Authoritarian acts aren't innately anything. Surely you and I both can agree, to use a fairly extreme example to make my point, that the arrest and trial of rapists is a good thing. That is certainly an authoritarian act. You cannot say whether authoritarianism is inherently good or bad, because it is an adjective used to describe many situations and context is important. That was my entire point in my responses to Agnapostate.Authoritarian acts are wrong especially in this case.
Based on the definition of tyrant that you have provided, Chavez is not a tyrant because:"In modern usage, a tyrant is a single ruler holding absolute power over a state or within an organization. The term carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls."
Tyrant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Chavez is not a single ruler and does not hold absolute power.
- Chavez does not put his interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the interests of the population.
In fact, with regards to that second point, your definition is in complete contradiction with your argument (although of course that is taking the "modern connotations" into account as part of the definition).
How exactly are his methods harsh? The nationalizations in Venezuela in most cases (certainly in the higher profile ones that make the news) are simply the government buying a commanding share of stock in a given company at an agreed upon price.While I agree he is not a single ruler yet, he is using harsh methods in my opinion to achieve his goals.
It's not like he's just saying "**** off I'm taking your factory" (although I think he should). He's actually playing a very centrist role, trying to appease the populist movement that brought him to power while at the same time trying not to step on too many toes (the extent to which he is comfortable with "stepping on toes" is debatable, though, and I'm still not completely sure where exactly I stand with regards to that).
What is "human nature" to you?It defies human nature and what modern governments were created for.
You're arguing here two diametrically opposed arguments - either the violation of property rights "defies human nature" or the violation of property rights is acceptable as long as the violator is an owner. Either it's bad in all cases or it's only bad in some. It can't be bad in both all and some cases.My bad, the owner rights over rule that of the producer
Or perhaps you're arguing that the violation of property rights is acceptable as long as it isn't done for the purpose of "fairness"?
Perhaps you could explain yourself.