Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Hugo Chavez redefines "treason"
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, January 20, 2008

Not that anyone should be particularly surprised:
With the country recently facing milk shortages, Chavez said "it's treason" if farmers deny milk to Venezuelans while selling it across the border in Colombia or for gourmet cheeses.

"In that case the farm must be expropriated," Chavez said, adding that the government could also take over milk plants and properties of beef producers.

"I'm putting you on alert," Chavez said. "If there's a producer that refuses to sell the product ... and sells it at a higher price abroad ... ministers, find me the proof so it can be expropriated."

Addressing his Cabinet, he said: "If the army must be brought in, you bring in the army."
Nice. Venezuela - Che's ultimate paradise.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Perhaps Hugo might simply argue that a nation which can’t control its borders isn’t really sovereign.

Or perhaps he’d argue that the way to control the borders is to enforce the law against businesses that give people an incentive to cross the border.

Or perhaps he’d argue that you cannot have a welfare state and free trade, so the free trade goes.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Or perhaps he’s just saying "I’m da boss".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s like watching a train-wreck.

Entertaining... until you realize that those are *people*.

Being able to say "I told you so" a few years from now won’t make it any better.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Or perhaps he’s just saying "I’m da boss".
Indeed. It’s quite a common impulse.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Perhaps Hugo might simply argue that a nation which can’t control its borders isn’t really sovereign.

Or perhaps he’d argue that the way to control the borders is to enforce the law against businesses that give people an incentive to cross the border.

Or perhaps he’d argue that you cannot have a welfare state and free trade, so the free trade goes.
Mr. Chavez will need trade to keep his regime propped up. He will soon start importing agricultural and manufactured goods. In return he’ll sell his raw materials, primarily oil, keeping his failed policies alive longer than it should.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Indeed. It’s quite a common impulse.
You don’t say.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I do say, fairly often, which is why I am so familiar with the aforementioned potential Chavez arguments.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
I do say, fairly often, which is why I am so familiar with the aforementioned potential Chavez arguments.
And what I’m trying to say is Chavez doesn’t use or need "arguments". He’s not trying to convince anyone to see things his way.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That’s both an irrelevant distinction and inaccurate. Chavez says he’s doing it because domestic supply is more important to public welfare than supply for, e.g., Colombia. Whether he needs to make an argument or not may be debatable, but he does make them. They’re just bad arguments.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Keep an eye on Cuba, too. I’m hearing a lot of chatter on the Island that there’s at least talks of a backdoor deal which would allow Cuba to fall into Venezuela as a satellite nation once Fidel dies.

I hope that’s not the case, but Fidel is a crafty one.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
That’s both an irrelevant distinction and inaccurate.
It is neither irrelevant nor inaccurate as it pertains to my first comment.

However the fact that you find the arguments you put up there to be bad arguments is irrelevant to what Chavez just did.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Did Henke just compare Chavez to those who do not favor an open borders policy in regards to immigration?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Perhaps Hugo might simply argue that a nation which can’t control its borders isn’t really sovereign.
Perhaps he could, but the problem with that argument is that he is talking about the ability of Venezuela to prevent its own citizens from taking a commodity out of its own territory into another country. That is not an argument about external threats to Venezuela’s sovereignty, but an argument about the legitimacy of Venezuela’s internal economic plans (or even its form of government in general).
Or perhaps he’d argue that the way to control the borders is to enforce the law against businesses that give people an incentive to cross the border.


See above.
Or perhaps he’d argue that you cannot have a welfare state and free trade, so the free trade goes.
Actually, since he places absolutely no value on free trade in the first place, it’d be pretty apparent at that point that he was just demagogueing the issue.

Either that or he was channeling some alternate universe double in the Henke-verse, where the bizarre natural laws say movement in commodities out of a country is in every way the same as the movement of foreign populations into a country.

 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
Did Henke just compare Chavez to those who do not favor an open borders policy in regards to immigration?
You know, Ron Paul panders to White Supremacists. Henke must as well because he might share some of the same arguments as Paul.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Yep. Keeping people out is the same as keeping people in.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Or goods.
Yep.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well, I would also hope that Henke would agree that a nation should be able to "control its borders" well enough to keep out meat with mad cow disease or toys with lead.

So I doubt controlling borders is really 100% bad in Henke’s view.

Or does he really think that once you control any aspect of a border you’re on a non-stop slide to Chavez’s Venezuela?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
How this became a discussion about porous borders is interesting.
It appeared as though it should be about goods being exported for profit as opposed to being sold for less locally (a syndrome repeated in ’colonies’ suffering local famine throughout history).
It appears as though it should be about a leader declaring he will use his armed forces to expropriate such property.

Let me know when we seriously suggest we’ll use the armed forces to either ’export’ people who wander in, or post them on the border to keep said people from wandering in or use them to enforce the rules about staying past your visa deadline.

Till then, to say the tie in is tenuous is to practice gross understatement.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider