Posted on 12/16/2006 12:46:46 PM PST by lqclamar
Your exaggerations to the contrary notwithstanding, Lincoln's actions were still done under the Constitution and were reviewed by the Supreme Court. Which part of the Chilean Constitution allowed Pinochet to do what he did?
Actually Congress shut itself down after the Southern Dems walked out denying a quorum in the Senate.
Well I think you need to look at the history books again, as well as Senate rules. A quorum is made up of sitting members. If the Southern representatives walked out, resigned or were expelled then they weren't members anymore and didn't count against the quorum.
Now what rule of law gave Pinochet the authority to kill his opponents at will?
The SCOTUS got real compliant after Lincoln threatened them with a visit from Federal troops.M
And of course you have something to back that up?
Who suspended the Chilean Constitution, began jailing political opponents, shutting down newspapers etc etc.
If true then you're saying Allende was no better and no worse then Pinochet?
So it seems that the Allende was acting a lot like Lincoln before Pinochet came in and started acting like Lincoln.
ROFLMAO. I thought Pinochet was the Chilean Lincoln, now you're saying Allende was?
If the present Communinist nutbag starts acting like the last Communist nutbag it will then be time to call out the troops.
And if they do will you move there? You don't seem to like Democracy much.
Socialism uses illegitimate means to accomplish a particular end -- e.g. the violation of individual property rights in order to achieve "social justice". Given that ends never justify means -- right? -- it follows that Allende's socialist government could never be legitimate, regardless of whether it was democratically elected or not. Such a government would literally institutionalize the notion of ends justifying means, which we agree is always wrong (yes?). To argue for the legitimacy of such a government is something you'd expect from a follower of Trotsky.
Now then, looking back over your posts, one can't help but notice that this is precisely what you've argued. For this reason I think it would be reasonable to conclude that you are probably a Trotskyite. It's not certain, but that's where the logic leads (since ends never justify ends, correct?).
We will watch you closely, Comrade, to see if this hunch pans out.
Yeah, Pinochet was a real hero of freedom and democracy/ sarc off.
If you can't see how screwed up it is to support a dictator then I doubt I'll be able to show you. You care more about Pinochet's anticommunist credentials than the fact that he denied Chileans democratic rights for 16 years. Did it ever occur to you that Hitler and Mussolini were staunch anticommunists?
I'm just grateful that the current administration, for all its faults, recognises that propping up dictators a la the 'realists' is anti-freedom and anti-American.
You're right. I hate Democracy.
I'm damned glad I don't live in one.
L
"Socialism uses illegitimate means to accomplish a particular end -- e.g. the violation of individual property rights in order to achieve "social justice". Given that ends never justify means -- right? -- it follows that Allende's socialist government could never be legitimate, regardless of whether it was democratically elected or not. Such a government would literally institutionalize the notion of ends justifying means, which we agree is always wrong (yes?). To argue for the legitimacy of such a government is something you'd expect from a follower of Trotsky."
Well, you seem to arguing that Pinochet's suspension of electoral and other rights was legimitate in order to preserve private property rights.
So, by your own definition, are you a Trotskyite as well?
Sorry we can't offer you a police state.
Which means by your definition the current government in Chile is not legitimate either?
Now then, looking back over your posts, one can't help but notice that this is precisely what you've argued. For this reason I think it would be reasonable to conclude that you are probably a Trotskyite. It's not certain, but that's where the logic leads (since ends never justify ends, correct?).
Then you, sir, are a fool.
We will watch you closely, Comrade, to see if this hunch pans out.
By all means call out your secret police and have me watched.
'We watch you closely, Comrade, to see if this hunch pans out.'
Yikes. It's almost funny how much he sounds like the communist dictators he professes to be so outraged about.
You see all kinds of strange creatures on FR, but 'conservatives' supporting tyranny really take the cake.
I'm almost certain I'm not a Trotskyite and yet there's a certain merit to what you say. How can that possibly be? Perhaps this notion of ends never justifying means is a little absurd? Is it possible, maybe, in certain situations, to see ends justifying means without being a Trotskyite or a fascist or a hater of democracy? In fact, is it possible that in a situation like Allende/Pinochet, where you're placing two very flawed items on the scales, that the only truly principled thing to do (principled in the sense of staying within sight of reality as it actually exists) is precisely to confront the uncomfortable question of certain ends justifying certain means?
Is this what you're saying?
If so, then I'll concede that you might have a point.
Kind of surprises me, too. It's amazing how many people around here would cheerfully support a military dictatorship. Makes you wonder if they would support one here in the U.S.
Wha? [head scratch]
This is your definition, based on your axiom that ends can't justify means (don't you remember quoting Trotsky earlier?). I mean, if ends can't legitimately justify ends, then a socialist government can't be legitimate, since a socialist government is the very embodiment of ends justifying means. Right?
This is your logic. I don't see why you won't stand by it.
Gosh you Trotskyites are a slippery bunch.
Follow along with me.
This is your definition, based on your axiom that ends can't justify means...
But your definition of legitimate, based on your axiom, is that socialism "uses illegitimate means to accomplish a particular end...it follows that Allende's socialist government could never be legitimate, regardless of whether it was democratically elected or not." Bachelet is a Socialist, she doesn't make any pretense of being otherwise. So if Allende was illegitimate, despite being democratically elected, then by your own definition the fact that Bachelet took 54% of the vote doesn't change the fact that her government is illegitimate, too. So call out the troops, have yourself a fine old coup, and go live happily ever after under your benevolent military dictatorship.
This is your logic. Won't you stand by it.
My axiom?
How can you say this? You're the one who scolds people who dare see a case of an end justifying a means by waving Trotsky quotes in their face.
"Ends don't justify means" is YOUR pet axiom. Nearly all of your arguments on several threads have held it as a premise.
So I think it's you, Leon, who need to take ownership of it and stand by it. You need to "own your axiom" (as Dr. Phil might say), and then be true to your own logic, which suggest you're a Trotskyite.
The MSM also doesn't tell you how abjectly incompetent she is.
My question to you, then, is what do you do when a democracy elects a tyrant? What do you do when the voters pick Hitler? Or Ahmadinejad? Or Allende?
You've yet to offer a satisfactory answer for that, and simply accepting it as the "will of the people" doesn't work in those kind situations. Accepting it as the "will of the people" = lots of innocent people die.
Allendist Chile by 1973 was no more of a functioning "republic" than Weimar Germany was in 1933.
So were the Nazis. They won a 44% plurality in Germany in 1933, easily surpassing Allende's 36% plurality in 1973. According to your twisted logic the Nazi ascension is just fine and dandy, since they had the "will of the people" behind them.
there is no evidence he planned on establishing himself as a dictator past his term in office.
Wrong. At the time of the coup Allende had imported between 15,000-20,000 armed marxist guerilla fighters into Chile and was planning to use them to carry out his proletarian redistribution. According to some reports Allende had even obtained more firearms, ammunition, and incendiary devices in his Cuban-supplied guerilla stockpiles than existed in the armories of the Chilean military at the time. Like it or not (and based on your comments here you do seem to be one of the types that liked it), he was digging in for the long haul and planning to make himself the Stalin of South America.
'What do you do when the voters pick Hitler?'
What you're asking is, what do you do when voters decide to elect a government that won't let them vote (again)?
The difference in Chile is that Allende had not actually staged a coup in 1973 - nor was he realistically about to, nor had voters elected him on a platform of 'ending democracy'. If he had done, then military resistance against an Allende dictatorship to re-establish democracy would have been perfectly legitimate. What Chile got instead was a 'pre-emptive' coup to establish a right-wing military dictatorship in so-called 'defense' of democracy.
So the Chileans got a dictatorship in order to prevent a dictatorship. I don't see how that was a good thing, any more than a communist dictatorship would be.
No, but he did arrest them by the thousands for opposing him.
'At the time of the coup Allende had imported between 15,000-20,000 armed marxist guerilla fighters into Chile and was planning to use them to carry out his proletarian redistribution.'
Do you have a source for that, please?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.