Too Crazy to Fail

The dynamic duo of global finance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan jefe Hugo Chavez, cut the ribbon on the Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank today. Speaking in Tehran, Chavez spoke of his economic model: "Capitalism needs to go down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new model that we call socialism."

Details on the bank, from Reuters:

The Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank, based in Tehran, has an initial capital base of 200 million dollars, with each nation providing half of the funds, the state broadcaster said. The Export Development Bank of Iran, which is under sanctions from the US Treasury, was tasked with creating the joint bank with the Venezuelans.

"The capital will be raised to 1.2 billion dollars with the aim of supporting joint economic, industrial and mining projects as well as speeding up the current projects," the report said. "What happened today represents a strong will to build a new world," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, attending the opening ceremony with Chavez.

Iran is under international banking sanctions over its controversial nuclear programme, which the West suspects to be a cover for atomic weapons development although Tehran insists it is purely peaceful.

Chavez, a vocal cheerleader in Latin America for Iran and its nuclear ambitions, was quoted as saying that the two countries should "further strengthen their trade cooperation."

In other Venezuela news, former defense minister Raul Baduel, who helped return Chavez to power in 2002 after a short-lived coup and has since become a fierce critic of the president, was arrested yesterday on "corruption" charges. Baduel says Chavez, who recently demanded the arrest of another political opponent, former presidental candidate Manuel Rosales, is using "the judiciary and other public branches as mercenaries to intimidate."

Comments

[Solana]

HAHA! Priceless.

[B.P.]

Will the bank be charging interest on its loans?

[crimethink]

Let me know how your socialism is working AFTER the oil runs out, Hugo. You're lucky that no amount of economic stupidity can make your petro-reserves disappear overnight (though you're trying to do it anyway), otherwise Venezuela would be somewhere below Zimbabwe on the economic performance scale right about now.

[Silentz]

Come on B.P., that's a capitalistic program that needs to be abolished. Interest is the way the fat cats get rich off the backs of the poor. You should be ashamed of yourself for even considering that.

[Episiarch]

I'm not getting the bank/socialism connection.

[Warren]

Oh yeah, that'll work.

[PapayaSF]

Episiarch, you don't really expect the economic ideologies of Iran and Venezuela to be consistent and make sense, do you?

[Warty]

Epi, there's a communist bookstore called Revolution Books down the street from me. They have a huge poster of Mao in the back. I laughed heartily when a bank opened up next door.

[Cabeza De Vaca]

I would feel safe investing my money in that bank. No way they would ever natioanlize your deposit or anything like that.

[FTG]

I'm not getting the bank/socialism connection.

You're not supposed to: Socialism can't calculate.

http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-Calculator-P293C0.aspx

[Episiarch]

Episiarch, you don't really expect the economic ideologies of Iran and Venezuela to be consistent and make sense, do you?

I can dream, can't I?

Epi, there's a communist bookstore called Revolution Books down the street from me.

I bet they take American Express.

[Isaac]

Will the bank be charging interest on its loans?

...

I'm not getting the bank/socialism connection.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what exactly this bank will be doing... If they oppose private development, they won't be lending to entrepreneurs; and if they oppose interest, there will be no increase in the capital (heh) the bank have to lend out... I honestly don't get it...

[Silentz]

guys guys...banking is okay when the right people are in charge.

[Libertymike]

To which brand of capitalism is Moynihan's hobby horse referring? The kind that embraces government bail outs of banks that do charge interest?

[Libertymike]

Moynihan's Writing Points:

1. Chavez is a dangerous socialist dictator.

2. Chavez seeks to change Venezuelan constitution in furtherance of his dangerous socialist dictatorship ends.

3. Chavez represents more of a threat to the peace and safety of his neighbors than does Benjamin Nut'neyahoo.

4. Chavez is a socialist madman.

5. Chavez is a socialist.

Always delivered with a fresh pespective.

[Nooge]

The figgity fuck?

[alan]

So Israel,

you couldn't pick today (and where ever that photo-op happens to be)to bomb Iran?

[Nooge]

Give me a break, LM. MCM could post a recipe for boiling water and you'd dog him about it (ARE YOU ADDING KOSHER SALT, MOYNIHAN? I FUCKING BET YOU ARE!)

Chavez is a madman. Moynihan points that out sometimes. Good.

[P Brooks]

Chavez spoke of his economic model: "Capitalism needs to go down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new model that we call socialism."

Was he pounding his shoe on the table as he said that?

[Pain]

Will the bank be charging interest on its loans?

Actually this is a good question. I was under the impression Islam had some fairly specific anti-usury tenents. So much so that banks that did business with significant numbers of Muslims had to do some weird pretzel math to make loans not be considered usury. I believe I first heard about it on NPR.

[Anonymous]

It's like the Brazilian auto industry: first you nationalize it, then you set it up as a monopoly by fiat.

Speaking of Brazil, I had just gotten the fresnel lens set right and was about to hit play on the Gilliam classic, when -- wouldn't you know it -- the EPA came in and condemned my flat because I put some electrical tape on a leaking waste duct. "You shouldn't be taking work away from the unions," they said... but I was already in my suit of armor.

[J sub D]

I thought the Iranians were smarter than that.
I really did.

[J sub D]

LibertyMike,

Look at it this way. Now the Palestinians have a safe place to deposit their money. Everybody wins.

[Mari Dupont]

Clearly this "bank" will never show a "loss" since that would mean adapting scorned capitalistic tools like double entry bookkeeping, etc. It's probably just a cover for funneling money to questionable international "businesses". Though I'd love to see a VISA commercial from these guys...

[P Brooks]

banks that did business with significant numbers of Muslims had to do some weird pretzel math to make loans not be considered usury.

Maybe they loan the "present value".

And- I thought the A-rabs invented double entry bookkeeping.

[JP]

What banks following Shari'a law do is become co-owners with the borrower and then get paid a specified "profit" or "rent" from the business or property.

Because, as we all know, Allah is too stupid to tell that he's being tricked.

[Lisa]

I wonder if Sean Penn will move his money there?

[B]

Damn, it's a shame joe isn't here. He would have posted three of four posts already, at least, telling us what a real democrat Chavez is.

[BG]

Maybe they loan the "present value".

The amount of a loan at the time the loan is made is always the "present value".

[Abdulo]

Socialists running banks? What's next, the US president nationalizing the auto industry?

Oh, wait....

[jtuf]

I'm no fan of Chavez or Ahmadinejad, but I have no problem seeing the IMF and World bank get some competition either.

[BG]

Re Islamic mortgages:

What I heard they do is:

1 - Figure out how much the monthly payment would be, and how many payments there would be if it were a normal mortgage.

2 - Buy the house at the market price (which is of course less than what the sum of the normal mortgage payments would have been).

3 - Resell the house to the Muslim customer for what the sum of the payment would have been on terms that allow the customer to make monthly payments over that same time period.

So the customer has the same monthly minimum payments as a normal mortgage.

However the Muslim borrower would get no benefit from making an additional principle payment early. Also, I'm not sure, but refinancing might get a little weird.

[pseudo-MNG]

People in Gaza would like to open banks too, too bad your Israeli friends keep blowing up every Palestinian-built structure larger than a dog house. But you'd never know that from reading Moynihan's articles.

[ChrisH]

"Joint" Bank? It's backed by weed? Bitchin'...

[EJM]

In other Venezuela news...

Actually, I was thinking that the truly important Venezuela-related news this week was Chavez defending Sudan's President Bashir at a summit in Doha.

[QSL]

The power of the English language in commerce is still a sight to behold. Its presence made even in a warm-fuzzy AhmadineJihad and Lil Castro Chavez photo op. Even Venezuela's own language is left out.

[MNG]

"it's a shame joe isn't here. He would have posted three of four posts already, at least, telling us what a real democrat Chavez is."

I don't remember joe ever saying that. He used to say that democracy in Venezuala would check Chavez. I realize nuance is something hard for some people, but it's kind of important in order to be a good thinker...

Nooge
Nice to know your more of a Moynihan lover than a MNG hater :). Judging from the frequency, immediacy and urgency of your rages against anyone who criticizes I have only one question: with Moynihan do you pitch or do you catch?

"Let me know how your socialism is working AFTER the oil runs out, Hugo."

This is so stupid. I heard a variant on another thread the other day, this one a Putin two minute hate. It's like "no fair, their economic well being comes from oil!" Look, nations use what they have. That's what they do. The U.S. certainly benefits from many natural resources we have and geographical realities.

I mean I could pooh-pooh libertarian models like Hong Kong by just saying "oh well they don't count because they're a port city."

[MNG]

"pseudo-MNG | April 3, 2009, 8:10pm
People in Gaza would like to open banks too, too bad your Israeli friends keep blowing up every Palestinian-built structure larger than a dog house. But you'd never know that from reading Moynihan's articles."

You know, its funny that these are the guys who think I'm obsessed with the Israeli situation...

[matt]

Look at it this way. Now the Palestinians have a safe place to deposit their money. Everybody wins.

What money? Arafat aside, Palestinians have had a little trouble stacking money, what with the apartheid conditions and whatnot...

[JD]

"Let me know how your socialism is working AFTER the oil runs out, Hugo."

This is so stupid. I heard a variant on another thread the other day, this one a Putin two minute hate. It's like "no fair, their economic well being comes from oil!" Look, nations use what they have. That's what they do. The U.S. certainly benefits from many natural resources we have and geographical realities.

Yes, MNG, every nation uses its natural resources. The difference is that some nations have diversified economies and use the profits from one source to further diversify. Other nations just rely on their one source and are prosperous for a while, then suffer when that source goes bad. Even you have to realize that distinction.

[Unsubstantive Kurt]

And- I thought the A-rabs invented double entry bookkeeping.

Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.

[Naga Sadow]

MNG!!!! You fool! You've opened the thread up to Underzog rants! May you burn for your sins! Burn, I say!

[Naga Sadow]

Unsubstansive Kurt is correct. You're asking for trouble by confusing Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, and Persians. It's like calling a Japanese person Chinese. Or a Korean person Japanese. Etc.

[alan]

Naga Sadow | April 3, 2009, 11:22pm | #
MNG!!!! You fool! You've opened the thread up to Underzog rants! May you burn for your sins! Burn, I say!

Lol! Yet, that fucked in the head fuckhead doesn't get half the shit that MNG does on the board.

[Kolohe]

I mean I could pooh-pooh libertarian models like Hong Kong by just saying "oh well they don't count because they're a port city."

Almost every country that has oil is richer than the median* regardless of it's political or economic system.

The same cannot be said of almost every country with a deep water port.

Also, Hong Kong is somewhat off the beaten path. It's not like Singapore which is at the junction of a geographic chokepoint. True, it's also at the end of a navigable river system, like most important ports around the world (save long beach) but until recently (i.e. post Mao), there wasn't all that much traffic flowing down it.

*measured in nominal GDP per capita. The lone expection I can see is Nigeria - which also has deep water ports. Which indicates what all kinds of fraked up sub saharan Africa is.

[JB]

Which one of these bitches eats the cracker when they do a 2-man circle jerk?

[Stephen Smith]

"The Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank"? I think it clearly states that it is the:

Bi-NationalIranian-Venezuelan Bank

My favorite part is how the sign is only in Persian and English (!), but not Spanish.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Bi-NationalIranian

Ha ha! Lonewacko finally got the BrownPeople!

[Art-P.O.G.]

I guess they must not run background checks on the graphic designers they hire.

[DJF]

I am sure glad that we have gotten our two minutes of hate for the weekend, everyone chant together, big brother demands it.

I always find it funny that so many who claim to be "free marketers" get in such a tizzy over Iran and Venezuela, yet have no problem with the communist dictators running China and Vietnam. But I guess that since China and Vietnam allow in the "international business community" to run sweatshops then they are ok while Iran and Venezuela are the devil incarnate.

The rule seems to be, be as much of a total dictatorship as you want, but if you let in the globalist businesses then we will ignore it, don't let in the globalist then you are evil.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

I thought the Iranians were smarter than that.
I really did.

Oh, they are. Just wait, soon we'll have ourselves an Iranazualan Missile Crisis! Or a Trans-Venerainian Cluster Fuck Ordeal. Or maybe we'll just have the discovery of The Great Persio-Myan Calander Bookkeeping Mistake, which led to everyone in both countries planting their corn at the wrong time of year and they all died of starvation.

Er, I don't know but I'm sure somebody is going to get something out of this. A photo op at least. What else could these two piss ants hope for anyway.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

DJF -- WTF are you talking about?

yet have no problem with the communist dictators running China and Vietnam

??? I have no clue where you got this from, but do try and get a grip.

[DJF]

Ebeneezer Scrooge writes
""""DJF -- WTF are you talking about?""""

""""??? I have no clue where you got this from, but do try and get a grip.""""

No on topic reply, typical of Reason Magazine, even though you actually quoted part of what I was talking about

I get it from reading Reason, which not only has no problem with the communist dictatorships of China and Vietnam they openly support them.

Yet at the same time they seem to have all sorts of problems with Iran and Venezuela opening a bank together. As far as I see, this bank has nothing to do with me, it does not steal my money, and if someone foreigners want to open a bank together how is this in anyway of any importance to anyone outside of Iran and Venezuela? Yet on the other hand China for example uses its "sovereign wealth funds" to buy up businesses around the world which do effect me and also puts pressure on the US government to bail out banks which owe China money and Reason ignores that.

So I will repeat again the rule that seems to apply to foreign governments,

1. If you allow in the globalist businesses to get access to cheap labor or resources you can be as dictatorial and non-free market as you want and the corporate libertarians will ignore it

2. If you don't allow unlimited access for the globalist businesses to get access to cheap labor or resources then you are the enemy no matter what the status of your government or the level of freedom you have.

[Nooge]

MNG, I WILL NOT go out with you. Stop asking already.

It's good to know that you and noted Holocaust denier Libertymike are on the same page about Moynihan, a man who, as far as I can see, has committed the grave offense reporting on issues in a manner with which you disagree. The horror.

Every Moynihan thread, no matter what it's about, you're in it, hanging on his nuts, posting spittle-flecked rants about how he eats Palestinian babies for breakfast. You were doing it long before I ever appeared in any of those threads, which makes you pulling the "LOL NOOGE IN A MOYNIHAN THREAD LOL" card pretty fucking weak.

In the interest of keeping the comments section free of our little love spats, feel free to contact me via e-mail. Imagine, we could argue for days.

[Art-P.O.G.]

DJF,

Yeesh, your confirmation bias is showing. Many a reference has been made here to China's 'questionable' civil rights record.

[Groucho Marx]

One man's Mede is another man's Persian.

[Suki]

P Brooks,

Even I know this one. Luca Pacioli was not an Arab and (as someone else pointed out) neither are the Persians.

Please do not go into some sillyness that the oldest piece of paper with "accounting" on it was written in Arabic, or something similar. Luca Pacioli invented the method that is used everywhere now.

[J sub D]

What money? Arafat aside, Palestinians have had a little trouble stacking money, what with the apartheid conditions and whatnot...

When you blow the rent money on mortars and rockets, don't come crying to me.

[MNG]

Naga
I didn't bring up the subject-that-conjuures-forth-the-Underone. Psuedo-mng was a troll of me bro, not me.

[J sub D]

I get it from reading Reason, which not only has no problem with the communist dictatorships of China and Vietnam they openly support them.

[citation needed]
Reasonoids please forgive me. I know that's trite.

DJF, like so many other visitors, is completely clueless about libertarian philosophy. He sees what he wants to see and ignores all that doesn't fit in with his preconceptions. It's a common myopia for both team red and team blue fanboys.

[MNG]

Kolohe
Hong Kong also is, well, a city. I mean, NYC does well too, but that's hardly a reason to argue that everyone should use NYC's policies as a model for their economies...

Nooge
Sheesh, now you want to give ME your number...I guess that answers my question to you about how you and MM do your thing, you catch.

[MNG]

DJF
You are right about Reason, or Moynihan's irrational Venezuala hate. One cannot discern any neutral principle which would explain the bizarre number of two minute hates on Chavez (don't get me wrong, the man deserves scorn, but the relentless focus is bizarre). This was my original point when I brought up Israel long ago: Moynihan points to HRW records on how bad Chavez is (he is bad, check out the HRW watch report on him), but Isreal, which rates a similar if not worse rating from groups like HRW gets not only no criticism, but actual apologia from him. So it's not like some general concern for liberty in the international scene that could be motivating MM.

I've offered a rationale that explains it pretty well though. Moynihan caters to the right wing of the libertarian element. And if you criticize Israel on the right you get written off rather quick. So he can't go there, no matter how much intellectual honesty and integrity would demand it. He's got a check to collect.

Once you accept that idea the seemingly bizarre non-pattern in his posts becomes a rather clear pattern: engage in the usual two minute hates that animate the Right at any given time (such as rabbling about hippie anti-(Iraq protestors [something he does a little less on Reason than in some of his other outlets for sure, someone recently posted a gem of his from a European outlet he wrote for a while back], English nationalized health care, Michael Moore, and of course Chavez-Ahmadinejad, etc).

But DJF, you've got some generalizations about Reason and libertarianism that don't hold water. Most libertarians are hardly apologists for China or Vietnam for example.

[Art-P.O.G.]

MNG,

It could be that Israel/Palestine is a sensitive and difficult issue on par in certain respects to the 'abortion debate' and that Chavez is almost as easy to make fun of as Chris Crocker*.
I still need to see Waltz With Bashir at any rate.

*Remember that really effeminate dude who was on YouTube crying "leave Britney alone"

[Suki]

MNG,

I doubt this will do any good, but here goes.

Libertarianism is for free markets.

Socialism is against free markets.

Chavez is a Socialist and has a whole country in his grip.

Anti-Socialists like to inform people when Socialism is on the march.

Socialists and ultraleftists can not stand the slightest criticism of Socialism. This point may explain why you have such a fit whenever Chavez is criticized and you even use empty trash like don't get me wrong, the man deserves scorn, but the relentless focus is bizarre as some sort of commentary holy water sprinkled through the walls of words you post every time your pink feathers get ruffled.

[Art-P.O.G.]

What's the libertarian angle in Sudan, anyway? Let's all donate to charity.

[MNG]

DJF
You'll find libertarians that run the gamut, just like you will conservatives or liberals.

Sure, there's folks like SIV/noone you know/Tofusushi, RC Dean, Gilbert Martin, etc., that are just right wing guys under libertarian sheeps clothing with caricatures of liberals in their heads, no attempt to honestly understand where their opponents are coming from or to learn anything, and very little intellectual integrity, honesty or ability for that matter.

And then you have libertarians that strive mightily to have their libertarianism possess intellectual integrity, who seem willing to have an intellectually honest conversation, and who cannot be called right wing shils. Posters like J sub D, fluffy, Hazel Meade, economist, Art P.O.G., kolohe and others I can think of and Reason contributors like Balko, Walker, Sullum, etc.

Note that all the latter of course still usually and often disagree, usually strongly, with liberals such as myself. It's not like they are losing any principle being more nuanced in their thinking.

And you'll find by not generalizing about libertarians and talking with them one at a time and reading their classics and such you'll 1. make your liberal beliefs stronger and 2. yes, even change your beliefs a little (it's no sin).

[Episiarch]

And if you criticize Israel on the right you get written off rather quick.

"Greeks are just Jews without money."

[MNG]

Suki
I see your point. I really do. But I submit that libertarianism, as I understand it, should be against deprivations of liberty whether they go under the name of "socialism" or some other name. In other words, much more than just "anti-socialism" but "pro-liberty."

Art-P.O.G.

I agree with you too. I actually think the Israeli-Palestinian thing is immensley complicated. But, I've enver heard Moynihan even act like it is, and I think that's probably because on the right saying "it's complicated" will get you written out of the movement, because their position is that it is really not very complicated, there are these white knights (Israel) who are long suffering and ever patient in dealing with these crazed devils (Arabs/Palestinians) who never cease to do evil and such. But more importantly there are some aspects to the issue that are not too complicated, or rather should not be for a libertarian. For example bulldozing the house of a relative of a suicide bomber. I cannot imagine any other setting in which a libertarian would accept such a "non-individualized" version of what is just. But not a peep from Moynihan and his ilk on such things, while constantly harping on Chavez and such, seems bizarre.

But again, it's something that makes sense when you look at any right wing magazine. It's how they talk about international situations all the time.

Also, the Chavez thing can be kind of nuanced too. There is an awful history in S. America of 1. wealthy landowners using force and fraud to give the back of their hand to the poor 2. American meddling with crazy-bad results for the people there 3. foriegn corporate interests willing to deal with and profit from both 1 and 2. Combine that with what seems to be an ugly U.S. role in an attempt to oust Chavez and you've got a situation where, depsite Chavez's ugly authoritarianism and over-the-top Mussolini like buffoonery you've got a rather complicated situation as well...

[MNG]

Epi
Don't get me started on one of my anti-Grecian rants! I mean, wtf have those stinky people ever contributed to civilization!

[Episiarch]

Feta cheese?

[MNG]

Art
I think that is actually a good question about Sudan.

On the one hand I understand a position I hear a lot on H&R that says "no government assistance to Sudan in any form." I mean, libertarians are supposed to be against government, and such assistance would involve taking stuff from me and you (our money, or ourselves [conscription]) to help C (the Sudanese).

On the other hand, some libertarians seem to argue that you can take from me and you in order to protect the property and personal rights of C (because they are the same as me and you), in other words to tax for and raise a police force. IF it is ok to do that in a domestic sphere, then I am not sure why we would not be similarly compelled to do something like that when the basic property and personal rights of folks in another nation are threatened. I mean, as libertarians point out in debates on immigration, national lines are "just lines on maps" and the rights of a Sudanese woman business owner who is being raped and having her goods destroyed would seem then to have the same moral demand on us as if that were going down to a woman in Peoria...

So that's my long winded way of saying, good fucking question...

[Suki]

Awsome! Another word wall of the same thing! Thanks MNG for pumping so many electrons with such little purpose.

[MNG]

OK, I give you feta...And now that you've softened my irrational hatred of all things Greek I have to ask: Do those Pepperoncini things that come with my PapaJohn's pizza come from Greece? Because if yes then maybe those fucking people have actually contributed two things to Western Civilization after all...

[MNG]

Suki

Lots of words confusing to you, eh? Well the only part addressed to you was kind of short. Did you not get it? "Anti-socialism" not same as "pro-liberty?"

I don't have a stylus so I can't actually draw it for you...

[Episiarch]

Do those Pepperoncini things that come with my PapaJohn's pizza come from Greece?

Nope. That's Italian. However, you have now disgusted me with the revelation that you eat PapaJohn's pizza. What next? You like Olive Garden? You are a philistine.

[MNG]

"Socialists and ultraleftists can not stand the slightest criticism of Socialism."

I like this statement because I'm not a socialist, or even I should think an ultraleftist.

For example, I think central planning is in most areas doomed to fail, for the reasons Hayek gives in The Road to Serfdom.

I think that 8 times out of 10 government agencies are doomed to be more inefficient than market ones, for the reasons outlined by Mises in Bureaucracy.

I think inequality is a must, for the reasons Rawls explained in A Theory of Justice.

I'm adamamntly against immigration, gun control and affirmative action, which is a funny thing for an "ultraleftist."

The fact that you would lump me in with that demonstrates that it is in fact yourself that cannot stand even the slightest deviation from your ideological stance. Kind of a BarneyFrank=Sweden=Hitler/Staling kind of thinking.

I guess you missed my latest points on nuance in more ways than just the literal sense...

[MNG]

Well, Olive Garden is just for special occasions Epi, for when me and the missus get dressed up and all.

[J sub D]

Libertarians think everybody is fucked up. Dems, GOPers, socialisxts, totalitarians, theocrats ... they are all dumbasses. The most consistent and among us think other libertarians are fucked up too. I'm looking at you Epi and Nutrasweet.

It's basically misantropy dressed up as a political philosophy.

[MNG]

But don't act like you're too fancy for the Papa-John's Chicken Bacon Ranch pizza you cosmotarian.

[Suki]

Epi,

Is olive oil originally Greek? Italian? Persian? Semitic?

[Suki]

Lots of words confusing to you, eh?

No, but you must be looking in a reflection device when you criticize others. That is the only rational explaination.

[Naga Sadow]

What about my 300 workout? Thats greek too, right?

"300 brave Spartans and 1800 abs marched out to defend Greece from mighty Persia"

[Episiarch]

Well, Olive Garden is just for special occasions Epi, for when me and the missus get dressed up and all.

I think I'm going to be sick.

Here is an attempt to salvage your palate:

1 lb fresh sushi grade salmon
chives
3 green onions (scallions)
1 tbls capers
tamari sauce
1-2 lemons
1 tbls crushed ginger

Grind the salmon in the food processor or a meat grinder to a coarse, chunky state. Chop the chives, scallions, and capers and mix them with the salmon, the squeezed lemon, and the ginger. Start slowly adding tamari sauce until it's just salty/flavorful enough (be careful not to add too much).

Viola: salmon tartare. Absolutely delicious.

[Episiarch]

But don't act like you're too fancy for the Papa-John's Chicken Bacon Ranch pizza you cosmotarian.

Why don't you just slap me in the face? It's the same thing.

Is olive oil originally Greek? Italian? Persian? Semitic?

Olive oil is a Masonic conspiracy to enslave us all to the Vatican.

[Suki]

Olive oil is a Masonic conspiracy to enslave us all to the Vatican.

Awsome! Well, enslavement using the proper safewords . . .

[Episiarch]

The safeword is "papist".

[Suki]

Epi,

I thought it would be something more like "rosso, giallo, verde" or "rutilus , crocus , viridis".

You learn so many things here!

[Naga Sadow]

Suki,

Epi, besides being the resident narcissist, is also a food critic.

[Episiarch]

"Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres"

[Suki]

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres

Isn't that the inscription at olive garden over the chicken selections?

[Episiarch]

"Pollo est omnis divisa in partes tres"

[P Brooks]

1 tbls capers

What, exactly are capers,anyway?

Foetal peas?

[P Brooks]

So many errors, in such a short sentence.

*hangs head*

[Episiarch]

What, exactly are capers,anyway?

Hier. Put simply...capers are delicious.

[Suki]

P Brooks,

What, exactly are capers,anyway?

A grown up is asking this?

[Ska]

RE: Accountancy - it had been around well before Pacioli's time, and evidence of accounting systems have been found in ancient Roman and Arab cultures, as well as referenced in Matthew's gospel.

Pacioli is credited as the author of the first text of standardized bookkeeping/accounting principles, and in that way is the father of modern accountancy.

[Suki]

Awsome Ska! You found some bit of accounting on a slip of paper in the Bible.

[P Brooks]

capers- delicious

(!)

You may have mine, if you would like them.

[Suki]

You may have mine, if you would like them.

I call half!

[Ska]

Well I was at a Holiday Inn for a conference, and I'm flipping through the Gideon's. That's when I noticed at Matthew 3:14 there was a rudimentary balance sheet scribbled in the margin. I thought that counted.

[J sub D]

Well I was at a Holiday Inn for a conference, and I'm flipping through the Gideon's. That's when I noticed at Matthew 3:14 there was a rudimentary balance sheet scribbled in the margin. I thought that counted.

The best thing to do with a Gideon's is black out all of the pron in the Song of Soloman. Attach a post-it or write in the margins "What are you doing here, pervert?"

[Ironic]

Just in case there are people fluent in Farsi on the board I thought I would post a link to this site:
http://www.cheragheazadi.org/

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

DJF,

If you're new around here then I apologize. It means you don't know. You may rest assured that we around here are NOT "okay" with what's going on in China and Vietnam.

But to continue with MNG's listing of the faithful vs the faithless,

And then you have libertarians that strive mightily to have their libertarianism possess intellectual integrity, who seem willing to have an intellectually honest conversation, and who cannot be called right wing shils.

We also have our left wing shils.

And then we have a third leg, which are the anarchist shils.

"Libertarians" are no more homogenous than any other group. And like any other group, there are those who would stick their head in the sand rather than betray whatever they think the "true faith" is. It just seems to be human nature.

[Kolohe]

I get it from reading Reason, which not only has no problem with the communist dictatorships of China and Vietnam they openly support them.

Well I just perused some article here and I still say [citation needed]

(Here's the lone article I found on searching under 'vietnam')

[Kolohe]

Kolohe
Hong Kong also is, well, a city. I mean, NYC does well too, but that's hardly a reason to argue that everyone should use NYC's policies as a model for their economies...

It would be a good start. Especially if they started with the 19th century versions of those policies until they had enough of a base to support the 20th century versions(and avoided the more stupid ones)

[P Brooks]

Three Pittsburgh police officers killed by gun-loving maniac

-New York Daily News headline.

This is why the print media *must* survive.

[kwais]

Libertymike, and MNG the same person?

[Obviously...]

Greek? Italian? Persian? Semitic?

Jewish.

[J sub D]

Three Pittsburgh police officers killed by gun-loving maniac

-New York Daily News headline.

This is why the print media *must* survive.

To be honest, it appears to be an accurate headline. "Gun loving" was substantiated in the article and not many would disagree with "maniac".

Pennsyvania has capital punishment, he'll get sentenced to it and after 10-20 years, dozens of appeals, and millions spent on court costs he might be executed. He's never going to be a free man again.

Cops have another goddam reason to respond with SWAT routinely now. Bad fuckin' news all around. My sympathies go out to the slain officers families.

[kwais]

Sure, there's folks like SIV/noone you know/Tofusushi, RC Dean, Gilbert Martin, etc., that are just right wing guys under libertarian sheeps clothing with caricatures of liberals in their heads,

And then you have libertarians that strive mightily to have their libertarianism possess intellectual integrity, who seem willing to have an intellectually honest conversation, and who cannot be called right wing shils. Posters like J sub D, fluffy, Hazel Meade, economist, Art P.O.G., kolohe

What about me?

I have argued with you plenty MNG, I deserve a rating too.

[kwais]

Cops have another goddam reason to respond with SWAT routinely now. Bad fuckin' news all around. My sympathies go out to the slain officers families.

I was thinking the same thing too.

No silver lining on this cloud.

[MNG]

The problem with lists is that you always leave out someone deserving. Of course kwais is in tht category, my bad.

And I'm not Libertymike. LM has a deontological view of the world that I just don't dig, among other disagreements.

I'm afraid I'm just plain MNG, the one and only, though I was Crow Eating Dumbass for one month as the result of a lost wager on whether Obama could win or not.

[MNG]

"Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend."

Hmmm, haven't heard from SIV today...But that guy's a Georgian (no offense intended) not a citizen of the Commonwealth to my immediate North...

[kwais]

"Anti-socialism" not same as "pro-liberty?"

How about this:
All "pro liberty" is not contained in "Anti Socialism"

But all "anti Socialism" is indeed "pro liberty"

[kwais]

Sorry for the late posts, I am reading through the thread right now and posting as I come across something that needs posting.

[MNG]

I forgot BDB too, haven't seen that guy lately.

It is interesting that we hear right away that this crazed gunman was a big 2nd Amendment supporter...What was the position on gun rights of the NY guy the other day who killed 12 people at the immigration center? You didn't see any headlines "Man with no strong opinion on gun rights opens up at immigration center; 12 slain more feared"

[MNG]

kwais
I see your point. But who do you think would warrant more scorn from a libertarian, Sweden (socialist) or Saudia Arabia (not-socialist)?

I'd think Saudia Arabia. But as I'm not a libertarian and only trying to geuss from what I've read from libertarians I'm certainly open to someone pointing out that I'm wrong there.

[MaterialMonkee]

"So that's my long winded way of saying, good fucking question..."

That is actually a good fucking question

The most obvious answer would be that in a
nightwatchman state then the police are paid for by:

an income tax that is paid for by the inhabitants of the state

or mineral-tax or land tax for Geo-libertarians

So the police provide protection in the region the tax is taken from, which gives the standard libertarian answer on non-interventionism

Its difficult to comment on the grounds for interventionism in foreign civil wars. Most of them are the product of the imperial decolonization process that gave no regard to ethnic or tribal identity.

Obviously the war in a Sudan is the result of sticking two distinct ethnic groups in one state.

The alternative to this is partition such as 1947 in the Indian Sub-continent and the partition of the Palestinian mandate.

(DRINK!!!)

I believe that the left's objection to partition originates from Marxist internationalism which denounced ethnic and nationalist tribalism, saying people should live together in a collectivist manner regardless of ethnic identity.

Realistically, any interventionism in the Sudan would have to be a repeat of a partition on ethnic lines of a nation by an external force. That would probably involve displacing a lot of people from the lands their ancestors have lived in for centuries to draw up a new border that separates two new countries on ethnic grounds.

If there's no interventionism then undoubtedly the war will continue and thousands more will die.

So that is indeed a fucking good question

[MaterialMonkee]

Sweden (socialist)?

Not very really

They have some of the lowest levels of corporate tax in europe and one of the lowest levels of nationalization

Actually the Scandinavian states where the first states in the EU to privatize the telecom sector
which gave the world Nokia and sony-erricson

There's a high level of wealth redistribution that happens in the Scandinavian states but its taken more from a level tax on goods.

Saudi Arabia has far higher levels of nationalization
than Sweden

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

[kwais]

I see Saudi Arabia as a socialist country

I see theocratic government, as sort of a religious socialism.

I mean here and in Sweden our socialists try to save us from ourselves, in what we consume, and what we have.

Theocracies try to save you from yourself, they just add God into the equation. (Kind of like liquor laws on the East Coast).

But economically Saudi Arabia is socialist too. They are much more like Sweden than like a capitalist nation.

The Saudis (and Egyptians, and Kuwaitis) are just not as good at it, as the Swedes.

[that\'s racist]

Crow Eating Dumbass for one month as the result of a lost wager on whether Obama could win or not.

[MaterialMonkee]

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

Saudi Aramco is the state-owned national oil company of Saudi Arabia. It is the largest oil corporation in the world with the largest proven crude oil reserves and production [2].

I'd say that I don't see alot of anger at Venezuela or Iran here at Reason.

Its just amusement eh?

They are two of the most comically pathetic world leaders right now.

Sort of like two 15 year old kids trapped in mens bodies playing out some kind of angry at the parents thing with whoever is in the Whitehouse.

They also just happen to be uber-statists in favor of centrally planned economies so it makes them an even more satisfying target for Libertarians' jokes

[kwais]

I see MaterialMonkey beat me to it.

And has better knowlege.

I was just going of having lived in Saudi for 6 months.

If Saudi was indeed not socialist, if it were capitalist, it would be much less of a shithole. It would be a much better place in spite of the theocratic bs.

Actually, I don't know if a country CAN be a theocracy without also being socialist.

[MaterialMonkee]

"But economically Saudi Arabia is socialist too. They are much more like Sweden than like a capitalist nation."

Saudia Arabia is a centrally planned economy.

Sweden has low corparate tax and minimal nationalisation

I really would like to refute this idea that Scandinavian countries are somehow less capitalist than any other developed nation.

[kwais]

Cops have another goddam reason to respond with SWAT routinely now. Bad fuckin' news all around.

The thing is though, that the police did have a SWAT team there, and for 4 hours they couldn't get the guy until he decided to surrender.

SO, it seems to be the case that SWAT teams are only good if you ALLOW them to kill your dog and step on your family's necks while they trash your house, violate your rights, and make up charges against you.

If you actually fight back, they are no better than meter maids it seems.

[kwais]

Mr Monkee,
I really would like to refute this idea that Scandinavian countries are somehow less capitalist than any other developed nation.

Noted.

I guess where i get the misconception from, and maybe others do too is:
- Universal health care. They have it, that is pretty socialist.
- High taxes. 60% or something?
- Pretty impressively well paid unemployed people. I mean, I don't know, but that is the myth.

Also, socialists in this country quote Sweden as the ideal all the time. Therefore, those of us who have contempt for socialists figure Sweden must be socialist.

I think their over all taxation is not that much higher than ours, but that they spend it on "social justice" instead of on the military.

(and that they can do so only 'because' we have our military)

[MaterialMonkee]

"socialists in this country quote Sweden as the ideal all the time"

Seems to be the world over. Except Sweden where's they complain about all the capitalism!
you can't win with lefties eh?

beer time1

[J sub D]

Cops have another goddam reason to respond with SWAT routinely now. Bad fuckin' news all around.

The thing is though, that the police did have a SWAT team there, and for 4 hours they couldn't get the guy until he decided to surrender.

SO, it seems to be the case that SWAT teams are only good if you ALLOW them to kill your dog and step on your family's necks while they trash your house, violate your rights, and make up charges against you.

It's more disheartening than that. Rahm Emmanuel(sp?) has publicly stated that you should "never let a crisis go to waste" or something damned close to it. Take my word for it, I ain't in the mood to go googling.

Expect an assault weapons ban in the next two weeks. If I'm wrong, remind me of it.

[kwais]

Expect an assault weapons ban in the next two weeks. If I'm wrong, remind me of it.

See, I don't know if it is wrong to think like this, but I think if the dude had fought it out with police just AFTER the ban, it would have been better. Then the dude would have had some legitimacy.

[economist]

"Actually, I don't know if a country CAN be a theocracy without also being socialist."

It depends on the religion. If the religion said that God (gods, divine principle, laws of nature, fates, spirits, whatever) had divinely ordained property rights, free trade, and minimal government interference, then what could have a capitalist theocracy. That said, most religions advocate mucking around with the economy in some form or fashion, so it's unlikely.

[economist]

Then again, according to Wikipedia, the idea of laissez-faire may have been adapted from the Taoist principle of wu wei (as opposed to the interventionist principles of Confucianism). But somehow I don't see "Taoist theocracy" springing up, in part because Taoism isn't one of the aggressive religions that uses government force to gain sway over people.

[economist]

Damn, I wish Chavez would disappear back into stinking ooze from which he came.

And that Ahmadinejad would get sucked down into hell and get tortured by angry demons for all eternity.

[economist]

Yes, I nkow, I've bene minking too druch.

[economist]

Of course Saudi Arabia is a socialist nation. They have a huge welfare state to keep a large part of their population passive (towards the government) and idle. This is primarily because the Saudi government's policies tend to stifle all industries other than the oil industry, on which the entire economy of the nation depends.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Boy, you just wait until Obama gets us off foreign oil. Those Saudis are really gonna be in big trouble.

In fact it won't be the batteries that get us off foreign oil. It'll be the fact that they've finally, actually managed to kill off our economy.

Who knows, they did before (Great Depression) and somehow (WWII) we bounced back. Maybe our grand children will be able to face decent economic prospects again.

Right now all I see on the horizon, and immediately over head, is gloom doom and gloom.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

I'd say that I don't see alot of anger at Venezuela or Iran here at Reason.

Its just amusement eh?

Well, not really.

They are two of the most comically pathetic world leaders right now.

The problem is, there's so many pathetic leaders out there that I don't have time to properly pissed off at all of them. But here, I'll try and make it up to you.

Hey, all you pathetic asshole world leaders, listen up! You're F***ING idiots and I hate you, and your mother and the horse you ride on.

How's that?

[Art-P.O.G.]

J sub D | April 4, 2009, 12:05pm | #

This is an interesting point to me and one that bears repeating. While I realize that political parties are...necessary or close to it for any democratic system to have a structure, there is something difficult and troubling to me in the very idea of a political party. Even the Libertarian Party at its relatively small size feels nebulous and abstracted. And while I think it still means something to people to be Environmentalist, Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, Religious or what have you, I wonder what it even means to many people to call themselves Democrats or Republicans. Don't get me wrong, I know many people are principled Democrats or Republicans, but probably just as many might as well call themselves R or D by default or Independents.
Even among politicians, I wonder what principles many of them are adhering to, and with a few exceptions, when I actually do find out the bases of their ideologies (or lack thereof) I'm disappointed.
I'm a libertarian in large part because I thought the entire *idea* behind punishing adults for putting drugs into their own bodies was fucked up and that few people in either major party seemed willing to challenge the War on Drugs.
I've never been one to go apeshit over somebody failing the 'ideological purity test', not only because my own ideas are mostly way too abstract to actually be useful, but because Leftists and Righties that are genuinely interested in libertarian ideas are most often just as open-minded as the Biggest-L libertarian. I know, I know, citation needed. But I do know inductively that intelligent people sometimes come to different conclusions.

So, disagreements intact, MNG (and joe) are as fine as any commenters there've been on this blog.

As for the whole misanthrope thing, it does follow that inasmuch as political affiliation is often a social construct, we libertarians would often be the misfit sort. I don't think being a Harvey Pekar type is a virtue or a sin, but I feel that somehow society needs its thoughtful grouches.

[MNG]

I don't care how you cut it, Sweden's pretty socialist dudes. And I have a little trouble with including Saudia Arabia as socialist, but maybe I could use a better example.

We can make it easier by comparing France under Mitterand to Spain under Franco. It would be hard to not call the first "socialist", at least in the very loose way that some folks here throw the term around, and hard to call Franco's Spain socialist. For the life of me I can't see how these two were even that close in terms of liberty....And so I think this shows that liberty means a lot more than being "anti-socialist."

[Some Guy]

Just wait until I start my own steakhouse to promote veganism...

[Suki]

SG,

Just wait until I start my own steakhouse to promote veganism...

Love that one!

[MaterialMonkee]

Oye MNG

"that some folks here throw the term around, and hard to call Franco's Spain socialist."

Actually Its pretty easy,

I live 100 miles away from Spain and my girlfriend is Spanish so I've taken a big interest in its socio-economic History

Yep you guessed it Franco had enormous control over the economy in terms of nationalization and economic isolationism. Most infrastructure was nationalized and free trade was frowned upon due to its cultural impurity.

My parents were hippies and used to hang out in Ibiza during the 60's they were saying that you could even legally take a peseta out of the country.

Spain never had a significant industrial revolution and was always poor but Franco's socialist (state control of the economy) kept it very poor

Economist refer to the Spanish Miracle which happened after the liberalization of the Spanish economy which was very soon followed by Franco being ousted and democracy. this was the 70's

The society that followed economic liberalization
was indeed much freer that Mitterrand's France

The Spanish refer to the period as

La Movida

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Movida_Madrile%C3%B1a

"La Movida Madrile?a (English: The Madrilenian groove) was a countercultural movement that took place in Madrid during the first ten years after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, which represented the economic rise of Spain and the emergence of a different Spanish identity. This hedonistic and cultural wave was born in Madrid and spread to other Spanish urban centers, such as Barcelona, Bilbao and Vigo. "La Movida" is also characterized by use of drugs, cultural freedom, transgression of the Franco culture, extroversion of the cheli dialect and the new freedom spirit on the streets."

[kwais]

[in a heavy Spanish accent]

Marta: you know, I think that the sexual revolution is over.

Greta: Really why do you say that?

Marta: I am not having sex with just anyone anymore.

Greta: No?

Marta: No, from now on, I only have sex with people I am attracted to.

[MaterialMonkee]

Just flicking about wikipedia the technical term for the opposition to free trade is

Autarky

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

So you could call Franco a fan of centrally planned autarky? If not a socialist

One thing does seem certain is that it seems impossible to run an effective dictatorship
with out state control of the economy
which is my definition of socialism.
(controlling the means of production as Marx put it)

thats not to say that a democracy can't function with large state control of the economy. India from 1950-1991, (prior to the huge explosion of living standards that occurred on economic liberalization in the nineties) was a good example of a relatively free democratic society with a state controlled economy

[kwais]

Mr Monkee,

You live in southern France?

I have crossed the Spain/France border a few times. From Irun, near San Sebastian.

Good times.

[kwais]

So MNG, does this change your view of Socialism at all?

[Naga Sadow]

kwais,

MNG can't tell the difference between a tradeoff and "economic coercion". Good luck trying to change his preconcieved notions.

MNG,

I'm kinda curious where I fit into your political pantheon. I've never actually come down for any particular philosophy.

[MNG]

I think it would be hard to argue that Franco's Spain, say from 1959 on, had an equal amount of state control, regulation and redistribution of the economy to Mitterand's France.

But I'm sure where I and most people would rather have lived.

kwais
If by socialism you mean what monkee said (government control of the economy) then I've always been against that (see my 4/4 12:03 post above).

But I guess we might disagree on what it means to "control" the economy. For example, I wouldn't consider things like minimum wage laws or the NLRB to be "controlling" the economy...

[MNG]

"MNG can't tell the difference between a tradeoff and "economic coercion""

So what's a trade off and what's economic coercion, in your understanding?

I think coercion is present when an act loses its voluntariness. And I think that certain economic situations can cause that as well as certain physical situations. Interestingly, most of the world agrees with me on that, and has for centuries (the old common law recognized non-physical forms of coercion).

[MNG]

I mean, if I say "give me x or I will beat you and your spouse up" then you are "free" to decline and say no and take a beating and watch your spouse get one too. And I guess you could call the latter (the beating and the watching of the beating) a trade off for keeping x.

But it'd be goofy.

Likewise if I say "give me x or I won't give you this medecine you and your spouse immediately need and I have and you don't and without which you will suffer physical pain equivalent to a beatdown" you are free to say "no" and keep your x and see the resulting suffering as a "trade-off" for keeping x.

But it'd be goofy too.

[MaterialMonkee]

@kwais

I've been Livin in Portugal for the last 5 years and I'm hopefully off to start a new job in Pretoria in South Africa in September, so I should get to see more of the other side of planet for a while

Northern Spain's a blast, good cider! I'll be up in Asturias seeing the inlaws next week
so some Cider's will be drunk!

[Naga Sadow]

MNG,

I'm not aware of any type of situation where that would happen and it would not be considered theft, extortion, and probably assault. Obviously, a lack of "voluntariness"(real word?) would be coercion but when it is simply "I want that but don't wanna pay your price" things become clear cut for me. "Need" and "want" are a bitch to separate, dude. Most of the world agrees with you? So. Most of the world is wrong. Most of the world has agreed with your stance for centuries? Lots of people once thought the world was flat. Give it time, bro.

Anyway, I rarely directly argue with people here so feel free to throw down a rebuttal and then lets move on to more entertaining venues. Where do I fit in at your political pantheon.

[MaterialMonkee]

"Where do I fit in at your political pantheon"

you smells like a god damn hippie to me!

🙂

[Naga Sadow]

I am partial to flip flops . . .

[Episiarch]

But I'm sure where I and most people would rather have lived.

If you spoke Catalan out loud and the national police heard you, they would arrest you. Fun! Gaudi was arrested for that, in fact.

[MaterialMonkee]

http://www.flipflopflo.co.uk/products/browse/havaianas-classics

has to be Havaianas brazil flag black
for me

Up there with the Adidas three stripe for all time badass footwear

[MNG]

Naga
That was the only point I've tried to make, that both situations are coercion. Sure, the distinction lies on need and want (though, do you "need" to not get beat down or do you just "want" to not get beat down, and do you need that medecine or do you just not "want" the sickness that would result from not getting it).

So, if the trade off gets to a certain point where voluntariness walks off, then you've coercion.

And my point about how popular that view is and has been was not to say that shows it is right, but that it certainly is not some "far out" idea that precludes debate. I mean, if that were true then libertarianism would be doomed to never grow past a certain % of people since most people have such "pre-concieved" ideas and according to that view aren't worth debating and persuading otherwise...

On the pantheon I'd say you seem like someone trying to be an honest libertarian. You, Epi, the Urkoboldian Legion, also are very funny usually.

[MNG]

I mean, yu have to be capable of some nuance in order to have a sense of humor. Underzog is a good example of someone with no nuance and no sense of humor (though he is very funny in an unintentional way).

[kwais]

I think that MNG is going for the joe version of coercion;

[I work for a company, the balance of power between me and the company is uneven because the company can replace me as a worker easily, but I can't replace the company as an employer easily.]

and somehow that equals force on the part of the company.

And that given that, it is ok for the government to intervene using real force, and threat of violence to supposedly intervene on behalf of the employee, to mandate min wage, and union laws.

My counter to that is that:
a) The government is immoral in its intervention and initiation of the use of force. Regardless of the power imbalance.
b) That the government by its intervention only increases and perhaps shifts the power imbalance, from where it should naturally be.
That in a free market the employee is as valuable to the company as the employer is to the worker.
That companies in a free market have to compete for competent employees as they have to compete for customers.

[kwais]

MNG,
I am not so sure Underzog's humor is unintentional.

I mean, if it is unintentional, he is an idiot.
If it isn't he is kind of brilliant.

But then I frequently err on the side of optimism with regard to humans.

[J sub D]

But then I frequently err on the side of optimism with regard to humans.

I used to feel that way. I got better.

[kwais]

-Isolationist on Immigration- That is one, but few politicians say they are not.
-Supported Surge and Ongoing Iraq War- Me too. I guess on that one it depends what his reasons were. All favor some kind of use of our military, the reasons why are what matters.
-Pro-Life So? IMHO you can be honestly on either side of that debate. It depends on when you think human life starts.
-Anti-Gay Marriage I heard him talk about this with the lesbian chick. I disagreed with him. But it is not a huge deal. I am anti ALL marriage, so I don't really expect an electable politician to agree with me.
-Supports Concealed Carry* Good man. But the reason why kind of matters too.

[kwais]

Dammit, that was meant for the other thread.!!!
🙁

[Kolohe]

to pick at a scab from upthread, here is a left liberal that acknowledges that the current price of oil has more than a bit to do with Venezuela's economic and political situation.

Declining commodity prices in the face of the global recession mean that any oil-based polity is going to need to reevaluate its posture in the world, and it seems that with Barack Obama in office, Hugo Chavez has concluded that anti-American bluster isn't the asset it once was.

[Taktix?]

...it seems that with Barack Obama in office, Hugo Chavez has concluded that anti-American bluster isn't the asset it once was.

Oh good, we're making nice with Hugo Chavez. That's reassuring...

[MNG]

"The government is immoral in its intervention and initiation of the use of force."
Well, that's the conclusion we are debating.

"That the government by its intervention only increases and perhaps shifts the power imbalance, from where it should naturally be."

Saying the imbalance is where it "naturally" should be implies where it rightfully should be, which again is just stating the very conclusion we are debating (would it be right for the government to tinker with this imbalance). In addition, the "natural" advantage the employer has is in no small part due to his claim to a larger amount of capital than the employee, a claim which is protected by...you guessed it, government force. So we are both arguing for government force, you to maintain/defend certain imbalances, me to erode/check them.

"That in a free market the employee is as valuable to the company as the employer is to the worker.
That companies in a free market have to compete for competent employees as they have to compete for customers."

To make the stuff we all need to live you need labor and capital. The owner of capital has both (his own labor at least and title to the capital, protected by government force). The employee has only one. The employer can thus hold out much longer and has a natural advantage.

[MNG]

Taktix
A better reading of that sentence is that now he is trying to make nice with US.

[Taktix?]

MNG,

Look up in the sky! Is it a bird? A plane?

No, it's the point...

[MaterialMonkee]

It'd be intersting to see the increased trade going on between Iran and Venuzuela

Chavez: I'll swop you some of my oil for some of your highly unreliable weapons

Armedinijihad: Er we have lots of oil, don't you have anything else?

Chavez: Er Bush jokes?

[kwais]

So this may be a dead thread.

But to MNG's post re inequality between employees and employers;

So, are you saying that government initiation of violence is justified to get one persons property and liberty, if it is determined (by government) that another person needs it?

[Paul]

"The capital will be raised to 1.2 billion dollars with the aim of supporting joint economic, industrial and mining projects as well as speeding up the current projects,"

Have they got environmental impact statements on these projects?

[engineer]

MNG's argument presupposes that property rights exist only as constructs of government and have no basis apart from government, and thus ought to have the same status as government interventions on the behalf of workers. So I'm going to offer my own crude rebuttal.

1. Employers have capital usually because it was entrusted to them by investors.

2. Investors generally earned the wealth invested as capital through work, returns from previous investments, or by inheriting it from someone who did earn it (and thus had the right to bequeath it to those whom they chose).

Therefore, acting in capacity as the agents of their investors, employers have the right to do as they will with capital, and the government doesn't have any right whatsoever to regulate their use of this capital beyond the standard libertarian disclaimers*. That the government sometimes protects this right through policing does not reduce it to the status of an arbitrary privilege, as the right would exist whether or not the government enforced it.

*No force or fraud.

[engineer]

Paul,
Socialist regimes don't have to environmental impact studies, because we know that only evil capitalists would ever do anything destructive to the environment.

[MNG]

"Investors generally earned the wealth invested as capital through work, returns from previous investments, or by inheriting it from someone who did earn it"

This doesn't help you, because I can then point out that government force backing the property claims of the investors and bequeathers gave them the very same advantages over the people they dealt with in building their wealth as I pointed to with the employers in the current situation

Government force protects the property owner, which gives them an advantage against the non-property owner, which then allows them to get more property, and a bigger advantage, etc., etc,
And it all started with government force protecting the claim

[High Every Body]

What? Did this place become a cross between The Huffington Post and Feministing?

Oh, it is only MNG spreading the good word for Chavez.

[B]

"I don't remember joe ever saying that. He used to say that democracy in Venezuala would check Chavez. I realize nuance is something hard for some people, but it's kind of important in order to be a good thinker...

I will preface my comments with the following: You are a total fucking idiot. Ok, now that that is out of the way, I will tell you to get your head out of your ass. Joe made statements all the time detailing how Chavez was a democrat, not a dictator, how everything he did was legitimate, how his shutting down of various TV stations was justified (even though the only ones shuddered just so happened to be critical of Chavez) etc. Furthermore, the fact that he believed democracy would "straighten things out" in a country run by Castro Jr. proves not only that he, and you, are total fucking morons, but also that he thought Chavez was in fact a democrat, rather than a vote rigging, private property stealing, thug-employing, free assembly squashing, negative criticism -outlawing, narco-terrorist-harboring, international-terrorist loving autocrat.

But I can understand why you would stick up for Chavez-lover joe. It seems that Chavez is your ideological bedfellow, now that he has embraced a country that would love nothing more than to see the Jews and the state of Israel wiped off the map.