Cappies: any opinions on the Cato Institute and a Venezuelan student?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Venezuela student leader wins award for challenging Chavez (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gpiYmjk9DJAS0jeNy6-DJ8RUvsOwD90819H80)


A U.S.-based think tank has awarded a $500,000 prize to the leader of a student protest movement that has posed a potent challenge to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

University student Yon Goicoechea became a household name in Venezuela last year after he led protests that were widely seen as a key factor in the defeat of sweeping constitutional changes proposed by Chavez.

The Washington-based Cato Institute said it would announce the 23-year-old as winner of the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty on Thursday.

"I see it as a collective prize. The prize is being given to me, but it's being given to me as a representative of something much bigger," Goicoechea told The Associated Press in an interview. "It's an acknowledgment of the work that has been done in promoting freedom."

...

"He managed to effectively give voice to millions of Venezuelans who believed in democracy, tolerance and modernity, and who felt that they were being left out of politics," said Ian Vasquez, director of the institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

...

Asked his views on the state of democracy in Venezuela, Goicoechea said he is concerned about the concentration of power under Chavez and an absence of checks and balances.

"It's growing dangerously close to a totalitarian regime," he said.

...

"The government already says we're financed by the CIA. It already says we're paid by the empire. So if they say it one more time, it really isn't that important," he said.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, it's good that kids take an interest in politics, and if this kid could "inflame the masses" so much the better.

I think Yon Goicoechea may be the wave of the future in Venezuela, because Chavez for all his "Socialist" grandstanding is just another South American petty dictator that fall as quickly as they rise.

If you want to do some high stakes gambling on the future of Venezuela--maybe a half million on this kid isn't a bad bet.

[Dejavu]

I don't see what business Cato has being involved with that. Theres some good stuff that Cato produces but still pretty distant from philosophies I espouse.

As for the kid ,what can I say? He's doing what he thinks is right but the real question is if he somehow managed to dethrone Chavez would he merely take over the power left behind by Chavez or would he attack the very institution of the Venezuelan state itself? I believe its the former.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I believe its the former.

I'd bet my left testicle that it's the former.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, it's good that kids take an interest in politics, and if this kid could "inflame the masses" so much the better.

I think Yon Goicoechea may be the wave of the future in Venezuela, because Chavez for all his "Socialist" grandstanding is just another South American petty dictator that fall as quickly as they rise.

If you want to do some high stakes gambling on the future of Venezuela--maybe a half million on this kid isn't a bad bet.

Petty dictator? This is amusing given the circumstances of our own president. Venezuela's process is more democratic than our own; the only "petty" dictators in the room have a Dick for a friend.

There's something delightfully ironic about making a "freedom prize" named after Milton Friedman. Last I checked, Pinochet wasn't democratically elected three times in a row.

The opposition in Venezuela is a giant clusterfuck, to be honest. They're all over the map, so desperate to stop Venezuela's success that a military junta seems A.Okay.

[RGacky3]

Is'nt it interesting how scared and paniky the American Capitalists are over Chavez, so much so they'd give a student half a million for protesting. I think that says something, if Socialism does'nt work, why not just leave Chavez and Venezuela alone to learn their lesson?

[Dejavu]

Venezuela's process is more democratic than our ownThis could be value free statement. If one believed democracy was tyranny then it wouldn't reflect too good on Venezuela.



The opposition in Venezuela is a giant clusterfuck, to be honest. They're all over the map, so desperate to stop Venezuela's success that a military junta seems A.Okay. Well I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with the people stopping Chavez if it was done under the banner of 'democracy.' Or would you?


Is'nt it interesting how scared and paniky the American Capitalists are over Chavez, so much so they'd give a student half a million for protesting. I think that says something, if Socialism does'nt work, why not just leave Chavez and Venezuela alone to learn their lesson?Chavez has oil and thats what draws foreign spectators. Otherwise, they wouldn't care much for Venezuela whether it was a capitalist, socialist, or mixed system adopted there.

[Dean]

Well, it's good that kids take an interest in politics, and if this kid could "inflame the masses" so much the better.

I think Yon Goicoechea may be the wave of the future in Venezuela, because Chavez for all his "Socialist" grandstanding is just another South American petty dictator that fall as quickly as they rise.

If you want to do some high stakes gambling on the future of Venezuela--maybe a half million on this kid isn't a bad bet.

Chavez is hardly a dictator. If he was, he'd be the most beneficial dictator I know of.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with the people stopping Chavez if it was done under the banner of 'democracy.' Or would you?


Why would they stop Chavez when he can be recalled? The only democrats in Venezuela are social democrats and socialists. Rightists are having to resort to statist procedures.


This could be value free statement. If one believed democracy was tyranny then it wouldn't reflect too good on Venezuela.



If one believed democracy is tyranny they can happily sell themselves to a corporation. I'll be here laughing. :laugh:

[Herman]

This could be value free statement. If one believed democracy was tyranny then it wouldn't reflect too good on Venezuela.

Given enough signatures, could you recall the president of the US of A?

[Dejavu]

Why would they stop Chavez when he can be recalled? The only democrats in Venezuela are social democrats and socialists. Rightists are having to resort to statist procedures.



If one believed democracy is tyranny they can happily sell themselves to a corporation. I'll be here laughing. :laugh:

Recalled by who or what? The same government he controls? If the people are fed up with a democratic leader the only real defense they have is waiting several years to elect someone else to put into the same position of power that can easily be abused all over again. I think as PusherRobot pointed out some time earlier, and he was right, any kind of institutionalized democracy is inherently archonic and thus seems rather ridiculous when promoted by a so-called proponent of Anarchy. :rolleyes: Either you're a statist or not a statist, I don't think its possible to be both though you seem to try my friend. ;)

[Dejavu]

Given enough signatures, could you recall the president of the US of A?

You see, for me, doing something like that is senseless and doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the real problem. I wouldn't just try to oust the president of the country, I would try to oust the institutionalized archonism of the state altogether. It helps little to rely on the benevolence of your so-called 'public servant' since the incentive in government actually exists to play dirty far more than acting with integrity.
If you ousted Bush what would you do? Replace him with someone else that can just as easily abuse his position of power just like his predecessor? How many bad democrats does it take to understand that it is the system that is inherently flawed and not just a question of good rulers and bad rulers?

[Bud Struggle]

If you ousted Bush what would you do? Replace him with someone else that can just as easily abuse his position of power just like his predecessor? How many bad democrats does it take to understand that it is the system that is inherently flawed and not just a question of good rulers and bad rulers?

Deja--you sound like you are trying to get yourself unrestricted! :laugh:

[Dejavu]

^^ Actually no TomK. The majority of people here are actually social democrats ( even the ones that call themselves anarchists) and agree with Bush when it comes to deifying democracy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Recalled by who or what? The Venezuelan people.


The same government he controls?I assume the word "controls" is supposed to be synonymous with iron rule. You realize Venezuela is a democracy, right? Each one of the three elections has been scrutinized by independent organizations. You also realize that Pinochet, Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq, Rafael Trujillo, Hugo Banzer, Hassan, and other murderous free market-oriented individuals were dictators?

Basically, your claims amount to nothing.


any kind of institutionalized democracy is inherently archonic and thus seems rather ridiculous when promoted by a so-called proponent of Anarchy.It's amusing to hear a capitalist apologist talk about the necessary tenants to anarchism, considering anarchism is a socialist philosophy. Even Benjamin Tucker considered himself a socialist.


If you ousted Bush what would you do? Replace him with someone else that can just as easily abuse his position of power just like his predecessor? How many bad democrats does it take to understand that it is the system that is inherently flawed and not just a question of good rulers and bad rulers?Replace Bush with a democrat? Apparently you haven't been paying one bit of attention towards Leftists.

Calling out bogus claims about Chavez being a dicator, and claiming that Chavez is more progressive than George Dubya, does not amount to statism. Clearly right-libertarians have a problem with democracy - they're willing to praise dictators like Pinochet just because their ideological market principles are set in motion (ending up in a complete disaster, but we'll overlook that fact)...:laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

^^ Actually no TomK. The majority of people here are actually social democrats ( even the ones that call themselves anarchists) and agree with Bush when it comes to deifying democracy.

And you're a crypto-fascist who would gladly have people sign away their lives to "private protection agencies" - aka, states. By the way, welcome back. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Calling out bogus claims about Chavez being a dicator, and claiming that Chavez is more progressive than George Dubya, does not amount to statism. Clearly right-libertarians have a problem with democracy - they're willing to praise dictators like Pinochet just because their ideological market principles are set in motion (ending up in a complete disaster, but we'll overlook that fact)...:laugh:

Personally, I'm all for anyone whoever gets elected as long as elections are held regularly. If people want Chavez for a time--I'm all for it. I don't like him (or anyone else) changing Constitutions to remain in office.

I think that's pretty fair.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Personally, I'm all for anyone whoever gets elected as long as elections are held regularly. If people want Chavez for a time--I'm all for it. I don't like him (or anyone else) changing Constitutions to remain in office.

I think that's pretty fair.

I don't disagree with your sentiments; however, nothing proposed last year would lead to the elimination of regular elections. Calling Chavez a dictator is just plain-out wrong.

[Dejavu]

The Venezuelan people.

I assume the word "controls" is supposed to be synonymous with iron rule. You realize Venezuela is a democracy, right? Each one of the three elections has been scrutinized by independent organizations. You also realize that Pinochet, Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq, Rafael Trujillo, Hugo Banzer, Hassan, and other murderous free market-oriented individuals were dictators?

Basically, your claims amount to nothing.

It's amusing to hear a capitalist apologist talk about the necessary tenants to anarchism, considering anarchism is a socialist philosophy. Even Benjamin Tucker considered himself a socialist.

Replace Bush with a democrat? Apparently you haven't been paying one bit of attention towards Leftists.

Calling out bogus claims about Chavez being a dicator, and claiming that Chavez is more progressive than George Dubya, does not amount to statism. Clearly right-libertarians have a problem with democracy - they're willing to praise dictators like Pinochet just because their ideological market principles are set in motion (ending up in a complete disaster, but we'll overlook that fact)...:laugh:



The Venezuelan people? Thats rich. :laugh: The have no say if the military is monopolized by a government intent on keeping itself in power. Thats a very weak safeguard by democracy. Normally, the people have to wait until his term is over to elect someone else.

On the one hand someone like Pinochet might have been more economically liberal than others but by definition it is not a free market economy if the state has the final say in economic activity and it only makes the case stronger for market anarchism. If the concern is about certain people with questionable ethics then why create an institution like the state which by its very nature is a monopolistic on force in which certain characters can rise to power totally trampling the so-called democratic safeguards?

Anarchism is NOT a socialist philosophy, not in the sense you are thinking about. Anarchism is a type of social ideology which merely states that there should be no institutionalized archons ( rulers). Benjamin Tucker was an individualist anarchist and his description of socialist is something market anarchists would even call themselves. I consider myself a voluntary socialist, whats wrong with that? I'm sure your aware that Tucker was against communism and coercive socialism. When you look at the meat and guts of it, voluntary socialism IS basically free market capitalism.

Plus, I don't know where you get the impression I'm a right-libertarian. If anything I am a left-libertarian and there is a strong case to show the most hardcore left-libertarian anarchists are, in fact, in favor of market anarchism.

Btw, about being a 'crypto-fascist' don't throw that label on me when you damn well know fascism is within the collectivist socialist tradition and not the individualist liberal one I espouse. Oh, and thanks for the greeting. :D

[Bud Struggle]

I don't disagree with your sentiments; however, nothing proposed last year would lead to the elimination of regular elections. Calling Chavez a dictator is just plain-out wrong.

He tried to change the Venezuelan Constitution to abolish term limits....that's my objection to him. Otherwise, while I don't like him personally, it's not my country and the people there can do as they like. I oppose the "vote onetime and then the Furher (or whomever) rules forever. I like regularly scheduled elections.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He tried to change the Venezuelan Constitution to abolish term limits....that's my objection to him. Otherwise, while I don't like him personally, it's not my country and the people there can do as they like. I oppose the "vote onetime and then the Furher (or whomever) rules forever. I like regularly scheduled elections.

What? You've been misinformed by the corporate press. The proposal didn't call for the end of terms. Chavez would still have to be elected on a regular basis. He would still have to achieve a popular vote every six years - like the president of France. Do you think France is a dictatorship?


Normally, the people have to wait until his term is over to elect someone else.

Except Chavez had a recall vote levied against him, nullifying that statement. :lol: I wonder why we don't have such a thing in our wonderful capitalist empire? Bush's 28% approval rating sure looks fine next to Chavez's 70%.


On the one hand someone like Pinochet might have been more economically liberal than others but by definition it is not a free market economy if the state has the final say in economic activity and it only makes the case stronger for market anarchism.

What are you rambling on about now? Pinochet and the Chicago Boys did everything they could to remove the state from the economy, until the mid-80s when the economy collapsed under the weight of pseudo-economics and Pinochet kicked out Friedman's lackeys.

All the dictators I listed took a very liberal approach to their economy, and most ended up in ruin. The "New Zealand Experiment," championed by people like Von Mises and Friedman, was a complete failure. Poverty increased by 35% and health care for the average worker deteriorated. Economic growth lagged behind Japan, Norway, Sweden, and other heavily regulated markets.


Anarchism is NOT a socialist philosophy,

Tell that to the person who coined the term.


When you look at the meat and guts of it, voluntary socialism IS basically free market capitalism.

What's this nonsense? Your property rights negotiations are built up on force. I've already hounded on the quasi-Lockian position that property becomes yours once you mix your labor with the soil.

Capitalism was probably coined by Marx, so I'm doubly interested in hearing how socialism ("voluntary") equates to free market capitalism.


If anything I am a left-libertarian and there is a strong case to show the most hardcore left-libertarian anarchists are, in fact, in favor of market anarchism.

Left-libertarians are unequivocally supportive of democracy.

I'm sorry that I mistook you for being a right-libertarian. Your love affair with Friedman and Von Mises must be coincidental.


Btw, about being a 'crypto-fascist' don't throw that label on me when you damn well know fascism is within the collectivist socialist tradition and not the individualist liberal one I espouse

Fascism is a reaction to a strong workers' movement with the potential of turning radical (socialist). Fascist parties have been funded by capitalist bankers (including Jews) so it would be interesting to see you connect class antagonism with class cooperation. Even Mussolini pointed out that socialism and fascism are not related.

[Dejavu]

Except Chavez had a recall vote levied against him, nullifying that statement. :lol: I wonder why we don't have such a thing in our wonderful capitalist empire? Bush's 28% approval rating sure looks fine next to Chavez's 70%.You and I are in agreement about whats wrong with the status quo 'capitalism.' I don't pose any defense of the status quo capitalism and I argue against it probably more than you do. In fact, I've argued against you while you defended the status quo capitalism if only to try to invalidate my position about market anarchism. Once we've established the premise that you understand I am not a vulgar libertarian defending the status quo then we can engage in more fruitful debate.

We see many cases in the world where democratic methods are used to try to subvert actions unpleasing to the majority. These don't work very well however since a common example of that is here in the U.S., Zimbabwe, and even Venezuela. It seems a bit absurd to me to promote the democratic institutions of the state to try to change a law or something fundamental in the system since its the same state, which is in violation in the first place, that has the monopoly on jurisprudence and force.



What are you rambling on about now? Pinochet and the Chicago Boys did everything they could to remove the state from the economy, until the mid-80s when the economy collapsed under the weight of pseudo-economics and Pinochet kicked out Friedman's lackeys. You really don't understand Chicago school economics then don't you? The Chicago Schoolers ARE statists. Much like the rest of the Right, they pay lip service to free markets but in practice are not all that different from the Keynesians. Milton Friedman supported the central bank and government intervention in some very specific cases as to where a free marketer, by definition, would not support that let alone an institution with a monopoly on the money supply. Again, I have no defense because I do not espouse the Chicago school theories. If you think I support the Chicago School statist economics ( I don't think I ever even suggested that I did) then that means you pick me off as vulgar libertarian supporting the status quo and this is a misunderstanding on your part about my position. Any debate between us assuming the wrong givens would not be fruitful. I have no desire to defend a position I don't support. Please think about what you're saying. If Pinochet along with the Chicagoans wanted to completely separate economy and state , then why were the Chicagoans statists? And why would it require state action in the economy to nullify the state intervention in the first place? How is that logical? The fact is, Pinochet's state did intervene in Chile's economy so it is not a free market position by definition. A free market cannot be free and hampered at the same time.


All the dictators I listed took a very liberal approach to their economy, and most ended up in ruin. The "New Zealand Experiment," championed by people like Von Mises and Friedman, was a complete failure. Poverty increased by 35% and health care for the average worker deteriorated. Economic growth lagged behind Japan, Norway, Sweden, and other heavily regulated markets.They still advocated mixed economies and in cases where economies were truly more liberal ( don't see how free economy is possible under a dictatorship since the two become mutually exclusive) more prosperity followed as a general case throughout history. Western Europe and the United States during the industrial revolution was a good example. Furthermore, if you try to compare on scale the economic development of a third world vs first world country given a certain period of actual development the results of the first world will always look better then comparatively to the third world. Therefore it is ridiculous to try to disprove liberal market theories on the basis of third world countries starting off with relatively little by comparing it to an already developed first world country. Saying "Inferiorstan tried the same economics as Superiorstan and look, inferiorstan is still a lot inferior to superiorstan."

Mises and Friedman weren't very similar and the fact that you honestly believe Chicago school economics is representative of a free market shows you need to rethink that position. Now Mises himself was a statist. He clung to the classical liberal tradition and still insisted upon a 'night watchman' state because he still, during his life, had the incorrect belief that the state can still produce certain things of value and like Hayek he thought in a very defined society, state and market can coexist without conflict. Naturally we see they were both wrong. However, while Mises did write he was in favor of minarchy, all his economic contributions seem to invalidate the purpose of a state which is unlike Friedman who actively supported the idea of a central bank and statist economy. Rothbard simply took Mises' contributions to their anarchist conclusions.


Tell that to the person who coined the term.You see I don't base Anarchist philosophy on a single man but rather base it on a conceptual truth in defining a free society. Proudhon was a socialist, this is true, but it doesn't follow that since socialism is a concept and anarchy is a concept , that socialism and anarchy are the same concept or else they wouldn't be in conflict among socialists. All socialists would be anarchists and vice versa but this is not the case. I don't even claim capitalism and anarchy are the same concept. What I do claim is that anarchy is a social concept while capitalism is a strictly an economic one.
Aside from that , Proudhon has been misquoted or badly represented by various socialist anarchists in claiming that Proudhon meant 'property is theft' in the very littoral sense of the term. However there is another Proudhon quote that says 'property is freedom.' What one has to look at is a consistency of logic and what Proudhon actually meant. To say 'property is theft' must imply that you believe in property ownership. Theft presupposes property and theft can only be defined as something (i.e. property) being stolen from someone else which is consistent with Proudhon's philosophy. Proudhon believed labor should own capital if they work with it, reasonable enough though thats another debate for another time. So Proudhon was not anti-property.


What's this nonsense? Your property rights negotiations are built up on force. I've already hounded on the quasi-Lockian position that property becomes yours once you mix your labor with the soil.Another misunderstanding of my position. Like I said, take time to really understand my position because we cannot have a fruitful debate if you don't consider the proper premise of the argument. My property position is exactly to prevent initiation of force. I won't object to one defending their property as retaliatory to force already initiated against them ( such as theft) but I never said property should be acquired by force. If someone wanted to knock your head off don't you believe you have the right to defend yourself? Read Locke's homesteading principle again and even the proviso ( which I don't object to necessarily) and you will see Locke isn't suggesting force. In a voluntary society property is traded for mutual gain or else the trade wouldn't happen in the first place.




Capitalism was probably coined by Marx, so I'm doubly interested in hearing how socialism ("voluntary") equates to free market capitalism.
In order to grasp this concept better you need to distinguish between state-corporate status quo capitalism and actual free market capitalism. If you can do that then maybe the concept will be obtainable for you but if not then I can't help you understand this, sorry. I've done you the favor of recognizing state vs non state socialism ( voluntary socialism). My argument is concept of voluntary socialism would find its logical conclusion in free market capitalism. Try wrapping your brain around that one? :laugh: Its not that hard if you throw out some false assumptions you have.


Left-libertarians are unequivocally supportive of democracy.

I'm sorry that I mistook you for being a right-libertarian. Your love affair with Friedman and Von Mises must be coincidental.Not true and this is the problem with using an already assumed Left-Right paradigm, especially as it applies in the English speaking countries. You see in a place like France, a free market advocate, liberal ( libertarian), and general anarchist would be considered extreme Left to where socialists fall somewhere in the center.

Only in English speaking countries given the L-R paradigm can someone like Chomsky be considered radical Left or let alone a 'left-libertarian.' A better depiction of a left-libertarian would have been someone like Robert Nozick and Roderick Long. In the traditional sense those on the Left were always more individualistic minded and as you scooted over to the Right more collectivist ideas would seep in be it ' socialism, nationalism, fascism, etc.' These are inherently anti-individualist positions and should be property distinguished from the individualists.
What you would consider a 'right-libertarian' would be someone like Ron Paul. Right-libertarians generally espouse a lot of economic freedom but have some nationalist ( and therefore collectivist) tendencies. Ron Paul wants to vamp up border security, I'm not in favor of that, Ron Paul is against abortion, I'm not anti-abortion, Ron Paul wants to redefine citizenship, I don't think the concept of 'citizen' belongs anywhere in a free society.

As far as my 'love affair' with Mises, yeah I can see where you would think that, but Friedman?!?! , common man , learn my actual positions before making improper assumptions about them. Just ask if you're not sure. :lol:

I have much respect for Mises even though he wasn't an anarchist. I think in time he would've become one as he saw the illogical rationality of believing something good could come of the state as it grew up to present day. Because Mises did say, when speaking of secession, that secession should come down to the level of the individual :D which I couldn't agree with more.




Fascism is a reaction to a strong workers' movement with the potential of turning radical (socialist). Fascist parties have been funded by capitalist bankers (including Jews) so it would be interesting to see you connect class antagonism with class cooperation. Even Mussolini pointed out that socialism and fascism are not related. Again, your interpretation of what capitalism means has nothing to do with the free market so I have to agree with you that people ( from kinds of backgrounds) supported fascism because of the promises it offered. state-capitalist countries supported state-socialist countries in WW2 as well.

In fact, in Italy, like in Germany, the most vulnerable recruits for fascism were actually socialists. A collectivist based philosophy isn't hard to mold into another collectivist based philosophy, all you have to do is change the details of the goals and means ( often the means were similar).

Mussolini was an editor of a socialist paper, part of the Socialist party, Hitlerites were a socialist workers party. These are simple facts. Equally disgusting were the social democrats and progressives in the Western democracies that held strong sympathies for socialism ( for the 'Left') and fascism ( for the socialist Right).

Allow me to draw a couple quotes from Mussolini himself :

"Let a single cry arise from the vast multitudes of the proletariat and let it be repeated in the squares and streets of Italy: down with war! The proletariat provides raw material, cannon fodder with which states make their history."

"You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me."


You do realize that in the 1933 elections the Communist party in Germany ordered its people to vote for the Nazis? The purpose of that as to collaborate with the Nazis in fighting the common enemy , capitalism ( really individualism), and then fight each other for the spoils.
Hitler in Mein Kampf constantly distinguishes two kinds of socialists, nationalist and internationalist, claiming that he is a former but nonetheless determined enough to explain he is a socialist.

One of Hitler's greatest tools of propaganda was showing off the social disparity of the German people after WW1 and his scapegoat were those rich, capital owning, Jews. Much how Marx described how capitalists were living off the blood and sweat of labor ( though he didn't assign ethnic, only class labels, Hitler added the ethnic label).

To any rational thinker and someone who studies histories of movements with a critical eye, it would be almost impossible to not see the clear correlation between the collectivist natures of fascism, communism, and socialism.
One again I'm going to bounce the ball back in your court and ask you to defend fascism since its part of the collectivist family you espouse. I don't know why an individualist should also be tasked with 'defending' fascism. Its your black sheep relative, not ours. :lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

He tried to change the Venezuelan Constitution to abolish term limits....that's my objection to him. Otherwise, while I don't like him personally, it's not my country and the people there can do as they like. I oppose the "vote onetime and then the Furher (or whomever) rules forever. I like regularly scheduled elections.
Abolishing term limits is not the same as abolishing elections. There are no term limits in Britain, for example. Is Britain a dictatorship?

[Bud Struggle]

Abolishing term limits is not the same as abolishing elections. There are no term limits in Britain, for example. Is Britain a dictatorship?

No, but it's a different syle of government. Even that Devil Putin didn't try to abolish term limits.

You always could make a case for it--but it's just sucky behavior.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Not true and this is the problem with using an already assumed Left-Right paradigm, especially as it applies in the English speaking countries. You see in a place like France, a free market advocate, liberal ( libertarian), and general anarchist would be considered extreme Left to where socialists fall somewhere in the center.
You really are ignorant, aren't you? The term "extreme left" in French politics is usually applied to Lutte Ouvriere (www.lutte-ouvriere.org) and Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire (www.lcr-rouge.org) - which are Trotskyist communist organizations.


Only in English speaking countries given the L-R paradigm can someone like Chomsky be considered radical Left or let alone a 'left-libertarian.' A better depiction of a left-libertarian would have been someone like Robert Nozick and Roderick Long. In the traditional sense those on the Left were always more individualistic minded and as you scooted over to the Right more collectivist ideas would seep in be it ' socialism, nationalism, fascism, etc.' These are inherently anti-individualist positions and should be property distinguished from the individualists.
First of all, you are mistaken about the Left-Right spectrum. It was never used as a spectrum based on the collectivism-individualism dichotomy. It was invented as a spectrum based on class interests in Revolutionary France (bourgeoisie on the left, aristocracy on the right) and it continued to be based on class interests, albeit in a slightly modified form, after the bourgeoisie rose to power, the aristocracy faded, and the proletariat was created as the new exploited class. That is why today the L-R spectrum can be defined as "proletariat on the left, bourgeoisie on the right."

The L-R spectrum was invented in the late 18th century. Socialism did not appear until the mid-19th century, and fascism was only invented in the 20th century. Get your history right.


Again, your interpretation of what capitalism means has nothing to do with the free market...
And your interpretation of the "free market" has nothing to do with reality.


In fact, in Italy, like in Germany, the most vulnerable recruits for fascism were actually socialists. A collectivist based philosophy isn't hard to mold into another collectivist based philosophy, all you have to do is change the details of the goals and means ( often the means were similar).
"All you have to do" is change the goals and means? That's like saying that all you have to do in order to get from anarchism to totalitarianism is to change a few details about the goals - specifically, change the goal from "no government" to "maximum government." You can even keep the same means if you want; some fascist groups use methods not far removed from those of anarchists or other radical movements, after all.


Mussolini was an editor of a socialist paper, part of the Socialist party,
Yeah, that was before he got kicked out of the party, spent a few years in the political wilderness, became a fascist and had his new goons beat up, murder and imprison his former socialist comrades. People change. Some prominent fascists were anarchists in their youth.


Hitlerites were a socialist workers party.
No. The NSDAP had some social demands, true, but they were more moderate than the social demands of most social democratic parties today. Nazi Germany had a lower tax rate than Britain at the outbreak of World War 2, and less government involvement in the economy than most European countries after 1945. If the Nazis qualify as "socialists," then by the same standards you would have to say that all countries in Europe and North America today (and indeed nearly all countries in the world) are "socialist."

"Let a single cry arise from the vast multitudes of the proletariat and let it be repeated in the squares and streets of Italy: down with war! The proletariat provides raw material, cannon fodder with which states make their history."
First of all, provide a source for that quote. Second, Mussolini got expelled from the Italian Socialist Party for supporting World War 1, so obviously he changed his mind on that subject.
You do realize that in the 1933 elections the Communist party in Germany ordered its people to vote for the Nazis?
No, I do not realize that, because it is a flat out, absolute and irredeemable lie. The KPD (Communist Party of Germany) wanted its people to vote for the KPD (surprisingly enough!) in the first elections in 1933. In the second elections that year the KPD was banned by the Nazis under the excuse that the Communists had supposedly set fire to the Reichstag. Seeing how the Nazis were busy murdering Communist leaders or capturing them for imprisonment or torture, I sincerely doubt any KPD voters turned to the NSDAP.


Hitler in Mein Kampf constantly distinguishes two kinds of socialists, nationalist and internationalist, claiming that he is a former but nonetheless determined enough to explain he is a socialist.
Yes, because Hitler defined a socialist as a man who loved Germany and its people... under that definition he could indeed claim to be a socialist. But I doubt that is the kind of "socialism" you have in mind - it's certainly not the kind of "socialism" that any of us have in mind.


One of Hitler's greatest tools of propaganda was showing off the social disparity of the German people after WW1 and his scapegoat were those rich, capital owning, Jews. Much how Marx described how capitalists were living off the blood and sweat of labor (though he didn't assign ethnic, only class labels, Hitler added the ethnic label).
Um, there is a rather huge difference between ethnic and class labels. Using class labels implies that people are exploited because of a certain social or economic system; and they must change economic relationships and property relations - change the system - in order to liberate themselves. Using ethnic labels implies that the system is fine, but people are exploited by an evil conspiracy of outsiders (in this case Jews), and those outsiders must be eliminated in order for the existing system to work well and for people to be happy.

Besides, Hitler also blamed Jews for creating and funding communism as part of a "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy to take over the world. In Hitler's mind, Jewish bankers were working together with the Soviet Union.


One again I'm going to bounce the ball back in your court and ask you to defend fascism since its part of the collectivist family you espouse. I don't know why an individualist should also be tasked with 'defending' fascism. Its your black sheep relative, not ours.
What is collectivism? I can find no good definition for it other than "anything that a self-declared individualist does not like." I will readily admit that we share this one common feature with fascism: the fact that you do not like us.

[Demogorgon]

He tried to change the Venezuelan Constitution to abolish term limits....that's my objection to him. Otherwise, while I don't like him personally, it's not my country and the people there can do as they like. I oppose the "vote onetime and then the Furher (or whomever) rules forever. I like regularly scheduled elections.

What is wrong with not having term limits? The fact is that very few countries have them. As far as I recall Russia is the only European country that has them (and look how democratic that is...). I am neither for nor against term limits incidentally, but I really don't see how it matters. I disagree with Chavez wanting to increase his term from six to seven years, but term limits aren't relevant. So long as you can vote somebody out of office, it does not matter whether they enter the election or not.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What is wrong with not having term limits? The fact is that very few countries have them. As far as I recall Russia is the only European country that has them (and look how democratic that is...).
France also has them; in fact most European republics have term limits for their presidential offices (but not for the office of prime minister). However, in the majority of these countries it is the prime minister who has the real power, not the president, so the presidential term limits are largely irrelevant. The only European countries with strong presidents that I can think of are France, Russia, and a number of post-Soviet states (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus of course, etc.)

[Demogorgon]

If I may just add two comments here

No. The NSDAP had some social demands, true, but they were more moderate than the social demands of most social democratic parties today. Nazi Germany had a lower tax rate than Britain at the outbreak of World War 2, and less government involvement in the economy than most European countries after 1945. If the Nazis qualify as "socialists," then by the same standards you would have to say that all countries in Europe and North America today (and indeed nearly all countries in the world) are "socialist."A favourite fact of mine. During the war, the highest tax rate in America was 70%. In Germany it was 15%. Which side was the most free by the ultra-capitalists outlook.


No, I do not realize that, because it is a flat out, absolute and irredeemable lie. The KPD (Communist Party of Germany) wanted its people to vote for the KPD (surprisingly enough!) in the first elections in 1933. In the second elections that year the KPD was banned by the Nazis under the excuse that the Communists had supposedly set fire to the Reichstag. Seeing how the Nazis were busy murdering Communist leaders or capturing them for imprisonment or torture, I sincerely doubt any KPD voters turned to the NSDAP.I have to add to this. I am a huge fan of German history. I have had the embarrassing experience of being turfed out of the Museum of German History in Berlin at closing time despite having been queueing up before it opened and spending all day there. I know probably too much about German history to be considered healthy, nonetheless, I have to add my comments here.

The election of 1933 actually did see KPD participation. The Nazi's were not yet in a position to stop them getting on the ballot papers, though they did ban them immediately afterwards and stopped the deputies getting their seats. What they actually did was arrest as many members as possible and try to prevent voters casting their votes in their favour. Nonetheless the KPD got an impressive share of the votes, despite being in the most extreme adverse circumstances.

Now for the point I am getting to, the KPD's platform in that election. They essentially campaigned solely on getting rid of the Nazis. By that stage they were willing to do virtually anything to oppose the party including working with Liberal and even Conservative parties. The KPD essentially took the position that literally anything was better than Nazi Government. For Deja Vu to claim that the KPD advocated voting for the Nazi party, is simply shocking. It is perhaps the most brazen lie ever written on this board.

[Demogorgon]

France also has them; in fact most European republics have term limits for their presidential offices (but not for the office of prime minister). However, in the majority of these countries it is the prime minister who has the real power, not the president, so the presidential term limits are largely irrelevant. The only European countries with strong presidents that I can think of are France, Russia, and a number of post-Soviet states (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus of course, etc.)
Actually France does not have term limits. The debate in France was whether to limit Presidents to a single term or whether to reduce their term to five years. They went for the later. No President has ever run for a third term due to death, ill health or in Chirac's case, unpopularity. But they can do them.

As for non-executive Presidents in Europe and term limits, I can't remember the details on every President, but some of them may have term limits. It is certainly true that the Prime Ministers who lead the Governments can carry on so long as they control Parliament though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Our resident cappies have also forgotten the role that communal councils have played in enhancing Venezuelan democracy (at the expense of bureaucratic mayors).