Friedrich Hayek was Backwards

Venezuela reminds us that socialism frequently has to struggle against neoliberal-economic types who wish by any means to re-enslave the masses under the neofeudalism inherent in capitalism. Then those neofeudalists turn around and point the finger at those struggling not to be re-enslaved and call any of their leaders dictators no matter how democratically those leaders have been chosen and rechosen.

Tom1

Tom Usher

Let's get some things straight. Venezuela's poor were suffering mightily before Chavez. Venezuela has a history of neoliberal dictators. Chavez overturned that. The poor benefited hugely. Was he able to do everything he wanted before oil prices collapsed? No. Was he intending to keep Venezuela bound to oil as its main revenue source? No. Is the author (link further down in the text) correct to point at Venezuela as worse than other oil states because Venezuela didn't do as well in the face of the price collapse? No.

Venezuela has probably the most expensive oil-refining requirements because it is extremely heavy crude. Look at what happened to Canada's tar sands in the face of the same price collapse. Alberta suffered huge losses too, but Canada wasn't subjected to the same forces that had impoverished the masses of Venezuela. You don't see the CIA trying to overthrow the Canadian government. You do see it trying to overthrow Maduro, even though Maduro has caved into neoliberal economics to a degree Chavez never would have.

Let me add that the laissez-faire fakes (I say fakes because they always and everywhere want the government to clamp down on all competition from anything remotely socialist) always omit that the more socialist the nation, the more sanctions are placed upon it even in infancy. Why is that? It's because the capitalists know they can't compete against socialism and win. They call it unfair trade. Can you believe it? I hope you can. Libertarian-capitalists are hypocrites. There's no way to be one and not be.

Please notice how the title of the article used the term "frequently." Ha! We are winning that debate, obviously. They never used to qualify it. They would simply say that socialism always fails, etc. People have been taking them to task for that and rightly so. I'm one of them and gladly so.

Look, just because some people employ central planning doesn't mean that, that's the way it's done everywhere. What about the socialists who don't? What about all the employee-owned entities that own the means of production but are highly democratic within and that advocate that same democracy without? Where's the finger-pointing? Well, the hyper-capitalists, who call others economic illiterates (the irony of it), don't want to draw the world's attention to the socialist success stories out there we could model globally and should.

RLCC: Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States

Let the light in.

Lift the bottom first.

Leave absolutely nobody behind for any reason.

Invest in what we need most in a prioritized manner.

Make peace.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.