/liberty/ - Liberty

>>13042

Well said.

You can't be authoritarian when the market is free…

>>13035

>B-But what about the Pinochet? Is dictatorial liberalism bad?

Yes.

>>13035

>Is dictatorial anything bad?

Yes. If you need to back your ideas with force, they are bad

>>13903

Not even a leftypol shitter pretending to be an an-cap but technically we do back up our ideas of property with force

That statement is simplified to the point of inaccuracy. We do not impose our ideas on people on their own property, we do not impose our values on your property, but we will happily defend what is ours, even if you are so insane as to call that an "imposition."

>>13904

Private property is not yours, though, that's the whole point. It belongs to the actual user (the exploited), and you can only claim it your based on the threat of violence backed by the state (or private entity that acts like a state, but you don't call it one for some reason).

>>13932

>Private property is not yours, though, that's the whole point.

>This thing you spent thousands of hours acquiring is not yours because it falls into my arbitrary definition of "le bad property" that i don't like because it hurts my impotent faggot r-selected feelings

>>13932

Your definition of private property has been completely destroyed by modern technology that makes the means of production entirely unremoveable from personal property.

Chilean here.

Pinochet was pretty bad, the only points he has on him was liberalizing the market, but even that was half-assed. Pinochet was never any sort of liberal, he admired various times admiring Stalin. Local around here "liberals" are more like Chicago School Neoliberals than, there are VERY few that have a more Austrian alignment. Pinochet had a more rural catholic conservative alignment, closer to Franco than American conservatives (American conservatives are VERY different to Catholic European and Latin American conservatives).

The AFP system inaugurated by the Chicago Boys was brilliant in paper, but poorly executed in the begging, and after two decades of left rule it's a nothing rotting corrupted corpse. A giant government and big corp sponsored Ponzi scheme.

In his rule almost every intellectual was questioned and watched, communist, liberal, anything. Torture, illegal detentions were carried with total impunity, with more than a million people needing to seek asylum abroad, more that 30.000 illegally detained and 3000 killed and missing.

Under his rule gun laws were toughened. Back in the day you could own and carry any kind of gun except automatics with a permit of the local police, ammo was taxed in a way similar to tobacco. Now firearms are extremely regulated by the Army, registration and licensing is centralized, and people can't own centerfire semi-automatic rifles, carry permits are only issued to biz fat cats and politicians, purchase of ammo is limited to 3000 rounds a year for sportsmen and hunters. All with the nice exception of "exemplar sportsmen" that curiously are only include businessmen and politics who get town own even automatic weapons. Under Piñera's neolib things changed for worse, under the Concertacion's left rule rule gun laws was a applied flexibly and it mostly boiled down to the judgement of local law enforcement, but Piñera's Hinzpeter started a crack down on "illegal and war weapons" that almost got scary shotguns like the Saiga 12 banned by name, and pellet guns needing a license and registration like firearms.

tl;dr he was just as bad as any dictator for the exception of a few points on economic policy

>>13046

>chilean market

>free

>>13936

Five star post tbh

>>13932

I've argued with people on /leftypol/ and people on /liberty/ about this bizarre distinction between personal property and private property. Not one of them has been able to give me a non-arbitrary defining line between the two. Almost anything can be personal or private property depending on how it's used. If I use my automobile to commute, does it no longer become my private property while I'm not directly using it, ie doing other tasks? What if I rent it to someone to, lets say, tow a trailer. Is that exploitative? Even if we both agree? It's clear that we very well can't use the car at the same time, so I am deprived of using it for the duration of time it's being rented, and if the person I'm renting it to has NO automobile, saying I can't use my personal property for this purpose deprives us both.

>>15436

>Almost anything can be personal or private property depending on how it's used.

No shit Sherlock, that's the point

>>15436

maybe jesus can tell you

>>15436

it has to do with employment. If you have anyone else using the property for your benefit it's private and you're bourgeois.

>>13035

Yes, yes it is.

>>15436

If it's capital, it's common or at least belongs to a proletarian for the duration he or she is making use of it.

Private property ceases to be private when that property is used for production. So it was never really private at all.

>>15864

>"YOU CAN BUY THAT BANANA, BUT IF YOU EAT IT AFTER THAT, YOU'RE STEALING FROM ME"

Pinochet is kind of overrated. He's not the commie killing prince he's made out to be, he honestly kind of half-assed it. Le faltaron otros tres mil.

>>15864

What about if I use my computer for production?

>>16192

your computer does not produce anything, it transforms commodities

>energy into data

>paper and ink into documents

>etc

/liberty/ is dumb and does not understand primary secondary and tertriaty economic sectors

>>16197

yes, and everything is worthless because it's all just atoms! xdddddddddd

>>16196

>Comparing countries on net rather than per capita

Do you cite the gender wage gap, too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_American_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

>>16197

>Farmers don't produce anything, all they do is transform soil, water, nutrients and seeds into vegetable and fruit