A bit on Noam Chomsky

[Gary Childress]

Against my better judgement I'm posting this. This is an interesting tidbit on Noam Chomsky. I've not verified its accuracy other than it being mentioned in a Wikipedia article referring to an article published by one of Chomsky's detractors.

I've often wondered what Chomsky did with proceeds from the sales of his books. God knows his books have sold well over the years. I've heard that he donates some of his income to various causes.

Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institute, in an article called Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist states that Chomsky, who has criticized tax havens and concentration of wealth, has himself (with a net worth of $2,000,000) used a trust to avoid taxation. "Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income." Schweizer argues that Chomsky has criticized the concept of intellectual property, a position Schweizer maintains is hypocritical in light of the fact that much of Chomsky's own material is copyrighted and distributed for a fee.[61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

I've heard that Chomsky has refused to pay taxes on grounds that they will only be used toward the furtherment of American empire. I'm wondering if Schweizer is confusing Chomsky's avoidance of taxes on dissent grounds with a desire to profit from it. In other words, perhaps Chomsky is simply using a trust to legally dissent on his taxes rather than break the law in his dissent.

I say this because I would suspect that Chomsky's books (as well as teaching salary) have brought much more than $2,000,000 in net revenue for him over the decades. If he was truly interested in profit then surely he would have amassed much greater wealth. $2,000,000 does seem like an awfully modest amount considering the stellar height of his career.

Perhaps this gives a little idea of the many ways misunderstandings may have arisen surrounding Chomsky's career. Often his critics fail to give him even the slightest benefit of doubt before they jump down his throat. Nor do they listen to Chomsky's own rebuttals to their criticisms.

Just thought this was interesting.

 

[amadeus]

Frank Whittle was the same way up until Power Jets was nationalized, then he joined the Conservative Party.

 

[Gary Childress]

Frank Whittle was the same way up until Power Jets was nationalized, then he joined the Conservative Party.

I'm not familiar with who Frank Whittle is or anything surrounding this story. Would you elaborate a little more?

 

[Mise]

First of all, I can only hope that one day I should have a wiki article dedicated to criticisms of me.

Secondly, I'm assuming for the sake of argument (lol) that the allegations are true.

I've heard that Chomsky has refused to pay taxes on grounds that they will only be used toward the furtherment of American empire.

That is singularly the worst excuse for tax avoidance I've ever heard in my life. I would have far more respect for the man if he simply said that he was exercising his legal right to have assets in a trust to avoid tax. This is perfectly legal, and I see no moral contradiction between advocating higher taxes and paying the legally required amount of tax (as opposed to, say, paying more tax than is legally required, which is what not holding it in a trust would be tantamount to).

But to suggest that he was avoiding tax for some noble, laudable goal is bare-faced cheek. It's the worst example of intellectual disingenuity outside of the political sphere. It's pathetic.

 

[Gary Childress]

First of all, I can only hope that one day I should have a wiki article dedicated to criticisms of me.

Secondly, I'm assuming for the sake of argument (lol) that the allegations are true.


That is singularly the worst excuse for tax avoidance I've ever heard in my life. I would have far more respect for the man if he simply said that he was exercising his legal right to have assets in a trust to avoid tax. This is perfectly legal, and I see no moral contradiction between advocating higher taxes and paying the legally required amount of tax (as opposed to, say, paying more tax than is legally required, which is what not holding it in a trust would be tantamount to).

But to suggest that he was avoiding tax for some noble, laudable goal is bare-faced cheek. It's the worst example of intellectual disingenuity outside of the political sphere. It's pathetic.

Chomsky is well known for his consciencious objection to American foreign policy. He doesn't want to be held complicit in what he sees to be injustices carried out by the US by donating his income to the cause.

If you were going to make a noble statement by not paying your taxes on moral grounds how would you do it without ending up in jail? If he was purely interested in profit, considering how successful his career as a writer and professor has been, he would surely have amassed much, much more than a measly $2,000,000 dollars. It seems a bit vitriolic to judge him so harshly so quickly without considering the possibilities.

 

[Princeps]

Chomsky tried tax protesting for sometime long time ago, but got frustrated with the (lack of) results and gave up. I don't see how its relevant to the issues he is discussing.

 

[Bast]

First of all, I can only hope that one day I should have a wiki article dedicated to criticisms of me.

Secondly, I'm assuming for the sake of argument (lol) that the allegations are true.


That is singularly the worst excuse for tax avoidance I've ever heard in my life. I would have far more respect for the man if he simply said that he was exercising his legal right to have assets in a trust to avoid tax. This is perfectly legal, and I see no moral contradiction between advocating higher taxes and paying the legally required amount of tax (as opposed to, say, paying more tax than is legally required, which is what not holding it in a trust would be tantamount to).

But to suggest that he was avoiding tax for some noble, laudable goal is bare-faced cheek. It's the worst example of intellectual disingenuity outside of the political sphere. It's pathetic.

I agree. He's a hypocrite. He should just stick to linguistics.

 

[Gary Childress]

Chomsky tried tax protesting for sometime long time ago, but got frustrated with it and gave up.

Are you sure he gave it up? Sounds to me like he might still be doing it only perhaps in a different manner.

 

[amadeus]

I'm not familiar with who Frank Whittle is or anything surrounding this story. Would you elaborate a little more?

He was a British jet engine designer who was a staunch socialist, then converted when only his company was nationalized by the British government.

 

[Princeps]

Are you sure he gave it up? Sounds to me like he might still be doing it only perhaps in a different manner.

Yes. There's a video on youtube (somewhere) in which he is asked, in a Q&A session whether he has tried tax protest. He answered yes, but said he doesn't do it anymore and that he didn't think that it was really an effective form of resistence. It's been long time ago since I've watched the video, but he said something to that effect.

 

[Mise]

Chomsky is well known for his consciencious objection to American foreign policy. He doesn't want to be held complicit in what he sees to be injustices carried out by the US by donating his income to the cause.

If you were going to make a noble statement by not paying your taxes on moral grounds how would you do it without ending up in jail? If he was purely interested in profit, considering how successful his career as a writer and professor has been, he would surely have amassed much, much more than a measly $2,000,000 dollars. It seems a bit vitriolic to judge him so harshly so quickly without considering the possibilities.

I dunno, how about moving abroad???

Most people can't move abroad, perhaps because they can't find work, or they can't afford the upheaval costs, or they aren't very good at learning new languages. Perhaps they have family that they want to keep in close touch with, and can't afford to fly back every few months. Noam Chomsky, with his $2m, can probably afford all that and more, especially if you are correct that he's amassed much, much more.

Now, I'm not a "love it or leave it" kinda guy. I'm more practical than that. And, as I said, I don't think it's morally contradictory to avoid tax whilst campaigning for higher taxes. However, his stated goals are contradictory with his actions; it's a much more reasonable hypothesis that he simply doesn't want to pay more taxes than he has to.

 

[amadeus]

Whatever his tax situation may be, it could certainly be assumed that from his net worth that he does not personally follow through with his belief of helping those unable/unwilling to help themselves. We tend to call these people "limousine liberals," but I understand our friends across the pond may use "champagne socialist," either of which I find favor with.

 

[Bast]

Has he engaged in any form of philanthropy for people, environment? I'll have a lot more respect for him if he used his money to bring about meaningful change in people lives rather than just complain.

 

[amadeus]

Has he engaged in any form of philanthropy for people, environment? I'll have a lot more respect for him if he used his money to bring about meaningful change in people lives rather than just complain.

Better yet, ask this: who in the end will ultimately provide a path to the greatest source of wealth to those in need? Will it be Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of Microsoft that has pledged away his fortune, or will it be a bitter lecturer at MIT that writes books about the evils of American foreign policy?

 

[Gary Childress]

Has he engaged in any form of philanthropy for people, environment? I'll have a lot more respect for him if he used his money to bring about meaningful change in people lives rather than just complain.

I've heard that he has donated money to just causes and of course his whole political life has been one of standing up and voicing protest against what he thinks are injustices. You could almost say his whole political life he has been dedicated to the service of his fellow humans.

Princeps has a good point in that his actions still don't negate the validity of his arguments. And of course perhaps he is simply pursuing the American dream like many of the rest of us and trying to get what he can out of the money he hasn't donated or spent toward his political endeavors.

As I said in the OP I did post this against my better judgement. My better judgement said that I should leave poor Noam Chomsky alone. After all he has done a lot more than I could ever do to help people and it is probably in bad taste of me to even assume that I could critique Chomsky's financial affairs. But I guess I just had to cave into the tabloid loving side of me.

 

[Gary Childress]

Better yet, ask this: who in the end will ultimately provide a path to the greatest source of wealth to those in need? Will it be Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of Microsoft that has pledged away his fortune, or will it be a bitter lecturer at MIT that writes books about the evils of American foreign policy?

On the one hand you could perhaps say that Bill Gates has given us a lot of good things. On the other hand you might say Noam Chomsky has worked to prevented a lot of bad things from happening (to whatever degree of success). I don't necessarily see it as one has made a greater contribution than the other.

 

[Fifty]

When I first read some of his stuff on politics I was extremely skeptical. Then when I searched for substantive criticisms of his views and I found little else than non-sequiters like this (and "ivory tower" type claims), and (false) claims that he was OK with the khmer rouge, I became much less skeptical of his political writings. After all, if he really was wrong then you'd think people would be able to come up with a criticism that wasn't idiotic.

 

[Mise]

I think your first mistake was looking for substantive criticism of a political viewpoint. Politicians, deliberately or not, exploit our cognitive biases, commit logical fallacies and speak in non-sequiturs exactly because our brains are wired to respond favourably to those things. They're highly effective.

 

[amadeus]

When I first read some of his stuff on politics I was extremely skeptical. Then when I searched for substantive criticisms of his views and I found little else than non-sequiters like this (and "ivory tower" type claims), and (false) claims that he was OK with the khmer rouge, I became much less skeptical of his political writings. After all, if he really was wrong then you'd think people would be able to come up with a criticism that wasn't idiotic.

I think you also have to look at the rather outlandish claims that Chomsky himself makes about politics, though. Was the invasion of Afghanistan really the "wanton killing of innocent civilians"? Was China under Mao Zedong and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh really giving democratic control to local groups? Is it really moral to supply arms to Hezbollah?

 

[Fifty]

I think you also have to look at the rather outlandish claims that Chomsky himself makes about politics, though. Was the invasion of Afghanistan really the "wanton killing of innocent civilians"? Was China under Mao Zedong and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh really giving democratic control to local groups? Is it really moral to supply arms to Hezbollah?

Well I haven't actually seen him make those statements... do you have a citation? Note that I don't trust things that come from the likes of David Horowitz.

Sure, he says a ton of things that are outside of "conventional wisdom", but his entire point is that conventional wisdom is false, and he seems to source every factual claim he makes quite rigorously (although I don't actually go and check every footnote citation).