I wrote:
>> But _why_ is it predictable? I would guess that it's because, as a >> self-styled "libertarian," David believes in what C.B. Mcpherson >> called "possessive individualism." That is, each individual is seen as >> the proprietor of his own person, property, and capabilities, while >> owing absolutely nothing to society for them. In the case of RCTV, a >> corporation -- owned by (wealthy) individuals -- is the only >> proprietor of its airwaves and owes absolutely nothing to to the >> society that granted those rights.
David B. Shemano wrote:
Now with respect to Mr. Devine, unless he knows me better than I know myself, he is wrong, wrong, wrong.<
Maybe that's why I wrote "I would guess that..." above. (Or maybe I'm just humble. I'm quite proud of my humility.) BTW, "Mr. Devine" is my late dad. Please call me Jim.
"Possessive individualism" is something I would consider a rather metaphysical concept, akin to a religious belief. I am not saying I don't subscribe to it, but you either buy into it or you don't and trying to convince somebody who doesn't buy into it based upon the concept is essentially pointless.<
_Of course_ it's metaphysical (to use the Popperian lingo). But like Molière's bourgeois gentilhomme, we can speak (metaphysical) prose all of our lives without knowing it. In fact, it's very hard not to. Unless we're confused, each of us has a philosophical bent of some sort. I was trying to intuit what that was for you. Of course, as per usual, I could be wrong. But it's rare that a self-styled libertarian does not embrace John Locke and possessive individualism. It may be somewhere in an unexamined chamber of the mind, but I believe that it's there.
Therefore, when I engage in the dialectic on this list, I try and limit myself to essentially utilitarian arguments and to focus on the consequences of decisions as opposed to the motivation or rationale of decisions. For example, I raised Milton Friedman's argument in Capitalism and Freedom because he makes an entirely consequentialist argument. If you value freedom of expression and the ability to dissent as an apriori value and want to design institutions to safeguard that value, it is much easier to do in a society based upon private property as opposed to collectivized property.<
So instead of embracing a political philosophy, you've chosen a falsified and discredited political theory? BTW & FWIW & OEMA*, I'm all in favor of the "freedom of expression and the ability to dissent." Too bad that capitalism doesn't allow those except in the rich (imperialist) countries in the good times. Even there and then, the free press is only for those who can afford to own one... BTW, "a priori values" seem a tad metaphysical, no?
And my point is that Venezuela is simply a further data point that Friedman is right. If you disagree that freedom of expression and abiity to dissent is important, then Friedman's argument (and my post about Venezuela) is irrelevant to you.<
As I said, as a matter of _fact_ and not of principle, I don't view the non-renewal of RCTV's license to broadcast to be a violation of the free press principle. RCTV can still broadcast on cable and internationally, while CNN and other US sources are still widely available in Venezuela. (If I am wrong about these facts, please correct me.) BTW, do you view the FCC's exclusion of almost all churches, labor unions, and community groups from broadcast media ownership as violations of the principle of the free press? If FOX were to call for the violent overthrow of President Hillary Clinton in 2009, would you think of its suppression or the fining of its owners as a violation of free press principles? (BTW, this is not going to happen. Hillary seems quite able to kiss ass with the capitalists, including Rupert Murdoch. On the other hand, FOX helped to overthrow Gore in 2000. I predict that it will be Hillary who will bend.) in a different missive, David B. Shemano wrote:
Back to the point. I just gave you a couple hypothesis. They are
testable. Venezuela is the latest test case. Who is up for the bet?< hypothesis 1: revolutionary socialism --> suppression of the free press. This hasn't been seen in Venezuela yet (see above). we can also hypothesize capitalism --> suppression of the free press. For example, this can be seen in Pakistan currently. This hypothesis works pretty well, since there are many other data points. Of course, it does depend on what one means by "suppression of the free press." Counselor Shemano's hypothesis doesn't do so well. Unfortunately, I lack the time and expertise to address his second hypothesis. In yet another missive, David B. Shemano wrote:
... land collectivizations in Russia and China were followed by mass starvation. Mass starvation is going on right now in North Korea. Do you dispute these events? If you do, nothing I say is going to convince you to the contrary. Regarding Zimbabwe, I googled and pulled up the Wikipedia entry on "Land reform in Zimbabwe."... <
I think that most people on pen-l would agree (despite the large variation among viewpoints) that the analogy between Chavez's Venezuela and the mass collectivizations of Russia, China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe is a _false_ analogy. There are BIG differences among these various cases and between Venezuela and the rest of the list. Among other things, Zimbabwe cannot be called "revolutionary socialist" without straining the language to the breaking point. (That creep Mugabe may actually call himself "socialist," but that word has been subject to a lot of abuse.) While the collectivizations in the old USSR, China, and N. Korea were mostly organized _from above_, that in Venezuela is organized from below, with a very helpful assist from the government. And unlike these others, Venezuela has the benefits of oil rents... Speaking of false analogies, there's also one often made between Milton Friedman's capitalism (an "unknown ideal"** of perfectly atomistic markets with no externalities, etc.) and actually-existing capitalism (an empirical concept and what most of pen-l and I talk about). There are too many differences between these concepts to put them in the same box, except as follows: MF's conception of capitalism is an ideological idealization of actually-existing capitalism. * OEMA = Other E-Mail Abbreviations. ** yes, this phrase comes from Ayn Rand, but it's apt. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
