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

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like the argument based on sustainability The first people to adopt collectivism do get advantages. But once it becomes widely accepted, everyone loses and it’s not sustainable.

    An example. The first few aggressive drivers who cut in and out changing lanes do get to their destinations faster. But as more and more people do it, all trips are slowed down.

    I know you dislike pragmatic arguments, but for a lot of people they do more to open up minds than intellectually based philosophy does , at least in the beginning

    People can understand that if everyone gets Welfare and doesn’t work, the system collapses and no one gets welfare. That’s not a philosophical basis that you like, I know
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think for most people, the speech went over their Heads. I am not being very clear I know, but the story was very compelling, inspiring and captivating. The speech was dry and I doubt would be understood or listened to by the audience it was delivered to in the story.

    I know you are going to argue this point, but in a book about ordinary people using mathematics to all of a sudden coming upon a chapter delving into the complexities of partial differential calculus

    No wonder the book didn’t have the effect she intended. Maybe it was too much,and too fast
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What I meant by “bad” and “Imperfect” can be seen in the difference between the us cinstitution and the way the us givernment actually operates today. It is filled with all sorts of self serving bureaucrats cleverly using government powers to satisfy their own agendas. You may say it has abandoned rationality, and that is true., but that is how a government slowly is corrupted in spite of a constitution or galts speech
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's doesn't have the interest of the action and suspense of the plot, but it does have interest of explanation both in the context of the novel and to go back and re-read. The meaning and significance -- and the interest -- are fuller when you know more about the history of philosophy. The best source for that, especially in this context, is Leonard Peikoff's lecture series. It doesn't compare everything with Galt's speech, but it does show the comparisons with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Reading Galt's speech after that results in a lot more jumping off the page at you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago
    An emotional appeal is "emotional". Emotions are automatic reactions to values. A confirmed altruist-collectivist typically cannot be reached, but those of mixed premises can. Correct the premises and the emotional reactions change.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is complete, and I have to comment it’s not very interesting compared with the rest of the book
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The fiction part really helps get people interested by appealing to them where “they live”. It engages both thinking and emotions. I postulate that the appeal of collectivism is basically emotional and it’s very difficult to counter this appeal just with intellectual arguments alone
    Reply | Permalink  
    • ewv replied 6 years, 5 months ago
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Communism requires selfless service without regard to money. It is supposed to be a system without money. That could not work. Nothing they did worked for anything but sacrifice and controls.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I certainly agree about the mixed premises. Even trump with his “repeal and replace” plan for Obamacare is a good example. It needed to be REPEAL period.

    I agree that if our govt removed the phony printed money expansion of the economy, we would see how the economy is prevented from expanding. And the real reason would be a combination of inhibiting regulations and the psychological effects of being stolen from.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rebelling how? Be careful what kind of jobs you take, but most important is to rebel by speaking out in the kind of uncompromising moral approach in Rearden's responses at his trial, plus using whatever knowledge you have to explain further.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That speech was written to put the philosophy into a form appropriate for the fiction and it took Ayn Rand two years to write it. It is filled with subtleties, implications, and significance that cannot be understood without more knowledge of the history of philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not a matter of "imperfection". Perfect by what standard? It doesn't mean that no one can ever make a mistake. Rationality entails self correcting. Without that, bad premises accepted lead in the wrong direction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Absolutely a moral reaction. And it’s about time we stand up and stick up for ourselves. Practically speaking, an armed revolution now would fail, but disgust in propping up an immoral system will slowly weaken the collectivist gramp on us
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It has changed people, but is not enough without non-fiction explanation. The place to start is with those who have a positive sense of life reaction to Atlas Shrugged and want to know more.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    See Ayn Rand's "Philosophy and Sense of Life" (in the Romantic Manifesto) on how basic ideas are accepted pre-conceptually as they are absorbed from what is around them. It's not as if everyone is running around reading bad German philosophers directly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True, and the imperfection of humans would eventually doom essentially any government, in spite of a constitution. That was why the founding fathers here put in so many checks and balances. They knew the USA would falter as a democracy and they were right. But it’s lasted 250 years!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    With so many producers and quasi-producers having mixed premises or worse, there could not be a "10% strike", and if there were such a consensus on the proper goal, such a strike would not be necessary. That many people speaking out articulately for rational individualism would turn the country.

    As for the "10%" number, it is understated: today's controls keeping people down and discouraging them from producing have caused an unplanned reduction of far more than 10% from what otherwise could be. But when something does not exist it cannot be pointed to as evidence of what has been lost. Understanding the loss requires conceptual, principled understanding.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First of all, lack of money resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union and cut deeply into the states oppressive abilities. Their lack of money was the end result of their collectivist system.

    The USA is going to collapse at some point of its own weight and it’s flawed intellectual base

    The collectivist policies that we are funding are what is creating chaos. Slowing them down, as I hope trump can do, will REDUCE the speed of the chaos.

    I don’t prefer a collapse into chaos at all. But I am tired of propping up a collectivist system that’s trying to enslave me (and you too)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Galt did more than help the producers understand what they were facing, although he certainly did that. By organizing the strike they accelerated the collapse that was inevitable, emphasizing what happens when "the mind is withdrawn" to illustrate the role of the mind in human existence. But that was the philosophical point illustrated in the fictional plot, not an intended strategy. Likewise for us, disgust for feeding collectivism is a moral reaction, not a strategy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago
    No conception of a "perfect" human could run socialism as an economic utopia. The problem is their moral idea of what utopia would be.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Correction: the intent to return and rebuild the world was after returning to the Valley, not in the airplane, where Galt ended the strike at the bottom of the last page.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago
    Running out of money to take didn't stop the Soviet regime. Their system fell apart because it was unable to function across the board no matter who was there attempting to live that system with or without earning money.

    This is not Venezuela. If we were ruled under censorship and totalitarianism there would be a justification for a revolution overthrowing it, if it could be done at all.

    Attempting to cause chaos, deprivation and destruction for a temporary "relaxation" in collectivist policies is not a solution to anything. Presumably that is not what you expected from Trump. You seem to be looking for any excuse to rationalize an emotional commitment to a collapse as something desirable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Makes sense but there would be nothing wrong with rebelling from supporting the collectivist system- as Galt and the rest of the gulches. Stopping the motor of the world to get social change isn’t a realistic goal
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One could put galts speech and i doubt if it would convince many people. Is the person is rational already, it would make sense. Otherwise they would ignore it- which is what most people dud
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo