Forget Lieberman or Bush as Palpatine - Chavez as Palpatine

[Sean Walsh]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070110/ts_nm/venezuela_dc_8

3 Term President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is "forming a commission to
oversee constitutional reforms and asking the National Assembly, now entirely controlled by his supporters, to allow him to enact 'revolutionary laws' by presidential decree" and also wants a constitutional amendment that does away with term limits so he can continue to run for president.

"Chavez insists he needs more power to save Venezuela from exploitation
and even attack by capitalist countries."

Uh..........yikes? :eek:

[BlairH]

...and his people will love him for it.

It's frightening how authoritarian socialists can simply be elevated to positions of power in otherwise democratic countries.

[cactusmaac]

Emboldened by his landslide re-election win, the typically combative anti-U.S. leader has gone on the attack, deciding to strip a private opposition TV channel of its license and take over some major companies owned by foreign investors.

"Fatherland, socialism or death -- I take the oath," Chavez said.

As the United States criticized Chavez's moves against private property, the stock market lost almost a fifth of its value on Tuesday, debt prices tumbled to a six-week low and the currency changed hands at nearly twice the official rate

Still, buoyed by strong oil revenues and high popularity, Chavez is expected to ride out any economic and political storm.

Chavez has already confiscated large cattle ranches. But his decision to nationalize the country's biggest telecommunications company CANTV and power firms represents a bold new policy.

http://starwars.wikia.com/images/thumb/2/20/84PalpatineSpeechFinal.jpg/250px-84PalpatineSpeechFinal.jpg

It'll be interesting to see how Venezuela turns as oil prices continue to tank.

[Iangould]

It'll be interesting to see how Venezuela turns as oil prices continue to tank.

IF they continue to tank - and $50 a barrel is only cheap in comparison with last year.

[Roquefort Raider]

Chavez looks more like Boss Nass anyway. It's the flabby chin.

[Iangould]

If he doesn't cut down on the chulos, he's going to end up looking like Jabba the Hutt - and a small-time crook with delusions of grandeur is probably a more accurate comparison than a galactic mastermind.

[Alex]

Uh..........yikes? :eek:

Don't get scared, it's not like the guy has been a happy, freedom loving ruler up to this point.

[Magneto_X]

I'm with Chavez.

If I were in his position I'd be prepared for an American invasion, too.

Youy guys do know about the failed coup Chavez dealt with that America was involved with, right?

[Wesley Dodds]

Well, yes, we knew he was evil.

But he had to tip his hand first!

Now we can bring him to justice.

It's frightening how authoritarian socialists can simply be elevated to positions of power in otherwise democratic countries.

You're right -- all it takes is just one possibly US-supported putsch.

Remember the lukewarm US response to the military coup?

"Meh, so the military's ousted the democratically elected leader. Whaddaya gonna do?"

Sure, he was a creep. But he was a democratically elected creep.

Now, not so much.

[Tages]

I don't think Hugo Chavez would have any admirers in the US if the US hadn't tried to kick him out of power.

Most of the lefties I know still think he's a petty thug with an inflated sense of importance on the global stage.

[o1pickleboy]

I don't think Hugo Chavez would have any admirers in the US if the US hadn't tried to kick him out of power.

Most of the lefties I know still think he's a petty thug with an inflated sense of importance on the global stage.

The lefties hate his authoritarian beliefs. The righties hate his socialistic beliefs. The libertarians hate both. So he should be loved at least by the anti libertarians.(whatever they are)

Me I am a authoritarian socialist or a progessive populist.(pick whichever one you want) I do like some things he is doing, but I have Stalin fears. He is going way to far. What the hell does controling TV have to do with bettering the country and why does he need all these powers? Can't he trust his assembly? If he can't then maybe there is a reason for it.

[StoneGold]

All I know is this is an awesome picture.

http://home.pages.at/der-stoerenfried/zeitung/a16/image/chavez.jpg

All world leaders should have pictures like that.

Really, the tied towel around neck as cape look needs to come back into style. As does the parrot with matching beret look.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm sorta with pickleboy on this.

I'm disturbed by what we're hearing, which does seem like a move towards Stalinism. OTOH, I know it's not the whole story.

I'm not at all worried by the nationalization of the power company. That's fine. I wouldn't want an American company owning my electricity right now either, if I was him. Many countries -- and differing ideologies -- have found it necessary to either nationalize certain industries, as with British Steel or British mining or indeed British power companies. For that matter, that's exactly what happens with MUDs, except at a local level. Towns like Sacramento, which has public power with SMUD, are better off that towns like San Francisco that don't. And don't get me started with firms like Enron, who not only ripped off California, but were instrumental in ripping off the British taxpayer and energy user thanks to British privatization of utility services.

As for the nationalization of CANTV, no doubt everyone's forgotten that it used to be a state telecommunications firm, Venezuela's equivalent of British Telecom. To put this really clearly, CANTV was a private firm simply by fiat of a previous government, so there's no point in crying over a reversal of that fiat. Especially since, again, it's an American firm who were holding the baby. And to give a clear perspective, deregulation of telecommunications in the States hasn't worked, since we're now well on the way to ATT having a monopoly on landlines.

But it does sound like this was a clod-hopping and authoritarian, fuck you if you don't like this, implementation, and that's what worries me. It's worth waiting to see how this actually pans out: will there be adequate compensation?; is this simply censorship?; will the new state energy firm be as efficient?; will Chavez continue to maintain a government controlling share in important industries but continue to work with private firms?

And most importantly, will Chavez tip from over-the-top demagoguery to actual dictatorship. I wouldn't say that we know this yet, and I'm not yet in a position to judge the actions.

[cactusmaac]

All I know is this is an awesome picture.

http://home.pages.at/der-stoerenfried/zeitung/a16/image/chavez.jpg

All world leaders should have pictures like that.

Really, the tied towel around neck as cape look needs to come back into style. As does the parrot with matching beret look.

Who does that remind me of?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Fballplayer77/Ryu/402px-Bisonalpha.jpg

[BlairH]

Sure, he was a creep. But he was a democratically elected creep.


http://www.shubhayan.com/favs/leaderpic/hitler.jpg

Me I am a authoritarian socialist or a progessive populist.(pick whichever one you want) I do like some things he is doing, but I have Stalin fears. He is going way to far. What the hell does controling TV have to do with bettering the country and why does he need all these powers? Can't he trust his assembly? If he can't then maybe there is a reason for it.
I have "Stalin Fears" when it comes to any socialist. Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom is quite clear on the subject, in that most forms of socialism -given time- will eventually devolve into totalitarianism.

[carabas]

Sure, he was a creep. But he was a democratically elected creep.

Well, still is, isn't he?

[BlairH]

Well, still is, isn't he?

When somebody extends their term beyond the mandate granted to him by the people, that person ceases to be the democratically elected leader.

[SOGG]

When somebody extends their term beyond the mandate granted to him by the people, that person ceases to be the democratically elected leader.

What are you talking about, man? He was reelected in 2006...

[carabas]

When somebody extends their term beyond the mandate granted to him by the people, that person ceases to be the democratically elected leader.

He didn't extend his term. He is just trying to do away with the limitation on the number of times one person can run for president. And it seems that he's doing it the way constitutional revisions are normally done.

[carabas]

Double post

[Iangould]

The Hitler analogy doesn't really work.

The best election result the Nazis got in a democratic election was around 45%.

They got into power by doing a deal with the parties of the moderate right then used their control of the police and the interior ministry (especially after the Reichstag fire) to lock up hundreds of thousands of their opponents and close down the left-wing political parties.

They claimed a large majority at the referendum on abolishing the power of parliament but that was a logn way from a democratic vote.

Chavez hasn't really gone anywhere near as far as Hitler did in the course of his (Hitler's) seizure of power.

[Drew Van T.]

As for the nationalization of CANTV, no doubt everyone's forgotten that it used to be a state telecommunications firm, Venezuela's equivalent of British Telecom. To put this really clearly, CANTV was a private firm simply by fiat of a previous government, so there's no point in crying over a reversal of that fiat. Especially since, again, it's an American firm who were holding the baby. And to give a clear perspective, deregulation of telecommunications in the States hasn't worked, since we're now well on the way to ATT having a monopoly on landlines.

Also, remember that privately-owned television (all of them) in Venezuela have been uncommonly hostile to Chavez, right from the beginning, in a way that you would never see in America or Europe. There was nothing authoritarian about Chavez' election or his first years in his power, yet these stations reguarly called for him to be overthrown, by any means necessary, right from the beginning. And they actually got to participate when the coup d'état came in 2002; they were very much on the side of the undemocratic forces, and when the people took to the streets en masse to protest against the coup and in favor of Chavez...they refused to report on it! They tried to pretend that the streets were quiet. Hilarious when you think about it.

Remarkably, when this Washington-backed coup failed, Chavez did not act against the stations, he left them alone. A remarkable act of restraint when you consider how closely they were tied to the coup-plotters.

This kind of media situation, generally speaking, would be unhealthy for any country. Think Fox News, only much worse, because at least there are many private stations besides Fox (and Fox itself, to a certain extent) that actually voice something other than the opinions of their owners sometimes, and aren't constantly disagreeing with a large majority of Americans.

Chavez is very much the product of the unique makeup of Venezuela. You have an enormous divide - an incredible gulf you will not see in many other countries - between the poor majority (mostly colored and mixed Indian) on the one hand, and the tiny rich minority (almost exclusively white) on the other. The latter owns all the private media. The former had been waiting for a leader who actually cares about them for decades, and it just so happens that Chavez had the necessary smarts and charisma to become their first genuine champion.

Whether he is taking things too far in his fight to correct past injustices...perhaps he is indeed going too far, but that remains to be seen. Those who know next to nothing about Venezuela's past should not speak too loudly or judge too quickly.

[StoneGold]

Until Chavez starts in with the mass killings of ethnic minorities,Hitler analogies do not apply.


Seriously, can we make that a rule in life? No Hitler analogies until genocide comes into play? Because there are a lot of other assholes you can make an analogy with before you get to Hitler. Save Hitler for genocide.

[Tages]

Until Chavez starts in with the mass killings of ethnic minorities,Hitler analogies do not apply.


Seriously, can we make that a rule in life? No Hitler analogies until genocide comes into play? Because there are a lot of other assholes you can make an analogy with before you get to Hitler. Save Hitler for genocide.

Right now he's reminding me of a Bizarro Ferdinand Marcos.

[SOGG]

Right now he's reminding me of a Bizarro Ferdinand Marcos.

Hmm. So in reverse that would be....

Un-disasembling the legislative body, marrying a non-beauty contest winner, not killing hundreds of thousands of students, not declaring martial law, not plundering the country's coffers and not having his fraternity brother killed.

I didn't know you were a fan.

[Ray R.]

I'm not worrying until he makes the citizens wear their underwear over their regular clothes.

That's the sign of a true Banana Republic. And no, not the clothes store.

In the mean time, I'll skip going to Citgo.

[Tages]

Hmm. So in reverse that would be....

Un-disasembling the legislative body, marrying a non-beauty contest winner, not killing hundreds of thousands of students, not declaring martial law, not plundering the country's coffers and not having his fraternity brother killed.

I didn't know you were a fan.

Perhaps I should rephrase.

Basically, he reminds me of a Marcos-in-the-making, only left-wing instead of right-wing.

And no, I don't like Marcos. The only absolute ruler in history I've ever been fond of is Emperor Norton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Abraham_Norton).

[SOGG]

Perhaps I should rephrase.

Basically, he reminds me of a Marcos-in-the-making, only left-wing instead of right-wing.

And no, I don't like Marcos. The only absolute ruler in history I've ever been fond of is Emperor Norton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Abraham_Norton).

I'm hurt that you felt like you needed to wikilink to Norton.... i mean isn't Sandman required reading around these parts? Oh, and I was trying to be cheeky and imply that you were a fan of Chavez.

sigh. my attempts at message board cleaverness are just not working today.

[Tages]

I'm hurt that you felt like you needed to wikilink to Norton.... i mean isn't Sandman required reading around these parts? Oh, and I was trying to be cheeky and imply that you were a fan of Chavez.

sigh. my attempts at message board cleaverness are just not working today.

http://www.dixienoveltydistributors.com/webdnd/Meat_Cleaver.JPG

I guess you're just not...sharp, today?

*rimshot!*

Anyway, it's my fault for not getting the joke, which now it's been explained to me is actually pretty funny.

[J. Robb]

Uh, Canada doesn't have term limits. I don't believe the UK does either. Or France. Or a lot of countries.

So... maybe the "Hitler" hysterics can be ratcheted down a notch.

[Alex]

I'm with Chavez.

If I were in his position I'd be prepared for an American invasion, too.

Youy guys do know about the failed coup Chavez dealt with that America was involved with, right?

Ok, mags, you hate the president, or at disagree with all/most of his policies.
Step away from that view for one second.
You just stated, that because america was involved in a failed coup, you support Chavez completly destroying any sense of democracy in his country, effectivly declaring himself dictator, where he can enact laws with no say from anyone else in the country.
You, when in power, and with your party in power, do not make yourself emperor to protect your country, you don't need too.
So, pretty much, you said you support a crazy asshole who can now do whatever he wants in his country, to whoever he wants, with no reprecussion whatsoever, and no oversight from anyone.
I don't actually beleive you are with him, just want you to read what Chavez is doing again.

[Adam C]

Uh, Canada doesn't have term limits. I don't believe the UK does either. Or France. Or a lot of countries.

So... maybe the "Hitler" hysterics can be ratcheted down a notch.

Yes Canada does not have term limits. Granted it could be argued that with a limit on his terms Chretien may not have gotten so arrogant, though that's partly because there wasn't much effective opposition to what was, for the most part, a pretty decent government. (Even with the sponsorship scandal in retrospect, which apparently began in his second term anyways.)

Besides, I can't say that term limits would really address the problem of the Prime Minister's office accruing too much power. That tendency has only deepened with the current Conservative government.

More worrying is that he's asking the National Assembly to allow him to enact "revolutionary laws by presidential decree" which seems to pretty much throw the concept of accountable government out the window.

[Haunt]

I don't think Hugo Chavez would have any admirers in the US if the US hadn't tried to kick him out of power.

Most of the lefties I know still think he's a petty thug with an inflated sense of importance on the global stage.

he contributed to victims of Hurricane Katrina.

[StoneGold]

he contributed to victims of Hurricane Katrina.

What, like he threw more people into the hurricane? That bastard!

[Haunt]

What, like he threw more people into the hurricane? That bastard!

lol. no, but that would have been funny in a sick and demented way. Venezuela Offered $1M, Oil, Food and Equipment for U.S. Victims of Hurricane Katrina.

[J. Robb]

You just stated, that because america was involved in a failed coup, you support Chavez completly destroying any sense of democracy in his country, effectivly declaring himself dictator, where he can enact laws with no say from anyone else in the country.
You have it backwards- Chavez was democratically elected, a military-installed leader is a dictator. Which do you support?

[Adam C]

You have it backwards- Chavez was democratically elected, a military-installed leader is a dictator. Which do you support?

One isn't a dictator by virtue of whether or not they were installed by the military. (Though rulers installed by the military usually wind up being dictators due to the nature of their installation.) A dictator is term for a single ruler who exercises absolute political power over the state in his/her respective country. So effectively Chavez could become a dictator despite being democractically elected if he accrues enough power to himself.

[Tages]

lol. no, but that would have been funny in a sick and demented way. Venezuela Offered $1M, Oil, Food and Equipment for U.S. Victims of Hurricane Katrina.

And how much did Tony Blair and John Howard's governments offer?

Virtually everyone was offering aid to the US. In fact, the hard-right theocrats in Iran that the socialist Chavez is supposedly buddy-buddy with in the struggle against American global hegemony offered to ship 20m barrels of crude oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4218986.stm) to the U.S. in relief.

All of which shows that the above is pretty meaningless. Chavez exists to perform on the world stage and soothe his own monumental ego and that's all.

[StoneGold]

All of which shows that the above is pretty meaningless. Chavez exists to perform on the world stage and soothe his own monumental ego and that's all.

And make red the new black.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/09/24/PH2005092400017.jpg
http://www.infopalestina.com/images/images06/hugo%20chavez.jpg
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0408/9e4fd6bf950ccfe73741.jpeg

[Paul McEnery]

Ok, mags, you hate the president, or at disagree with all/most of his policies.
Step away from that view for one second.
You just stated, that because america was involved in a failed coup, you support Chavez completly destroying any sense of democracy in his country, effectivly declaring himself dictator, where he can enact laws with no say from anyone else in the country.
You, when in power, and with your party in power, do not make yourself emperor to protect your country, you don't need too.
So, pretty much, you said you support a crazy asshole who can now do whatever he wants in his country, to whoever he wants, with no reprecussion whatsoever, and no oversight from anyone.
I don't actually beleive you are with him, just want you to read what Chavez is doing again.

Don't think that's where we're at with Chavez, yet.

Do think that's where we're at with Bush.

[Ontir]

If this goes through, it will of course, be unfortunate for the people of Venezuela in the long-term. He is, however, the first person in a long while, to be aware that the common people have needs, and do anything about meeting them. Had the Dubya Show not sent people to help overthrow him, he might not be so popular today. The actual danger from the United States has created a siege mentality, which has fueled his cult of personality. For good or ill, George W. Bush can be directly thanked for this.

[Paul McEnery]

If this goes through, it will of course, be unfortunate for the people of Venezuela in the long-term. He is, however, the first person in a long while, to be aware that the common people have needs, and do anything about meeting them. Had the Dubya Show not sent people to help overthrow him, he might not be so popular today. The actual danger from the United States has created a siege mentality, which has fueled his cult of personality. For good or ill, George W. Bush can be directly thanked for this.

And more to the point, it would be a piece of piss to defuse this.

Same as Cuba, Venezuela, Angola, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and any number of similar situations. Bloody Russia at the front end of its revolution, for goodness' sake.

All we have to do is say: oh, you want to try it that way? Good luck to you, mate! Let's see how it works!

[Calybos]

An elected leader going over-the-top in a mad grab for even more power than he's normally accorded? Nooo, that's not really a "Palpatine" worthy comparison, much less Hitler.

But if you really want to scare people: Chavez is starting to act more like Bush!

[BlairH]

he contributed to victims of Hurricane Katrina.

You know something? For a Socialist, Chavez is falling foul of his hero Karl Marx. Was it not Marx who said that any "gifts" made by leadership (minimum wage, food-aid, etc) were merely scraps thrown at the prolitariat to prevent them from revolting?

He's so ego fuelled, he can't even follow the doctrine properly!

[Calybos]

Funny, Ayn Rand said the same thing. Who knew Rand was a Marxist?

[Adam C]

But if you really want to scare people: Chavez is starting to act more like Bush!

Ha! Good one!

[heretic]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070110/ts_nm/venezuela_dc_8



Uh..........yikes? :eek:

Power is getting to his head, and the fact that there are people out to get him does not help.

I do hope he has the sense to step down. Even a Revolution cannot be a one-man-show and if he lets people tell him what he wants to hear....

HTG (hoping the guy is not dispossessing the people working on the lands that have been appropriated)

[Drew Van T.]

Oh come on. He's appropriating land from rich landowners who own vast stretches of Venezuela. They get paid in market prices by the government for the land they lose. They still have plenty left.

More to the point, they were not doing anything with this land in question. It was bare, just lying around. The government program will actually put people to work on it who actually want to make a living there.

[Acecool]

For the most part, I like Chavez.

[BlairH]

Oh come on. He's appropriating land from rich landowners who own vast stretches of Venezuela. They get paid in market prices by the government for the land they lose. They still have plenty left.

"Appropriation"! That's a new one. I think I'll become a "spontaneous marxist" and "appropriate" the spoils of the rich for my own uses. Lord knows! I'll make better use of their goods than they currently do.

"They don't use the land" is no justification for stealing it.

[Iangould]

"Appropriation"! That's a new one. I think I'll become a "spontaneous marxist" and "appropriate" the spoils of the rich for my own uses. Lord knows! I'll make better use of their goods than they currently do.

"They don't use the land" is no justification for stealing it.

Assuming market value really is being paid, this is no more "theft" than when the American or British governments acquire land under eminent domain.

[J. Robb]

"They don't use the land" is no justification for stealing it.
Is running for president on a nationalization platform and getting a large majority vote "stealing"? Sounds like will of the people to me.

Not that I'm a fan of utilitarianism, but it seems like the only people getting hurt here is foreign (mostly US) interests, and governments are free to cut them off whenever they want.

[Tages]

Assuming market value really is being paid, this is no more "theft" than when the American or British governments acquire land under eminent domain.

I agree completely.

Eminent domain is still theft.

[Tages]

Funny, Ayn Rand said the same thing. Who knew Rand was a Marxist?

Where? I was a Rand nut in high school and I don't recall her saying that.

[Paul McEnery]

"Appropriation"! That's a new one. I think I'll become a "spontaneous marxist" and "appropriate" the spoils of the rich for my own uses. Lord knows! I'll make better use of their goods than they currently do.

"They don't use the land" is no justification for stealing it.

How about "they stole it in the first place". Although, as Ian says, paying market value is a far cry from theft.

[berk]

"Appropriation"! That's a new one. I think I'll become a "spontaneous marxist" and "appropriate" the spoils of the rich for my own uses. Lord knows! I'll make better use of their goods than they currently do.

"They don't use the land" is no justification for stealing it.Funny, because "They don't use the land" is exactly how we Europeans justified taking the land from the original inhabitants of the Americas in the first place. Whenever we bothered trying to justify it, that is.

[Adam C]

"They don't use the land" is no justification for stealing it.

It's not simply a matter of "they don't use large tracts of land while the majority of the nation lives in poverty and often doesn't have the means to extricate themselves from it." And Venezuela is far from the only Latin American country where this is a problem. It has been a problem in Brazil and Guatemala as well, and I'd imagine quite a few other places. And the disproportion of landholding is monstrous. To cite Brazil for example, 1.6% of the landholders hold about 46% of crop land. 3% hold two thirds of all arable land.

Similarly, echoing Paul's sentiments, in most Latin American nations liberal governments in the 19th century enacted laws which destroyed any legal recognition for corporate lands held by villages and towns, which in effect enacted a giant land grab on the part of land holders. A great deal of land across Latin America was in effect stolen from large numbers of small farmers, creating the current massive skewing of land distribution. (And in places like Guatemala the process continued well into the late 20th century.)

Granted I doubt we'll see eye-to-eye on this giving our differing political outlooks. However, in the case of Latin America I feel that simply crying "theft!" when the government engages in land reform comes off as a bit absurd when one takes into account the reality and history of behind the situation.

[Iangould]

Blair and Tages both see this issue - land reform - as a matter of fundamental moral principle.

That's their right, of course.

If people are interested in a more pragmatic/utilitarian approach, I'd suggest they read up on the US-run post-WWII land reforms in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

In all three cases, rural incomes rose dramatically, a new entrepeneurial class of small farmer emerged; the political power of local landlords was broken and a major source of support for Marxism (and in Japan militarism) was removed.

There are plenty of bad examples of land reform - Zimbabwe is possibly the worst but there are also plenty from Latin America and elsewhere. But the idea itself isn't innately silly.

[Ontir]

As I recall, Chavez gained popularity by acting upon the constitutional mandate that land and oil belonged to ALL the people of Venezuela, not just the wealthy oil company owning few. Is it stealing, when you return something that was stolen in the first place?

[Iangould]

... not just the wealthy oil company owning few...

I'm pretty sure the Venezuela oil industry was state-owned long before Chavez ever got involved.

[gary bolt]

Chavez won the recent Venezuelan election on a platform of socialization. Now that he won the election he is socializing things. What a deceptive bastard!

[Adam C]

Chavez won the recent Venezuelan election on a platform of socialization. Now that he won the election he is socializing things. What a deceptive bastard!

I don't think anyone's alleged that his socialization was underhanded so much as they don't like it as a policy.

[cactusmaac]

Blair and Tages both see this issue - land reform - as a matter of fundamental moral principle.

That's their right, of course.

If people are interested in a more pragmatic/utilitarian approach, I'd suggest they read up on the US-run post-WWII land reforms in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

In all three cases, rural incomes rose dramatically, a new entrepeneurial class of small farmer emerged; the political power of local landlords was broken and a major source of support for Marxism (and in Japan militarism) was removed.

There are plenty of bad examples of land reform - Zimbabwe is possibly the worst but there are also plenty from Latin America and elsewhere. But the idea itself isn't innately silly.

That is true. Still it would be healthier in the long run if he didn't nationalise industry or engage in anti-US polemics which is just going to scare potential investors away.

[Drew Van T.]

That is true. Still it would be healthier in the long run if he didn't nationalise industry or engage in anti-US polemics which is just going to scare potential investors away.

It does...then again, not all investors care about such things, I don't think, or certainly not to the same extent as American investors do.

The fastest growing group of investors is the Chinese, isn't it?

[Drew Van T.]

A little background on the land reforms, which actually go back to a law enacted in 2001:

According to a 1998 government census, 1 percent of the population of Venezuela owns 60 percent of the country's arable land.


In November 2001, Chávez passed a set of 49 laws by decrees. One of the most controversial of these laws was the Ley de Tierras ("Land Law"), which created the Plan Zamora to enact land reforms in Venezuelan agriculture: taxing unused landholdings, expropriating unused private lands (with compensation), and giving inheritable, unsellable land grants to small farmers and farm collectives. Some of the wealthiest people in Venezuela own enormous ranches or estates that are mostly unused, while the farmers and the poor have to invade small properties to live.

The reason those private lands are unused, I presume, is because its owners do not consider them to be profitable enough. Most likely they choose to farm the most fertile part of their estate and neglect the rest. And this while there are so many poor farmers who can't get enough land to make a living from (a situation you'll find throughout Latin America, BTW).

Those "farm collectives" mentioned are part of a program to move people from the barrios (the shanty-towns of Caracas and such, which regularly flood away entirely whenever there's a storm) and turn them into farmers. It is a voluntary program, but admittedly, many of them are probably participating because the government gives them money to get started.

Chavez has said that he doesn't like the fact that a fertile country such as this is importing 70 percent of its food (I think he has a point). So while part of the goal is to move impoverished farmers back from the big city into farming, another part is about becoming self-sufficient.

[Wesley Dodds]

Well, Japan did OK in the long run.

I hate Chavez but he does seem to have a point.

[Ontir]

I'm pretty sure the Venezuela oil industry was state-owned long before Chavez ever got involved.

In theory, and by constitution, that was the case. In practice, there were a special few, at the top of Venezuelan society who controlled, and gained from that nation's oil wealth. When Chavez came in, he upheld the constitution, and redirected the oil profits to the larger society, which pissed off the fat cats, which is why Bush sent people to help overthrow him - but it didn't work!

[Drew Van T.]

The Venezuela oil industry has always been extremely corrupt from top to bottom, riddled with private interests taking their share of the pie on every level. Chavez has not made much headway trying to change that. As you say, all he's succeeded in doing, so far, is redirecting the profits somewhat at the highest level.

[Phrozen]

Well, Japan did OK in the long run.

I hate Chavez but he does seem to have a point.

Japans economy didn't take off until the Americans let the zaibotsus actually talk with its other parts. Of course Japan also moved away from a agricultural economy into a manufacturing one and found an open market for their goods.

Oh, and it is theft if you take something without the owners consent to sell it. Even if you compensate them.

[Paul McEnery]

Japans economy didn't take off until the Americans let the zaibotsus actually talk with its other parts. Of course Japan also moved away from a agricultural economy into a manufacturing one and found an open market for their goods.

Oh, and it is theft if you take something without the owners consent to sell it. Even if you compensate them.

Absolutely. So if you grant land and resources that belong to the entire people to a very small number of people, that's theft, isn't it.

[Paul McEnery]

That is true. Still it would be healthier in the long run if he didn't nationalise industry or engage in anti-US polemics which is just going to scare potential investors away.

Well yeah. Command economies don't really work. OTOH, anti-US polemics are just fine. American firms have a lousy record on environmental and labour rights. What's more, when you put American stuff at risk, you risk invasion by America. So better in general not to have any American firms, but rather develop your own decentralized industry (and ag) run and owned by the people who work there.

[cactusmaac]

Actually American firms tend to have a pretty good record if for no other reason than to ward off bad PR. If you want a look at companies with an abysmal record on labour rights, check out Dubai-based construction companies.

[Paul McEnery]

Actually American firms tend to have a pretty good record if for no other reason than to ward off bad PR. If you want a look at companies with an abysmal record on labour rights, check out Dubai-based construction companies.

Ooh, the American record on labour rights, better than a slave state.

[BlairH]

Chavez won the recent Venezuelan election on a platform of socialization. Now that he won the election he is socializing things. What a deceptive bastard!

A Government that robs Peter to give to Paul can always count on the support of Paul (McEnery:) ).

I don't believe that "the will of the people" is a suitable justification for stripping people (no matter how rich or powerful) of their rights to property. If we risk any of our rights to the will of the public, then ultimately it means that any one of them can be taken at will. A society either believes in the concept of rights or it doesn't, and I'd posit that any society that believes in rights should stand up for them, even when it becomes inconvenient to do so. I think most societies fail this test, some more than others, and if that is the case Chavez is sitting right at the dunce's table.

[Paul McEnery]

A Government that robs Peter to give to Paul can always count on the support of Paul (McEnery:) ).

I don't believe that "the will of the people" is a suitable justification for stripping people (no matter how rich or powerful) of their rights to property. If we risk any of our rights to the will of the public, then ultimately it means that any one of them can be taken at will. A society either believes in the concept of rights or it doesn't, and I'd posit that any society that believes in rights should stand up for them, even when it becomes inconvenient to do so. I think most societies fail this test, some more than others, and if that is the case Chavez is sitting right at the dunce's table.

Yes, but there are a great many other justifications for disregarding the so-called right to property; in particular, that all so-called rights to property depend on original theft. Prudhon is right, and not simply rhetorically. So if a government thieves property on behalf of the people, all it's doing is the same thing that was done before, and on this occasion, two wrongs do make a right, since the second "theft" is simply a restoration of the prior state before the first theft.

And you are right, a society should stand up for rights, and the land use right of the people trumps the so-called right to property.

[Tages]

That Is Not What Proudhon Meant.

[Paul McEnery]

That Is Not What Proudhon Meant.

True enough. He developed a much bigger set of ideas.

I'm content at this level to simply state that the private holdership of land as it has been obtaining in Venezuela is obscene and indefensible; and that it depends on a prior land grab; and that the "owners" are lucky that they're not just being kicked out on the street.

Oh, and that the reality of property is that property is simply what you can obtain or retain by main force, or by through the displaced main force that is the law.

[Adam C]

I don't believe that "the will of the people" is a suitable justification for stripping people (no matter how rich or powerful) of their rights to property. If we risk any of our rights to the will of the public, then ultimately it means that any one of them can be taken at will.

Yes, but then refer back to my earlier comments on landholding in Latin America. Given the historical context of landholding in Latin America you cannot simply talk about property rights as though the matter in such a straightforward matter. The simple fact is that a large amount of the land being held by wealthy landowners in the region was acquired through what was effectively theft in the 19th century (and that's just referring back to the land laws passed by [classical] Liberal governments; never mind what went on before it). As such where does the matter of the land that was robbed by the government further enrich already wealthy landowners play into this? As Paul said here, there's a matter of restitution. (Never mind the untenable situation this landholding pattern has produced.)

[Drew Van T.]

Anyway, Blair, what makes owning land inherently superior to owning money? If landowners are properly paid for the land, how have they lost their "property"?

Are you suggesting that their right to the land is also a hereditary right, and that it can't be sold or traded? (a feudal concept if there ever was one). But then, this implies that the families currently owning the land have themselves violated someone else's hereditary ownership when they acquired it in the 19th century: an inherent contradiction.

Interestingly, the land that is distributed among landless farmers comes, in fact, with a hereditary clause: they can't sell it, it must stay in the family (at least for some time). Clearly this is done not because the government believes in the right of hereditary ownership as an inviolable principle, but to prevent the rich landowners from simply buying the land back immediately, undoing the entire program. It is pragmatic, not based on rigid definitions of what ownership can and can't be.

[Adam C]

Are you suggesting that their right to the land is also a hereditary right, and that it can't be sold or traded? (a feudal concept if there ever was one). But then, this implies that the families currently owning the land have themselves violated someone else's hereditary ownership when they acquired it in the 19th century: an inherent contradiction.

While my own views are much closer to your own on this matter, I can't say this statement is very fair to Blair. His point-of-view was clearly based on the idea that their property is being forcibly bought up rather than voluntarily sold off. Heredity never played any role in that discussion.

[Drew Van T.]

I only want to know why it is wrong to impose a fair property exchange on someone for the sake of the common good.

Surely, there has to be some kind of rational underpinning for such dogmatic thinking? A belief in hereditary land rights seems to be one possible explanation, and I can't discern any others.

Anyway, what's to stop the landowners from buying something else with the money they receive in exchange for the land? An apartment building in Caracas, a nature park, or whatever?

[Loren]

I only want to know why it is wrong to impose a fair property exchange on someone for the sake of the common good.

If the government came to me and said "We're taking the land you own in Cordele. Here's $1 million," I'd be rather happy. I'd value that money a lot more than I'd value a plot of land I've only seen once or twice.

But if the government came to me and said "We're taking your comic book collection. Here's fair market value for them," I'd be royally peeved. Because my comics are worth a lot more to me than they are on the market. When a particular comic or run loses its value to me, I tend to sell it on eBay. But I'd much rather have my run of Ostrander's "Suicide Squad" than the $20 or so that's it's probably "fairly" worth.

If people are complaining about losing property yet getting compensation, then it's probably because the property is not worth merely "fair market value" to them. Rather, to the individual in question, it's worth something more. To them, it's not a fair trade.

[BlairH]

I only want to know why it is wrong to impose a fair property exchange on someone for the sake of the common good.
Can an imposed property exchange really be fair?

Whenever you have somebody imposing conditions on another, you can rest assured that the conditions will not be fair. In order for any transaction involving the exchange of property to be fair, there must be some form of consensus between the two parties. I can't just say "I am taking your house, and in exchange, I will give you my car, my computers and an orchard. All of which are valued at the market value of your home." It's absurd.

Surely, there has to be some kind of rational underpinning for such dogmatic thinking? A belief in hereditary land rights seems to be one possible explanation, and I can't discern any others.
Maybe I believe in the non-aggression principle?

"Relinquish control of your lands!"
"Or what?"
"You'll be an outlaw. Give us your lands!"
"Molon Labe!"

You take that to it's natural conclusion, and it results in aggression. The word of the soverign backed up by threats of force -to paraphrase Austin-.

Anyway, what's to stop the landowners from buying something else with the money they receive in exchange for the land? An apartment building in Caracas, a nature park, or whatever?
A fear that Chavez will simply step in and "appropriate" the new purchases "for the common good"? There would be no use in staying in the country. These landowners are obviously very wealthy. If I were in their shoes I would take the oppourtunity to live a life in exile. Let them have their utopian socialist paradise! Let's see how that turns out without having any wealth to redistribute.

[Nick Soapdish]

And the words "fair" and "common good" can be twisted around pretty easily. It's why landowners in ... was it New Hampshire ... were having their property taken by eminent domain to allow the city to rezone it and sell it to Wal-Mart to build another store which is supposedly in the common good.

Having said that, I do favor Chavez's actions (as I understand them, but I reserve the right to flipflop when I find out new information :) ). He's just stealing the land back.

[BlairH]

And the words "fair" and "common good" can be twisted around pretty easily.
Exactly, one person's "common good" is the nightmare of another.

He's just stealing the land back.
Whilst it is true that the land wasn't exactly appropriated in the fairest of manners in the first place, if Chavez wishes to "steal the land back", in my opinion he needs more than the popular support of the electorate. He needs a valid title or claim to the land. Otherwise he's just a thief with no stake in the matter. Who is he to claim the land back "for the people"? Moreover, who is he to decide what's in the common good? Sure the people gave him and his platform the all important mandate, but what about the rights and freedoms of those who do not share his vision? My esteemed fellow British Islander Paul has already described the right to property as a "so called right". Does this mean that other rights can also be given the same prefix?

[cactusmaac]

If Chavez can create a successful class of land-owners by them putting unproductive land to work, it'll be a good thing. If it turns into a Zimbabwean style land-grab of the most productive farmland, then it will most likely end in tears.

[BlairH]

If Chavez can create a successful class of land-owners by them putting unproductive land to work, it'll be a good thing. If it turns into a Zimbabwean style land-grab of the most productive farmland, then it will most likely end in tears.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to all forms of land-reform in principle. In 2000, we Scots decided to abolish the feudal system (that's right, we rid ourself of Feudal land tenure this side of the 21st century). I have no problem with this. Unfortunately, we Scots still seem to have the Medieval mindset, we dispensed with our Feudal Lairds, who attended to our "welfare" and our "common good", only to recieve a new generation of Welfare Lairds, who seek to carry on the same tradition.

[Paul McEnery]

Exactly, one person's "common good" is the nightmare of another.


Whilst it is true that the land wasn't exactly appropriated in the fairest of manners in the first place, if Chavez wishes to "steal the land back", in my opinion he needs more than the popular support of the electorate. He needs a valid title or claim to the land. Otherwise he's just a thief with no stake in the matter. Who is he to claim the land back "for the people"? Moreover, who is he to decide what's in the common good? Sure the people gave him and his platform the all important mandate, but what about the rights and freedoms of those who do not share his vision? My esteemed fellow British Islander Paul has already described the right to property as a "so called right". Does this mean that other rights can also be given the same prefix?

Well, you could look closely at the British Constitution, which specifies that all the land belongs to the Queen, like all the money belongs to the Queen -- she just lets the rest of it live on it, and spend it. So yeah, it is a so-called right.

And quite obviously, all other rights can and frequently are suspended under certain circumstances -- a draft, criminal prosecution, contractual law, etc. My rights end where yours begin -- and its all negotiable.

So in Chavez's case, we can assume that the State of Venezuela has ultimate title to all land which it can revoke at will, in exactly the same way that the Queen has that notional power. Obviously, there are limits to that -- the disgruntlement of the title holders and of the international community being the two biggies. So fair recompense comes into play -- expecially since Chavez can afford it.

Somewhere between the Wal-Mart and the Zimbabwe examples falls the Nicaraguan example, where farms were "owned" by friends of various dictators who'd come to power thanks to colonialism. Since the laws granting them title were imposed in the first place, that's dodgy.

Since the title holders tended to be fascist bastards who treated their workers like slaves -- and I do mean that literally, you could have a hand cut off for daring to eat one of the grapefruits off trees that were just put in to shelter the coffee trees -- and since they supported the dictator Somoza during the revolution: tough titty on their "property rights". The farms belonged by natural right to the farmers, i.e. the people who lived there and actually did the work.

[Paul McEnery]

If Chavez can create a successful class of land-owners by them putting unproductive land to work, it'll be a good thing. If it turns into a Zimbabwean style land-grab of the most productive farmland, then it will most likely end in tears.

What I'd like to see him create here is a bunch of anarcho-syndicalist cooperatives. What I expect is centralized Stalinism -- and boy, that works all sorts of good.

[BlairH]

Well, you could look closely at the British Constitution
I'm off to do coursework right now, so I shall refrain from posting long replies, but I just have to ask: What British constitution? There have been various attempts to draft one in recent years, but none have actually been accepted in any shape or form. The closest thing we have to a constitution is the Human Rights Act (and possibly the Scotland Act up here in the Socialistland), and that was only very recently passed.

You're not making things up are you McEnery? ;)

[Paul McEnery]

I'm off to do coursework right now, so I shall refrain from posting long replies, but I just have to ask: What British constitution?

Why, the implicit and unwritten mishmash of precedent, of course!

The Queen still owns the lot. And until you're properly devolved, owns Scotland, too.

Are you planning to buy her out? :evilsmile

[cactusmaac]

And Oz, New Zealand and Canada.

Probably Barbados too.

[Paul McEnery]

And Oz, New Zealand and Canada.

Probably Barbados too.

And Grenada.

It's why she was pissed with Reagan for invading:

"Get those awful men off one's lawn!"

[Nick Soapdish]

Whilst it is true that the land wasn't exactly appropriated in the fairest of manners in the first place, if Chavez wishes to "steal the land back", in my opinion he needs more than the popular support of the electorate. He needs a valid title or claim to the land. Otherwise he's just a thief with no stake in the matter. Who is he to claim the land back "for the people"? Moreover, who is he to decide what's in the common good? Sure the people gave him and his platform the all important mandate, but what about the rights and freedoms of those who do not share his vision? My esteemed fellow British Islander Paul has already described the right to property as a "so called right". Does this mean that other rights can also be given the same prefix?

I'd argue that he has as much of that as the people he just took it from had. They only have title and claim to the land because the government kicked the previous tenants off and gave it to them.

What makes it right the first time and not the second?

[Iangould]

Let's see how that turns out without having any wealth to redistribute.

Yeah because the oil wells will obviously stop flowing.

IIRC, the Venezuelan economy's been growing at 5%+ over Chavez's time in office.

[BlairH]

Yeah because the oil wells will obviously stop flowing.
Well that's what the renewable energy gurus keep telling me.

[Iangould]

I'm off to do coursework right now, so I shall refrain from posting long replies, but I just have to ask: What British constitution? There have been various attempts to draft one in recent years, but none have actually been accepted in any shape or form. The closest thing we have to a constitution is the Human Rights Act (and possibly the Scotland Act up here in the Socialistland), and that was only very recently passed.

You're not making things up are you McEnery? ;)

I'm sorry but it's just too disingenuous for a lawyer student to say "what British Constitution?".

As Paul points out, while there is no single written document called The British Constitution, the corpus of common law and precedent is widely referred to as the British constitution.

Given your political leanings I'm also astonished you never read Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution.

Go concentrate on your uni work Blair, no need for a lengthy response.

[BlairH]

I'm sorry but it's just too disingenuous for a lawyer student to say "what British Constitution?".
I was just being testy. I knew what Paul was referring to.

For the record, I'm one of those in favour of creating a fully codified constitution. The current excuse for a "constitution" is a joke.

As Paul points out, while there is no single written document called The British Constitution, the corpus of common law and precedent is widely referred to as the British constitution.
Actually, if we're going to talk in terms of us having a "constitution", we are more likely to find evidence of it in statute law rather than the common law. Like I said in my earlier post, the closest thing we have to a "constitution" is the Human Rights Act, the Scotland Act, the Acts of Union and maybe the Magna Carta. All of which can be repealed by a standard vote in Parliament (thanks to the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy). Political will is the only thing that keeps this constitutional glue in place.

Given your political leanings I'm also astonished you never read Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution.
There's really no need to be astonished. It came in handy when I was doing my Public & Constitutional Law class.

Go concentrate on your uni work Blair, no need for a lengthy response.
Almost finished. Just a few more paragraphs and a few more citations (yes I'm one of those losers who doesn't cite as they write.)

[Nick Soapdish]

Well that's what the renewable energy gurus keep telling me.

Chavez has a good 40 years to worry about that.

Theoretically.

Oil's supposed to reach the tipping point around then (last I heard), but Venezuela might run out way before that.

[Paul McEnery]

I was just being testy. I knew what Paul was referring to.


For the record, being a sight more testy than you could ever hope to be:

You were talking cock about property, you got called out talking cock about property, and you ducked talking cock about property.\

It's what all property conservatives get caught talking cock about, and you all hate being found to be out of good arguments when you're talking cock.

Talking cock. That's what property is all about.

[stealthwise]

Chavez > Bush

[Tages]

For the record, being a sight more testy than you could ever hope to be:

You were talking cock about property, you got called out talking cock about property, and you ducked talking cock about property.\

It's what all property conservatives get caught talking cock about, and you all hate being found to be out of good arguments when you're talking cock.

Talking cock. That's what property is all about.

Talking property with you always leads down a familiar path.

First, you ask what property rights mean. Then I cite John Locke, at which point comes the great McEnery "Ah HAH!" wherein the subject changes to philosophy and Locke is exposed as an unconscious follower of Parmenidean philosophy, the Original Sin of Western civilization from which all evil flows, and we argue over whether this completely invalidates the Lockean view of property or not.

This is my third favorite endless circle of debate on CBR, behind the Civil War and Ian and my disagreements regarding utilitarian vs. moral economics.

[Paul McEnery]

Talking property with you always leads down a familiar path.

First, you ask what property rights mean. Then I cite John Locke, at which point comes the great McEnery "Ah HAH!" wherein the subject changes to philosophy and Locke is exposed as an unconscious follower of Parmenidean philosophy, the Original Sin of Western civilization from which all evil flows, and we argue over whether this completely invalidates the Lockean view of property or not.

This is my third favorite endless circle of debate on CBR, behind the Civil War and Ian and my disagreements regarding utilitarian vs. moral economics.

Oh, you want it simple?

Property. It's stuff I let you have because it's more bother for me to take it from you.

[Tages]

Oh, you want it simple?

Property. It's stuff I let you have because it's more bother for me to take it from you.

Or it's stuff I transformed with my labor and is therefore mine, or traded for with the fruits of my labor with the prior owner who had the right to sell it to me.

[Paul McEnery]

Or it's stuff I transformed with my labor and is therefore mine, or traded for with the fruits of my labor with the prior owner who had the right to sell it to me.

Sorry. Just giggling here for a minute.

















No, still giggling.

















Okay, sure. I sit at a stupid desk doing stuff because some other fucker will add some numbers to a number that I have a card that says I get to do some stuff with some numbers. And frankly, that about covers my job, too.

And then I take those numbers, or now and again, I take some green pieces of paper that pretend to be those numbers, and I get a friend of mine to accept them in exchange for booze, smokes, or food.

What an incredibly stupid way to live.

[Iangould]

This is my third favorite endless circle of debate on CBR, behind the Civil War and Ian and my disagreements regarding utilitarian vs. moral economics.


I'm No. 2.

Eat it McEnery.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm No. 2.

Eat it McEnery.

"I'm No. 2"

Feel free to tattoo it on your forehead, Gould.

[Tages]

Okay, sure. I sit at a stupid desk doing stuff because some other fucker will add some numbers to a number that I have a card that says I get to do some stuff with some numbers. And frankly, that about covers my job, too.

And then I take those numbers, or now and again, I take some green pieces of paper that pretend to be those numbers, and I get a friend of mine to accept them in exchange for booze, smokes, or food.

What an incredibly stupid way to live.

I agree.

That paper should be backed by gold.

[Tages]

I'm No. 2.

Eat it McEnery.

"I'm No. 2"

Feel free to tattoo it on your forehead, Gould.

Yes, compete for my nemesis.

[Naldo]

You know it's funny, I read a thread like this and I must admit that I'm not exactly sure how or where these opinions come from.

I mean, is there a psychological reason for it? A lifetime of raw deals from asshole landlords? Or does one arrive at these types of opinions by excessively lengthy research and one day have a "revelation" along the lines of "My god, land ownership is illegal and immoral, at last I know the truth!"

I seriously don't mean any disrespect, it's just that this type of thinking is just so alien to me that I have a difficult time understanding where it comes from.

So giggle and point all you like, young earth creationists would have the same effect on me. (since their views are equally alien)

I think Tages is correct regarding the "familiar path" these threads follow.

So I think I'll buy a path of my own. I'll look into buying some acreage in southwest Montana. 20 plus acres, near a stream for fishing.

[Drew Van T.]

But if the government came to me and said "We're taking your comic book collection. Here's fair market value for them," I'd be royally peeved. Because my comics are worth a lot more to me than they are on the market. When a particular comic or run loses its value to me, I tend to sell it on eBay. But I'd much rather have my run of Ostrander's "Suicide Squad" than the $20 or so that's it's probably "fairly" worth.

The analogy doesn't work. We're talking about landowners who own vast estates and have to give up only part of that estate.

Accurate would be if you owned one of the largest comic book collections in the United States, and the government came to you and said "listen, in the interest of all comic book collectors, we need you to give up that ultra-rare Suicide Squad run so we can make it public property. We'll pay you the prices listed in the Comic Book Collector's Guide for them." You still might not like it but the rational, utilitarian arguments would certainly be on the side of the government. After all, you'd still have plenty of other comics left.

Anyway, you are now arguing, basically, that it is wrong to impose a property exchange on the basis of supposed emotional ties to the property. I find it hard to apply this to people who own so much land they can't even travel around it in one day.

Can an imposed property exchange really be fair?

Absolutely! Look, the government "imposes" all sorts of things, that's what it does. It's imposing several thousands of laws on you right now. You can certainly argue that a law is unfair, but why are you complaining about the fact they have to be "imposed"? That's how it works. There is nothing evil about "imposing" a law...unless the law is unfair or injust. But you certainly haven't demonstrated that it is unfair or injust.

Whenever you have somebody imposing conditions on another, you can rest assured that the conditions will not be fair.

No, you can't go off making that assumption willy-nilly. If you want to argue that the conditions are in fact unfair, great, be my guest, prove their unfairness then. I've looked at the conditions, at the situation in which they exist, and find them fair.

In order for any transaction involving the exchange of property to be fair, there must be some form of consensus between the two parties. I can't just say "I am taking your house, and in exchange, I will give you my car, my computers and an orchard. All of which are valued at the market value of your home." It's absurd.

It's only absurd if it's done randomly and for no apparent reason. If it is done for a good reason, then it is a rational service to the public well-being.

[Adam C]

I mean, is there a psychological reason for it? A lifetime of raw deals from asshole landlords? Or does one arrive at these types of opinions by excessively lengthy research and one day have a "revelation" along the lines of "My god, land ownership is illegal and immoral, at last I know the truth!"

The argument isn't so much "land ownership is illegal and immoral" as it is "heavily skewed patterns of land ownership in countries were the majority of the population lives in poverty is immoral and socially untenable. And in any case it was created through force and fraud."

And yes, I arrived at this conclusion after some years of reading up on Latin American history.

[Naldo]

The argument isn't so much "land ownership is illegal and immoral" as it is "heavily skewed patterns of land ownership in countries were the majority of the population lives in poverty is immoral and socially untenable. And in any case it was created through force and fraud."

And yes, I arrived at this conclusion after some years of reading up on Latin American history.

I don't discount the fact that such instances have and do occur, it's obvious that it does.

It seems to me, however, that some people have a problem with land ownership entirely.

For instance, I had a title search done on my property in Los Angeles, we received a photocopy of the land grant from the King of Spain to the Verdugo family dated in the late 1700's.

The King of Spain owned the land through the judicious use of flags (as Eddie Izzard would say). You walk in, plant a flag and declare the land to be yours, the Chumash indians had no flag and so they lost the land.

Fast forward 250 years or so and here's me selling my tiny 7000 square foot lot in L.A.

Now, I'm assuming that similar things happened all throughout south America and that at some point, whether through the use of locally hired thuggery or complicity by corrupt governments, some people ended up owning a crap load of land. Much to the detriment of the poor.

I think it can be argued that the U.S. treats it's poor much better than just about every S.A. country.

Perhaps the land reallocation in Venezuela will end up being a good thing for the country in general. It looks like Chavez is on the brink of acquiring dictatorial powers and we'll see what happens.

[cactusmaac]

Frnakly he should have started off with unproductive government land, shown that could be made useful with the right investment and then proceeded to redistribute the larger ranches. Otherwise political opposition and resentment is likely to smoulder if all that's achieved is squatters occupying already productive land.

[cactusmaac]

Frnakly he should have started off with unproductive government land, shown that could be made useful with the right investment and then proceeded to redistribute the larger ranches. Otherwise political opposition and resentment is likely to smoulder if all that's achieved is squatters occupying already productive land.

[Drew Van T.]

Frankly he should have started off with unproductive government land, shown that could be made useful with the right investment and then proceeded to redistribute the larger ranches. Otherwise political opposition and resentment is likely to smoulder if all that's achieved is squatters occupying already productive land.

In the context of most Latin American countries, I'd agree. But not in this case, because the political opposition and resentment has been at fever pitch ever since Chavez was elected - but only with one particular group which happens to include the landowners. You are severely underestimating the extent to which he is hated by a minority of the country, simply for what he is, for what he represents, for what he says. It is quite obvious that nothing he does could ever make a difference to this minority, who'll demonize him no matter what, so Chavez has no incentive to execute the land reforms in this way or that way. The manner of execution is irrelevant both to him and to the affected.

[Adam C]

Frnakly he should have started off with unproductive government land, shown that could be made useful with the right investment and then proceeded to redistribute the larger ranches. Otherwise political opposition and resentment is likely to smoulder if all that's achieved is squatters occupying already productive land.

Well he did. (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1384) There have been squatter invasions of private land, but land reform did begin with government-owned land.

[Adam C]

If people are complaining about losing property yet getting compensation, then it's probably because the property is not worth merely "fair market value" to them. Rather, to the individual in question, it's worth something more.

That's a big assumption to make and in the case of Latin America a highly questionable one I think. Right now I'm attempting to find out what the opponents of Mission Zamora are saying about it, but the net hasn't been forthcoming and I have yet to do a proper spanish language search. So far I came across Toronto Star article (http://www.arena.org.nz/venzimb.htm) detailed the case of one landowner who had probllems with peasants invading his land and destroying his sugar cane. Yet he objected not only on the basis of this and property rights but claimed that the "(The co-operatives) just want credits that they won't pay back. They're not going to produce." On the one hand he has a valid objection in the fact that his land is indeed productive. On the other he's not only claiming property rights, but that peasants won't ever produce anything once given the land. This calls to mind a very important fact you should remember about social relations in Latin American society. There's a strong divide between the lower class majority and that of the middle and upper classes. And the latter tends to regard the former with a fair bit of paternalism and suspicion.

To cite one example, during the Guatemalan land reform of the 1950s under President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman the Guatemalan landholding class not only reacted with allegations of "communism" but couched their alarm in terms of fear of an Indian uprising as Guatemalan Indians became more politically active following the promulgation of land reform laws. For example the newspaper El Imparcial claimed that rural activists had unleashed a force they could not control and "nobody knows where it will end." The Canadian trade commissioner and U.S. embassy officials both obsereved that much of Guatemala's wealthy elite feared an indigenous uprising more than anything else. And this isn't limited to Guatemala. There's a book on death and childhood in a Brazilian community called Death Without Weeping that in part deals with the attempts of the inhabitants of one northern Brazilian barrio (or slum) to set a community daycare centre, and how even after the military government the rich the area were doing their best to shut it down because they feared this was some sort of a sign of nascent communism. You see a lot of this in other Latin American countries too. The fact is that a lot of opposition to land reform is borne out of deep seated suspicion for popular political action and long standing paternalism within the region.

[Adam C]

Whilst it is true that the land wasn't exactly appropriated in the fairest of manners in the first place, if Chavez wishes to "steal the land back", in my opinion he needs more than the popular support of the electorate. He needs a valid title or claim to the land. Otherwise he's just a thief with no stake in the matter.

Funny you should mention land titles. The land laws of Porfirio Diaz allowed for Community lands to be siezed by plantation owners by simply denouncing the land as 'public' because it was not strictly delineated by written legal titles, but held by custom. Similar processes occurred in Guatemala and Bolivia in the 19th century as well under liberal administrations. Of course as it turns out Chavez's land reform program has been investigating property titles (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0602/p06s01-woam.html) though there's some debate about how honestly they are doing that or whether it's fair.

If Chavez can create a successful class of land-owners by them putting unproductive land to work, it'll be a good thing. If it turns into a Zimbabwean style land-grab of the most productive farmland, then it will most likely end in tears.

Indeed. While I'm fine on the basic ethics behind the idea of land reform how it is carried out is a trickier matter altogether. Even assuming Chavez sticks to unused land and does not go the Zimbabwae route he could easily screw this up by not providing farmers with proper resources to develop their lands into viable enterprises. Or as Paul said he could go the Stalinist route in terms of what gets established after the land is redistributed. There's also the case of the government trying to expropriate a nature reserve unsuited for any agricultural work. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0602/p06s01-woam.html) Either way his authoritarian tendencies don't bode well.

[Iangould]

A little economic background on land title and security of tenure.

Efficent market theory, one of the conerstones of all mordern economics, assumes that, on average, market prices for a tradeable good (in this case land) factor in all relevant avaialble data.

So, for example, in Queensland, the British Crown from Day One explicitly reserved all mineral rights to the crown. Land was granted, sold or leased (most of the state is actually leasehold) with express conditions in the deeds or leases stipulating that the owners had to allow mineral exploration on their lan and that if minerals were foudn they would have to either lease their land, in part or whole, to the mining company at a price determined by the state or sell the land back to the state at its assessed value.

Now assuming the land market is efficient, the buyers of land read and understood those conditions and agreed to purchase or lease the land knowing that resumption was a risk and factored that risk into the price they were prepared to pay.

I will also point out that in Australia and in most countries that use the Torrens land tenure system (which is msot of them), assessed value isn;t some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air. It's calculated based on the purchase price and subsequent movements in the market price of other properties in the same parish. This information is publicly available, it forms the basis of land tax and rates assessments and can be challenged in court at any time.

[Paul McEnery]

So, for example, in Queensland, the British Crown from Day One explicitly reserved all mineral rights to the crown. Land was granted, sold or leased (most of the state is actually leasehold) with express conditions in the deeds or leases stipulating that the owners had to allow mineral exploration on their lan and that if minerals were foudn they would have to either lease their land, in part or whole, to the mining company at a price determined by the state or sell the land back to the state at its assessed value.

On which part of the Ian is the best drilling to be found?

[Naldo]

A little economic background on land title and security of tenure.

Efficent market theory, one of the conerstones of all mordern economics, assumes that, on average, market prices for a tradeable good (in this case land) factor in all relevant avaialble data.

So, for example, in Queensland, the British Crown from Day One explicitly reserved all mineral rights to the crown. Land was granted, sold or leased (most of the state is actually leasehold) with express conditions in the deeds or leases stipulating that the owners had to allow mineral exploration on their lan and that if minerals were foudn they would have to either lease their land, in part or whole, to the mining company at a price determined by the state or sell the land back to the state at its assessed value.

Now assuming the land market is efficient, the buyers of land read and understood those conditions and agreed to purchase or lease the land knowing that resumption was a risk and factored that risk into the price they were prepared to pay.

I will also point out that in Australia and in most countries that use the Torrens land tenure system (which is msot of them), assessed value isn;t some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air. It's calculated based on the purchase price and subsequent movements in the market price of other properties in the same parish. This information is publicly available, it forms the basis of land tax and rates assessments and can be challenged in court at any time.

It's a bit different here in the U.S. and depends upon the property so there is no one rule from sea to shining sea. However, in all the properties I have owned, (3 in California, 1 in Pennsylvania and 1 here in New Jersey) I own the mineral rights to my land. Although, obviously mineral rights may be sold separately from the land. The term "Torrens" refers to the registration of title in the real property

I would venture that most property conveyances here in the U.S. are what is called Freehold estates (quite different from a Leasehold, at least here in the U.S.)

Most conveyances are "fee simple absolute" which is basically selling a bit of property without any conditions attached to the conveyance.

Leasehold estates are broken into 4 different types depending on their duration and do not convey the same amount of rights in real property as does a Fee Simple or "Freehold" estate.

Other than the Crown owning your mineral rights and most properties being Leasehold, it seems that the conveyance and assessment of property is fairly similar here as in Australia.

[Drew Van T.]

You see a lot of this in other Latin American countries too. The fact is that a lot of opposition to land reform is borne out of deep seated suspicion for popular political action and long standing paternalism within the region.

Quite right: we cannot overestimate how much all these political issues are tied to the indigenous peoples, their past, their ambiguous place in those societies, and how much the local elites continue to fear them, whenever they get politically organized in any shape or form. So much commentary you read in America and Europe - in this thread too - is overly focused on socialism, property rights, etc., and blind to the Indian issue.

And I can't help but mention here that Hugo Chavez is of mixed Spanish, African and Indian descent - a genuine mestizo.

[berk]

On which part of the Ian is the best drilling to be found? Geologically speaking, the best drilling is commonly found where large deposits of organic matter have been under pressure for long periods of time, so ...

[Wesley Dodds]

On which part of the Ian is the best drilling to be found?

The squinty eye!