Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 191 to 197 of 197

Thread: Chavez now can reelect himself for life

  1. #191
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,899

    Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life

    Authoritarian acts are wrong especially in this case.
    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.

    "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
    Based on the definition of tyrant that you have provided, Chavez is not a tyrant because:

    1. Chavez is not a single ruler and does not hold absolute power.
    2. 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).

    While I agree he is not a single ruler yet, he is using harsh methods in my opinion to achieve his goals.
    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.

    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).

    It defies human nature and what modern governments were created for.
    What is "human nature" to you?

    My bad, the owner rights over rule that of the producer
    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.

    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.

  2. #192
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    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.
    Yes that is a good thing as long as due process is used and in a just manner.


    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Based on the definition of tyrant that you have provided, Chavez is not a tyrant because:

    1. Chavez is not a single ruler and does not hold absolute power.
    2. 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).
    This definition isn't whole in my opinion but I will show you what I meant.

    He is consolidating his power, will he be an absolute ruler I'm not sure.
    You can be an absolute ruler though if everyone supports you or is to afraid to resist your efforts.

    He puts the interests or the poor over the interests of everyone else.
    The oligarchy portion should be replaced with social group or something similar.
    I was hoping you would see that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    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.
    I'm sure that the rice owners did not want to sell their businesses for government bonds.
    Especially when Chavez's actions deter business interests in the economy.
    It was a one sided action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    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).
    He is just taking it, however, he is offering possible worthless bonds as a consolation.

    Populism isn't always right, in fact you could say they are wrong more than they are right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    What is "human nature" to you?
    Human nature is self interest. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a good example of what people need to self actualize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    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.

    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.
    In my example I was referring to business owners and producers (workers) in that context the producer and owner come to an agreement on how they trade time for property.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #193
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,899

    Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life

    This definition isn't whole in my opinion but I will show you what I meant.
    So what you mean to say is that you think that he will become a tyrant.

    I'm sure that the rice owners did not want to sell their businesses for government bonds.
    So? If you do something that others don't want you're automatically being "harsh"?

    Especially when Chavez's actions deter business interests in the economy.
    They aren't.

    He is just taking it, however, he is offering possible worthless bonds as a consolation.
    Do you have a source for saying that they are purchasing these shares with bonds, and that these bonds are worthless?

    Human nature is self interest. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a good example of what people need to self actualize.
    This doesn't even say anything. Is human nature genetic? If not, then how is it human nature? If it is then where is the scientific proof of this?

    Even if we go by your completely insufficient definition, I could point to an endless amount of examples where humans have done things without regard to self-interest, or even in complete contradiction with self-interest, to benefit the needs and desires of others. This proves that at the very least that human nature is not something that cannot be overcome by human development (as have other animal instincts in us), and at the very most that it doesn't exist at all in the sense that you are trying to claim.

    In my example I was referring to business owners and producers (workers) in that context the producer and owner come to an agreement on how they trade time for property.
    When you say "the owner rights overrule that of the producer" you are presuming a clash of interests; the question wouldn't be posed if that weren't so. In the case of this presumption, then, you have said that the owner's property rights overrule that of the producer's, meaning that in the event where the property rights of owners and producers clash, the owner's rights overrule, thereby "justifying" the violation of the producer's property rights by the owners.

    Moreover, there is no level ground when it comes to the determination of wages; the scale is tipped heavily in favor of capital. In such an environment, one cannot even discuss such an "agreement". But this is sort of a tangent.

  4. #194
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    So what you mean to say is that you think that he will become a tyrant.
    My definition is a bit more antiquated than yours of who is and who isn't a tyrant.

    I believe he is one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    So? If you do something that others don't want you're automatically being "harsh"?
    Not automatically no but your thinking of right and wrong is apparently different from mine.

    I do not think it is right to take from one person and give it to another for no reason other than fairness.

    That is not justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Sure you can use short term gains to illustrate your belief.

    Long term he will fail. I'm more than happy to wait and show you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Do you have a source for saying that they are purchasing these shares with bonds, and that these bonds are worthless?
    "I will expropriate them, I have no problem with that, and I'll pay them with bonds. Don't count on me paying with hard cash," he said, without mentioning any companies by name.

    BBC NEWS | Americas | Chavez sends army to rice plants

    They may have a market value but in regards to cash or real property they are junk.

    They will be worthless.


    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    This doesn't even say anything. Is human nature genetic? If not, then how is it human nature? If it is then where is the scientific proof of this?

    Even if we go by your completely insufficient definition, I could point to an endless amount of examples where humans have done things without regard to self-interest, or even in complete contradiction with self-interest, to benefit the needs and desires of others. This proves that at the very least that human nature is not something that cannot be overcome by human development (as have other animal instincts in us), and at the very most that it doesn't exist at all in the sense that you are trying to claim.
    You know damned well that by and large human interest is in self.

    There are times when someone does something "heroic" but that is the exception and not the rule.

    It doesn't matter if it's genetic or learned, self preservation and self interest are part of human nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    When you say "the owner rights overrule that of the producer" you are presuming a clash of interests; the question wouldn't be posed if that weren't so. In the case of this presumption, then, you have said that the owner's property rights overrule that of the producer's, meaning that in the event where the property rights of owners and producers clash, the owner's rights overrule, thereby "justifying" the violation of the producer's property rights by the owners.

    Moreover, there is no level ground when it comes to the determination of wages; the scale is tipped heavily in favor of capital. In such an environment, one cannot even discuss such an "agreement". But this is sort of a tangent.
    It may be tilted in the owners favor but at one point the owner was the producer and at times still is the producer.

    If we are talking about voluntary work contracts (someone finding a job) then there is an agreement either explicit or implicit.

    If the person didn't want to work for another they wouldn't.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Again, you are confusing the act itself with the intended outcome; the act is authoritarian because the government is exercising its authority over a given private enterprise.

    For example, in the case of a proletarian revolution, even though industry is socialized along democratic lines the act of socialization itself is authoritarian as it necessitates the act of the proletariat asserting its authority over the bourgeoisie.

    I am making these claims on the basis of the definition of the word authoritarian itself, stripped of its emotional baggage (authoritarianism =/= totalitarianism). Every government by necessity is authoritarian.
    Then it's a question of ends vs. means. The end will ultimately be less "authoritarian" than the means had they not been utilized, and the overall outcome will thus be a reduction of "authoritarianism."

    It will remain a critical Marxist/anarchist point of contention, I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That is enough for me. People have revolted for less.
    Indeed. The Bolivarian Revolution has brought numerous positive reforms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    If your that naive in believing it will prompt economic growth by all means go and live there.
    I have provided empirical evidence indicating that economic growth and reform was promoted by oil nationalization and collectivization through decentralized cooperatives. What have you to offer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It is tyrannical because he is taking it from its owner and keeping it for the government with out due process.
    Ah, the myth of ownership. There is little ethical basis for claiming that the means of production are legitimately "owned" by their private "owners," considering their utilization of wage labor and unjust extraction of surplus value to maintain that authoritarian system. The means of production are increasingly being democratically managed by those who actually utilized them on a daily basis, not those whose name happened to be on the deed. Hence, it's not a matter of "government" ownership; it's a matter of public ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Democracy is for chumps. It is the exact opposite of an aristocracy or a dictatorship.
    Regardless of your anti-democratic sympathies, it is the system of governance that lends itself to the greatest degree of effective management and happiness among a population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It will not do anything but impose its unguided will upon the government until it collapses from stupid economic programs.
    You really do have a hatred of empirical evidence, don't you?

  6. #196
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Indeed. The Bolivarian Revolution has brought numerous positive reforms.
    Yep reforms in that favor poor people over rich people.

    So rearranging the deck chairs in reverse order will be better for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I have provided empirical evidence indicating that economic growth and reform was promoted by oil nationalization and collectivization through decentralized cooperatives. What have you to offer?
    Your empirical evidence is only short term. Forgetting that over time nationalization is less efficient and less productive will prove your empirical evidence wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Ah, the myth of ownership. There is little ethical basis for claiming that the means of production are legitimately "owned" by their private "owners," considering their utilization of wage labor and unjust extraction of surplus value to maintain that authoritarian system. The means of production are increasingly being democratically managed by those who actually utilized them on a daily basis, not those whose name happened to be on the deed. Hence, it's not a matter of "government" ownership; it's a matter of public ownership.
    There is no such thing as public ownership. That is a myth because in the end there is one person or small group of persons who have majority control.

    The owner has provided the capital and the time to employ the wage laborers.
    They do not own their job and they do not have to work for the true and just owner.

    If you think that owners are so terrible go get a job from a poor person or a non owner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Regardless of your anti-democratic sympathies, it is the system of governance that lends itself to the greatest degree of effective management and happiness among a population.
    You are wrong democracy is not the most effective way to manage anything.

    It is the extreme contrast dictatorship or a kingdom. Extremes do not work over the long term.

    Democracies can also become majority dictatorships in their own right. The majorities happiness comes at the expense of the minority.

    That is not equitable or just.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    You really do have a hatred of empirical evidence, don't you?
    You have a lack of historical perspective. Your empirical evidence is short sighted.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #197
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,899

    Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life

    Then it's a question of ends vs. means. The end will ultimately be less "authoritarian" than the means had they not been utilized, and the overall outcome will thus be a reduction of "authoritarianism."

    It will remain a critical Marxist/anarchist point of contention, I suppose.
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •