America and Venezuela: Constitutional Worlds Apart

[american.swan]

Interesting article...

I'd like some feed back on this...

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6594

[saku39]

The author is a hardcore socialist, so of course he approves the horror that is happening in Venezuela. He has a lengthy post on capitalism and starts off with how horrible Milton Friedman and his principles are, right here. He gives some examples of fascist states and dictatorships as capitalist and that means of course that all capitalism is evil.

As for the article in question, the author raises some interesting points but paints a very rosy picture of that country without showing how screwed up it's becoming. He is correct in some of our short-comings, but way too soft on Venezuela's.

For example, at the end of the piece, he correctly points out that their economy is growing-- but doesn't point out that poverty has increased as well. Due to communist price fixing, the people there face shortages of meat, flour and cooking oil. Their currency is down 70% from where it was when Chavez came into power. He also neglects that practically all of the money comes from oil and not other industries. The lack diversity in their economy is dangerous. Chavez has nationalized the oil industry and has said he will continue to nationalize other industries. That country's infrastructure is already under stress, the more communistic they become, the more worse off the it will get.

He's also wrong that Chavez's power is checked. Who's it checked by? His party controls their National Assembly and they are just a rubber stamp. These National Assembly robots are the same people that have given him the power to rule by decree for a period of 18 months-- they did this at the beginning of the year, I would be very surprised if somehow he didn't try to extend the decree.

Like Bush has done in the Unisted States Congress and Senate, Chavez has used the Venezuela National Assembly to legally destroy the checks and balances in the system. He has given himself enourmous power. He's increased the presidential term from 5 to 6 years, a new presidential 2 term limit as opposed to the original 1 term of 5 years. He's now talking making terms 7 years and ending persidential term limits. He has the power to nationalize industries by decree or imprision people for anti-government speech. His reach also entends to other things that make you question who is stupid enough to put up with him. Some senseless reforms that he's pushed through: He's changed the national flag because his daughter's advice, he changed the country's time zone 30 minutes to ensure "a greater distribution of sunlight." There was even a possible law that would limit the number of names Venezuelans could legally give their children.

The author points out how they have the ability to hold a national referendum. And while I think a referendum has good qualities, what he's talking about is flawed. For example he is against the electoral college-- he doesn't see that the electoral college is meant to protect the minority against the tryanny of the majority. Also, a national referendum isn't exactly a magic bullet for the people, when Chavez's cronies are in charge of counting the votes.

He doesn't make noise about other things going on. He mentioned that Chavez wanted to abolish their central bank. OK-- That sounds cool until you find out why. Chavez is buying debt around Latin America. He's created the Bank of the South in order to have power and influence over Latin America. He's essentially creating his own IMF and World Bank--Both of which are horrible institutions designed to create a dollar hedgemony and need to be abolished. He is trying to create a Bolivar hedgemony by exporting his country's inflation like we do. He's done this so as to have authority of the currency. He hates his central bank-- not because its a central bank, but because he doesn't have complete control over it.

Their constitution has a provision for the environment. I have issue with this-- Not because I'm against having an clean environment. I want a clean environment. I just think the idea of putting the rights of an endangered species or a forest above a human's rights is crazy. On top of that, a private citizen will do a better job keep his private property clean than a government would.

He also speaks of their constitution containing indigenous people's rights', the very idea of which are bad because then you start to treat certain groups differently than others. He doesn't realize that every individual, no matter what ethnic background should have the exactly the same rights.

Our constitution says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. From reading this piece I gather that this author wants to guarantee hapiness. He wants to guarantee everything and not only is it not possible, it's stupid. You essentially create a mommy state that treats you like a 2 year old baby. And how able is mommy to care of the child it's created when there are 100's of millions of babies to take care of? As yourself how efficient the government is while waiting in line at the DMV; ask the veterans at the VA hospitals if they felt their government care was sufficient; ask the Iraqis how they think their government is doing; or ask Katrina survivors how government served them. The more responsible people are for themselves, the better a society is-- that means having a limited government.

This is very long article that has signifigant research done on the Venezuelan constitution, but he's totally missing the big picture. He doesn't point ouf the abuses in Venezeula, the confiscation of property, the end of free speech. He's doing it on purpose because he agrees with socialism. This man hates capitalism with all his being. He calls capitalism in post-soviet Russia a tragedy. (If there's a tragedy in Russia it's because of Putin, not capitalism.)

I was reading one piece on capitalism and was shocked at how nuts this guy is. He's obviously well read but I seriously question his mental state. Reading his words almost made me want to sit him down and have an intervention.

He's got it all wrong. Just because Chavez was elected democratically, does not keep him from being wrong or even a tryant. Adolf Hitler was elected democratically. Slobodan Milosevic was elected democratically. Does that make democracy evil? Or a better question: is democracy fool-proof cure for every ailment a country has?

The answer is no, democracy isn't evil and democracy isn't fool-proof. It just means that people need to remember that if they're not careful, they could lose their freedom. Democratic systems, no matter how well-intended, can be corrupted if citizens don't keep them in check.

[american.swan]

Thank you. Great post.