"I completely agree."

If you want to know what the average student at UC Santa Cruz is thinking, it's exactly that. The so-called 'critical mind' is not the least bit critical. Perhaps critical of the "establishment", but as far as the student-professor relation is concerned, they are preaching to the choir. As John J. Ray states, "The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present."

It's almost as if I am back in community college, where the professor continues with her lecture in front of a silent class - half of them drank too much the previous night, didn't get enough sleep, or are busy thinking about other things. The other half are bored out of their minds.

Here, it's different. The students are not silent because they are bored. They are silent because they have no objection to what the professor is saying.

The university system and all of academia have this unhealthy fixation with diversity. What does it really mean? Sure, you can paint each robot in your robot army all different colors. You can change their shapes and sizes, but fundamentally they are all still robots. Academia loves to speak their volumes about how having lots of people who look different make higher education better, even if all those people are more or less ideologically homogeneous. If we're all thinking and doing the same things, does it really matter how we look?

Today the instructor (feminist studies graduate student, mind you) put on a DVD of a Noam Chomsky lecture, complete with a packed lecture hall of wide-eyed and attentive college students ready to greedily lap up everything that St. Noam speaks without hesitation or question.

The theme of the lecture was that the world's terrorists are the US and Israel. No mention of the centuries of terror and slaughter that Jews and Christians have faced as a result of their dhimmitude in the Middle East. No mention of the massive bombing campaigns carried out by Hezbollah against anyone associated with the US or Israel. No, the world's worst terrorists are the US and Israel, which have only become world and regional superpowers, respectively, in the last 30 years. Chomsky has a very limited view of history, and refuses to acknowledge his double standards.

His "thesis #1" was that we are all hypocrites in regard to our views on terrorism. Well, if that's true Mr. Chomsky, where do you fit into the subject of "we all"? Are you a hypocrite as well, or are you conveniently shielded from criticism because you're the one lecturing? Are you so focused on the speck in the eyes of others that you can't or won't see the log embedded in your own short-sighted vision of global politics?

Chomsky may be aware that is was CIA-backed Lebanese that detonated the car bomb that killed 80 worshippers as they left a Beiruit mosque instead of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, an ex-leader of Hezbollah, yet frames the claim that the attempt was directly done by the CIA and in the context of total Lebanese innocence and not retaliation for attacks by Hezbollah.

Chomsky rationalizes, excuses, and downplays terrorism that is not committed by the US or Israel. It seems that one finds it easier to point the fingers at large things than at small things, no matter how minor or grievous the acts in question are. He is opposed to US "hegemony", yet sees no problem with UN hegemony. To Chomsky, the UN can do no wrong. He is still highly critical of US action in the former Yugoslavia, yet finds little to say about the same UN that essentially allowed the Srebrenica massacre (of Muslims, no doubt!) to occur under Dutch auspices.

Chomsky is the type who slams the US on its foreign policy in Iraq, but would join the legions of drones in condemning the US for not doing anything to free Iraq from the murderous Baathists had the US instead gone the diplomatic route, just as we are with the genocide in Darfur. US refusal to intervene in Iraq would probably have prompted hemp-wearing Community Studies majors across the US to add a "Free Iraq" bumper sticker to the back of the Prius their parents bought (so they could look hip and environmentally responsible, all while allowing Toyota to use massive amounts of toxins and heavy metals in the manufacture of the batteries) for them, alongside the Obama '08 and "Free Darfur" "Free Burma" and "Free Tibet" stickers.

That's what the aggregation of international law, "condemnation", and UN Resolutions have culminated in: bumper stickers. That's the only thing they have to show. It's a big boost for capitalism. I mean, who wouldn't delight in making the adage "a fool and his money are soon parted" a reality?

Chomsky's beloved international law and the UN are somehow institutions to be respected, yet no other nation or coalition of nations have ever been able to put pressure on the US or Israel. Condemnation and scorn are the only tools the UN has at its disposal, as if the multiple failed resolutions commanding Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors free reign of all Iraqi facilities weren't enough evidence to showcase the toothlessness of the UN.

If Chomsky is so concerned about double standards, berates others for having them, and then refuses to acknowledge his own, why have standards in the first place? Leftism rejects all objectivity, and standards would imply some form of objectivity. If he is so concerned about US hegemony, wouldn't it have a better net result for the European Union, the African Union, the Arab League, and the Asian states to bring the US down on its knees either through economic or military force? Chomsky is opposed to violence, but that all depends on who is carrying out the violence and how well Chomsky is prepared to rationalize it.

Chomsky has been quick to declare that Israeli and US leadership should be detained, charged with war crimes, and then sentenced, but Keith Windschuttle says in a New Criterion article:

"No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented."

He has downplayed the horrific acts of Slobodan Milosevič's regime, citing Western "aggression" as a catalyst for the subsequent attempts at ethnic cleansing. Chomsky is not averse to making up information that suits his views, no matter how fiercely he criticizes others for the same behaviour. His statements that the US attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory caused "tens of thousands of deaths" was strongly refuted by Human Rights Watch - who never made an official investigation to determine the number of dead as a direct result of the attack. Here, Chomsky is practically pulling figures out of thin air. The Tomahawk missile strike disrupted food distribution, not to mention the hostility against US aid groups working in the Sudan, so the "tens of thousands of deaths" still would have occured due to the Sudan's internal condition of civil war and famine.

Chomsky frequently uses the word "obvious" in describing unverified and uncited statements about events that he makes. Anyone who criticizes his description of those events would be identified as someone who cannot see the obvious; someone who is ignorant - that old word that the Left loves to throw at anyone they disagree with. Who's going to take you seriously if you're IGNORANT? It's just another way of shutting down criticism and establishing Chomsky-ites and other members of the Left as the omniscient ones. He uses the phrase "too obvious to talk about" as if to say "this is not open to discussion", yet such an assumption is in direct violation of his first thesis of "we are all hypocrites". I found, and continue to find to this present moment, his glaring hypocrisy and narcissism to be absolutely sickening.

Here is a man who is fabulously wealthy - in a First World nation, not an authoritarian Third World country like the ones he so zealously defends without little regard to their own behavior - who decries tax shelters and concentration of wealth, yet the Hoover Institute clearly shows that Chomsky himself has made use of trusts to guard his ill-gotten wealth (what else can you call a massive sum of money made in a capitalist nation by a mainstream critic of capitalism?). When confronted about his tax shelter, Chomsky rationalized his hypocrisy by stating that he is setting aside the money for his children and grandchildren, which I'm pretty sure those other rich people are doing, too. He went on to shift the attention away from himself in saying that he and his family shouldn't be criticized because they are "trying to help suffering people".

Does he think about the environmental destruction that comes as a result from the trees cut down to make the paper for his books? Does he even care? Like so many other authors and celebrities on the Left, it's not likely they really care as long as they can get their point across. It's a "necessary sacrifice" or "using the system against itself", much like Al Gore's 221,000 kWh-using mansion/office along with the private jets that he takes to and from colleges when giving commencement speeches.

Speaking of taxes and the "rich", the IRS data still adamantly refuses to corroborate the claims of the wealth redistributionists. New data points to the fact that while the top 1% of income earners receive 22% of all income, they end up paying 40% of income taxes. If that isn't enough, the entire top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. Who's really isn't paying their "fair share"? The poor use the most social services, yet most of them are receiving aid that they did not and will not pay for.

On top of that, the US has a higher corporate tax rate than the "sustainable and progressive" EU! It's easy to stop businesses from moving jobs overseas: we lower the cost of doing business. The purpose of a business is to supply a product and to offer an attractive target for investors. Businesses should have no allegiance to a government, and they should be able to do business with whomever they want, at least within legal boundaries. Stop taxing profitability and the efficient use of resources at present levels, and we can at least slow down the rate of outsourcing. Just as labor will look for the best possible wages and operating conditions, business will do the same.

What is Chomsky's complaint with the wealthy, who would still be financing the overwhelming bulk (and even more so than now!) of an expanded welfare state under an Obama administration? Wouldn't this be his dream come true - the evil and exploitive capitalists getting their just desserts at the hands of a black socialist? Chomsky is in favor of the estate tax and income redistribution, but only on the condition that it's not his own estate or his own income. After all, he has to support his family and "suffering people", so making an exception for him is completely legitimate.

The sad reality that the rest of my class took Chomsky's words at face value and without objection points to a greater problem - the refusal to criticize their own views and the "revolutionary" views that are presented to them by instructors who are presenting it as the Gospel truth, and nothing less. Just as David Horowitz said, there are plenty of feminists who have written critiques on their own movements, yet the bulk of Feminist Studies (or Womens' Studies, as it's called at most universities) majors will only read texts extolling the virtues of feminism and doing nothing but tearing down any legitimacy of masculinity. Like Chomsky implies, it should just be "obvious". To go against the "revolutionary" doctrine is to admit that one is uneducated, ignorant, racist/sexist/classist/ageist/homophobic/Islamophobic/et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

The Left pushes the doctrine of self-criticism and self-reflection, on the condition that they are exempt from the same activities.


The Oxymoronic Nature of Libertarian Socialism

Libertarianism is defined as the freedom "to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others." - libertarianism.com

The Cato Institute defines the three core principles of Libertarian thought:

Individualism: "Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility."

Individual Rights: "Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property."

Spontaneous Order: "The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes."

This is in direct opposition to socialism: the eventual abolition of private property, income redistribution, and emphasis on the collective good.

"Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor." - Encyclopedia Britannica

Socialism also entails arbitrarily defining what is "fair", how much wealth is "too much", who is "poor", and why the "poor" "deserve" the now-shared wealth of the "rich".

Private property and individual ownership is a cornerstone of Libertarian philosophy, which socialism seeks to destroy. The abolition of individual ownership is a way of denying individuals their "right" to life, liberty, and property. The Objectivist strain of Libertarians (which I somewhat identify with) see the institutions of State and Law as guarantors of such privileges, and not as a burden to them.

Socialism also places restrictions on how productive one may be, with whom one contracts for business decisions, and the amount of wealth one may have. Socialism rejects the concept of individualism, assuming that decisions affecting the collective are automatically and equally beneficial to all individuals.

Libertarian Socialism:

"Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible."

"Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists." - flag.blackened.net

Does it not strike you as odd that the abolition of private property and "egalitarianism" must be enforced by a central authority? The concept that "everything belongs to everyone" is utter tripe. "You can't have this, it belongs to everyone" is a denial of my individual right to utilize property for beneficial purposes. Who is going to define how activities benefit only oneself or society? How does libertarian socialism plan to eliminate the "gap between rich and poor"? It will have to be done through laws (implying more state power) or through violence, two things that libertarian socialism rejects.

And what happens after the redistribution? I am better at a lot of things than other people, so it is likely that I would be more successful than many other people if we all started from the same place. Bill Gates never completed college, yet he has made more of an impact on the world as we know it than 99% of all college graduates. Ability is what divides people, not class, race, or gender. In most cases, people are where they are because of skill, not because of some conspiracy that seeks to keep a perpetual massive lower class. In a constitutional republican society, such a thing is political suicide. I want people to be successful, but tearing down society and remaking it in the image and likeness of messianic egalitarian egoists is not the way to do it. People should be successful in their endeavors because they are proficient, not because it gets handed to them because they are better at making a fuss about "inequality" more than others.

Have you ever watched the 100-meter dash at the Olympics? Everyone starts from the same place, but inevitably someone wins. That means the winner was a better runner, and thus more deserving of praise than the others. Should those who come in last place be equally praised? Noam Chomsky acknowledges the imbalance of ability, but rationalizes rewarding the less-able by stating those who cannot proficiently perform tasks are valuable just because they can "appreciate" the work of others. Huh, I'd like to get paid for complimenting others' achievements. Noam Chomsky also sells millions of books, gives speeches and presentations, and has a cushy university job, so I don't think he has any right or even the proper perspective to complain about what is "unfair" or what worth certain things in society have. I highly doubt a white male who has lived in the utopia of New England academia for most of his life knows anything about working, failure, or difficulty. He is a linguist who has become a saint among the left for his political ideas - though I'm not quite sure how a linguist can have more credibility than a political scientist or an economist in discussing political or economic matters.

Libertarian socialism desires egalitarianism, collective responsibility, and "non-coercive" institutions, but it will have to coerce people like me through either law or raw force in order to enter a world not unlike that which Harrison Bergeron lived in. It must first suspend individual liberty and the ability of self-determination in order to erect the framework. Libertarian socialism claims to uphold self-determination, but it only does so in a more limited scope that is both arbitrarily imposed and must come about from statist institutions.