[dabrowski]

And now think that quite the opposite idea, the post Pinochet free market economy, was what made Chile the richest country in South America.

As a rule of thumb, good intentions bring very bad results if you need government violence to implement them.

[hdevalence]

Whereas Pinochet implemented his "good intentions" without violence? Reality check, please.

[dabrowski]

He obviously did use violence. However, are you suggesting that you need government violence to minimize goverment's involvement in economy?

[rbanffy]

You must be aware your second paragraph negates the first. Pinochet's "good intentions" (which is subject to debate) were implemented through the very liberal use of violence. They should have, therefore, yielded very bad results (which they did, in the short term).

One is left to conclude Allende's reforms could have yielded equally good long term results without the illegal resort to violence.

[dnautics]

Huh? Allende was no saint either, he certainly used violence directly. One of the biggest complaints about Pinochet was that he did everything that Allende was accused of (including torture) but worse, of course Pinochet was in power for a longer period of time.

[rbanffy]

What accusations are you talking about? Allende did a lot of things some may consider questionable (land redistribution, statization) but torture is usually not among them.

There was some preparation for guerilla operations, from both sides, in case a coup happened (as it did) and some armed resistance to the expropriations (which were legal according to the then valid laws).

[dnautics]

you're right, torture is usually not among them these days, but it's in the historical record, and chilenos of the time were aware it was going on.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_the_Chamber_of_D...

"g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;"

[rbanffy]

So, you are bringing up a document used to justify the coup as a credible source of accusations that were never proven in the years following its original publication, despite the interest of a government that used violence routinely to prove them and justify its own brutality as a lesser of two evils.

Excuse me if I find it difficult to believe in it. I don't think you should take it as a representation of the truth either.

[dnautics]

Sorry, but your criticism is equally valid for basically any sort of legal propaganda, for example the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, I don't know how hard you've tried to actually compile evidence that "accusations... were never proven in the years following its original publication" - since you clearly weren't aware of those accusations, say, 24 hours ago.

Also your history is wrong; the document was used to justify 'impeachment' (because such a concept did not exist in the chilean constitution); the coup itself came afterwards, when Pinochet wrested his leadership of the military into overall civilian leadership, and I would not be so sure that the authors of the document intended the course of action that happened to be an indirect consequence of their petition.

The document, btw, passed the chilean legislature 81-47, which while not the two thirds required to remove the president, is still quite a supermajority.

Anyways, I think it should be the default assumption that governments torture people. There are scant few that haven't.