Libertarians...Quite Possibly the Stupidest People in the World....

RStringfield said:
Nonsense. When did he speak in support of the government? When did he endorse Pinochet? He gave anti-totalitarian lectures at a private school.

Hitler did not support property rights.
Click to expand...
While he was in Chile Friedman gave a speech titled "The Fragility of Freedom" where he described the "role in the destruction of a free society that was played by the emergence of the welfare state." Chile's present difficulties, he argued, "were due almost entirely to the forty-year trend toward collectivism, socialism and the welfare state . . . a course that would lead to coercion rather than freedom." The Pinochet regime, he argued, represented a turning point in a protracted campaign, a tearing off of democracy's false husks to reach true freedom's inner core. "The problem is not of recent origin," Friedman wrote in a follow-up letter to Pinochet, but "arises from trends toward socialism that started forty years ago, and reached their logical * and terrible *climax in the Allende regime." He praised the general for putting Chile back on the "right track" with the "many measures you have already taken to reverse this trend."
 
Socrtease said:
While he was in Chile Friedman gave a speech titled "The Fragility of Freedom" where he described the "role in the destruction of a free society that was played by the emergence of the welfare state." Chile's present difficulties, he argued, "were due almost entirely to the forty-year trend toward collectivism, socialism and the welfare state . . . a course that would lead to coercion rather than freedom." The Pinochet regime, he argued, represented a turning point in a protracted campaign, a tearing off of democracy's false husks to reach true freedom's inner core. "The problem is not of recent origin," Friedman wrote in a follow-up letter to Pinochet, but "arises from trends toward socialism that started forty years ago, and reached their logical * and terrible *climax in the Allende regime." He praised the general for putting Chile back on the "right track" with the "many measures you have already taken to reverse this trend."
Click to expand...


Ouch.

Coming from a credible, fair-minded, non-partisan libertarian like yourself, I wonder if you'll be attacked with the same ferocity as liberal posters, who pointed out Friedman's much-too-cozy relationship with the fascist Pinochet?


Odds are, no you wont. ;)
 
Socrtease said:
While he was in Chile Friedman gave a speech titled "The Fragility of Freedom" where he described the "role in the destruction of a free society that was played by the emergence of the welfare state." Chile's present difficulties, he argued, "were due almost entirely to the forty-year trend toward collectivism, socialism and the welfare state . . . a course that would lead to coercion rather than freedom." The Pinochet regime, he argued, represented a turning point in a protracted campaign, a tearing off of democracy's false husks to reach true freedom's inner core. "The problem is not of recent origin," Friedman wrote in a follow-up letter to Pinochet, but "arises from trends toward socialism that started forty years ago, and reached their logical * and terrible *climax in the Allende regime." He praised the general for putting Chile back on the "right track" with the "many measures you have already taken to reverse this trend."
Click to expand...

I think that you are really a decent person.
 
That settle it for me.

I've seen enough. Honestly, I never thought about or read about Friedman's cozy relationship with the fascist Pinochet. But, given the diverse sources from Darla and BAC, and the support from the non-partisan libertarian Soc, I'm convinced.

Friedman has blood on his hands. Not literally. But, he was an enabler of south american fascism.
 
Friedmans ideas brought BILLIONS out of poverty from Estonia to Latin America to China to India and so on. BILLIONS out of poverty. You people are disgraceful. Youd rather have people poor and starving than have your ideology challanged.
 
Socrtease said:
While he was in Chile Friedman gave a speech titled "The Fragility of Freedom" where he described the "role in the destruction of a free society that was played by the emergence of the welfare state." Chile's present difficulties, he argued, "were due almost entirely to the forty-year trend toward collectivism, socialism and the welfare state . . . a course that would lead to coercion rather than freedom." The Pinochet regime, he argued, represented a turning point in a protracted campaign, a tearing off of democracy's false husks to reach true freedom's inner core. "The problem is not of recent origin," Friedman wrote in a follow-up letter to Pinochet, but "arises from trends toward socialism that started forty years ago, and reached their logical * and terrible *climax in the Allende regime." He praised the general for putting Chile back on the "right track" with the "many measures you have already taken to reverse this trend."
Click to expand...

If you are going to base your judgment on out of context quotes by an author with an obvious bias then there is no point in discussing it with you. That is in no way fair minded of you. Instead it shows you are willing to prejudge and assume the worst.
 
RStringfield said:
If you are going to base your judgment on out of context quotes by an author with an obvious bias then there is no point in discussing it with you. That is in no way fair minded of you. Instead it shows you are willing to prejudge and assume the worst.
Click to expand...


Says the gentleman citing to Reason magazine.
 
Dungheap said:
Says the gentleman citing to Reason magazine.
Click to expand...

Or you could just read his biography which also has the letters and writings from the man himself at that time about this whole subject. Not some hatchet job that is grasping at straws to discredit Friedmans ideas.
 
Once again I reiterate, to go to Chile and praise the economics of the Pinochet government without speaking out forcefully against the use of murder and torture and disappearing of his own citizens he endorsed Pinochet. He should have said "these market changes are certain to lead to a more free society but you don't have to be a totalitarian to get them done." Instead he said in very general terms that Pinochet was on the right track. And like I said if some left wing economist did that with Cuba or Venazuela you righties would be fighting off veins bursting in your head to scream about it.
 
Obfuscate said:
Friedmans ideas brought BILLIONS out of poverty from Estonia to Latin America to China to India and so on. BILLIONS out of poverty. You people are disgraceful. Youd rather have people poor and starving than have your ideology challanged.
Click to expand...
So I will ask you. How many people tortured, kidnapped and disappeared are acceptable so that a government will arrise that will no long torture, kill and disappear people. I agree that many of Friedman's ideas helped MILLIONS of people out of poverty. But his economics were not just about profits and losses. It was about a FREE society. YOu cannot be for a free society and at the same time even passively support a government that actively supressed its peoples freedoms and even killed and RAPED them. The righties screamed, rightly so, of Saddam's rape rooms. Well Pinochet had them too. I am not saying that Friedman knew of them expressly but he did KNOW that Pinochet was killing people in the name of power and holding on to it. You do not endorse a man like that even if he follows your whole economic plan. Because he was still a violator of human rights and freedoms and Friedman KNEW it.
 
Friedman did speak against Pinochet, its recorded history. Saying he didn’t is like saying Lincoln didn’t give the emancipation proclamation. Like the quote String already cited an economist giving a dictatorship economic advice is no different than a physician giving medical advice. It’s advice to help the plight of the people. To disagree with that is sad political BS or ignorance.
 
Socrtease said:
Once again I reiterate, to go to Chile and praise the economics of the Pinochet government without speaking out forcefully against the use of murder and torture and disappearing of his own citizens he endorsed Pinochet. He should have said "these market changes are certain to lead to a more free society but you don't have to be a totalitarian to get them done." Instead he said in very general terms that Pinochet was on the right track. And like I said if some left wing economist did that with Cuba or Venazuela you righties would be fighting off veins bursting in your head to scream about it.
Click to expand...

They do, do it. Moore was over there praising their healthcare. Is the left jumping to protest him, harass him and take his words out of context to pretend he is supportive of something else? Are we supposed "righties?" Do you even here these fucking supposed lefties calling Castro a murderer?

Are they even bashing Friedman when he offered advice to socialist/communist nations?
 
RStringfield said:
They do, do it. Moore was over there praising their healthcare. Is the left jumping to protest him, harass him and take his words out of context to pretend he is supportive of something else? Are we supposed "righties?" Do you even here these fucking supposed lefties calling Castro a murderer?

Are they even bashing Friedman when he offered advice to socialist/communist nations?
Click to expand...
No and you are absolutely right. the Fact that a people have healthcare, but cannot be free to criticize their government or own whatever businesses they choose or come and go as they please makes them no freer than people were under Pinochet and Moore is giving legitimacy to a country that ALSO is an enemy of freedom and should avoid that as much as Friedman should have avoided giving whatever limited legitimacy he gave to Pinochet.
 
But it is equally wrong to claim Moore is somehow responsible for or endorses all of Cuba's policies.

I believe Friedman was trying to advance where he could. I mean, let's face it, a steadfast adherence to purity often results in irrelevance.

To me, it is much like trashing the founders for not standing on the sidelines rather than dealing with slavers. It's an easy thing to criticize them for, but there method may have been more effective in the long run.

I do believe it is important to embrace the true radical nature of liberalism (i.e., libertarianism). I think the failure of limited government advocates came when they gave up their radicalism and instead took on conservativism, based in the philosophy of utilitarianism.

Still, you do have to be careful not to make the best the enemy of the good (not that Pinochet was). And I do not see value in being quick to attack someone's character because they choose different methods.

Friedman was not truly a radical libertarian. He tried to play the role of moderate.

"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, [and] we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Clay, 1790. ME 8:4
 
RStringfield said:
But it is equally wrong to claim Moore is somehow responsible for or endorses all of Cuba's policies.

I believe Friedman was trying to advance where he could. I mean, let's face it, a steadfast adherence to purity often results in irrelevance.

To me, it is much like trashing the founders for not standing on the sidelines rather than dealing with slavers. It's an easy thing to criticize them for, but there method may have been more effective in the long run.

I do believe it is important to embrace the true radical nature of liberalism (i.e., libertarianism). I think the failure of limited government advocates came when they gave up their radicalism and instead took on conservativism, based in the philosophy of utilitarianism.

Still, you do have to be careful not to make the best the enemy of the good (not that Pinochet was). And I do not see value in being quick to attack someone's character because they choose different methods.

Friedman was not truly a radical libertarian. He tried to play the role of moderate.

"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, [and] we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Clay, 1790. ME 8:4
Click to expand...
String at the same time Moore should never have held Cuba up as the epitome of anything but the prime example of the totalitarian left in Central and South America. Admittedly, I support lifting the boycot of Cuba but that is my selfish Cigar smoking habit speaking. Also, most of us that are libertarians know that boycots never hurt their intended victim and almost always hurt the intended benficiary.
 
Socrtease said:
String at the same time Moore should never have held Cuba up as the epitome of anything but the prime example of the totalitarian left in Central and South America. Admittedly, I support lifting the boycot of Cuba but that is my selfish Cigar smoking habit speaking. Also, most of us that are libertarians know that boycots never hurt their intended victim and almost always hurt the intended benficiary.
Click to expand...

Cuba's not so bad. They have great beaches, beautiful, easy women, and great cigars.

Plus, its easy to get viagra and vicodin there. And once you've popped both, and been with Zoanda, you'll understand the value.

And I saw the Buena Vista Social club at the old Havana thearte (Thats where I met Zoanda)!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top