Venezuela TV channels taken off air

He must be raking lessonf from Kim Jong Ill on how to be a cult arsehole dictator.

Well, most know that the Left that they're the sole possessors of the 'Truth'. Therefore they are the only ones qualified to lead the rest of us poor benighted and ignorant souls(the Liberals declare themselves the natural governing party of Canada....a bit of hubris, no?). Anything contradictory of them or their policies has to be inherently wrong or evil, and therefore must be suppressed for continued social harmony.

Chavez did this because he's a defacto dictator, not because he's "left" or "right"

Chavez did this because he knows his left-wing friends in the Western liberal governments will do nothing to oppose this. Were he a right-wing dictator and he did this the leftists in our various governments would be demanding military action to depose him.

So, yes, he is doing this because he is a leftist.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Chavez is a fine leader.

And an asshole in general.

Chavez did this because he knows his left-wing friends in the Western liberal governments will do nothing to oppose this. Were he a right-wing dictator and he did this the leftists in our various governments would be demanding military action to depose him.

So, yes, he is doing this because he is a leftist.

No I think herbie was bang-on.

The western liberal is more apt to not recognize the immutability of "truth" and to subscribe to moral relativity where "evil is in the eye of the beholder."

The problem here is that you and Shepherd are conflating the fiscal leftist (i.e. socialist) wiht the social leftist (classic liberal). The classic liberal, like myself, is more concerned wiht the rights and freedoms of individuals and limiting the power of the state, than over various economic systems. We find autocracy and authoritarianism (whether from the "left" or the "right," undesirable).

Chavez isn't a leftie. He's a socialist dictator in the mould of Castro with oil.

So how dumb do the warnings of Glenn Beck and others look now? They warned us there was a problem with Mark Lloyd; Obama's Diversity Czar, at the Federal Communications Commision, encouraging Americans to admire the moves of Chavez on Venezuelan media in the early days. Can we admit they may have had a point yet?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motl ... atic-revol

Don't you know that Beck is ALWAYS wrong? If he says the sun rises in the east then, surely, it must rise in the west.

The way I see it, you are confusing classical liberalism with socialism. The tenets of classical liberalism and limited libertarianism(anarchists see themselves as the ultimate libertarians) are at the heart of the beliefs of small 'c' conservatism. The modern Liberal and Conservative gov'ts seem to be all about big government with lots of interference in the markets and individuals lives.

Social entites(police, schools, military etc.) aren't elements of socialism, as some have tried to point out, because they can be be found in all societies from the beginning of time. They are necessary for any society to establish itself and flourish. However the Socialism sepoused by Chavez isn't purely fiscal in nature. They are trying to reoder society(or make people believe they are) from the ground up. It won't and can't work because humans aren't that altruistic as a a group and it's too expensive.

The socialist system espoused by almost all failed socialist movements/governments is one of the most prone to corruption, because rather than the people having a say, committees of the elite(The Party) are formed, and they tell the ruled majority that they are going to be making everyone's descisions for them. The poor masses are just too confused and uneducated and need 'time' to see the 'right way' of doing things, which can turn into a decades long nightmare.

No disagreement at all. I agree 100%.



"From the beginning of time"? Nice try. Education has not always been socialized--indeed in Canada it probably becomes less socialized every year, especially higher education. The Roman military towards the end was highly privatized. The military, the police,and primary education in Canada (as well as regualtion of law, running the prisons, a good chunk of helath care) are all centrally planeed and funded from the taxpayer through the government. To me, centrally planned and publicly funded is the definition of socialism.



Well, there are several examples of pretty socialist modern countries--Canada for one. Sweden and Germany. It's an optimization problem. In every enterprise--health, military, education--you find the right mix public versus private involvement given the context. In my opinion anyways.