Hacker News Reader

> The good news for the US is that they don't have an imperialist neighbour who's going to crush their economy and support a coup to shut down any socialist threat to their imperialism. Because that's what happened all the times in Latin America.

While U.S. intervention in Latin America is regrettable, this is a lame cop-out. One, many countries that embraced capitalism flourished economically despite U.S. intervention. E.g. Chile, South Korea, etc. Two, many countries that embraced socialism destroyed themselves economically despite the lack of foreign intervention. E.g. Venezuela under Chavez, India under Nehru.

> One, many countries that embraced capitalism flourished economically despite U.S. intervention.

I think you misunderstood my point: I said that leftist governements in South America failed because they were under massive pressure from the US. Chile is a good example, as Aliende was literally overthrown by a coup financed by CIA.

> many countries that embraced socialism destroyed themselves economically despite the lack of foreign intervention. E.g. Venezuela under Chavez, India under Nehru.

That's absolutely wrong about Venezuela. Chavez era is the golden age of the past 40 years in that country.

And about Nehru, the main criticism is not about destroying anything (because post-colonization didn't have an economy to destroy in the first place) and more about missed opportunity, but that's an easy thing to say afterwards (and many non-socialist countries didn't do any better).

> That's a really strange thing for a “classical liberal” to say. This is straight from the hardcore neoconservative narrative.

Not really. If China were playing with equal rules there would be no problems. They are not. From currency manipulation to intellectual property theft, not a care about the environment and the imprisonment of massive amounts of people and more, they are not equal participants in the economic realm.

Classical Liberalism does not require me to ignore reality. China is playing to win, by whatever means necessary. Which means if we (the western world) create the opening they will go right through it. A world dominated economically and militarily by China is likely to result in a severe reduction in the standard of living of many nations doing well today. For a crystal-view into that today just look at nations with seriously degraded industrial ecosystems.

For those who might not be clear on what classical liberalism is about, here's a good explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-8Uz_nMaQ

Please note there's nothing in these principles that would have one be comfortable with what's going on with China, both within and in the context of the world stage. In fact, classical liberalism would cause one to raise a serious alarm against a good deal of China's behavior, internally and externally.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-8Uz_nMaQ

Oh, look! Yet another conservative think-tank with “liberty” in its name…

Never mind what the man says. Judge him by the source of the video. Brilliant.

For those who have not seen the video, these are the ten core principles of Classical Liberalism he lists:

    1) Liberty as the primary political value
    2) Individualism
    3) Skepticism about power
    4) Rule of Law
    5) Civil Society
    6) Spontaneous Order
    7) Free Markets
    8) Toleration
    9) Peace
    10) Limited Government

In the video he gives a short explanation of each of the above.

> The good news for the US is that they don't have an imperialist neighbour

I don't think you know the history of Latin America.

If you speak Spanish you should watch the many excellent videos out there with Gloria Alvarez. If you don't, she has been doing more and more work in English, here's one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xP-epEQikI

If you do understand Spanish, here's a short history of Latin American history by her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WylR8EvhnE

That's funny how libertarians get all their reading from libertarian sources.

Gloria Alvarez is no historian, she is a politician with a libertarian agenda…

That's funny how people who don't understand history and facts always choose to attack the messenger rather than the arguments being presented.

I studied in Latin America and lived there for nearly 20 years in total. I KNOW THIS HISTORY because I both studied and lived some of it. She is telling the truth.

I'm not «attacking» anyone, but you wouldn't trust Lenin talking about the Russian history (and you'd be right) and you shouldn't trust a libertarian politician about history either.

> I'm not «attacking» anyone

Had you studied Philosophy and Logic in university you would have understood my comment.

This is what's colloquially known as "shooting the messenger" or attacking the source. You said:

> Gloria Alvarez is no historian, she is a politician with a libertarian agenda…

BTW, she is not a politician. She recently tried to run for President of Guatemala but didn't get very far. She was not a politician before that and is not a politician today.

The fallacy you are committing is "argumentum ad hominem". Here's a reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The simple explanation is to attack the person ("she is a politician with a libertarian agenda") rather than to address the argument she presents by offering-up evidence that proves your case and disproves hers. The implication, of course, being that nothing she says is valid because of who she is, regardless of the nature and content of her presentation.

> you wouldn't trust Lenin talking about the Russian history

Not true, you are attacking the messenger again. There is no reason to assume Lenin (or anyone else) is lying just because of who they are or what they did. You can be skeptical about it, sure, but the only LOGICAL approach --if what you seek is the truth-- is to listen (or read) and then confirm the validity and soundness (these are two different things) of the argument Lenin would be making. Only after confirming the validity and soundness of the argument can you conclude whether Lenin is telling the truth or not about a particular argument. He could be lying about one thing and telling the truth about another.

As Einstein said, paraphrasing, the solution to a problem requires a higher perspective than the one that created it in the first place.

Please be careful about what you believe and why you believe it.

It's much easier to accept a conclusions "don't listen to her, she is just a libertarian" than to actually take the time to listen to somebody, perhaps even engage with them in a respectful manner and consider the arguments being presented. This is the only way we move forward as a society. Politicians (notice I did not specify party affiliation) would prefer to herd us all like sheep with false promises and stuff that sounds great. Politicians hate it when we actually think and challenge what comes out of their mouths. That requires work and emotional separation from any affiliation, which isn't necessarily easy for a lot of people.

And we should take you communist word for it? /s