Socialism, Tyranny, Venezuela... proven right again.

I have said now for roughly a decade that Venezuela's slide in to socialism would result in tyranny. I said this because it has always been my belief that socialism always results in tyranny.

The pattern is simple, yet easy to see in dozens of circumstances.

So-called "progressive" push economically flawed socialist policies, which naturally result in failure, because socialism *ALWAYS* fails.

But these leftists never admit that their awful policies fail. Rather instead they blame shift to absolutely everything except their bad policies, and then use the failures and problems they caused, to instead justify even more socialist flawed economic policies, until finally the destruction reaches a point that the leaders can justify complete and utter dictatorship, in order to fix the evils in the world.

Since the 1970s, when Venezuela moved to nationalize oil, gas, and electric power, they have been on a constant march on this path. When all the policies failed, they simply demanded even more socialism, more government intervention, and more progressive policies, which caused still further ruin and decline. When Chavez gained power, he accelerated the march, with land reform, protectionism, and price controls. When that caused more destruction and decline, Nicolás Maduro promised even greater socialist and progressive policies. With each step, they blamed corruption, outside interference, then sabotage, and an endless list of scape goats for their failures.

With each step the country slid further and further into chaos and destruction, and now the final step has been laid....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24951590

Aranguren was striped of parliamentary immunity, and replaced, for daring to suggest that Nicolas Maduro should not be given 100% pure dictatorship powers, to make law, and pass rule, without even being review by the parliament of Venezuela.

This is the natural result of socialism. The natural result of progressive belief.

Perhaps some on the left would not support such a thing, but the fact is, this is where the road they support naturally ends up. No one even openly wants to crash their car, but if you choose to drive off the end of a bridge to nowhere, a crash is the Venezuelan result.

 

Ahem. Norway, Sweden, most of Western Europe..... All predominantly socialist countries and all more democratic than the elitist aristocratic oligarchy disguised as democracy in the USA...

 

YEs, and unlike the "elitist aristocratic oligarchy disguised as democracy in the USA" most of these countries, Norway Sweden, etc. are racists and have very few minorities (blacks, middle eastern, etc.).

http://sciencenordic.com/norways-problem-immigration

When you have more "takers" than "givers", being socialist in any way doesn't work.

 

President Obama is very jealous of Maduro.

 

Toilet paper anyone???

 

All subject to the EU. You can't find a more 'elitist aristocratic oligarchy' than that.

 

Well, Europe has had a panache for kings, queens and aristocracy. Dunno, guess they likes being servants.

 

Europe has moved quite a distance from the time of the absolute monarchy. Of the current monarchies in Europe, none are absolute except that of the Vatican. Most European national parliaments and the supranational European Parliament utilize at least some form of proportional representation, which has been proven to be a much more conducive system for establishing and maintaining a multiparty system, which will, by definition, represent more of the people's wishes than the two-party system established by the US Constitution.

Interesting, did any member of the delegation that drew up the charter that established the European Parliament ever say that the common citizen could not be trusted? Elbridge Gerry said effectively that on May 31, 1787 during the Philadelphia Convention.

Considering he's quite to the right of Maduro on the spectrum, I think you're talking out your proverbial tailpipe. Obama has never once attempted a power grab nearly to the level of a true dictator. In fact, everyone who has ever called an American President a tyrant needs a refresher course on what true tyranny is, in the guise of Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko, Hitler, or Stalin. They are tyrants, neither Obama or Bush comes even remotely close.

Racism is quite a sharp sword to be brandishing, perhaps too sharp for your own appreciation.

Many countries in the world, the Scandinavian countries included, feature a largely homogeneous populace. Homogeneity tends toward an institutionalized xenophobia. Such phenomena have been seen in the United States, and is still often seen here to this day, as well as in places such as Egypt, France, Russia, and many other nations. Fear of change is a natural human instinct.

However, race plays absolutely zero role in their choice of socialism. Race also does not play a role in their ability to effectively balance socialistic and democratic principles.

Now, your point that when the ratio of inputs and outputs in a socialistic system approaches 1:1, the system becomes taxed and begins slowing down, if not entirely breaking down is correct. However, that does not seem to be occurring in any country I know of with democratic socialism.

 

Such is "The Law Giver" as detailed by Rousseau in "The Social Contract" (1762).

Despite Rouseau's attempts to depict this "person of higher than avergae moral character and intelligence" as the Super Human Benevolent Ruler...how could he/she be ANYTHING BUT A DICTATOR?

Rousseau's critics realized this in the 18th century, and it has been proven true with every version of Stateism since.

 

They didn't need to. Why has only Ireland held an actual referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, despite massive public support for one in just about every EU nation? And the Irish had to do it over because they came up with the wrong answer the first time. Actions speak louder than words

LOL Seriously? I don't care what you think he 'effectively' said. Post the actual quote. Some context, like where and when, would be nice, too.

 

Ireland's referendum as far as I know was to enact a Constitutional Amendment to the Irish Constitution to allow the country's accession to the European Union. Other written European Constitutions may be more broadly worded, and thus not have required an Amendment. Furthermore, the Irish Constitution can only be amended by referendum, while other nations may have other means by which to enact amendments.

Constitutional flexibility varies by jurisdiction, some are broad and incredibly flexible, such as the United States Constitution. Others are insanely rigid, such as the State of Alabama's, which is currently the longest written single-document Constitution. The Yellowhammer State's constitution weighs in at over 330K words, over thrice the length of the next-longest document across the world, that of India. Alabama's "basic" governing document has been amended over 850 times, amounting to ninety-percent of its length. *Knocks on wood he never becomes an Alabama Constitutional lawyer*

For what it's worth, I'm in the midst of reading several books on the history of the Philadelphia Convention and the Constitution itself. I daresay by the end of the month, I will be one of the most well-read members of this forum on the subject of Constitutional history. I can probably counter any argument on the Framers' intent.

The delegates were debating popular election of the national legislators. Sherman, in this case, refers to Roger Sherman, delegate to the Convention from Connecticut.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_531.asp << Source

Considering that the common American citizen of the time was largely uneducated, the words can be meant that these two particular Framers wished for only the learned elite of society to be the ruling class. Furthermore, it is likely that Gerry's comments were motivated largely as a response to Shays' Rebellion in the immediate run-up to the Convention.

I am quite aware that the Seventeenth Amendment removed the provision in question from the Constitution, however, that it was enacted in the first place, combined with the words of Gerry, stand to prove that the Framers were not as invested in true democracy as we would like to think.

Elbridge Gerry's surname is also preserved for posterity in the term "gerrymandering" the drawing of an electoral district to make the seat as safe for the incumbent officeholder or their party as possible.

 

They make great "subjects"; always have.

- - - Updated - - -

The Framers were ADAMANTLY AGAINST "true democracy", which is why they set up a representative Republic.

"True Democracy" is CHAOS.

 

You're confusing direct democracy with true democracy. True democracy means that the people have the final say, whether it be through their representatives or not. Direct democracy isn't feasible, but a fully functional truly representative democracy is entirely within reach. The failure of our system is made all the more embarrassing when you consider just how many people are deluded into believing that they are living in a democratic country.

Look at any of the recent polls on the performance of Congress, they're close to single-digit approval ratings. If this country was a true democracy, you can be damned sure that these idiotic morons would be run out of office at the first opportunity, and their parties with them. Mark my words that will not happen. Every seat in the House and the thirty-three Senate seats will be occupied by members from the same oligarchic duopoly come January 3, 2015.

I know I will likely die never seeing true democracy in the United States on any significant level. I have no delusions that the majority of my fellow countrymen are as dumb on this issue as the cat sitting next to me licking his nonexistent testes.

 

He is to the right of Maduro, but not necessarily because he wants to be. Fortunately the US still has a few checks against his attempts at dictatorial power.

 

Wait, are you saying Obama is not in control of his own political views? Cue the Twilight Zone theme.....

Obama is not a dictator by any stretch of the imagination of a sane (read: not Conservative) person. In fact, the closest two presidents to being true dictators are consistently considered two of the best Presidents in history, Lincoln and FDR.

Obama has done some decidedly asinine things: the stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, Holder, etc. Every president does, get over yourselves.


Even if he'd done what needed to be done, nationalizing the whole health-insurance industry, he still wouldn't be a dictator. Nixon signed the Rail Passenger Service Act when it became apparent that the passenger rail industry was becoming wholly unworkable as private companies moved to freight-centric operations. It is only a small leap of understanding to realize the same damn thing is happening with the American sickcare industry. Companies have abandoned their customers in the pursuits of exorbitant profits, and in the process they have bought off almost every member of Congress to that end.

I'm not happy with the RPSA or Amtrak, since it deprived my hometown of any passenger rail service, and thus an affordable way for myself to get to Milwaukee or Chicago without having to enlist a friend or relative, since I don't drive. I am also disappointed that they have maintained high-frequency on unprofitable long-haul routes. However, I am still mostly pleased with the progress Amtrak has made, they are on the cusp of being profitable if they were to drop the majority of their long-haul routes to a lower frequency and concentrating on the lucrative short-distance routes that have proven to be true money-generators.

 

Brilliant post, Andelusion. Everything you said is true.

Unfortunately, my own country is now stumbling down that path. When Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States of America he made his socialist intentions clear.

 

Name one single country on the planet that has true Democracy. It doesn't exist ANYWHERE!

 

Frank's not talking about his views. He's talking about how far to the Left Obama can operate, and I would add that the limitations he is faced with effects how openly Obama and his fellow neo-socialists can operate in this country.

 

Any Western European country with democracy has a MUCH BETTER SYSTEM than we have, even though we hold ourselves out to be the bastion of democracy fit to export it to the far reaches of the planet. Thomas Jefferson would vomit at the current state of affairs of this nation.

 

I've never understood this claim. Prove that? On what basis?

If you look at the economic freedom index, a measurement of free-market capitalism, Norway and Sweden, and most of western Europe, are really high. Some are higher on the index than the US, like Denmark and Switzerland.

Now of course there are some that are lower, and those are generally doing poorly.

 

You seem to prove your own claim.

Democracy, in either form you listed, is chaos. The unrestrained will of the people, will always result in destruction, and then a dictatorship by someone who uses the destruction as a means to gain power.

Democracy is always just a stepping stone to tyranny. Always. No exceptions.

 

The prior post, was not ambigous, nor difficult for a 4th grader to grasp.

The statement was pretty simple. Obama is to the right of Maduro, but only because he has no choice. We still have checks against his power. If Obama was not restrained, he would be far more leftist than he has been to this point.

Only an idiot, would make the claim that everyone who believes differently than themselves, is not sane. But thankfully because of conservatives that believe in freedom of speak, idiots are allowed to make whatever dumb claims they want.

The constitution makes it very clear that the Federal Government does not have the authority, or power, to nationalize anything.

When a government ignores it's restraints, and does whatever it wants, without regard to the constitution.... that's Tyranny.

We don't have money for luxury items like Amtrak. Government shouldn't be building high speed rail. If that service was economically valuable, then it would be built without a penny of government money. The fact they must have government money, stolen from working people's checks, proves it a net negative on society.

Passenger rail service certainly didn't boost the economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal, or France, or Japan for that matter.

 

Have you actually been to Europe? Because I have. If you think Europe is better than America, then you haven't lived there. People still dry their laundry on rope. When it rains, they dry their laundry inside their homes, on ropes. They drive tiny, uncomfortable cars, that barely fit 2 people. Most don't have air conditioning. Their homes are half the size of American homes.

Now that isn't to say that they live horrible miserable lives. Of course not. But don't think that the standard of living is better over there, it simply isn't.

And have you been to the hospitals? Have you seen the difference, 4 people to a cramped room? Dirty, no AC, and staff that doesn't care?

Go live in Europe for 10 years, and come back. Their system is not "much better" by any stretch.

 

Has Obama been ruling by dictate or law? Most of what he has been doing has been by executive order aka dictate.

 

Socialized democracies, if properly implemented, can give more economic freedom.

For all the vitriol spewed against wealth redistribution, few people actually understand the concept enough to give an informed opinion. Wealth redistribution would, if done in a controlled manner, not only be able to diminish the crushing impact of poverty on all aspects of a society, in addition, wealth redistribution by its very nature would actually increase the wealth of the wealthiest in a society in the end, because the wealthy usually control the businesses which those who would benefit from the redistribution would patronize.

During this last downturn, the richest of society were insulated from the effects of the recession. That can be attributed to many differing factors, the likeliest of which is that they were able to make enough money to not only counteract the economic contraction, but also to be able to grow their fortunes. Most of that money will not see its way back into the economy in any measurable amount, thus causing the economy damage by the mere fact that the money supply is lowered.

If, for example, the rich were to be taxed to a level that would keep the rich's ability to accrue further wealth while taking excess for the public good, you would likely see less economic turbulence, and what turbulence there is, would be short and easily weathered, all while maintaining a slow, yet steady percentage of annual economic growth.

I never once said the people would have unchecked power. I understand the adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In order for an effective democracy to be established, it must be delineated within a written Constitution that is open to examination and interpretation and must have limits on power. Those limits are enforced by an independent arbiter, in most cases that takes the form of the judiciary, comprised of individuals with an intimate understanding of the Constitution's text, meaning, and intent.