quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Seriously man, are you trying to tell me that every European country is Socialist? And I did NOT say every country in Europe is a dictatorship so please take the bag of marbles out of your mouth, thanks. Besides, I did mention Sweden didn't I?

You equate the welfare state to socialism, you are therefore equating all the governments of Europe to dictatorship. This is obviously a load of crap and demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the word "socialism". Socialism is an umbrella term for anything left wing (altho socialists themselves would disagree!). As you can see from my avatar, there is a Party of European Socialists - this is the left wing party in the European Parliament and the UK Labour Party are members - can you honestly say that everything you believe about "socialism" applies to the UK (and other EU countries?)

quote:

I know of one from work and I think they probably have a better prospective of what's going on than anyone on this board when it comes to Venezuela...

Not really. If he left because of Chavez he's likely to be in opposition which means he's likely to be one of the rich people that lost out - hardly the most unbiassed of people to talk about Chavez right? 80% voted him in originally, then 60% last year reconfirmed their support - those figures are huge.

quote:

How many terms can a U.S. President serve again?

Two, and? Because this is the law in America that means it is the pinnacle of electoral law? How arrogant and ignorant can you get when you dismiss the electoral laws of shit loads of countries (who lets face it, have far better societies than America) because it isn't American?!

quote:

Fear and hatred? How about facts? There's nothing I mentioned about Chavez that can be refuted. He has nationalized the energy sector. He plans on a life-time term like his buddy Castro. He has given speaches that the wealthy should give up their money - "It's bad to be rich". He subsidizes farming and industrial cooperatives. He has handed over farming land from wealthy farmers to the poor. He will raise taxes on foreign oil producers.

Other than the acquisition of land from wealthy land owners, none of the above is actually bad (which is probably why no-one is trying to refute it!) Oh and a quick Google of Chavez+farms turned up this:
http://venezuelasolidarity.org.uk/v...s_campaign.html
Looks like the government is actually taking back what were originally stolen by these wealthy farmers. It implies that if they have the correct title deeds, they can keep their land. Another example of the corporate media in the West spreading misinformation about an economic policy which threatens its own economic interests

quote:

>More here< Better yet and from a Venezuelan blog; from the same link above... You say it's my hatred for Chavez and I'm telling you it's HIS ACTIONS that influence my decision... Again from the same blog... These things are actually happening and I'm being called paranoid? Yea, ok...

Like I said, I'm still finding out stuff about Chavez - and that is no easy task when pretty much all Western media and 80% of Venezuelan media is rabidly anti-Chavez - something proven time and time again when I do simple tasks. The reason I am reluctant to form the same kind of views as you is because I can see quite easily how even the British press twist events (even easier for US sources!) and how they are designed to make people like you react. Regarding the blog you posted about him strengthening his control on power, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would like to hold onto power - just like every other politician that ever existed. But I don't really see what is different about the way Chavez is going about it than how other countries leaders go about it

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Here George, this is for you... This is not to rub anything in your face, but rather to prove my point on Hugo... >>Source<<

Don't worry about rubbing my nose in it!!!

The article doesn't really add to anything I have been able to find out already. If RCTV is the only example of media censorship then it's not the best example, what with them being involved in the CIA attempted coup! (How's that for democracy in action eh?)

Most stories I read about Venezuela seem to take something that would be completely normal and innocent in any other country and twist it into something sinister.

Can you at least admit that there seems to be a concerted effort by the Western and Venezuelan media to smear Chavez as being a dictator, which seems to run counter to their own "democratic" views considering he has the support of the vast majority of the population?

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz Advocates of socialism generally have their hearts in the right place. Like everyone, they want the best for their society.. and enact policies which are supposed to lift the lowest common denominator. Problem is, is that most socialist policies produce outcomes that are the exact opposite of what they set out to achieve. Their take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor mentality does nothing but hold back an entire country while giving a few people a couple of bucks extra per week to spend on rations.

That's a more sensible comment on socialism!

But perhaps you mean communism or marxism (pure socialism)? All countries have elements of socialism and capitalism but it is striking the right balance that is the key to success

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt ...

There seems little point in discussing ideology with someone who doesn't understand the ideologies they refer to, so I'll stick to an analysis of Chavez on this thread instead of taking part in your ideological debate (unless you want to start a new thread? Perhaps titled "Anarcho-Capitalism vs Keynesianism" which I think should refer to our two preferred economical ideologies?)

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Some people like governments running their lives. Sad really.

this kind of disingenuous bollocks is beneath you jeff.

as smiley has already asked- why are you and some of the others so happy with corporations that run your life? where does this intrinsic trust in private interests come from?

i love the libertarian ideology, just as i like the marxist stuff too. i have always bounced between the two as long as i've been politically interested. but fuck, anyone that thinks the market should have an unfettered existence is kidding themselves.

im with you venomx. that bollocks being espoused by capitaizt a few pages back is as convincing and romantic as the same balls the left trot out about socialism

there are plenty of nations in the world capitalizt that have fewer economic freedoms than those in the US, and a lot of people are happier/safer/wealthier for it.

if its all the same to you and your ilk, i want someone there to keep an eye on the private sector, just as the private sector can act as a buffer against the state. a balancing act. anyone on the left or the right who doesn't see the necessity of this symbiotic relationship, is profoundly stupid imo.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if its all the same to you and your ilk, i want someone there to keep an eye on the private sector, just as the private sector can act as a buffer against the state. a balancing act. anyone on the left or the right who doesn't see the necessity of this symbiotic relationship, is profoundly stupid imo.

Agreed 100%!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN this kind of disingenuous bollocks is beneath you jeff. as smiley has already asked- why are you and some of the others so happy with corporations that run your life? where does this intrinsic trust in private interests come from?

Funny, I've never mentioned corporations running my life?
As a fellow libertarian I would have thought that the individual would have more control than that?

quote:

if its all the same to you and your ilk, i want someone there to keep an eye on the private sector, just as the private sector can act as a buffer against the state. a balancing act. anyone on the left or the right who doesn't see the necessity of this symbiotic relationship, is profoundly stupid imo.

No one has mentioned private sector 'running amok'.
It's one thing having government protecting it's citizens, it's quite another to be running it for them.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN this kind of disingenuous bollocks is beneath you jeff.

It's not bollocks though.
I can literally go down the street and there's a whole region here in Toronto called Regent Park filled with generations of welfare cases.
Why?
It's not like they don't have a choice. In fact, I have a good friends from Regent Park, who grew up there, and chose to leave that sucking pit of human grief.
Yet socialist politicians (the NDP - New Democrat Party) that have entrenched in this area, continue to foster welfare to ensure their own existence and stranglehold on voter support (especially among new immigrants since over 50% are 1st generation).
There no need to be on the government dole unless between jobs.
That's my opinion though, take it or leave it, but for the record, it's definitely not fostered out of ignorance as some of you seem to think...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Is that all you think the Welfare state means? The dole?!

I seem to recall reading something that said unemployment benefits were only a small part of social security, and the vast majority goes on the pension fund.

But what about universal free health care? Is that not something you support?

And if you don't think libertarianism = rule by corporations then you're even more deluded than the Marxists and Anarchists who think their ideologies will actually work. Extremes tend not to work, and no matter how great libertarianism may seem, it will be nothing more than anarcho-capitalism and did you ever wonder why libertarianism is so popular amongst the rich and well to do? Because that's the ONLY group in society it would benefit...

was gonna make a post, but smiley pretty much covered what i was gonna say

quote:

Funny, I've never mentioned corporations running my life? As a fellow libertarian I would have thought that the individual would have more control than that?

not by my reckoning. the "big" or "macro" decisions made in a libertarian society would all be made by the richest and most powerful individuals/corporations. with little input from the lower classes.

im not denying some welfare initiatives have created dependancy, but i also dont think you can take those particular initiatives and extrapolate them arbitrarily across all "welfare" state programs.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It's not bollocks though. I can literally go down the street and there's a whole region here in Toronto called Regent Park filled with generations of welfare cases. Why? It's not like they don't have a choice. In fact, I have a good friends from Regent Park, who grew up there, and chose to leave that sucking pit of human grief. Yet socialist politicians (the NDP - New Democrat Party) that have entrenched in this area, continue to foster welfare to ensure their own existence and stranglehold on voter support (especially among new immigrants since over 50% are 1st generation). There no need to be on the government dole unless between jobs. That's my opinion though, take it or leave it, but for the record, it's definitely not fostered out of ignorance as some of you seem to think...

You can't really believe us people arguing for policies based on social ideology think that there have not been wrongful implementations of them? Obviously it is one thing to say that there should be policies that help people manage some of their problems, and it is very different to say that the policies that have been implemented have been successful. Truth is, many socialist derived policies have been utter failures. It's mostly been because their implementations have been half assed because of people like yourself how proclaim their failure before they start. Truth be told, most of these policies require a deep commitment and plenty of money initially. They do get to a point where one can start retracting. The benefits they usually derive are immense. For example, the initial massive investment northern European countries made in education. I think it is fair to say that it has payed off. They have a well educated population that is cranking out ideas and pumping out money at high rates. Another example, albeit with plenty of qualifications, is China. Communist China's massive investment in education is now paying off as they take over many of the world markets with cheap QUALIFIED labour. Examples abound of good and bad implementations of socialist policies. I think I made a decent argument for one socialist bourne policy I think is important in terms of the support it brings to poor families, a national day care system.

I think some of my arguments in that thread cover a good portion of what your post implies, ie. that people can get out of the projects if they are determined enough. I'm not going to repeat all my arguments as they are more thourougly developed in the thread above. But basically, ghetto life is cyclic in nature. Being poor leads to poor development which in turn, if lifestyle or circumstances are not altered in early years, leads to being poor.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome