So Obama “won” the Nobel Peace Prize.

In truth, he got it because he is a Democrat who espouses (follow-through doesn’t matter for these people) policies that this Norwegian group likes. No, it is not just because he is not George W. Bush (although you wouldn’t necessarily know that by viewing his policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, or for renewing the Patriot Act), because I can’t imagine John McCain receiving the Nobel if the election had swayed a few percentage points the other way. So, women’s rights activists, dissidents against the Chinese government, and political prisoners be damned, Obama got moved to the front of the line for what used to be considered a top honor.

The deadline for nominations was 10 days after Obama took office, which means most likely that the prize is awarded on his campaign rhetoric and paying for abortions in Africa (which he decided to do his first day in office).

Of course if Obama has any respect for actual peace activists, or for justice in this world, he’d give it back and say he hopes he can earn it later.

The National Review brings up an interesting hidden motive the Nobelites might have had: whether to bomb Iran (or even use nuclear weapons) to prevent Iran from getting them. Perhaps that could be a silver lining in a very dark cloud: actual deserving past and future Nobelists like Muhammad Yunus will find their prize means less now.

For the record, here is a list of Obama’s accomplishments on behalf of war and strife:

• He has not pulled out of Iraq, as he repeatedly promised during his campaign, or even done anything to decrease troops there.
• He may escalate things in Afghanistan.
• He wants to renew three provisions of the Patriot Act that Republican senators are for, Democratic senators are against.
• “vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons” – as everyone does, but of course he has not given up American nukes and hasn’t discounted using them against Iran. And of course, he has agreed to keep Israel’s nuclear stash officially secret.

“One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.” – Michael Steele, RNC

Chomsky supporter criticizes Michelle Malkin.
Chomsky supporter then makes something up about Ron Paul out of the blue.
Point out to Chomsky supporter that Michelle Malkin attempted to fabricate these exact allegations about Ron Paul two years ago.
Chomsky supporter says nothing more about Ron Paul and moves on to how great Chomsky is, saying that his views are both consistent and logical.

So this is my great Noam Chomsky post, wherein I show just some of the inconsistencies and flaws in Noam Chomsky’s political arguments.

The interview my pseudo debater pointed to is one from a few years ago in which Chomsky discusses the “views” of Ron Paul (“views” in quotes because Chomsky often distorts Ron Paul’s actual political views into a caricature/straw man which Chomsky then has a less difficult time debating). Interestingly, Chomsky is an anarchist himself but the views he often knocks down in this interview are more related to anarchism than libertarianism. After describing something which is a cross between our current society and anarchism, Chomsky concludes it “would be a nightmare, in my opinion, on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.”

First up is personal contracts. Ron Paul is for voluntary associations among people, otherwise known as “contracts.” To the idea of voluntary contracts between people, Chomsky replies:

Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

First of all, it’s a bit disingenuous to argue against a purported worst case scenario, yet treat this as the natural endgame of anything as inauspicious as voluntary contracts. First of all, I would say that “democratic politics” did not get rid of this scenario at all, it just plays out in other countries of the world every day. Secondly, in countries with non-tyrannical governments, there will always be a choice in companies to work for or you can start your own as many poor people have done. Third, contracts enforced by law enforcement is what we have now, so does Chomsky think that we have already “entered a period of private tyranny”? If so, since Ron Paul is against pretty much all the current corporatist and financial system, he’s barking up the wrong tree.

The only reason someone would choose this General Electric job is because there is absolutely no other alternative. That situation certainly wouldn’t exist in a free market, because the enterprising person could start their own business easily. That’s very difficult to do today.

Of course, in the end, Chomsky sums up his views by saying that things in Chomsky World would be “worked out by free communities.” How is that much different than voluntary personal contracts or the libertarianism he tries so hard to set up as a strawman and criticize?

Let’s continue.

Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)?

Yes, corporations certainly aren’t accountable when they bankrupt themselves and we wag our finger and bail them out easier than a poor person gets food stamps, but that wouldn’t exist in a libertarian government. Currently, regulations serve to do the opposite of what Chomsky says they accomplish, accountability: the corporations actually write those regulations (literally write the bills that Congress passes) and of course write them in a way that keeps themselves in business at the expense of any competitor or gives them a monopoly. Notice how Chomsky does not mention this tidbit at all, even though it is directly what keeps those hated cable, electricity, and telecom companies in business.

Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded? like what we’re now using, computers and the internet?

Did the economy collapse when R&D wasn’t publicly funded, or did many of those things he mentions (computers, the Internet) come from the transistor, which came from Bell Labs, the best R&D of all time (and privately funded!) What Chomsky doesn’t mention is that the Internet came from a military project which his anarchist society would not fund, and the project sat there for decades until it was released to private hands, which used it to create the Internet. Same for GPS, only when given over to private entrepreneurs was the public able to use or even glimpse these projects.

Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation?

If roads, schools, public transportation, and environmental regulation (of everyone but itself and large corporations, of course) are so important to Chomsky, why does he advocate for the government to do anything else? If in fact these things are the most basic and essential components of government, why not skim off all that fat and allow the government to concentrate on these and get them right?

Now, we have potholes, 50% graduation rates, virtually no public transportation outside of large cities, and of course, the government is our country’s own largest polluter. Sounds like the government isn’t doing too great on any of these accounts.

Since unlike Chomsky tries to imply, these things would all still exist and probably be better in a libertarian society with actual accountability, his argument is, as usual, groundless.

(Question) He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.

How are these rights not enforced by “state police power” currently? How is Chomsky going to defend these rights, if it’s not some sort of central committee/groups/maybe even one person (Chomsky himself?) as “The Decider”?

There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

This is such a supreme generalization that I’m not sure where to begin.

Workers have absolutely no power over owners? Most people in America are employed by a small business. Try running a small business or working at one, and you’ll see quickly that an owner has every reason to keep his/her workers happy, employed, and doing their jobs. If a worker suddenly quits, an owner can be in a bad situation.

Saying that workers cannot “intimidate” owners may be true if one thinks that anyone doing any intimidating would get a worker fired, but I have seen the opposite. Some highly trained and specialized employees are extremely valuable to a business and can lord over (or completely run over or take advantage of) the owner if they choose to do so.

But perhaps Chomsky is only referring to large corporations, which deal more with unions. Chomsky apparently wants to correct what he sees as a power imbalance by allowing workers to join unions. However, many unions require workers to be members and forbid a company from hiring any non-union labor. Chomsky thinks the owner has all the power, but doesn’t his solution (AKA the status quo) just transfer all that power to the unions, still at the expense of the individual worker?

Let me give one pertinent example. My brother has a small carpenter’s business. To get big jobs (government, etc.) he would have to be a part of the local carpenter’s union. Well, just join the union, right? No, the union doesn’t accept new members. You have to “know” someone to become part of the union. Sounds to me like the union doesn’t care about workers in general, but merely protecting its own workers at other people’s expense. (In fact, that’s the very definition of a union!) Yet, it has achieved the power through government means (partly through rhetoric like that of Chomsky’s here) of saying that it is protecting its workers’ and the public’s safety by getting all the large jobs for its members’ choosing, without having to compete with more skilled, non-unionized workers.

And yet, giving workers and owners equal consideration and “putting them on a par” is forbidden by Chomsky, too. You just can’t win with this guy.

So what about foreign policy?

Chomsky, supposedly so against America’s foreign policy, really only wants to impose his preferred form of foreign policy on other nations. Ron Paul’s idea that we should let other countries govern themselves is “morally unacceptable.”

OK, then. Anyone who disagrees with Chomsky is immoral, with no specifics given.

Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally,

If Ron Paul means what literally? Notice how Chomsky gives no quote whatsoever. In fact, he’s literally making all this stuff up.

then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens).

When has Ron Paul ever said any of these groups shouldn’t receive Social Security? In fact, he is the only member of Congress who doesn’t raid the Social Security “lockbox” to pay for general accounting, and he is the only politician I’ve heard who has said Social Security and Medicare could be fully funded by simply bringing our troops home and closing our 900 military bases around the world. Notice how Chomsky isn’t even aware of Ron Paul’s position on this issue and is just turning this into a generalized rant.

His claims about SS being “broken” are just false.

Oh, really? Aren’t more people receiving benefits now than are paying in to the system? Where’s the money for this program?

He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based, the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need.

Here we come right down to it. Chomsky wants a “communal” decision, decided by, of course, Chomsky. Allowing a younger worker to not pay into the communal pot is verboten. But, you say, that younger worker is one of those starving workers with three young children who can’t afford to find a place to work other than General Electric and doesn’t even have a union but only an intimidating boss! Too bad, Chomsky says, everyone has to give up thousands of dollars a year to ensure Chomsky’s own Social Security benefits.

Never mind that the money won’t be there when the starving worker reaches SS age; Chomsky doesn’t worry about that, and forget about those charts and graphs. Social Security is not “broken.” It’s immoral to say so.

Also never mind that the situation Chomsky tries to speak of in which our starving worker is taken advantage of by an intimidating boss is actually often the case with an intimidating government, which not only takes money for Social Security and Medicare out of a young worker’s paycheck but income taxes, too. Forcibly. Notice how Chomsky’s sympathy for the workers does not extend to the big hand of government forcing them to hand over 40% of their paycheck.

He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

Funny, when Chomsky reads the First Amendment, he takes it to say what it means. When he reads the Second Amendment, he tries to say it doesn’t really mean what it really means.

And what is this about the Constitution not being enacted in a way that Ron Paul would agree with? Ron Paul bases every political position he takes on the Constitution. Chomsky is against just making stuff up here.

At the end, Chomsky says that he would support Hillary Clinton over Ron Paul (yes, the Iraq War-supporting, Drug War-supporting, current Israel policy-supporting, Patriot Act-voting, bailout-supporting, not-ruling-out-nukes-against-Iran Hillary Clinton.) Now that’s a principled vote!

So who’s the fundamentalist?

I agree with the We the People Foundation on a few different, very important, points– for instance, the federal government should be directly accountable to the people through the redress of grievance system as mentioned in the Constitution. The group believes in abiding by the text of the Constitution, and they’re certainly right that our current government has gone far astray from that.

However, they undermine these valid points by focusing on tax protests (which have gotten them banned from certain activities through the courts and forced to give up a list of some of their supporters, increasing those supporters’ chances of an audit) and now this.

How does it make any sense at all that Obama was born in Kenya? Imagine you’re a 19-year-old American college student who married a Kenyan and is going to have a baby. Are you going to have the baby in an American hospital or are you going to go to Kenya to give birth in a hut? Imagine you’re that girl’s concerned parents. They were probably already upset enough about the situation already. Would they really have let their daughter fly to Kenya to have their grandchild?

I honestly don’t think so. Occam’s Razor applies here. It just wouldn’t have made sense for Obama’s mother to go to Kenya at that point.

And let’s say that Obama had been born in Kenya. You really don’t think that in that (to put it mildly) seriously cash-strapped country that a single Kenyan hospital employee– or villager– wouldn’t have run to the nearest press outlet willing to pony up and told all about how little Barack Obama was born at their hospital, or down the street? The country is so proud of him that it seems they’d be very willing to brag about how he was born there.

Finally, despite his birth certificate, does it matter if Obama was born in Kenya? His mother is an American, and I see no reason why he shouldn’t be an American citizen even if she was visiting another country. This is a different situation than Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was born in Austria to Austrian parents.

Who, eight years ago, could have predicted that Al Gore’s right-hand sidekick Lieberman would be one of the biggest backers of the GOP ticket in 2008, with Powell not far behind espousing how great the Democratic nominee is? (Meanwhile, Joe Biden doesn’t know what he’s saying, as usual.)

It’s too bad that the Powell-Obama and Lieberman-McCain non-partisan lovefests have come about for the pettiest of reasons: Powell is upset that Bush made him look like a fool in front of the world at the UN. Lieberman is upset that Democrats didn’t support him in his primary race against Ned Lamont in Connecticut after he came out and supported the Iraq War so strongly. Does either really have America’s best interests at heart, or are each looking forward to their respective Cabinet appointments in Obama and McCain administrations?

(I long ago lost most of my respect for Colin Powell– who couldn’t have with his appearance before the United Nations? This is also the man keeping gays out of the military.)

If I were Obama, I would therefore be less proud about getting Powell’s endorsement and revel in the endorsement of London mayor Boris Johnson, who is a libertarian (on some issues, at least) and a former Tory member of Parliament. In other words, this is not necessarily an obvious person to stump for Obama. Johnson defeated “Red Ken” Livingstone for the office of mayor earlier this year, and that’s enough for me to love him forever. But he’s also one of those politicians I wish America had, one who can say what he really thinks and still get elected. What a concept.

Anyway, what Boris thinks now is that Obama should be elected for many of the same reasons I’ve mentioned in favor of Obama’s candidacy: the rest of the world will respect it, the Republicans haven’t earned it, McCain has offered little reason to think he can do better, and electing a black man would show the rest of the world that America is truly an accepting place. I agree these are good reasons, but none of them have to do with Obama directly. Johnson obviously respects McCain, but is mostly basing this on the current Republican administration in general. He doesn’t like Obama’s policies and says he hopes that his tax plan is blocked by Congress (I wouldn’t count on that). Melanie Phillips of The Spectator responds that Boris has succumbed to “Neocon Derangement Syndrome”:

How else to explain the fact that for paragraph after paragraph he exults that an Obama victory will be a triumph for black people because he is black – only to conclude that such a victory will demonstrate that being black is a total irrelevance?!

Johnson writes in his Obama endorsement:

It would be tough for any candidate to receive the Republican baton from Dubya, and McCain can be proud of doing as well as he is.

His chief problem is that he does not seem to offer any hope of repair to those American ideals.

Or, to put it another way, it is not clear how America under McCain would recover her standing in the eyes of the world.

Sure, Obama might be a socialist who ruins the health care landscape for aspiring medical doctors like myself. But, even if he’s really bad, it’ll be a different kind of bad than we’ve had the last eight years.

That certainly is the best reason to vote for Obama, and it’s a difficult one to argue against; Radley Balko agrees.

Since Hillary gave up, Obama has lost his luster for me. He doesn’t bring any sort of change I or any self-respecting libertarian can really believe in. The Wall Street Journal lays out some of the reasons succinctly.

Now, of course we also come to the other side of the coin. History teaches us that George W. Bush talked a good game in 2000 (no nation-building, Americans aren’t the police officers of the world, smaller government is good, etc.) and if you went on substance rather than style and voted for the idiot, you were voting for someone who immediately jettisoned his campaign promises and increased the size of government more than any Democrat in at least 40 years. He doubled the size of some government agencies (including the Department of Education), introduced the largest entitlement program since the beginning of Medicare with the Medicare prescription drug “benefit,” and wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars using America to act as 911 for the world. Al Gore is a real small government guy compared to W.

So now, do we trust Obama- who seems like he can think through things and maybe listen to the other side, although he never actually votes that way– or McCain, whom some have called “the most reliable Democrat” in the Senate and someone who thinks we should spend 100 years in Iraq, someone who actually has reached out to the other side, even if a little bit too much.

McCain once said he didn’t know as much about economics as he should, something that is true about almost all Americans including myself; Obama doesn’t know that much about economics, either, but he doesn’t admit it, so on that respect I think McCain seems more forthright about his weaknesses and more willing to surround himself with advisers who do know what they’re talking about.

Is Obama going to “reach across the aisle” as he likes to say and give us libertarians anything to cheer about? Is McCain going to reach across the aisle too much and give us nothing?

This is why a libertarian– even in a swing state– might be better off keeping a clear conscience and voting for Bob Barr.

One thing the polished Miss Williams did buy into, something that seems to be gaining traction in the progressive hivemind, is the promise of “green jobs.” Senator Obama talked about green jobs and the promise of a new energy economy. I posited that government’s bipartisan management of ethanol, a single energy product, has been so clownish and corrupt as to bring into question goverment’s ability to manage an entire energy economy, one that will presumably have lots of products, many of them more complex than corn-gas, and most of which presumably do not yet exist. I ask if this gives Miss Williams pause. It gives her none. Her response, which is expected, is that if only we get the right people into office, government will be good at doing things that government has never been good at doing before. She really, really seems to believe this when she says it. Sen. Obama seems to believe it, too. I ask Miss Williams how the government should go about bringing us into the clear bright day of green jobs. She answers: training. I ask her if she means that the government should begin training people for jobs that do not exist. She answers in the affirmative. She smiles.

Update: Excellent article from “Reason” on the problems with Obama saying he’ll create green jobs.

Joe the Plumber is the perfect messenger: he’s not a Wall Street banker or a lawyer or even a doctor. His name is actually Joe, and he provides an important, if un-glamourous, service: plumbing. No one becomes a plumber because they want to be a millionaire, although I’m sure plumbing, like garbage collecting, can help someone earn a good living because there’s less competition in people who want to take on the job.

Those who are criticizing Joe as a wealthy man who needs to hand over his dough to other Americans (as is the case with the New York Times’ Caucus comment section seem to think Joe is making his work visits in limos and relaxing, sipping champagne while he’s fixing people’s plumbing. The man says he wants to save for his son’s college education and works 10 to 12 hours a day to do so (and by the time his son gets to college, the price tag for tuition will be so over-inflated that he might in fact need that entire $250,000 a year to pay it).

Joe the Plumber (actually Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio) wants to buy a business, see– he doesn’t have the business now, he just wants to buy it and would be making “payments for years” on it– and he’s hoping the profits would be more than the $250,000 threshold for Obama’s tax cuts. If it is, his taxes will go up and a lot of that profit will be gone, when he’s just trying to fix people’s plumbing, make a living for his family, and save for his son’s college education. A tax increase means he won’t be able to hire other plumbers on– creating those jobs Obama is always talking about– and he won’t be able to buy a new truck– helping those American car companies Obama is always catering to in Detroit.

In other words, he might not be able to buy the business at all.

… I’m planning on purchasing this company – it’s not something I’m gonna purchase outright, it’s something I’m going to have to make payments on for years – but essentially I’m going to buy this company, and the profits generated by that could possibly put me in that tax bracket he’s talking about and that bothers me. It’s not like I would be rich; I would still just be a working plumber. I work hard for my money, and the fact that he thinks I make a little too much that he just wants to redistribute it to other people. Some of them might need it, but at the same time, it’s not their discretion to do it – it’s mine.

Joe says about himself:

you know, my big thing is the American Dream. I work hard. You know, I was poor; my mom raised me and my brother by herself for a very long time until my dad came along. So I know what it’s like to suffer. It’s not like I was born with a silver spoon… Eventually – I mean, just to sound a little silly here, but you need rich people. I mean, who are you going to work for?

You start giving people stuff, and then they start expecting it – and that scares me. A lot of people expect it now. They get upset when their check’s late, they get upset when they don’t get as many benefits as they used to, or when different government agencies are cut or spending is cut here and there for whatever reason – people get upset at that. And that’s because they’re used to getting it and they want more. I mean, everyone’s always gonna want more. People work the system left and right to get more out of welfare, to get more out of state assistance, federal assistance. And if government’s there for them, they’re gonna keep on trying to manipulate it to get more out of it. You got people that come along and say, “Hey, I wanna help you people,” I mean, they’re all ears! They’re like, “Hey, you can help me more, I don’t have to work as hard, I don’t have to do as much, and you’re gonna give me this? Man, that’s great, you’re a good guy.”

That is essentially what is wrong with our politics and the fundamental problem with a government such as the one we have– the tendency will always be towards bigger government, although that is not necessarily the best way to go for the long run.

So yeah, it goes down the socialist – His healthcare plan scares me. You know, I don’t like people going without healthcare, but it’s not my job to pay for everyone else’s healthcare. It’s hard enough paying for my own. I like the idea of deregulation as far as – nationally, you know, you only get insurance companies that can work in this state – if you deregulate that then you have more people competing and then the prices would go lower. It seems pretty simple to me. It probably isn’t that simple – but you flood the market with more products, usually they go down cheaper.

With just a few paragraphs, Joe has proven himself to be better at understanding basic economic facts than even a Nobel Prize-winning economist like Paul Krugman; he essentially expounded on many of the best and basic reasons why a free market economy, with rare exception, works better than a regulated, planned, socialist one: we need rich people because we all need to aspire to something. Ask anyone in this country if they want to be rich or not, and overwhelmingly they’ll say they do. Sure, some genuinely might not care, but if given the choice, we’d pretty much all prefer to be wealthy, and that’s what keeps us plumbing and garbage collecting and teaching and nursing and selling real estate. We all have the chance to be wealthy, if we work hard enough at something we’re good at. That’s why Joe the Plumber works 10 to 12 hours a day, and it’s why anyone would work 10 to 12 hours a day.

Regulation is usually ineffective and devastates competition, thereby decreasing choices for consumers and quality of services and products.

And what is Joe the Plumber’s idea of the American Dream?

Me personally, my American Dream was to have a house, a dog, a couple rifles, a bass boat. I believe in living life easy and simple. I don’t have grand designs. I don’t want much. I just wanna be able to take care of my family and do things with them outdoors and that’s about it, really. I don’t have a “grand scheme” thing. My American Dream is just more personal to me as far as working, making a good living and being able to provide for my family, college for my son. Things like that – simple things in life, that’s really what it comes down to for me. That’s my dream.

This guy deserves a New York Times column.

Anyway, here’s an economist’s summary of the last debate:

The debate was truly awful. The financial crisis was caused by greed (McCain) and deregulation (Obama). We need energy independence. Our priority is to do everything at once (McCain). We will cut spending by spending more (Obama). We can create jobs.

Let me ignore the rest, and focus on jobs. We can create jobs by getting rid of computers and going back to carbon paper for communication and paper and pencil for arithmetic. We can create jobs by getting rid of electric motors and going back to human power to run factories. As long as wants are unlimited, you don’t need to create jobs.

If the candidates were out to correct economic ignorance instead of pandering to it, the debate would not resemble last night’s in any way. There was no winner. Only losers.