4 ms·

Deaths under Pinochet: 3000, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973%E2%80%9390) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_

Deaths under Pinochet: 3000, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973%E2%80%9390) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile.... Deaths under Mao: 20,000,000 - 70,000,000, according to http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Mao http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Mao. Deaths under Stalin: 20,000,000 - 50,000,000 according to http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin. Deaths in 1990s Russia: I can't even find a source. So if 1990s Russia and Pinochet's Chile are examples of extreme free market experiments, I'd take the human misery they cause over the human misery of extreme no-market experiments any day.

fsloth 11y ago
The statistic you want for russia is the life expectancy. Russians are dying very young. The situation got worse after 1990s.
- ctlby 11y ago
  Why is this relevant? The proximate cause for the decreasing life expectancy is massive alcohol consumption. You could assign the blame by drawing long, tenuous chains of social causation from policies you don't like. Or, not unreasonably, you could just fault those destroying their bodies through substance abuse.
  - fsloth 11y ago
    Well, my first hypothesis for rampant alcoholism - cultural background nonwithstanding - would be the lack of options in the social environment.
  - tormeh 11y ago
    Indirect harm is no less harm than direct harm. If life expectancy plummets after capitalism takes effect then yeah, capitalism is probably to blame. Anyway, I don't think anyone excuses dictatorships in this thread.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      why the need to narrow complex set of factors affecting each other into a single bullet point? it doesn't work, not only in this scenario. General Russian mentality is a prime example of one f*ed up beyond repair, for quite a few generations to come unless some miracle happens (and Putin is making sure it won't happen during his reign).
      - gdy 11y ago
        "General Russian mentality is a prime example of one f*ed up beyond repair" What do you mean?
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      I wouldn't say that's the main cause. It's more about the collapse of the previous infrastructure than the particulars of what came after.
    - seanflyon 11y ago
      http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    > Why is this relevant? The proximate cause for the decreasing life expectancy is massive alcohol consumption. IIRC, this is not true. It's a contributor, certainly, but Russian life expectancy is substantially lower than other nations with similar alcohol consumption.
ctlby 11y ago
Has any philosophy in human history caused more death and suffering than collectivism and its offshoots? ... and its adherents take the free-marketeers to task for their "cruelty" and "heartlessness"!
- asgard1024 11y ago
  You have presented a logical tautology. Killing another human being is always collectivist according to your definition. However, that doesn't say anything about validity of ideas of free market or communism. What does say a lot though is that some free market proponents have the need to advocate Pinochet.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > You have presented a logical tautology. Killing another human being is always collectivist according to your definition. That's not what ctlby said. Nor is it a reasonable interpretation of his/her words.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      OK, consider this. Every (moral) philosophy exists to motivate other people, as a code to follow (if it didn't you wouldn't have reason to tell anyone!). This means there is a group, or a collective, which supposedly holds these values and is to be protected. If fulfilling this philosophy (or its protection) requires killing other humans, then this is (ostensibly) done in the interest of the group. In other words, if someone is killing for individual reasons, he is not following any philosophy, because he doesn't need any; he's just crazy or psychopath. Killing for philosophical reasons always happens to protect some social order (albeit sometimes fictional). If you don't agree, there is a simple solution. Just provide an example of philosophy that causes killing of people and is not in fact collectivist (by any definition you choose, it doesn't matter very much, and that's why I was able to do the bold claim I did). Or to put it even simpler, it's contradictory to kill another human to fulfil any philosophy of individual freedom. Hitler killed because he wanted to protect Germans from Jews, Pinochet killed because communists were danger to his social order, and so on. Even Winston Smith from 1984 was willing to kill in order to replace the social system (which is the passage in the book I really like, because it's one of the places that makes it actually morally ambiguous, just like real world).
toyg 11y ago
Dude, you cannot compare a country the size of Chile (8m in the '60s) with a country the size of Russia (120m in the '60s) or China (600m in the '60s).
- tedunangst 11y ago
  But we can divide 3000 / 8M and 20M / 120M to get ratios, no?
  - toyg 11y ago
    No, because you also have to account for duration and for a number or other factors (e.g. Chilean population was concentrated in very few cities, so the effect of one death was relatively higher than in a place like Russia, where things often happen "at very long distance"; and so on and so forth). This is not a rational historical comparison (if such a thing can really exist), these are just random numbers shouted in a pub argument, "My guy killed less people than your guy!"...
asgard1024 11y ago
> So if 1990s Russia and Pinochet's Chile are examples of extreme free market experiments You're confused. They're examples of free market experiments, however the Pinochet's deaths had nothing to do with the free market and all with his political power. If you want to see deaths caused by free market, look at e.g. homeless people who freeze on the street during winter.

fsloth 11y ago

The statistic you want for russia is the life expectancy. Russians are dying very young. The situation got worse after 1990s.

ctlby 11y ago
Why is this relevant? The proximate cause for the decreasing life expectancy is massive alcohol consumption. You could assign the blame by drawing long, tenuous chains of social causation from policies you don't like. Or, not unreasonably, you could just fault those destroying their bodies through substance abuse.
- fsloth 11y ago
  Well, my first hypothesis for rampant alcoholism - cultural background nonwithstanding - would be the lack of options in the social environment.
- tormeh 11y ago
  Indirect harm is no less harm than direct harm. If life expectancy plummets after capitalism takes effect then yeah, capitalism is probably to blame. Anyway, I don't think anyone excuses dictatorships in this thread.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    why the need to narrow complex set of factors affecting each other into a single bullet point? it doesn't work, not only in this scenario. General Russian mentality is a prime example of one f*ed up beyond repair, for quite a few generations to come unless some miracle happens (and Putin is making sure it won't happen during his reign).
    - gdy 11y ago
      "General Russian mentality is a prime example of one f*ed up beyond repair" What do you mean?
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    I wouldn't say that's the main cause. It's more about the collapse of the previous infrastructure than the particulars of what came after.
  - seanflyon 11y ago
    http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > Why is this relevant? The proximate cause for the decreasing life expectancy is massive alcohol consumption. IIRC, this is not true. It's a contributor, certainly, but Russian life expectancy is substantially lower than other nations with similar alcohol consumption.

ctlby 11y ago

Has any philosophy in human history caused more death and suffering than collectivism and its offshoots? ... and its adherents take the free-marketeers to task for their "cruelty" and "heartlessness"!

asgard1024 11y ago
You have presented a logical tautology. Killing another human being is always collectivist according to your definition. However, that doesn't say anything about validity of ideas of free market or communism. What does say a lot though is that some free market proponents have the need to advocate Pinochet.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > You have presented a logical tautology. Killing another human being is always collectivist according to your definition. That's not what ctlby said. Nor is it a reasonable interpretation of his/her words.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    OK, consider this. Every (moral) philosophy exists to motivate other people, as a code to follow (if it didn't you wouldn't have reason to tell anyone!). This means there is a group, or a collective, which supposedly holds these values and is to be protected. If fulfilling this philosophy (or its protection) requires killing other humans, then this is (ostensibly) done in the interest of the group. In other words, if someone is killing for individual reasons, he is not following any philosophy, because he doesn't need any; he's just crazy or psychopath. Killing for philosophical reasons always happens to protect some social order (albeit sometimes fictional). If you don't agree, there is a simple solution. Just provide an example of philosophy that causes killing of people and is not in fact collectivist (by any definition you choose, it doesn't matter very much, and that's why I was able to do the bold claim I did). Or to put it even simpler, it's contradictory to kill another human to fulfil any philosophy of individual freedom. Hitler killed because he wanted to protect Germans from Jews, Pinochet killed because communists were danger to his social order, and so on. Even Winston Smith from 1984 was willing to kill in order to replace the social system (which is the passage in the book I really like, because it's one of the places that makes it actually morally ambiguous, just like real world).

toyg 11y ago

Dude, you cannot compare a country the size of Chile (8m in the '60s) with a country the size of Russia (120m in the '60s) or China (600m in the '60s).

tedunangst 11y ago
But we can divide 3000 / 8M and 20M / 120M to get ratios, no?
- toyg 11y ago
  No, because you also have to account for duration and for a number or other factors (e.g. Chilean population was concentrated in very few cities, so the effect of one death was relatively higher than in a place like Russia, where things often happen "at very long distance"; and so on and so forth). This is not a rational historical comparison (if such a thing can really exist), these are just random numbers shouted in a pub argument, "My guy killed less people than your guy!"...

asgard1024 11y ago

> So if 1990s Russia and Pinochet's Chile are examples of extreme free market experiments You're confused. They're examples of free market experiments, however the Pinochet's deaths had nothing to do with the free market and all with his political power. If you want to see deaths caused by free market, look at e.g. homeless people who freeze on the street during winter.