Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality. And yet, "A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in 'income-tax planning,' set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam." When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren."

The author replies with what becomes a well worn refrain by the end of the book: that Chomsky "offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam."

It's trite but true: If you go looking for hypocrisy, you'll usually find it. Moralists and moralizers of every stripe make for particularly plump targets, because they often fail to live up to their creeds. This should not be surprising, but Schweizer often treats liberal hypocrisy as though it is shocking. A little subtlety would have made Schweizer's argument more appealing, if not more persuasive.

Jeremy Lott writing for Reason does make a pretty persuasive case about why left-liberal hypocrisy is good for the country, but misses one of the key differences here between the different types of moralists. There are libertarian moralists, like me and several of the libertarians on my blogroll, who are personally inclined toward social conservatism while maintaining a libertarian view of politics. One can, for example, agree with the Parent's Television Council on most issues as they pertain to morality, but be completely opposed to enforcing those moral standards. That's an important difference.

Left-liberalism is first and foremost a purely statist ideology. There are left-leaning libertarians, but a true modern left-liberal is far more statist that even many conservatives. Where conservatives can see and appreciate a need for the different spheres of authority that different institutions have such as church and family, the left sees authority beginning in the masses and ending in the state. Many liberals now are so bureaucratic in their beliefs that they have eschewed a belief that authority comes from the people to embracing the state as the sole source of legitimate authority. That's why leftist hypocrisy, while having a limiting influence on their actions, is still a problem.

Consistency would require Noam Chomsky to admit that he is wrong and then either divest himself of all of that property or to change his views. Ultimately, his views and actions are a problem because his attitude toward property is precisely that of the old Soviet Nomenklatura. Good enough for us, too good for you. He's not even trying to live up to what he purports to believe in, and that is a much more malicious form of moral hypocrite than a fire brand preacher who likes a prostitute or two on the side.