Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Return of Chavismo
After a post-referendum-defeat period of calm, Hugo Chavez is back on the balcony, threatening enemies of Venezuela's Potemkin democracy. (But Mr. Moynihan, you say, Venezuela is a democracy, Chavez is Venezuela's elected leader, and he graciously conceded when smacked down by voters!). AP reports that El Jefe is threatening to nationalize counterrevolutionary farms:
President Hugo Chavez threatened on Sunday to take over farms or milk plants if owners refuse to sell their milk for domestic consumption and instead seek higher profits abroad or from cheese-makers. With the country recently facing milk shortages, Chavez said "it's treason" if farmers deny milk to Venezuelans while selling it across the border in Colombia or for gourmet cheeses. "In that case the farm must be expropriated," Chavez said, adding that the government could also take over milk plants and properties of beef producers.
Incidentally, these ungrateful farmers seek "higher profits" abroad because there are no profits to be had at home, thanks to the Bolivarian system of price controls that, despite impressive economic growth fueled by high oil prices, has left supermarket shelves bare. Chavez also threatened to nationalize those banks "neglecting laws requiring them to set aside nearly a third of all loans for agriculture, mortgages and small businesses at favorable rates":
President Hugo Chavez threatened on Saturday to take control of banks that fail to meet state-imposed loaning requirements designed to benefit Venezuela's farmers.
[...]Chavez has threatened banks before. He raised the possibility last year of nationalizing commercial banks amid demands they use some of their profits to fund social programs for the poor.
He has not followed through on most of those threats, although Venezuela's central bank, which is controlled by his allies, ordered private banks in 2006 to double bank deposit reserves from 15 to 30 percent in attempt to head off inflation. The Venezuelan leader's warnings come amid fluctuating food shortages and rising inflation, which reached 22.5 percent in 2007 - the highest official rate in Latin America.
My review of a recent Chavez biography here.
|1.23.08 @ 4:13PM|#
You know when you're pre-butting a commenter in the lead-in paragaph of your post that you probably owe him a hat tip or a disclaimer or something.
Matt|1.23.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Will somebody please, please translate The Wealth of Nations into Spanish for that dangerously silly man?
|1.23.08 @ 4:24PM|#
This is the sort of idiocy that led to his election loss in
December.
BTW, except for the hrw report, those links are incredibly lame. A
five-paragraph Wall Street Journal editorial page unsigned
editorial about a statistical analysis of voting patterns, and a
convoluted conspiracy theory by a political opponent about "fifth
columns in all Latin American countries?" Whatever.
economist|1.23.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Ah, the sorry sack of shit is back in action. Long live the glorious communist struggle against capitalist oppression! And get those gulags up running!
|1.23.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Pissing off farmers is always such a brilliant political strategy in South America.
|1.23.08 @ 4:31PM|#
I wonder what kind of "democracy" it is when the president can expropriate your means of living on a whim.
|1.23.08 @ 4:32PM|#
I take no joy in watching the slow motion train wreck that is
Venezuela under Chavez. From a glass is half full perspective,
maybe other democracies in the developing world can learn from
this.
Venezuelan leader's warnings come amid fluctuating food
shortages and rising inflation, which reached 22.5 percent in 2007
- the highest official rate in Latin America.
Chavez ... also announced that his government approved new
legislation establishing a maximum interest rate of 15 percent on
agriculture-related loans and extending payment deadlines for such
credit from three to 20 years.
I'm not a banker, but it seems to this uneducated lad that lending
money to agriculture related entities would be a certain way to
lose money. Maybe a Venezealan government economist could explain
where my reasoning fails.
|1.23.08 @ 4:33PM|#
To be fair, he threatens banks constantly. I guess he hasn't acted (yet) because of mutual backscratching between connected bankers and government officials.
shecky|1.23.08 @ 4:33PM|#
I wonder what kind of "democracy" it is when the president
can expropriate your means of living on a whim.
Why do you hate America?
|1.23.08 @ 4:33PM|#
I heard today that Chavez' approval rating is 21%.
Other products that are scarce: toothpaste, medications, rice,
pasta,... thank goodness the toilet paper scarcity has
improved.
|1.23.08 @ 4:41PM|#
these ungrateful farmers seek "higher profits" abroad
because there are no profits to be had at home, thanks to the
Bolivarian system of price controls that, despite impressive
economic growth fueled by high oil prices, has left supermarket
shelves bare.
This sounds like a job for Oil-For-Food Man!
|1.23.08 @ 4:49PM|#
"This sounds like a job for Oil-For-Food Man!"
Well, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) has begun a food program
called PDVAL which this week provided milk, chicken and cookin oil
at regulated prices. No sugar, rice or beef.
Buyers could only buy limited amounts and had to wait in line an
hour (as compared to a four hour wait at Mercal).
|1.23.08 @ 5:01PM|#
crimethink | January 23, 2008, 4:31pm | #
I wonder what kind of "democracy" it is when the president can
expropriate your means of living on a whim.
An illiberal one. Has this been done, or is this all talk?
the innominate one|1.23.08 @ 5:04PM|#
nice burn, shecky
Chavez's demagogy is just as unpalatable as that of U.S.
politicians, the only difference is the labels associated with
them.
|1.23.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Chavez ... also announced that his government approved new
legislation establishing a maximum interest rate of 15 percent on
agriculture-related loans and extending payment deadlines for such
credit from three to 20 years.
I'm not a banker, but it seems to this uneducated lad that lending
money to agriculture related entities would be a certain way to
lose money. Maybe a Venezealan government economist could explain
where my reasoning fails.
I'm not a banker either, but being forced to extend long-term loans
to ANYONE at 15% interest when inflation is running at 22.5% seems
like a less-than-profitable endeavor, especially when the loan
recipients are working under price controls that force them to sell
products at below the cost of production.
But, hey, maybe they'll make up for it on volume!
|1.23.08 @ 5:08PM|#
If, for the sake of argument, we were to take Castenda's story
that Chavez wanted to commit election fraud during the referendum
and was rebuffed by the military at face value, wouldn't that count
as evidence that Venezuela is a functioning democracy?
Such events would tell us several things.
1. There are competing centers of power within the
government.
2. The most powerful institution in Venezuela would not countenance
electoral fraud, even by the commander-in-chief.
3. The government does not operate as the political machine of the
president.
4. The structure of the Venezuelan government does not allow any
one leader, even one as (initially) popular and connected as
Chavez, to install his guys throughout the government.
All of these would seem to run counter to the cherished theory that
Venezuela is a "Potemkin Democracy."
squarooticus|1.23.08 @ 5:08PM|#
I wonder what kind of "democracy" it is when the president
can expropriate your means of living on a whim.
Uh... a democracy. Democracy is tyranny of the majority, so if the
people elect Hugo, and Hugo wants to nationalize private property,
that's a-okay.
What you're thinking of is a constitutional republic, in which
basic human rights (e.g., to life, property, free expression,
self-determination) are supposed to be protected against this
tyranny by a codified and well-understood set of principles. You
know, like we used to have in the US, before the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and
10th amendments were eviscerated by the courts.
|1.23.08 @ 5:09PM|#
BTW, inflation is expected to be almost 40% this year.
Gracias Sr. Presidente pedazo de mierda.
|1.23.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Uh... a democracy. Democracy is tyranny of the majority, so
if the people elect Hugo, and Hugo wants to nationalize private
property, that's a-okay.
Only if the people are willing to go along with it. The actual
history of democracies shows us that the people do not go along
with bone-headed moves that ruin the economy and harm the general
public - that they turn on such leaders, no matter how initially
popular they are.
In this way, democracy is a check on tyranny.
|1.23.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Damn it. I cant stay and debate Joe's idea that Venezuela is a
perfect functioning democracy. Gotta go.
Can anyone take care of that for me? Or have many of you made a new
year's resolution, such as I have, to let Joe believe whatever the
hell he wants to about Venezuela's current political state?
tarran|1.23.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Has this been done, or is this all talk?
joe, it has been done.
When Chavez shut down that opposition network, he confiscated their
studios and their equipment. The owners were told to vacate their
facilities and turn over their studios in and operational condition
to the state television network or face criminal prosecution for
sabotage.
I also read that land-owners who oppose Chavez most vocally seem to
have their land appropriated first for the land reform program,
while the landowners who support him are permitted to keep their
property.
Of course, this latter phenomenon could be the result of people who
are told they are going to lose their land kicking up a stink while
those who haven't received their notices yet keeping quiet so that
nobody notices them.
|1.23.08 @ 5:18PM|#
I'm watching the old Mission: Impossible series on DVD.
Let me just say that the old MI crew would've solved this by
convincing Chavez that he was crazy, ultimately committing suicide.
The plot would have involved clever disguises by Rollin Hand, some
sexual enticements by Cinnamon, and Barney being stuck in a
ventilator shaft for the duration.
I love that show.
|1.23.08 @ 5:19PM|#
This caught my eye:
Venezuela's central bank, which is controlled by his allies,
ordered private banks in 2006 to double bank deposit reserves from
15 to 30 percent in attempt to head off inflation...which reached
22.5 percent in 2007...
Laugh at Ben Bernanke and his helicopters all you want, lads--it
could be much, much, worse.
|1.23.08 @ 5:23PM|#
I guess my actual argument was too much for rana, so she thought
she's make one up about a "perfect functioning democracy"
instead.
Whoever this big-J Joe guy who said that Venezuela had a perfect
democracy is, he's nuts!
|1.23.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Excuse my poor grammar--ultimately driving Chavez to commit suicide. A crack squad of suicidal agents is more Pythonesque than MIish.
|1.23.08 @ 5:24PM|#
How come Al Gore gets an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for arguing that our planet will become like Venus if we don't change our ways, but Ron Paul gets nothing for arguing that we will become like Venezuela if we don't change our ways?
|1.23.08 @ 5:26PM|#
An illiberal one. Has this been done, or is this all
talk?
joe -
This
is not new. March, 2005.
ccc|1.23.08 @ 5:34PM|#
"and Barney being stuck in a ventilator shaft for the
duration."
Awwwwk! It's a living, bub.
Salvius|1.23.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Everyone knows the best Venezualan cheese is made from beaver milk, anyway.
|1.23.08 @ 5:58PM|#
That's not a knock on Barney, who must've held fifteen degrees to do the stuff he did.
|1.23.08 @ 6:08PM|#
So, El Presidente has already pissed off the oil men and the
Yankees, now he's working on pissing off both the money men and the
peasant farmers?
I see more regime change in his future.
Taktix®|1.23.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
economist|1.23.08 @ 6:29PM|#
joe,
I'm not sure now where you stand on Chavez's regime. Last time I
saw your comments on a Chavez-related thread you practically sang
his praises as a democratically-supported leader. Now you at least
seem to understand somewhat that he is an ignorant thug, but also
retain that old belief that a democratic society is always a free
one.
Squarooticus,
I'm glad that someone has made the point that democracy does not
necessarily equal freedom, and that even if everyone gets together
and votes before taking your property (or your life, as the case
may be), it is still expropriation and murder.
LarryA|1.23.08 @ 7:13PM|#
How come Al Gore gets an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for arguing
that our planet will become like Venus if we don't change our ways,
but Ron Paul gets nothing for arguing that we will become like
Venezuela if we don't change our ways?
1. Al is a Democrat.
2. Hilary and Barak are fighting over who gets to be the U.S.
Chavez.
2a. Chaves' policies will work with The Right People in
charge.
3. McCain is trying to move the Republican party toward the path of
enlightenment and social justice so Hilary or Barak can solve all
our problems.
4. Ron Paul is a speedbump getting in the way of bipartisan
cooperation.
Heinrick|1.23.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Chavez is a thug, but he is an elected,....and I think re-elected, thug.
|1.23.08 @ 7:45PM|#
"I wonder what kind of "democracy" it is when the president can
expropriate your means of living on a whim."
The kind that doesn't care about the rule of law. Democracies can
be bad, too.
-jcr
squarooticus|1.23.08 @ 7:56PM|#
I'm glad that someone has made the point that democracy does
not necessarily equal freedom, and that even if everyone gets
together and votes before taking your property (or your life, as
the case may be), it is still expropriation and murder.
Thank you! I've been waiting literally months for someone else here
to say this. Democracy and liberty are two completely orthogonal
(i.e., unrelated) concepts. It is entirely possible to have one
without the other, as Venezuela (and the US, to a lesser extent)
demonstrate.
highnumber|1.23.08 @ 8:04PM|#
squarooticus,
We've said lots of things about democracy when you weren't
reading.
Anyway, now that you're here, let's get this out of the way:
Mencken was probably right about democracy.
joe is dumber than dirt|1.23.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Ah good ole joe, just like clockwork, excusing the actions of
everyone's favorite dictator, Hugo Chavez. It absolutely amazes me
that anyone can still claim with a straight face that what is
occuring in Venezuala is democracy. Anytime anyone acts counter to
what Chavez says, he threatens, at gunpoint, to nationalize the
industry in which they are involved. Farming, banking, oil,
television, printed media etc. He has threatened to nationalize all
of them. Yet the same old pathetic assholes (read joe) use the same
old pathetic arguments to claim he is not a quasi-dictatorial thug.
How many times can somebody use the "he is merely going after the
people who supported the coup" defense or some similar nonsense
before they finally realize they are carrying water for a man who
calls his non-violent critics traitors and gives tacit approval to
use violence against those who take to the streets to protest
him.
Why the fuck do any of the people on this site even fucking bother
to respond to joe's imbecility anymore? How many times does joe
have to issue apologia to a brutal thug before the people on this
site say enough is enough and call him out for the retarded asshole
that he is.
How many pages and pages of condemnations would joe be writing if
George Bush, or any other Western leader for that matter,
threatened almost weekly to privatize, with the backing of the
military, some business merely because it stood in the way of his
policy goals? For christ sake, the opposition in this country
constantly claims Bush is questioning their patriotism despite the
fact they have never been able to point to one specific example of
that occuring. Just imagine what would happen if Bush actually
called them traitors for opposing his tax cuts, or whatever else he
proposes. That is exactly what Chavez is doing, and left-wing
lunatics in this country can't take jaunts down there to shake his
hand fast enough.
It reminds me of what occured in the aftermath of the 2000
elections. The clownish Congressional Black Caucus took to the
floor of the House to claim blacks had been disenfranchised by the
election, yet some of these very same hypocrites, Maxine Waters
comes to mind immediately, went off to Cuba shortly thereafter to
praise a man who had not held an election in 41 years at that
point.
Sean W. Malone|1.23.08 @ 8:42PM|#
squarooticus:
I have also made that point about democracy more times than I can
count. As I'm sure it does to you as well, it annoys the
ever-loving-crap out of me to hear talking heads yap about how
great "democracy" is. They always act like democracy is what makes
people free when it is absolutely not the case...
A lot of democracies suck ballz. Democracies without a decent Bill
of Rights wind up as shitty, or shittier, than any dictatorial
government that doesn't bother pretending it's not
totalitarian.
Besides which, freedom is new. Democracy - not so much.
|1.23.08 @ 9:23PM|#
I have to agree with joe on MM's less than inspiring sources (a
WSJ editorial, the newsweek article, and what is the
SeattlePi?).
"Anytime anyone acts counter to what Chavez says, he threatens, at
gunpoint, to nationalize the industry in which they are
involved."
Uhh, Chavez is an admitted socialist. Nationalizing industries is
"nothing personal" with socialism, it's part of socialism...I
realize that there is no worse sin in the book for propertarians,
but the guy is a little short of kim il jong at this point...
Look, the state in places like Venezula gave amazing rent seeking
situations to many corporations that then dominated many an
industry in Venezula. The history there is horrible. As a result
the poor folks there, and there are LOTS of them, think Western
Corporations are evil. It's easy for us to sit here and say "those
benighted fools, don't they see Chavez for what he is?" We've made
the alternative look so bad, this guy looks good to them...
tarran|1.23.08 @ 9:28PM|#
joe said,
tarran,
"This," being the proposal to forbid the sale of milk products.
Ah, good thing I didn't waste my time on google looking up sources
for you then. ;)
As to the sale of milk products, I am not sure. I've been reading
the odd article in pro-free-market-economics blogs over a period of
many months now. If my memory serves correctly, the Venezuelan
central bank created a great deal of money, resulting in prices
starting to rise. The very poor could not afford the higher priced
staples (most of the new money ended up in the hands of the
politically connected), and began agitating for relief. Chavez then
instituted price controls on basic staples but exempted luxury
goods.
From the beginning of the institution of price controls there were
shortages in the price controlled stuff. Initially the shortages
were the product of a few manufacturers diverting their product to
the most profitable sales venues, something that the government
could control through anti-hoarding or anti-speculation laws. In
the meantime the government also convinced themselves that the
shortages were due to the increase in demand as a result of the
increased welfare payments to the poor. Essentially they claimed
that the poor could afford more food and that was why the shelves
were so bare.
Within months of the institution of price controls, visitors to
Venezuela were commenting on the bizarre sight of supermarkets with
plenty of imported cheese from France and pastries and other luxury
foods, but with bare shelves where flour and milk and eggs should
be.
The inflation continued, and the profit margins of the
manufacturers of price controlled goods are so razor thin that they
cannot sustain their businesses. Things were made worse as the
government slightly expanded the lsit of items that were
price-controlled.
Of course, this route of price-controls has been tried many times
before. If pushed through to its economic conclusion, eventually
the government starts threatening to shoot farmers for
hoarding.
Sometimes the government comes to its senses, like Truman did in
1947 with price controls on meat. Sometimes it ends up with
thousands being shot as happened with Stalin.
I think Chavez has convinced himself that unlike the thousand times
in recorded history where these things have failed, this time he
can pull it off. He also has a lot of people with guns backing him
up, ones who are not well disposed towards those whom they consider
hoarders and speculators. Thus, I think Chavez will try to go
pretty far down the traditional route of shooting and jailing
people in an attempt to evade basic praxeological laws.
Of course, to be fair, I am no expert on Venezuela. I merely read
the occasional article in the Economist and blogs like Distributed
Republic, Cafe Hayek, Mises Institute, Reason and of course by my
fellow contributors on The Liberty Papers. I would thus take my
story with a grain of salt; I am no authority and could be grossly
misinformed.
|1.23.08 @ 9:39PM|#
tarran-From everything I've read there are a fair amount of
"people with guns" opposing Chavez, many who are well disposed
towards hoarders and speculators (meaning they are paid by
them)...
Let me ask you something I'm always curious about with
propertarians, who is worse, Chavez's Venezula or something like
United Arab Emirates. The UAE seems to have a thriving business
environment, but has no real democracy at all, government
censorship of nearly all publications, television, etc., few civil
liberties, etc. But I don't see MM decrying the UAE or like states
that restrict social liberties but foster some form of "economic
development" that meets the propertarians tests...And that makes me
suspect.
e|1.23.08 @ 9:39PM|#
What if Chavez, rather than nationalizing the big farms, broke
them up into small plots and granted them to the peons that work on
it? You guys wouldn't have a problem with that, right? Private
property is private property. Then when you die, it goes to someone
else - possibly a total stranger. My reasoning is simply, when you
die, your rights are gone - you're just an inanimate object - a
corpse - and your claims to anything on earth are gone. Your kids
have no more right to the plot than anyone else, (well perhaps if
your kids worked on and improved the land, they should be
compensated for that, but that's all.
Don't tell me that some rich spoiled Eurotrash mama's boy has a
greater claim to the land than the farmer whose family has worked
that land for generations.
|1.23.08 @ 9:44PM|#
"What if Chavez, rather than nationalizing the big farms, broke
them up into small plots and granted them to the peons that work on
it? You guys wouldn't have a problem with that, right? Private
property is private property."
e-you must be new to this site, and this brand of thought...
|1.23.08 @ 9:45PM|#
highnumber,
Mencken was probably right about democracy? What purpose does the
word "probably" fill in your sentence? I do not understand.
|1.23.08 @ 9:47PM|#
e-propertarianism (called "libertarianism" here) often seems to consist of people who have stuff and advantage over others who lack it being able to dictate ("consensual") terms to those people who lack (they can always "ge their own in the magical market"). They don't just think it necessary, they orgasm over it...
|1.23.08 @ 9:49PM|#
Look, the state in places like Venezula gave amazing rent seeking
situations to many corporations that then dominated many an
industry in Venezula. The history there is horrible. As a result
the poor folks there, and there are LOTS of them, think Western
Corporations are evil. It's easy for us to sit here and say "those
benighted fools, don't they see Chavez for what he is?"
We've made the alternative look so bad, this guy
looks good to them...
No you didn't. The ISI model of "development" pursued by many Latin
American nations during the period was pretty much homegrown. And
the small cores of power were a direct result of the '61
Constitution, which may have been necessary at the time but became
obsolete in a short time.
|1.23.08 @ 9:51PM|#
Or have many of you made a new year's resolution, such as I
have, to let Joe believe whatever the hell he wants to about
Venezuela's current political state?
I have made the resolution to skip over any post, unread, that says
in red letters "joe". If he starts saying something that contains a
grain of libertarian thinking, please alert me. Life's too short to
read statist claptrap.
|1.23.08 @ 9:52PM|#
What if Chavez, rather than nationalizing the big farms,
broke them up into small plots and granted them to the peons that
work on it? You guys wouldn't have a problem with that, right?
Private property is private property. Then when you die, it goes to
someone else - possibly a total stranger. My reasoning is simply,
when you die, your rights are gone - you're just an inanimate
object - a corpse - and your claims to anything on earth are gone.
Your kids have no more right to the plot than anyone else, (well
perhaps if your kids worked on and improved the land, they should
be compensated for that, but that's all.
Don't tell me that some rich spoiled Eurotrash mama's boy has a
greater claim to the land than the farmer whose family has worked
that land for generations.
I can understand and sympathize with the idea, but what's to stop
the rich landlord from simply passing on his goods to his children
before he dies?
|1.23.08 @ 9:52PM|#
Juan-Venezuluan history is not replete with examples of wealthy interests, including corporations, often foriegn, getting rent-seeking agreements from whatever passed for the government there? The US and other Western nations have not acted towards Venezula in ways that would quite naturally induce humiliation and resentement?
|1.23.08 @ 9:54PM|#
"I can understand and sympathize with the idea, but what's to
stop the rich landlord from simply passing on his goods to his
children before he dies?"
Well, Chavez is probably one who comes to the mind of many of his
supporters...
|1.23.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Juan-Venezuluan history is not replete with examples of
wealthy interests, including corporations, often foriegn, getting
rent-seeking agreements from whatever passed for the government
there?
Yeah. But my point of that the "state of the art" of economic
thought favored arrangements that led to extensive rent-seeking.
Which were reinforced by the structure of the state. So what I'm
saying is that we made our own mess.
The US and other Western nations have not acted towards
Venezula in ways that would quite naturally induce humiliation and
resentement?
Well, maybe there's the "coup", but obviously reactions towards
that are far from unanimous. If anything, any resentments might be
directed at capitalism itself (and they aren't that widespread
either; Venezuela scores near the top in LatAm in support for
markets in public opinion polls), which over here is mostly of the
crony/state variety.
|1.23.08 @ 10:08PM|#
Juan -- I don't sympathize with the idea of private property
being confiscated at death, because I imagine the folks doing that
looting would be the state. It doesn't take a great deal of
knowledge of history or economics to see the nasty consequences of
the government instituting a 100% death tax. The best case scenario
is that everyone with any assets uses some legal instrument to
transfer all their wealth to their children on paper, while
retaining control while alive,
A great idea if you're an estate lawyer or accountant or one of the
government thieves, but some really sucky consequences for everyone
else.
See Mugabe, Robert for a look at a race-base variant of this
terrible idea.
|1.23.08 @ 10:10PM|#
OK, I just clicked on MM's "democracy" link....
I've used the HRW reports on several of these threads on Venezula,
often just to have fun and tease edna. Basically, if you take the
time to read a lot of the HRW country reports you find that Israel
has pretty much a worse record than Venezula under Chavez...Yet I
see no reports from MM on the evil Olmert?*
(I did this to have fun. I oppose Israel's atrocious treatment of
the Palestinian people. However, I commend Israel on being a
relatively free state in many ways that many nations are not. Of
course, I don't froth at the mouth at the mention of Hugo Chavez,
either [nor do I think the guy is some hero or even "good guy"]. I
just tire of MM's crazy posts)
|1.23.08 @ 10:12PM|#
Let me ask you something I'm always curious about with
propertarians
Ah, yes. The innocent question combined with an insult. There's a
good faith approach to debate.
How about:
Here's what I've always wondered about douchebags, why do they
always come to Hit N' Run and call us names and expect us to take
them seriously?
Anyone care to take a crack? Feel free to engage in any of the
usual evasions.
|1.23.08 @ 10:13PM|#
Juan -- I don't sympathize with the idea of private property
being confiscated at death, because I imagine the folks doing that
looting would be the state. It doesn't take a great deal of
knowledge of history or economics to see the nasty consequences of
the government instituting a 100% death tax. The best case scenario
is that everyone with any assets uses some legal instrument to
transfer all their wealth to their children on paper, while
retaining control while alive,
A great idea if you're an estate lawyer or accountant or one of the
government thieves, but some really sucky consequences for everyone
else.
See Mugabe, Robert for a look at a race-base variant of this
terrible idea.
Yeah, that was sort of where I'm going at. Something about roads
and good intentions and stuff...
|1.23.08 @ 10:13PM|#
prolfeed
You've (mistakenly I should guess) hit upon a neat example. Mugabe
is a creep, let's stipulate that. But do you think the white
farmers did not, at least in part, get their advantageous land
arrangements at the point of some government's gun barrel? Most
nationalization efforts are attempts to fix that sort of thing.
|1.23.08 @ 10:16PM|#
Ah, SugarFree, I've played in H&R for a long time using the polite terms, but as I've explained in other threads I've been convinced that propertarians is the more appropriate term for many folks here. I've explained my reasons not only elsewhere, but even in the post you quote from. So your "waaah, he don't like us, I only want people who agree with my poorly-concieved-yet-strongly-held positions" crying response seems inadequate. Maybe you can address my question, which I submit demonstrates why propertarian fits many here, maybe you...
|1.23.08 @ 10:24PM|#
"Here's what I've always wondered about douchebags, why do they
always come to Hit N' Run and call us names and expect us to take
them seriously?"
Well, I for one take propertarian thinkers seriously. I've read
Mises and Hayek and Smith and think they have something to tell me
and teach me.
On the other hand, I don't think their ideas are a religion or that
their "market" is "magical and mystical." And I am amazed at those
who do.
And I think that an honest libertarianism need not be a
propertarianism. However, it strikes me that long ago vested
interests learned that profiligating a propertarian version of
libertarianism would serve their interests mightily. So they funded
various organizations and thinkers, and presto: many potentially
honest libertarians are now propertarians. And that is
dissappointing to anyone...
But back to Chavez...
|1.23.08 @ 10:28PM|#
Wow, ALL the usual evasions.
You're a troll, fucknuts, working out your Robin Hood complex by
taking on the terrible libertarians in the very belly of the beast.
You're not here to engage us, only to confront and get your rocks
off through moral smugness.
That's OK. You won't listen. I don't care. Please resume your
regularly scheduled trolling.
But don't fool yourself about what you are and crusty scum you form
on the world.
|1.23.08 @ 10:34PM|#
SugarFree
You can certainly form thoughts and opinions if you try. I
encourage you to do so. You will be suprised at the ideas you may
form.
Are you sad because I am probably better read at your own crucially
important yet (to you) worldview (your one simple principle,
perhaps?) than you are? Don't cry buddy, I'm here for you. Not
everybody is supposed to be smart.
So to help slow thinkers like yourself: the UAE allows absolutely
no democracy. It daily censors every single form of media that
enters the state. It's criminal justice system is a joke. Etc. But
it has a great record of foriegn investment and respect for
"private property." Yet no howlingly angry posts from MM or Reason.
No diatribes against their "evil dictators." If you guys are not
property obsessed, then WTF is up with that? Is that not indicative
of an ideology more properly understood as propertarian than
libertarian?
|1.23.08 @ 10:38PM|#
And I guess a "troll" is someone who takes the time to qualify
his statements by saying "many people here" rather than
"libertarians" or by noting the contributions of Hayek, Mises, etc,
or one who contributes frequently on this site for a long time...In
fact, it strikes me that I rarely see your posts this late at
night, isn't it past your bedtime (is Mom giving you special
allowances, or is she "busy" tonight)?
I'm afraid you're the troll, one who defines "anyone who upsets me,
waaah" as a "troll."
highnumber|1.23.08 @ 11:06PM|#
MNG,
With all due respect, you are sounding like a troll. The smug,
I-know-more-about-you-so-called-libertarians-than-you-do thing you
have going on seals it, but the willful ignorance of all the other
aspects of freedom that get covered here is also a nice
touch.
Carry on. Trolls are free to be, too.
|1.23.08 @ 11:07PM|#
MNG, next time some poor woman in the UAE is stoned for
adultery, or some other egregious and "newsworthy" violation of
individual rights is covered by the AP, email Mr. Moynihan. Or one
of your other favorite Reason contributors. If the violation is
sufficiently interesting I expect there would be a diatribe.
Notice that Mr. Balko's posts rarely reference private property,
except in that it tends to be private property that is being
invaded. The ramifications of libertarian philosophy are broad and
I think it is unfair to accuse Reason or the broader libertarian
community of ignoring violations of human rights that are not
directly related to owned property.
|1.23.08 @ 11:11PM|#
highnumber-I respect the "aspect of freedom" that is property
rights. Let's talk about it? Has it ever occurred to you that
someone can realize the value of that and yet find higher values?
Even higher liberty-related values? And that this person would call
others on the elevation of such property values to be the end all
and be all of libertarianism? And the person gives a concerte
example of the trend that bothers him and THAT'S a "troll?" How
then is a troll not just "someone who says something I don't
like?"
When the folks attacked joe upstream in very ad hominem fashion,
where were you and your troll-o-meter?
|1.23.08 @ 11:19PM|#
matth-I contribute to many posts here, and have for probably
years. I have always and consistently lauded Balko. He's one of the
reasons I subscribe to Reason. I also like Bailey's stuff on
neuroscience, Walker and Gillespie's cultural stuff, and Sullum's
public health stuff (yeah, I'm a "troll", geez, that word is now as
amorphous as "neocon").
But: I have been appalled at the propensity of many Reason writers
and posters to favor property or contract rights over actual
liberty. I know, I know (I've had this discussion more than once
here, y'know ;)) property rights/contract rights are so intertwined
with liberty that blah, blah, blah....I just don't buy it, at least
not off the bat. I'm sorry if that upsets folks (waaah).
One story I remember in particular was where the "libertarian"
position on a Supreme Court case was "supposed" to be that a rule
preventing distributers/retailers agreements from mandating that
items be sold at a certain price should be overturned (again, I
guess I am a "troll" when I remember this rather esoteric thread
and article from months back, jesus). No mind that this would
empirically lead to less freedom among retailers in setting prices
and promotions around the nation: since they agreed to it
("freely") there was no restriction of freedom, and everything was
A-OK. Bullsh*t says I. The net amount of freedom matters, and
"contract" be damned (to some extent).
But hey, this is far off the Hugo thread, and as I noted above, I
never meant to highjack it (another common trait of a "troll",
eh?).
highnumber|1.23.08 @ 11:44PM|#
MNG,
In a very practical, nuts and bolts sort of sense, property rights
are essential to most libertarian philosophies. I can't speak for
anyone else about how they value freedom, but in the philosophy I
subscribe to, I have the right to earn my little bit and I have the
right to not have someone come along and take it from me by force.
I have other, higher priorities in this life, but I would like to
be free and do consider it important.
You are correct that some folks' rhetoric around here does seem, on
occasions, to place a higher value on property rights than anything
else. You are correct that there are a lot of free market
worshipers here. To point these things out is not trolling. To
claim that libertarian thought is infected by an obsession with
property rights is trolling, because clearly this blog alone
touches on a myriad of other issues. You have proclaimed yourself
smarter and more knowledgeable than us hoi polloi. That is also a
troll tactic. You are not inviting others to discuss issues. You
are declaring them wrong. Another troll tactic.
Regarding joe: I have defended joe before. It was pointless. He
doesn't need any defense. His philosophy differs from nearly all
the folks here but he is smarter than most and his heart is in the
right place. Intelligent folks will engage him. Fools will show
themselves to be fools.
That, and I just picked my troll-o-meter up from the shop this
evening.
tarran|1.23.08 @ 11:48PM|#
I think Mr Nice Guy is a big Ursula K LeGuin fan. ;)
Let me ask you something I'm always curious about with propertarians, who is worse, Chavez's Venezula or something like United Arab Emirates. The UAE seems to have a thriving business environment, but has no real democracy at all, government censorship of nearly all publications, television, etc., few civil liberties, etc. But I don't see MM decrying the UAE or like states that restrict social liberties but foster some form of "economic development" that meets the propertarians tests...And that makes me suspect.
Interesting question. I don't know much about the UAE and am too
busy to research it, so I am just going to talk out of my ass. I am
also going to keep this brief since I have to get up early tomorrow
to set up the lab for an 0800 AM class.
Additionally, I can't speak for any more than a vanishingly small
minority on this site, since I think there are only 5 - 6 regulars
who are anarchists like myself. Your mileage may vary.
With that out of the way, from the short description you have
given, the UAE would be preferable to Venezuela. However,
that does not mean I would like living in the UAE.
There are several reasons for this:
The UAE is, if I remember correctly, a federation of 5 or 6
emirates. Thus, there is no absolute ruler, rather the heads of the
ruling families have to work together and arrive at consensus. It
has probably the best mercantile legal system in the world; a free
market arbitration system that functions in a manner similar to
what Rothbard theorized about.
The emirates engage in tax competition which means that they are
rationally self interested in keeping the areas they control very
attractive to residents. This results in continual improvement of
the social climate. For the most part they respect property rights,
you may not legally engage in homosexual activity, for example, but
they are not likely to go into your house and try to arrest you for
it.
With that being said, the fact that they don't respect the property
rights of people who own television stations, webservers and
communications equipment is a problem. It's the second biggest
problem, from my perspective.
The biggest problem with te UAE is that they still have sharia
there, and if you get snared into the criminal justice system, you
will probably be unjustly treated. I can't remember the details,
but I seem to recall there was some scandal recently about the
mistreatment of a male French tourist, whom I think was raped and
then prosecuted for engaging in homosexual activity.
This is, of course, unacceptable to me. The reason why I don't fret
about the UAE (aside from the fact I have no interest in ever
visiting it again having seen it enough times in the Navy) is that
they seem to be evolving in the right direction. Several of the
emirs have acknowledged that the criminal code is ghastly and they
seem to be trying to figure out how to reform it.
Contrast this with Venezuela which is headed down the opposite
direction with decreasing freedom in all respects. I should point
out that socialist movements tend to have pretty rigid social
restrictions against what they perceive as immoral or frivolous
activities. In Cuba, for example, during the first decades of
Castro's rule, being caught listening to rock and roll music or
engaging in homosexual activity could get you imprisoned or shot.
Since Chavez seems to be going through the checklist of how to run
an overbearing socialist state, I am sure he will get around to
attacking people who are "weakening the moral fibre of the country"
through "subversive bourgois activity" or somesuch.
But, yes, in a sense you are right. I think all human rights are
based on property rights. Your right to life comes from the
ownership of your body. Your right to freedom of conscience comes
from the ownership of your brain. Freedom of the press is comes
from ownership of a printing press and being free to do whatever
with it that you wish, etc.
I should point out that a lot of people have only a vague emotional
idea of what it means to own something. If you think about what
ownership means, it really is the moral right to control something.
It's not merely control. Otherwise the thief who grabs a woman's
purse and runs off with it would be said to own the purse because
he has established control. The thief may control the purse after
he seizes it, but most people would argue that the woman retains
her ownership of it.
If you apply take this principle to its logical extreme (what you
refer to as propertarianism), then you get all the "social
freedoms". If you own your body, you can put whatever you want into
it, heroin, trans-fats, tobacco smoke, another man's penis, live
eels. It's all cool.
I do think, however, that the dichotomy between "social freedoms"
and "economic freedoms" is a false one. To me freedom is being
permitted to do what you want with your property, so long as you
are not infringing on the freedom of other people to use their
property. When one person is prevented from enjoying the use of
their property, but is rather compelled to turn it over to some
other man, for example like a fairness law that would require the
New York Times to balance Krugman's essays with ones from Don
Boudreaux of CafeHayek, I don't see that as making people more
free, but rather making people less free. After all, would you
describe a society where the rule is might makes right as being a
free one? It's the societies where a poor person does not have to
fear that his hovel will be bulldozed by some wealthy guy waving a
government notice condemning the hovel which are freer. It's the
societies where a middle class person can open a shop and not fear
that his store will be looted by the poor or stolen by the rich
that are freer. In other words, it is the societies where the
entire population very rigidly respects property rights that are
the most free and pleasant to live in. It's no accident that the
size of the middle class seems to correlate with how much property
rights are respected... if you ignore Scandanavia... ;)
|1.24.08 @ 12:00AM|#
MNG - so in the spirit of maintaining the Hugo thread, can we
agree that Hugo ranks pretty high up on the anti-liberty (and
anti-libertarian) scale?
I am disturbed at the tendency of people who should be working
together for the cause to focus on our differences instead of our
similarities (not an original thought I know). I've been disturbed
by it for over two decades now.
I try to reserve my appallment (hey, a new word!) for the really
disgusting violations of liberty. Both "actual liberty" and the
propertarian type.
|1.24.08 @ 12:09AM|#
Oh, and if "actual liberty" implies the right to renege on a
freely agreed upon obligation (contract) with no penalty simply
because it now looks like it was a bad idea in the first
place...
I can't really accept that someone has a moral right to that
act.
Kolohe|1.24.08 @ 12:12AM|#
It's posts like tarran's like make this blog worth reading well
after the normal daily cycle of workday commenting
It's also why this blog, unless most, resists the tendency to
devolve into a group-think echo-chamber
|1.24.08 @ 12:24AM|#
highnumber-Sorry, but since I contribute rather regularly, with
praise for Balko and Sullum for example, I just felt it not
necessary to say "well, Reason says good stuff about x, but are
crazy about y." In fact, I'm not sure I made a blanket statement
about Reason being nuts...The curt comment I make is about posters
here, and even there I tried to qualify it ("propertarianism(called
"libertarianism" here) often seems" notice the "often", you seem to
agree with your comment "You are correct that there are a lot of
free market worshipers here").
I'm sorry, but I actually do think that what I most see is "that
libertarian thought is infected by an obsession with property
rights." That is what I want explained and discussed....To that
aim...
"With that out of the way, from the short description you have
given, the UAE would be preferable to Venezuela." That is what
throws me. In Venezula you can vote for the opposition. You can
read a book that is sexy or "radical." You can read an opposition
newspaper. But yes, certain industries (which if you were a
Venezulaen you would probably have no ownership interest in at all)
are nationalized. Meanwhile in the UAE you have no right at all to
choose your government. None at all. There is NO suffrage. You are
prevented from reading the newspapers you want, from watching the
entertainment you want....To me the latter is CLEARLY worse than
the former....In Venezula you can't buy stock in Exxon, but you can
read Reason. In UAE you can buy stock in Exxon but can't read
Reason (I don't know that specifically, I'm making the general
point about censorship which goes on in the UAE). And I have to
worry about any movement that calls itself "libertarianism" but
prefers the former to the latter.
|1.24.08 @ 12:26AM|#
But do you think the white farmers did not, at least in
part, get their advantageous land arrangements at the point of some
government's gun barrel? Most nationalization efforts are attempts
to fix that sort of thing.
MNG -- most, if not all, of the farmers who had their land stolen
by Mugabe have had the land in their families for generations, or
bought the land from someone else. Are you seriously proposing that
if, at any time in the distant past, someone in a government used
coercion in the transfer, the deed should be abrogated for all
future owners and the land stolen, using coercion, by the current
government?
Oh, and the farmers and their descendants and subsequent owners
took raw land and, by dint of hard work, turned it into productive
assets, which are now reverting to raw land again under Mugabe's
reign of theft.
If you don't believe in secure property rights, you are advocating
for mass misery and death, no matter how benign your
intentions.
Was this a teachable moment, or are you going to continue
advocating for socialist redistribution no matter how badly it
turns out whenever it is tried?
|1.24.08 @ 12:28AM|#
matth-if someone agrees on a restriction of their liberty in a "voluntary" act (I put quotes around this because often they do this because of some imbalanced market position, which imo is not very "voluntary" at all [think: if I say I will beat your ass if you don't do x, then in some sense you are still free not to do x and take the ass kicking]) and this agreement leads to an overall lessening of freedom of choice, then yes, I think it is an actual decrease in liberty. It may be a gain for contracts, or for property (hence my naming of the movement "contractarians" or "propertarians") but it is no gain for freedom of choice, is it?
|1.24.08 @ 12:35AM|#
"Are you seriously proposing that if, at any time in the distant
past, someone in a government used coercion in the transfer, the
deed should be abrogated for all future owners and the land stolen,
using coercion, by the current government?"
prolfeed-so if my great-grandfather used his government ties to
coerce and sh*t on your great-grandfather, and because of that I
owned the land you were born on and made you work cleaning out my
latrines for a living, you would say "holy sh*t, my boss has a
moral propery right over me, I better scoop that sh*t faster and
better to impress him!"
"Oh, and the farmers and their descendants and subsequent owners
took raw land and, by dint of hard work, turned it into productive
assets, which are now reverting to raw land again under Mugabe's
reign of theft."
You are right, especially in the past, those who had the resources
to get the government, under the auspices of colonial practices, to
force one's ancestors a prefereable property arrangment, would ALSO
probably have the resources and education to make the land more
productive! Hell, that validates it, huh?
"Was this a teachable moment, or are you going to continue
advocating for socialist redistribution no matter how badly it
turns out whenever it is tried?"
Was this a teachable moment for you, are you going to continue to
advocate for socialist redistribution (you know, when a tax-payer
funded army like the Brits comes in and uses their coercive power
to give the land some people lived on to other people, then
enforces disrciminatory laws at gun-point for a while)? You
socialist you! Lenin would be proud!
|1.24.08 @ 12:51AM|#
MNG -- it would have been more concise for you to just say, "Not
a teachable moment -- I don't believe in secure property rights.
Nothing can sway me from that wrongheaded belief."
Rebuttals: no one in America is forced to shovel out latrines. Due
to secure property rights, among other things, we've created so
much wealth that almost everyone has toilets. The few people I've
met who run septic tank cleaning businesses choose that work
because it's the most lucrative job they can find. They are free to
do something else if they find it objectionable.
Farms become productive due people working their asses off. Hard
work is the main ingredient in success in that endeavor, not a
fancy liberal arts education.
You're the one advocating for socialist redistribution. I'm the one
arguing for secure property rights. Accusing me of advocating for
the exact effing opposite of what I'm saying is just a cheap
shot.
You drinking? You're sure unloading on people here.
|1.24.08 @ 1:15AM|#
prolfeed-Sorry, you are advocating for one socialist proposition
(the government [the British army] can come into the land many
people lived on and worked and at gunpoint force certain property
relations advantegeous to the connected]) over another (a
government comes along later and tries to rectify that by dividing
up the "property" [gained largely at gunpoint] to all
citizens).
Your latrine comments are interesting...Surely a great deal of very
wealthy people actually engage in latrine clean-up, since there is
a profit to be made there. What? They would NEVER? But poor people
trying to build their way up would? "Voluntarily?" Meaning that
their ancestors were the victims of some rent seeking (hey, I'm
using your language) agreement of someone else's ancestors and now,
if they want to enjoy a tenth of what the ancestors of the
oppressors of their ancestors enjoy they have to CLEAN THE SH*T UP?
Wow, that is LIBERTY! Who would not want that?
Are you drinking? Because that kind of view, agreed upon every four
years by about 1% of the US voting populace, must be a drunk man's
fantasy!
|1.24.08 @ 7:32AM|#
If, for the sake of argument, we were to take Castenda's
story that Chavez wanted to commit election fraud during the
referendum and was rebuffed by the military at face value, wouldn't
that count as evidence that Venezuela is a functioning
democracy?
Yes, having the maximum leader trying to commit election fraud and
having the military as a major power center are characteristics of
every functioning democracy.
Well, OK, maybe the first is, but, c'mon, gimme a break.
Such events would tell us several things.
1. There are competing centers of power within the
government.
This is true in every government. Hell, in every organization.
Means nothing.
2. The most powerful institution in Venezuela would not
countenance electoral fraud, even by the
commander-in-chief.
Arguing that the army is the most powerful institution in a given
country does not exactly advance the thesis that said country is
democratic in a meaningful way.
3. The government does not operate as the political machine of
the president.
That's quite a leap, since it was supposedly the army, not the
government, that stopped the fraud.
4. The structure of the Venezuelan government does not allow
any one leader, even one as (initially) popular and connected as
Chavez, to install his guys throughout the government.
Don't forget, this is a one-party government.
Lets also not forget that a judge who was critical of Chavez was
just gunned down in the street after being denounced by Chavez. Yet
another assassination of a dissident.
|1.24.08 @ 7:46AM|#
Incidentally, these ungrateful farmers seek "higher profits"
abroad because there are no profits to be had at home, thanks to
the Bolivarian system of price controls that, despite impressive
economic growth fueled by high oil prices, has left supermarket
shelves bare.
What does "Bolivarian" mean?
DavidS|1.24.08 @ 8:25AM|#
Is Venezuela a full democracy? Clearly no. Is it a fully
authoritarian state? Also no.
The rankings I've seen suggest that, if you lined the world's
countries up from free to non-free, Venezuela would be somewhere
just below the mid-point.
93 out of 167 for the Economist for example and, I would suspect,
sinking.
robc|1.24.08 @ 8:48AM|#
UAE v Venezuela and coverage:
Venezuela - trending in wrong direction (check out Freedom House
scores)
UAE - flat as far as I know
The one changing is more newsworthy.
DavidS|1.24.08 @ 9:10AM|#
The one changing is more newsworthy.
Are Venezuela's problems that consequential - say compared to two
other countries 'trending in the wrong direction', Pakistan and
Nigeria?
robc|1.24.08 @ 9:29AM|#
DavidS,
Looked up the Freedom House scores for the 4 countries. The two
categories are Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 1 is best, 7
is worst:
In 1989, Venezuela was a 1,2. In 1999, still a 2,3. In 2007, a 4,4.
That is an amazing dropoff for a country that was almost hanging
with western democracies in the late 80s.
By comparison, same 3 years (they were picked based on turning pts
in Venezuela 89 and 99 were local maxima in freedom):
Pakistan 3,3 to 4,5 to 6,5. Same amount of dropoff, but basically
moving from kinda unfree to mostly unfree.
UAE 5,5 to 6,5, to 6,5.
Nigeria 5,5 to 6,4 to 4,4. Nigeria bounces all over the place. They
have been up and down. There have been better and worse numbers in
that time frame. The 2007 number measures 2006, so a lot may have
changed.
Venezuela has moved from freedom to crap. The others were always
crap.
My uncurved view is 1,1 is good. 1,2 or 2,1 is moderately
acceptable, anything else is a hellhole. Yes that means I just put
India and Mexico (both 2,3) in the same hellhole category with Cuba
(7,7).
|1.24.08 @ 9:41AM|#
"propertarianism (called "libertarianism" here) often seems to
consist of people who have stuff and advantage over others who lack
it being able to dictate ("consensual") terms to those people who
lack (they can always "ge their own in the magical market"). They
don't just think it necessary, they orgasm over it..."
What part of that statement is even bothering to ask for a sober,
respectful, mature, and thoughtful response?
Well, I'll give this something of a try. Civil liberties are
certainly important. But there's a reason property rights often
trump other sorts of civil liberties. I don't have a right to shout
fire in a theater. That would violate the tacit contract between
the owner of the theater and all the other patrons who purchased
the tickets, expecting to watch a show undisturbed. While I have a
right to my opinions, a newspaper is not obligated to print
anything I want to say on demand. Of course, if all decision making
were democratized then my desire, and everyone else's desire, to
have my thoughts printed could be voted on by the general populace.
But how many here think that that would improve the general quality
of the media, or the ability to get out timely informative
accounts, and even the diversity of opinions?
Oh, the Seattle P.I. is one of the two major daily newspapers in
Seattle.
|1.24.08 @ 10:11AM|#
economist,
I haven't budged on my opinion. It would be nice to see people
figure out that "Venezuelan democracy" and "Hugo Chavez" are not
the same thing.
Now you at least seem to understand somewhat that he is an
ignorant thug, but also retain that old belief that a democratic
society is always a free one.
I've spent way too much time trying to make subtle points to people
with blunt brains to even bother trying to explain what's wrong
with this sentence.
|1.24.08 @ 10:14AM|#
See, look at this dumb shit:
Ah good ole joe, just like clockwork, excusing the actions of
everyone's favorite dictator
Now, let's see what I actually wrote:
joe | January 23, 2008, 4:24pm | #
This is the sort of idiocy that led to his election loss in
December.
joe | January 23, 2008, 5:01pm | #
crimethink | January 23, 2008, 4:31pm | #
I wonder what kind of "democracy" it is when the president can
expropriate your means of living on a whim.
An illiberal one.
Does it hurt to be this stupid, or is it sort of a numb
feeling?
|1.24.08 @ 10:17AM|#
MNG,
It's easy for us to sit here and say "those benighted fools,
don't they see Chavez for what he is?"
Let's not forget that after Chavez made the plebiscite on the
proposed constitutional amendments a referendum on his rule, he
lost. I don't think those poor, benighted souls are as clueless as
the anti-democrats suppose.
|1.24.08 @ 10:18AM|#
I have made the resolution to skip over any post, unread,
that says in red letters "joe".
That's probably a good idea, prolefeed. It's been a rough couple of
years for you.
|1.24.08 @ 10:36AM|#
R C Dean,
This is true in every government. Hell, in every organization.
Means nothing.
In this case, the competing power center is indepenent of the
alleged "maximum leader," and powerful enough to check him. Excuse
me, but that does mean something, something rather significant, and
relevant to the thesis that Venezuela is a dictatorship.
Arguing that the army is the most powerful institution in a
given country does not exactly advance the thesis that said country
is democratic in a meaningful way. So, basically, you are
conceding the pont that the independent-from-Chavez military, a
powerful insitution in the country, is unwilling to allow their
commander-in-chief to commit electoral fraud. Thank you.
As for your point, the military is the most powerful institution in
Turkey, far more powerful, in fact, and Turkey is a functioning
democracy.
That's quite a leap, since it was supposedly the army, not the
government, that stopped the fraud. The army is not part of
the government? Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure it is.
Don't forget, this is a one-party government.
I suppose you could call it that, but only if you define "one-party
government" in a way that would define the United States as a
one-party government from 2003-2007. It is not a "one-party state"
in the recognizable sense of that term, as opposition parties are
allowed, hold a considerable number of seats in parliament, are
competitive in presidential elections, exert enough power to cause
the referendum to fail, and just might win the next election or one
shortly after that.
Lets also not forget that a judge who was critical of Chavez
was just gunned down in the street after being denounced by Chavez.
Yet another assassination of a dissident. It's a shame that
political violance is endemic in Venezuela, but that is hardly
uniqe to Chavez.
|1.24.08 @ 10:37AM|#
"Let's not forget that after Chavez made the plebiscite on the
proposed constitutional amendments a referendum on his rule, he
lost. I don't think those poor, benighted souls are as clueless as
the anti-democrats suppose."
You are right about this Joe. The thing is, Chavez lost DESPITE
having control of almost every governmental entity, NOT because
Venezuela is a functioning democracy (there have been plenty of
examples of rampant corruption and electoral fraud, but you dismiss
it as oppossition propaganda).
The credit lies with the grass-roots student movement, brough to
life, oddly enough, by Chavez himself when he shutdown RCTV.
And I think that is what had bothered me about your posts last year
regarding Chavez. You seemed to paint him as a misguided or
misunderstood politician who worked within the rules of democracy-
and if he didnt "democracy" would bring him down. When the truth is
that brave, fedup, citizens took it upon themselves to march,
provide information, and stay at the voting centers all day and
night to make sure Chavez couldnt follow through with fraud.
In a democracy you would trust that your vote would count. That has
not been the case here.
Do you see the difference?
Now, slowly the truth about Chavez is coming to light, and the
oppossiton does not seem like the oligarchs they were portayed to
be.
Chavez has been an astute politician. He has used "democratic"
means to gain undemocratic power.
|1.24.08 @ 10:49AM|#
|1.24.08 @ 10:49AM|#
rana,
The thing is, Chavez lost DESPITE having control of almost
every governmental entity, NOT because Venezuela is a functioning
democracy Really? Not having control of the military is a
pretty good sign that there are serious limits to his control. As
is having to submit his desired power grabs for popular approvel As
is, you know, LOSING. We've seen dictators who have total control
of the government, and those things don't happen.
there have been plenty of examples of rampant corruption and
electoral fraud, but you dismiss it as oppossition propaganda
I DO? Where, pray tell? Got a link? Do you mean, I don't parrot
every single argument I read on the internet that supports your
political party? Guilty. You got me.
The credit lies with the grass-roots student movement A
grassroots student movement that can deal electoral defeats to the
president? Once again, we've seen what dictatorships look
like.
You seemed to paint him as a misguided or misunderstood
politician Lots of my posts "seem like" things that they
actually aren't. I've made my feelings about Chavez perfectly clear
- at least clear to anyone who isn't actively trying to read things
into them out of a "with us or with the terrorists" view of the
world.
I've called Chavez a hamfisted goon on these threads. Sorry if I
don't follow that up by unciritcally accepting every political
argument made by the people who would like to take his place.
In a democracy you would trust that your vote would count.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
OMG, have you ever read anything about Florida 2000, or Diebold?
Rana, have you ever heard "eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty?" I've got news for you: you have to keep your eye on the
bastards in a democracy, too.
Now, slowly the truth about Chavez is coming to light, and the
oppossiton does not seem like the oligarchs they were portayed to
be. I would say that the change is not primarily in their
public image, but is actually substantive. In 1999 and 2002, the
opposition WEREoligarchs. Since then, Chavez's hamfisted foolishnes
has led to the defection of some of his supporters to the
opposition, and galvanized some apolitical people as well, to the
point that the once-immensely-popular Chavez lost the last
election. That's democracy for you. Happened in the USA under Bush,
too.
|1.24.08 @ 10:53AM|#
rana,
there have been plenty of examples of rampant corruption and
electoral fraud, but you dismiss it as oppossition
propaganda
There is a middle ground between "Vz is a perfect democracy" and
"Vz is a Potemkin democracy." If you manage to work your way
towards it, you will fing me standing there.
I've not argued that there aren't problems with Venezuela's
democracy; I've argued that the news of its demise is exaggerated.
That you are standing on such an absolutist position doesn't make
my moderate stance identical to your opposite; it just means you're
too far away to judge perspective well.
|1.24.08 @ 10:54AM|#
"It is not a "one-party state" in the recognizable sense of that
term, as opposition parties are allowed, hold a considerable number
of seats in parliament"
Joe, if this is your definition of recognizable sense of the term
"one-party state", then you are mistaken. Vz parliament is MOSTLY
Chavista, the oppossiton has practically no repesentation in
Parliament thanks to the dumbass move by the opposition to boycott
the elections.
"...are competitive in presidential elections"
ONLY when all the opposition agrees to vote for one candidate.
Something the oppostion is trying to agree on, which isnt easy when
everyone is out to get a piece of the "petro-pie".
"...exert enough power to cause the referendum to fail,"
That was my point in my last post. Opposition political leaders had
very little to do with Chavez losing. They didnt exert any power
and they were pretty much dead in the water.
"...just might win the next election or one shortly after
that."
I hope so. But Im far from thinking that getting rid of Chavez and
replacing him with another, at least lesser power-hungry and
corrupt politician, is going to make Venezuela a shining example of
democracy.
robc|1.24.08 @ 10:56AM|#
joe,
Venezuela now scores 4,4 on the Freedom House scale. How much more
demise can a "democracy" possible have? Its demise isnt
exaggerated, it stopped being a functioning democracy sometime
around 2000.
|1.24.08 @ 10:57AM|#
"I've not argued that there aren't problems with Venezuela's
democracy; I've argued that the news of its demise is exaggerated.
That you are standing on such an absolutist position doesn't make
my moderate stance identical to your opposite; it just means you're
too far away to judge perspective well."
You misunderstand me. I dont claim Chavez is a dictator in the true
sense of the word, but Im sure convinced he would love to be (heck,
his aspirations are far greater_ he wants to be another Simon
Bolivar, and save all Latin America from the evil
empirialist)
But venezuela is not a free democracy either. If this is your
position- then we agree.
|1.24.08 @ 11:00AM|#
"it just means you're too far away to judge perspective
well."
Oh and by the way, I LIVE here and you dont. So I think my
judgement and perspective is far "closer" than yours.
|1.24.08 @ 11:09AM|#
rana,
In actual one-party states, the absense of an opposition in
parliament is NOT the consequence of the minority party boycotting
the elections. It's a consequence of the minority party being
rounded up and put into prisons. Also, good job ignoring every
other indication I provided of the opposition's power, including
their RECENT ELECTORAL VICTORY opposing the referendum.
ONLY when all the opposition agrees to vote for one
candidate. We have a two-party system, too. And yes, it
typically results in getting rid of (one bad guy) and replacing
him with another, at least lesser power-hungry and corrupt
politician Shining? No, not hardly. But real.
|1.24.08 @ 11:13AM|#
robc,
Venezuela now scores 4,4 on the Freedom House scale. How much
more demise can a "democracy" possible have?
It can eliminate the means by which the people can replace the
government when they become dissatisfied with it. THAT, my friend,
is the Red Line.
rana @ 10:57
I think we agree, then, and I think many of your supporters on
these threads are going to be very disappointed to see what you
wrote.
BTW, you misunderstood my point about perspective. I was using it
in its actual sense - when looking at two objects from a great
distance, you lose the ability to see how close or distant they are
from each other.
Anyway, my point was about our relative political positions, not
events in Venezuela, so your point about where we live isn't really
relevant.
|1.24.08 @ 11:17AM|#
"In actual one-party states, the absense of an opposition in
parliament is NOT the consequence of the minority party boycotting
the elections."
When have I claimed this? What is was pointing out was that,
contrary to your assertion, the opposition DOES NOT hold a
considerable amount of seats in parliament, for whatever
reason.
"Also, good job ignoring every other indication I provided of the
opposition's power, including their RECENT ELECTORAL VICTORY
opposing the referendum."
I think I have in every other post. I think you are IGNORING what I
have said, but I will reiterate: Chavez' defeat was NOT the result
of the oppositions POLITICAL power, as you assert, but from common
citizen's (i.e. not politicians- in case you are having a hard time
understanding).
|1.24.08 @ 11:21AM|#
"Anyway, my point was about our relative political positions,
not events in Venezuela, so your point about where we live isn't
really relevant."
How do you know my "political position"? Except for the fact that I
consider Chavez a lunatic (as most people do), I havent given much
inclination towards any political position. Do you think I more to
the right or the left? On either side, Chavez is still a nut and is
harming Venezuela.
And my posts ARE regarding events in Venezuela. So the fact that I
live here, is relevant.
|1.24.08 @ 11:25AM|#
rana,
In a democratic system, the "opposition" is whoever stands up to
oppose the party in power.
How do you know my "political position"? What are you,
kidding me?
Except for the fact that I consider Chavez a lunatic And
there ya go.
And my posts ARE regarding events in Venezuela. So the fact
that I live here, is relevant. I've explained your
misunderstanding to you already. Figure it out, don't, I don't
care.
robc|1.24.08 @ 11:29AM|#
THAT, my friend, is the Red Line.
That is when it stops being even the pretense of a democracy. It
stops being a functional democracy well before that. When it has
serious issues in electoral process and political participation it
has crossed the line. [Venezuela scores 8/12 and 8/16 in those
subcats]. 8 out of 16 in politcal participation (even the US
manages a 16/16 in that one) is NOT the result of a democratic
process.
robc|1.24.08 @ 11:31AM|#
joe,
And there ya go.
Are you seriously saying that you dont consider Chavez a lunatic?
Regardless of our disagreement about whether it is still a
democracy or not I thought you agreed that he was a corrupt,
fucktard, lunatic scumbag?
|1.24.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Joe, I understand what "opposition" means. I was pointing out
the difference between "opposition politicians" and merely those
who oppose Chavez. And it is an important distiction to make when
debating whether or not Venezuela is a functioning democracy.
Here is a little information for you: the political party PODEMOS,
a socialist party and once an ardent Cahvez supporter, is now
against Chavez. So the mere fact that I do not like Chavez does not
state my "political position"- whatever that means.
robc|1.24.08 @ 11:41AM|#
One thing that helps joe's argument a bit: Freedom House
requires a 7/12 on the electoral process to consider a country a
"electoral democracy". So, Venezuela still qualifies by their
standard. However, they dont qualify as a "liberal democracy",
which has a much higher standard. Which goes back to joe's answer
at 5:01 PM.
I judge on a tougher scale than Freedom House. Or maybe by
functional democracy I mean the same thing as they do with liberal
democracy.
|1.24.08 @ 12:08PM|#
robc,
I will offer, once again, the fact that Chavez and his party LOST
the last election that was held as evidence that Venezuela is still
a democracy.
Are you seriously saying that you dont consider Chavez a
lunatic? No, I'm seriously saying that statement is rana's
political position. I happen to agree with it.
rana,
I was pointing out the difference between "opposition
politicians" and merely those who oppose Chavez. And it is an
important distiction to make when debating whether or not Venezuela
is a functioning democracy. Actually, no, it's not an
important distinction. Since "those who oppose Chavez" have proven
themselves able to effect the outcome of elections and bring about
changes in the opposition parties, and since those opposition
parties can participate in a meaningful way in the electoral
process, that is not an important distinction.
robc,
Illiberal governments tick their citizens off. So long as a country
has a functional electoral system that allows the opposition to win
when they are more popular, an illiberal democracy can be changed
to a liberal one at the ballot box.
That doesn't mean we have to like the bastard.
|1.24.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Since "those who oppose Chavez" have proven themselves able
to effect the outcome of elections and bring about changes in the
opposition parties, and since those opposition parties can
participate in a meaningful way in the electoral process, that is
not an important distinction.
Misuse of the word "effect."
The use of "effect" as a verb in this sentence would mean that the
opposition are able to bring about the end of the elections, not
that they have an influence on the result. Clearly, this sentence
calls for the word "affect."
5 yard penalty. Still 1st down.
robc|1.24.08 @ 1:16PM|#
joe,
No, I'm seriously saying that statement is rana's political
position. I happen to agree with it.
Chavez is a lunatic isnt a political position. It is a fact. Saying
the US has federal debt isnt a political position either.
|1.24.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Since Hugo Chavez has never been diagnosed with a mental
illness, "Chavez is a lunatic" is a comment on the wisdom and
morality of his political decisions.
So, yes, that is a political position.
|1.24.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Joe,
I see you've used the term "illiberal democracy" several times in
this thread, a term I have not seen you use often, if ever, in the
past (I do actually read what you post).
Have you read Fareed Zakaria's book on this very subject by
chance?
|1.24.08 @ 2:22PM|#
"Since Hugo Chavez has never been diagnosed with a mental
illness, "Chavez is a lunatic" is a comment on the wisdom and
morality of his political decisions.
So, yes, that is a political position."
Oh joe, that is far stretched even for you. Give me a break.
|1.24.08 @ 2:51PM|#
tk,
I've not read the book, but I'm familiar with the rough
concept.
Sure rana, you weren't commenting on his politics, you're just a
tele-psychiatrist issuing a diagnosis.
joe is dumb as dirt|1.24.08 @ 6:36PM|#
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1555965
I am sure you will find a way to try and explain Chavez's actions
in this case too, joe. You are a less-intellectual Smithers to
Chavez's Mr. Burns.
Robert|1.24.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Why don't all the countries that have price supports for milk (that is, anywhere cow farmers are allowed to vote) just ship it all to Venezuela for free? Then everybody's happy. Artificial shortage everywhere else, artificial surplus in Venezuela.
|1.24.08 @ 11:38PM|#
I've never "tried to explain" Chavez's actions before. Why would
I start now?
I guess the actual arguments I make are too tough for you. I don't
think anyone's too surpirsed by that.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245