So under Ron Paul, you’d have a free economy and voluntary socialism would be allowed within communities.”

Under a Libertarian Socialist regime, you’d have a free economy (this does translate to a market, of course) and voluntary Capitalism would be allowed within communities. Generally libertarians of all stripes favor allowing other economic systems to thrive if people choose them, and suspect that their own economy would be more favorable to more people. There is one difference, though, that deserves consideration: markets require constant growth and expansion to function properly – businesses have to seek out more raw materials, more labour, more capital outside the confines of their community to thrive. This would present problems when profit-driven firms meet with non-profit-driven, commonly held land of Socialist communities. However, I suspect this could be solved in a voluntary society. The Anarchist view that Chomsky subscribes to is that all Socialism should be voluntary or else it is a brutal and slavish horror, as Mikhail Bakunin posited.

Nothing about Socialism or Communism (not using the 9th grade Civics definitions, but more general definitions where both mean worker ownership of the means and fruits of production) is inherently coercive or compulsive. They do not require enforcement. Communists and Socialists view their economic structures as the most natural and human structures – workers naturally have a tendency to want to manage their own economic affairs in collaboration with equals, to work, and to have all their needs met with no worry about whether they will be able to meet them tomorrow. That’s our view.

In any case, saying Socialists should support Ron Paul because he’d allow Voluntary Socialism is 1. like saying we should support any other candidate, because none of them intend to crush voluntary Socialists socieities

What is disgusting is that he is willing to use his well earned place in academia to mislead the public about non-socialist libertarians.

My feel is he just doesn’t like Ron Paul (because he’s from Texas, loves America, and is Christian) and Chomsky isn’t/doesn’t. If you are against coercion and other compulsory acts of government, how can you enforce socialism. Of course unless its voluntary socialism (IE Twin Oaks).

So under Ron Paul, you’d have a free economy and voluntary socialism would be allowed within communities.

You can’t say the reverse would be allowed. What I’ve gotten from Chomsky is that it is easy to criticize other people’s ideas but offers little leadership himself.

I thought it was well written and to someone who isn’t retarded:
“All you are doing is pulling quotes up and chopping everything up to make you seem smarter and to let you argue easily against them”
This is exactly what Chomsky did to Ron Paul. So you expect a free internet blog to contain a more in depth analysis of Chomsky vs Ron Paul than The Great Chomsky is willing to do himself?

Maybe you could write such a piece and submit it with your criticism of this one?

All you do is compare Chomsky’s arguments to the current state of affairs then apply how the system currently works to him. You are putting words in his mouth and you look like a huge moron.