[AFAIK]

On the issue of Pinochet, he believed in rule of law, and re instituted democratic institutions. He absolutely meets the definition of liberal.

How did he come to power again? How many Chileans were kidnapped, tortured, imprisoned and murdered by the state during his rule?

[Fasces]

How did he leave power?

I am not attempting to whitewash his regime, far from it - however, the fact that the regime grew less repressive over time, with regards to human rights measures, indicates to me that Pinochet was an honest liberal, if one that believed the ends justified the means. He may have circumvented the process at one point, and assumed emergency powers, but he honestly believed it was necessary to preserve the existence of a liberal Chilean state. Allende represented, to him, an existential threat which required eradication, and once the purging was complete, he proved more than willing to abide by the institutions he had established.

Regardless, he was not a fascist. That's the only point I really care to make on the subject. Don't call him a liberal if you don't believe him to be one, but he absolutely was not a fascist.

[Pants-of-dog]

How did he leave power?

By changing the laws to give him and his people immunity, and then foolishly believing he was popular enough to be voted in.

I am not attempting to whitewash his regime, far from it - however, the fact that the regime grew less repressive over time, with regards to human rights measures, indicates to me that Pinochet was an honest liberal, if one that believed the ends justified the means. He may have circumvented the process at one point, and assumed emergency powers, but he honestly believed it was necessary to preserve the existence of a liberal Chilean state. Allende represented, to him, an existential threat which required eradication, and once the purging was complete, he proved more than willing to abide by the institutions he had established.

You make the error of thinking that Pinochet wanted to make these gradual changes. he didn't. There were constant protests internally, pressure from the international community (except for the US and the UK, obviously), and a growing influence of returnees who had lived in democracies for some time.

Allende did not present a threat to anyone except the financial elite that you claim to fight against.

Regardless, he was not a fascist. That's the only point I really care to make on the subject. Don't call him a liberal if you don't believe him to be one, but he absolutely was not a fascist.

I never said he was. I pointed out that authoritarian liberal is a contradiction, and that Pinochet was an authoritarian capitalist.

[Fasces]

You make the error of thinking that Pinochet wanted to make these gradual changes. he didn't. There were constant protests internally, pressure from the international community (except for the US and the UK, obviously), and a growing influence of returnees who had lived in democracies for some time.

His own writing suggests otherwise, and, as a rule, I assume that a man is honest when he states his beliefs - even if he doesn't follow through with them. I can't know them sufficiently to say otherwise. A man may compromise his beliefs while still believing them.

[AFAIK]

the fact that the regime grew less repressive over time, with regards to human rights measures, indicates to me that Pinochet was an honest liberal.....

So if a serial killer reduces his kill rate we should commend him for his self control?

......if one that believed the ends justified the means.

A pretty big ask for many liberals.

He may have circumvented the process at one point, and assumed emergency powers, but he honestly believed it was necessary to preserve the existence of a liberal Chilean state. Allende represented, to him, an existential threat which required eradication, and once the purging was complete, he proved more than willing to abide by the institutions he had established.

So after violating the rules once in order to rewrite them in his favour he became a law abiding citizen again.

Regardless, he was not a fascist.

Agreed.

[Pants-of-dog]

His own writing suggests otherwise, and, as a rule, I assume that a man is honest when he states his beliefs - even if he doesn't follow through with them. I can't know them sufficiently to say otherwise. A man may compromise his beliefs while still believing them.

So, your argument is that he is a liberal and not an authoritarian because he said so, despite the fact that his actions completely contradict those words?

As for his honesty:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/inter ... print&_r=0

Pinochet Arrested in Chile on Tax Fraud Charges
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

RIO DE JANEIRO, Nov. 23 - Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the former military dictator of Chile, was arrested today in Santiago, Chile, on tax fraud and passport forgery charges arising from secret bank accounts, holding millions of dollars, that he maintained under false names in the United States and elsewhere.

Since returning to Chile after being freed from detention in Britain in 1998, General Pinochet has twice been formally accused of human rights violations that occurred during the 17 years he was in power. But this new indictment marks the first time he has been charged with other crimes, and lawyers said the likelihood of a trial and conviction was higher.

"I believe that, yes, it is definitely going to be possible to determine the exact origins of Pinochet's multimillion-dollar patrimony," Carmen Hertz, a human rights lawyer who filed one of the original complaints against General Pinochet, told reporters in the Chilean capital.

The former dictator, who suffers from heart, circulatory and neurological disorders, has thus far eluded trial in the human rights cases on grounds that his health is too fragile. But court-appointed doctors ruled last month that he was capable of standing trial for tax evasion and related charges, which also include submitting false documents and reports.

Pablo Rodriguez, a lawyer for General Pinochet, harshly criticized the arrest order, calling it "shameful" and claiming that his client "is a man who has been persecuted by international Marxism." He also said he would appeal the most recent medical ruling and added that General Pinochet could not afford to post the $23,000 bail required of him because his personal assets had been frozen. General Pinochet will be held under house arrest unless his bail can be reduced,

United States Senate investigators originally uncovered about $8 million that General Pinochet and his wife had deposited in accounts at Riggs Bank in Washington. But as a result of additional inquiries in Chile, official calculations of General Pinochet's personal fortune have now grown to more than $27 million.

"I have always been an honest man," General Pinochet said under questioning last week by the investigative judge handling the case, Carlos Cerda.

Honesty?

[Fasces]

So if a serial killer reduces his kill rate we should commend him for his self control?

A pretty big ask for many liberals.

Someone can hold the same general ideology as yourself without implying agreement with their policy decisions - it happens every time you vote for one candidate over another.

So after violating the rules once in order to rewrite them in his favour he became a law abiding citizen again.

By this logic, any revolutionary leader who helped write any constitution in any country and later assumed power cannot be described as a liberal.

The only barometer that matters is whether he feels the rules of the institutions he supports apply to all citizens, including himself, equally. Pinochet disregarded the institutions he felt had failed and used military force to depose them - so did Washington and Jefferson. Pinochet obeyed the Constitution he helped create - so did Washington and Jefferson. Are they not liberals?

So, your argument is that he is a liberal and not an authoritarian because he said so, despite the fact that his actions completely contradict those words?

My argument is that he was an authoritarian in practice and a liberal in thought.

Corruption does not speak to a man's beliefs. Many men are hypocrites - this does not mean they do not earnestly believe what they say they do, even if they have difficulty following through. Man is infinitely capable of rationalizing any action he takes to himself.

Regardless, this entire discussion is running afoul of rule 15, so I will not continue it. I've said what I wanted to say. We can agree to disagree.

[Pants-of-dog]

The only barometer that matters is whether he feels the rules of the institutions he supports apply to all citizens, including himself, equally. Pinochet disregarded the institutions he felt had failed and used military force to depose them - so did Washington and Jefferson. Pinochet obeyed the Constitution he helped create - so did Washington and Jefferson. Are they not liberals?

Pinochet did not obey the Constitution, except for the bit that he rewrote to give himself immunity. In other words, he DID NOT feel the rules of the institutions he supports apply to all citizens, including himself, equally.

My argument is that he was an authoritarian in practice and a liberal in thought.

Corruption does not speak to a man's beliefs. Many men are hypocrites - this does not mean they do not earnestly believe what they say they do, even if they have difficulty following through. Man is infinitely capable of rationalizing any action he takes to himself.

Regardless, this entire discussion is running afoul of rule 15, so I will not continue it. I've said what I wanted to say. We can agree to disagree.

His beliefs are irrelevant. His practices are what determines reality. The children he tortured were tortured as part of his authoritarian police apparatus, not his illusory "liberal" beliefs that he lied about practicing.