Is it likely Obama will trick Iran or North Korea into firing the first shot?

Miscellaneous General
41

So why present them as evidence?

Since when was one convinced by evidence, as opposed to convinced by an interpretation of a collection of evidence?

I don’t think the truth can be found somewhere in the middle of Chavez and his opponents. From what I can see, the IACHR is as close to an objective observer as we can probably get.

And, without a doubt, that “middle ground” is still very anti-Chavista.

Yes. But they are still allowed to publish material against him.

No, he just can’t shut them down completely. So, it’s not that they’re being allowed to, it’s that Chavez really can’t do anything about it (except coerce cable providers not to retransmit the signal).

I’ve repeatedly stated that Chavez could simply use his state-privilege to get what he wants.

Um, and he has.

You had the opportunity to write on dozens of dictators worse than Chavez, and chose not to. Your defense is that you’re responding to a piece put out by the huffington post, but there are many stupid opinions floating around on the internet.

So? Have you ever heard of the concept of “scope”?

You can’t have a better regime if you advance the interests of his opponents. Your economic advice about inflation/taxation etc is great, but all the peripheral stuff pushes the image of Chavez that his political opponents want you to have.

I’m not advancing anything in the interests of his opponents. I’m advancing what I perceive to be the truth.

fanning the flame of hatred? Seriously. What’s your theory about why American media rips on him so often? You don’t think its to keep open the possibiltiy of war with Venezuela? I really am afraid that we will invade venezuela someday, and that it will be for oil, and many innocent people will die. It will be harder to generate opposition to the war if people have been hearing anti-chavez things (true or not) continuously on the media. Its the same way that people support the Iraq war no matter what because Saddam was so bad.

I honestly rather not get into this conspiracy theory nonsense. But, advancing the truth is not the same as advancing the truth in an effort to have people misinterpret it and as a result support a war. Maybe we shouldn’t talk about the problems with the infringement of human rights in Honduras, because the U.S.A. might use that as an excuse and invade them as a way of installing a more benign dictatorship.

Clear enough right? I mean I oppose chavez and all his economic policies etc etc. I bet you would get 95% dissaproval rating of Chavez if you polled Americans, so I don’t know who you’re trying to write this essay for beyond some idealogues at the huffington post.

Why write for Mises Daily at all? After all, the majority of readers are already Misesians.

Because they don’t have any incentive to report facts truthfully. They are not crusadors for liberty or the greater good.

You have yet to show that the facts provided are wrong, as opposed to the interpretations.

There is a very high probability and frequent history of exaggeration/fabrication of facts. It seems like i dismiss all of your sources outright. This is not fair because I hadn’t gone and looked at every single one. So, I think the IACHR source is decent. But I don’t think any of the Anglo sources can be counted on.

Because they push for an Anglo crusade against the Bolivarians? I don’t want to troll or insult, but this debate is turning more and more ridiculous. I’m sorry, I just won’t buy the conspiracy theory nonsense. And, it’s not that I dislike conspiracy theories (I debated Horwitz on this topic previously), but this one seems a bit farfetched (especially when using it as an excuse to dismiss anti-Chavista evidence).

42

Chavez is kept under the microscope. That is good. He is in power and those in power should be kept under one. But are they? What would turning this microscope onto other governments in Latin America and beyond reveal? How does Venezuela compare with Colombia, Honduras, Salvador or say Egypt, Morocco etc?

Also what is the likely alternative to Chavez? Who is the leader of opposition there? What was the government he displaced like?

Saying Chavez is bad is nothing new. He is at the helm of a government. Of course he is bad. Question is the context. What is he like in comparison to some of the others?

Good point, Marko. This is all relative. And all the leaders in South America are relatively bad, I would say! I have read some stuff about Chile promoting free markets and life there getting better. Other than that it’s people funded by the US and/or Europe and well-meaning (perhaps) but harmful leftists who have no idea how to really help the common man.

South America is mired in corruption and collectivism. In most countries there, it seems it would take a huge effort to get someone in power to effect meaningful change in favor of personal liberty. Meanwhile, the people suffer and suffer with no end in sight. That’s the story all across the globe.

And I’m pretty sure the microscope is on Chavez because of the oil.

43

He doesnt have to, he is still in control of the machinery of the state and a very corrupt one at that.

Thats what Chavez did the first time he tried to grab power by a military coup but I believe it was Mises himself who said that in the long run you cant keep an unpopular government.

Frankly I see NO diference, a slave is a slave.

And by the way I see a confusion here about RCTV, Chavez in fact didnt renew their broadcast license but at the same time the socialist government CONFISCATED all their broadcast equipment and facilities effectivelly shuting them down, RCTV is NO longer working in Venezuela and the signal of RCTV International has been BANNED also from the cable companies working inside the country.

44

2. Chavez really is an evil dictator who is ruining his country. He has his own propaganda campaign to make everyone think he is “fighting for the people.”

Both 1 and 2 are true.

Chavez may be evil or ruining his country, but he keeps winning elections and referendums to do it. “Dictators” rule by “dictate,” not by legally ammending the Constitution and then putting it up for referenudm. Their voting machines are actually more auditable than ours in the U.S. (by a good margin).

You’re right, I should not have used the word “dictator.” And good point about the voting machines. I haven’t watched them, but I know of a few documentaries about how our elecronic voting machines are designed so they can be hacked, and the elections manipulated:

Hacking Democracy

Un-counted

45

I honestly rather not get into this conspiracy theory nonsense.

When it comes to conspiracies, it is difficult to separate sense from nonsense. I post links to information that I believe is well-researched and worth considering, even it seems crazy and controversial. I hope you are not annoyed with my “conspiracy theorist” point of view. It gets me into a lot of speculation that may seem nonsensical.

46

Thats what Chavez did the first time he tried to grab power by a military coup but I believe it was Mises himself who said that in the long run you cant keep an unpopular government.

And he still does. Nationalized industries, especially in the utilities and petroleum sector, are run by high ranking officers. When they fall out of political favor, he replaces them with other friendly general officers. Furthermore, he is consistently modernizing his military with new weaponry (although, he has recently been running out of money), and like in the case of most militaries (including Spain, for example), this has more to do with keeping the military brass happy.

47

Not going to happen. Honduras is in US’ pocket.

Which means there is going to be very little negative coverage from there regardless of the circumstances in the country. For all I know Honduras could be worse than Venezuela but we are not going to know, since few outlets are interested in reporting on a government that is subservient to Washington.

48

Not going to happen. Honduras is in US’ pocket.

No, it was an attempt at sarcasm, not a serious consideration.

For all I know Honduras could be worse than Venezuela but we are not going to know, since few outlets are interested in reporting on a government that is subservient to Washington.

Completely true, but that doesn’t mean that what the news is reporting is false (this being relevant in at least the context in which what you quoted was said).

49

It would be easy to do so. The seaborder between North and South Korea is disputed, the Nothr would like it to be a little more to the south. The upcoming excercise of the US together with the South Koreans could easily lead to one country taking a shot. Who actually fired the first shot, we’ll probably never know.

I must say, yesterday, while watching a documentary on North Korea I almost(!) lost my libertarian view on war. These people are in a constant state of fear, starving to death, poor as hell, and still worshipiing their leaders Kim Il Sung, Kim jong-il and Karl Marx. I really felt like someone should go over there, shoot these basterds and free the people. But the fact is that these people are so indoctrinated that they would probably be happy to give their lives for their shitty country and awful leaders.

The South Koreans share their history, culture and genes, but the difference between the counrties is incredible, Samsung, Hyundai all great enterprises form the south. The North cant even feed its children. Closer to a true economic experiment you cant get. The outcome is shocking.

The documentary also shows that part of the problem is US military involvement which keeps both countries even more seperated. Anyway, very interesting piece of film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU

50

If the vast majority of the evidence has the same systemic bias…

Anyone should be anti chavez. That doesn’t mean any of the anti chavez media are right, nor do you get a better picture if you mix in some pro chavez sources.

I wasn’t under the impression that Chavez was fighting tooth and nail to shut down media against him in Venezuela, but for some reason is so unsuccessful that the majority of media outlets who critisize him are still in operation.

You can get scope by randomly drawing names out of a hat.

Aside from the economic theory, you said exactly what his opponents want everyone to hear. I know you don’t want it replaced by any of the likely alternatives.

So you don’t have any ideas about why we so consistently give him bad press?

I know you don’t want a war, but if there ever is one, people will reference all the supposed wrongdoings of Chavez, real or fabricated, to justify doing terrible things.

But there’s a much higher probability of war with Venezeula. If you ever spurred anyone to do anything about Honduras, it would be humanitarian.

So they can learn. But I thought everyone had already established that if regular socialism was bad, venezuelan socialism might be bad too.

Even if I did, the vast majority of sources are still just exaggerations of the truth. Its just as harmful to say ‘zomg he’s a callous dictator’ in response to the rising murder rate. Every expansion of state power is called ‘totalitarian’, no matter how small.

Saudi Arabia has 267 billion bbl in reserves. Venezuela has 100 billion bbls in conventional reserves, and 500 billion unconventional. I don’t know how else you explain the US Media’s continued focus on Chavez in light of dozens of other crappy governments.

51

I thought he was overthrowing an oligarchy. If he was overthrowing an open democracy I would agree with you.

No moral difference, but there’s a material difference.

52

If the vast majority of the evidence has the same systemic bias…

But, you have yet to prove that all the news articles that I used were written with the same bias. The only substantiation to this claim is your belief in an international media conspiracy against Chavez, all in support of a future American crusade against Venezuela. The legitimacy of your justification is dubious, at best.

Anyone should be anti chavez. That doesn’t mean any of the anti chavez media are right, nor do you get a better picture if you mix in some pro chavez sources.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say (and, there really are no ‘pro-Chavez’ sources, other than Alo Presidente).

I wasn’t under the impression that Chavez was fighting tooth and nail to shut down media against him in Venezuela, but for some reason is so unsuccessful that the majority of media outlets who critisize him are still in operation.

I think I’ve been over this at least four times already in prior posts. It’s getting a bit dull covering the same thing over and over again.

You can get scope by randomly drawing names out of a hat.

Ok, what’s your point?

Aside from the economic theory, you said exactly what his opponents want everyone to hear. I know you don’t want it replaced by any of the likely alternatives.

What? So, you think I should have lied instead?

So you don’t have any ideas about why we so consistently give him bad press?

Because, he is a horrible president? I have already agreed that those that Venezuelan media cater to (the middle class, the intelligentsia and the student movement) are already anti-Chavez. Chavez is also more vocal than most other South American dictators. I don’t know buy that there is a conspiracy between American, British, Venezuelan, Spanish, et cetera, media to justify a war against Venezuela in the near future. Sorry.

I know you don’t want a war, but if there ever is one, people will reference all the supposed wrongdoings of Chavez, real or fabricated, to justify doing terrible things.

So, your argument is that because of this we should all lie and instead live with Chavez’ regime, based on two premises:

  1. A false dichotomy. It’s either Chavez or a right-wing dictatorship.
  2. The assumption that Chavez is the lesser of two evils.

But there’s a much higher probability of war with Venezeula. If you ever spurred anyone to do anything about Honduras, it would be humanitarian.

I’m sorry, but this argument is just ridiculous.

So they can learn. But I thought everyone had already established that if regular socialism was bad, venezuelan socialism might be bad too.

And, Hayek and Mises established that credit expansion was bad. So, if credit expansion is bad, maybe Rothbard shouldn’t have written America’s Great Depression. Are we still continuining with this inane discussion?

Even if I did, the vast majority of sources are still just exaggerations of the truth. Its just as harmful to say ‘zomg he’s a callous dictator’ in response to the rising murder rate. Every expansion of state power is called ‘totalitarian’, no matter how small.

There is a big difference between Chavez’ regime and, say, Obama’s presidency or that of a European socialist party (such as PSOE). You’ve just continuously decided to stay blind to this difference because of your obsession with a supposed international conspiracy in an effort to wage war.

Saudi Arabia has 267 billion bbl in reserves. Venezuela has 100 billion bbls in conventional reserves, and 500 billion unconventional. I don’t know how else you explain the US Media’s continued focus on Chavez in light of dozens of other crappy governments.

But, it’s not only the United States (it’s also Spain, United Kingdom, etc…). Yes, Venezuela not only has huge oil reserves, but is our main oil partner because they resell oil they buy from the Middle East. Yes, this makes Venezuela of special interest. This still doesn’t substantiate your claim that the media is wrong.

Really, this discussion has degenerated into the idea that we shouldn’t agree with the media, or support the truth, because we risk a future war. This is utterly ridiculous.

53

However it does mean that doing most of the reporting from there are reporters with a questionable journalistic ethic.

54

However it does mean that doing most of the reporting from there are reporters with a questionable journalistic ethic.

And yet this still does not mean that what they’re reporting is wrong. Like I’ve already written before, what matters is how you decide to interpret what you read.

But, alas, Snowflake and I seem to have gotten past the point of agreeing (more or less) that Chavez’ regime is really just a substantially bad dictatorship. What it comes down to now is that by writing on this I am supporting an international conspiracy that aims at invading Venezuela for their oil. Really, at this point, I’m not even sure if it’s worth debating the topic (not because it’s not a topic not worth debating, but because it’s unlikely anybody is going to really budge, given that either way there is little evidence you can present - either because your evidence will be rejected, or because the basis of your argument is just that “everyone hates Chavez” and that is somehow a sign of a conspiracy).

55

So, lets do our best to wind down the argument. I’ll try not to hit on things we’ve covered before and can’t find common ground on.

Lie about what? You can tell the truth about Venezuela’s economy without insinuating that he’s a power hungry maniac. The same way that our authors critisize the federal reserve, assuming the very best about the central planner’s intentions, even when they have very good evidence to the contrary.

You just say you don’t buy it. You don’t give any reason. Any valid theory will have to explain why Anglo media really singles him out above other crappy leaders. The oil theory does, and it is completely plausible that as oil supplies dwindle, venezuela will become the major player in oil.

The media isn’t wrong just becuase they have an incentive to lie. This only makes it likely that they are wrong. You must admit they draw very very strong conclusions by sensationalizing events.

Yeah it is a little absurd to think that your article might cause a war. We’ve been over that everyone in America basically hates chavez, right or wrong. But I know I would feel really bad though if I wrote an article about how bad Saddam was, and then those same humanitarian arguments were used to garner public support for the current killfest. In this case, it should be obvious that critiqueing Saddam’s regime is shooting fish in a barrel. There’s no point reinforcing everyone’s highly negative opinion of him, and it just enables their xenophobic support for war.

56

I propose that this thread & the congruent “False Flag Attack (South Korea)” join forces in a possible new thread: “How the US will trick north korea into war via False Flag”.

The (albiet circumstantial) evidence is intriquing enough to merit a combination of the discussions, methinks.

57

Lie about what? You can tell the truth about Venezuela’s economy without insinuating that he’s a power hungry maniac. The same way that our authors critisize the federal reserve, assuming the very best about the central planner’s intentions, even when they have very good evidence to the contrary.

But Chavez is a power-hungry dictator. I think there is sufficient evidence behind the claim. You claim that the evidence is biased and therefore should be discarded. I’m not sure that the latter position is justified.

You just say you don’t buy it. You don’t give any reason. Any valid theory will have to explain why Anglo media really singles him out above other crappy leaders.

You keep focusing on this concept of “Anglo” media (at first it was "American, but now it’s “Anglo”). The problem is that it’s not only “Anglo” media which negatively portrays Chavez. It’s also European media (including Spanish media, while the PSOE has generally good relations with Chavez). Is there a global conspiracy against Chavez? My reason for not buying into this conspiracy theory nonsense is because I see no evidence to back it up.

The oil theory does, and it is completely plausible that as oil supplies dwindle, venezuela will become the major player in oil.

So, are we talking fifty years in the future, where all of this might even be irrelevent (Chavez will, of course, be dead by then)?

The media isn’t wrong just becuase they have an incentive to lie. This only makes it likely that they are wrong. You must admit they draw very very strong conclusions by sensationalizing events.

You keep ignoring my point. The importance of events portrayed by the media is not the media’s interpretation, but the facts supplied. So, you can disagree that Chavez has recently arrested important players in Venezuela’s media because he wants to silence criticism, but you cannot deny the fact that he made those arrests.

But I know I would feel really bad though if I wrote an article about how bad Saddam was, and then those same humanitarian arguments were used to garner public support for the current killfest.

I wouldn’t feel bad. I would be angry that they misinterpreted the article, but the fact is that just becuase one runs the risk of that happening doesn’t mean you shouldn’t report the truth. Hussein was a horrible and brutal dictator. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t have reported on him from that perspective, unless you genuinely disagreed that he was that horrible and that brutal.

There’s no point reinforcing everyone’s highly negative opinion of him, and it just enables their xenophobic support for war.

There is a point, because obviously people have not considered all the evidence against Chavez.

58

10 years? 5?

I’ll copy Tom Wood’s strategy on education: I don’t know if there are a bunch of special interests sitting around trying to figure out how to extort the oil supplies by toppling foreign governments. But if there were, you’d see exactly what you see now.

Right.

What? I mean people aren’t Chavez experts, and probably believe a lot of sensationalized crap about him, but they have the gist right. Outside of some wackos at the huffington post of course…

59

Venezuala? Its sick. No one ever questions why we rip on them constantly. There are a LOT of brown bogeymen in south america, let alone the world. No one seems to think its strange that we focus almost exclusively on him. Its all lies too.

i very pro AE and see a lot that is right with libertarianism - but i get tired of " everything pro america is bad and everything anti-american = good.. also this whole war against “brown” people.. sounds like marxist propoganda to me.. chavez is an F’ing nut - a marxist nut to boot - and anyone who can defend him needs to take more medication