion that wasn't ridiculous.

Coercion means making someone do something. You whine on that the government coerces you into paying taxes. In fact it doesn't. If you don't take advantage of certain government-provided services (money) and you don't own any of a certain government-protected resource (land) you don't pay any taxes. Coercion is relative, and all systems are coercive in that they encourage people to join in with the system. Coercion with violence is not the only kind of coercion.

1. Noam Chomsky

Well first and foremost hes a commie. That alone is evil enough.
Republicans say that they love America and all that it stands for, but then they're intolerant of all that isn't their idea of 'us' (gay, commie, Jewish). If you love America, then you'll accept other people's political views and accept them, even if you have differing opinions. Make up your f***ing minds! :headbang:

Republicans say that they love America and all that it stands for, but then they're intolerant of all that isn't their idea of 'us' (gay, commie, Jewish). If you love America, then you'll accept other people's political views and accept them, even if you have differing opinions. Make up your f***ing minds! :headbang:

Republicans love Jews, they are the biggest slaves of Israel and the Ziontist lobby.

"He would probably claim..." is not an argument about Chomsky. It's an argument about your suppositions about Chomsky. I fnd it extremely unlikely that he would argue that anarchy and socialism are the same, as they very clearly aren't.
Ask any anarcho-communist, they never tire of claiming this. The way they define the words Anarchy and Socialism they mean the same thing. I agree that they aren't, but that is what they generally claim.


Coercion means making someone do something. You whine on that the government coerces you into paying taxes. In fact it doesn't. If you don't take advantage of certain government-provided services (money) and you don't own any of a certain government-protected resource (land) you don't pay any taxes. Coercion is relative, and all systems are coercive in that they encourage people to join in with the system. Coercion with violence is not the only kind of coercion.
Yes govt provides money, it also forbids anyone else from doing so. Yes govt protects land, it also forbids anyone else to do so. It is a protection racket. Violent coercion is the only sort that is relevant to politics.

If you don't think tax is coercive, try not paying it. If Microsoft or McDonalds were to charge the way the govt does for its "services" you would have no problem seeing that it is coercive.

He would probably claim Anarchist and Socialist to be the same thing. Opposing the govt in theory but not in practice is hypocritical. The fact is he regularly embraces govt violence.

It is not ridiculous to call his definition ridiculous. If I say "cheese" means "rock" and then say "the moon is made of cheese" that would be ridiculous, because nobody else thinks "cheese" means "rock". I have yet to see any socialists' definition of coercion that wasn't ridiculous.

No, he wouldn't. Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. He's perfered form of government would be the one that the Conferaracion Nacional de Trabajo used during the Spanish Civil War before the communists stripped them of power. He doesn't think socialism and anarchism are the same thing; he knows the difference.

How does he not oppose the government? He usually does; and when he doesn't oppose government regulation it's because he's oppossing big corporations. In fact, rarely does he even mention government regulations.

And as to your second point, not only is that a false, oversimplistic analogy, it's a stupid analogy. Chomsky's definition isn't quite that simple to decipher and is based on a long history of philosophical debate going all the way back to Rousseau. So please, don't just make grandose, uneducated remarks. Yeah, you might find the definition ridiculous, but then again, I'm going to assume you're not very liberal. Some liberals might not find the definition ridiculous at all.

1. Noam Chomsky

Well first and foremost hes a commie. That alone is evil enough.

Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, just watch the debate don't jump into it. It only shows everyone who actually knows about the debate your ignorance.

He's an anarcho-syndicalist, not a communist.

Ask any anarcho-communist, they never tire of claiming this. The way they define the words Anarchy and Socialism they mean the same thing. I agree that they aren't, but that is what they generally claim.


Yes govt provides money, it also forbids anyone else from doing so. Yes govt protects land, it also forbids anyone else to do so. It is a protection racket. Violent coercion is the only sort that is relevant to politics.

If you don't think tax is coercive, try not paying it. If Microsoft or McDonalds were to charge the way the govt does for its "services" you would have no problem seeing that it is coercive.


Again, Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist and honestly, he's a philosopher, so when he picks a type of ideology I'm pretty sure he knows their true definition. He is not a socialist; he believes in no government. He is not like other anarcho-communists, or anarchists, so you can't say, "Well other anarchists say it." That's a stunt pulled by third graders on their parents, not a debate tactic.

And I can't believe you listed Microsoft as one of your examples; it's one of the most "coercive" corporations in the market.

Why exactly are you challenging just the right with an anarchists point of view. Seems that anarchy would be a concern for both sides of the political spectrum no?That's a fair question so I'll go into my reasons.

Firstly I've found that the leftists and liberals on here are, generally speaking, a lot more up for tackling difficult debates straight on, with a couple of exceptions on either side. I think this thread demonstrates precisely what I mean. The only people that have attempted to take up the challenge are Libby (who doesn't consider himself part of the right- economically he is, but his views on gay rights, abolishing immigration controls etc. are firmly on the left) and Enod (who I will give some credit to. His comments may not have added anything to the debate but they at least you can say that he never avoids getting into difficult debates in the first place, unlike some of his compatriots).

Secondly is a simple matter of numbers. It's pointless to challenge the authortarian left on here because, unlike the right, there's hardly any of them. There was a Trotskyist around for a short while but he seems to have disappeared. ;) Most of the leftists on here are either anarcho-communists or one of the handful of libertarian Marxists (myself included).

Thirdly, I'd argue that libertarian Marxism and anarcho-communism borrow strongly from each other in terms of theory. My critique of Leninism owes a lot to the anarchists. Equally Zinn's views on class warfare are pretty much orthodox Marxism.

Ask any anarcho-communist, they never tire of claiming this. The way they define the words Anarchy and Socialism they mean the same thing. I agree that they aren't, but that is what they generally claim.

nah. we mostly claim that all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists. or that freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and that socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. in fact, i know i've seen chomsky paraphrase something to that effect. in essense, when i say things like that i am using 'socialism' in a broad sense that covers a wide range of often mutually oppossing groups and movements that are united by their opposition to capitalism and desire to create a more equal society that is run for the benefit of all and not just a tiny elite.

Republicans say that they love America and all that it stands for, but then they're intolerant of all that isn't their idea of 'us' (gay, commie, Jewish). If you love America, then you'll accept other people's political views and accept them, even if you have differing opinions. Make up your f***ing minds! :headbang:

Well if our foundings fathers knew about all these queers and commies that would be polluting our world the would have banned it and said all non-commie, straight person have the rights to all the goods things we have rights to.

Well if our foundings fathers knew about all these queers and commies that would be polluting our world the would have banned it and said all non-commie, straight person have the rights to all the goods things we have rights to.
Yeah, have a fun time in your delusions.

Republicans say that they love America and all that it stands for, but then they're intolerant of all that isn't their idea of 'us' (gay, commie, Jewish). If you love America, then you'll accept other people's political views and accept them, even if you have differing opinions. Make up your f***ing minds! :headbang:

But dont communists hate what America stands for?

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia wishes to note that there is a difference between accepting others' viewpoints and philosophies, and accepting their legal right to hold them. He indicates that He, or at least, a hypothetical US citizen with his mind, would be within his rights to find any position offered utterly idiotic and/or morally reprehensible, and within His rights to say so. He is also justified in attempting to silence them by cutting off lines of communication that He owns, or by petitioning those that own other lines of communication to cut them off. He would not, however, be justified in petitioning the United States Government to silence them. This, in His opinion, is one of the things that makes the United States, and other countries that accept Freedom of Speech, great.

I have a vague recollection of his "California Uber Alles". According to Biafra Reagan and Republicans like him were going to turn California and America into another National-Socialist Germany. If only!!!


Ummm... Nope. :confused:
Not unless Jerry Brown, Carter, and the hippies were Reagan Republicans...


"California Uber Alles"

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president

Carter power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school

California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California

Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay

California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California

Now it is 1984
Knock knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool neice

Come quitely to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower

Die on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will crack, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown

California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California

This was one of the reasons I always liked Jello. At least he hits the lefties as well as the righties.

1. Noam Chomsky

Read The Anti-Chomsky Reader (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1095583279/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-3034933-9282409?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Even leftist historian Alan Dershowitz called Chomsky an "intellectual hack", it doesn't take much effort to reveal Chomsky as a total fraud. You should read Chomsky's footnotes sometimes, many of his "references" point back to his previous rants, as opposed to legitimate publications.

2. Howard Zinn

Compare Ben Johnson's survey of American history with Howard Zinn's and you'd realize that Zinn is a knee-jerk defender of any perceived "underdog" no matter how morally corrupt or violent they are.

3. Jello Biafra

LOL! You consider this fruitcake to be an intellectual? You have to be kidding me!

4. Arundhati Roy

Basically a female Howard Zinn.

That's not the difference. Doing nothing is not coercive however you cut it. Feeding yourself is your own problem, one you should solve directly yourself or convince someone else to (perhaps via trade). Your dinner isn't my problem. Socialism is so loserish.
Relatively logical debate so far, not poking fun, but gotta add ....
Since Gandhi accomplished quite a bit a few times by doing exactly nothing, and it itself in a very coercive manner, then your must have missed your cut a little. Unless you think that doing nothing in the very literal sense of actually "doing" "nothing" which is by far impossible in this very universe, that seems a bit of a stretch and ridiculous for this forum. In the sense, of course, it can be ridiculed in general without much debate of it's worth of being ridiculed.

why does that refutation coming from pan-arab israel not make me feel like anything was refusted at all, the only way it couldve been worse is if enodscopia tried to go at it.

you people have somewhere between 0 and no respect from me

Why exactly are you challenging just the right with an anarchists point of view. Seems that anarchy would be a concern for both sides of the political spectrum no?
Yep, good point. I suppose it would be enough concern for anyone not already self-governing (in the sense that anyone on either side expected other people to participate in active philosophies).

Under what circumstances is a threat not coercive? All threats are coercive, that's the point of threats.
Excellent point. Rock on.

Hey look, it's the statistical idiot!

Why should I bother refuting those nutcases when there is plenty of literature that does the job for me?

Besides, I don't go around posting stupid vague "challenges" asking people to debunk Hayek or Friedman.

Read The Anti-Chomsky Reader (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1095583279/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-3034933-9282409?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Even leftist historian Alan Dershowitz called Chomsky an "intellectual hack", it doesn't take much effort to reveal Chomsky as a total fraud. You should read Chomsky's footnotes sometimes, many of his "references" point back to his previous rants, as opposed to legitimate publications.


LOL! You consider this fruitcake to be an intellectual? You have to be kidding me!




So a person who reinforces their opinion over and over again is a fraud, whether that's a legitimate case of being proven so or otherwise? He's not a total fraud, it's probably just like listening to Bush talk. Lots and lots of times he apparently has a big problem utilizing interpreting and understanding the English language, as evidenced by huge numbers of "Bushisms" (of which there's an audio CD on sale now). Anyone listening to a compilation would think he's a complete and utter chimpf*ck, right or otherwise, since he did actually say those things, but it doesn't really mean he's a chimpf*ck, you merely have to look harder for some other example of usable intelligence on his part to get what he maybe really meant. Since he repeatedly argues ineffability for his policies when many, MANY other more experienced people argue against them, it doesn't mean he's wrong, persay, no matter when he's asked to explain and he merely refers to some other time he said it and what he said, that doesn't mean he's wrong, he just comes across as a total fraud. Or wait, maybe i shouldn't use that guy as an example.
Oh well, maybe i should just say that an intellectual isn't necessarily "intelligent" beyond an average measure, it is merely what they do with their capacity for intellect. You should at least be fair.

Hey look, it's the statistical idiot!

Why should I bother refuting those nutcases when there is plenty of literature that does the job for me?

Besides, I don't go around posting stupid vague "challenges" asking people to debunk Hayek or Friedman.
Salma and Michael? That's a weird mix. Although i wouldn't mind "debating" Salma Hayek with a bottle of Crisco on a sheet of bisqueen and some velour in all the right places, but .. that's for another thread. As for Michael, he'd have to bring his own, although being a writer i imagine he wouldn't know what to do in that situation.

So a person who reinforces their opinion over and over again is a fraud, whether that's a legitimate case of being proven so or otherwise? He's not a total fraud, it's probably just like listening to Bush talk. Lots and lots of times he apparently has a big problem utilizing interpreting and understanding the English language, as evidenced by huge numbers of "Bushisms" (of which there's an audio CD on sale now). Anyone listening to a compilation would think he's a complete and utter chimpf*ck, right or otherwise, since he did actually say those things, but it doesn't really mean he's a chimpf*ck, you merely have to look harder for some other example of usable intelligence on his part to get what he maybe really meant. Since he repeatedly argues ineffability for his policies when many, MANY other more experienced people argue against them, it doesn't mean he's wrong, persay, no matter when he's asked to explain and he merely refers to some other time he said it and what he said, that doesn't mean he's wrong, he just comes across as a total fraud. Or wait, maybe i shouldn't use that guy as an example.
Oh well, maybe i should just say that an intellectual isn't necessarily "intelligent" beyond an average measure, it is merely what they do with their capacity for intellect. You should at least be fair.

I love how you managed to twist an observation of Chomsky's methods into a Bush-bash. Anyway, the problem with Chomsky is that many of his references have no relevance whatsoever with the associated claims. I found the book to be very refreshing after putting up with years of Chomskyite indoctrination in college.

Salma and Michael? That's a weird mix. Although i wouldn't mind "debating" Salma Hayek with a bottle of Crisco on a sheet of bisqueen and some velour in all the right places, but .. that's for another thread. As for Michael, he'd have to bring his own, although being a writer i imagine he wouldn't know what to do in that situation.

Friedrich and Milton.

The fact is he regularly embraces govt violence.

It is not ridiculous to call his definition ridiculous. If I say "cheese" means "rock" and then say "the moon is made of cheese" that would be ridiculous, because nobody else thinks "cheese" means "rock". I have yet to see any socialists' definition of coercion that wasn't ridiculous.
Care to give examples of govt violence he likes?

Your analogy is not right, because it is scientifically provable that cheese isn't the same as rock.

Relatively logical debate so far, not poking fun, but gotta add ....
Since Gandhi accomplished quite a bit a few times by doing exactly nothing, and it itself in a very coercive manner, then your must have missed your cut a little. Unless you think that doing nothing in the very literal sense of actually "doing" "nothing" which is by far impossible in this very universe, that seems a bit of a stretch and ridiculous for this forum. In the sense, of course, it can be ridiculed in general without much debate of it's worth of being ridiculed.
Fair points. The word coercion is quite vague and can be taken in many contexts but for the purposes of debate we need a definition of coercion in the political sense, which I have yet to see well defined by a socialist.

Care to give examples of govt violence he likes?
I am fairly certain (if I'm wrong I'd welcome someone correcting me) that he has looked to the govt to provide welfare (tax money is confiscated from citizens at gunpoint) and various employment regulations (people go to jail if they don't obey them). Both these things are unnecessary and will actually run counter to the goals they are trying to achieve, something a self-proclaimed "Anarchist" ought to recognise.

I'm sorry if this is vague, I can't stand to read him long enough to do thorough research on him.

Your analogy is not right, because it is scientifically provable that cheese isn't the same as rock.
Yes, but I can change the word cheese to mean the material currently called rock, then I can claim the moon is made of cheese which would be technically true (since cheese now means rock) but completely misleading.

No, he wouldn't. Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. He's perfered form of government would be the one that the Conferaracion Nacional de Trabajo used during the Spanish Civil War before the communists stripped them of power. He doesn't think socialism and anarchism are the same thing; he knows the difference.
Fair enough, my bad. I thought his definition would be the one most "Anarcho"-socialists adopt.

How does he not oppose the government? He usually does; and when he doesn't oppose government regulation it's because he's oppossing big corporations. In fact, rarely does he even mention government regulations.
There you go then. He eggs on the govt to oppose big corporations. Not a very Anarchist position. One might instead want the govt to DROP the taxation, regulation, economic intervention and legal privilidges that created the limited liability corporation (a very un-free market institution) and artificially inflated the size of businesses .

And as to your second point, not only is that a false, oversimplistic analogy, it's a stupid analogy. Chomsky's definition isn't quite that simple to decipher and is based on a long history of philosophical debate going all the way back to Rousseau. So please, don't just make grandose, uneducated remarks. Yeah, you might find the definition ridiculous, but then again, I'm going to assume you're not very liberal. Some liberals might not find the definition ridiculous at all.
Rousseau? Eek! That guy is such an idiot. Can you post his (Chomsky's) definition of coercion so I can pee all over it? BTW, I'm a Libertarian.

His argument against the free market is based on his claim that not giving someone a job is tantamount to coercion. He claims the "capitalist" gives the choice "work for me or starve".

In order to make sense this has to be grounded in some sort of general claim along the lines "Not doing someone a favour unless they return a favour is coercive". This is a riduculous claim since that means a wife who threatens to leave her husband unless he works around the house, not to mention his own cherished communes, would be acting coercively.

The choice is not "work for me or starve", it is "work for me or..... don't". Chomsky is of course free to define the word "coercion" however he likes, he may define it to mean "blue cheese" or "fishy aroma", but if he defines doing nothing as coercive then he's way off the track as far as I'm concerned.

Thus, he doesn't make any strict logical error, his theories could well be self consistent, but they are ridiculous.

Another error he makes is opposing govt on the grounds that it's violent while cheering on the govt when it advances anti-market policies. This is typical of many socialists, freedom is only for people who agree with them.


Are you a particular fan of the three fundamental rights? Right to life, right to liberty, and the right to pursue property?

Well, then you should examine the hypocrisy of what you just wrote. A right to life cannot be guaranteed unless employment, shelter, and clothing are guaranteed. Since you choose to support none of these, you are violating the first fundamental right that every person has. (one of the fundamental beliefs of libertarians is that, no one deserves anything, so if you don't work, tough shit, you'll just have to starve to death.)

A right to pursue property cannot be guaranteed without the necessary income to pursue it. Since a guarantee of income is the guarantee of work, once again, you have showed your own hypocrisy.

Oh, and no objections to your pursuit of a right to liberty, you guys have that pretty well worked out.

But otherwise, avoid the forums, because Noam Chomsky was telling the truth, that unless you are born into wealth, then the only means by which you can survive is to work. And if you don't work, your death is soon to follow.

Read The Anti-Chomsky Reader (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1095583279/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-3034933-9282409?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Even leftist historian Alan Dershowitz called Chomsky an "intellectual hack", it doesn't take much effort to reveal Chomsky as a total fraud. You should read Chomsky's footnotes sometimes, many of his "references" point back to his previous rants, as opposed to legitimate publications.How about you cite some of the Anti-Chomsky reader. You can't expect us to buy a book every time we get into an argument on the internet. Assuming you actually have read it and aren't just going by a google search of course.

Compare Ben Johnson's survey of American history with Howard Zinn's and you'd realize that Zinn is a knee-jerk defender of any perceived "underdog" no matter how morally corrupt or violent they are.Examples?


LOL! You consider this fruitcake to be an intellectual? You have to be kidding me!
How about you critique his ideas as opposed to indulging in personal attacks?


Basically a female Howard Zinn.Nobel Prize winner. Again no attempt to refute the ideas.

Besides, I don't go around posting stupid vague "challenges" asking people to debunk Hayek But you're quite happy to go on the "OMG, Moore is fat" threads. What's the matter? Do you only like easy targets?

So you've all managed to attack the easy target of Michael Moore. Why not try a real challenge. Find a lie or a logical fallacy in any of the following:

1. Noam Chomsky
2. Howard Zinn
3. Jello Biafra
4. Arundhati Roy

Why don't you give us some references if you'd like us to debate their beliefs? 99% of the population isn't going to have any idea who these guys are or any reason to care what they think.

So you've all managed to attack the easy target of Michael Moore. Why not try a real challenge. Find a lie or a logical fallacy in any of the following:

1. Noam Chomsky

2. Howard Zinn

3. Jello Biafra

4. Arundhati Roy

Noam Chomsky should rightfully be in place #3

Howard Zinn spells his name wrong. Constantly..!

Jello Biafra is an african dessert.

Arundhati Roy always puts his name on backwards.

Jello Biafra is an african dessert.

Har har har.

Why don't you give us some references if you'd like us to debate their beliefs? 99% of the population isn't going to have any idea who these guys are or any reason to care what they think.
Fair enough.

Chomsky- http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

Zinn- http://www.geocities.com/howardzinnfans/online_works.html

Biafra- http://eserver.org/bs/30/grad.html (this is an interview but his spoken word stuff is easy enough to download)

Roy- http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=77&ItemID=6136

Also, don't you think people who consider themselves political should be well read on politics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grebonia
Why don't you give us some references if you'd like us to debate their beliefs? 99% of the population isn't going to have any idea who these guys are or any reason to care what they think.


Fair enough.

Chomsky- http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

Zinn- http://www.geocities.com/howardzinn...line_works.html

Biafra- http://eserver.org/bs/30/grad.html (this is an interview but his spoken word stuff is easy enough to download)

Roy- http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=77&ItemID=6136

Also, don't you think people who consider themselves political should be well read on politics?

How about this.... For all us dunderheads who aren't working on our political philosophy doctorates...

Give a 2 sentence (max) statement of the general philosophy of each of these characters for us to chew on, and spit back out with commentary.

Whatcha say...?! :)

Also, don't you think people who consider themselves political should be well read on politics?

It politics that effect my life, certainly. I'm constantly reading and researching Bush and kerry as one of them is going to be the next leader of the America. Why should I have all that much interest in what some anarchist poltical theorist (as an example) thinks who will have zero effect on real world American politics other than maybe as a point of interesting reading. I'm not a college student or some political science major. I try to look at the things that effect my life with the time I have outside of work and play and family. I will however read your links when I get a chance.