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

Socrtease said:
You on the right amaze me. Pinochet was one of the most brutal dictators of the last half of the 20th century. He used the military to overthrow a democratically elected leader. Over 20,000 people were imprisoned without trial and torture was one of his basic tools for repression. He outlawed political parties. thousands of people were "disappeared" because they opposed his totalitarian regime. But he was a great guy cause he implemented economic reform that created greater poverty than existed BEFORE he took over. Dano do you REALLY support a government that kills its people to maintain power so long as it lets the markets alone? The problem is that Friedman claimed to be a great supporter of individual freedom as well as economic freedom but he backed a man that was a brutal totalitarian. Pinochet was in direct opposition to Friedman's beliefs in individual freedom. If you supported Pinochet you supported EVERYTHING he did because his iron fisted rule is what ensured the market economy that Chile had.
Click to expand...

Very well stated
 
Again, simple ignorance of Friedman's philosophy leads people to pretend that he was not fighting authoritarianism with his promotion of a free market when it was one of the main points of his philosophy that freer markets lead inevitably to less authoritarian governments....

It is simply ignorance and deliberate misconstruction of what Friedman believed and stood for. And a wish to distract from the result of actual decline in authoritarianism associated with the market he promoted.
 
Socrtease said:
You on the right amaze me. Pinochet was one of the most brutal dictators of the last half of the 20th century. He used the military to overthrow a democratically elected leader. Over 20,000 people were imprisoned without trial and torture was one of his basic tools for repression. He outlawed political parties. thousands of people were "disappeared" because they opposed his totalitarian regime. But he was a great guy cause he implemented economic reform that created greater poverty than existed BEFORE he took over. Dano do you REALLY support a government that kills its people to maintain power so long as it lets the markets alone? The problem is that Friedman claimed to be a great supporter of individual freedom as well as economic freedom but he backed a man that was a brutal totalitarian. Pinochet was in direct opposition to Friedman's beliefs in individual freedom. If you supported Pinochet you supported EVERYTHING he did because his iron fisted rule is what ensured the market economy that Chile had.
Click to expand...

oops... edit, thought I was responding to bac, but...


And there is the strawman. Voicing support for economic reforms does not imply support for all policies. Do you support Chavez's every move? How about Castro?

I find Friedman's position somewhat discomforting, but I feel same way support of staism in he US. He tried to play the moderate too much.

But to call him a murderer based on this is fairly absurd.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
oops... edit, thought I was responding to bac, but...


And there is the strawman. Voicing support for economic reforms does not imply support for all policies. Do you support Chavez's every move? How about Castro?

I find Friedman's position somewhat discomforting, but I feel same way support of staism in he US. He tried to play the moderate too much.

But to call him a murderer based on this is fairly absurd.
Click to expand...
Again I will quote Burke. The only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. By openingly meeting with Pinochet and endorsing him in the limited way he did he at best ignored the other side of the Pinochet coin. He at worst gave Pinochet Legitimacy.
 
Socrtease said:
Again I will quote Burke. The only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. By openingly meeting with Pinochet and endorsing him in the limited way he did he at best ignored the other side of the Pinochet coin. He at worst gave Pinochet Legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Once again, this ignores his belief that a freer market leads to less authoritarian government. Had he not promoted free markets he would be "doing nothing" according to that quote. He did what he believed would lead to less authoritarian govnernment, it was not an "endorsement" of that government it was the first step in eliminating it.
 
Socrtease said:
Again I will quote Burke. The only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. By openingly meeting with Pinochet and endorsing him in the limited way he did he at best ignored the other side of the Pinochet coin. He at worst gave Pinochet Legitimacy.
Click to expand...
That's just silly.
Suppose Zimbabwe wanted you to say reform the judiciary, would you decline saying that it would make you look like you supported all their other terrible policies? You have a chance to do some good, to improve things and to increase freedom there which can possibly lead to more good. So you don't change everything, that's unfortunate, but with this all or nothing approach, you would have far less oppurtunity for change than the incremental way.

Bottom line is Friedman DID NOT endorse their secret police or how they ran their secret services, he only worked with economic policy.
 
So this is where Marxism and Libertarianism become one? The Ends justifies the means. If it takes a man that kills legitimately elected leaders, kidnaps and tortures his own citizens, and supresses ALL dissent, to make sure that businesses can operate without restiction then so be it? Is that REALLY the libertarian position that Friedman was promoting? Look at it this way Damo, you would never let a left get away with singing the praises of a left wing economist he if he was a supporter of a left wing dictatorship that resorted to the same sort of behavior. It is ONLY because Friedman endorses free market economics that you are having the reaction you do.
 
How many killed, tortured and disappeared people are acceptable to get to a free market economy so that the government will stop killing torturing and disappearing people? Gotta go to lunch be back in a bit
 
Socrtease said:
So this is where Marxism and Libertarianism become one? The Ends justifies the means. If it takes a man that kills legitimately elected leaders, kidnaps and tortures his own citizens, and supresses ALL dissent, to make sure that businesses can operate without restiction then so be it? Is that REALLY the libertarian position that Friedman was promoting? Look at it this way Damo, you would never let a left get away with singing the praises of a left wing economist he if he was a supporter of a left wing dictatorship that resorted to the same sort of behavior. It is ONLY because Friedman endorses free market economics that you are having the reaction you do.
Click to expand...

No, to hell with that! Friedman should have denounced Pinochet's other acts, if he knew of them. He was trying to be "legitimate" or moderate. Throughout his career he often did this HERE in the US and to the degree he did he rejected libertarianism. But to call him a murderer based on that is absurd.
 
Socrtease said:
So this is where Marxism and Libertarianism become one? The Ends justifies the means. If it takes a man that kills legitimately elected leaders, kidnaps and tortures his own citizens, and supresses ALL dissent, to make sure that businesses can operate without restiction then so be it? Is that REALLY the libertarian position that Friedman was promoting? Look at it this way Damo, you would never let a left get away with singing the praises of a left wing economist he if he was a supporter of a left wing dictatorship that resorted to the same sort of behavior. It is ONLY because Friedman endorses free market economics that you are having the reaction you do.
Click to expand...
He promoted his belief and lived by it. Arguing whether it was legitimate would be a much more realistic belief than saying that he didn't believe he was fighting totalitarianism by promoting a free market. That would take actually ignoring his previous writings and his philosophy, and we all know that you are not that disingenuous.

The attempt to make him into a supporter of those activities flies in the face of his philosophy and beliefs. One of which was, "The free market inevitably leads to less authoritarian government." A core value that he fought for because he believed that it would lead to a freer people in Chile.

The whole, "The end justifies the means" argument is just an excuse for a good man to do nothing in the face of that government. He did what he believed would free the people of Chile, not continue the authoritarian government. It is preposterous and disingenuous to pretend his philosophy didn't exist so that you can pretend he had other motivation for his action.

That he didn't speak out against that government while he was there promoting the free market system he believed would end it showed a pragmatism that I wish he would have ended at that border. He could have done more to speak against it when he was here, and I wish he did. But that doesn't change the core of his belief or the clear extension of it, that he believed he was helping to free those people, not enslave them further.
 
Damocles said:
He promoted his belief and lived by it. Arguing whether it was legitimate would be a much more realistic belief than saying that he didn't believe he was fighting totalitarianism by promoting a free market. That would take actually ignoring his previous writings and his philosophy, and we all know that you are not that disingenuous.

The attempt to make him into a supporter of those activities flies in the face of his philosophy and beliefs. One of which was, "The free market inevitably leads to less authoritarian government." A core value that he fought for because he believed that it would lead to a freer people in Chile.

The whole, "The end justifies the means" argument is just an excuse for a good man to do nothing in the face of that government. He did what he believed would free the people of Chile, not continue the authoritarian government. It is preposterous and disingenuous to pretend his philosophy didn't exist so that you can pretend he had other motivation for his action.
Click to expand...



Fuck what he said. What did he do? He supported an authoritarian military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected government. How that translates supporting a less authoritarian government is beyond me.
 
Dungheap said:
Fuck what he said. What did he do? He supported an authoritarian military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected government. How that translates supporting a less authoritarian government is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Once again this ignores the central philosophy that a free market will inevitably lead to a less authoritarian government and simply parrots again what was previously stated. If you have nothing to add but repeating the same thing why post in the thread?

He promoted what he believed would end the authoritarian government. He took action on what he believed.
 
Dungheap said:
Fuck what he said. What did he do? He supported an authoritarian military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected government. How that translates supporting a less authoritarian government is beyond me.
Click to expand...

So you use this same logic on "supporters" of Castro? Michael Moore praised Cuba's healthcare, that means he supports Castro's jailing of dissenters.
 
RStringfield said:
You never stop being absurd and pathetic.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you think a two-percent-er can be the president?

Would you like to wager on who represents the pathetic and absurd view on the possibility of Paul ever becoming the president?

I'll raise your "pathetic" and see you a "stupid" on that possibility.

Make it light .. $100. maybe?
 
blackascoal said:
Does that mean you think a two-percent-er can be the president?

Would you like to wager on who represents the pathetic and absurd view on the possibility of Paul ever becoming the president?

I'll raise your "pathetic" and see you a "stupid" on that possibility.

Make it light .. $100. maybe?
Click to expand...

Haha, Nader will never be president, he only gets 2 to 5% of the vote. Nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah.

What a fucking child...
 
Dude, I have repeated multiple times what I think Paul's chances are, i.e., slim and none. You are just so fucking absurd and pathetic that you continue to pretend I have said something else. I have played along to ridicule you a few times, but you seem to be the only one that did not get it.
 
RStringfield said:
Dude, I have repeated multiple times what I think Paul's chances are, i.e., slim and none. You are just so fucking absurd and pathetic that you continue to pretend I have said something else. I have played along to ridicule you a few times, but you seem to be the only one that did not get it.
Click to expand...
Let's make fun of him for supporting Nader, someone who has around the same poll numbers.

Not only is the dude megaslow, but he's a giant hypocrite as well.
 
Damocles said:
Once again this ignores the central philosophy that a free market will inevitably lead to a less authoritarian government and simply parrots again what was previously stated. If you have nothing to add but repeating the same thing why post in the thread?

He promoted what he believed would end the authoritarian government. He took action on what he believed.
Click to expand...

So goddamn what?

It's "what he believed" .. as if that's his get out of hell card.

I seriously question what you have added to this conversation other than unproven theories about what a "free market" will lead to .. which in fact, it HAS NEVER LEAD TO .. including in Chile.

How about operating in the real world and explain how Friedman's support of one of the most brutal dictators the world has ever seen led to the "end of authoritarian government" .. when in fact, the pressure of the international human rights community led to his downfall .. the downfall of that authoritarian government that Friedman supported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top