Would you support a military coup and its paternalistic policies in order to provide economic freedom? Consider, that under such conditions, the dictator will restrict individual freedom and civil liberties. Moreover, opponents may get killed or imprisoned. Take Pinochet's junta as an example. He restricted and killed people. - Do you support PInochet' s restriction methods? - Would you support something like that? - In other words, do Libertarians support the saying "The end justifies the means." If no, why not?
Make sure you call the cops on any idiot that says "yes". Unless of course, you don't have to call...
LandJ:Would you support a military coup and its paternalistic policies in order to provide economic freedom?
The first bolded phrase contradicts the second one. Paternalistic policies, by definition, don't provide economic freedom.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Of course not Officer!
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Well we would have to, no? You said opponents would be liable to be killed! Please don't worry about us Mr. Fascist, we would support the hell out of your junta! We're no threat to you, promise!
LandJ: Would you support a military coup and its paternalistic policies in order to provide economic freedom? Consider, that under such conditions, the dictator will restrict individual freedom and civil liberties. Moreover, opponents may get killed or imprisoned. Take Pinochet's junta as an example. He restricted and killed people. - Do you support PInochet' s restriction methods? - Would you support something like that? - In other words, do Libertarians support the saying "The end justifies the means." If no, why not?
People in South America generally supported the 60's and 70's coups by military juntas, because they understood their democratic systems had been hijacked by soviet funded political machines, whereas their military and their church remained comparatively more aligned to the traditional values embraced by these peoples.
It is clear that Pinochet regimen doesn't look good compared to the one headed by the dannish prime minister at the time. But only for a complete idiot or the people running Amnesty International it would make any sense to compare the groundlevel situations in Denmark and Chile. If you compare it to the more probable alternative of Chile becoming a USSR satellite, just like Cuba, Pinochet's rule doesn't look that bad at all.
On the contrary, he was the only South American dictator that effectively forestalled the rising red tide in his country, something he achieved by killing the main KGB assets infiltrated in Allende's government and neutralizing other high profile communist operators. And he was able to get much of the job done during and shortly after the critical takeover phase of the coup.
Every successful political gangster knows that purges must be executed fast. The good thing about the communist, and what makes him an easier foe than the otherwise similar islamic terrorist, is that he is generally materialistic and he fears dying, so you can bring him down by sheer brutality.
The less abrasive approach of other countries, like Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, has allowed the radical left to regroup and wait for their hour of reprisal.
Pinochet opened Chilean economy. He applied Chicago Boys' policies. Before him, Alliente restricted extremely economic transactions of Chilean citizens.
That's why I asked if you would support Pinochet's coup (with all his murders etc), in order to prevent Aliente make things worse. In other words, my question is if you would support the State in imprisoning, killing, restricting freedom of expression .....in order to implement free market economy..in order to open the economy.
answer is "no."
No I don't think Chile needed to be protected from any Alliente/Aliente.
locked
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
In other words, my question is if you would support the State in imprisoning, killing, restricting freedom of expression .....in order to implement free market economy..in order to open the economy.
You may be under the impression that the primary goal of Pinochet coup and regime was to free Chile's markets.
That's not exactly true.
He was the leader of a military coup against a controversial marxist president in a politically unstable country.
It was not a particularly new situation to Latin America. Nine years before it had been Brazil.
The move towards free markets happened mainly because Chilean universities had already successful exchange programs with American universities at the time, in particular the Chicago University.
Due to this and other fortunate circumstances, the economic advisory body of the new regime became quickly populated with free-marketeers from Chicago.
But that was largely incidental, not part of a plan by Pinochet.
He would probably have used whomever was available at the time who was not a marxist. Keynesians or austrians or anything. And it happened to be chicagoites, for the good luck of the chilean people.
In Brazil, for instance, the economic advisors to the early military presidents were mainly keynesian people from places like Princeton, Harvard and Yale, with their much more inflationist and protectionist views.
The developmental approach they designed was based upon substitution of imports and cheap credit and after a brief boom period in the early seventies Brazil's economy experienced a long period of twenty years of stagflation, with episodes nearing hyperinflation. And many currency reforms, the average lifetime of a given currency denomination being less then the time bitcoin has been around.
You may be under the impression that the primary goal of Pinochet coup and regime was to free Chile's markets. That's not exactly true. He was the leader of a military coup against a controversial marxist president in a politically unstable country.
I don't know who in their right mind would say, "the primary goal of Pinochet coup and regime was to free Chile's markets."
Or that allende was unstable (unless you are henry kissinger...)
Allende was the first democratically elected socialist leader in either of the Americas. The US helped Pinochet into power and supported him secretly the whole time. he was a brutal dictator and had no care at all for free markets. the point of having pinochet was to prevent socialism from having even symbolic victories in the US sphere of influence. See, the Pinochet File (It is fascinating)
"Free marketeers" don't come from the Univ. of Chicago. They are economic advisers for the US and US corporations. I don't know where you learned about Pinochet, but the fact that you seem to think that the above quoted statement, "isn't exactly true" makes me think you think there is some truth to it when there isn't.
Get your history right.
Or that allende was unstable
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Chile_en_1972
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Chile_en_1973
And I'll take Kissinger's geopolitical assessments before yours any day of the week.
democratically elected
One of the hot political issues before the coup was the fact that 1973 the congressional majority questioned the legality of Allende's election in 1970.
I don't want to pose as an expert on chilean history or constitutional right (I'm not). But as far as talking out of one's own ass goes you are way ahead of me pal.
What the fuck are you talking about? I admire Kissinger for being a real diplomat (Nixon too). I don't know if you study geopolitcs or anything (I do), but don't pretend that Pinochet was about free markets or that Allende was unstable. kissinger and Nixon (refer to the book that i linked) didn't want Allende because it would have been a symbolic success for socialism in the Americas and they secretly backed Pinochet, sold him guns, covered up his atrocities, etc. Allende's instability may have been a reality, but it was not at all why the US cared so much about Chile. The US economic warfare against most of Latin America (central and south) made Allende unstable. Again, I'll refer you to the book on the subject that i posted; it is very enlightening.
BTdubs, when someone links you to an academic source and you say that they are speaking out of their ass and then you proceed to post wiki sources...well anyone reading this will get the picture...
I didn't pretend Pinochet was about free markets at any time.
Read the fucking post, it says exactly the opposite. I said "[h]e would probably have used whomever was available at the time who was not a marxist. Keynesians or austrians or anything. And it happened to be chicagoites, for the good luck of the chilean people."
Pinochet was a military leader and a political thug, and he probably didn't think very high of ivory tower and highly abstract economic concepts like "free market" and shit. I doubt he had read any thing by Friedman or Hayek before staging the whole coup d'état thing.
And I've never said US was not interested on Chile or never backed Pinochet. I said Allende was a KGB asset on KGB payroll and this was confirmed by the publication of the Mitrokhin archive, go check it out.
And on Allende being "unstable", of course I was talking about his regime, and not his temperament. I thought that was clear, but go on, you can blame my engrish, I don't give a shit.
To offer you evidence I posted the timeline of major events in Chile during the time. Just to remind the basic stuff, like general strikes and the situation in the congress.
Yes it is wikipedia, do you have a problem, college boy? You can verify the list of sources, if you think I've edited it or something.
Wikipedia might be far from perfect, and if it has any bias, it's certainly not pro-Pinochet.
But at least these event timelines are reasonably objective and get additions from all parts of the political spectrum, unlike certain "scholarly" books kids like you are force-fed at your liberal arts colleges.
Anyway, you are the guy who was the other day bragging about being smarter than Kant and Aristotle because you've read them or some asinine shit like that, and I even bother answer you now, so fuck me right? Hell, I too used to go around talking like a know-it-all asshole sometimes (before the obligatory graduate school reality check), but kid, you are fucking ludicrous.
You are a college schmuck who has skimmed some book and went on an ego trip online because most people here are even less educated than you are.
Now go study for your finals.
I said Allende was a soviet asset on KGB payroll and this was revelead by the publication Mitrokhin archive, go check it out.
Prove this. I've read a lot about the CIA and all of the various foreign operations they have under gone and NEVER ONCE did I come across that claim. it is right wing rhetoric that you are buying.
just like your claim that Chicago economists were advising for Pinochet...
Can you tell me, without looking it up, how long Allende was in power?]
Yes it is wikipedia, do you have a problem, college boy?
yeah, I do. it is called "academic integrity, kiddo.
Yeah, the politically correct University assigns books published by the National Security Archives. I wish. I'd say you are the one who is brainwashed; claiming that Allende was a KGB asset. hahahahah
Anyway, you are the guy who was the other day bragging to be smarter than Kant and Aristotle because you've read them or some asinine shit like that, and I even bother answer you now, so fuck me right?
ha, that comment was from a Heywood Banks song...he is a comedian.
Hell, I too used to go around talking like a know-it-all asshole sometimes (before the obligatory graduate school reality check), but kid, you are fucking ludicrous.
You get that from wikipedia? What did you study in grad school anyway?
You are a college schmuck who has skimmed some book and went on an ego trip online because most people here are even less educated than you are. Now go study for your finals.
Thanks! And that's right. When i see people posting things that I know to be untrue I call them out on it. Particularly things I study in my life. Notice how I don't combat the kids who debate on economics.
Foreigners...
Christopher Andrew. I don't remember which book I think it's mentioned in both. I'm going to check it for you.
that comment was from a Heywood Banks song
Well, I didn't get the reference (don't know the guy), my fault. That's a relief I guess. I thought you're nuts. It's an online forum, you never know.
Well, I didn't get the reference (don't know the guy), my fault. That's a relief I guess. I thought you're nuts. It's an online forum, you never know
I suggest you read his recents threads and retract your comment LOL. Sorry for trolling I couldn't resist.
Aristophanes is a far-right Nietzschean libertarian. This would predispose him to be labeled as "nuts" by most of the population who would understand these words.
"LOL. Sorry for trolling I couldn't resist."
... You sir, are a true gentleman.
What did you study in grad school anyway?
I got a MS in quantitative finance, worked for a while and since mid 2010 I've been in a PhD program. Computational mean field methods in game theory. Mostly getting nowhere.
And now I've been offered a job by a top tier bb to work with their algo trading team (my previous background is market microstructure) and I'm seriously considering quitting the academic game for good now.
Exactly. I am fucking crazy. Particularly wondering if the Chinese or the Japanese have it in them to do what Kissinger and Nixon did several times.
It lets me know I am on the right track when people disagree anyway.
Everyone here is in a way a Nietzschean. Few on these forums think that the morality of the state is justified, no? What did Nietzsche say about making moral decisions??
"Everyone here is in a way a Nietzschean. Few on these forums think that the morality of the state is justified, no? What did Nietzsche say about making moral decisions??"
I don't consider that to be evidence of Nietzscheanism, since most arrive there from a different way, often through either some sort of utilitarianism or some sort Rothbardian/Randian ethics. It's not that the state imposes morality, but that it imposes the wrong sort of morality.
the state is built on utlitarian/consequentialist ethics. that is how it can justify coups...
Rothbardian/Randian ethics
NAP is a deontological theory (it is basically a different version of Kant - save for the reason why property is justified in the systems). Rand is...not even worth adressing, but "objectivism" is very similar to classic virtue ethics; there is good we know it, there are specific actions (for her self-interest) that can get us to be virtuous.
It's not that the state imposes morality, but that it imposes the wrong sort of morality.
Laws aren't the imposition of moral norms?
I'm not Nietzschean.
"the state is built on utlitarian/consequentialist ethics. that is how it can justify coups...
Laws aren't the imposition of moral norms?"
I don't disagree with any of this, but I see nothing particularly Nietzschean about it.
Allende was a hardcore socialist, so he was quite, quite bad. Pinochet also had little apprecitation for human life, but he was ok with markets and such, didn't go creating all kind of central planning and big state companies like the brazilian military coup doing during the same period. Pinochet was quite bad, Allende was worse. No one deserve to be rule by any of those two.
You don't see how when people are encouraged to find their own moral values it leads them to the conclusions that many anarchist and libertarian philosophers have come to? Nietzsche's will to power is also referred to (by him) as the will to freedom. the questioning of statistical data (science is myth to N), the questioning of words to induce moral and behavioral norms?
"Why is my morality stifled?" "Why do I fund war/welfare?"
I'm not trying to make the claim that the people here are all totally Nietzsche fanboys. i'm saying that there is a stark engagement with subjectivism that both Nietzsche and many anarchist and libertarian grapple with. The problem Nietzsche would have is the (unjustified) imposition of something like NAP.
It's not that the state imposes morality, but that it imposes the wrong sort of morality. Laws aren't the imposition of moral norms?"
You don't see subjectivism coming out here? or are you suggesting Nietzsche was a fascist as most others do? he had no love for the state and I think he thought of those who will their power into the state as being cowardly as well as liars and thieves.
Pinochet was quite bad, Allende was worse. No one deserve to be rule by any of those two.
I know you are trolling. Where were Allende's massacres? He barely did anything with the military. Sure socialist planning makes people poor, but it was only his ignorance that caused that (as it is almost everywhere else). Pinochet's atrocities are well known and in no way comparable to Allende's incompetence.
Vasili Mitrokhin and Christopher Andrew, The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World, Basic Books (2005) hardcover, ISBN 0-465-00311-7, pp. 69-85. Note: Allende made a personal request for Soviet money through his personal contact, KGB officer Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who rushed to Chile from Mexico City to help him. The KGB claimed it gave $400,000 to influence the election, with an additional personal subsidy of $50,000 directly to Allende. Andrew argued that help from KGB was a decisive factor, because Allende won by a narrow margin of only 39,000 votes of a total of the 3 million cast. After the elections, the KGB director Yuri Andropov obtained permission for additional money and other resources from theCentral Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to ensure Allende's victory in Congress. In his request on 24 October, he stated that KGB "will carry out measures designed to promote the consolidation of Allendes's victory and his election to the post of President of the country." The KGB file on Allende reported him as having "stated his willingness to co-operate on a confidential basis and provide any necessary assistance, since he considered himself a friend of the Soviet Union. He willingly shared political information...".
What difference does that make? the CIA spent $350,000 electing 10 members (of the 12 they sponsored) of the Chilean Congress in that same election cycle. OPIC spent something like two million in the next few years...
I was under the impression that you were trying to say that Allende was a military asset of the KGB. the CIA and KGB put money into all kinds of elections and things. His giving political information (which can be easily obtained) is not the same as his doing the bidding of the KGB. And yeah, Allende was a Marxist...
Pinochet was clearly a murderer, and though I don't condone him, he did save his country from chaos. Not very well known is that most Chilean copper mining is run by the state to this day.
To answer the initial question, absolutely NOT.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"...
Besides Allende's real crime was not his socialism, but the fact he would take his country away from under US dominance. He was friendly with Moscow, but the USSR could never project real power in the Western Hemisphere ergo Chile would have been externally free. Pinochet was a satrap of the Empire who made certain his country remained a satrapy. The Chilean Benedict Arnold.
Unethical ends can never justify ethical means. That's the main problem we have with the existing system, where the legitimate need for police, court, law services are thought by the trusting masses to thereby legitimate government monopoly control and providing of these services, as bumbling as it is.
As the French discovered, a revolution not informed by ideas is simply going to devolve into chaos and aggression. What we need is not a libertarian takeover of a nation that is not ready to be governed by libertarians (ignoring the fact that libertarians would refuse to 'govern' in that sense at all), what we need is a single pure crystal seed of libertarianism that can grow into a much larger crystal, extending the ideas around it.
Libertarianism is too diluted now, libertarians have no influence over their living environment.
"Come out from among them," we found ourselves in the position of diaspora the moment we became true ancaps. Only the internet has allowed us to discover each other. Previously to the modern era, libertarians languished largely unknown, and often turned to political organizations to seek political equals, which limited their potential because it directed them into political action among the mainstream parties by the very nature of those institutions.
But now, we have a non-directed way of communication through forums, one not tasked with winning some random election, not pinning its hopes on a particular kind of political action.
What we need so desperately in an independent jurisdiction, the world's first explicitly free society.
That will be something new in the world. And by god I will be there when it happens.
We've got to move on that front during the present and unfolding epoch. That will be the front of law.
The second front is already in embryonic stages: financial, in the form of bitcoin. Both of these fronts feature political action in the form of leaving the present system to join a new one. They are non-violent, non-aggressive.
Nah, what follows them tends to be worse, as the Egyptians learnt.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
But it's not a question of what's perfectly ethical thing to do in the land of imagination and cotton candy.
It's all about what's the realpolitik move in the realpolitik world we happen to live in.
If instead of being insulated from the fact by many years and miles, you were living in Chile during the period, chances are you would have supported the general's coup, not only he was ousting a far worse buffoon, but because it would be foolish to do otherwise.
Yea its good for the power structure to be shaken up from time to time, and keep the powers at be on their feet .