http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/speiser1.html Noam Chomsky vs. Noam Chomsky by Frank Speiser As we find here (in his own words), and referenced here, in words that can reasonably be attributed to him, he states that he "never opposed the draft." Mr. Chomsky goes on: "I might add, for what it’s worth, that although I was actively involved in organizing and supporting resistance (including support for draft resisters) in the 60s, and was saved from a likely prison sentence only by the Tet offensive, I was never opposed to the draft. If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen’s army. In part for the reasons that the top command oppose that option." This is a terrible disappointment. Not only because he betrays any concept of standing for fairness in support of a draft, but also because the people that seem to regularly follow him and post comments to his blogs are brain-washed at best; brain-dead at worst. For someone who has made a name for himself as a bastion of intellectual resistance to slave-minded mentality, he sure does have some dirty knees. The people that read the ZMag blog and look to him as an intellectual compass have gone along hook, line and sinker. Reading all the positive comments is enough to make you shake your head in disbelief. Mr. Chomsky and others like him have managed to co-opt the revolutionary perspective in defense of an indefensible institution. They should be ashamed. When it came time to take a principled stand, they didn’t. It’s hard to know their motives and whether Mr. Chomsky is just plain wrong, or bent his principles to fit the tired leftist tenet of "my reasoning is superior because it is unique." Maybe he doesn’t really mean what he says. There is a word for someone like that, as well. The underlying theory Chomsky espouses, is that a citizen’s conscript army would not be willing to inflict the atrocities we see going on today. It is difficult to argue with that because of all the hypotheticals, and is a subject that warrants further debate. What is fairly straightforward, is the fact that a draft does not give the individual a choice to engage in the activity, lest he risk punishment. A draft is a lose-lose situation on grounds that it places an individual in a potentially dangerous situation with an individually unfavorable economic trade-off, against his will – under threat of force. At the same time, it would at least temporarily enable more of the adventures we currently see in action. If a person, once drafted, refuses to fight, he may be punished by prison, fines, or worse (considering the treatment someone labeled as an "enemy combatant" might be subjected to). How can Mr. Chomsky possibly NOT be opposed to the draft? Fight for us, or fight us, is that it? John Ashcroft would be proud. Chomsky’s argument may be that the best army is a citizens' conscript army because a) they are bad at fighting colonial wars and b) the top of the chain of command opposes it. I don’t think it is necessary to show why those arguments are flagrantly absurd (i.e., let’s toss as many people into the meat grinder as we need, in order to show the system doesn’t work). He may have some perverse reasoning that if enough people are drafted and refuse to fight, it would undermine the drive of the fighting machine and stop the jackboots in their tracks. Even if this were true, thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?) of people would have to cede control over their own lives at gunpoint, and join an institution that is not ethical (nor consistent) in its application of force – at which point they become complicit in the atrocities. To me, that spells faulty reasoning and a blatantly unethical position. It seems hypocritical then, to make speeches criticizing the government in its use of force, and then suggest a draft, but maybe with enough linguistic camouflage Mr. Chomsky and his supporters can live with it. It’s still wrong any way we slice it, unless the argument is based on the belief that absolute force rules absolutely. Anything else implying a judgment, choice or discrimination must be interpreted that morals or values come into play and that force is not the preferred way to determine a philosophical position. In doing so, Chomsky relies on the individual exercising discretion at some point – and can not mean that "the force of the many rules all." Perhaps he should be reminded, the draft is a manifestation of absolute force nullifying individual preference. So is socialism, and so is communism. It all grows from the same tree. People like Noam Chomsky are the gardeners who water it. Chomsky and his cohorts would deny the most basic of property rights, namely that the individual retains ownership in himself. In doing so, he is able to support a draft on grounds that it would be "more fair" (note: more fair to whom?) and would limit some of atrocities being carried out today. It is clear he detests property rights on this argument alone, and his positions on all human rights should be taken with a grain of salt. At the root of all the intellectual swordplay for Chomsky and company is the belief that, when abstracted enough, the individual does not own anything – including himself. It is unclear how we are expected to trust anyone who doesn’t own his own words. It is hard to believe that anyone can stand for human rights of any sort when the individual is denied the most basic human right (human choice and self-determination) at gunpoint. Perhaps he will reconsider his position on the draft. Perhaps one day free market anarchists can reach a working relationship with socialist anarchists. My guess is that, should Chomsky respond to this, he’ll say something along the lines that his words were taken out of context. He shouldn’t be all that concerned, though. After all, they aren’t his words anyway, right? March 30, 2005 Frank Speiser [send him mail] is a partner in a technology company in Manhattan where he lives with his loving wife and two cats. Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com
I agree, I've never understood the "fairness" argument posed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D. NY) and others, in regards to the draft at all. We've certainly come to a very scary point in our society when we think that the solution to a system that sends poor kids and minorities to die in a needless war is one that sends middle-class white kids to die in a needless war too. A draft will not civilize military life as Chomsky thinks, it will militarize civil life. To think that a conscripted army would not commit the atrocities that today's volunteer army commits is: 1.) to doubt the power of the military to brainwash its inductees and 2.) to doubt the power of Life During Wartime to demoralize otherwise decent human beings and make them do things they otherwise would not let's all remember: this ain't no party this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around (sorry I couldn't resist ) Seriously though, this kind of thinking scares the shit out of me. The other argument you generally get from so-called liberal proponents of a draft is that we will all be much more careful not to "vote for war" if they know that their own children are likely to have to fight that war. I would remind these people of the 1964 presidential election between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon B. Johnson. In that election, LBJ was widely considered to be "the vote for peace", since Barry Goldwater was clearly a fanatical anti-communist nutcase, so that's who America voted for, good 'ol LBJ, the "peace candidate". Well, I hope I can assume everyone on this site has enough knowledge of recent American history to know how fucking wonderfully that worked out for us. The horrible truth is that in this "democracy" of ours there often is no "peace candidate", so I don't see how anyone can really believe that a draft will light a fire under the ass of the voting public and make them elect one.
Chomsky has some good stuff out there, but when it comes to key issues he is almost always wrong. This is a man who won't give any credit to the 9/11 truth movement or the JFK movement, or give any credit to people who investigate government crimes, yet when it comes to his work he thinks it's perfect, he's a lot like ruppert, he believes all the shit he spews out, but everyone else is bullshit. Peace and Love, Dan
Chomksy is a moron. Book smart, and street stupid. He's just your stereotypical far-left elitist who has insulated himself from the "real world" inside of academia for decades, and has no real clue how things actually work outside of MIT. And that's all I have to say about him.
I used to think Chomsky was just great during my early years of college, when being hip and "sophisticated" meant more to me than thinking for myself. Then I actually became informed and found that much of what Chomsky says is basically just rhetoric aimed at "politically motivated" college kids, who see him as some sort of intellectual god. Of course many of his followers believe they are bastions of enlightenment as well. The entire scene is just pathetic. Nevertheless, I have read much of his material, and I do like some of his work. I found Manufacturing Consent and Media Control to be particularly good. However, much of his work, in my opinion, is very disingenuous and avoids asking the real questions that any real researcher would ask. You always hear Chomsky talking about how bad and evil the US government is, without looking beyond that to who's really pulling the strings. You never hear Chomsky mention the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, who work to shape America's foreign policy from behind the scenes. Chomsky is a useful tool of the globalists, and his rhetoric is very indicative of the don't-think-go-along mentality that is being pushed on college campuses across the country these days.
