Venezuela Falling

[monk222]

♠
CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb. 16 — Faced with an accelerating inflation rate and shortages of basic foods like beef, chicken and milk, President Hugo Chávez has threatened to jail grocery store owners and nationalize their businesses if they violate the country’s expanding price controls.

... Fears that more private companies could be nationalized have put further pressure on the currency as rich Venezuelans try to take money out of the country.

-- Simon Romero for The New York Times

Wow, it is like the French Revolution and Castro all in one. I guess, centralization and collectivization really don't work. Downhill:

“It is surreal that we’ve arrived at a point where we are in danger of squandering a major oil boom,” said José Guerra, a former chief of economic research at Venezuela’s central bank, who left Mr. Chavez’s government in 2004. “If the government insists on sticking to policies that are clearly failing, we may be headed down the road of Zimbabwe.”

Maybe it's just a yankee, imperialistic plot, and it's time to start executing traitors and counter-revolutionaries.

xXx

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I don't suppose Chavez will be offering America's poor any more free oil. He has enough big problems of his own, like how to feed his people.

A lot of people have been looking to Chavez as some sort of hero, and I hope hard news like this coming so fast will put a lot of that to rest.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Speaking of "if the government insists on sticking to policies that are clearly failing, we may be headed down the road of Zimbabwe," one could just as easily insert "United States" into that sentence and have it mean the same thing these days.

I think right and left both romanticize certain figures overlooking their faults, but I give Chavez an ounce of credit for at least trying. Which perhaps says more about Americans being set in their ways than real governmental philosophy. But you have to break a few eggs.... Not to excuse bad behavior. I admire a willingness to take on social experiments in a difficult area in an age dominated by and large with other ideological struggles more in the political vein.

One of the great myths of history, I think, is that ocmmunism and socialism always fail just because they have thus far failed. That's a particular American bias that doesn't hold up objectively necessarily. Not that I think Americans are going to flock to a more community-oriented and less individual outlook any time soon, but there is something to be said for the attempt.

Come on, Americans love to hate on Castro or China but he's even survived the old USSR and China is a major global player (a given that it owes most of it to Westernization). Neither of those is necessarily a good govt. yet they both endure. And offer a better alternative than, say, the chaos of Iraq.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying that I think people tend to associate socialist attempts with bad things which is just as ridiculous as saying democracy is bad because it is corrupt in many places it goes.

Not to mention that socialism never got off the ground in the US despite our fear of it. Nothing is saying widespread socialism couldn't work here. Just as there is nothing saying widespread democracy may not work some other places around the world. There is no cure-all.

It brings up basic definitions of goverment and society and how we want to define "civilization." I'm of the opinion that the government which governs best is the one that does the most good for the most people.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying although I guess I just am careful not to mix up the basic definition of socialism with the functional equivalent that is used as the de facto definition. In terms of textbook, however, socialism really has little to do with people being herded like animals or losing individual autonomy.

The modern EU or Canada might be described as at least partly socialized but neither of them has a lack of individual rights or a herd mentality. Democracy or socialism can go hand in hand with tyranny and I'm not sure either one is predestined to be more or less likely to lean towards it. It is more about who is running it, who is living under it, and how willing people are to deal with the consequences of a given system.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Right. No, I got you. But that's what I meant by definitions, too. I mean, I'm pretty libertarian but what doesn't jive with it and me is the absolutism often present in that I see some social responsibility coming with individual rights.

Do people have an absolute right to determine how their property will be used? I say no. To that degree it is a matter of what we want to call trying to advocate for community awareness. Respect for others. Or social welfare.

I guess I'm arguing that it *is* a difference in kind depending on what kind of democracy or socialism is being expressed. In other words, one could have a militantly autocratic democracy or an open and free socialist state. It just depends.

I would say I have a hard time saying either individual rights or social responsibility is greater. The best govt. is one that balances the two equally in a kind of existential dance. People should be free...but they also should be well taken care of so as to maximize the liberty they have to enjoy that freedom. It's sort of that duality of the state. Provide law and order and then a good quality of life.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

See, *now* we're having a good discussion in my book. LOL

Don't the people who don't need taken care of owe it to those who need taken care of a standard of care? Those who can give should give.

I mean, it already is a given that no serious argument can be made for absolute laissez-faire economics or property use. You can't use your property for, say, torturing kittens. And some govt. regulation of industry and wealth is necessary to provide basic goods and services and prevent corruoption, monopolies, the like.

I agree that people should be left alone. But the right to swing ends at another's nose, so to speak. Individual rights must be balanced with the needs of society, the community, etc..

For instance: here in Chicago we need funds for mass transit? Who should pay? Driving commuters say they don't use the L or buses so they should be immune. But if they don't pay then it only harms them in the end when more people end up on the road, etc.. Car owners don't exist in a void. Nobody does.

So my response in some ways is that there are no individual rights even to be trampled when we're talking about basic fairness to others. There doesn't exist an absolute right to wealth or property or speech or any right for the matter. Now, don't get me wrong I think limits should be only what is necessary. But that is the line I'm talking about.

It is an interesting point to ponder about what nation currently does the best job of taking care of its citizens while allowing maximum rights. It certainly isn't the US, but I'm not sure which nation that would be. Good topic though.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Your points are fairly classical, but all I will say is thank goodness civilization has, by and large, come down on the other side of the fence. (Or rather, sitting on the fence, maybe.) Not that I will call you, per se, nihilistic. But that's the problem I have with a more pure form of libertarianism. Just as I would call it nihilistic to be on the other side and that community must come first over and above individuals. I think it is a delicate balance...everything in moderation.

Despite the Founders talking about inalienable rights from God, rights actually come from government. Now, I suppose they are inalienable in the sense that government only happens with the consent of the governed.

In any case, I would say that the whole point of the US is that government should be of the people, by the people, for the people. We do have a strong individual streak, but let's not forget that if it weren't for Jefferson and Madison we'd have no Bill of Rights. Which was brilliant, but not the whole raison d'etre.

I think we've struggled, above other nations, to come to terms with where the balance is between liberty and equality. And I think the best summary of the nice compromise we've come up with is that one is free to do as one wishes so long as one isn't unfairly treating others in the process. Sometimes, like gun control or abortion, it gets sticky. But hey, it is a work in progress.

As for what nations do it better or where I see myself in a good society...I think one should expect to pay their fair share and reap benefits in return while being free to largely do, say, and think what one wants within the legal limits. Who does it better than the US? Canada and some of the EU come to mind in some aspects. They enjoy most of the same freedoms coupled with things like healthcare, better education, higher standard of living. Japan.

But back to the Chicago situation. In the end, transit will be bailed out by the state probably for the reason that gridlock which hurts everyone will happen if transit doesn't receive proper funding. Sometimes the needs of the whole outweigh the needs of individuals. Just as it is ok to kill sometimes in self-defense.

As I said earlier, I definitely lean towards the libertarian side of the equation, but what prevents me from being full tilt in that camp is social reponsibility, issues of justice, and the need for especially economic and quality of life issues. Sure I'm anti-censorship and for the right to privacy, but when schools and parks and healthcare and basic practical stuff are on the line then everybody also has to chip in there.

Don't even get me started on people who don't want to pay school taxes when they don't have kids in school. lol

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

I don't see the choices as freedom v coercion or that the choices are absolute freedom or government coming from the Divine Rights of Kings.

I would summarize it that human beings *are* free but are forced, out of necessity, to make some sacrifices to live with peace and justice rather than violence and anarchy. Government comes from the idea that human beings are free to enter into a contract and socially contract to give up some basic rights in exchange for the govt. taking basic care of them and keeping the peace. The task then is to maximize both everyone's freedom and everyone's benefits and wellbeing. Sometimes there are tradeoffs and I'd say we need to be cautious with ever trading freedom (such as the old "essential liberty for a little security" quote). But, of course, the trick is deciding what freedom is essential. I'd say the Bill of Rights just about does it. And, then again, I also am a fan of the idea that govt. can accomplish much without resorting to strongarm tactics.

It might be false compromise, but that is the human condition. Existentially, people conflict with X and Y and you have to come up with Z to allow the human species to continue. Otherwise we all kill each other off.

To answer your question though, I suppose I'd say that I see myself as your average, middle of the road citizen. Free to be anybody or anything that I want. And in a society where that is actually possible.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

You and I will have to agree to disagree here. It's much more cooperative, social, complicated, and better than that if you ask me.

We've worked hundreds of years to improve civilization and progress forward. And I think, despite still working on it, we've gotten better and better at both protecting individual's rights AND balancing resources to provide for all and give everyone a decent standard of living. There is still work in both areas, of course.

The two of us may be reaching a kind of stalling point here in that it seems like we may differ on what people are entitled to, but also what the basic foundation of govt. is.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Speaking just of US History, I think even our readings of that would likely be different.

"Our present prosperity did not spring from the forced intertwining of people's myriad individual interests by government decree, but from the unshackling of those things from impersonal rulers."

I would call it more taking advantage of uneducated immigrant labor, slaves, and Native Americans that built up prosperity in the early US. Only when reform came up to the last century did things start to really turn for the better. Sure, we were unshackled from impersonal rulers, but who was unshackled? A small minority.