Hyperbole goes both ways I guess if you think the Pinochet era was A REIGN OF TERROR!!1. Sure, he rounded up and killed, tortured and imprisoned his enemies but that's no different than what happens now in the world. Do you consider the United States a reign of terror because the administration likes to kill a lot of muslims and torture them in Guantanamo?
Of course I do! (think that the USG is guilty of mass murder and torture) - The US is a police state at home and a nightmare abroad if you happen to live in one of the countries they are currently targeting. The USG is quite literally the Evil Empire at the moment, with the highest rate of incarceration at home and more military spending than most of the rest of the world combined
The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. (Tom Friedman, NYT persistent defender of US capitalism/globalization)
Of course the Pinochet regime was a reign of terror -- What else do you call it when a dictator assumes power in a military coup and systematically kills, imprisons, or destroys his political enemies, embezzles millions from the government, etc. Really, you have absolutely zero moral ground to stand on here if you are trying to make the case that Pinochet's regime was somehow "freer" or "more democratic" than Allende's
The irony, of course, is that the US armed forces are, in effect, socialist... i.e. state-funded and run.
As for the notion that Pinochet may not have been that bad after all... it takes a spectacular disconnect from history to even suggest something of the sort. I guess our friend thinks that Austrian economics is Austrian because that was the birthplace of Hitler... also not such a bad chap, after all.
Yes, the US army is socialist. Please, find a better attack, since you won't find much resistance there.
Yes, Pinochet was a murdering bastard. However, what differentiates him from socialistic murdering bastards is that he was creative enough to not nationalize everything in a fit of communistic self-aggrandizement and instead had people who had at least a bit of an idea as to what they were doing take over. Thus, while both Pinochet and, say, Castro were murdering people, people under Pinochet generally didn't face mass starvation, collectivization of their livelihoods, dependence on foreign tourism (later on, mind), terrible hospital conditions, and a rapidly declining standard of living.
With Pinochet, the Chilean economy gradually began to grow despite Allende utterly screwing it up, the standard of living and most other measures of life rose considerably, and Chilean currency didn't turn into toilet paper. Because of these reforms, Chile became the most prosperous country in South America and weathered out disasters that caused economic problems for other nations. Mind, Chile had problems in the early eighties, but that was because of the Achilles Heel of Monetarism, which is monetary policy, and issue that they continually screw up and often ruins the appearance of many of their better policies.
Also, while Pinochet was, again, a murdering bastard, don't make wild claims that Allende was better. Yes, Allende was elected democratically, but as I recall he then proceeded to flagrantly violate the Chilean constitution, ignore the legislature, collectivize everything, steal everything in sight that wasn't already "State Property", and spent a large portion of that money on a large "Socialist Computer" for calculating the economy's growth. The legislature actually ordered the army (and, by extension, Pinochet) to throw Allende out for his blatant misuse of power. Had Allende not been overthrown, he had already demonstrated that he didn't give a damn for the democratic process and would have doubtless became a dictator himself, with the exception that he wouldn't have improved the economy and instead would have made it into something resembling Cuba or Zimbabwe. Furthermore, his lack of success would result in there never being a peaceful end to his (or his successor's) reign as their was with Pinochet.
