When Stef interviews Noam Chomsky...

[jrodefeld]

I'm a longtime listener of the podcasts and a longer time libertarian.  I usually enjoy what Stefan has to say though I disagree at times.  I am a little perplexed though about today's interview with Noam Chomsky.  I was similarly confused about the last time Chomsky was on with Stefan, in that the topics discussed were exclusively ones where Noam and Stefan agreed.  While there is definitely plenty in Chomsky's work that is admirable and more than enough common ground between market anarchists and left anarchists or anarcho syndicalists, there remains huge disagreements over economics, over property rights and a whole host of very important issues.

 

I am disappointed that Stefan did not use the time to push back a little on the economic illiteracy that Chomsky usually displays.  

 

Here is a sampling of what I mean from Tom Woods' page:

 

http://tomwoods.com/blog/chomsky-the-anarchist/

 

I'd really like to see Stefan go into a real, substantive debate with an opponent of Chomsky's stature rather than lightweights like Sam Seder and Peter Joseph.  I've actually never seen Chomsky challenged on his views on libertarianism or his economic views from an Austrian or anarcho capitalist perspective.

 

I just thought it was a lost opportunity in some ways.

[Wuzzums]

Maybe Chomsky didn't want to discuss economics?

[VolT]

I am sure that both parties have behaved in manners to which they agreed to.

When he debates people like Peter Joseph, they have both agreed to a debate.

 

So if Chomsky didn’t agree to a particular topic then its kind of ... ****ish to push in that direction.

 

Also what is the value generated from these debates?

It reminds me of a boxing match, its as if people just want to pick teams. To no fault of Stefan the argument with Peter Joseph was extremely frustrating!  That man does not know how to debate. I would also add, has some attitude problems.

 

The only value that I see and Stefan has made clear is that, it pulls people in for the message of peaceful parenting.

[Pepin]

What if he doesn't want a debate? I can think of a few reasons why he wouldn't want to take part in a debate, a large one being his speaking ability and pace, which would put him at a large disadvantage regardless of what he is arguing.

 

Another may be that he just doesn't want a debate and would prefer a friendly chat. I do not believe it would be right for anyone to spring a public debate on someone who is not prepared or on someone who doesn't want to debate.

 

This is pretty common in fdr interviews. Take the Alex Jones interviews. Of course the thought of a popular public figure being cornered by argumentative surprise might seem tasty, but it is a shady tactic for those who value truth.

[Kevin Beal]

Thanks for the feedback, it might be premature to accuse me of lacking integrity without understanding the purpose and limitations of the conversation. My knowledge of Chomsky is almost exclusively limited to his criticisms of US foreign policy, and international war crimes in general, which I share and enthusiastically endorse. I also appreciate his approach to the universalization of ethics, which I also share. I understand that he is an anarchist, which means that he prefers a stateless society, with all of the attendant social experimentation that will inevitably result. I have never heard him advocate the initiation of force to achieve his ideal society; once there is no government, 1000 flowers will surely bloom! I had a little over 20 minutes, which is not enough for any kind of substantial debate, and also, I had asked for an interview, rather than a debate, which is very important. If you ask someone for a debate, they must spend a lot more time preparing, and actually debating, which would have probably resulted in not having access to him at all. I don't like to ask for an interview, and then spring a debate on someone who is largely unprepared for my perspective, I consider that quite impolite, and certainly don't like it when that kind of ambushing is done to me. I am certainly interested in reaching out to left-leaning anarchists and libertarians, just as I am to right-wing libertarians who remain statists, and I haven't noticed a lot of people criticizing me for having minarchist libertarians on my show, without criticizing them for supporting the state. I would really like for those interested in Chomsky's views to get interested in this podcast, I think it would be really helpful for them to hear the argument for anarcho capitalism. I hope that helps at least explain my thinking on the matter, I don't think that I have lacked courage or directness when engaged in a debate, but that was not the format of my conversation with Dr. Chomsky.

[jrodefeld]

I don't necessarily expect Chomsky to agree to a formal debate, nor do I think it would be right for Stefan to be combative and hostile.  Personally I just wish that they would have spent a little time, even just 20% of the time, having a friendly discussion about their disagreements.

 

It wasn't really this one that bothered me.  To the contrary I agreed with every single thing Noam said in this interview.  But I recall in the last interview at the end, Chomsky went on about how American libertarians are confused and how European "libertarians" hold to the true tradition of libertarianism by being socialist or something to that effect.  Stefan didn't challenge him on this either.

 

I frequently listen to Tom Woods' podcast and he always asks tough questions of his guests to make them defend their beliefs.  Stefan has certainly done this before. 

 

Anyway, this is not a big gripe I have, more like a quibble.  I really would like to see Stefan have more challenging discussions with the real intellectual heavyweights of the left.  Not necessarily formal debates, just challenging interviews and exchanges of opinions.

 

Thanks for the feedback, it might be premature to accuse me of lacking integrity without understanding the purpose and limitations of the conversation. My knowledge of Chomsky is almost exclusively limited to his criticisms of US foreign policy, and international war crimes in general, which I share and enthusiastically endorse. I also appreciate his approach to the universalization of ethics, which I also share. I understand that he is an anarchist, which means that he prefers a stateless society, with all of the attendant social experimentation that will inevitably result. I have never heard him advocate the initiation of force to achieve his ideal society; once there is no government, 1000 flowers will surely bloom! I had a little over 20 minutes, which is not enough for any kind of substantial debate, and also, I had asked for an interview, rather than a debate, which is very important. If you ask someone for a debate, they must spend a lot more time preparing, and actually debating, which would have probably resulted in not having access to him at all. I don't like to ask for an interview, and then spring a debate on someone who is largely unprepared for my perspective, I consider that quite impolite, and certainly don't like it when that kind of ambushing is done to me. I am certainly interested in reaching out to left-leaning anarchists and libertarians, just as I am to right-wing libertarians who remain statists, and I haven't noticed a lot of people criticizing me for having minarchist libertarians on my show, without criticizing them for supporting the state. I would really like for those interested in Chomsky's views to get interested in this podcast, I think it would be really helpful for them to hear the argument for anarcho capitalism. I hope that helps at least explain my thinking on the matter, I don't think that I have lacked courage or directness when engaged in a debate, but that was not the format of my conversation with Dr. Chomsky.

 

 

I appreciate this response.  Personally I don't think I accused anyone of lacking integrity.  In fact I fully suspected that you had very good reasons for limiting the scope of the discussion and I did find his comments very strong and I agreed with all of them.  

 

I wonder if Mr Chomsky would agree to an interview in the future where you can compare and contrast his anarcho syndicalist or libertarian socialist views with those of a private property anarchist or anarcho capitalist?  I certainly haven't listened to all your podcasts, but this does seem to be one area of discussion that seems undeveloped.  

 

Of course, it doesn't have to be Chomsky who discusses this subject but I'd love to hear more about it regardless.  

[Kevin Beal]

Lol. Sorry. That was confusing. Stef posted that at the beginning of the year in response to someone accusing him of lacking integrity. I simply quoted what he wrote before because it contained relevant information.

 

I don't know if Stef has seen this thread or if he would say something different now, I just thought it was useful information.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

[jrodefeld]

Lol. Sorry. That was confusing. Stef posted that at the beginning of the year in response to someone accusing him of lacking integrity. I simply quoted what he wrote before because it contained relevant information.

 

I don't know if Stef has seen this thread or if he would say something different now, I just thought it was useful information.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

I kind of thought it was an old post but it certainly seemed to apply to what I was saying so I just responded as if it was directed towards me.

 

Anyway, does Stef post on these forums at all?   It would be cool if he would get involved with some of the discussions on these boards, but I'm sure he's a pretty busy guy and probably doesn't have the time for that sort of thing.

[Kevin Beal]

Anyway, does Stef post on these forums at all?   It would be cool if he would get involved with some of the discussions on these boards, but I'm sure he's a pretty busy guy and probably doesn't have the time for that sort of thing.

He used to post more often (he has a higher post count than any other person). He was welcoming every new user to the boards for a while. And I'm sure he is busy, but if he wanted to post on the boards more, I'm sure he'd make time to do that. I don't know what his priorities are, and can't speak for him, though.

 

This is a list of threads he's posted in here.

[Heam]

Chomsky is a very old man. I seriously doubt he has the will, energy, or ability to be doing debates at this point.

[PGP]

I think he debated God once. God lost, threw a hissy-fit and flooded the place. I think it was made into a film........

[Pepin]

I tried to debate God once. He never showed up.

[LovePrevails]

It's better to mine Chomskys brain

 

I would also like Stef to debate a heavy weight lefty like Chomsky or Michael Parenti -- most of them have god way old, Howard Zinn is dead

Who would be an equivalent opponent from a younger generation?

Michael Moore haha well he's just a lib, not left enough

[Tresor]

I think he debated God once. God lost, threw a hissy-fit and flooded the place. I think it was made into a film........

Chomsky the ‘Anarchist’

29th May 2013 by: Tom Woods 35 Comments

 

Noam Chomsky speaks on anarchism and his gripes with libertarians. A sample:

 

It’s 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.

 

 

sweatyfederalist • 

We all agree that free bananas are desirable.

Bananas can be obtained in many ways.

One way, incidentally, is that the state can provide free bananas.

The state is publicly controlled.

You are part of that public.

Therefore, you can give yourself free bananas.

Gee, why didn’t anyone think of that before!

[Josh F]

The only thing that I think needs to be said is PLEASE STOP MUMBLING!!!!  Has no one ever said that to him?  Its like a Steven Wright bit, but not funny.  

[papatree84]

By the by, I think "Senor Chops a lot" knows that Stef would rip him a new one. I Have never heard Noam make a stand on anything except to say that the west is dangerous. He is just a stuffy intellectual who lacks consistency and the ability to universalize principles; in my humble opinion. 

 

Yes I am aware that this is an Ad Homin attack. lol

[LovePrevails]

The only thing that I think needs to be said is PLEASE STOP MUMBLING!!!!  Has no one ever said that to him?  Its like a Steven Wright bit, but not funny.  

 

I think his voice box has gone Josh, if you listen to recordings of him from the 70s he speaks quite clearly