Chavez now can reelect himself for life

Agnapostate · Mar 4, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
I support unlimited individual freedom and any government that supports it as well.

Democracy has proven itself to be just as bad as a dictatorship.

To quote the movie "The Patriot" we have traded 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away, that is democracy.

You haven't indicated that Chavez endorses or furthers "tyranny." Your "example" is that:

Harry Guerrilla said:
He is clearly a redistributing wealth and nationalizing the rice industry, thats a bold start.

Yes, it is. A bold start toward economic growth in addition to the gains produced by the oil nationalization. There's nothing remotely "tyrannical" regarding decentralized, democratic management of economic affairs as conducted by the aforementioned worker-owned cooperatives.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 4, 2009

There's nothing remotely "tyrannical" regarding decentralized, democratic management of economic affairs as conducted by the aforementioned worker-owned cooperatives.

There is something authoritarian about the act of nationalization itself, but this is not a bad thing. All governments at some point act in such a way, so this action should not be taken as more significant than the implementation of eminent domain in the US, for example.

However, he has never really done anything tyrannical himself. I can cite some examples that could be considered tyrannical (such as the expulsion of certain members from the PSUV for their criticism of Chavez), but they weren't implemented by Chavez himself, as far as I know.

Agnapostate · Mar 4, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
There is something authoritarian about the act of nationalization itself, but this is not a bad thing. All governments at some point act in such a way, so this action should not be taken as more significant than the implementation of eminent domain in the US, for example.

That is a factually inaccurate claim. Nationalization as it has been implemented in Venezuela has had the effect of some legitimate collectivization, unlike the state capitalist Soviet Union, for instance. Since management duties have largely been assigned to decentralized cooperatives governed in a democratic manner, this is consistent with broadly libertarian ideals, especially considering that it acts to combat the authoritarian capitalist institution of unchecked wage labor and unjust extraction of surplus value.

Khayembii Communique said:
However, he has never really done anything tyrannical himself. I can cite some examples that could be considered tyrannical (such as the expulsion of certain members from the PSUV for their criticism of Chavez), but they weren't implemented by Chavez himself, as far as I know.

I'm well aware of his not having committed tyrannical acts. If only others were...

Khayembii Communique · Mar 5, 2009

That is a factually inaccurate claim. Nationalization as it has been implemented in Venezuela has had the effect of some legitimate collectivization, unlike the state capitalist Soviet Union, for instance. Since management duties have largely been assigned to decentralized cooperatives governed in a democratic manner, this is consistent with broadly libertarian ideals, especially considering that it acts to combat the authoritarian capitalist institution of unchecked wage labor and unjust extraction of surplus value.

The act of nationalization is by its very definition authoritarian (aside from voluntary nationalizations such as that of Citibank and AIG). I was not referring to the reasons behind the nationalization (be it for collectivization or not) but the act itself.

Vader · Mar 5, 2009

Re: Chavez now can reelect himself for life. Maybe War With Colombia???

Hatuey said:
How quickly do some Libertarians turn into Neo-Cons and start supporting interventionism of everything they don't support.

We're not turning into anything.

We have the forsight to see a problem in the making. We're simply seeking to prevent Chavez (and Iran ally) from becoming a threat to global security.

Agnapostate · Mar 5, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
The act of nationalization is by its very definition authoritarian (aside from voluntary nationalizations such as that of Citibank and AIG). I was not referring to the reasons behind the nationalization (be it for collectivization or not) but the act itself.

On what basis do you make these claims, considering that the purpose of nationalization included the delegation of management authority to democratic cooperatives?

Khayembii Communique · Mar 5, 2009

On what basis do you make these claims, considering that the purpose of nationalization included the delegation of management authority to democratic cooperatives?

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.

rhinefire · Mar 5, 2009

It is the nature of latino nations to follow the lead of one person. They are OK with it.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 5, 2009

Agnapostate said:
You haven't indicated that Chavez endorses or furthers "tyranny." Your "example" is that:

That is enough for me. People have revolted for less.

Agnapostate said:
Yes, it is. A bold start toward economic growth in addition to the gains produced by the oil nationalization. There's nothing remotely "tyrannical" regarding decentralized, democratic management of economic affairs as conducted by the aforementioned worker-owned cooperatives.

If your that naive in believing it will prompt economic growth by all means go and live there.

It is tyrannical because he is taking it from its owner and keeping it for the government with out due process.

Democracy is for chumps. It is the exact opposite of an aristocracy or a dictatorship.

It will not do anything but impose its unguided will upon the government until it collapses from stupid economic programs.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 5, 2009

It is the nature of latino nations to follow the lead of one person. They are OK with it.

Yes, and all of the brown people are genetically inferior to whites as well, right?:roll:

It is tyrannical because he is taking it from its owner and keeping it for the government with out due process.

No, it is authoritarian, and there is nothing wrong with that (unless you are an advocate of bourgeois property rights, which you are).

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 5, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
No, it is authoritarian, and there is nothing wrong with that (unless you are an advocate of bourgeois property rights, which you are).

Authoritarian as it is, I also believe it to be tyrannical. I apply my reasoning from history and not from modern revisionism that lets little tyrants get away with their crap today.

If it is your property then I don't care. It has nothing to do with economic status.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 5, 2009

Authoritarian as it is, I also believe it to be tyrannical. I apply my reasoning from history and not from modern revisionism that lets little tyrants get away with their crap today.

Of course you do, because this is an authoritarian act with which you disagree. "Tyrannical" is basically an empty word anyways, just used to rouse emotions, the same way "socialism" is thrown around nowadays. It's just a way of saying something without really saying anything.

As for your claim that Chavez is some kind of tyrant, well that's simply unfounded.

If it is your property then I don't care. It has nothing to do with economic status.

Who said anything about economic status?

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 5, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
Of course you do, because this is an authoritarian act with which you disagree. "Tyrannical" is basically an empty word anyways, just used to rouse emotions, the same way "socialism" is thrown around nowadays. It's just a way of saying something without really saying anything.

With others maybe, but I know what a tyrant is. Our set of politicians are little tyrants forcing their agenda on people who don't want it.

Making people follow a set of rules completely opposite to natural law and just rule of law is being tyrannical.

Khayembii Communique said:
As for your claim that Chavez is some kind of tyrant, well that's simply unfounded.

Based upon my above belief he is.

Khayembii Communique said:
Who said anything about economic status?

You did.

Bourgeoisie (RP /ˌbʊ.ʒwɑːˈzi/ or /ˌbɔː.ʒwɑːˈzi/, GA /ˌbʊ(r).ʒwɑˈzi/) is a classification used in analyzing human societies to describe a social class of people. Historically, the bourgeoisie comes from the middle or merchant classes of the Middle Ages, whose status or power came from employment, education, and wealth, as distinguished from those whose power came from being born into an aristocratic family of land owners. In modern times, it is the class owning the means for producing wealth. [1]

Bourgeoisie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Khayembii Communique · Mar 5, 2009

With others maybe, but I know what a tyrant is. Our set of politicians are little tyrants forcing their agenda on people who don't want it.

Making people follow a set of rules completely opposite to natural law and just rule of law is being tyrannical.

"Of course you [think this is tyrannical], because this is an authoritarian act with which you disagree."

You did.

Bourgeoisie (RP /ˌbʊ.ʒwɑːˈzi/ or /ˌbɔː.ʒwɑːˈzi/, GA /ˌbʊ(r).ʒwɑˈzi/) is a classification used in analyzing human societies to describe a social class of people. Historically, the bourgeoisie comes from the middle or merchant classes of the Middle Ages, whose status or power came from employment, education, and wealth, as distinguished from those whose power came from being born into an aristocratic family of land owners. In modern times, it is the class owning the means for producing wealth. [1]

Bourgeoisie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never said anything about the bourgeoisie; I said bourgeois property rights.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 5, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
"Of course you [think this is tyrannical], because this is an authoritarian act with which you disagree."

Authoritarian acts are wrong especially in this case.

"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

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

I do not like democratic nor single rulers taking property for no reason other than fairness.

It defies human nature and what modern governments were created for.

Khayembii Communique said:
I never said anything about the bourgeoisie; I said bourgeois property rights.

My bad, the owner rights over rule that of the producer because at one point in time the owner was a producer and had to earn it.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 5, 2009

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:

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).

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.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 5, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

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

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).

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.

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 6, 2009

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.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 6, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Khayembii Communique said:
They aren't.

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.

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Agnapostate · Mar 6, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
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.

Harry Guerrilla said:
That is enough for me. People have revolted for less.

Indeed. The Bolivarian Revolution has brought numerous positive reforms.

Harry Guerrilla said:
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?

Harry Guerrilla said:
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.

Harry Guerrilla said:
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.

Harry Guerrilla said:
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?

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 6, 2009

Agnapostate said:
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. :roll:

Agnapostate said:
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.

Agnapostate said:
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.

Agnapostate said:
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.

Agnapostate said:
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.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 7, 2009

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.