Anti Chavez protests get

Rev Hellfire

Hobbes wrote: »

Instead you have messes like in the USA where people are treated as second class citizens because they *didn't win*.

I'm confused by this point could you expand upon it. Democracies aren't meant to suit everyone they are essentially a might is right scenario.

meditraitor

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm confused by this point could you expand upon it. Democracies aren't meant to suit everyone they are essentially a might is right scenario.

All democraies are not the same, most will incorperate a bill of rights to prevent "tyranny of majority" or as you call it might is right.

Rev Hellfire

True but these rights are typically there at the sufferance of the majority which can remove them from the Statutes should they so wish.
Constitutions are changed all the time which shows just how immobile these ‘rights’ are in reality.

This is as it should be in my view.

bobbyjoe

Akrasia wrote: »

Congratulations Clown Bag, that was one of the best posts I have ever read on Boards.ie

What he said.

Hobbes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm confused by this point could you expand upon it. Democracies aren't meant to suit everyone they are essentially a might is right scenario.

True democracy is more then about might is right. It is about minority rights, individual rights and restraints on power. Just because I don't vote for the other guy doesn't mean that I suddenly become a second class citizen in my own country. If it does, then you are not talking about a true democracy.

Akrasia

Hobbes wrote: »

True democracy is more then about might is right. It is about minority rights, individual rights and restraints on power. Just because I don't vote for the other guy doesn't mean that I suddenly become a second class citizen in my own country. If it does, then you are not talking about a true democracy.

If you're talking about voting in an executive to make all your decisions for you, then you're not talking about true democracy either, even if there are limited protections for minority rights

RedPlanet

Hobbes wrote: »

True democracy is more then about might is right. It is about minority rights, individual rights and restraints on power. Just because I don't vote for the other guy doesn't mean that I suddenly become a second class citizen in my own country. If it does, then you are not talking about a true democracy.

"True democracy"? Sounds like a "Real Republican".
Minority rights and individual rights are Civil Rights, not democratic ones.
Restraints on power is built-in to democracy.

Sand

form what ive read and heard ,

Yes, form [sic] what you have read and heard...

venezuela will eventually have a more sophisticated western style leader in the future but for now i think chavez is the best

Or basically you believe Venezeulans are some sort of backward subhuman mud people who dont deserve the sort of checks and balances in their government that more sophisticated western style people have? Am I right?

Now you can say - "How dare you Sand! I view Venezeulans as being just as entitled to fair and just governance as I am! And as such I wholly oppose Chavez and his scheme to centralise power and pervert the constitution to his own dreams of personal power" Or you can say " Well, whilst I dont want Bertie to have too much power Im sure Venezeulans dont need the same same checks on their government because theyre not sophisticated western people like us".

Thanks though, it helps to have some honest socialist show up and explain how they actually feel about non "western sophisticated" peoples and the governments they are entitled to. Or not.

If that was what he was doing than yes, it would be.

Which it is, seeing as extending his term limit is so important. Rather than simply grooming a successor and passing power to them. Accept it, Chavez is an egomaniac.

I don't worship Chavez. I recognise that there is a propaganda war against him and don't believe all of the criticism that I see spewing from the western media. It is clearly an orchestrated campaign.

Eh, bollocks. I didnt invent the term Chavista for starters. As far as Im concerned hes a charismatic populist aiming for dictatorship. You call that Chavisism or some such, I call it wrong.

There are traitors in the opposition. They tried to overthrow him in A U.S. backed Coup, remember?

Similar to the coup Chavez attempted? And a coup the US welcomed, not a coup the US orchestrated. As for traitors? Well, in a liberal democracy the losers should accept the will of the majority - in an illiberal democracy such as Chavez is running, well then its every man for himself in whatever form that should take.

Its one of the reasons the rights of the minority are guaranteed in a liberal democracy. Its to prevent the 51% gassing the 49%. Also to prevent the 49% to take up arms to contest the vote every time. And interestingly, not one single long distance Chavista has yet called me on claiming theyre for 51% gassing the other 49% definition of democracy.

Draw your own conclusions.

Argentina had an independent central bank

Good for them, it would imply that whatever else happened they wouldnt be leaned on by the government to cause inflation to bail the government out of political trouble. That the government would have to budget responsibly. Or be punished for failing to do so.

Your point caller?

What are you talking about? Who's the 'they' you refer to who voted for George Bush?

As Chavez himself stated a no vote in the referendum was a vote for George Bush. As the No vote won, this would imply George Bush was voted for by the people of Venezeula.

Unless of course Chavez talks a lot of ****e?

Good to see you make genuine post sand.

My posts always have a genuine point to make. I just cant always take other peoples posts seriously. Thats hardly my fault.

clownbag wrote:

15% is the magic number which then puts into motion the debate and follow up universal vote on the subject. 15% of the population cannot re-call an elected official, they cannot amend the constitution and they cannot dictate policy. If however 15% of the population wish there to be changes to the constitution or re-call a representative mid term then an election may be called where by the whole population vote on the question.

This you see is nonsense. Well, tbh, Ill allow that it could be ill informed nonsense.

Example: 15% of the population are enraged about some Judge who issues what Joe Duffy considers to be a lenient sentence against some kiddie fiddler. Joe calls for a recall referendum against the Judge in question. His listeners all vote for it. 15% reached. Referendum called. Only Joes listeners really feel strongly about the issue. Only they were bothered to vote *for* a referendum in the first place.

Only a *tiny* minority of people, including myself, would feel strongly enough to vote against the referendum on the basis of protecting the judiciary from populist sentitment. The so called "silent majority" might reckon if forced to admit that yeah, theyd prefer if they were ever in court that that judge sentence them on the facts rather than fear of the mob outside the courtroom, but tbh Man Uniteds playing Liverpool on Sunday so cant be bothered to vote on it. The 15% who are enraged/committed win the vote. The "silent majority" lose.

Youre whole assumption is that suddenly as soon as the referendum is called, the other 85% is suddenly energised into a spasm of public meetings and debates on whatever minority concern has been raised, and thus the decision reached is legitimised. This on an issue they couldnt give a **** about to vote for a referendum, and were never given an option to vote against a referendum being held. This is bollocks. Cuba policy or the policy on Israel is meaningless to 85% of Americans but it is the 15% who give a **** who dictate it to elected representives and track their open [ and by the way, voting records in the US was opened to the public - naively to improve democracy, but in reality to allow lobby groups to better reward and punish those who voted for and against them. Think about that before suggesting "improvements"]. Why the hell you want to expand the ability of powerful minorities to make bad policy is beyond me.

Hey, why not abolish government and just decide issues by a poll of the Joe Duffy phone show listeners on topical issues. Thatll be democracy in action, wont it?

I happen to think that Chavez standing down and someone else taking over is not a bad thing but I appreciate why he feels he wants to stand again.

I appreciate it too - its the same reason Putin is standing down as President but appointing a puppet in his place and going for Premier instead. It will all be legit and democratically blessed, so who cares about the realities of the situation. Right?

Oh wait, I forgot. Putin isnt one of the leftist populist dictators. If he was leftist it would be okay.

So much of what the Government has helped achieve, participatory democracy, better living standards, educating through teaching to read and giving access to further education, promoting critical thinking and encouraging debate through 1000’s of forums at local level is in stark contrast to someone intent on centralising power and excluding the people from decision making.

And yet it has so UTTERLY failed, when you consider that not a single worthy successor to Chavez has emerged. Not one. That Chavez feels he must rule on as El Presidente for life because not one single Venezeulan can be found, despite all these wonderful local democracy programs you describe actually produce any leaders....

Weird that isnt it. Such successful programs, such pathetic results. How do you reconcile that?

I feel your ideology and reliance on obviously biased media

NRRRG - I have sourced most/all stories to reputable media. Chavistas have in turned sourced theres to socialist blogs and "radical" indymedia types.

When youre willing to accept www.rightwingcrazies.com as a worthy source of unbiased commentary, ill accept www.leftwingloonies.com as being acceptable. In the meantime Ill tend towards the BBC which both the left and the right moan about being biased against them.

If you cant find anything outside biased blogs and websites to support your views, well then I suggest you reconsider your views. As Orwell might have said the best blogs are those who tell us what we already know.

Forgot your remarks on revoking media liciences.

Yes this was in response to the view that Chavez humbly accepts and encourages dissent. This is not the case. You can justify it that media that doesnt take a Pro-Chavista line gets what it deserves, but then you would have to accept that Boards.Ie would also "get what it deserves" if it didnt take a Pro-Bertie line.

Media does not have to agree with the government. It can be downright hostile if it so wishes. In fact media should be hostile to the government, it should question and query the government at every turn. The fact that Chavez cant handle such hostile media is proof in itself as to the extent of freedom in Venezeula. Bush isnt getting great poll ratings lately, do you reckon he should start removing broadcast licences from commentators hostile to him?

Nah, didnt think so. Politics> Principles, right?

Hobbes wrote:

Oddly enough Term Limits...

You know, the ignore button would work better if your turned it on.

Meditraitor wrote:

Democracies aren't meant to suit everyone they are essentially a might is right scenario.

Hence the importance of *liberal* democracy as opposed to illiberal democracy. Liberal democracy builds in checks against rampant populism to protect minorities. The democracy of Chavistas, does not. People dont tend to recognise the importance of those checks until its too late. As a wiser man once said:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Thats why a government, no matter how popular, must be held in control by the law and the constitution. You cant trust in human nature to "do the right thing" when the tyranny of the mob is invoked.

Redplanet wrote:

Restraints on power is built-in to democracy

Nope, democracy in its simplest form is simply people power. The earliest conflicts between democracy and obligarchic power struggles might seem no brainers to us. Were all democrats right? But early democracies could vote to expel, and execute people who they disliked or disagreed with. Obligarchies could ironically be more free - so long as you werent a threat to the obligarch, you could do pretty much as you wish. The decision becomes harder then doesnt it?

Democracy isnt individual freedom. Its the expression of the mass of the people. However just or unjust that is.

The genius of liberal democracy is that it links individual liberty to a system of government accountable to the people. The failing of radical socialists/anarchists is they because they are so used to liberal democracy, they assume its naturally occuring. Hopefully they will never get the opportunity to be proven wrong.

FYI

Sand wrote: »

Or basically you believe Venezeulans are some sort of backward subhuman mud people who dont deserve the sort of checks and balances in their government that more sophisticated western style people have? Am I right?

Sand, this little diatribe represents exactly +your+ viewpoint. The Venezuelan people are behind Chavez, they have voted overwhelming +for+ him over the last years. In continually demonising and ridiculing Chavez you are questioning the Venezuelan people's right to self-determination - you are calling them subhumans, without the capacity to understand democracy. You want the democracy 'you want' for them - get off your high horse, you haven't a clue.

FYI

Interview with Brazilian journo on Chavez...

http://www.mediabite.org/article_Embedded-with-power-%E2%80%93-Part-1_14543664.html

Bit on Venezuelan student protests...

"MB - One of the interesting things you wrote in your latest piece, 'Beat the (Red) Devil', was that the majority of students in Venezuela support Chavez. This is not something that comes across in the mainstream media, where the anti-Chavez student demonstrations are wielded as evidence of the 'intellectual left's' disdain for the 'populist' and certainly the fact they receive substantial support from the US is rarely if ever mentioned. This is particularly ironic when you consider the reception similar student protests would no doubt receive in the US. Is it that the pro-Chavez students are not vocal, or that the media is simply not vocal in reporting their existence? [8]

PE - The way Western mainstream/corporate media played up student protests in Venezuela looked like the whole university establishment was anti-Chavez. It was impossible to read anywhere that these students came from elite, private universities, were more interested in fleeing the country after graduation to snatch a MBA in the U.S., and were a minority. The majority studies in public schools, and they are chavistas with widely varied degrees of fervor. As for the intellectual left's disdain for Chavez as a "populist", this is a phenomenon observed all over South America. For Brazilian intellectuals who consider themselves social-democrats – starting with former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a close friend of Tony Blair's – Chavez is nothing but a populist. Comprador elites in South America reason in block: whenever a charismatic politician strives for social justice, he's derided as a "populist". Wealth redistribution is the utmost nightmare of arrogant, corrupt, predatory South American elites."

The Corinthian

Well, I've kept out of this thread for a few weeks, but thought I should pop my head in again.

In short, Chavez's response to his failure to secure a successful referendum was a very pleasant surprise. Of course, he still could go down the dictatorial road in the future, but this reaction has - in my mind - made it less likely.

Of course, this does not mean that I agree with many of the 'reforms' he's putting in place (or how he's putting them in place) and it certainly hasn't improved my opinion of the obsequious Western Chavezists that populate the interweb, but I do feel that given his recent gracious defeat, credit where credit is due.

Essey

moe_sizlak wrote: »

fox news foam at the mouth when disucssing chavez , once fox news hates someone , i know there pretty ok

Strange way to form an intelligent decision - but hey if it works for you....