11

Venezuela is collapsing.

Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 5 months ago to History
227 comments | Share | Flag

Statement from President Donald J. Trump Recognizing Venezuelan National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the Interim President of Venezuela
FOREIGN POLICY
Issued on: January 23, 2019
SHARE:





menuALL NEWS
Today, I am officially recognizing the President of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the Interim President of Venezuela. In its role as the only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people, the National Assembly invoked the country’s constitution to declare Nicolas Maduro illegitimate, and the office of the presidency therefore vacant. The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law.

I will continue to use the full weight of United States economic and diplomatic power to press for the restoration of Venezuelan democracy. We encourage other Western Hemisphere governments to recognize National Assembly President Guaido as the Interim President of Venezuela, and we will work constructively with them in support of his efforts to restore constitutional legitimacy. We continue to hold the illegitimate Maduro regime directly responsible for any threats it may pose to the safety of the Venezuelan people. As Interim President Guaido noted yesterday: “Violence is the usurper’s weapon; we only have one clear action: to remain united and firm for a democratic and free Venezuela.”
J

All Comments

  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That the radio speech was given is fiction; the content is what it is regardless of that. Ayn Rand said that the content is her philosophy. Even without that when you read a philosophical speech you should assess its content whether or not the author agrees with it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    From the figures I have seen there appears to be a stable underclass who have dropped out. I can certainly see why this would happen. Then we have the disaffected millennials who find there are no jobs for lesbian dance graduates who just graduated with huge student loans.

    On another subject, I found on YouTube a large number of in depth videos by Stefan molineux that are very interesting. You might find some of them interesting also. Topics are all over the map, from a n extensive discussion on the history of ayn rand to very practical discussions on the effect of genetics on race and immigration
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    welfare statism is not equal to socialism
    because the latter implies state/community ownership of big industry - or in some interpretations, everything. The former requires the state/community to pay money to those not earning, to pay for universal education and health care, it is equally consistent with fascism as socialism. Another good term used is 'the corporate state'. In this, the state intervenes and controls but does not necessarily own.
    What we called the Swedish Model which used welfare statism, looked good for the first few years before inevitable economic decline.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They were 'revolting' against looking for a job that couldn't be found, giving up on the struggle as what they thought was a waste of time. That too is a form of dropping out from what was supposed to be a country of opportunity. I wonder how many of them went back.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Whatever that is intended to mean as a response, it isn't math either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I remember a few years ago there was talk that while the unemployment rate in the USA was declining, there seemed to be a lot of workers who dropped out of the workforce. Not employed or unemployed, just sitting around. I wondered at the time if that group was revolting sonehiiw
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I think the 10% reduction would happen by itself because people would just get tired of working so hard. "
    In 1900 Argentina had a similar GDP to the US. Gov't policies led to slower growth. Now US is much wealthier. It's possible the less intrusive/costly gov't could have made US GDP growth even higher, resulting i much more wealth, way more than 10% difference.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It only 'appears' to work until it doesn't. How is welfare statism <> socialism? Sounds like a violation of the first order corollary to the identity axiom. (I am a math guy ;))
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you aren't aware of reality and have concepts you have no way to begin philosophy and don't even know what a test is. Philosophy does not pop out Descartes' head and then suddenly become "tested". Pragmatism beginning with what "works" as if a "test" is the first contact with reality is not a rational approach to anything.

    If you want to understand this then learn what Ayn Rand's philosophy is and how it differs from traditional approaches throughout history. Galt's speech was in the novel for a reason. Pragmatism is not an answer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Socialism does not work in smaller societies and families are not socialism. Scandinavian countries were collapsing under socialism and reverted to welfare statism to survive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    She wrote the whole plot with suspense and a climax. It's fiction. The collapse was underway throughout the entire novel, from the first page.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How do you know that a given philosophy IS consistent with reality? It has to be tested and corrected if necessary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Essentially, the smaller the tribe or "collective" the more effective Socialism can be implemented. This is why Socialism can work in the context of a family . . . because the Adults have a certain control over the Children and that is generally accepted. And I think that is why so-called Socialism can appear to work in those Scandinavian countries with populations of around 10 million ... a small number when compared to the United States and larger countries... and in particular, where you have a homogeneous population with a common culture (which is being rotted out through coerced immigration). In the USA, where the Children can consist of a million or more persons with lower ambition and intelligence in the inner cities, that are then supported by The State, you find that Socialism fails catastrophically. From Each according to his Ability, to Each according to his Need feeds the dependent children at the expense of the adults and none of the exchanges are exacted by choice, rather by force. The Adults shrug and then pandemonium, riots and starvation become the norm.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Interesting it was AR who picked the time iof collapse to have Galt do his speech
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No. I described the context in Atlas Shrugged. Disaster is not required as a motive to think, those who wait that long are unlikely to be good thinkers, and in disaster people have immediate survival concerns necessarily relying on what they already know. At that point of moment to moment survivial it isn't the time for theoretical discussions. You have circled through this previously in search of rationalizations for fostering a collapse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Perfect" compared to what? People did understand. "The imperfection of humans would eventually doom ..." is meaningless.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Being at a "trough" is not an advantage at all. One's self interest is not determined by Pragmatist range of the moment "what here now works".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "What works" is not the proper first principle for a philosophy. Statements, including philosophical principles, are true or false. Pragmatism redefines truth in terms of the "cash value" of "what works". You can't plunge into philosophy with a quest for "what works" without regard to everything needed to know goals and standards for determining success. And there is no "final check". No body of knowledge is developed in a vacuum waiting for a "final check", and contextual applications of ideas are always subject to confirming truth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well aren’t you granting my hypothesis that collapse is needed to get the attention of the populace so they can consider non-collectivism?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I said the first at the trough get advantages, as did James taggart. The political deal with Oren Boyle for example helped destroy Reardon metal. In the end everyone lost if course
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What works is not starting point because the starting point is no philosophy at all. But the final check had to be something that “works” for a civilization of humans. Defining that would take awhile
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not a matter of establishing an official Chinese menu approach. A proper philosophy of government depends on a proper philosophy. Without that, no one will be left alone to try anything, and those preventing it aren't about to establish a government that does anything but enforce their own view of what is proper. This is not a matter of "it's too bad" they won't. They don't allow freedom because of their philosophical premises.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The speech was written for the context of the plot, not arbitrary broadcast. In the plot, Galt already had the public's attention and so did the economic failures. The events in the novel already illustrated why altruism and collectivism were failing. He gave the reasons why they had to and what is required. He addressed anyone open to reason, and in particular that part of the public that had disgust for the political leaders and their propaganda but didn't understand the ideas, like Rearden knowing his court room statements were not enough. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

    But the whole novel, including its speeches, was written for its readers. There is no "later" in the novel after Galt's speech. The philosophy was illustrated and stated with full impact in terms anyone can understand because those ideas are what is needed, and she did not write a detailed explanation of the history of philosophy or the technical development in the novel. Wanting to perpetually put off Galt's speech as 'unnecessary philosophy' misses the whole point.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo