This commentary could also be entitled “Just ’cause it’s legal doesn’t mean it is right.” That is, morally right. First we discuss the new NYC regime. Then we touch on the raid into Venezuela. Both are examples of what is politically acceptable (and condemned) as contrasted to what is right, proper, and wise.

Of course, since government is fundamentally not right morally, that comes as no surprise.

Today, we see that the evils of government are more obvious than ever.

For one, consider the new Mayor of New York City, the “democratic socialist” Zohran Mamdani and his plan to implement wide-scale types of extreme socialism in the former bastion of the free market. (Two notes: first, the Communist Party in Germany and several other European nations changed its name to the Democratic Socialist Party after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Secondly, much of what the City of New York government has implemented over decades (if not centuries) are examples of milder versions of socialism. If we dare consider any forms to be milder.)

“Every socialist is a disguised dictator.” –Ludwig von Mises

Every piece of trash running for government office in the States, especially in the big urban areas, is to some degree a socialist based on what they promote and their voting record. At the same time, what are touted as the fundamental principles of socialism are, at heart, false advertising.

So virtually all serving politicians (and retired ones, to boot) are very hypocritical for condemning Mamdani for his socialism.

(We are told that the main principles of socialism include collective ownership, social justice, equality, and cooperation, aiming to create a fair and equitable society for all. Since these are stated policies and actual goals of most American government, regardless of freedom and liberty, we think this is a fair statement.)

These “principles” have failed to be applied in any socialist regime or economy. But they are politically expedient and powerful propaganda for the extreme “disguised dictators” (or wannabe dictators) like Bernie Sanders, Zohran, Mandani, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and the disguised socialists and fellow travellers like Gavin Newsom, Tim Walz, Michelle Lujan Grisham, and of course, Uncle Joe Biden, Obummer, and so many others.

Again, we can look at the recent Venezuela incursion. And the response to it by a wide range of people. We can applaud those who continue to be consistent in their condemnation of the arrest and custody of the Venezuelan President and First Lady this weekend. That includes libertarians with such addresses as AntiWar.com, LewRockwell.com, and fff.org (Future of Freedom Foundation). How consistent? These libertarians have taken a principled stand regarding the actions. Unlike many, many others. Especially politicians. On the one hand, we have those who have supported such actions by various POTUS, but now condemn Trump for doing the same thing that Clinton, Obama, and others have done. But on the other hand? We have those who did condemn Clinton, Obama, and others for doing this, but because it is Trump doing it against an avowed extreme socialist, they now applaud the action.

In other words, politics takes precedence over principle. Not just in Democratic and Republican circles, but also in Libertarian organizations and among individuals, at least occasionally.

Maduro (and his wife) were bad actors: parasites and dictators who abused the people of Venezuela and no doubt broke numerous laws (Venezuelan, American, and international). Here at TPOL, we have friends, even family, who have family in Venezuela (or who have fled from there). It is the “how” this couple was dealt with we have a very hard time accepting.

But for Democrats (and even some never-Trumper Republicans and Libertarians) to claim this is not just wrong but without precedent, or that it will set new, dangerous precedents? That is wrong – is there a single American president since about 1895 who has not done something similar? (Please, readers, let us know – perhaps Harding or Coolidge?) Still others claim that it included illegal actions or even unconstitutional actions, as if this was something new in DC.

But customary usage does not make something right. It does not excuse immoral actions, however constitutional or legal.