Chomsky Chomps At The Libertarian Bit

"If you care about other people, that’s now a very dangerous idea. If you care about other people, you might try to organize to undermine power and authority. That’s not going to happen if you care only about yourself. Maybe you can become rich, but you don’t care whether other people’s kids can go to school, or can afford food to eat, or things like that. In the United States, that’s called “libertarian” for some wild reason. I mean, it’s actually highly authoritarian, but that doctrine is extremely important for power systems as a way of atomizing and undermining the public."

Blah, blah, yah, yah, yap, yap.

Oh, dear. Noam and is socialist sophistry is at it again.

I've never read anywhere in 300 years of classical liberal literature a person claim they don't care about the children.

That's one gigantic mozza-strawman he hurled up there for some to bat out of the sky.

In my view, it's normal to care about other people and even to help people without relying or believing the government should exact its power to force everyone else to help them too.

We officially live in a double speak world when left-wingers claim libertarians are "authoritarians." If anything, I argue it's the absence of authoritarianism that hurts libertarian principles in politics. 

Last, I'd like to know how they can be for small, decentralized government and be authoritarian at the same time.