Report: U.S. Sanctions Have Killed 40,000 in Venezuela Since 2017

If you're not cynical, then you're not paying attention.

 

Hmmm. Reminds me a bit of a Jethro Tull Album.

"...its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Now, it is obvious, to the literate and any lackadaisical history buff, that one of the principal concerns that the founders had was the fed's army running roughshod over the fledgling states--which, by the way, The Whiskey Rebellion proved was a well-founded fear--and that they conceived of such a battle of one of equal weapons. Furthermore, it is just as obvious today, no citizen militia is going to be able to anything about anything except to waste time, money, and lives, as it is now no longer equal weapons, but a US Military with jets, and tanks, and armored vehicles, and well-trained soldiers, against Rambo wannabes. They couldn't protect themselves from messy dog paws, let alone the feds, as was demonstrated in the Cliven Bundy war against the Feds.

However, it is also obvious that the framers viewed gun ownership as a right to self-defense, hence recent Supreme Court rulings confirming the right to own weapons for self-defense.

But again, if any rational being believes their Beanfield Sniper Remington Sendero SF II is going to protect them from America armed forces, or secure their free states, I strongly suggest they rethink their position and revisit the Waco, the Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and the Bundy Range War fiascos, and remind themselves of the deadly futile outcomes.

 

Ah, there's the rub. So, the question becomes, how best to fund the government without coercion; and for that, I refer all to the Objectivist position-- any way that is reasonable, which means, without a gun.

 

The US military failed to defeat insurgencies in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What makes you think they'd have more success against a domestic insurgency?

And none of the incidents you just mentioned are examples of actual insurgencies. They're just isolated incidents of civil disobedience.

By the way, many people in and out of the military would be just as likely to side with the insurgents as to fight against them.

 

Hmmm. The solution is simple, a separation of the state and the economy. It will solve the problem. Capitalists won't need to bribe the men with guns to get out of their way; and the men and guns will be barred from the market place. Why hasn't anyone thought of that before? Wait. They have--Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises, and though not a true economist, per se, but capitalism's greatest defender, Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand: "The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

Now, on what side do Maduro and Chavez belong? I think you've answered that many times, quite distinctly.

 

The best way to fund government is through voluntary contributions.

 

As Maduro is proving, you had better have the generals.

In all three insurgencies you mention, the American government wasn't going to lose anything but lives and prestige.

 

Can you show me where Adam Smith advocated for overthrowing foreign governments simply because their economic system was at odds with his own? I can't seem to find it.

 

You had better believe it. No more Vietnams. No more Koreas. No More Iraqs. No more American misadventures to feed the egos of power-lusting politicians. Can't wage war if you can't get the money.

 

Maduro was elected. He has more than just the support of generals. CNN will never tell you that though.

So why would it be any different with a domestic insurgency?

 

Weren't we talking economics, not political science?

 

Have one. Find out. Good luck.

 

Uh... you're advocating for another misadventure in Venezuela.

 

That's the only moral way.

 

This thread is about the US government's ongoing "regime change" operation in Venezuela, which you support. Economics came into it because that "regime change" operation is being funded by American tax dollars.

 

So you have no answer.

 

How do you reconcile that position with your support for the US government's "regime change" operation inside Venezuela?

 

No. Not at all. I'm just pointing out the bloody hell, despair, poverty, desperation, desolation, and desecration, Socialism creates. However, I would have no problem with sending in the Seals and absconding with the thieving, murdering bastard. And if troops go, I want a declaration of war, and that will never pass. But, I suppose Trump is just bullheaded enough to do it without congressional approval, might even get himself impeached over it. Curious as to how all of this will play out.

I sometimes wonder if Bush had the courage of his convictions, would any of this be necessary, and would Venezuela still be the richest nation in South America.

 

The government has many flaws but it's irrelevant to the issue of the US intervening in another country's affairs. From the AP:

The part underlined is actual socialism.

 

Except there is no way to know if the problems experienced by Venezuela are caused primarily by socialism or by the attempt of an outside power to destabilize and overthrow that country's government.

So you DO support another misadventure.

Trump doesn't appear to actually want to do anything. It's mostly his deranged advisers like Bolton and Pompeo.

 

Well, when Al Capone rules, you need an Elliot Ness to restore justice.

 

I've said my peace. Let history judge.

 

The only reason Al Capone existed is because the US government prohibited alcohol, so not a very good analogy.

 

History will judge the US empire in much the same way we judge the Roman empire: Extremely violent, dysfunctional, and corrupt.

 

So you don't care that your government has killed 40,000 people? Indeed, you seem to find it funny.