<DIV>Well, there is some disagreement about that, which is why we are on the sides of respective fences we are on. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Venezuala is a different story: I'd put that in the liberal proceduralist column. They havea  multiparty democracy, a fair amount of free speech, and decide on policies by majority vote -- sometimes with a lot of popular involvement. That's not how it is in Cuba or Vietnam. Or China or North Korea. jks Charles Brown <cbrown@michiganlegal.org> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> ...and they are alternatives , acceptable alternatives to liberal proceduralism; they aren't tyranny or civil war and they are acceptable alternatives to liberal proceduralism. CB From: andie nachgeborenen <ANDIE_NACHGEBORENEN@YAHOO.COM> Of course you support that, Charles. That's why you're a Leninist and I'm a liberal! Charles Brown <CBROWN@MICHIGANLEGAL.ORG>wrote: From: andie nachgeborenen Well, I will think about it. But your liberal proceduralism clearly has failed. * * * There is no alternative. Really. None. No acceptable one. I mean, there's tyranny or civil war, but those are really bad ideas, don't you think? ^^^^ CB: I'm for what they got in Cuba, Viet Nam and Venezuela. I wouldn't call it liberal proceduralism. I like the changes that the Civil War made in the U.S. The ends justified the procedure ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/mobile/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo">Take Yahoo! Mail with you!</a> Get it on your mobile phone.