Hugo Chávez may have been oppressive, but at least he wasn't a lapdog for Washington like so many other heads of state. The world would be a much more free and decentralized place with more anti-imperialist "rogue" nations. And it is important to put his depredations in perspective. Bush, Obama, Blair, Hollande, etc., have caused more death and suffering in the world than Chávez ever did. And this should be no surprise.It is often the less authoritarian states that afflict more humans more seriously, even if those afflicted the worst happen to be foreigners. That is because the most "free" countries are also often the most imperialistic. This is what Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls the "paradox of imperialism." States that allow more domestic freedom have more wealth to tap to fund more conquests and interventions.Considering the chaos, terror, and wanton murderous destruction perpetrated on a daily basis by the West upon its recipients of "liberation," the evil of Chávez is dwarfed by that of the governments of the "free world."
This is from Mises.org editor Daniel J. Sanchez as quoted by Lew Rockwell at the Lew Rockwell Blog.
By the way, Hugo Chávez has reportedly amassed a personal fortune worth about US$ 2 billion as of 2010. The Criminal Justice International Associates said that “the Chávez administration have subtracted around $100 billion out of the nearly $1 trillion in oil income made by PDVSA since 1999.”
Some social justice from the Socialist of the 21st century eh?