Pinochet or Allende?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 20, 2022, 08:30:42 AM

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: 猫ちゃん)
  Pinochet or Allende?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Pinochet
 
#2
Allende
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 100

Author Topic: Pinochet or Allende?  (Read 1628 times)
L.D. Smith ist kein Technologiefeudalist
MormDem
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,316
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2019, 02:42:14 AM »

I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.
What a poor state of existence the tax evaders, landlords, wage thievers, and pedophile papists would have been through...

Of course, as someone who has previously decried democracy, this type of support would have been expected.

I only oppose democracy because I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for others, and because I don't agree with majority rule or doctrines of false equality.

Libertarianism and individualism already do this by giving people the agency to screw over others, which in turn limits their own options, even though they did nothing except be born in the wrong place.
Logged
SIR HUMPHREY APPLEBY
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,244
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2019, 03:05:31 AM »

I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.
What a poor state of existence the tax evaders, landlords, wage thievers, and pedophile papists would have been through...

Of course, as someone who has previously decried democracy, this type of support would have been expected.

I only oppose democracy because I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for others, and because I don't agree with majority rule or doctrines of false equality.

Libertarianism and individualism already do this by giving people the agency to screw over others, which in turn limits their own options, even though they did nothing except be born in the wrong place.

What you're talking about is creating obstacles for others, which is a bit different. A private individual can make another individual's life difficult, but he doesn't have the monopoly on force and sole legal legitimacy that the state does. So while your boss can fire you, he can't force you to sell your house for less than it's worth so that he can bulldoze it and put in a freeway. I think there's a worthy distinction to be made there.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,411


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2019, 03:48:00 AM »

Allende (normal)
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,498


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2019, 11:26:49 AM »

I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.
What a poor state of existence the tax evaders, landlords, wage thievers, and pedophile papists would have been through...

Of course, as someone who has previously decried democracy, this type of support would have been expected.

I only oppose democracy because I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for others, and because I don't agree with majority rule or doctrines of false equality.

Libertarianism and individualism already do this by giving people the agency to screw over others, which in turn limits their own options, even though they did nothing except be born in the wrong place.

What you're talking about is creating obstacles for others, which is a bit different. A private individual can make another individual's life difficult, but he doesn't have the monopoly on force and sole legal legitimacy that the state does. So while your boss can fire you, he can't force you to sell your house for less than it's worth so that he can bulldoze it and put in a freeway. I think there's a worthy distinction to be made there.

Which would seem to make  a democratic regime even more important given the need to have at least some form accountability over the sorts of things that tend naturally towards being monpolies.

If you're private ownership types runs the water supply and decides you aren't profitably enough to be worth serving, you're stuffed. Whereas at least with nationalised water in a democracy, you would have some sort of recourse.
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,197
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2019, 11:49:22 AM »

The guy who didnít provide political opponents free helicopter rides.
Logged
L.D. Smith ist kein Technologiefeudalist
MormDem
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,316
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2019, 12:10:06 PM »

I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.
What a poor state of existence the tax evaders, landlords, wage thievers, and pedophile papists would have been through...

Of course, as someone who has previously decried democracy, this type of support would have been expected.

I only oppose democracy because I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for others, and because I don't agree with majority rule or doctrines of false equality.

Libertarianism and individualism already do this by giving people the agency to screw over others, which in turn limits their own options, even though they did nothing except be born in the wrong place.

What you're talking about is creating obstacles for others, which is a bit different. A private individual can make another individual's life difficult, but he doesn't have the monopoly on force and sole legal legitimacy that the state does. So while your boss can fire you, he can't force you to sell your house for less than it's worth so that he can bulldoze it and put in a freeway. I think there's a worthy distinction to be made there.

Why? The end result is still the same if there's no means to account for these things, because by limiting the power of the state too much, you're just transferring that legal power and legitimacy over to individuals or worse, a rent-seeking private entity that cannot even be held accountable to anything but profit. Even church-with-state regimes have to answer to a creed, however nominally it may be, and that creed is much less changing than profits.

And that's under the assumption that these higher-ups operate on that bottom line, instead of just affording what they want to afford.

And while yeah, being fired doesn't necessarily equate to selling your house, just exactly what other choices are there if that's the only money left and you got fired because you breathed wrong? So then, what choice do you have but to f*(late and suck-out any sense of dignity or propriety just to not risk such a fate?


Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,685


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2019, 01:24:47 PM »

I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.
What a poor state of existence the tax evaders, landlords, wage thievers, and pedophile papists would have been through...

Of course, as someone who has previously decried democracy, this type of support would have been expected.

I only oppose democracy because I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for others, and because I don't agree with majority rule or doctrines of false equality.
Ah yes, because a key feature of non-democratic regimes is the absence of people making decisions for others Roll Eyes

Same goes for any form of capitalism which, of course, totally relies on that

I haven't supported any other form of government here. I was just clarifying that my dislike of democracy doesn't stem from an endorsement of dictatorship.
And I'm just pointing out that opposing democracy on the basis that you don't like "people making decisions for others" is an absurdist position seeing as that is a pretty much inevitable feature of even the most basic forms of social organisation

I oppose most basic forms of social organization. Interacting with others gives me anxiety.

Your average libertarian in a nutshell.
Logged
SIR HUMPHREY APPLEBY
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,244
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2019, 01:32:18 PM »

Which would seem to make  a democratic regime even more important given the need to have at least some form of accountability over the sorts of things that tend naturally towards being monpolies.

If you're private ownership types runs the water supply and decides you aren't profitably enough to be worth serving, you're stuffed. Whereas at least with nationalised water in a democracy, you would have some sort of recourse.

Look, I didn't come to this thread to endorse completely unrestrained capitalism. This began when I said that just calling Allende "democratically elected" isn't necessarily a point in his favor. Yes, it's a fact, but not one that serves to justify any of his policies. Democracy, like capitalism, is a system that's only as good as the people who are operating inside of it. And this is a tangent, but I wouldn't want to live in a country with a nationalized water supply when there was a drought.

Why? The end result is still the same if there's no means to account for these things, because by limiting the power of the state too much, you're just transferring that legal power and legitimacy over to individuals or worse, a rent-seeking private entity that cannot even be held accountable to anything but profit. Even church-with-state regimes have to answer to a creed, however nominally it may be, and that creed is much less changing than profits.

And that's under the assumption that these higher-ups operate on that bottom line, instead of just affording what they want to afford.

And while yeah, being fired doesn't necessarily equate to selling your house, just exactly what other choices are there if that's the only money left and you got fired because you breathed wrong? So then, what choice do you have but to f*(late and suck-out any sense of dignity or propriety just to not risk such a fate?

I think you are probably assuming a few too many things about my politics. To be brief, I have a few complaints about capitalism, mainly that it pigeonholes people into tasks that serve only to fulfill the needs of others-- so in that sense, it does make some decisions for you (while providing a wider range of choices, I'd argue). I feel I should tie this back to the beginning of this conversation to prevent this thread from being fully derailed: My point was only to say that democracy is not some kind of highest ideal or inherent good that we should be constantly striving for. Majority rule is a brutal, cold way of running a society (and so is capitalism, in many ways). Someone else pointed out that my antipathy towards democracy is well-documented, and I felt the need to clarify that it has nothing to do with some sympathy towards dictators like Pinochet. I can't make a good case for anarcho-capitalism here because I legitimately do not support it.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,869


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2019, 01:52:58 PM »

Not a fan of Allende but at least he wasnt a dictator
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,512
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2019, 03:38:05 PM »

Allende (Not a Fascist)
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 64,618
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2019, 07:11:40 PM »

You know, it is perfectly possible to think that Allende was a fucking idiot without supporting his violent overthrow and the establishment of a brutal dictatorship that was, anyway, only slightly more economically competent!
Logged
Everyone Needs Jesus Christ
Christian Man
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,249


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: 0.52

P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2022, 11:12:31 PM »

Not a fan of Allende but at least he wasnt a dictator
Logged
TheReckoning
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,773
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 15, 2022, 01:19:54 AM »

Anyone who denies how deadly Communism has been to people (far, far more than Pinochet was) is kidding themselves.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,111
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 15, 2022, 01:40:30 AM »

Anyone who denies how deadly Communism has been to people (far, far more than Pinochet was) is kidding themselves.

How many people did Allende kill?
Logged
TheReckoning
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,773
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 15, 2022, 01:56:32 AM »

Anyone who denies how deadly Communism has been to people (far, far more than Pinochet was) is kidding themselves.

How many people did Allende kill?
Too many.
Logged
Doctor V
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,458
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2022, 06:05:04 AM »

Like with the Uyghur genocide question, there is one clear answer here and answering otherwise or equivocating immediately outs you as someone not worth listening to.


I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.

It is.

A better argument for you would have been that Allende never won 50.1% of the vote in an election, but of course this is all pretty irrelevant given the alternative.
Logged
pool water is very cod 🥶🥶🥶
AverageFoodEnthusiast
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,982
Virgin Islands, U.S.


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2022, 11:31:25 AM »

Allende (sane, normal)

Also because Pinochet stole this from us.
Logged
Big Abraham
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,293
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2022, 02:19:44 PM »

The Chicago Boys ruined Chile and ruined the world by implementing the neoliberal order.
Logged
Butlerian Jihad
Nathan
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,792


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2022, 03:10:24 PM »

"I don't like that Pinochet slaughtered thousands but at least he made line go up Smiley" is just as bankrupt a take as "at least Stalin modernized Russia", and I'm not convinced the types of people it appeals to are any better either.
Logged
SIR HUMPHREY APPLEBY
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,244
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2022, 03:16:32 PM »

Like with the Uyghur genocide question, there is one clear answer here and answering otherwise or equivocating immediately outs you as someone not worth listening to.


I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.

It is.

A better argument for you would have been that Allende never won 50.1% of the vote in an election, but of course this is all pretty irrelevant given the alternative.

I didn't realize you were so ideologically wedded to democracy. Why should a majority have free rein to take away the rights of the minority?

Mind you, I hate Pinochet and people who defend him. I'm just arguing this particular point.
Logged
Doctor V
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,458
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 15, 2022, 03:50:20 PM »

I didn't realize you were so ideologically wedded to democracy. Why should a majority have free rein to take away the rights of the minority?

There should be some limits on a majority's power, obviously, but that shouldn't require establishing an absolute right to all private property that trumps any other consideration of public utility. The right to property, like every right, ought to be balanced out with other rights that the state guarantees (including positive rights). Absolute rights are absurd in concept and destructive in practice.


Quote
Mind you, I hate Pinochet and people who defend him. I'm just arguing this particular point.

That's genuinely a relief. You never know with yellow avatars.
Logged
Big Abraham
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,293
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 15, 2022, 04:05:02 PM »

I didn't realize you were so ideologically wedded to democracy. Why should a majority have free rein to take away the rights of the minority?

That isn't the definition of democracy. What you are describing is an authoritarian state with majoritarian support. The majority of people in China probably support or are indifferent to what's going on in Sinkiang; that doesn't make China democratic.

When people talk about democracy, they're talking about a representative government with free and fair elections. In these countries, the rights of the minority are safeguarded either through a constitutional/legal protection of civil rights, or through robust government programs.
Logged
SIR HUMPHREY APPLEBY
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,244
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 15, 2022, 04:25:34 PM »

I didn't realize you were so ideologically wedded to democracy. Why should a majority have free rein to take away the rights of the minority?

There should be some limits on a majority's power, obviously, but that shouldn't require establishing an absolute right to all private property that trumps any other consideration of public utility. The right to property, like every right, ought to be balanced out with other rights that the state guarantees (including positive rights). Absolute rights are absurd in concept and destructive in practice.

Do you believe that any rights are absolute? I wouldn't expect you to oppose property rights violations in principle, but surely there are other basic human rights that you take an absolute position on (fair trials, unjust confinement, freedom of speech, etc).
Logged
Doctor V
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,458
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 15, 2022, 05:05:09 PM »

I didn't realize you were so ideologically wedded to democracy. Why should a majority have free rein to take away the rights of the minority?

There should be some limits on a majority's power, obviously, but that shouldn't require establishing an absolute right to all private property that trumps any other consideration of public utility. The right to property, like every right, ought to be balanced out with other rights that the state guarantees (including positive rights). Absolute rights are absurd in concept and destructive in practice.

Do you believe that any rights are absolute? I wouldn't expect you to oppose property rights violations in principle, but surely there are other basic human rights that you take an absolute position on (fair trials, unjust confinement, freedom of speech, etc).

Freedom of speech is most definitely not absolute. It's actually my go-to example for why absolute rights are untenable, and I'm convinced that even most people who call themselves "free speech absolutists" are aware of it deep down. At the very least, most people tend to agree that overtly calling for the murder of a specific person should be criminally punishable, and that other types of speech closely related to the commission of serious crimes should give rise to some criminal liability of some kind. Beyond those obvious examples, there are many concrete cases where I believe unfettered free speech ends up doing more harm than good. This is especially the case in situations where the ability to speak is highly unequal to start with, and smaller speakers see their voices drowned out by the bigger ones (campaign financing, if you accept the framing that it is a speech issue to begin with, is a clear example of this problem). There are plenty of other aspects of the issue that we could get into, but you get the idea. Free speech is valuable and should be protected, but only up to a reasonable point.

Fair trials and unjust confinements are harder issues to tackle, partly I suspect because your framing here introduces something beyond just individual rights: both concept appeal to the notion of justice/fairness, which is, I'd argue, a more fundamental statement about how society ought to be organized than the notion of rights. Indeed, you could define an individual's rights as the prerogative that can justly be afforded an individual by a society. So, by that definition, yes, the right to fair trials and to avoid unjust punishment would be absolute, but that seems like begging the question. I guess if you were to specify a set of objective conditions for a trial to deemed just (presence of a counsel, jury of peers, etc. etc.), I might agree that an individual has a broad right to see these conditions upheld in a trial, but I'd still wonder if there might be circumstances in which it might be acceptable to waive them. A lawful society is certainly something to aspire to, but when the rule of law breaks down, there might be no choice but to step outside its bounds. I'm not trying to put too fine a point on it, though.

I'd add that even what we should agree is the most fundamental right of all, the right to life (what good is any other right without it?), has to waived in some circumstances. I oppose the death penalty, of course, but even I have to admit that the state sometimes has to kill people. The most defensible case is obviously when someone else's life is directly at stake: if person A is about to kill person B and the only way to stop them is to kill A, we agree that the state can waive A's right to life in the name of upholding B's. We accept that conclusion because it is A who created a situation whereby both rights couldn't be upheld simultaneously, but it nevertheless remains a situation where a fundamental right has to be violated in order to preserve another.
Logged
buritobr
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,524


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2022, 07:44:37 AM »

Allende is better.

And remember: Chile had two depressions under the Chicago Boys: 1975 and 1982-83. In 1986, Chilean GDP per capita was similar to its level of 1971.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 15 queries.