3 ms·
>Hayek said basically that there was more freedom under Pinochet than under Allende, which is not the same thing as being a supporter of Pinochet. The implicat
by lumberjack 9y ago
>Hayek said basically that there was more freedom under Pinochet than under Allende, which is not the same thing as being a supporter of Pinochet.
The implication there is that economic freedom trumps any other kind of freedom, which is exactly what the GP was trying to say.
- ekianjo 9y agoAllende was a socialist, who believed in nationalization of means of production and central planning. We know very well where that leads in other countries. When you stand for central planning, you do not stand only against economic freedom but against Freedom at large, because central planning does not limit itself to the economy.
- RobertoG 9y agoAllende was choose in democratic election in a sovereign country. If you believe in democratic freedom, you believe in the right of the people of a country to choose whatever they want even if, in your opinion, it's a mistake or too radical for your taste. Compare that to Pinochet who was choose by the CIA and the Chile oligarchy. Defense of freedom certainly.
- yongjik 9y ago> Allende was a socialist, who believed in nationalization of means of production and central planning. We know very well where that leads in other countries. Well, that's how Stalin's Soviet became an industrial power that could fend off Germany, and basically how South Korea rose economically under the dictatorship of Park Chung Hee (except that "nationalization of means of production" was changed to "give means of production to subservient businessmen who are rolling in the same bed as the government"). You can't predict a country's future by a few soundbites like "Is it central planning?": you immediately run into problems, like how do you even define central planning?