Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Then be a man and go murder him yourself, or, if you prefer, shut the hell up and stop advocating the murder of democratically elected political figures who displease you.
History has shown us what happens in situations like this and I for one don't want to go through another "never forget" situation.
.
Damn boy, didn't you watch National Treasure? :lol:And? What's your point?
I think you are going a bit overboard here. He has made some unsavoury moves, so did Tony Blair and George Bush. I don't think that makes it likely he is to be the next Hitler just yet. let's get some bloody perspective people.
I think they are mixed. He is not your type of libertarian perhaps but I'm someone who worries more about decentralising power than whether this action is done behind a veil of Lockean property rights, local syndicalism or whatever and from my perspective he does seem to have made some actions that led to more decentralisation of power, taking power away from basically fuedal landowners that previous states had installed and from TNCs and putting in the local peasantry and workers.I despise the movements he has made so far.
I'm no expert but I think he has actually improved things, not that that is an excuse for some of his actions.I don't think he may be another Hitler but he has the potential to devastate his own economy causing the entirety of his nation to fall farther into poverty.
Sort of. He has made moves that grant the central gov't more power and others which remove it from various semi-fuedal magnates and TNCs and place it in decentralised associations of workers and peasantry. I'm broad in my tolerance of libertarianism and decentralism, I don't only support those who conform to a narrow, set plan, I for instance think quite a lot of the anarchists in the Spanish civil war and in Russia, so I can certainly have sympathy for some of his moves or the moves of his movement.He has consolidated power, that is obvious and dangerous.
I think they are mixed. He is not your type of libertarian perhaps but I'm someone who worries more about decentralising power than whether this action is done behind a veil of Lockean property rights, local syndicalism or whatever and from my perspective he does seem to have made some actions that led to more decentralisation of power, taking power away from basically fuedal landowners that previous states had installed and from TNCs and putting in the local peasantry and workers.
On the other hand he has made moves against opposition media, for centralised control of some parts of the economy and obvious his seeming attempts to cling to power.
So unless someone is a rather silly, uncompromisng Rothbardian or whatever then he can be seen to be a mixed bag.
I'm no expert but I think he has actually improved things, not that that is an excuse for some of his actions.
Sort of. He has made moves that grant the central gov't more power and others which remove it from various semi-fuedal magnates and TNCs and place it in decentralised associations of workers and peasantry. I'm broad in my tolerance of libertarianism and decentralism, I don't only support those who conform to a narrow, set plan, I for instance think quite a lot of the anarchists in the Spanish civil war and in Russia, so I can certainly have sympathy for some of his moves or the moves of his movement.
I think he has probably reached the end of his positive contributions personally. One cannot know but I agree that the negatives are likely to increase far over any future positives but I doubt he'll be "tyrannical", just slightly unsavoury and slightly authoritarian and centralist.Since I can't seriously predict his next moves with any real accuracy I look to the other leaders he is friends with.
The title of this thread is misleading.
Chavez would still have to run for election after each term, and Venezuelans can elect someone else during this time. All this means is that politicians don't have to end their political careers after 4-8 years, and can run again. The public still decides.
The title of this thread is misleading.
Chavez would still have to run for election after each term, and Venezuelans can elect someone else during this time. All this means is that politicians don't have to end their political careers after 4-8 years, and can run again. The public still decides.
Chavez needs to be stopped.
The title of this thread is misleading.
Chavez would still have to run for election after each term, and Venezuelans can elect someone else during this time. All this means is that politicians don't have to end their political careers after 4-8 years, and can run again. The public still decides.
It still invites political corruption and tyranny.
This is true and the real defeat for "democracy" in Venezuela.
I think democracy their is the problem.
Democracy is not the problem. I think that uneducated people and democracy don't mix, but Venezuelans are hardly uneducated. I think it's Chavez and his control over all of the interests in Venezuela that are cause for alarm much more so than Democracy.
You can't make people learn true criticism or learn to objectively review things but its really easy to teach people populism and how its great for everyone.
Democracy doesn't have a place in this world yet, we are not evolved enough to handle it responsibly.
In my opinion I have not yet seen a country that has democracy as it's basis. I mean the U.S. (for example) is a Representative Republic where only a few people make policy decisions (albeit they are elected by their local populace.) I don't think that people have been given a real chance to see if they are ready for democracy.
Although you can't make people learn true criticism, I don't know if you or I are qualified to make that call.
Chavez needs to be contained by strengthening pro-democratic ideas in that part of the world and trying to increase trade with his neighbors. If he acts up, use sanctions. If he tries to fight, use military force.
Democracy is not the problem. I think that uneducated people and democracy don't mix, but Venezuelans are hardly uneducated. I think it's Chavez and his control over all of the interests in Venezuela that are cause for alarm much more so than Democracy.
Is that where you learnt it?:mrgreen:I had a socialist teacher last year, and he was also gay!! that was horrible because what he said was always the opposite of truth.
Bull****. Intervening in another country because some think he is slightly unsavoury is foolish and a great danger to domestic liberty and external security. Imagine if China and Russia acted the same way!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?