Haitian President Moise assassinated

[pecksniff]

In his, presumably secured, official residence, yet. First Lady injured, being taken to a Miami hospital.

Acting Prime Minister Claude Joseph appears to be in charge -- he was only appointed a few days ago and set to take office today. Leadership was already in dispute -- Moise's opponents were insisting he had overstayed his term. (There was such upheaval at the time of his election that he did not take office until the next year and was counting his five-year term from that date.)

Nobody knows yet who's responsible. There are reports the assassins were speaking Spanish and some English.

 

[Rightguide]

Looks like his people got tired of his bullshit.

 

[pecksniff]

Looks like his people got tired of his bullshit.

His party is a "center-right" one (whatever that means in a Haitian context). And the assassins appear to be foreign mercenaries.

 

[jaF0]

^^ Donny looking for a new kingdom?

 

[pecksniff]

^^ Donny looking for a new kingdom?

Somehow I don't think he's gonna pass for Haitian.

 

[Rightguide]

His party is a "center-right" one (whatever that means in a Haitian context). And the assassins appear to be foreign mercenaries.

The average wage is $2 a day and gas prices are at all time highs. Parliament was dissolved. He is being described as an autocrat ruling by decree, which is much closer to a left wing totalitarian type so common in that region.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The average wage is $2 a day and gas prices are at all time highs. Parliament was dissolved. He is being described as an autocrat ruling by decree, which is much closer to a left wing totalitarian type so common in that region.

Sounds like Cuomo.

 

[jaF0]

Sounds like Donny.

Or HeyyAAAbbottt!!!!

 

[pecksniff]

The average wage is $2 a day and gas prices are at all time highs. Parliament was dissolved. He is being described as an autocrat ruling by decree, which is much closer to a left wing totalitarian type so common in that region.

The kind of autocrats they're more used to in Haiti are RW, like the Duvaliers. When they get a leftist, it usually turns out to be an actual democrat like Aristide.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Sounds like Donny.

Or HeyyAAAbbottt!!!!

Andy just arrogated to himself more plenary powers to combat "gun violence." You know, Democrat constituencies doing what they love to do when the police are gelded.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The kind of autocrats they're more used to in Haiti are RW, like the Duvaliers. When they get a leftist, it usually turns out to be an actual democrat like Aristide.

The chap who touted the murdering of his political foes?

 

[pecksniff]

The chap who touted the murdering of his political foes?

No, this one.

 

[Rightguide]

The kind of autocrats they're more used to in Haiti are RW, like the Duvaliers. When they get a leftist, it usually turns out to be an actual democrat like Aristide.

Fascists, Nazis, and Communists, are all left wing totalitarians. One the real political spectrum we have on the extreme left, total government, Communism. On the extreme right, we have no government, anarchy. All totalitarians are left wing as they carry the same DNA, with little deviation.

 

[pecksniff]

Fascists, Nazis, and Communists, are all left wing totalitarians. One the real political spectrum we have on the extreme left, total government, Communism. On the extreme right, we have no government, anarchy. All totalitarians are left wing as they carry the same DNA, with little deviation.

Any political spectrum that groups Fascists with Communists is not "real." (It might be, instead, something Libertarian, like that diamond-graph they're always showing.)

A better one probably would be the Pournelle Chart, which does distinguish them.

There is no "extreme right" that is not authoritarian. Anarchists are part of a leftist tradition closely associated with Marxism.

 

[CornusKousa]

Fascists, Nazis, and Communists, are all left wing totalitarians.

I'm sorry but this is incorrrect.

They are all authoritarians and collectivist.

But they are not left wing.

One the real political spectrum we have on the extreme left, total government, Communism. On the extreme right, we have no government, anarchy. All totalitarians are left wing as they carry the same DNA, with little deviation.

I think, or at least from my perspective you're confusing the L v R with authority v. liberty.

Left vs right is a matter of goals, equity (LW) vs. hierarchy (RW).

Authority vs. liberty is how to obtain those goals, via government authority or lack there of.

That's why you can have liberal socialism such as co-ops and employee owned companies....and authoritarian socialism, aka communism.

Same on the right....an-cap libertarians at the extreme liberal RW and fascist at the authoritarian end.

 

[CornusKousa]

There is no "extreme right" that is not authoritarian.

It's called libertarianism, classical liberalism and even social liberalism are all RW, because they are totally ok with and allow inequity.

Anarchists are part of a leftist tradition closely associated with Marxism.

Only in theory and only in the minds of people who ignore the real world results of anarchism.

The leftist tradition is the only one that cannot be liberal and MUST be authoritarian because inequity is the natural order of things, equity REQUIRES government authority.

Thus it's pursuit always winds up with an authoritarian shit hole of a nation and society.

 

[Rightguide]

Any political spectrum that groups Fascists with Communists is not "real." (It might be, instead, something Libertarian, like that diamond-graph they're always showing.)

A better one probably would be the Pournelle Chart, which does distinguish them.

There is no "extreme right" that is not authoritarian. Anarchists are part of a leftist tradition closely associated with Marxism.

Anarchists are about no government, an extreme rightwing position. "No government" types are the exact opposite of any of the totalitarian types of big government. Totalitarian Communists, Nazi's, and Fascists, are all socialists of slightly differing degrees.

 

[CornusKousa]

Anarchists are about no government, an extreme rightwing position.

That ALWAYS has 100% RW results....yet the left continues to claim that's left wing because Marx thought after the socialist utopia was achieved there would be no need for government, so some anarchist think they are leftist.....LOL

Usually will advocating a totalitarian state to force the equity they seek, because without government there is no equity.

"No government" types are the exact opposite of any of the totalitarian types of big government. Totalitarian Communists, Nazi's, and Fascists, are all socialists of slightly differing degrees.

Yuuup.

 

[pecksniff]

Only in theory and only in the minds of people who ignore the real world results of anarchism.

In a nutshell, libertarians (including "ancaps") oppose the state because they see it as a threat to private property, and anarchists oppose the state because they see it as a guardian of private property.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm sorry but this is incorrrect.

They are all authoritarians and collectivist.

But they are not left wing.



I think, or at least from my perspective you're confusing the L v R with authority v. liberty.

Left vs right is a matter of goals, equity (LW) vs. hierarchy (RW).

Authority vs. liberty is how to obtain those goals, via government authority or lack there of.

That's why you can have liberal socialism such as co-ops and employee owned companies....and authoritarian socialism, aka communism.

Same on the right....an-cap libertarians at the extreme liberal RW and fascist at the authoritarian end.

I don't use the classic political spectrum designed by the totalitarian left to distance themselves from Nazi totalitarianism. The three I mentioned, Communism, Nazism, Fascism are all totalitarian socialist systems, with little degree of distance between them.

My political spectrum is quite simple and is based on the degree of governance. The extreme left of that spectrum being total government, Communism, and the extreme right being the total absence of government, or Anarchy.

Within this spectrum all totalitarianism fall towards and on the extreme left. After all in terms of governmental control, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, were by definition forms of Socialism. Especially when we recall that Mussolini was himself a declared and recognized Socialist. So the comments I made are entirely intended to fall within the parameters of the spectrum I described. My spectrum simply measures the degree of government power and control. Not the policy intricacies of goals, equity, or hierarchy.

 

[pecksniff]

I don't use the classic political spectrum designed by the totalitarian left to distance themselves from Nazi totalitarianism.

The classic spectrum dates from the seating of factions in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, long before the "totalitarian left" or "Nazi totalitarianism" were conceived. Left meant republican, right meant monarchist. Ever since, "right" has been associated with, more than anything else, preservation of tradition and the status quo -- it has no particular association with any point along a "liberty" axis. In terms of historical examples, however, there is no "extreme right" that is not authoritarian. E.g., Pinochet was zealously committed to economic libertarianism, but his regime was as authoritarian as Hitler's or Franco's.

And then there was the Duvialiers' regime in Haiti, which was simply an authoritarian kleptocracy.

 

[CornusKousa]

I don't use the classic political spectrum designed by the totalitarian left to distance themselves from Nazi totalitarianism. The three I mentioned, Communism, Nazism, Fascism are all totalitarian socialist systems, with little degree of distance between them.

AFIK, there is nothing about the LvR/Authority v liberty spectrum that was designed by the left nor does it distance anyone from their authoritarianism.

It just distinguishes philosophical objectives from the means by which various people propose achieving those objectives.

What people want vs how much of a control freak they want to be to get it.

My political spectrum is quite simple and is based on the degree of governance. The extreme left of that spectrum being total government, Communism, and the extreme right being the total absence of government, or Anarchy.

I understand, but that totally ignores what most of the world sees as L v R...which is why I was saying it seems like your confusing L v R with authority vs. liberty.

After all in terms of governmental control, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, were by definition forms of Socialism.

Right, and so is an employee owned company.

How does that very liberal and definitive form of socialism fit on your LvR spectrum??

Especially when we recall that Mussolini was himself a declared and recognized Socialist.

Sure, but he was also very much a RW socialist, just like the Nazis.

Socialism, and collectivism come in many forms, not all of them are authoritarian in nature....some are very much liberal.

A hippie communes for example...is communism, so is Maoism. Yet one is content to be very liberal and voluntary lifestyle in the hills of Vermont or California, the other wants to dominate and control the world to a psychotic degree.

Thus the spectrum gets more complicated than government control = left, no government = right.

My spectrum simply measures the degree of government power and control. Not the policy intricacies of goals, equity, or hierarchy.

Which is why I say it was a measure of liberty vs. authority....not left vs. right.

You do you, I'm just saying it doesn't register to folks who consider the differences between N. Korea socialism and hippie commune socialism.

I'm not trying to bash you man, I'm just trying to let you know it sounds weird to folks who consider L and R to be very different things from authority vs liberty.

 

[CornusKousa]

In a nutshell, libertarians (including "ancaps") oppose the state because they see it as a threat to private property, and anarchists oppose the state because they see it as a guardian of private property.

Yes, yet what happens without the government there to confiscate and redistribute that private property??

Hierarchy through private property.

In terms of historical examples, however, there is no "extreme right" that is not authoritarian.

The USA is exactly that.

A nation and society founded in the ideals and principals of classical English liberalism, which is STILL to this day both radically liberal and right wing.

Look how much it's very existence drives leftist fucking NUTS with hatred and a desire to exert as much authority and control as they can to force equity down the throats of all 330 million citizens no matter how much they fucking hate it.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, yet what happens without the government there to confiscate and redistribute that private property??

Then the workers can do it themselves.

At least, that's the theory. They would probably run up against the capitalists' private armed guards. But, would outnumber them.

The closest that kind of thing ever came to working was in the Spanish Revolution -- contemporaneous with, but a distinct phenomenon from, the Spanish Civil War. They set up an "anarcho-syndicalist" system. [insert your own Monty Python and the Holy Grail joke here] Every workers' or peasants' collective was autonomous, not controlled by the state or any political party. It worked well enough economically while it lasted, but the Republic, which was dependent on Stalin for military aid, put it down within a year.

 

[pecksniff]

PM Joseph is promising elections scheduled later this year will go forward -- so, maybe all this will sort itself out.