Venezuela is collapsing.
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
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
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/enjq6ZxgBMU
/s
That is patently incorrect! There is now such thing as a "Democratically" elected leader that would succeed. Socialism (or more realistically, Communism) will only succeed for a period of time under the "benign" rule of a dictator/tyrant.
In addition, Socialism (lets take the way station to Communism first) can only work as long as there is someone who can or will pay for it. Afterall, there is no such thing as "free" because everything in life has an associated cost. Even the air that we breath if you ask an environmentalist. These two simple facts highlight what can only be described as "insurmountable" flaws in the Socialist design.
I guess my question to all who subscribe to Socialism, Democrat Socialists or outright Communists (and everything in between) who is the tyrant that you want to surrender your freedom and opportunity to that you would trust with your life, your family's lives and those of your fellow citizens?
In closing, even those places that have been held up as "models" of modern socialism are in retreat because now (Europe, etc.) they must pay more of their own way since the US has been withdrawing its financial support (NATO, World Bank, etc) and those Socialist democracies must now take on that burden. Things are no longer quite so free and are getting more expensive by the day. How is that working out? Just a rhetorical question.......
How many times have you heard it claimed that the Nazis were right wing? That Nazism is yet another alternative, exclusively to the right?
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.
The thing I don't think they realize is that they are living a contradiction. On the one hand they claim to be the most intelligent people, yet they openly embrace the worst hypocrisy in existence. True intelligence is recognizing that truth exists independently of people's desires. You have to conform to it - not the other way around.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezue...
Strongman Maduro is blaming the US for his troubles. The default position of all dictators on the left.
"Occasional Cortex Cortez"
As everyone knows (or should know) those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. That is especially true for the brainwashed (light rinse will do!) students that we are turning out. All now believe they understand Socialism (nee Communism) but have no clue! They are the shock troops of Gramsci, Stalin, the Fabians and Saul Allinsky!
As for AOC and her ilk, she will realize too late that she has been sold a worthless bill of goods and that she is only carrying the water for the 1/10th of 1% who truly rule (or will rule the world). She along with the rest of us peons will be nothing more than a vassal in a modern feudal society where slavery will be the norm. Best of luck to all of the brainwashed Democrat Socialists and their fellow travellers!
She tells some real whoppers (of both kinds) but tries to finesse it by qualifying: "“Whenever I make a mistake. I say, ‘Okay, this was clumsy,’ and then I restate what my point was." If it were just a "mistake" on minor factual matters that would be a proper answer, but she is covering for reckless major falsehoods chosen to push her morality, as if truth is subordinate to a morality that is assumed to be accepted. Her false philosophy of altruism, collectivism and irrationalism is widely accepted, which is how she is getting away with it and getting sympathy for it.
She seems to have a sense of that -- it isn't accidental -- which is much more than one can say for the Republicans.
And that’s a fact.
/s
Ayn Rand saw that clearly while she was writing it as she read the latest news. She said that to keep going she told herself that it was to prevent the outcome she saw in progress. It also mirrored reality in abstracting the essence of the best in man -- she wrote it to portray in fiction her idea of the "ideal man".
What the fictional plot does not do is provide a strategy of a 'strike' by the best producers as a way to cripple the statists, or as a way to institute reform. Producers in fact are much larger in number and much more mixed (or worse) in premises. Even the collapse in the plot was (deliberately by Ayn Rand) artificially speeded up as it abstracted the role of the mind through a relative handful of producers.
Your dropping out would not "curtail the collectivist control only a tiny degree". It would do it to no degree. It's economic effect would not be noticed, but more, it would do nothing to curtail their control.
Neither would a 10% reduction in economic output, planned or not. If anything, economic hardship tends to be demagogued by the collectivists to increase their power over people who don't know any better. A failing economy is a failing economy, not a reduction in collectivism and its control.
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.
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.
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.
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
.
In the plot of Atlas Shrugged, many dropped out in despair, but Galt and a few others did more than just avoid punishment. They recognized the injustice for what it was -- withdrawing the sanction of the victim -- and actively sought to bring down the corrupt society by "stopping the motor of the world" -- withdrawing the mind
Outside of that fictional context you can personally reduce your punishment, and you can personally withdraw the sanction of the victim, but you won't stop the motor of the world, let alone create a proper society through a 'strike' alone.
I can sympathize with the disgust of feeding collectivism. Emotionally I want to stop producing and feeding the collectivists. To actually do this requires that either I accumulate enough wealth to just drop out, or endure the sacrifices of not having money to live like a regular person. I dont think that my actions make one iota of difference in the rest of the world, so whatever I do wont be to change the world.
HIs descriptions of the country made me jealous, as it was wealthy, relatively democratic, and was the shining jewel of South American.
Now it has come to this, courtesy of socialism. Will we never learn?
In this way we can milk the minority to pay for our Utopian dream.
/s
Democracy and socialism are mutually exclusive terms.
It is an oxymoron.
Socialism must perpetuate itself by the support of a one party system, otherwise it would fail.
It follows that there is no democracy in a one party system
Trump endorsed the opposition leader in Venezuela, saying only that he was "duly elected", with no mention of what he stands for.
Theres the democratic republic in North Korea. Its not a republic, and not even democratic. Theres the name they give it, and what it actually IS.
In 2018 this The Venezuelan government has tried to suppress the statistics on the rising levels of malnutrition-driven infant mortality. Public clinics and hospitals are asked not to report the cause of death for babies that die to malnutrition. The Ministry of Health’s 2015 annual report concluded that, “the mortality rate for children under 4 weeks old had increased a hundredfold, from 0.02 percent in 2012 to just over 2 percent.” After this report was released on the ministry’s website, the health minister was fired and the military police took control of the ministry in order to censor any future reports..
It is one of my most successful threads based on # off comments. I have had more Thumbs up on other topics. There are Many great thoughts , ideas and efforts to convey them. Thanks for all the participation.
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.
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)
A fictional plot is not a standard for a political strategy. The goal now is not to create more chaos, deprivation, and destruction, shortening and wrecking all of our lives, for a fantasy belief that collapse would result in fundamental reform in a society driven by altruism and collectivism.
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
The first people to adopt collectivism do not get benefits. They steal something temporarily but living as a parasite and condoning subservience of the individual to the group are self destructive, not a benefit. Try to imagine John Galt, Rearden, Dagny or the other heroes of Atlas Shrugged embracing Pragmatism temporarily to be the "first to get benefits". Pragmatism does not work.
Better to listen to the Leonard Peikoff lectures on the history of philosophy, including Pragmatism, than to pick up fad buzz words like "sustainability" used out of context as a Pragmatist.
Rearden knew it was not enough and that he did not know the answer:
"They had cheered him today; they had cheered him by the side of the track of the John Galt Line. But tomorrow they would clamor for a new directive from Wesley Mouch and a free housing project from Orren Boyle, while Boyle's girders collapsed upon their heads. They would do it, because they would be told to forget, as a sin, that which had made them cheer Hank Rearden.
"Why were they ready to renounce their highest moments as a sin? Why were they willing to betray the best within them? What made them believe that this earth was a realm of evil where despair was their natural fate? He could not name the reason, but he knew that it had to be named. He felt it as a huge question mark with
in the courtroom, which it was now his duty to answer."
Francisco's money speech at a party addressed a principle of capitalism, but was not public and had no impact on those opposed to him.
Galt's speech was a philosophic statement but came at the end of the novel as a fundamentally new formulation, not something that was already "there". There was no public intellectual moral argument for capitalism or assumption that one was already "there" as part of the plot action through the novel.
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
Interest and depth of understanding are two different aspects. The depth of understanding depends on the degree of knowledge of what Ayn Rand was referring to in the history of ideas in a 'speech' that had to be stylized for the drama of the fictional context.
Galt's speech is not an out of context treatise; the stage was set and the ideas dramatically illustrated throughout the previous action and dialogue of the entire novel. The ideas presented are basic and understandable by anyone; they do not require specialized knowledge (unlike "partial differential calculus", which is mostly not particularly complex in the context of mathematical knowledge at the level of calculus but which specialized knowledge would not belong in something requiring only general knowledge).
The same kind of difference in reaction among different kinds of readers occurs for those who having finished the novel hunger for more understanding, in contrast to those who only emotionally attach whatever they liked about the novel to whatever conventional beliefs they already hold, without regard to consistency. The latter kind of reader represents a sense of life appeal in some respect, but without the desire to understand it.
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.
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.
Countries under Soviet occupation revolted but I don't see the same spirit in the Southern hemisphere.
People from countries with dire conditions come here (Honduras, Guatemala etc) rather than fighting for freedom and better conditions at home.
They have gotten used to handouts for many generations.
From AS, "But you expect industrial giants-who plan in terms of decades ... to continue to function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to demolish the whole of their effort." If you are going to plan in terms of decades, you would be foolish to return to the cesspool described in Atlas Shrugged so quickly.
Their "full success" would consist of the entire population respecting their productivity properly. Just because they toppled the Mouches and Thompsons of their country does not mean that the looters (and more importantly, their successors) would not revert the country back toward where it was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlTX6...
starting at 1:45
I think this could happen again.
Some people had a better sense of life and rejected the government leadership, and no more. Only a few knew the right ideas, having extended and formulated a philosophical basis for the first time in the explicit form required.
The plot was not about a "rise of capitalism" following a collapse and described nothing of the kind. The novel ended with the protagonists on an airplane headed back to the Valley, anticipating a return to the world at an unspecified time and manner. The characters had previousl referred only to the ideas that would be required.
If you want to know what Ayn Rand thought was required for reform and the role of fundamental ideas in that, she wrote a lot about it subsequent to the novel, which we have discussed here previously. She rejected the anti-intellectual notion of a "strike" or a collapse as the means to reform and rejected the notion that a disaster is even required for it.
Imagining a "rise of capitalism" by no means simply by projecting a fictional followup to the fiction in the plot of a novel is wishful thinking simultaneously misrepresenting "the point of Atlas Shrugged". It is not an understanding of what is required for fundamental reform or a strategy for achieving it.
Even in the fictional plot John Galt did much more than stop funding collectivism. He used his mind to formulate proper philosophical ideas required in place of it, and rationally communicated them to those who could understand.
People have always cut back or stopped producing for punishment, but it does nothing to change the cause of the punishment.
The few in Atlas Shrugged made a difference because the novel was an abstraction in fiction focusing on the key producers as individuals. That represented, in fiction, the withdrawal of the mind from human society, leading, in fiction, to a collapse showing, in fiction, the role of the mind in human life. You continue to confuse a theme in romantic fiction with a strategy, let alone your ability to cause a crash or anything else by stopping. That is not rational.
I agree that me dropping out will curtail the collectivist control only a tiny degree. But if the producers , thru being tired of working and having their work given to other people, cut back their work output by 10%, don’t you think that would create a recession and substantially cut the take of the collectivists? Less money to collectivists means less control over the producers- don’t you think?
But like a psychotropic drug, it is so addictive once taken, to the point you believe you are entitled to it.
She has had an effect on the culture, but it has not yet "stemmed the tide" and will not any time soon.
Collectivists don't have to collect what isn't there to remain collectivists in power, just like the Church could remain in power for over a thousand years along with and following the collapse into the Dark Ages.
d(producers)/d(time), even when it was positive, was not sufficiently positive to forever enshrine production in the society.
Looting and mooching are such easy choices.
Yes, and therein lies the problem of impossibility.
There is no such thing as the "entire population" acting as one and what's more, intelligently.
Look what we have now: there are always those who want what you have and find the necessary vehicles to make it a driving force for many.
That is why I have an issue with the Gulchers returning to society.
That is why political reform requires the proper basic philosophical ideas, which is not what we have now.
The projected return to the world at the end of Atlas Shrugged was not a return to the same society, it was projected as a return replacing the collapsed society helpless to stop them. This was in the context of romantic fiction, not a political blueprint. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
It is romantic fiction dealing in essential ideas abstractly. It is not a literal blueprint for politics, let alone politics without regard for anything else. In that context of romantic fiction the anticipated return represented the fulfillment of achieving (beyond the time span of the plot) a much more productive civilized country and economy than hiding in the Valley forever. It represented their full success as the ideal.
I was thinking at the time when I read the book: why would they return?
Chances are they would encounter the very same conditions after a while. Unfortunately that is in the human DNA. The role of a super talented leader would make a difference, but only temporarily. If history is a guide, we have a great leader only once in a century.
And yes it takes time to go through the whole intellectual establishment and through the educational system, but there is no substitute in order to achieve fundamental change.
In mixed economies the producers can at least function at some level, but can't go somewhere else to produce unless there is such a place (which now there is not). They can leave Venezuela for improvement, but not the relatively civilized countries. Starting a utopian enclave is not realistic, but the best people do "shrug" by dropping out or cutting back even in mixed economies. Why work for punishment? Even when economic conditions cyclically vary, we often don't trust it because know the trend: "fool me once, ..."
In more extreme cases like communism, including Venezuela, they have no choice but to drop out, escape somewhere, or be killed. It's how collectivist economies decline and collapse.
Venezuela will fall on its own if it is not propped up, but will be replaced by some other statism, not become a free nation as long as most of the populace remains altruist/collectivist. Being against something does not say what one is for and there is no evidence that Venezuelans are for freedom, missing the "spirit" you refer to.
You can try to physically defend yourself at the last minute under any attack, with or without understanding the principle of rights, including tribal slaughter, a back alley, or anything else. Anarchism does not allow for the protection of rights in principle. This is not a matter of degrees of efficiency. It is not a system at all, let alone capitalism. When a "collectivist government fails for awhile and nothing replaces it" capitalism is not "the default system". There is no system. Nor is rational behavior of any kind the "default".
Chaos and death are the "natural" state of those without civilized concepts, principles, and the integrity to follow them. Capitalism is "natural", but not in that way -- it is based on "natural rights" as what should be protected as required for human life, not a "default" state.
The perspective from a Russian intelligence operator.
https://youtu.be/mbMnsNuXhJo