General

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:45:17 GMT

Uh, yeah, I have no interest in saving the world. I do not concern myself with vague conditions of reality that I have no control over - such as the government in North Korea. If people act like slaves they will get masters; and this is not my problem. It is annoying, sure, but I am not so silly as to concern myself with it any more than trying to hold back the tide. I hate the government, but I have a sense of proportion.

The only person that really matters, at core, is me. It would be nice if other people weren't being shot and jailed or whatever, but that is not on my agenda. It would be nice if people didn't believe in Islam, if people didn't beat their wives, if people didn't drink too much. None of these things has any causal connexion to anything I do or do not do, so I am pretty much indifferent.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

AdrianHealey — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:40:32 GMT

Ricky James Moore II:

1) No one has any obligation towards N. Koreans, or anyone else in or outside of America. Therefor I ardently disagree that it's 'lose-lose' from a moral point of view; it may be unfortunate that other people are beaten and robbed but that is their problem. I don't owe them anything.

Saying that you have no legal obligation - i.e. that you have no obligation to help someone - i one thing. Saying that it's 'their problem' - and implying that it is not also your problem - is a whole different matter. In a very real sense; it is also your problem, if not purely because it harms the intellectual division of labour that would be possible if they weren't coerced to death. You might say: 'well, I don't think that's a big problem, so I won't act upon it and you can't legitimately force me', which is true. But that's not the same as implying that it's not your problem.

I agree with your other 3 points, but I think this qualifier is important. Just because 'we' libertarians think that the use of force ought not be used to solve a certain problem, doesn't mean that it couldn't be a problem.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:17:56 GMT

Not when innocent people can get caught in the middle, that mentality can get you a lot of unexpected enemies including people who would naturally support the cause of freedom.

Right, and no one is defending Pinochet attacking innocent people - as he undoubtedly did. What I am saying is that most of the 'victims' that the left claims were in fact communist insurgents who wanted to crush Chile under the red heel - and they conveniently forget the real, middle class people who were being robbed, imprisoned, bankrupted and killed by Allende and his communist guerilla goons.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Felipe — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:02:29 GMT

Sure, the Chilean military was full of gangsters, too - so what? When two gangs of thugs kill each other that is win-win.

Not when innocent people can get caught in the middle, that mentality can get you a lot of unexpected enemies including people who would naturally support the cause of freedom.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:51:12 GMT

It's funny because most Stalinists talk the same way. They can forgive the sins of the Soviets because their enemies were "mostly cappies who had it coming."

So? Communists were wrong and libertarians were right. I don't give a damn what happens to murderers and psycho-tyrant communists; just because they have some bullshit political beliefs doesn't mean they're any less gangsters. Sure, the Chilean military was full of gangsters, too - so what? When two gangs of thugs kill each other that is win-win.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Laotzu del Zinn — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:49:25 GMT

It's funny because most Stalinists talk the same way. They can forgive the sins of the Soviets because their enemies were "mostly cappies who had it coming."

Idk, maybe I just got emotional because someone said "chileans should be more grateful to the US" and no one seen a problem with that....

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:45:49 GMT

This is the Mises Institute, I dont think anybody here is fan of dictatorships

This obvious fact is lost on liberpaladins, with their Lawful Stupid alignment.

The alternative would be to do nothing and condemn that poor people to collective slavery for life, its a lose-lose situation from a moral point of view.

I disagree for several reasons

1) No one has any obligation towards N. Koreans, or anyone else in or outside of America. Therefor I ardently disagree that it's 'lose-lose' from a moral point of view; it may be unfortunate that other people are beaten and robbed but that is their problem. I don't owe them anything.
2) The US Government engaging in war is a direct threat to Americans, not to mention all those innocent N. Koreans they're going to bomb.
3) You present a false dichotemy; the other alternative would be to free up trade and stop the sanctions and meddling that support dictators like Kim Jong-Il, and allow private citizens to send all the guns and money they want to fund a revolution.
4) The American government is the largest, best funded, most dangerous criminal/terrorist organization in the world. I think before we even think about solving problems for people on the other side of the ocean we should worry about the criminal murderers in Washington.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Felipe — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:36:54 GMT

The US had been pushing for a coup since the moment it became clear Allende was going to take power.

Violent solutions are always a mess, it looks bad and create a whole set of new problems.

The primary concern for the CIA in Chile at the time was first to secure political support from the Christian Democratic Party to deny Allende the votes he needed in congress to get elected since he barely got 30% of the national vote, when that failed the CIA focused on supporting and finacing the chilean opposition.

Nobody but me and Sanjay said "dictators are always bad, period.

This is the Mises Institute, I dont think anybody here is fan of dictatorships

So, if we invade N Korea, why would anyone have a problem with that? It's the same thing. Is it because we would send formal troops, instead of CiA operatives? Well... that's still state agents.

The alternative would be to do nothing and condemn that poor people to collective slavery for life, its a lose-lose situation from a moral point of view.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:33:54 GMT

. Pinochet was a statist and that was bad (not the dictatorship part, where did demophilia creep into libertarianism?)

Well, from the classical liberals and leftists that have been calling themselves libertarians.

but saying that his coup did not improve the life of Chileans is to be totally divorced form the painful reality of communisms.

Yes. So far none of them have bothered to acknowledge the difference between the State under Pinochet and the State under the communist. It is like saying a pickpocket is the same as a mass murderer. The inability to make distinctions is not 'libertarian', it is just plain obstinance.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Merlin — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:20:28 GMT

Only people who never knew anything but Anglo-Saxon liberalism (in the good, European sense) can see no difference in degree between states. Pinochet was a statist and that was bad (not the dictatorship part, where did demophilia creep into libertarianism?) but saying that his coup did not improve the life of Chileans is to be totally divorced form the painful reality of communisms.

Again, only people who never knew communism can say with a straight face that there is no difference among states of different kinds. This king of ‘intransigence’ has cost libertarians much in the past, and will doubtlessly keep costing us much.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:16:24 GMT

"Pinochet was the most decent dictator"

As far as dictators go, there have been a lot worse. Though, now that I think of it, I would probably say that Francisco Franco was better. Anyways, democracy is just as bad as if not worse than dictatorships.

"they were mostly commies who had it coming."

They were. Being a columnist who argues for communism is obviously not a reason a person should be hurt or killed. But being a violent communist insurgent/terrorist is an abdication of right. I don't cry when Bolsheviks get whacked.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Laotzu del Zinn — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:14:00 GMT

There's a big difference between discussing distorted views of history and pointing out mischaracterizations, and outright saying "Pinochet was the most decent dictator" and "they were mostly commies who had it coming."

You certainly won't see me saying "Stalin's cool, cuz at least he wasn't Hitler." That's for sure...

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:09:46 GMT

There is no contradiction between "pinochet was a good thing (at least compared to what allende could have been)" and "dictators are always bad, period." All governments are not created equal. I would say, for most Germans at least, the Nazis were better than the Communists. And Pinochet is a lot better than a Nazi.

"So, if we invade N Korea, why would anyone have a problem with that?"

Because the government shouldn't exist, much less be bombing people.

It's the same thing.

It's obviously not. We're saying the outcome could have been worse if Allende had been in power. I think Hong Kong was a hell of a lot better under the British Empire than it would have been under the Red Chinese. That does not mean I think the British should have an Empire, or that the HK government isn't bad.

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Laotzu del Zinn — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:06:26 GMT

The US had been pushing for a coup since the moment it became clear Allende was going to take power.

Now here's what I'm talking about; OP said "pinochet was a good thing (at least compared to what allende could have been). And that people should be more grateful.

Nobody but me and Sanjay said "dictators are always bad, period. And in fact, others came in and agreed that Pinochet was good... or even the "most decent dictator ever." Or "they were mostly commies who had it coming."

So, if we invade N Korea, why would anyone have a problem with that? It's the same thing. Is it because we would send formal troops, instead of CiA operatives? Well... that's still state agents. No difference really. And so what if Kim is replaced by just another brutal dictator. At least he'll denationalize some industries and "generally leave people alone." Unless, of course, they try to form a union wherein they become "commies who had it coming" and therefore state intervention is ok

Libertarians, I'm sure....

Re: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

Ricky James Moore II — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:55:29 GMT

In reality the chilean army had a very strong anti-communist mentality, partially because many of its officials had been formed in the "School of the Americas", they didnt need an economic incentive to hate Allende's socialist regime or to be suspicious of its ties to the cuban dictatorship.

That is what my reading on the subject has led me to believe, too. Pinochet was certainly no laissez-faire ideologue, but he was anti-socialist and many of the people he put into control of Chile's economic policy were fairly pro-market.