Although I don't agree withthe title that libertarians are stupid people, there does indeed seem much to be questioned about libertarian thought.
If there is any libertarian, or semi-libertarian here who can step away from the noise and perhaps engage in a bit of civil thought, I offer a hand in peace so that we could engage in that discussion.
Let's start from here ...
"Friedman returned home to a firestorm of protest, aggravated by his celebrity as a Newsweek columnist and ongoing revelations about Washington's and corporate America's involvement in the overthrow of Allende. Not only had Nixon, the CIA, and ITT, along with other companies, plotted to destabilize Allende's "democratic road to socialism," but now a renowned University of Chicago economist, whose promotion of the wonders of the free market was heavily subsidized by corporations such as Bechtel, Pepsico, Getty, Pfizer, General Motors, W.R. Grace, and Firestone, was advising the dictator who overthrew him on how to complete the counterrevolution * at the cost of skyrocketing unemployment among Chile's poor.
The New York Times identified Friedman as the "guiding light of the junta's economic policy," while columnist Anthony Lewis asked: if "pure Chicago economic theory can be carried out in Chile only at the price of repression, should its authors feel some responsibility?"
Friedman defended his relationship with Pinochet by saying that if Allende had been allowed to remain in office Chileans would have suffered "the elimination of thousands and perhaps mass starvation . . . torture and unjust imprisonment." But the elimination of thousands, mass hunger, torture and unjust imprisonment were what was taking place in Chile exactly at the moment the Chicago economist was defending his protégé.
Allende's downfall came because he refused to betray Chile's long democratic tradition and invoke martial law, yet Friedman nevertheless insisted that the military junta offered "more room for individual initiative and for a private sphere of life" and thus a greater "chance of a return to a democratic society." It was pure boilerplate, but it did give Friedman a chance to rehearse his understanding of the relationship between capitalism and freedom.
These are excerpts from my previously posted link to this article .. and these ARE the words of Friedman .. search for yourself, as I already have.
Given that these are indeed the words of friedman, can we now stop pretending that Friedman did not support Pinochet and his government? Friedman DEFENDED his relationship with Pinochet and claimed that Allende would have caused torture, death, and suffering at the same time Pinochet was causing torture, death, and suffering.
Does this not all seem eerily familar to you?
In many ways libertarian thought does not appear to be well-thought out. For instance, libertarians claim to be antiwar .. but they support the central element and guiding force of war and intervention .. corporate profit. Friedman spoke for Bechtel, Firestone, Getty and all the other plutocrats who backed him .. who in fact WERE the "free market"
There is a serious disconnect betweem praising the holiness of the "free market" while talking about "liberty", "freedom", and most specifically, "anti-corporatism." That was not only true in Chile then, it's true in America today. One word .. Iraq
Libertarians defend the failure that was Friedman, pretend he had no responsibility for his relationship with evil, and claim to be antiwar but support the very reason for war and intervention.
If there be a libertarian who can discuss this with civility .. I'd like to hear it.
is so grammer school....