Cornerstone paper on the fanatical far left BNP

Britannist · 25-05-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

That is completely irrelevant Britannist. Whether or not he is better than the previous communists or better than some democratic nations does not remove from the fact that he was authoritarian.

P.S. being a patriot means nothing. Stalin and Hitler were patriots as well, to jump to the extreme end of things.

The Late General Pinochet's Chile had more freedom than many nations that claim to be democratic allow today.

The Late General Pinochet - God Rest His Soul - was a patriot in the best sense of the term.

Smidgey · 25-05-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

The Late General Pinochet's Chile had more freedom than many nations that claim to be democratic allow today.

Democracy =/= liberty. They are two distinct entities.

That aside, general Pinochet was authoritarian. The fact that reports of several thousand people being tortured and/or killed doesn't even phase you? The fact that there were assasinations of former high ranked officials in Chile doesn't phase you? The fact that Pinochet suppressed most opposition doesn't phase you?

I stand by remarks, he was a free-marketeer, but was extremely authoritarian. Any man who leads a government that results in the intentional death of any number of its own people is no 'patriot' in my books.

John Carter · 25-05-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

That aside, general Pinochet was authoritarian. The fact that reports of several thousand people being tortured and/or killed doesn't even phase you? The fact that there were assasinations of former high ranked officials in Chile doesn't phase you? The fact that Pinochet suppressed most opposition doesn't phase you?

Fact is, when you're fighting the forces of communism which have gone as far as they had in Chile, you need a bloke who's a bit of an authoritarian in charge. You can't replace iron-fisted communism with limp-wristed freedom. Or else you get something similar to the current Iraq situation.

Britannist · 25-05-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Smidgey wrote: The fact that reports of several thousand people being tortured and/or killed doesn't even phase you? The fact that there were assasinations of former high ranked officials in Chile doesn't phase you?

What has all the above got to do with General Pinochet's period in power?

Quote:

Smidgey wrote: Any man who leads a government that results in the intentional death of any number of its own people is no 'patriot' in my books.

Is the above remark referring to anyone in particular?

Smidgey · 25-05-2007, 03:08 PM

I'm not saying we should have limp wristed freedom. In fact, I support very strong freedom - with a written constitution strictly limiting the powers of government, separation of the judiciary and the state, separation of church and state, changing Britain to become a republic, cutting public services and lowering taxes, de-regulating industry and the market and removing vaste swathes of bureaucracy.

As for Iraq, liberty cannot be imposed by another - one has to fight for oneself and earn it. That is the main problem there and we have seen it with pretty much all ideologies.

As for Pinochet, he did not bring freedom, he brought economic freedom at the cost of civil and political freedom. To have true freedom one requires all three. To support one over another is a complete cop out.

John Carter · 25-05-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

If we are going to have any distinction at all, I prefer the political compass as opposed to the binary left-right distinction. This way we can implement those who are economic left/right and socially libertarian/authoritarian. Which is why in a binary left-right distinction I would be central, whilst in the political compass distinction I am extreme right economically and extreme libertarian socially.

In my view the left-right distinction is just far too arbitrary and does not factor in enough. It can also be misleading.

The left-right line is a perfectly adequate measure, if you know which way to read it.

Take the political compass:

Turn it 45 degrees anti-clockwise.
Then crop.

There's your line. Every person, policy and government can be placed on that line somewhere.

Britannist · 25-05-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

That aside, general Pinochet was authoritarian. The fact that reports of several thousand people being tortured and/or killed doesn't even phase you? suppressed most opposition doesn't phase you?

John Carter wrote: Fact is, when you're fighting the forces of communism which have gone as far as they had in Chile, you need a bloke who's a bit of an authoritarian in charge. You can't replace iron-fisted communism with limp-wristed freedom. Or else you get something similar to the current Iraq situation.

The courageous General Pinochet - a great friend of our country - freed his people from a dreadful period of communist rule in which Marxists were intending to make Chile an ally of Stalinist Cuba and of the Soviet communist empire.

Thank goodness for General Pinochet.

Britannist · 25-05-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Smidgey wrote: As for Pinochet, he did not bring freedom, he brought economic freedom at the cost of civil and political freedom. To have true freedom one requires all three. To support one over another is a complete cop out.

You were there at the time were you?

Or did you read the above in the lefty Guardian or get it from a pinko in a university?

John Carter · 25-05-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

As for Pinochet, he did not bring freedom, he brought economic freedom at the cost of civil and political freedom. To have true freedom one requires all three. To support one over another is a complete cop out.

If you give a bunch of people who're used to being coddled in a commie society complete political freedom, you risk losing your newly-found financial freedom since they'll invariably vote another commie government in... ...because they simply don't understand where freedom comes from.

The sheeple very occasionally need protecting from themselves. This is one of those times.

Smidgey · 25-05-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

What has all the above got to do with General Pinochet's period in power?

Is the above remark referring to anyone in particular?

Stop beating around the bush and state what you mean.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

25-05-2007, 03:08 PM	#25 (permalink)
Smidgey Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2,210 Party: Libertarian Party	I'm not saying we should have limp wristed freedom. In fact, I support very strong freedom - with a written constitution strictly limiting the powers of government, separation of the judiciary and the state, separation of church and state, changing Britain to become a republic, cutting public services and lowering taxes, de-regulating industry and the market and removing vaste swathes of bureaucracy. As for Iraq, liberty cannot be imposed by another - one has to fight for oneself and earn it. That is the main problem there and we have seen it with pretty much all ideologies. As for Pinochet, he did not bring freedom, he brought economic freedom at the cost of civil and political freedom. To have true freedom one requires all three. To support one over another is a complete cop out.