Centerfield

Not a direct reply to anyone, but generally speaking:

First, there is no "absolute" free speech The speech of Jefferson and his friends included libelous remarks often covered with pen names, but that did not openly advocate treason. The Sedition Acts of 1796 and 1918 were introduced primarily because of wartime concerns and were subsequently repealed. Chavez is silencing the Press in peacetime over obvious acts to consolidate power in himself. The idea of defending Chavez's action as enhancing liberty is a joke and comparing it to Musharaf reflects a certain misunderstanding about historical events. Chavez trashes Liberal Democracy as tyranny while slowly imposing his own oppression on his people. His model is Castro. As opposed to Musharaf’s situation, religion is ironically keeping Chavez from embracing his revolutionary lunacy more and Ahmadinejad, Putin and Hua too closely, lest his people smell sulfur under his feet..

Musharaf has a case for martial law. He is home to OBL and many Taliban. Many clerics in Pakistan believe it a liberty of each individual to kill another if the first "judges" the latter to have committed a crime against Islam. To the degree, those in the Press wish to unhinge the only real force in Pakistan that has taken on extremists, negotiated with India and secured its nuclear weapons, censorship can reasonably be considered martial prudence. The Saudis do it for similar reasons ON OCCASION. Musharaf is the only person Pakistani nukes and extremists. Let us guess if Jefferson would praise Musharaf for defending the separation of church and state and denounce Chavez for grabbing power from the people’s liberty.

If you are suggesting that a Free Press is vital to Democracy, I would agree. It IS a sign of bad health for Musharaf to shut some Press down. Who says Pakistan is a Democracy anyway? On the other hand, there is no reason why Chavez should shut down his Press. Is there a civil war there? Do terrorists broadcast insurrection? I sense the old game of moral equivalency.

“Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 first so they were just as bad as the Egyptians.” B.S. Egypt closed the straits of Tiran and had plans to attack Israel. Egyptian Press printed outrageous anti-Semitism and openly declared the imminent destruction of Israel like Iran did a few days ago. And they moved their troops to the Israeli border. Instead of debating points, the Left has taken a moral equivalency view of the world. Everyone sucks so let’s apply the principle (of what) across the board. Let's bring in Iran, Russia, China and Syria too. Let us just make one giant pot where we can judge everyone by the same standards (of course, heading in the same direction).

In reality, each one of these countries is a different situation (with different implications for us) and simply putting up the light of principle leaves us with no real measurement. We ought to be pushing for the right direction (relative to our interests and the eventual success of our egalitarian ideals). In each case, we should advocate keeping true to our established open tradition in the press, but not suggesting wholesale templates for all societies at all times. Should disaster strike Pakistan, Musharaf is facing intervention to secure his nuclear weapons by at least three countries.

Chavez knows that his revolutionary vision requires media space and a silenced opposition. Musharaf knows greater liberty for Pakistanis must follow some essential liberalizing and isolation of extremist elements moving popular dissent. Jefferson and Adams, Washington and Madison would all distinguish between Chavez and Musharaf. Musharaf is seeking to control religion from wrecking the liberties of the State. Chavez is seeking to control the people by consolidating his control of the State. The fact the Left often can not or will not understand this is why they protest cartoons, ignore the Press's worst nightmares while praising some of liberty's greatest threats.

The idea of defending Chavez's action as enhancing liberty is a joke

Who did that? Not me. But I knew I could count on someone to make a case for a double standard. That's why I said:

Now there's going to be more sympathy in some quarters round here for the difficult finesses Musharraf faces as an ally of the US.

Silly of me to think I could preempt such rationalizations merely by anticipating them. I don't dismiss these rationalizations out of hand, but I'm also not so stupid as to miss that it's special pleading for special circumstances. Censorship is bad, except when it's really necessary. Right, Max? [BTW, I don't even disagree with that... .}

I continue to believe that the most important component of our anti-terrorists efforts has to involve the mubarketing of democracy in the hopes of changing hearts and minds. So to repeat, these developments make that a hard sell. When we extoll deomocracy while allying with strongmen so long as they are on our side, and concurrently condemn censorship when it's being done "for the wrong reasons," the whole world takes notes.

And yup, maybe this dymnamic just aint fair. Objectively speaking, maybe you can make a case for something like martial law in Pakistan due to what's at stake there, the specific environment, OBL, etc., etc.. But you MUST acknowledge that in the eyes of the folks we are trying desparately to sell on democracy, we just look a bunch of big, fat, full of shite hypocrites.

So justify it all you want on the grounds you describe, I won't even bother to disagree with you. I'm just sending a message to you from the mubarketing and subales departments. Subales are going to go down because of this. This wouldn't be the first time a subalesman had to chose between what was "right" and making the subale.

BAD dictator! No cookie!

I certainly won't defend Musharraf's actions, but I don't exactly find Pakistan to be remotely analogous with Venezeula in the first place. When you're comparing very different things, there's no "double standard" involved in applying different standards of assessment. "Apples and oranges" is not a false dichotomy. Unless, of course, you believe in overarching bright-line ideology uber alles, or have an ax to grind.

What I'm seeing here is some posturing stridency without much real point to it but some kinda "gotcha" single-point triumphalism that relies on NOT assessing events in context, but rather on claiming exact equivalencies that don't exist in reality.

But the bottom line for me is that if you're trying to silence the media, any democratic pretense is probably teetering on the brink of unsustainability.

I must have missed the pretense of democracy in Pakistan. It's never been anything but a power muddle, alternating between military control and mullah control. The central government doesn't even control all its own territory--the Pushtins accept no authority.

It's never been anything but a power muddle, alternating between military control and mullah control.

Right, that's why I said pretense. While there isn't a democracy in Pakistan, Musharraf, like other strongmen past, has on occasion instituted reforms under the promise of moving towards modernizing in the direction of more freedom, a la Europe and America. What I'm speaking to is the vision about the direction of the nation. If a nation has a comparatively free press and the head autocrat has been making occasional modernizing reforms, there are promised embedded in such a direction. When you begin the process of shutting down media outlets, you're going in the other direction, obviously.

I certainly won't defend Musharraf's actions, but I don't exactly find Pakistan to be remotely analogous with Venezeula in the first place. When you're comparing very different things, there's no "double standard" involved in applying different standards of assessment.

Thanks for not defending them, since you're basically conceding my real point, which is that Musharaff's censorship threats show a troubling direction. Just as Chavez's do.

Now you do go on to pick a fight afterwards, but hey! :-) Mileage is just about guaranteed to vary everytime someone else judges the merits of a comparison. Obviously Venezuela and Pakistan are different in many respects. Just as obviously, they are quite similar when it comes down to having leaders who are trying to consolidate power via media restrictions that quell dissent.

What I'm seeing here is some posturing stridency without much real point to it but some kinda "gotcha" single-point triumphalism...

**sigh** If you say so Tully, if you say so. We've got two censorship data points in close temporal proximity. That seems to me like a good time to point out the general pattern, which is that strongmen like to use censorship to quell dissent and consolidate power, and IMO this tends to be a bad sign. I'm not sure why you regard this to be no more than a gotcha given that you are unwilling to defend Musharaffaf's actions.

You've got way more historical study under your belt than I, so if pressed, I'd bet you could cite instances where strongmen instituted temporary restrictions on liberty because of growing dissent, and were later able to turn things around and return to a moderization/democratization path. But I'd also be willing to bet that more often than not such restrictions were chapter 4 or 5 in a tale of deterioration, as autocratic manuevers led to further deterioratio which led to more autocracy and so on and so on.

... "gotcha" single-point triumphalism that relies on... claiming exact equivalencies that don't exist in reality.

If I did that, then it's my bad. But I don't think I did, at least not initially, and it certainly wasn't my intent. I might have veered into it after Max insisted on being apologist for Musharaff in immediate response to my caveat that many folks round here would lean apologist. My bottom line is that censorship is usually a bad sign. If you think that makes for an equivalency, fine. The nations are not the same. The leaders are not the same. But they have undertaken a quite similar troubling policy.

I think a lot of arguments could be avoided if folks always assumed that any comparison made was done only for the purpose of learning what we could. MY oft-repeated experience is that when I make comparisons, many folks tend to assume that I am declaring equivalency. So let me state cheerfully for the record that yes, Pakistan and Venezuela are not exactly the same. Neither are snowflakes. How similar? YOUR mileage.

I share the view of most of the folks here that Musharaff deserves more sympathy for the difficulty of his position than does Hugo Chavez. I still find his choice to clamp down on the media very troubling, and I hope he reconsiders. I seriously doubt much good will come of this policy.

And if we go a step or two down the path of comparing the context of each dictators actions, I think you could argue that Musharaff's actions may be more troubling because of where they are taking place....he's poking at a more worrisome hornet's nest. In each case, the clampdown will drive dissent underground, quite possibly leading to stealthy plotting and a surprise uprising. If Chavez gets deposed, we could conceivably get a replacement who is more desirable in US eyes. But if Musharraf gets overthrown, the prospect of his replacement representing an improvement in our eyes are quite slim, aren't they?

I agree that Pakistan and Venezuela are quite different and that Chavez is a scumbag primarily censoring to consolidate his own power. But, as BK notes,you have to admit that defending double standards is difficult. This argument about "moral equivalency" is being taken out of context. As I interpret it, the problem was that, during the Cold War, leftists interpreted support for non-democratic regimes by the US as being equivalent morally to much more serious human rights violations by the Soviets. That's different from saying that censorship in one context is ok but not in another. Obviously, Musharref faces problems that Chavez doesn't, but it's not clear that censoring speech will really improve his position or further out interests. Now, granted, it's easy for us to advocate abstract rights in the context of the US where words, no matter how odious are less likely to lead to specific conduct. On the other hand, it seems to me that it's difficult to, on the one hand talk about how wonderful human rights are in one country and ignore violations of said human rights in another based on the fact that you don't like what is being said. Taking this away from the Venezuela/Pakistan context,you could easily argue that censorship and authoritarian rule is justified in China because of its lack of history of democracy, huge population, and danger of dissolution--which is, of course, what the government does argue. Context is obviously important and I would be the last person to advocate black and white answers, but if you are going to promote democracy as global panacea, I don't see how you can easily justify a double standard if you want the country to be seen as something more than just another player of realpolitik. You can argue, as many people here would, that it doesn't matter in general if the rest of the world hates US policies with respect to military intervention or whatever. But I don't see how you can make that argument if you are trying to get countries to follow your leadership on specific policies.

The Sedition Acts of 1796 and 1918 were introduced primarily because of wartime concerns and were subsequently repealed.

The first Sedition Act was introduced due to FEARS of war and not repealed after that danger was past. It took a change of party in power - to Jefferson and his Democratic Republican party - for it to be repealed. Justice Jay, alas, chose not to confront Congress on the clear 1st Amendment conflict. We are fortunate that Jefferson put a long-term end to it.

I'm with BK - troubled by both dictators, but also seeing a difference in situations.

I think Musharraf is getting toward the end of his time in power. I also think we should cut him loose from funding. We was, alas, truly needed to get at Afghanistan. But the SiS continues to send shekels to Kashmiri terror groups. And he's completely failed to reform any of the things that make Pakistan such a home for extremism. Because of that, and because he makes secularism look bad, the longer he's in power, the likelier he is to be replaced by a theocrat.

I'll repeat--it is NOT a "double standard" to compare two different things using different criteria. I don't ask how red my oranges are, or how orange my apples are. Venezuela is not Pakistan. One country is moving actively backwards from stable democratic rule into Marxist totalitarianism, and the other has never had democracy and is, overall, moving foward from military/theocratic totalitarianism in the direction of democratic self-determination. No one said it was inherently a linear process. And using a different and looser standard than strict ideologues is not a double standard either.

Musharraf's action is troubling, of course, but it's important to note that the only reason at all there is ANYTHING resembling "free speech" media to restrict and censor in Pakistan in the first place is because of Musharraf's liberalizations since seizing power. Before the military coup, the mullahs ran the nation, and there were exactly TWO television outlets in Pakistan, both state-owned and -controlled, and both aired nothing without the state & mullah stamp of prior approval.

The liberalization of Pakistani media since '99 has led to numerous private TV networks, cable, and satellite availability. ALL domestic Pakistani media has been under some form of censorship since inception--including blanket bans on Bollywood movies. But now Pakistanis can get foreign media 24/7, unrestricted, and only local news is being restricted. That genie is out of the bottle, unless the regime starts going around confiscating and destroying satellite dishes, as Iran does. Even then, the genie's still out no matter how much you chase him.

Not only is Pakistan NOT Venezuela, more importantly it is NOT America. Are we hypocrites for being friends with India, where there is also censorship in various forms? What about South Korea? Or Canada, the UK, Australia, France, Japan, Israel, Mexico, or Singapore? Should we ever negotiate at all with Egypt, which has a near-complete muzzle on the press? How 'bout Saudi Arabia? ALL of the above-named countries, BTW, rank lower than the USA in "press freedoms." Jamaica has a higher free press rating than we do--does that mean Jamaica is more free overall, more democratic even, than the USA? Heh.

Yes, pulling out a single data item and waving it like a bloody flag as somehow being the uber-determinant of the worthiness of a nation to associate with us, or for us to associate with them, is indeed "Gotcha!" ideological posturing. It's not at all about "making a case for a double standard" in the promotion of "democracy and self-determination." No case has been made for any overarching exact-match single standard in the first place--it's simply assumed in the ideological triumphalism. And anything NOT that over-arching exact-match claimed as a double standard.

Whcih leaves y'all free to deplore the recent actions of both Musharraf and Chavez (as I do) while still recognizing that all countries and cases are different, that one pixel does not a picture make.

Now for a MORE troubling type of censorship practiced by Pakistan, try this. The article doesn't name them specifically, but it's definitely going on.

BTW, Chavez is "nationalizing" the major ISP's in Venezuela. No stone unturned, yada yada.

Chavez is "nationalizing" the major ISP's in Venezuela

Of course he is. It's alot easier to install the Great Firewall of China that way.

Sorry to take so long to respond....busy week

The Sedition Act of 1796 was among other things, designed to prevent agents of France in meeting with Southern leaders in private consultation. Our Merchant fleet sailed into "war" every day. The subtle differences is noted Jon, but imagine Iranians coming and going to America while making private trade agreements with Florida officials. There was bitter and borderline treasonous libel being hurdled at a weak and emerging Federal government trying to ruin the adminsitration's policy. Jefferson's friends assailed Adams and Washington as Anglomen with speech that today would get them "cancelled" from any national network.

As far as BK's comment: I was "generally speaking" and addressing a wider group than one. I read past HIS qualification and addressed “others”, thinking my opening line qualified MY statements. A variation of BK’s logic is deployed elsewhere to advance the Leftist line, though I did not accuse him of that by any measure. That is why I pointed out the typical trap of moral equivalency making the rounds on the internet these last several years. I wanted to put that one to rest. As for my tone; remember, Tully was making a claim about Chavez at SF and BK was countering it as if to render Tully's comments somewhat hypocritical. As for my post above, I clearly said censorship is an indication of Pakistan’s ill health. Did anyone miss that? Whether stop gap censorship there can lead to better health remains to be seen. One misses the point however that if the Press in Pakistan is advocating the violent overthrow of the government, advocating action that can harm its civilians, causes the military to mutiny or defies the legitimate rule of government in preference to extreme religion, then THAT speech IS NOT PROTECTED BY JEFFERSONIAN PRINCIPLE. Perhaps one might define what Free Speech is and when a "Liberal Democratic" government has a right to temporally suspend some of that speech while tightening the normal restrictions concerning treason, state secrets and public harm Not that Pakistan is a real Democracy.

We are trying to sell Democracy to the Pakistanis? I didn't know that. I didn't know we are trying to sell Free Speech to Iran either. I would presume Jefferson might want to implement voting, human rights and secular education before he started bitching about Free Speech, after all, The Bill of Rights followed the Constitution. Many in Pakistan love OBL and would vote tomorrow to start a nuclear war with India and Israel. Given the fighting in Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, we might want to explore the context of "wartime" to most of the Middle East. Most leaders are under the threat of violence by either Iran, The Brotherhood or AQ. Personally, I don't give a crap about some Pakistani paper's right to promote violence or religious revolution when there are multiple nukes in play and a fanatical network that can deliver nuclear and WMD information while plotting our destruction. A Free press in Pakistan now means dying for printing a cartoon. Can you have a Free Press while Madrassas poison the very minds of future generations? It is fantasy to think Jefferson would apply his Liberal criteria to Pakistan. To hoist up some principle (which is not absolute) and apply it to a country that is not a Democracy, is a bit strange when our national security is threatened by the very forces Musharaf seeks to contain.. Somehow what goes on in Pakistan has a connection to Chavez's transparent strategy to start a fire in South America to Mexico? Not only are the two apples and bananas, but their situations regionally are like Venus to Mars. Now isn't Iraq a good example of the Liberal template failing to fit an Islamic society? I can think of far greater crimes going on in Pakistan from rape to Islamic murder, than gagging some of Musharaf’s critics. I never applaud the obstruction of Liberal principle in regard to those values in OUR Bill of Rights and Constitution, but I prefer a proto-Democracy to an extremist Islamic State.

We achieved some success in promting Liberal Democracy in Germany and Japan with large occupying armies and with the help of allies. I simply suggest Jefferson would befriend Musharaf in opening up a fanatical religious state to Liberalsim and probably being worried he might fall to religious nut jobs. Thomas would also blast Chavez for perverting a decent progression towards Liberal Democracy with a throw back to US hating despotism with a socialist face. These of course, are my speculations and I did not directly address BK in my first post because I was cutting to the chase. Free Speech is a sign of Liberal health. Yes, it is what should happen in a Liberal society. It is essential for an informed debate of Free people, It is not without restrictions and it is not without legal ramifications as in the case of libel or public harm. We should demand more of others who are more similar to ourselves, such as Venezuelans. Where the lack of Press occurs in an illiberal society, we might fathom how we can direct Liberty’s victory. Jefferson was always willing to get involved in such foreign advocacy, to steer others to the place where Free speech is realized.

“Obviously, Musharref faces problems that Chavez doesn't, but it's not clear that censoring speech will really improve his position or further out interests. Now, granted, it's easy for us to advocate abstract rights in the context of the US where words, no matter how odious are less likely to lead to specific conduct. On the other hand, it seems to me that it's difficult to, on the one hand talk about how wonderful human rights are in one country and ignore violations of said human rights in another based on the fact that you don't like what is being said"

Marc, Pakistanis are trying to kill Musharaf and he has probably at least five intelligence operations from various countries watching his back. Clinton actually lamented he couldn't invade Afghanistan in 1998 because our relationship with Pakistan was so bad, given the bomb and the suspicions about Khan's proliferation of secrets. At least Bush cooled the tension between Musharaf and India while hard balling him to get on the right side of counter terrorism. He is in a tough spot, but that does not mean silencing political debate is good. I am not sure anyone here knows the real score. I am not in the position to determine the reasons for Musharaf's censorship, but like SLAVERY WAS TO JEFFERSON, some censorship might be a small price to pay now to Musharaf in order to prevent serious conflict ripping apart Pakistan. Before one blasts the lack of Free Speech in Pakistan, it might be worthwhile to discuss the murder of journalists in Russia, the human rights violations in Darfur and Iran, the abuse of women in many nations and the use of torture in the Chinese justice system. It is strange that one can make a case that we MUST protest ANY lost of free speech in Pakistan over principle and fail to apply even greater principles to the world at large. By the way, if one threatens the President in America you are not protected under Free Speech. Musharaf's enemies want his head on a post and have often gotten away with speech that is criminal here to publicly distribute, let alone teach young children.

"One pixel does not a picture make"

Good one Tully.

I think that some people are ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of the realities of the political-economic situation. Most people would agree that wealth enlarges one's political influence. The wealthy can play a larger role in politics: by running themselves (they have fortunes that can be expended on campaigns) or supporting candidates of their choosing (campaign contributions). This is to say nothing of the advantages in terms of education, speech, and manners that wealth confers that might be helpful in winning the people's confidence. Arguably more important, the wealthy can vote with their dollars. So, both investors foreign and domestic can take their money elsewhere when they don't like an election result. In Venezuela, the wealthy went further, they attempted a coup of a democratically elected president. There is considerable amount of evidence which suggests that the U.S. may have also been involved. This points up the dilemma faced by a government in which wealth plays an unduly large part.

Perhaps you might think that it is perfectly acceptable that a wealthy minority should be able to distort, or in some cases, overrule the wishes of the majority. I mean as long as they are not violating anyone's rights... The great limited government proponent, Robert Nozick, justified wealth according to the following three principles:
1. Transfer principle:Holdings (actually) freely acquired from others who acquired them in a just way are justly acquired.
2. Acquisition principle: Persons are entitled to holdings initially acquired in a just way (according to the Lockean Proviso).
3. Rectification principle: Rectify violations of 1 or 2 by restoring holdings to their rightful owners, or a "one time" redistribution according to the Difference Principle.
Now when you look at history you find that, for the most part, and in the third world especially, existing property arrangements do not pass the "acquisition" principle test. This is to say that most of the property that is currently held was based upon some prior unjust acquisition. Take, colonialism, for example. The colonists took native lands by force, i.e. they violated the rights of the natives-in the U.S., Australia, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. (It is a complicated story as the colonists enlisted certain natives to serve as proxies for colonial power, thus enriching them unjustly and setting in motion an unjust wealth distribution in the domestic population.)

This all matters for this reason: It is not dictated by justice that the wealthy should have a larger say in our political affairs. When this is understood then Chavez' action become seen in a slightly different light. It is easy to ignore any difficulties... to conveniently ignore... to speak from privilege...

Look, I'm not saying I agree w/ what Chavez did. I'm not saying that I don't think Chavez is possibly exploiting a problematic situation to secure his power more firmly. I'm not saying that Chavez is not taking another step toward dictatorship a la Castro. I am saying that it behooves us to actually think about the realities of the situation. Our ignorance plays into the hands of the enemies of freedom.

"1. Transfer principle:Holdings (actually) freely acquired from others who acquired them in a just way are justly acquired.
2. Acquisition principle: Persons are entitled to holdings initially acquired in a just way (according to the Lockean Proviso).
3. Rectification principle: Rectify violations of 1 or 2 by restoring holdings to their rightful owners, or a "one time" redistribution according to the Difference Principle."
This was taken from R.N. Johnson's Phil. 213 syllabus found at this website http://web.missouri.edu/~johnsonrn/nozick.html. I forgot to cite my source of this summary of Nozick's theory. My apologies.

Which leaves y'all free to deplore the recent actions of both Musharraf and Chavez (as I do) while still recognizing that all countries and cases are different, that one pixel does not a picture make.

On this I can wholeheartedly concur. That's the important place to start. And to end.

Tully was making a claim about Chavez at SF and BK was countering it as if to render Tully's comments somewhat hypocritical.

Nope, I wasn't trying to do that. As anyone who read through Tully's various threads on Chavez would discover, I'm no fan of Chavez. I think that puts me in the Kerryesque postion of only feeling capable of making a non-apology apology that I'm sorry if my post was misinterpreted. When I said to go over there and surf through the various posts, it was because I think those threads have substantial merit. In at least one of these threads, I joined in on the side of considering Chavez a potential threat. I did not at the time view my post as "countering" Tully, I viewed it as elaborating on atheme that I agreed with. The most compelling point Tully makes there, IMO, is that Chavez is poised to be the rising sun to Castro's setting one.

Ultimately, the blogger code calls for me to be responsible for the tone that's been perceived by my readers, especially if more than one person assumed that's the tone. Because the goal of my blogging is to communicate and to understand, and that hasn't happened. We're wasting our time if we just want to win food fight. So to repeat, countering Tully wasn't my intent, and in hindsight, I ought to have been clearer about that. Especially, I should have been clearer in my post that I considered myself to be among the folks inclined to be more sympathetic to Musharaff than to Chavez, who I have no sympathy for at all. My point was that even though there's a tendency to want to be more sympathetic to Musharaff, when I got to my bottom line, I simply couldn't condone Musharaf's actions. I encourage folks to go back and re-read my intial post and see if they can't see that in the structure.

Yes, pulling out a single data item and waving it like a bloody flag as somehow being the uber-determinant of the worthiness of a nation to associate with us, or for us to associate with them, is indeed "Gotcha!" ideological posturing.

I can understand based on what Max said that you're going to full froth since you think I was trying to "counter" your posts with a "gotcha." I wasn't. So I have to say up yours, Tully, I didn't do that. I made zero claims about "uber-determinants." So please stop mischaracterizing my comments for the sake of winning an argument. I wasn't trying to pick a fight. While I can see how others might have thought that, I think I ought have earned more benfit of the doubt from my responses to your threads on Chavez.

I'll repeat--it is NOT a "double standard" to compare two different things using different criteria. I don't ask how red my oranges are, or how orange my apples are. Venezuela is not Pakistan.

As those among the ranks of the non-frothing are aware, apples and oranges may be discussed either collectively as fruit, or disctinctly as apples and oranges. We don't expect oranges to be red like most apples, but we expect them both to be round and sweet and delicious. Fom the perspective of the undesirability of censorship it is INDEED a double standard if America doesn't express concern about it or worry where Pakistan is headed. I don't have any problem with anyone else's contextualizing it, but it's still undesirable and troubling. As you have at least twice conceded.

Tully, you're the king of accusing other folks of straw-manning, you ought to 'fess up at how vociferously you've straw-manned me here. I've not suggested we ought not to associate with Pakistan or that they match Venezuela. Nor have I implied we ought to also cut ties with any other nation that fails to provide press freedom. Yet you've gone to great lengths to demolish an argument that no one here has made.

We are trying to sell Democracy to the Pakistanis? I didn't know that. I didn't know we are trying to sell Free Speech to Iran either.

Max, that's just willful opaqueness on your part.

I am not sure this all matters. First, for readers, this is the Nozick arguement you brought up. If you look at this you can read a rather interesting argument against Nozick's position and Nozick did change his views moving a bit away from his Libertarian roots later in life.

I am not sure I see how this is relevant. Perhaps we should give America back to the Indians. Without getting into the history of Venezuela and Latin America in general, I do not think you have made the case that Nozick would argue Chavez is rectifying unjust distribution of wealth, or defending himself against an unjustified use of power by the wealthy. The last thing a Libertarian seeks is a Marxist state of affairs. Whatever remedy a Liberal society pursues to address unjust distributions of wealth is one that preserves liberty and gamers the support of the majority of its people. While I am aware of vast inequalities (including the Indians Chavez hardly adores), nowhere do I see Nozick prescribing Chavezian measures, nor would his logic explain the role of Russia, China and Iran, three countries with vast unjust holdings of property and wealth, helping Chavez to fix what was/is unjust in Venezuela and South America. Chavez certainly appears to wish that the poor believe he is will redistribute wealth and that the unjustness of capitalism is his mantra. Should we be sensitive to the roots of poverty and the distribution of wealth south of our border? Of course. Should we be offering a different model for prosperity in step with Liberty? Sure. Let us not forget that already Chavez has redistributed oil wealth to geopolitical friends at the expense of his people. It appears a political front against Liberal Democracy is more important than Chavez’s addressing his unjust redistribution of power. No one elected him to shut down stations. No one elected him to use the power of his office to campaign. No on elected him to threaten political opposition with the unjust abrogation of liberty. I would be interested to know if Nozick spoke directly about South America and what he thought about Cuba.

Brian,
I intentionally didn't direct my fire at you, because I believed you were playing the devil's advocate by pointing out what I ALMOST posted at SF -Musharaf's behavior towards the press. I too found it troubling at first. Perhaps I was disingenuous about my qualifying header since there were no other posters besides ourselves at the time.

While I agree that we should be advancing the merits of our system and upholding liberty whenever we can, I believe my remarks are valid. To focus on Musharaf while Iran and other impugn far more than Free Speech amazes me, though that is not to imply you are not MORE concerned about other realities too. Free Speech is a difficult thing in very illiberal societies and certainly Pakistan is in a martial period with bombings of some sort occurring every week if not day. I think Tully is right when he says Pakistan and Venezuela are like Books and Peaches and that they are like Rocks and Stamps when compared to America. I did not intend to depict you as a Chavez lover or Leftist. I simply used your starting point as a challenge to the more Leftist spin circulating on the internet.

I think we should be more concerned about Musharaf surviving than Press Liberties at the moment. As for taking your post as a counter to Tully’s comments at SF, my apologies. I still think the way you framed the post was a bit antagonistic to arguments against Chavez, but I can see how I may have misread that.

I have little sympathy for bloated oligarchs wishing to preserve their power, but the potential problems for despotism in Latin America, especially should we fail to reform our Amnesty, is our most immediate threat. Oh, perhaps the singular mantra of a security wall may have had something to do with my tone. I suggest we must find a way to help Latin America become more Liberal and Prosperous. Building a Wall without the worker programs and qualified amnesty for millions of Latinos does more to help Chavez than his closing the press. You talk of winning Pakistani minds by defending the press in Pakistan. That is debatable, but we will win Latino minds by comprehensive immigration reform and pressing for liberty in a region more similar to the US. I think Jefferson would agree….

I never said that I thought that Nozick would support Chavez' censorship as a means of rectifying unjust property distribution. Nozick is relevant insofar as it provided a fairly convincing argument that "It is not dictated by justice that the wealthy should have a larger say in our political affairs." I don't think that we even need Nozick to tell us that. but given that Nozick is a conservative of sorts, I think it lends credibility to the view. I'm sorry if I had led anyone to believe that I look to Nozick for my political truths.

As I repeated before, I'm not defending Chavez. Frankly, I don't know how corrupt he is, I assume that every leader is corrupt. The larger point I was trying to emphasize is the dilemma faced by someone like Allende in Chile in the early 1970s. Allende was a socialist who wanted to implement a socialist programme in Chile. He was elected democratically. He promised to refrian from using the state's security apparatus against the Chilean people. He held good on his promise, and he was ousted by the military with the backing of the CIA. There's a lesson in all this. The Allendes of teh world perish, while the Castros flourish. It's kind of a twisted system.

The kind of rectification you seem to be envisioning "giving the land back" has been tried by many socialist governments. Guatemala, for example, had a land reform program that tried to give back land to the Guatemalans. It compensated United Fruit Company for the unused land it took, by giving it the amount that UF had been paying taxes on. This brought accusations by the US that the democratically elected Guatemalan leader was a communist in our backyard. Predictably, the leader was ousted by CIA backed coup.

It's wrong that wealth was unjustly acquired. It is also wrong to violate someone's human rights by infringing on their freedom of speech. The first wrong does not justify the latter. But to say that there is no relevant relationship between the two is, in my view, to ignore the whole picture. For what that's worth.

As far as Capitalism under the banner of Liberal Democracy being in opposition to the kind of socialism Chavez speaks of, is another debate. Europe values private property and is moving away from a welfare state. Chavez certainly seems to be moving away from private property and has even bounced the poor off land he claims "the State" needs. Of course, in some cases, we do that here too, but it should be apparent given the loyalty oaths he requires of State officers, putting industry and services under the control of his personally supervised "State" smacks of something far different than socialism. I guess for Nozick to be applied you would have to show where the unjust distribution of wealth came from (who was responsible) and then show what just remedy is in order. Nozick is not against the redistribution of wealth, just the unjust forms. Few people I know supported the overthrow of leaders either simply because they trend towards socialism or because they wanted to break up unfair monopolies robbing the people of resources that belong to all. KGB files document the strategy in South America. It should be apparent however, that Chavez's plan to build a many billion dollar pipeline through the Amazon, disrupting the environment and removing native peoples is hardly a just redistribution of wealth, especially when said monies are used to buy weapon systems and political allies needing oil. And Chavez isn't replacing RCTV with a people run station in such a redistribution of power. He is putting in his people in an attempt to create one Party rule. I am in favor of actions that bring some justice, but you brought up Nozick and in this case, he would undoubtedly be upset with what Chavez is doing. Some alarm should go off when your dinner guests are Putin Hua and Ahmadinejad. Three people actually consolidating more wealth in the hands of a few than any other leaders. China has a greater difference between the wealthy and the poor than any other nation. Iran’s nuclear program and militarism has robbed the people of promised economic reform. Putin’s path is self evident at the moment. He is building expensive missiles to point at Europe because he honestly believes the West is planning to attack him?

Again, I do not countenance removing leaders because they promote socialism or even Islam. I do not take kindly however, to despots that attack Liberal Democracy as inherently evil and demonize America as they attempt to build an alliance set against our Interests and eventually our Liberty. The fact that many on the Left extol Chavez shows how little Jeffersonian their thinking. I am not saying you are making such claims and I understand there are injustices that allow a Chavez to garner some popular support, even if it is based on imagined motives and virtuous sentiment on the part of the "people".

On an unrelated note: Turkey Perhaps my "Iraq Solution" wasn't so off-target. It is interesting that the Turkish military may be cast as the less-than-liberal force in Turkish and Iraqi political discourse.

The Sedition Act of 1796 was among other things, designed to prevent agents of France in meeting with Southern leaders in private consultation. Our Merchant fleet sailed into "war" every day. The subtle differences is noted Jon, but imagine Iranians coming and going to America while making private trade agreements with Florida officials.

But that's a trade issue. If you want to stop trade, then pass a ban and enforce it a bunch, which is what we do with Iran today. OK, enforcement was hard for them then, but so would thoroughly enforcing a speech ban.

There was bitter and borderline treasonous libel ...

What's wrong with newspapers critizing foreign policy? Plenty of media and blogs criticize Bush, as they critized Clinton and every president before him, sometimes in insulting and borderline libellous fashion. Most people take that kind of article with a grain of salt and aren't convinced, and so it's had much less harm than the benefits free speech brings. I've read a fair amount of that speech, and don't see how it's any worse than today's.

We are trying to sell Democracy to the Pakistanis? I didn't know that. I didn't know we are trying to sell Free Speech to Iran either.

We obviously aren't trying very hard on democracy in Pakistan ;-) No, I'm just not seeing where the value is coming for our money anymore. At this point, I think he's doing more harm than good to antiterrorism. Public schools are still outcompeted by madrassas, money still goes to terror in Kashmir at least, and he's allowed a terror haven to continue unabated and give its people good incentive to be against him (and, thus, us as well).

It wasn't a trade issue, read the Sedition Act of 1796. I used a bad contemporary example. I should have said, "What if Iranians or Syrians were meeting with American citizens, government officials and business leaders in Virginia to discuss the security plans of the Federal government, information on shipping dates and even weapons manufacture? Adams was furious that the South was allowing persona non-gratas (agents and spies) from France to enter the country. If we place it in the context of present border security issue, Adams seems moderate (Jefferson wanted quick citizenship for his French friends hoping to change politics). A fuller explanation can be found reading the letters between Jefferson and Adams, which ended when they both died hours apart on the 4th of July.

Do you imagine that the Vice President should publish under a pen name comments like Washington was a traitor and that the President and his Anglomen (the Administration save Jefferson) are selling out the revolution and surrendering to the Brits? It would be unacceptable for such blatant libel and anti-government rants coming from ADMINISTRATION officials who have classified information. I suggest "Founding Brothers" by Ellis. Jefferson later apologized to Adams. Read some T. Paine. There was a large war going on with sailors at risk and a case can be made that the press even promoted succession. Some of this lead to Hamilton's death. Burr had libeled Hamilton who had actually been truthful about his remarks concerning Burr, but we know the libel laws weren't as tough back then and character had value. I am in favor of a very open press, but we should not forget how fragile the government was and the dangers from the West and East. The opposition to the Jay Treaty goes beyond the remarks leaders today make about Iraq. And of course, the opposition was wrong about France and wrong about the English. Yes?

Please explain how much harder we should push Pakistan. And what Liberal is blasting Iran or even scolding Egypt? I was reacting to the usual selectivity. Swat the fly and ignore the viper. Not that you do this Jon. I agree with your review of Pakistan. So what is there to do? At least Bush can point to SOME positive changes. When he entered office India and Pakistan were at the brink of neutron bomb exchanges. Yes, N-bombs because neither country wishes to radiate themselves with the fallout. I think the Israelis have some N-bombs inside of bunker busters too. Don't let the lull in fighting fool you. Israel just offered the Golan to Assad if he negotiates an end to the fighting and arming of Hizb'Allah. Think he will bite? The UN just blasted Ahmadinejad for his remarks. Do you think he cares? I still think Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Chavez must all be viewed in context of our self-interest. Sometimes liberty must wait a bit for fertile ground and realistic chances of survivial. I think that was Washington's take and Churchill's when he finally decided to retire.

Oh, and perhaps we should ask the Saudis to allow women to drive. Seems like a basic right. Where do we begin Jon and how?

Press Freedom in the Middle East

Press concerns in England