[POLITICS] Brutal dictatorship protects Guaido from angry mob

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I mean, it's patently obvious why there's no "real" capitalism, no "real" libertarianism, no "real" communism, and so on. None of those philosophies remotely work at scale in their pure form, not even enough to try and fail. Maybe this country needs a better social safety net, maybe that country needs more room for free enterprise.

TheIronRuler:
Greece for example lead a line of generous social policies, but did not have the strong free economy required for their level of benefits

They didn't have the sovereign control over their own currency required; instead they shared a currency with (among others, but especially) Germany, which is kind of an awful idea.

Pyrian:
I mean, it's patently obvious why there's no "real" capitalism, no "real" libertarianism, no "real" communism, and so on. None of those philosophies remotely work at scale in their pure form, not even enough to try and fail. Maybe this country needs a better social safety net, maybe that country needs more room for free enterprise.

This. Also add that this need can change from year to year. Too much free enterprise can lead to bad outcomes, but so can too much safety net.

TheIronRuler:

I mean exactly what I said. If the meaning slipped your mind for a moment you can read-up on it. In a blunt and short fashion, Socialism is central planning.

The problem is that what you said doesn't mean very much on its own.

"Socialism" is... very conveniently understood and defined when someone has a point to prove (or an axe to grind). This is a case in point.

No, socialism is not just central planning.

The problem is this echo-chamber. At least I can respect the users, even with extreme views (to my own), that engage in actual debate with each other besides tossing shit around and debating definitions just to justify their opinions or weasel their way out of a conversation. Here, a person who I believe supports socialism, gave me a good example for my question - Cuba. It can be argued whether or not Cuba is doing well for itself, but it is a socialist-run country.

There are more examples of socialist countries but they are all examples of failed socialist countries (I may have overlooked more examples, I'm not familiar with the nearly two hundred countries in the world). Zimbabwe is a good example for a failed socialist country. Africa is riddled with socialist failed states thanks to soviet aggressive diplomatic policies and the limp diplomatic actions of European de-colonizers like Portugal and Britain.

You don't want to engage this argument because you lost it before it even started. You can argue socialism on a philosophical, social level. I can indulge you, even if I think the theory is mostly morally repugnant.

I can share this with you here, mostly because you've known me for years and this is wholly anonymous. The reason I'm so adamant against this method of thinking, which permeates itself into philosophy and governance stems from a short little story by Kurt Vonnegurt, 'Harrison Bergeron'. I want every single person to have the opportunity to be the best, strongest, smartest, kindest, most beautiful creature it can be, and populate the world around me. I don't want everybody to be equal in misery, for the sake of this value men created that is equality. This value philosophers created and fell in love with... We are all equal in the eyes of god, and in my view, we should all be equal in the eyes of a mortal judge - but not anywhere else.

TheIronRuler:

PsychedelicDiamond:

TheIronRuler:

.
Give me a few successful current nations with a socialist designed economy. Not with social policies, like a retirement age or a maternity leave. A socialist designed economy.

Cuba's doing better than most of its neighbours in the Carribbean despite crippling sanctions.

.
Good example. I admit I don't know much about how Cuba's doing numbers-wise. I do however can guess it does better than some of the other Caribbean islands purely based on having a big-enough population and land-mass. Excluding Tobago, I think most independent Caribbean nations have it rough. If you can link me to some stuff about how Cuba's doing, I'll give it a read. However do try to find some neutral or non-communist sources, if you can.

A critical, but positive article about Cuba's health care:

http://theconversation.com/is-the-cuban-healthcare-system-really-as-great-as-people-claim-69526

Hunger:

https://www.globalhungerindex.org/cuba.html

Crime rates:

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=24641

Cuba's doing, all things considered, very well for a developing country, much less compared to the rest of the Carribean and Latin America. And in the end I do think it's at least party because of its socialist economy.

TheIronRuler:
The problem is this echo-chamber. At least I can respect the users, even with extreme views (to my own), that engage in actual debate with each other besides tossing shit around and debating definitions just to justify their opinions or weasel their way out of a conversation.

Oh, spare me, I just asked for what you were considering to be socialist. The fact is that the term has a hundred different meanings, depending on who you ask, so the question is a valid one.

I assumed, for instance-- correctly-- that what you are describing as 'socialist' is a far throw from what I would describe as 'socialist'. And I consider myself a socialist.

TheIronRuler:

There are more examples of socialist countries but they are all examples of failed socialist countries (I may have overlooked more examples, I'm not familiar with the nearly two hundred countries in the world). Zimbabwe is a good example for a failed socialist country. Africa is riddled with socialist failed states thanks to soviet aggressive diplomatic policies and the limp diplomatic actions of European de-colonizers like Portugal and Britain.

Ah, Zimbabwe, of course. I'm sure you'll have no objection in my use of, say, Iran as an illustrative example of conservatism in government.

TheIronRuler:

You don't want to engage this argument because you lost it before it even started. You can argue socialism on a philosophical, social level. I can indulge you, even if I think the theory is mostly morally repugnant.

I don't want to engage in a debate in which we're talking at cross-purposes, and using terms that the other person is using differently. I only asked for clarity.

The fact that this evoked such a pointlessly antagonistic response has told me all I probably need to know about whether you actually wanted to have a conversation on a respectful footing.

TheIronRuler:

I can share this with you here, mostly because you've known me for years and this is wholly anonymous. The reason I'm so adamant against this method of thinking, which permeates itself into philosophy and governance stems from a short little story by Kurt Vonnegurt, 'Harrison Bergeron'. I want every single person to have the opportunity to be the best, strongest, smartest, kindest, most beautiful creature it can be, and populate the world around me. I don't want everybody to be equal in misery, for the sake of this value men created that is equality. This value philosophers created and fell in love with... We are all equal in the eyes of god, and in my view, we should all be equal in the eyes of a mortal judge - but not anywhere else.

I'm familiar with Vonnegut; he's perhaps my second favourite author. I love his work to bits.

He was a socialist, recall.

Why did the New York Times publish a video Op-Ed by the daughter of someone recently appointed to a powerful position by Juan Guaido, and someone who had been active in the government (and helping to ruin the Venezuelan economy) before Chavez? And why didn't the New York Times disclose that tie to the opposition?

As of the this writing, Hausmann's video remains up at the Times with no mention of her family connection to the opposition movement she's promoting.

(I checked and this was still true as of this forum posting.)

So this is cool. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/05/americas/venezuela-military-helicopter-crash/index.html

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described how Juan Guaido came to be Venezuela's self-declared president.

What did they have to correct? This:

How do you get something like that so wrong in the first place?!

Anyone care that the Trump administration just violated the Vienna convention and invaded Venezuela's embassy in Washington D.C.?

Seanchaidh:
Anyone care that the Trump administration just violated the Vienna convention and invaded Venezuela's embassy in Washington D.C.?

I suppose the argument goes that as the US government officially recognises Guaido as legitimate ruler of Venezuala, then its his permission they require for legality, not Maduro's.

Seanchaidh:
Anyone care that the Trump administration just violated the Vienna convention and invaded Venezuela's embassy in Washington D.C.?

I thought that host countries could take over an embassy but they had to give warning to clear out before hand (give them a week to leave the country.)

1984 Libyan embassy in England being an example. Someone shot a police officer. The ambassador didn't let the police in to investigate (security does NOT have diplomatic immunity and they were suspectedof this crime). So the UK withdrew permission for the embassy.

This Venezuela embassy has been surrounded by activists for a while, to counter such a situation. But I haven't Trump withdrawing permission yet.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:
Anyone care that the Trump administration just violated the Vienna convention and invaded Venezuela's embassy in Washington D.C.?

I suppose the argument goes that as the US government officially recognises Guaido as legitimate ruler of Venezuala, then its his permission they require for legality, not Maduro's.

Why even have the treaty, then?

Seanchaidh:

Agema:

Seanchaidh:
Anyone care that the Trump administration just violated the Vienna convention and invaded Venezuela's embassy in Washington D.C.?

I suppose the argument goes that as the US government officially recognises Guaido as legitimate ruler of Venezuala, then its his permission they require for legality, not Maduro's.

Why even have the treaty, then?

Would the treaty be with the government they recognize - Guaido?

trunkage:

Seanchaidh:

Agema:

I suppose the argument goes that as the US government officially recognises Guaido as legitimate ruler of Venezuala, then its his permission they require for legality, not Maduro's.

Why even have the treaty, then?

Would the treaty be with the government they recognize - Guaido?

Apart from his lack of Constitutional legitimacy to begin with, Guaido doesn't head a government. And the Vienna convention (on Diplomatic Relations) isn't just between the USA and Venezuela.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here