quote:

Originally posted by Krypton All non-free market economies fall flat on their faces. When a capitalists economy crashes, it recovers, when a socialist one collapses, everything including the government fall apart. If Hugo takes his reforms too far, which it looks already like he is well on his way to doing that, the entire system will eventually collapse. 3 possible outcomes out of this... 1. Total Hugoism - The system eventually falls apart. Like Cuba, it ends either with Hugo's death in ripe old age, or like the Soviet Union, the things stops functioning. 2. Half-Hugo / Half-Free Market - China and Vietnam eventually learned that without a free market, the country just wallows in mass poverty. 3. Anti-Hugoism - Somehow Hugo is stopped by the constitution or something crazy like a coup.

You have a point. For a time I was hoping he would go for 2. I think it would have developed a framework that would allow widespread social support while developing economically sound policies.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

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

Wow, he's just getting more and more batshit insane...

quote:

Chavez puts Venezuela's clock ahead 1/2 hour Published on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 CARACAS, Venezuela (AFP): President Hugo Chavez Sunday announced that Venezuela's official time will be put ahead by half an hour starting January 1, and its first-ever offshore oil rig will start pumping before the year is out. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. AFP PHOTO "Its about the metabolic effect, where the human brain is conditioned by sunlight," Chavez said in a rambling, seven hour discussion on his radio show "Alo, Presidente" with Science and Technology Minister Hector Navarro. Specifically, Chavez said the Law of Metereology will be changed to reflect Venezuela's new time grid on the map showing it to be three-and-a-half hours behind GMT instead of the current four hours. Minister Navarro said the longer day would benefit "all Venezuelans in their jobs and studies." Chavez also announced Sunday that before 2007 runs out, Venezuela will begin pumping oil from its first offshore rig near the coast of Delta Amacuro state. He said the the rig will mark Venezuela's first exploitation of crude from the ocean bottom in its 100 years of oil-pumping history. Chavez also announced an ambitious plan to build several artificial islands off the coast of Venezuela to harbor cities, submarine bases, scientific research centers, as well as oil and mining facilities. "There's 760,000 square kilometers (294,000 square miles) that no other country but Venezuela has a right to," he said referring to Venezuela's continental platform

>>Source<<

Which lets us to...

___________________
"...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 George Smiley He has to win elections

this is true. but it's also a given he will win subsequent elections and this could only be a first step for him towards something much more drastic.

quote:

No idea. If he did how would that be different to the process the American presidency has taken since its inception?

wrong. we have the Constitution, he has law by decree now. who does that, really?

prior to that: "the Supreme Court is under the control of his followers, the Assembly is 100% -- all of the members of the Assembly are backers of President Chavez. The Electoral Council is very clearly stacked with his followers. The former president of the Electoral Council, who supervised the 2004 vote count, is now his vice president."

again i ask you where the nuance is in that?

i do realize that it's for 18 months but my God man what if that happened in your country? my country? the f**kin outrage would be bloody

quote:

The UK for a start. Any country where the leader can stand for an unlimited amount of elections. Like I said, its better than limits as these leaders are constantly trying to please their publics and have to think long term - the American model promotes short-termness and a lack of interest in what the public wants

that's an opinion and it's yours. not everyone shares that opinion. for instance in Venezuela.

quote:

Everyone in Europe?

i am just as free. and in more ways than one, freer.

Last edited by Q5echo on Aug-22-2007 at 05:57

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Righty ho! You did hear me earlier say I wasn't arguing for communism didn't you? And where ever you live, where ever you have lived, I don't get the impression you're in any position to be making sweeping statements about poor people being poor because it's their own fault.

Which one of the 48 countries I've lived in, worked in and travelled through?
Maybe you don't like how it sounds. It's just how it is in life, you don't put someone who's barely capable of flipping burgers, turning up to work mostly on time and then stick them in charge of something like an aerospace factory.

quote:

Can you honestly tell me you don't think that health care should be free?

I've always paid for mine out of my own pocket.

quote:

Or that old people should get no help?

Compulsory superannuation.

quote:

Or that the unemployed should be thrown onto the streets?

Only if they're milking the dole for all it's worth. Nothing like the incentive of actually having to work for survival once in awhile to bring back a serious dose of reality to a bunch of what's effectively, developed country, charity milk-sops. I'll pay for a well and have paid for wells in Africa years before I'd willingly pay 'charity tax' for public housing in the UK, US or Au.
Why?
Because at least I know the people who are getting it will make the most of it and not waste it sitting around in their living rooms playing computer games and drinking piss.

quote:

What about the police and the military?

What about them? They're public servants and you're starting to waddle off topic.

quote:

Do you trust private corporations to provide these services?

I always know where I stand with a company, they're out to make a profit rather than provide a charity.

hey, you anti welfare people. does it ever occur to you that a pittance given to the down-trodden actually works as a fairly successful method of social control?

ive been from one side of the political spectrum to the other, but ive always viewed welfare in those terms to a certain degree. a subservient level of subsistence, keeps them away from you imo.

would everyone really like a much harsher system (like the US has), and risk the social and economic problems that can stem from endemic unemployment, destituity (is that even a fucking word? haha) and a hunter-gatherer mentality?

theres a whole lot of marxist theory on the welfare state and its two-edged blade, it made fascinating reading.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Wow, he's just getting more and more batshit insane...

My country puts the clocks forwards and backwards one hour at various points during the year to increase the amount of daylight we have. There is a campaign to change permanantely to British Summer Time (GMT+1) to keep crime down etc. If Chavez thinks it's a good idea to increase the amount of daylight then he would have a lot who agree around the world. Does Canada not operate a daylight saving time in the summer? If so do you think they're mad?!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this is true. but it's also a given he will win subsequent elections and this could only be a first step for him towards something much more drastic.

Given or not - it's irrelevent to the debate, the only thing that is relevent is that there will be an election where the people will judge him on how he has ruled

quote:

wrong. we have the Constitution, he has law by decree now. who does that, really?

The British government for a start. The Labour Party has a majority in government which means no other party can out vote them on any law they want to introduce. They also introduced the Parliament Act meaning the House of Lords can only veto a new law for two years, at which point they will be over ruled by the House of Commons and the law will pass.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that when the Founding Fathers came up with the American political system they intended the Presidency to be a secondary power to Congress. Yet as the years went by, more and more power was stolen by the Presidency until we get the position today where the President is the more powerful and Congress are secondary.

quote:

prior to that: "the Supreme Court is under the control of his followers, the Assembly is 100% -- all of the members of the Assembly are backers of President Chavez. The Electoral Council is very clearly stacked with his followers. The former president of the Electoral Council, who supervised the 2004 vote count, is now his vice president." again i ask you where the nuance is in that? i do realize that it's for 18 months but my God man what if that happened in your country? my country? the f**kin outrage would be bloody

Well I discribed my country above. And I have no idea how the voting procedures work in other areas of Venezuelan government. Is the Electoral Council a second tier of government, like the American Congress? And are members elected? If so it would stand to reason it is stacked full of Chavistas (just like if there were strong Republican feelings you may find the president Republican and a strong majority in Congress also Republican) As for the Supreme Court, all governments select their top judges, in fact, hasn't Bush recently been criticised for this?

quote:

that's an opinion and it's yours. not everyone shares that opinion. for instance in Venezuela.

My point is, whether or not Chavez changes the law to allow indefinate terms is not an indicator on its own of a dictatorship - I think it's a good idea, you don't - not the issue

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Which one of the 48 countries I've lived in, worked in and travelled through?

Any of them - unless you have conducted a socialogical analysis of why people in those countries are unemployed, or you can point to someone elses socialogical analysis, then you have no right to make sweeping statements about the unemployed being lazy and unwilling to work (you're also falling for the same trap as Firestarter when you try and create the impression that unemployment benefits = social security. They don't. Only a small proportion)

quote:

Maybe you don't like how it sounds. It's just how it is in life, you don't put someone who's barely capable of flipping burgers, turning up to work mostly on time and then stick them in charge of something like an aerospace factory.

Indeed. That was my point was it not? There needs to be someone "flipping burgers" in order for MacDonalds to survive as a company. The exact same phenomenon happens on the macro level as well.

quote:

I've always paid for mine out of my own pocket.

Good for you (so do I through compulsary National Insurance) but that's not what I asked is it? Do you think universal health care should be available to all?

quote:

Compulsory superannuation.

I don't see the problem with that as it's effectively a pension tax (tho this should still be supplemented by government funds should circumstances arise where people have not been able to pay into this scheme - the lowest paid, disabled, etc)

quote:

Only if they're milking the dole for all it's worth. Nothing like the incentive of actually having to work for survival once in awhile to bring back a serious dose of reality to a bunch of what's effectively, developed country, charity milk-sops. I'll pay for a well and have paid for wells in Africa years before I'd willingly pay 'charity tax' for public housing in the UK, US or Au. Why? Because at least I know the people who are getting it will make the most of it and not waste it sitting around in their living rooms playing computer games and drinking piss.

What percentage of the unemployed in the UK, Oz or US spend their time "sitting around their living rooms playing computer games and drinking piss" and are not actively seeking work?

quote:

What about them? They're public servants and you're starting to waddle off topic.

Not in certain capitalist ideologies they're not. They would be privatised and operate only for those that pay for them (just like privatised doctors only work for those that pay for them). And of course, the companies that own them (and whoever owns them) become very powerful. But in our societies, the police/fire service/military are part of the welfare state.

quote:

I always know where I stand with a company, they're out to make a profit rather than provide a charity.

Then why the hell would you want them in charge of vital services like health or pensions or any other industry we rely on to survive?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Given or not - it's irrelevent to the debate, the only thing that is relevent is that there will be an election where the people will judge him on how he has ruled

so you don't think he has consolidated power like a man determined, ney, destined to remain in power for longer than what would be considered normal in a "democracy"? c'mon dude, seriously.

quote:

The British government for a start. The Labour Party has a majority in government which means no other party can out vote them on any law they want to introduce. They also introduced the Parliament Act meaning the House of Lords can only veto a new law for two years, at which point they will be over ruled by the House of Commons and the law will pass.

thats not law by decree. not by a long shot.

quote:

But that wasn't my point. My point was that when the Founding Fathers came up with the American political system they intended the Presidency to be a secondary power to Congress. Yet as the years went by, more and more power was stolen by the Presidency until we get the position today where the President is the more powerful and Congress are secondary.

omg now you've been fed misinformation. the Constitution from the very begining has clearly set aside enumerated powers of the Federal government with clearly determined States powers as balances called the reserve powers. what has happened since the founding fathers was what was called the American Civil War and expanding free markets. the Executive didn't steal these powers.in fact the States had to have had a 2/3's say in the matter regarding the requisite Ammendments to those powers. and from a distance it may look like the President holds all the cards because he is our voice on a ever growing global stage and in times of volatility. but he is nothing without the other two branches of government just like the other two to are little without him.

quote:

My point is, whether or not Chavez changes the law to allow indefinate terms is not an indicator on its own of a dictatorship - I think it's a good idea, you don't - not the issue

well that remains to be seen because clearly things are-a-changin.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey, you anti welfare people. does it ever occur to you that a pittance given to the down-trodden actually works as a fairly successful method of social control? ive been from one side of the political spectrum to the other, but ive always viewed welfare in those terms to a certain degree. a subservient level of subsistence, keeps them away from you imo.

Doesn't seem to work very well so far and I live in a comparatively nice suburb, it just means that they have to catch the bus to come and bother me. In the last 3 years I've had one attempted burglary, my car stereo stolen and stuck a 9mm in the face of someone who thought I was easy to mug. For awhile I thought I was just unlucky but it appears I was probably luckier than quite a few other people.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Any of them - unless you have conducted a socialogical analysis of why people in those countries are unemployed, or you can point to someone elses socialogical analysis, then you have no right to make sweeping statements about the unemployed being lazy and unwilling to work (you're also falling for the same trap as Firestarter when you try and create the impression that unemployment benefits = social security. They don't. Only a small proportion)

I know it doesn't go down well with the intelligentsia out there to listen to someone like me who goes out, travels and talks to people.
It's far easier to heckle, deride and insult my intelligence, read your books, articles than actually go out into the big wide world and see just how much it reeks of human idiocy and laziness.
But like I said, I call it how I see it and I've seen more or less some degree of it everywhere in every developed nation.
People content to sponge off the system because it's easier than getting off their arse and doing an honest days work or shirking because they think it's easier than actually working and one day they'll magically win lotto, or a horse race, pay off that $30,000 credit card debt and live happily ever after.
It's a load of crock and its endemic everywhere.
At least in Africa, people where dirt poor because of hard luck, bad governments nationalising everything and killing off anyone who disagrees, the developed world seems to want to inflict it on themselves like some kind of ghetto credibility.

I'm cutting this short, it's late and I'm tired.

quote:

Do you think universal health care should be available to all?

Not for anyone in a middle class income bracket. The medical community has economically over-valued itself for too long, they need knocking back into place with genuine competition, which would lower prices and thus make it more available to everyone.

quote:

But in our societies, the police/fire service/military are part of the welfare state.

And have been since longer than living memory, regardless of socialist/democratic leanings.

quote:

Then why the hell would you want them in charge of vital services like health or pensions or any other industry we rely on to survive?!

Because I know where I stand
I don't like most large companies and I don't have to like what they do, however I know my enemy in this case and I know what they will do as predictably as the sun rises.
You on the other hand are quite happy to invest your faith, future and country into the hands of what are essentially people who decided that power was intoxicating, got into politics and are kept there by some over-advertised, over-budgeted popularity contest... which I might add are kept where they are by the same said, blithering morons who keep electing them.
It's quite easy to poke at the corporate sector and make wild gesticulations about how we're all being boned by advertising into buying crap we don't need in amounts which send us into crippling debt.
I make very little distinction between the vapid consumer and the vapid voter who idles up to the polling booth after a long stint of what is essentially advertising plastering some power mad toerag's gormless mug all over every light pole, newspaper, wall and TV set from here to kingdom come.
Your same idiot who loves big TV's, fancy cars, clothes and getting into debt, is the same idiot who votes and unlike you, I have no faith in my fellow human beings to do anything in my direct benefit so I look after myself as best I can.

And that is where I do make the distinction.
The corporate sector will sell me something which once the transaction is done, lets me keep it forever and not bother me again. The political sector under someone like Chavez, is quite happy to just take it all away for the benefit of the state and give it to people who haven't earned it. To some lesser degree I'll put up with taxation in more moderate circumstances because it does keep the country running, at a huge amount of wasted money in most circumstances.
And I'm not exactly sure where I stand when it comes to power seekers who get elected by idiots, it's too much of a variable, maybe we'll get Ghandi, maybe we'll get Mugabe

Unless you can back up your claims that everyone who claims dole does it because they don't want to work then it's nothing more than lazy prejudice.

I also notice you've not acknowledged the fact that unemployment benefits only constitute a fraction of the total spent on social secuity - the majority being spent on health care and pensions - why is that?

If you're going to continue to equate the welfare state (and your criticisms of it) to unemployment benefits then your arguments simply do not stand up.

quote:

regardless of socialist/democratic leanings

This is the second time you've made this mistake iirc. Firstly, I have said many times now that I am not arguing from a Marxist/Communist (pure socialist) position. However, a basic understanding of what pure socialism is will tell you that it is the most democratic political ideology there is. Capitalism in its purest conception, is the least democratic political ideology there is. The political system practiced by Western nations is neither purely capitalist or socialist. It is a blend. The name of the political ideology is Liberal Democracy. My prefered political system is called Social Democracy (which is very similar but with a stronger welfare state and certain industries nationalised - primarily natural monopolies where the laws of competition cannot be applied, and therefore, should not be in private ownership)

The term "democratic" can be applied to a wide range of political ideologies and is not a unique ideology in itself (just like "socialism" is not a unique ideology in itself and can be used to discribe a number of different ideologies ranging from Marxism/Communism to the political system we live in today)