For a contrasting view, earlier this week I saw in the Wall Street Journal, Monday 12-4-2017 page A15 ‘The Left Sets Honduras on Fire’ Big text = “Socialists rampage through the country after an apparent election loss.” Report that Nasralla had more support in Tegucigalpa, vs. Hernandez having more support in the countryside, therefore the votes for Nasralla were counted and reported while the votes for Hernandez were still being transported to vote-count-central.
Excerpt “The strategy has been successful in Nicaragua where Sandinista Daniel Ortega has been in power since 2007. He is as corrupt as any caudillo and has handily put an end to political pluralism, competitive elections, transparency and institutional independence.” In El Salvador the General Secretary of the ruling FMLN has announced the goal is to end capitalism - including the right of private property.
On Nicaragua, I recall seeing in a Borders bookstore in 2011 a book that hailed Daniel Ortega as the savior of Nicaragua. I would like to look more closely and fact-check those competing claims.
As for El Salvador, eliminating private property usually doesn’t eliminate the property, or the likelihood that someone has control over that property approximating what a private property owner has. That person is often a government commissar or the local equivalent of a ‘Friend of Bill [Clinton]’
And on a similar subject, since the official report on Charlottesville VA earlier this year just came out, we hear that the politicians of Charlottesville were all very stand downish. There is no doubt that they would have liked to have yanked the rally permit for ‘Unite the Right’, but a judge said that the rally organizers had a right to rally. The politicians tried hard to sit on that fence.
So, (somewhat rhetorically), should the police have simply gone away, and let the 1000 protesters ‘have their way’ with the ~50 ‘Unite the Right’ attendees, up to and including pounding them to a pulp and killing them?