Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 58 of 58

Thread: US Libertarian Party Chairman Promoting Video Calling for Venezuela Regime Change

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Chile, what a success story. Was it when the US was engaging the economic hitmen to cripple the nation, or was it when those actions drove Chile leftward? Maybe it was when we supported Pinochet to put them under a right wing iron fist? It is a history of failure, like most of the South American interventions. Nicaragua, what a success. Noriega, things couldn’t have been better in Panama, eh? Too many examples to list.
    Plus, what sense does it make to replace a socialist with another socialist? Guaido is an admitted socialist himself so what's the gain for Venezuelans there, especially those that oppose socialism?
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Plus, what sense does it make to replace a socialist with another socialist? Guaido is an admitted socialist himself so what's the gain for Venezuelans there, especially those that oppose socialism?
    He was temporary so they could hold an election. The Chinese would hate for that so they had to supply trucks for them to run people over.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    places the blame on the Venezuela government for problems in the country while neglecting to mention US sanctions or any other US government efforts
    The talk of sanctions is a dishonest attempt to distract from the obvious failures of socialism.

    Every socialist regime in history has always blamed its failures on "imperialist saboteurs" hiding in the broom closet.

    praises Juan Guaidó
    That's questionable, since it's not clear that he would be significantly (or at all) better than Maduro

    As if to make the support for a US government-orchestrated regime change operation in Venezuela yet more clear, Varner in the video even promotes that the “Chicago Boys” can improve things in Venezuela after the country’s current government is replaced. “Chicago Boys” is a reference to University of Chicago-connected individuals that played a prominent role in the Chile government after a successful US-supported regime change in that country in 1973.
    If they could manage a Pinochet redux, that would be super, but I don't think Guaido is a Pinochet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Advocating foreign regime change, and replacing them with people from (or controlled by) Chicago doesn’t seem very libertarian.
    Libertarians should positively support foreign intervention in Venezuela (by the US or another state) if:

    (a) Maduro's replacement would be an improvement,

    and (b) this could be accomplished at a low enough cost (in terms of money spent, [innocent] lives lost, property destroyed).

    Take it to its logical extreme: 1 US soldiers walks into the Presidential Palace, brains Maduro with a bat, and installs Ron Paul.

    Who on Earth could object to this...?

    Of course, no real regime change is that easy, which is why you have very carefully weigh the likely costs and benefits.

    *IF* that cost benefit analysis comes out positive, there's no reason to oppose the intervention.

    Note that I'm actually advocating for any particular intervention at the moment; I'm speaking of the underlying principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Hayek thought it was a good idea. Among other quotes:

    "More recently I have not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedr...d_dictatorship

    It is always weird when I see libertarians use Chile as an example of foreign meddling. Chile worked. That was a good intervention. If all interventions went that smoothly then there would be justification for them. There was no blowback and the people are much better off. There are no radical Chileans committing terrorism against the US. And no US soldiers lost their lives.

    I support regime change in Venezuela. I don't support US troops in Venezuela. But I see no problem with Trump meeting with the opposition and offering encouragement. Venezuela has a ton of oil and could be prosperous. More trade would be good for everyone. I don't see a problem with committing money and intelligence to oust a Communist.

    That is my usual contrarian take. I understand not getting involved and the LP chair probably should promote it. But Venezuela isn't similar to Iraq.
    Well said


    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Guaido has promised to open up their markets to foreign investors and privatize their oil industry.
    I missed that.

    Maybe he would be a significant improvement after all.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-11-2019 at 09:23 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Hayek thought it was a good idea. Among other quotes:

    "More recently I have not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedr...d_dictatorship

    It is always weird when I see libertarians use Chile as an example of foreign meddling. Chile worked. That was a good intervention. If all interventions went that smoothly then there would be justification for them. There was no blowback and the people are much better off. There are no radical Chileans committing terrorism against the US. And no US soldiers lost their lives.

    I support regime change in Venezuela. I don't support US troops in Venezuela. But I see no problem with Trump meeting with the opposition and offering encouragement. Venezuela has a ton of oil and could be prosperous. More trade would be good for everyone. I don't see a problem with committing money and intelligence to oust a Communist.

    That is my usual contrarian take. I understand not getting involved and the LP chair probably should promote it. But Venezuela isn't similar to Iraq.
    To be fair, I think the "free" helicopter rides had a lot to do with this condition. The people who opposed the govt were thoroughly dealt with that the rest just shut their mouths. The Haddi govt in Yemen did the same thing too, 99.9% of the presidential vote was for Haddi, not one living soul had anything negative to say about him. Paradise I tell you

    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The talk of sanctions is a dishonest attempt to distract from the obvious failures of socialism.

    Every socialist regime in history has always blamed its failures on "imperialist saboteurs" hiding in the broom closet.



    That's questionable, since it's not clear that he would be significantly (or at all) better than Maduro



    If they could manage a Pinochet redux, that would be super, but I don't think Guaido is a Pinochet.



    Libertarians should positively support foreign intervention in Venezuela (by the US or another state) if:

    (a) Maduro's replacement would be an improvement,

    and (b) this could be accomplished at a low enough cost (in terms of money spent, [innocent] lives lost, property destroyed).

    Take it to its logical extreme: 1 US soldiers walks into the Presidential Palace, brains Maduro with a bat, and installs Ron Paul.

    Who on Earth could object to this...?

    Of course, no real regime change is that easy, which is why you have very carefully weigh the likely costs and benefits.

    *IF* that cost benefit analysis comes out positive, there's no reason to oppose the intervention.

    Note that I'm actually advocating for any particular intervention at the moment; I'm speaking of the underlying principles.



    Well said


    EDIT:



    I missed that.

    Maybe he would be a significant improvement after all.
    I think the US and the west in general should just take over and run the govts of any country they deem to be socialist. Why even pretend to respect their sovereignty? go in, kill the elected leader and give free helicopter rides to anyone who opposes your rule. Who said freedom wasn't free?

    Yea, every socialist country that has failed because of US interference blamed US for it because US cannot stop interfering, imagine the guts on these people to blame the US for sabotaging their govts? Ever wonder about the socialist countries that have succeeded when the US didn't interfere?

    Guaido has said that he would open up the Venezuelan govt to foreign investment (i.e. no bid contracts to US and NATO oil companies) the same way the rebel leader in Libya did in the country. A country without IMF loans now have them and paying good interests and the US and french companies were able to get exclusive rights to bid for oil contracts. Free market indeed
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I think the US and the west in general should just take over and run the govts of any country they deem to be socialist.
    And I think any state should regime-change any other state which is socialist, supposing they can do it well.

    ...and not just socialist: anything which is worse than what it could be made to be.

    Why even pretend to respect their sovereignty?
    I've never pretended to respect national sovereignty.

    I have no respect for it whatsoever.

    All of my respect is reserved for individual rights.

    Yea, every socialist country that has failed because of US interference blamed US for it because US cannot stop interfering, imagine the guts on these people to blame the US for sabotaging their govts? Ever wonder about the socialist countries that have succeeded when the US didn't interfere?
    Are you saying that socialism is preferable to the market economy...?

    I knew you were sympathetic to the "anti-imperialists," but I thought that was limited to geopolitics.

    Guaido has said that he would open up the Venezuelan govt to foreign investment (i.e. no bid contracts to US and NATO oil companies) the same way the rebel leader in Libya did in the country. A country without IMF loans now have them and paying good interests and the US and french companies were able to get exclusive rights to bid for oil contracts. Free market indeed
    That would fall under the "carefully weigh the likely costs and benefits" portion of my position.

    If there are no benefits (because the would-be replacement is as bad/worse), then obviously there's no reason to intervene.

    I myself don't know enough about Guaido to say; I'd been assuming he'd be more or less the same.

    You're the one who mentioned some pro-market comments he made.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Take it to its logical extreme: 1 US soldiers walks into the Presidential Palace, brains Maduro with a bat, and installs Ron Paul.

    Who on Earth could object to this...?
    As if the CIA would ever install a "Ron Paul" in any regime change operation. Never mind that Ron Paul wouldn't accept the position any way, seeing how it came about.

    Of course, no real regime change is that easy, which is why you have very carefully weigh the likely costs and benefits.

    *IF* that cost benefit analysis comes out positive, there's no reason to oppose the intervention.
    Say what? I don't think interventionism is an Excel spreadsheet and sort of surprised to see you post such a thing.


    I missed that.

    Maybe he would be a significant improvement after all.
    Turning their oil over to BP for control by the banking cabal is never an improvement, no matter where it occurs.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    As if the CIA would ever install a "Ron Paul" in any regime change operation. Never mind that Ron Paul wouldn't accept the position any way, seeing how it came about.



    Say what? I don't think interventionism is an Excel spreadsheet and sort of surprised to see you post such a thing.




    Turning their oil over to BP for control by the banking cabal is never an improvement, no matter where it occurs.
    They are already being controlled by the Chinese banking cabal though. They could never even have a "natural" revolution because they would get steemrolled by tanks.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ...
    Libertarians should positively support foreign intervention in Venezuela (by the US or another state) if:

    (a) Maduro's replacement would be an improvement,

    and (b) this could be accomplished at a low enough cost (in terms of money spent, [innocent] lives lost, property destroyed).

    Take it to its logical extreme: 1 US soldiers walks into the Presidential Palace, brains Maduro with a bat, and installs Ron Paul.

    Who on Earth could object to this...?
    ...
    Anyone who is isn’t a sociopath?

    Who could possibly object to someone walking into your house and braining you with a bat because some neocon in Chicago said it was an “improvement”?
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    They are already being controlled by the Chinese banking cabal though. They could never even have a "natural" revolution because they would get steemrolled by tanks.
    You are probably correct, as I detailed to you in other VZ threads previously. There's no real separation between the "western" bankers and the "eastern" bankers. Glad you picked up what I was putting down in that other thread. Intervention these days is on behalf of a global effort, not a national one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Anyone who is isn’t a sociopath?
    Hey hey now even some of us sociopaths object. Sociopaths at least have the ability to have empathy for the plight of others. Psychopaths...not so much.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    ...
    Say what? I don't think interventionism is an Excel spreadsheet and sort of surprised to see you post such a thing.
    ...
    The ends justify the means to a true globalist. Submission of the entire world requires breaking a few eggs.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Anyone who is isn’t a sociopath?

    Who could possibly object to someone walking into your house and braining you with a bat because some neocon in Chicago said it was an “improvement”?
    Maduro is a criminal who deserves punishment and ought to be prevented from committed further crimes.

    If you're opposed to the use of violence to punish/stifle criminals, what would you propose as an alternative: giving them a stern lecture?

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    As if the CIA would ever install a "Ron Paul" in any regime change operation. Never mind that Ron Paul wouldn't accept the position any way, seeing how it came about.
    Obviously, it was a hypothetical designed to illustrate the underlying principle.

    I'd ask you to consider that hypothetical and answer the question.

    *IF* the Ron Paul scenario were possible, would you oppose it?

    Say what? I don't think interventionism is an Excel spreadsheet and sort of surprised to see you post such a thing.
    How should the state determine how much to spend on any of its legitimate functions (e.g. policing)?

    Each unit of spending has costs (taxes) and potential benefits (e.g. reduced crime).

    ...mightn't the sensible method be to weigh those costs against those benefits?

    If not by that method, how should the decision be made?

    Random number generator?

    Turning their oil over to BP for control by the banking cabal is never an improvement, no matter where it occurs.
    I certainly didn't say otherwise.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-12-2019 at 12:13 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Even AOC is against the Venezuelan govt and she is a democratic socialist. Also Rand would also agree with him on this



    The people in Washington finally agree about one thing
    Rand agrees with regime change in Venezuela? Link please. I am sure Rand agrees that socialism in Venezuela is bad.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Rand agrees with regime change in Venezuela? Link please. I am sure Rand agrees that socialism in Venezuela is bad.
    He's objected to intervention without a vote in Congress, but I don't know what he thinks about the underlying policy.

    I'd assume he's opposed.

    “The president doesn’t have the authority to do it without our permission,” said libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a frequent golf partner of the president, when asked about a possible military intervention in Venezuela. “There has to be a vote in Congress or it will be illegal and unconstitutional.”
    And then for some comedic relief:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is also close to Trump and is the polar opposite of Paul on foreign policy said, “I don’t care about voting on the use of force.”
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...te-gop-1307384
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Guaido has promised to open up their markets to foreign investors and privatize their oil industry. This is a very sensible position for him to take as a proponent of the free market. No where did he call for us intervention into the country aside from him supporting a person who calls for it. You people should be loving this guy right now
    That's not the point. The point is that it is none of our government's business to be determining who is or is not the leader of another sovereign nation. They have not attacked us, nor is there an imminent threat of doing so. Who leads their country is up to Venezuelans. Our government should be minding their own damn business.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Rand agrees with regime change in Venezuela? Link please. I am sure Rand agrees that socialism in Venezuela is bad.
    places the blame on the Venezuela government for problems in the country while neglecting to mention US sanctions or any other US government efforts that contribute to suffering in the Venezuela
    I said Rand would agree with him on this
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That's not the point. The point is that it is none of our government's business to be determining who is or is not the leader of another sovereign nation. They have not attacked us, nor is there an imminent threat of doing so. Who leads their country is up to Venezuelans. Our government should be minding their own damn business.
    Its not really clear if he promoted US sponsored regime change but it seems like he supported the more free market guy in the contest. This is not out of character for these types of activists.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And I think any state should regime-change any other state which is socialist, supposing they can do it well.

    ...and not just socialist: anything which is worse than what it could be made to be.
    Seeing as every patient is different and one cannot predict how the patient would react to the treatment, how do you know which regime change can be executed "well"? I understand always trying to improve ones self but trying to fix every govt to its best potential would lead to perpetual wars and conflict. I dunno about you, but I would not like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I've never pretended to respect national sovereignty.
    I was talking about the people who push these wars. They claims they are trying to restore the true leader of the Venezuelan people. They claim to believe in democracy, sovereignty, rule of law and that is supposedly what they are fighting to restore. I know you have been very open about wanting to dominate and rule over people who use the wrong economic system.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I have no respect for it whatsoever.

    All of my respect is reserved for individual rights.
    Even when the vast majority of the individuals reject your treatment?


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Are you saying that socialism is preferable to the market economy...?
    We can agree on one thing and that is the fact that capitalism is objectively the better way to run your society, so its not a matter of my preference. Society doesn't always pic whats best for them, they choose Romney and McCain over Paul and that is OK. The question I have for u is this, what if after explaining to the people of Venezuela the very clear and verified pros of capitalism and exposed to them the crimes of Maduro, the majority still chose a socialist type economy and Maduro as their leader after a fair election, would you still support regime change in the country? stated differently, is there anyway you would allow them to run a socialist type economic system without it leading to regime change?

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I knew you were sympathetic to the "anti-imperialists," but I thought that was limited to geopolitics.
    I am anti interventionist with very few exceptions



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That would fall under the "carefully weigh the likely costs and benefits" portion of my position.

    If there are no benefits (because the would-be replacement is as bad/worse), then obviously there's no reason to intervene.

    I myself don't know enough about Guaido to say; I'd been assuming he'd be more or less the same.

    You're the one who mentioned some pro-market comments he made.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Maduro is a criminal who deserves punishment and ought to be prevented from committed further crimes.

    If you're opposed to the use of violence to punish/stifle criminals, what would you propose as an alternative: giving them a stern lecture?



    Obviously, it was a hypothetical designed to illustrate the underlying principle.

    I'd ask you to consider that hypothetical and answer the question.

    *IF* the Ron Paul scenario were possible, would you oppose it?



    How should the state determine how much to spend on any of its legitimate functions (e.g. policing)?

    Each unit of spending has costs (taxes) and potential benefits (e.g. reduced crime).

    ...mightn't the sensible method be to weigh those costs against those benefits?

    If not by that method, how should the decision be made?

    Random number generator?



    I certainly didn't say otherwise.
    Then the man taking power is not Ron Paul. The Ron Paul we all know would never take power through force like you describe.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That's not the point. The point is that it is none of our government's business to be determining who is or is not the leader of another sovereign nation. They have not attacked us, nor is there an imminent threat of doing so. Who leads their country is up to Venezuelans. Our government should be minding their own damn business.
    Thats how I see it . They are no threat . None of my business .
    Do something Danke

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Seeing as every patient is different and one cannot predict how the patient would react to the treatment, how do you know which regime change can be executed "well"? I understand always trying to improve ones self but trying to fix every govt to its best potential would lead to perpetual wars and conflict. I dunno about you, but I would not like that.
    How does anyone know anything or make any decision?

    This all falls under the cost benefit analysis.

    If you were looking at a particular, proposed intervention, you'd gather all the available information and see if you can reach a clear conclusion.

    Sometimes, if not often, it may well be that your conclusion is "I'm not sure one way or another."

    I'm certainly not claiming that such decisions are always easy or obvious.

    I was talking about the people who push these wars. They claims they are trying to restore the true leader of the Venezuelan people. They claim to believe in democracy, sovereignty, rule of law and that is supposedly what they are fighting to restore.
    I also loathe those people.

    I know you have been very open about wanting to dominate and rule over people who use the wrong economic system.

    ...

    Even when the vast majority of the individuals reject your treatment?
    Yes, I want to impose my views (i.e. libertarianism) on people by force.

    Now, think about what that actually means.

    I want to force people to not murder and rob other people.

    ...considering that they have no right to do so (i.e. murder and rob), how am I violating their rights?

    I see someone getting robbed on the street, and I intervene, using force to stop the robber, have I committed a crime?

    We can agree on one thing and that is the fact that capitalism is objectively the better way to run your society, so its not a matter of my preference. Society doesn't always pic whats best for them, they choose Romney and McCain over Paul and that is OK.
    No, it's not okay.

    Robbery doesn't cease to be robbery because 51% of the voters say so.

    The question I have for u is this, what if after explaining to the people of Venezuela the very clear and verified pros of capitalism and exposed to them the crimes of Maduro, the majority still chose a socialist type economy and Maduro as their leader after a fair election, would you still support regime change in the country?
    All day every day

    stated differently, is there anyway you would allow them to run a socialist type economic system without it leading to regime change?
    As a practical matter, there are many many cases in which I would not favor regime change (cost benefit analysis).

    But, in principle, there is no situation in which socialism (i.e. organized robbery, murder, etc) is okay because the majority says it is.

    I am anti interventionist with very few exceptions
    I'm curious about those exceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Then the man taking power is not Ron Paul. The Ron Paul we all know would never take power through force like you describe.
    I'm not so sure about that.

    In any event, rather than speculating about Ron, let me rephrase the question:

    Suppose *someone*, who once in power would govern as a 100% libertarian, could replace Maduro simply by braining Maduro.

    Justified?
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-13-2019 at 12:03 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That's not the point. The point is that it is none of our government's business to be determining who is or is not the leader of another sovereign nation. They have not attacked us, nor is there an imminent threat of doing so. Who leads their country is up to Venezuelans. Our government should be minding their own damn business.
    Which means exactly nothing to Trotskyites and globalists.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That's not the point. The point is that it is none of our government's business to be determining who is or is not the leader of another sovereign nation. They have not attacked us, nor is there an imminent threat of doing so. Who leads their country is up to Venezuelans. Our government should be minding their own damn business.
    Absolutely agree!

    (And don't faint. )
    There is no spoon.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The ends justify the means to a true globalist.
    And for all non-anarchist libertarians, such as yourself.

    What do you think the argument "taxes are necessary to avoid the greater evil of anarchy" is, if not ends justifying means?

    I'm consistently impressed with the determination of the "anti-globalists" to not see this obvious analogy.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    How does anyone know anything or make any decision?

    This all falls under the cost benefit analysis.

    If you were looking at a particular, proposed intervention, you'd gather all the available information and see if you can reach a clear conclusion.

    Sometimes, if not often, it may well be that your conclusion is "I'm not sure one way or another."

    I'm certainly not claiming that such decisions are always easy or obvious.
    I do understand cost benefit analysis. Say for example, I am trying to decide if I should physically hold down my neighbours wife and rape her. I think of the cost, the little chance that I would be a suspect, the possibility of her having a gun, me catching an STD while wearing a condom etc etc and the cost is on the low end and the benefits are enormous. She gets a good shagging for the first time in years which I know she will enjoy, I get the rush of being a complete savage and put a spark in the poor lady's marriage. A cost benefit analysis says I should definitely rape this lady in the middle of the night but because I respect my fellow human and the fact that I am not a scum bag, I ignore that analysis and not rape her. So essentially it depends on the decision being made. Not saying overthrowing a country for having the wrong economic system is the same thing but cost benefit analysis is not always employed when making a decision.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I also loathe those people.

    Yes, I want to impose my views (i.e. libertarianism) on people by force.

    Now, think about what that actually means.

    I want to force people to not murder and rob other people.

    ...considering that they have no right to do so (i.e. murder and rob), how am I violating their rights?


    I see someone getting robbed on the street, and I intervene, using force to stop the robber, have I committed a crime?
    I also understand the issue here and the dilemma at hand. You want to stop a violent governing system and out of the possible ways to achieve this, you pick a violent one. You cannot try education, teaching by example, try ostracizing approach. You use see military violence that would result in more death, displacement and destruction as the way to go, btw said military u plan on using was built on a violent governing system.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, it's not okay.

    Robbery doesn't cease to be robbery because 51% of the voters say so.
    Very true but what percentage after fully informing them of the benefits of libertarianism would convince you that a certain group of people do not want to live in a libertarian society for you to allow them to have a socialist system? would 90% do the trick? how about 99.99%? I am guessing the percentage factors somewhat into your cost benefit analysis


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    All day every day

    As a practical matter, there are many many cases in which I would not favor regime change (cost benefit analysis).

    But, in principle, there is no situation in which socialism (i.e. organized robbery, murder, etc) is okay because the majority says it is.
    I do try to respect people's sovereignty, so its not my business if they wanna live in a socialist society and I think that is the difference between me and you. Your focus is on freeing the individual from chains of govt and my focus on minding my own business.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm curious about those exceptions.
    Alien invasion

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm not so sure about that.

    In any event, rather than speculating about Ron, let me rephrase the question:

    Suppose *someone*, who once in power would govern as a 100% libertarian, could replace Maduro simply by braining Maduro.

    Justified?
    If that libertarian cannot convince them to elect him then its not justified.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I do understand cost benefit analysis. Say for example, I am trying to decide if I should physically hold down my neighbours wife and rape her. I think of the cost, the little chance that I would be a suspect, the possibility of her having a gun, me catching an STD while wearing a condom etc etc and the cost is on the low end and the benefits are enormous. She gets a good shagging for the first time in years which I know she will enjoy, I get the rush of being a complete savage and put a spark in the poor lady's marriage. A cost benefit analysis says I should definitely rape this lady in the middle of the night but because I respect my fellow human and the fact that I am not a scum bag, I ignore that analysis and not rape her. So essentially it depends on the decision being made. Not saying overthrowing a country for having the wrong economic system is the same thing...
    Here's another analogy:

    You see 9 men raping 1 woman.

    You say "gee, looks like they decided (perhaps after a fair vote) that rape is okay - best not interfere (maybe give 'em a brochure)."

    I say, "gee, looks like a capital offense, they ought to be hanged."

    but cost benefit analysis is not always employed when making a decision.
    It is, actually, though I wasn't claiming that it was, and whether it is or not isn't of any consequence to the issue at hand.

    I also understand the issue here and the dilemma at hand. You want to stop a violent governing system and out of the possible ways to achieve this, you pick a violent one. You cannot try education, teaching by example, try ostracizing approach. You use see military violence that would result in more death, displacement and destruction as the way to go, btw said military u plan on using was built on a violent governing system.
    I'm in favor of military intervention if it is the best available option.

    If there is a better available option, I would obviously favor that.

    That said, color me skeptical about the potential of education et al.

    P.S. I might add, you suggest a false moral equivalency here; violence to rob =/= violence to prevent robbing

    Unless I missed the memo, libertarianism isn't pacifism; the problem isn't violence in itself, but unjustified violence (aggression).

    Very true but what percentage after fully informing them of the benefits of libertarianism would convince you that a certain group of people do not want to live in a libertarian society for you to allow them to have a socialist system? would 90% do the trick? how about 99.99%? I am guessing the percentage factors somewhat into your cost benefit analysis
    The percentage of people who favor the aggression in question (i.e. which the intervention ins intended to end) does not factor in at all.

    The scenario above doesn't become any more acceptable if it's 100, 1000, or 1M men who voted that rape is good.

    The cost-benefit analysis I've been talking about isn't complicated:

    1. Is there aggression occuring?

    If yes, move to step 2.

    2. Can it be prevented through actions which involve less than that same amount of aggression?

    If yes, go ahead and take those actions, as the result is a net gain.

    I do try to respect people's sovereignty, so its not my business if they wanna live in a socialist society and I think that is the difference between me and you. Your focus is on freeing the individual from chains of govt and my focus on minding my own business.
    If you could be assured of not being personally bothered by the government, you wouldn't care what it was doing to other people?

    If that libertarian cannot convince them to elect him then its not justified.
    How's that?
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-13-2019 at 03:19 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Here's another analogy:

    You see 9 men raping 1 woman.

    You say "gee, looks like they decided (perhaps after a fair vote) that rape is okay - best not interfere (maybe give 'em a brochure)."

    I say, "gee, looks like a capital offense, they ought to be hanged."
    In that scenario, I will check and see if the woman in question is actively asking for help and if she is not then I wouldn't do anything with that case. After that, I will send out a message to any woman in the population to leave the society and my guess is that I would consider intervention to remove those people from the society if the rapists block their escape routes. But that would be the extent of my intervention. Its not my duty to right the wrongs in the world, I will try but I will do so with the knowledge that I cannot stop all ills in the world.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    It is, actually, though I wasn't claiming that it was, and whether it is or not isn't of any consequence to the issue at hand.

    I'm in favor of military intervention if it is the best available option.

    If there is a better available option, I would obviously favor that.

    That said, color me skeptical about the potential of education et al.
    Education hasn't even worked in this country so I expect it to be just as ineffective in Venezuela. One thing that even people like you do not understand is this. There are going to be people(many of them) who support libertarian ideology who would at the same time be opposed to war. Me for example, I am a liberty voter who opposes any and all military intervention in this country. The day you start dropping bombs on my house is the day I join the military with the goal of repelling the invasion and will make every effort that you and your children pay for your crimes. I want liberty and not war.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The percentage of people who favor the aggression in question (i.e. which the intervention ins intended to end) does not factor in at all.

    The scenario above doesn't become any more acceptable if it's 100, 1000, or 1M men who voted that rape is good.
    I think the percentage should matter because at a certain level you will end up destroying the whole country to save a small minority. At a certain point, its better to just ask for their release instead of an invasion

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The cost-benefit analysis I've been talking about isn't complicated:

    1. Is there aggression occuring?

    If yes, move to step 2.

    2. Can it be prevented through actions which involve less than that same amount of aggression?

    If yes, go ahead and take those actions, as the result is a net gain.
    Aggression is too simple, how about checking if the victim wants or needs your help? I have seen situations where one couple is abusive to the other and yet they still want to be together. If they are not asking for your help then u are as much of an aggressor as the victim if you forcefully inject yourself in the situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you could be assured of not being personally bothered by the government, you wouldn't care what it was doing to other people?
    I would care but care enough to start a war? maybe, maybe not


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    How's that?
    If the liberty guy cannot peacefully convince them to let him rule, then his rule cannot be justified. It's just that simple.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    In that scenario, I will check and see if the woman in question is actively asking for help and if she is not then I wouldn't do anything with that case. After that, I will send out a message to any woman in the population to leave the society and my guess is that I would consider intervention to remove those people from the society if the rapists block their escape routes. But that would be the extent of my intervention.
    So, for example, if there were people in prison in Venezuela for the crime of charging "unfair prices," it would be appropriate to:

    -first make sure that they don't want to be in prison (just in case they're raging masochists I suppose)

    -then, if they in fact don't want to be in prison, demand that their captors release them

    -and then, if they refuse, intervene to free them?

    Now, suppose, you rescue the current prisoners, VZ puts another batch into prison.

    Do we just repeat this exercise ad infinitum, or might it make sense at some point to just remove the imprisoners from power?

    ...rather than continually re-intervening to effectively do the same thing?

    Education hasn't even worked in this country so I expect it to be just as ineffective in Venezuela.
    Indeed

    One thing that even people like you do not understand is this. There are going to be people(many of them) who support libertarian ideology who would at the same time be opposed to war. Me for example, I am a liberty voter who opposes any and all military intervention in this country. The day you start dropping bombs on my house is the day I join the military with the goal of repelling the invasion and will make every effort that you and your children pay for your crimes. I want liberty and not war.
    That would be something to take into account in deciding whether a particular intervention would work.

    It's not a reason to reject all intervention in principle.

    I think the percentage should matter because at a certain level you will end up destroying the whole country to save a small minority. At a certain point, its better to just ask for their release instead of an invasion
    Again, that's going to depend on the situation, which is why you do a careful cost-benefit analysis.

    I would care but care enough to start a war? maybe, maybe not
    Progress!

    If the liberty guy cannot peacefully convince them to let him rule, then his rule cannot be justified. It's just that simple.
    Haven't you already agreed that popular =/= right?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2019, 01:25 AM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-18-2019, 09:34 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-14-2019, 11:47 AM
  4. The REAL Reason The U.S. Wants Regime Change in Venezuela (Video)
    By DamianTV in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2019, 08:43 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-11-2018, 08:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •