Hi John Daysh,
Your posts, - that's why I like your dedication to the truth.
They were some truly 5 star posts, good job.

Your water analogy doesn't rescue the claim, mhaze, it just restates it.

Democracy is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for libertarianism. Liberal constraints on power can exist without electoral democracy, and democracies routinely violate liberty through majoritarian coercion. Saying libertarianism "can't exist outside democracy" is an assertion you keep repeating, not an argument you've established.

Regarding Venezuela, you're still begging the question. You assert that a "rightful" government was denied power and that external actors are merely restoring legitimacy. That conclusion depends entirely on whose judgement of legitimacy you accept, and you're quietly outsourcing that judgement to foreign states and interests. Libertarians should be wary of that move, not casual about it.

If a foreign power decides which election counts, recognises an alternative government, applies coercive pressure, and engineers the removal of the sitting one, that is regime change by any meaningful definition. Relabelling it doesn't change the mechanics.

And thanks for clarifying your earlier point. You now explicitly confirm that you see "reflexive anti-Trump dogmas", "anti-US beliefs", and "unerring support by many socialists" as the main reasons for opposition. That was the caricature I objected to, and it remains one.

The disagreement here isn't about whether Venezuelans deserve liberty. It's about whether coercion exercised by powerful external states stops being coercion when it's wrapped in democratic language and produces an outcome you approve of.

That's the question you keep skating past.

"Saying libertarianism "can't exist outside democracy" is an assertion you keep repeating, not an argument you've established."

Give some examples where personal liberty exists outside democracy.

"If a foreign power decides which election counts,"

How many elections do you think there were?

"That was the caricature I objected to, and it remains one."

Yes I know. you want to think that those objecting to the overthrow of Maduro are pure of heart and don't like the opposite being pointed out.

"Are you in favour of ordinary Venezuelans having the right to elect the leaders they want or not?"

Why am I not surprised that you whistled past that?

"It's about whether coercion exercised by powerful external states stops being coercion when it's wrapped in democratic language and produces an outcome you approve of."

Oh its coercion, straight up. But using coercion to rid a people's of those oppressing them is always right, never wrong. The real question is whether the attempts to deliver liberty to the Venezuelan people will succeed. But the attempt is always worthy even if there are collateral benefits to the liberator.

You want examples, mhaze?

There's Hong Kong prior to 2020 - which had strong rule of law, free speech, property rights, and open markets without democratic government.

Singapore today protects property rights, personal safety, freedom of movement and economic liberty despite limited electoral competition.

Historically, liberal constitutional orders in Europe protected individual liberties long before mass democracy existed.

Conversely, democracies have repeatedly legitimised coercion. Jim Crow America, apartheid South Africa, and modern democracies using emergency powers and mass surveillance show that elections are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for liberty.

My last point there matters because you've now made your position explicit:

//using coercion to rid a people of those oppressing them is always right, never wrong//

At that point, we're no longer discussing libertarianism. The harm principle has been abandoned in favour of an ends-justify-the-means ethic, with legitimacy determined by whoever claims to be "delivering liberty".

You're entitled to that view, of course, but it isn't libertarian. And it doesn't become less coercive because it's wrapped in democratic language or produces an outcome you approve of.

That's the disagreement. Everything else is secondary.

Hi mhaze,
"Oh its coercion, straight up. But using coercion to rid a people's of those oppressing them is always right, never wrong. The real question is whether the attempts to deliver liberty to the Venezuelan people will succeed. But the attempt is always worthy even if there are collateral benefits to the liberator."

That's good, we're getting somewhere.

So coercion is bad, or coercion is good, which is it?
If it 'depends on the circumstance' then coercion itself cannot be a cause for intervention, can it?

Unless one believes democracy is a good outcome no matter the cost.
(personally, I think democracy has been hijacked and all democratic roads lead to Greater Israel at this point, democracy needs a makeover otherwise it's reached it best before date)

So if Hamas was democratically elected and the Palestinians are trying to rid themselves of those oppressing them then their fight against Israel is legitimate in your eyes? No?

(It already is under international law)

Maybe you support the 'God gave it to us' line, fanatical Israeli settlers and support religion extremist beliefs over democracy.
Do you support religious extremism?
What happens when a nation all democratically support ethnic cleansing?

Lets switch to Iran.
You acknowledge foreign interference both political and economic, and seem to support it.
It's 'never wrong' you said.

What happens when the plan fails?
If you support this ideology then you must also acknowledge and take responsibility for when it goes wrong and the regime change fails.

[Cont.]

The Shah called for the Iranians to rise up and Trump said he would help them.

Iranian Crown Prince’s Visit to Israel: A Healing Process for many Iranian Jews
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/iranian-crown-princes-visit-to-israel-a-healing-process-for-many-iranian-jews/
(The first thing he did was meet with Israel head of intelligence)

Who then takes responsibly for the dead?
The foreign nations who engineered the FAILED regime change?
or;
The 'regime itself', for daring to not submit to a foreign power that has already tried to assassinate them?

And if you acknowledge 'coercion' then you must also acknowledge that foreign interference forces the said 'regime' to become more repressive, right?

- Because they need to defend against democratic 5th columns and NGO's looking to ferment dissent and engineer civil unrest under the guise of 'humanitarianism' and 'protecting human rights', as well as coordinated covert actions by foreign intelligence agencies, on top of economic sanctions and political interference.

How the hell do you even claim 'protecting human rights' when you force people to eat cats and dogs and trick them into rising up and getting themselves killed to support a foreign nations interests?