More worrying comments from Chavez

[De Selby]

If he's less oppressive, then yes. If he's more oppressive, then no. See how this works? More liberty= good. Less liberty= bad. Simple.

So do you actually think it's reasonably likely, or even possible, for a dictator that overthrows a very popular government to be "less oppressive"?  How do you think any such dictator would deal with the majority of the population that elected the government in the first place? Would he be able to just leave the majority political bloc alone, and still rule?

I think if you question your beliefs about dictators overthrowing democracies, you will quickly find that the idea is simple-simply unworkable.  Maybe in some fantasy land a supreme leader could oust a popular government and then avoid instituting harsh repression to shut the majority up, but not in this world.

If a big part of the population thinks "apple" means" orange," that doesn't make it so. No definition of liberty includes things being given to you. Only a very twisted definition of rights includes such.

Wait a second here-what makes this a "very twisted definition of rights"? Because you say so? Or does that just go without saying?  Because it looks like a large majority of the people in Venezuela clearly do not agree with you on this point...so how did we decide that they all are wrong and you personally are without error on this subject?

Simply asserting that you don't have this or that right doesn't constitute final authority on the question.  Why, for example, should Venezuelans automatically accept what you say, and reject what the vast majority of their own population believes is/is not a right?

[doczinn]

So do you actually think it's reasonably likely, or even possible, for a dictator that overthrows a very popular government to be "less oppressive"?

Hmmm... reasonably likely? Maybe not, but I never said it was. Possible? Of course, and the more oppressive Chavez gets, the more likely any alternative is to be at least a little bit better. And I notice you use the term "very popular," as if to describe Chavez. Interesting.

Why, for example, should Venezuelans automatically accept what you say, and reject what the vast majority of their own population believes is/is not a right?

Venezuelans, like anyone else in the world, should simply refrain from asking a strongman (even if he's elected, yes, even if he's "very popular") to confiscate their neighbors resources to finance their health care or anything else. Can you explain to me how it's possible, if property rights exist, for anyone to have a right to someone else's property?

[roo_ster]

Another example of anti-democratic means used to preserve liberty from democratic despotism could be post-WWI Turkey.

Whenever Turks got a little too frisky with the franchise, the mucky-mucks in the military would grumble and get them back in line.

---------

I think I see a clash of paradigms:

1. The doczinns of the world care little for the means or process, as long as the result is one favorable to liberty.  [caricature]An all-powerful dictator who refused to use his power to oppress or intrude, no matter how much the public demanded the yoke, would be hunky-dory.[/caricature]

2. The SSs & woodersons of the world are more focussed on the process and place a high value on democratic participation.  [caricature]What comes out the other end is by definition legitimate, since the process was followed and is open to all.[/caricature]           
   
I lean more towards #1, but give a begrudging nod to #2 as slightly more likely to result in liberty.  Two cheers for universal suffrage.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
----H. L. Mencken

[Len Budney]

I think I see a clash of paradigms:

Well summed up! I agree with Doczinn and mostly with you: I lean toward #1 recognizing that a tyrant is unlikely to defend liberty. I'm more cynical than you are about the odds of democracy defending liberty either, though.

--Len.

[Art Eatman]

One thing I learned some sixty-plus years ago is that refugees run from the bad guys and to the good guys.  That's a better criterion for judgement than any other.  You can't fool the folks on the scene, as compared to the philosophic know-littles who read the PR about what local governments are doing "for" their people.

Those with money and skills have fled Venezuela.  It's not just "The Rich", either.  It's right on down to what little middle class existed.

Chavez promised a free lunch in order to get elected.  He's been able to do that because of the rise in oil prices.  That can't last, due to declining production.  The remaining major body of oil is sour crude, and he lacks the technological know-how to deal with it--particularly after running off those companies which could.  And his courting of the Chinese won't help, as they are years away from competency.

Mild proof of our own benevolence in the US is that Chavez ships crude oil to Corpus Christi, where it's refined into gasoline which is then shipped back to Venezuela.  He ran off too many skilled workers, and the infrastructure there is decaying.

Chavez has gotten the laws/constitution re-written such that he can now be president for life.  While he would make a pro forma run for re-election, it's his people who will count the votes.  He looks benevolent on paper as to "democracy", but he's become an all-powerful tyrant.

His economic policies are such that the poorest can no longer afford food.  There are shortages of energy for both electrical and transportation needs.

Chavez has long been a disciple of Castro, and recently has been buddying up to the communist guerillas of Colombia and with the narcotrafficantes.

FWIW, back during the Clinton era when we, Europe and OPEC all agreed that $25/bbl oil meant stability for both buyers and sellers, Chavez was calling for $40 and more as an economic weapon agains the US in particular and the west in general.

He knows damned well he'll never need those 100,000 AKs for combat with a foreign enemy who invades, but they'll be damned handy for his own police force.  He'll need them to maintain order when his failing economic system falls farther on down the ladder to Yuck!.  There's even less justification for buying fighter jets from Russia--particularly given the comparative expertise at combat flying and for the disparity of electronics with the USAF.  'Scuse me, but why spend money on stuff that you'd never get to use if the US did get hostile?  He's an equally great military strategist with Saddam Hussein.

But he makes the right PR noises, so the Hollywood idiots and other idiots work to find apologic rationale for his nonsense...

Art

[Manedwolf]

There's even less justification for buying fighter jets from Russia--particularly given the comparative expertise at combat flying and for the disparity of electronics with the USAF.  'Scuse me, but why spend money on stuff that you'd never get to use if the US did get hostile?

If he ever got outwardly hostile, all of his fighters would be destroyed on the ground by our semi-autonomous weapons systems before they even got the "remove before flight" tags off them. One thing we're very, very good at is quickly nailing military assets we know the location of.

[Balog]

Once again Art provides an excellent perspective.

One thing I'd like to touch on is this statement by SS.

Simply asserting that you don't have this or that right doesn't constitute final authority on the question.  Why, for example, should Venezuelans automatically accept what you say, and reject what the vast majority of their own population believes is/is not a right?

I believe it's called "natural law." The idea that some things are mala in se; not only that, but they are so obviously wrong that everyone is born knowing that they are wrong. Excluding the very rare cases of psychopathy.... err antisocial personality disorder as the DSM IV apparently calls it.

Anyway, rape, murder, theft; all inherently evil, all concepts glorified at one time or another in various cultures. Just because a culture says something is a right doesn't make it so. And yes, I'm ok with depriving the poor little guys of their democratic rights to define that. "Democracy" isn't some magic system that we must be adhered to in order to prevent evil. It's a good system, but not an end in and of itself.

[wooderson]

Just because a culture says something is a right doesn't make it so.

... and conversely...

[wooderson]

The SSs & woodersons of the world are more focussed on the process and place a high value on democratic participation.

This is not exactly true. I do value democratic participation (though have a rather low opinion of voting, in and of itself), but my argument is that 'liberty' (as we know it) cannot exist without some form of 'democracy.' This hypothetical benign autocracy that 'gives' you liberty can, of course, take it away at any time, and since you have no democratic recourse, you're screwed. So the idea fails on two points - this, and the fact that in human history, there are zero instances in which an autocracy 'protected' freedom to a greater degree than modern democracies.

And one point of delicious irony - in my ideological neck of the woods, we have a word for people who claim to know better than the people how to protect liberty: Leninist. Isn't that the argument here? That a 'vanguard' of liberty is preferable than the 'tyranny of the majority' that might impede one's utopia? Some y'all might disagree with the Bolshies on what constitutes freedom and liberty, but your methods of reaching it don't differ greatly.
 
Turkey was mentioned earlier - Ataturk's revolution was, essentially, the replacement of a reactionary caliphate with the quasi-authoritarian state that survives today. That's not really comparable to the removal of a democratic (but flawed) state.

[Len Budney]

...my argument is that 'liberty' (as we know it) cannot exist without some form of 'democracy.'

Why do you believe that majority rule will protect the minority from aggression? I.e., when two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner, why do you believe they can be trusted to vote for tofurkey?

--Len.

[wooderson]

In a nation of 350 million wolves and sheep, the wolves have to convince at least 50%+1 that it's okay for them to eat the sheep.

Without democracy, the wolves need only convince the boss.

Which is easier?

[Len Budney]

In a nation of 350 million wolves and sheep, the wolves have to convince at least 50%+1 that it's okay for them to eat the sheep.

The wolves are a majority, though. Remember all the rhetoric about the "top 1% of wage earners"? Let's call them "sheep." Apparently "wolves" make up about 99% of the population. Hopefully, lots of those wolves are vegetarians. But a quick look around certainly suggests otherwise.

Without democracy, the wolves need only convince the boss.

Well, is it easier to find one good man who believes in liberty, or a majority of the freaking population? The latter is apparently almost impossible. An interesting experiment is underway to prove it, called the "Ron Paul presidential campaign."

--Len.

[wooderson]

The wolves are a majority, though. Remember all the rhetoric about the "top 1% of wage earners"? Let's call them "sheep." Apparently "wolves" make up about 99% of the population. Hopefully, lots of those wolves are vegetarians. But a quick look around certainly suggests otherwise.

I hadn't realized that the "top 1% of wage earners" were being turned into soylent green. They are still the "top 1% of wage earners," right? Still free to vote? Marry? Have kids? Spend their money?

Well, is it easier to find one good man who believes in liberty, or a majority of the freaking population?

So what you're saying is that we need a vanguard of the bourgeois.

[doczinn]

And one point of delicious irony - in my ideological neck of the woods, we have a word for people who claim to know better than the people how to protect liberty: Leninist. Isn't that the argument here? That a 'vanguard' of liberty is preferable than the 'tyranny of the majority' that might impede one's utopia? Some y'all might disagree with the Bolshies on what constitutes freedom and liberty, but your methods of reaching it don't differ greatly.

1. Are you actually flinging the term "Leninist" at libertarians?

2. You seem still to be under the very mistaken impression that liberty is something that would be (or even could be) "imposed" on people. Liberty is the state of not being imposed upon.

3. Bolsheviks never had liberty as their aim.

[Len Budney]

The wolves are a majority, though. Remember all the rhetoric about the "top 1% of wage earners"? Let's call them "sheep." Apparently "wolves" make up about 99% of the population...

I hadn't realized that the "top 1% of wage earners" were being turned into soylent green.

Nope--they're just being sheared of the bulk of all tax revenue. A democracy is civilized, see: we don't slaughter the sheep. We shear them.

Well, is it easier to find one good man who believes in liberty, or a majority of the freaking population?

So what you're saying is that we need a vanguard of the bourgeois.

No, I'm just pointing out that a majority can always be counted on to oppress a minority. That's why this country was NOT designed as a democracy in the first place. The founders thought they could get the benefits of democracy while avoiding the pitfalls, by creating a constitutional republic. The "constitutional" part of that is already gone. The "republic" part is next.

--Len.

[wooderson]

1. Are you actually flinging the term "Leninist" at libertarians?

No, I'm revelling in the irony of methodologies.

2. You seem still to be under the very mistaken impression that liberty is something that would be (or even could be) "imposed" on people. Liberty is the state of not being imposed upon.

hehe

3. Bolsheviks never had liberty as their aim.

They would, of course, have disagreed.

[wooderson]

Nope--they're just being sheared of the bulk of all tax revenue. A democracy is civilized, see: we don't slaughter the sheep. We shear them.

A top 1% wage earner, "being sheared" of his income... still takes home more than someone in the "top 5%," "top 20%," et al., does he not?

That's why this country was NOT designed as a democracy in the first place.

Which is simply nonsense. This country was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - a democratic republic. Certainly less democratic than our current state, which is coincidentally less oppressive in every way than the 'democratic republic' that refused basic rights to anyone but land-owning males.

But for its time, as democratic as possible.

There simply is no contradiction between "constitutional" "republic" and "democracy."

[Len Budney]

Nope--they're just being sheared of the bulk of all tax revenue. A democracy is civilized, see: we don't slaughter the sheep. We shear them.

A top 1% wage earner, "being sheared" of his income... still takes home more than someone in the "top 5%," "top 20%," et al., does he not?

You appear to be defending the injustice by pointing out that he should be thankful we don't take it all. That about right?

That's why this country was NOT designed as a democracy in the first place.

Which is simply nonsense. This country was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - a democratic republic.

You're suggesting that folks in the 18th century never heard of democracy, and a republic was a close as they could get. THAT'S nonsense. They were perfectly aware of the concept of direct democracy, and they consciously rejected it. They had plenty to say about the tyranny of the majority and other shortcomings of pure democracy.

There simply is no contradiction between "constitutional" "republic" and "democracy."

"Constitutional" means that some things are off limits even if a majority want them. A bill of rights that overrides majority votes is a restraint on democracy.

"Republic" means that the people do not create laws directly: they choose men who then create laws on their behalf. This doesn't stop them from picking evil men. Nor does it stop the representatives from letting polls dictate their every action. But it's a layer between the people and the laws, and it was put there on purpose.

--Len.

[doczinn]

hehe? WTF is that supposed to mean? You don't get the distinction?

[wooderson]

hehe? WTF is that supposed to mean? You don't get the distinction?

What distinction would that be?

[Len Budney]

hehe? WTF is that supposed to mean? You don't get the distinction?

What distinction would that be?

I think he means "contradiction." As in, it would be an oxymoron to impose non-imposition.

[wooderson]

You appear to be defending the injustice by pointing out that he should be thankful we don't take it all. That about right?

"injustice"

I "appear to be" saying that the dastardly wolves, in fact, don't seem to have put these sheep - the people you allege are to be eaten - at any disadvantage, in any way, shape or form.

You're suggesting that folks in the 18th century never heard of democracy, and a republic was a close as they could get.

No, I'm not. I said it was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - granting control over the state to a revolutionarily large number of individuals, while still being bound in by the mores of the time. ie women as chattel, Africans as property, etc..

THAT'S nonsense. They were perfectly aware of the concept of direct democracy, and they consciously rejected it. They had plenty to say about the tyranny of the majority and other shortcomings of pure democracy.

All a non-sequitur, because I said nothing about "pure democracy" or "direct democracy." I've seen no one advocate, here, a form of "pure democracy."

What I said was that the country has been, since its inception, both a 'democracy' and a 'republic.' It is only by willfully misunderstanding those words that people can whine about the evils of 'democracy.'

"Constitutional" means that some things are off limits even if a majority want them.

Laws only offer protection insofar as enough people choose to follow them.

A bill of rights that overrides majority votes is a restraint on democracy.

And yet not incompatible with 'democracy' - as we've seen in the US for over 225 years.

A bill of rights supported by a majority, as ours is, also acts as a check on the power of those who would take and abuse their own power - the autocrats certain people think might not be so bad for liberty.

"Republic" means that the people do not create laws directly: they choose men who then create laws on their behalf.

That last clause defines a republic as a 'democracy.'

Which, again, feeds back into what I've repeatedly said: democracy, constitutional and republic are in no way contradictions.

It is only when arguing against a strawman of 'direct democracy' without any respect for rule of law that any of the anti-democratic arguments here make a lick of sense.

[Len Budney]

You appear to be defending the injustice by pointing out that he should be thankful we don't take it all. That about right?

I "appear to be" saying that the dastardly wolves, in fact, don't seem to have put these sheep - the people you allege are to be eaten - at any disadvantage, in any way, shape or form.

I see. They've been robbed of millions of dollars, but they haven't been "put...at any disadvantage" because they didn't lose everything. So if I rob you, but I don't take everything, you haven't been harmed in any way, shape or form. Good to know. Where do you live, and where do you keep your family jewels?

You're suggesting that folks in the 18th century never heard of democracy, and a republic was a close as they could get.

No, I'm not. I said it was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - granting control over the state to a revolutionarily large number of individuals, while still being bound in by the mores of the time. ie women as chattel, Africans as property, etc..

They had plenty to say against direct democracy. Did you read any of it?

A bill of rights that overrides majority votes is a restraint on democracy.

And yet not incompatible with 'democracy' - as we've seen in the US for over 225 years.

 

So a "mixed" democracy, with some things voted on, other things socialized, etc., is "democracy enough for wooderson." Subject to that sort of sloppy terminology, anarcho-capitalism is also a flavor of democracy. All "voting" takes place on the market, and people are constitutionally forbidden to do anything to anyone without their consent, but that doesn't make it any less a democracy.

It is only when arguing against a strawman of 'direct democracy' without any respect for rule of law that any of the anti-democratic arguments here make a lick of sense.

I agree that there will be confusion if everyone isn't using the same definition of "democracy." Your definition is not the best choice, because it conflates completely different things. The Soviet Union was a one-party socialist democracy, in which property ownership was constitutionally forbidden. Sweden, Canada--practically every nation in the world is "democratic" by your definition. Which makes it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.

--Len.

[Ben]

I "appear to be" saying that the dastardly wolves, in fact, don't seem to have put these sheep - the people you allege are to be eaten - at any disadvantage, in any way, shape or form.

Hokey smokes. I'm with Len on this one. Tell us where you live. A group of APS'rs will come by to take everything you don't need to live comfortably or that we feel wouldn't put you at a disadvantage in any way. We will redistribute among ourselves and other groups that we feel would benefit. We will be the ones who define "comfort" and "disadvantage".

[wooderson]

They've been robbed of millions of dollars

"robbed"

They had plenty to say against direct democracy. Did you read any of it?

Again, 'direct democracy' is a red herring in this thread. No one has championed it, or even discussed it at any length.

So a "mixed" democracy, with some things voted on, other things socialized, etc., is "democracy enough for wooderson."

I've said nothing about my desires - what constitutes 'enough democracy' or how an ideal democracy might function. I'm merely trying to get across that 'democracy' and 'republicanism' aren't inherently in competition with each other.

Subject to that sort of sloppy terminology, anarcho-capitalism is also a flavor of democracy.

Anarcho-capitalism is, potentially, a "flavor of democracy," yes.

I see no 'sloppy terminology' - outside of certain individuals' desire to redefine all of 'democracy' to fit into the 'direct democracy' box.

I agree that there will be confusion if everyone isn't using the same definition of "democracy." Your definition is not the best choice, because it conflates completely different things.

Democracy, per the OED: 'a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.'

per Random House: 'government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.'

per M-W: 'a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections'
 

The Soviet Union was a one-party socialist democracy, in which property ownership was constitutionally forbidden.

Property rights are irrelevant, of course. And, of course, as with the Enabling Acts, the only way you can define the CCCP as a 'democracy' is if you want to use it as a stick with which to beat the concept.

Sweden, Canada--practically every nation in the world is "democratic" by your definition.

Given that each is a parliamentary democracy... um, yeah.