They are two figures who I greatly admire, yet who disagree on fundamental political policy. They represent two sides of the debate: one the socially conscious progressive movement that values equality, the other the conservative value for less government involvement and greater liberties. If I had them in a room together, could I make them see eye to eye?

Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul both refer to themselves a libertarians. Chomsky, however, doesn’t support Ron Paul libertarianism because he thinks it will lead to the tyranny of corporations. But would that really be the case? I hate to criticize Chomsky since he’s such an incredibly intelligent man, but is he just reacting to a false stereotype of a Republican running on a “small government” platform? I think they have more similarities and common interests than Chomsky acknowledges.

Watch these two videos with Noam Chomsky: One on the political ideology of libertarianism and one with comments regarding Ron Paul’s political ideology and then read the rest of this article:

Noam Chomsky, a popular voice of criticism of current U.S. policy and professor Emeritus at MIT, refers to the potential for positive political change coming from the momentum of support behind Ron Paul. Yet he believes that Paul is subject to what he calls a “fixed doctrine.” One would assume he means the doctrine of the conservative right-wring. But is that really the case? It is important to bare in mind that Paul ran as an independent in the 2008 presidential election, and while he is competing for the Republican ticket for greater exposure and a better chance at winning the election (just like he did in 2008), he is really an independent at heart, who drastically veers from the Republican “fixed ideology.” Perhaps Chomsky is unaware of this?

Ron Paul certainly isn’t buddy buddy with corporations. He has held steadfast in his belief that corporations should be stripped of legal personhood, and that the individuals who run those companies should be held accountable for a companies illegal actions. And corporations certainly haven’t been backing his campaign either. Nor have the billionaire Koch brothers who funded the Tea Party policies that cut spending on social programs. Instead his campaign has been funded completely by small private donations.

Both Chomsky and Paul value greater freedom and genuine functioning democracy. The major difference in opinion lies in the fact that Paul doesn’t view powerful corporations and the wealthy as the enemy to genuine democracy as Chomsky does. Chomsky talks about how powerful corporations live in symbiosis with big government through subsidized capitalism–a process by which for profit companies receive tax dollars to produce things like oil or food. The fact that the government offers this free money is largely what drives the corporate desire to influence and control government. Noam Chomsky prefers a society of liberty and equality over that of corporate control and subsidized capitalism, and this is exactly what Ron Paul aims to do: to restore the free market, and stop paying out subsidies.

Where the two figures really seem to split hairs is on the government involvement in protecting and preserving social equality. The big concern is that corporations will gain great freedoms at the expense of social welfare in Paul’s free market economy. Perhaps this aspect better explains Chomsky’s negative reference to the “fixed ideology” in regard to Ron Paul and his followers. Perhaps he meant to reference the myth that free markets guarantee social equality. Chomsky points out, that Adam Smith notion of the invisible hand only works under circumstances of perfect liberty and equality, which does not exist in the US, and only exists in poor third world countries.

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, which means he believes it is the governments responsibility to protect and ensure equality of people, which translates into more government. Ron Paul is just a straight forward libertarian, who believes less government will do the trick–that the free market will solve these problems well enough by itself–or at least that’s the way Paul’s critics would sardonically put it. There is one more complex aspect that is missing from Paul’s free-market economic ideology–an idea that modern political theory gives little credit: The idea that it is the moral responsibility of individuals and corporations to serve the social welfare of their communities. Paul makes a good point about how the governments involvement in providing social programs and regulating corporations, has actually undermined simple social responsibility of people for their neighbors, and corporations to their communities.

Both of these men are aiming to solve the same problem, but in different ways. Ultimately I agree with Ron Paul. A government will never be able to ensure equality and fairness, and as soon as government attempts to enforce this equality, it will only create tyranny. Imbalance of power is an inherent part of life, it is the mitigation of power that represents moral commitment that creates community, and no law can create community. Chomsky’s intention is good and the abuse of power is a major problem in society, but it should not be the responsibility of the government to address issues of moral responsibility in the first place. The government should protect the basic rights and freedoms of people as guaranteed by the constitution, but otherwise allow people and corporations to be free.

Although it doesn’t guaranteed perfect equality, people will actually be empowered under a free market system in several ways. If government is small in both size and budget, then corporations really have little interest in gaining subsidies from it, or attempting to lobby for favors. The attachment of large corporations to government itself, makes them all the more powerful, and without it they would loose much of the sway they hold in politics. Paul even argues that government regulations that supposedly protect us from corporate misdeeds, actually empower corporations, since the big companies can afford lawyers to find loopholes. As a result, he argues regulations have a heavier burden on individuals and small businesses. People will no longer expect their government to hold corporations accountable, rather it will be up to people themselves to hold corporations accountable.

Both of these men believe in a return to moral responsibility. Chomsky, of course, is worried that the inequality under a free-market economic system would make corporations less responsible and more immoral then before, making it impossible for people to rise up an challenge their “tyrannical rule”. He believes that corporations and the wealthy would use their power to disrupt the fair democratic process. But Chomsky doesn’t offer a practical way to get to that perfect liberty, and I think Ron Paul has the best practical suggestion. Certainly corporations may continue to exert their influence upon government, and they may very well not live up to their moral obligations, but I believe this would be the impetus for real and sincere social change. And I believe this would return this country to a sense of moral responsibility along with a renewed sense of community.

Chomsky’s fears that America under Paul would be in a state of ultra-nationalism and corporate tyranny are really the result of a stereotype that many people hold against Conservatives, which does not add to the debate. While, Chomsky’s concerns about corporate power disrupting a fair democratic process are legitimate,, I think ultimately, in a free society, we have to accept that power is a facet of social life, it is not always a bad thing either, but that one cannot make anyone, whether it be the wealthy or corporations, into moral or ethical entities. This is the responsibility of the people themselves.