Matus1976

X-Ray, I hope the posts here so far have resolved the apparent contradiction you were seeing here. I came from the scientific skepticism movement of Sagan, Randii, Shermer, Dawkins, etc, before getting interested in Rand and I wrestled with the same question you have here. To everyone else, I think you are attributing X-Ray’s disagreement with a deliberate attempt to incur debate, but the cause is in the definition of objective and subjective being used – different definitions are being used interchangeably (they should be separate words)

Lets look at this quote in particular

On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences … Being outside of individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

This is the common religious conception of “objective” morality (or values) and is a pristine example of flawed epistemology and the Stolen concept fallacy. This idea of “objective” attempts to acquire the end result of the scientific concept of “Objective” but without going through any of the motions or criteria that have earned the scientific conception of “objective” it’s well deserved stature.

Objective, as an end, means, just as you quoted the definition

“having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>”

But the huge problem here is that this definition of Objective does not include any notion of how this aspect of reality that is independent of the mind came to be known

As your example of the religious claim clearly demonstrates, When that person says "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." How is it that another person could in fact verify that these values “have reality independent of the mind” There is, in fact, no possible way a 3rd party could verify that this claim by an individual is a definite aspect of reality. If it is a definite aspect of reality, could it ever be true that the verification of it could *never be known to another person* and you use THAT as an example of an “Objective” claim? Oddly enough, that seems to exactly fit this definition “a (1): peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments>”

Given that, X-Ray, do you think it’s at all reasonable for religious people to use “objective” in this sense? What this is, essentially, is a *subjective* claim about objective reality – where as science produces *objective* claims about objective reality. One concept of “Objective” here is derived only through intrinsic religious inspiration, the other is derived through reason and observation. Only one of these actually deserves to be called “objective”

Epistemologically (considering the nature of knowledge) reason is the only true means of cognition, and that subjective objective claim is, while a claim about reality, not a verifiable testable claim and it’s epistemology is religious – and fallacious.

No system of philosophy that is rational will consider anything but rationality as a means of cognition, thus the standard of religious objectivity is not applicable to objectivity which comes from sentient non-omniscient beings using reason and science to determine that which is objective – and it is why objectivism rejects that type of ‘objectivity’ . One can embrace other systems of philosophy, but those systems which advocate anything other than reason – and reason alone - in epistemology are objectively objectively wrong – while they may claim subjectively objective veracity – they have no objectively objective means to prove it!

"The objective nutritional analysis of the food has nothing to do with the act of attributing value. Good or bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a chosen goal. IF my goal is to work toward staying healthy, then eating vegetables is valuable. IF other values have more weight to me, jelly beans may be the food of choice."

The standard of value is life.

You know this.

You're just being dishonest at this point.

I'm not being dishonest.

You are repeating Rand's words, that's all I know. Life as the standard of value does not apply to e. g. a nihilist, a buddhist or someone choosing to end his/her life. Nor does it apply to governments sending soldiers out to kill other people. So much for life as an "objective value".

I answered this in my other post, I'm sorry I missed this discussion for the past few days, but now I see where your questions are coming from and this point bears re-iterating because I don't think you grasp Rand's conception of Objective morality here (enough even to try to counter it properly) though I admit I may not have a full grasp so other feel free to add.

Life is the objective standard for MORALITY (not values) but because of that, when you *choose* something to value, it ought to be something that is conducive to life.

Why is Life the objective standard of morality? Maybe it's not your standard of morality? Can't anyone choose whatever standard of morality they want?

Yes, they can choose any standard they want, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard of morality. This is because when someone asks "what is the standard of morality" they are asking 'how is it that a being who lives ought to behave' and the ONLY answer to that question that is *right* is that a being that lives ought to behave in the manner which enables it to live Any other standard of behavior can lead only to it's death, whether slow or fast, and so the question of how a being that lives ought to behave is meaningless -- if the answer is merely instructions on how to die.

The idea that morality can not be 'objective' if a different standard can be chosen is rooted in a philosophical fallacy itself, that of intrincicism. Objective has two meanings and mixing them has caused alot of this confusion - even among scientists (like Michael Shermer) who criticize Rands' claim of an objective standard of morality. Objective in the context of morality is often used to mean something like the 10 Commandments, received and absolute authority from an omnipotent and omniscient being.

When scientists like Shermer (who I otherwise admire) say things like "Rand suggests there is an objective morality but there isnt, morality is merely a social convention..." they are using objective in that religious epistemlogical sense, of some sort of divinely inspired authority. They are NOT using it in the scientific science, as in 'the objective mass of an electron' or 'the objective cause of celiac disease' - this is an egregious error by these scientistifically minded people, holding something that is the result the only true tools of cognition - reason, to a standard of a completely false tools of cognition - divination.

When Rand uses "Objective Morality" she is talking about morality in the scientific sense (the only sense worth talking about) i.e. like the mass of an electron, it is available to anyone with the ability to reason and having the most basic tools of cognition. Life is the objective standard of morality - not because Rand said so - but because reality imposes objective consequences - completely free of opinions, whims, or feelings to the contrary - to all actions, and only actions that are conducive to life result in life, any other action is conducive to death.

It's ironic that religious people use "objective" in that sense, since it rejects all other concepts of 'objective' Can I, questioning the accuracy of the 10 commandments, visit Mt Sanai and divinely inspire them myself? Objective to religious epistemology is forced authoritative declarations that are in fact subjectively derived. Objective to rational epistemology is a recognition of an aspect of reality acquired by rational inquiry.

This is why and how Rand resolved the 'is ought' 'problem' in philosophy, that is, taking a description of reality (man exists, requires food, uses reason to live, etc) and prescribing a form of behavior, how they 'ought' to behave. The only logical consequence of recognizing the nature of a being that exists within reality and asking how it ought to be have is the answer that it ought to behave in the manner that ensures it's existence in that reality.

"Life" of course is not the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence either, not to rational volitional beings like humans. It is a particular kind of life, an Aristotlean Eudaemonic life that is the standard, aka Life Qua Man.

Since the issue is about a volitional, valuing, human individual, "differentiating set of characteristics" is not limited to physical characteristics but implies psychological characteristics too.

Absolutely, which is exactly part of Rand's statement. Women, psychologically, her statement suggests, have a specific set of influences that 'define' (i.e. differentiate it from others within the next heirarchy (people))

By entity identity, each individual is a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity.

Indeed, but you are taking our existence as individual volitional and value / goal seeking entities out of context. We are not JUST these things, we are things things encased in a Multi-cellular vertarbrate mammallian hominid bi-pedal primates that reproduce sexually and evolved in small hunter-gathering tribes dependent on communal distribution of labor which were highly xenophobic. The circumstances have consequences on our 'volitional valuing goal seeking' highest nature. For instance, I might seek a PhD in Astrophysics or perfect my Marble sculpting abilities - these are value based actions in pursuit of a goal - but I also must stop to eat, sleep, and generally maintain a healthy psychological condition.

The point of Rand's statement is that until we as volitional beings can remove ourselves from the influences and consequences the box for material medium of our volitional existence - that box and it's needs must still be considered - and in fact happiness is not possible to us as volitional beings that are housed in these forms unless we take the forms we are housed in into consideration.

These characteristics imply 100% self interest and attributing value in correspondence with beliefs and personal preferences. There is only value to an entity identity; not value to an abstract, category or otherwise.

"Man" is not an abstraction, in this context, it is the hominid homo sapien male.

If you were, in fact, a formless fog housing a consciousness you would not have even a 'gender' which would imply some consideration of it's defining characteristics. If this fog were a 'utility fog' of transhumanist's dreams (a distributed swarm of nanotech ai which house your consciousness) it could materially coalesce into any form you desire and you can materially act on the world based on your volitional desires. BUT you must still seek and acquire energy to sustain THAT, so one might say a defining characteristic of a utility fog's consciousness is it's relationship with energy - or more broadly, a consciousness is defined by it's relationship to existence.

Similarly then our consciousness and existence as volitional beings are defined by our relationship to existence as well. But any consciousness must have a material means to manifest it, and thus considerations and demands from that. And existence pertains not only to the continued existence of the consciousness, but to the reality that the consciousness exists in.

Homo sapien males and homo sapien females all have "beliefs and personal preferences" but some of those preferences are no doubt consistent across all members of those classifications since they exist in a particular form which must interact with reality in a particular way. As a homo sapien female, I grantee you will not find happiness or Eudaimonia by pretending you are a dog, nor by pretending you are not a homo sapien female.

Valuations (values) are by entity identity and therefore inherently subjective.

And so would you suggest that being a homo sapien female is NOT part of your identity as an entity? ... A is A. Choosing what you value is indeed subjective, but what you must value in order to continue to exist is not. And what you must choose to value in order to exist happily as a homo sapien female, is also not arbitrary. SOME aspects of it ARE objective and undeniable. What aspects those are, and to what degree they are necessary to adopt for psychological well being is an entirely different question, but there is no rational doubt nor objection to the notion that you existence as an entity with a certain identity comes with preconditions for existence AND flourishing based on the nature of the entity you are.

Any and every thought or claim to the contrary is false. When the dust settles and source is easily seen, the values, i.e., attributing value, will ALWAYS be some individual flying under the false colors of "universal values."

I suppose if you consider something like desiring to eat food a false 'universal value' I can see where you objection comes from, but if that's the case it's irrational.

But the term "man" Rand uses in "life proper to man" does not refer to a finite entity either but to an abstract category, in denial of the many individual human entities. Claiming a set of values existing for an abstract category is a fallacy.

No, it was used in the term above, it does not refer to an abstract category, but a real tangible category based on real similarities among individuals, it is specifically Man as a Eukarya Animalia Chordata Mammalia Cladotheria Eutheria Primate Hominidae Hominini Homo Sapien Sapien, i.e. the wisest of the wise upright bipedal with prehensile tales, external breasts, opposable thumbs with back bones internal skeletons made up of cells with nuclei that reproduce sexually and evolved in small hunter-gathering tribes.

Our heirachy of values should be something like the following

Animal

Human

Sex - Male / Female

Volitional Being

Hierarchically, the values we choose to exist and to flourish must consider our nature. Our existence as volitional beings requires us to choose certain things conducive to the well being of conscious volitional beings if we desire a good life, that is, things which have increasing marginal utility for example. But these things can not contradict our nature as male or female humans, or as humans in general, or as animals in general.

Rand's standard of ethics is Life Qua Man, but for an individual it is Life qua man qua you.

All life has certain things it must value in order to continue to exist as life - that is why Objectivism's ethics is the objective standard for morality. Morality is the question of the way a living being ought to behave, the only answer is that it must necessarily live in the way that living being ought to behave in order to continue to live - and those conditions are demanded by the nature of reality and life. The question of morality has no purpose if it's focus is not life, because it is a question of how a living being ought to live. Any other answer is self refuting and destructive - you can not answer the question of how one ought to live by saying in a way that would kill one's self.

But mere mechanical existence is not the standard of ethics, but an existence proper to our nature as a particular kind of being that exists - a human being. A lion can thrive with a standard of behavior based only on the perpetuation of it's existence, it's capacity and consciousness are limited. But if Humans lived the same way, they would sabatoge their own requirements for a healthy psychological existence in the pursuit the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence (e.g. Galt threatening to kill himself to keep Dagny from being tortured)

The capacity for volition and reason is the defining characteristic of human beings and so they are defined by the relationship of their identity in regards to existence - that is they use reason to understand reality, change it, and live in it. But the ability of a single man to do so is extremely limited, and so humans are social and co-operative beings. It was historical one of the greatest punishments to be banished or ostracized from one’s society. Not only did this usually mean death, but in the rare cases it did not it lead only to a miserable and entirely unfulfilled existence. To the Ancient Greeks and Romans, the notion of a transcendalistic / ascetic like withdrawal from society was a horrific thought. Solitary confinement is still today one of the worst forms of punishment. Looking at the lives of people who have done such a thing, from ascetic monks and zen Buddhists to the likes of Thoreau and Emmerson. The former were driven by the desire to abdicate values – indeed, their own identity and the implications in reality of that. The latter were driven by a misanthropic cynical hatred and the desire to deny existence and reality.

I suspect we have a hardwired desire for inclusion in social groups, and that being a social being is in fact part of man’s nature. However, even if that is not the case, I’m hard pressed to think of anyway such a life could possibly be a flourishing one. So the only kind of flourishing life then is one characterized only by non-zero sum interactions with other rational volitional beings engaged in activities of perpetually increasing marginal utility which pose no threat to their own existence as rational entities in that society nor to other entities within that society.

The only question then is the extent to which our nature as human male or human female require a certain set of actions in order to live a fulfilled psychologically existence. It is said that Isaac Newton, upon his death bed, stated that of all things he was most proud of the fact that we would die a virgin. Though unparalleled in regards to productive activities of increasing marginal utility that reward his life and the society of rational beings he lived within, could he be said to have had a “flourishing” life? Was his life full of as much Joy and Happiness and Fulfillment as it could have been? I don’t know, but I doubt it, and this is why one must not let one’s desires and curiosity govern all their behavior, unrestricted by constant introspection and evaluation and explicit recognition of values. One could act productively in pursuit of a goal, say, understand the nature of some aspect of the universe, but could disregard all aspects that relate to their psychological well being as human males (or females). Choosing to be driven to understand the nature of the universe WHILE still living a flourishing and healthy fulfilling human life is another thing entirely.

Rand’s statement regarding what a woman is defined by and a man is defined by then is the implication of the recognition of our nature as men and women that evolved and are sexual, but her statement is dependant on a strong influence by our genes on us in relation to our gender. Modern behaviorial genetics seems to provide very strong evidence in support of her assertion, if only in the fact that there are many influences that come from our genes, even if it is not in the direct implication she draws from it. It is equally clear, however, that virtually nothing in behavioral genetics is absolute, even identical twins raised in similar living conditions can have radically different behavioral characteristic. In fact, identical twins reared apart tend to be MORE similar than ones raised together, which is more of a testament to the ability of volitional choice (the desire to distinguish one’s identity) to override genetic influence then it is evidence of genetically governed behavior.

All in all, the answer is a scientific one, not a philosophical one. It depends on exactly how much our genes influence us regarding our behavior, if it is absolute or not, and if it is a requirement for a fulfilling existence to abide by some (or all) of those influences.

A man's relationship to any particular entity depends on his differentiating set of characteristics and the differentiating set of the characteristics of the other entity.

I think that's an overtly limiting definition of relationship, and not the context of relationship that Rand meant, or is your 'relationship' to your sig other merely a description of your physically differentiating characteristics, i.e. height, weight, gonads, brests, etc? Perhaps if you were a taxonomist that kind of 'relationship' would be what was of most interest.

Rand: "A man is defined by his relationship to the universe, a woman by her relationship to a man."

Any female Ojectivists here who would like to comment on this? I'm very interested in their opinion.

And what do the others think of Rand's statement?

I've never been comfortable with Rand's assessment here, and my immediate reaction was similar to MSK's, however, considering this more it might have something to it.

In Objectivist ethics, the standard of morality is life qua man, however, this is life qua humans, not man as a gender. The standard of morality for a man is actually life qua man, that is, all those things proper to a rational being that wishes to live that has the identity of a human male. Similarly, for woman, it is life qua woman. Considering our evolutionary history and the psychological implications that has had, a man's role historical as a human male (for over 100,000 years) was the front line for survival against the universe, man's (human male) nature is much more closely bound to the aspects of the physical world which threaten or support his life. Because he is the stronger and larger of the two sexes, it made evolutionary sense to have him deal with the things that most requires strength and size, the physical confrontation of the universe. With that role handled, but having the necessity to continue on the species, woman's existence was dependent on the successful struggle against nature by the man which supports her, in order to care for both their children. Happiness (as a fulfilling life) is possible only to a being that is abiding by it's nature with life as it's standard qua it's identity, which suggests that happiness is possible only to a woman when she sets her nature and identity as her standard of ethics, and to a man only when he sets his nature and identity as his standard.

However, by this standard, a woman is defined by her relationship to a man because man provides existence for her, but he provides that so she can raise and care for children. He does not provide that for her just because she’s lazy and doesn’t want to face the challenges of the world – so in this case, a woman would be defined by her relationship to a man AND her children, no? But if her man is not conquering nature for her, concerns of children fall flat, so perhaps it is proper to say that fundamentally her relationship to a man defines her according to her nature and her identity. These roles and ‘definitions’ are no longer applicable now that man’s (human’s) existence is not defined by a perpetual struggle to just barely survive – so that rigorous gender based division of labor is not necessary.

For this to be applicable at all, though, one has to acknowledge the role and influence that evolutionary influenced psychological aspects currently has on human psychology, which Rand and Objectivists in general seem to balk a little bit at, but sometimes acknowledge. Man is a ‘blank slate’ according to Objectivism but they also have a nature that must be abided by in order to have a fulfilling life – seemingly contradictory. I know that ‘blank slate’ was in reference to innate knowledge, but it is also implied about behavioral influences, consider from Galt’s speech the comments about man having a ‘tendency’ toward evil, the same objections could be said of a tendency toward anything. I think combining Rand’s ‘blank slate’ and having one’s nature as a standard in ethics for happiness can only make sense when the blank slate is considered as figurative.

In that I concur with Aristotle’s amazingly prescient general sentiment on human behavior, that it is a complicated mix of chance, nature, habit, and choice. Rand wrote that the most basic choice is to choose to think or not, and in application to human behavior, while our genes and environment and social indoctrination do influence our behavior, ultimately all of it can be over-written by choices we make.

So it might make more sense than to say that man’s primary definition is his relationship with the universe, but ultimately he can choose to define himself in any manner he sees fit. To the extent which our nature though is ‘hard written’ (perhaps to a very small degree?) Happiness can not be possible to someone who tries to define himself in a way that contradicts his nature as a human male, and is definitely not possible when contradicting your nature as a rational being. Similarly a woman’s primary definition might be of her relation to her man - since everyone must exist, our primary concern is our confronting existence, and historically to a woman that was her man’s role. But perhaps that primary definition is born only of tradition and pragmatic circumstance and in today’s world of material well being and convenience and safety, a woman can just as easily define herself in her relationship to the universe instead of to a man. But perhaps some portion of that is deeply hard wired, and at some level a woman must define herself in relation to a man, even though it’s not necessary now, it was so important for millennia that the resulting impulse remains.

Pinochet's murder of many of those people may have well be 'legal' but that does not mean they are just.

Michael,

"Pinochet's murder of many of those people" was not legal, unless you describe the government of a dictator immediately following a "coup d'etat" as legal.

I don't.

That's the point, since he now had totalitarian control, he could have made 'legal' to be anything he wanted it to be. I'm just using this to emphasize that 'legality' is not the standard to judge something as just or unjust.

Matus--

A man who murders murderers is still a murderer. See under Dexter.

A man who kills another unjustly is a murderer.

No, he is not.

Murder. The unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought. (Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition)

Unjustly means something entirely different from unlawfully.

I am well aware of the difference between justice and law, and I used the appropriate term. Murder is the unjust killing of another human, not the 'unlawful' one, because laws do not always coincide with justice and properly laws are an attempt to codify justice, but all to often they are tools of oppression and tyranny. Not everything that is illegal is unjust, and not everything that is just is legal. In Iran it is legal to stone young women to death because they were gang raped. This is murder, even though it is entirely lawful, it is wholly unjust. Pinochet's murder of many of those people may have well be 'legal' but that does not mean they are just.

Should I assert that you are a whim worshipping inconsistent transcendalistist who thinks from one moment to the next you have no consistent identity?

Whim-worshipping inconsistent transcendentalist.

I like that.

Sure, you like that NOW... but two seconds later, nope!

Read -The Republic- by Plato to get on Plato's wavelength. In particular read the Allegory of the Cave : Republic 514a-520a. Also read the Allegory of the Line: Republic 509D-513E.

This...

Plato advocated communal ownership of property, absolute enslavement to the state which was ruled by elite philosopher kings, and a metaphysical subjective reality

...IS the ESSENCE of Plato's Republic. Have you read it? I sure have, and it's quite disgusting, so much that some historians suggest it might have been satire, on the level of 'A Modest Proposal' since it glorified the very type of life and system that Athenians and most of the other Greek City states despised. However, Plato traveled to city states looking for one to help him setup just such a system and glorified Sparta every chance he had. I was reading Plato and Aristotle way before Rand (and that is in fact how I became interested in Rand) and was viscerally disgusted by "The Republic" the very first time I read it.

The realm of Forms or Ideas was the "realist" thing there is. Normal sensible reality as experienced through the bodily senses was regarded as less real by Plato therefore inferior. In Plato's thinking there was nothing subjective about Ideas or Forms. They were as Real as Real got.

Plato's forms are indeed a claim about the nature of objective reality (as all subjectivist claims actually are) but the claim was that no essence of objective reality could truly be known (one wonders how Plato knew that aspect then?) and all perceived objects are inaccurate impure 'shadows' of the real reality that no human mind has any connection with (except Plato, of course). A claimed 'objective' reality which is completely dissociated from any man's ability to perceive and understand it is a claim of metaphysical subjectivity.

Matus1976:

"...a virtuous life was rewarded in the afterlife..." < now that is a pretty wide brush you are painting with under the

category christians...

Mormons? Calvinists? Many Masons that I personally know who are christians and have a very long cable cord.

Adam

I am referring to the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire. I'm quite sure there were no Mormons around yet ;)

I should have learned my lesson when you were standing around campfires holding hands singing 'give peace a chance' flying the communist flag of North Vietnam while tens of millions of people were getting murdered and you kept right on patting your self on your own back congratulating yourself for being so morally pure.

Well, color me confused.

If you had said I was "similar to" those people, your post would still have been ridiculous, but at least it would have been comprehensible.

It's as ludicrious as your implication that I am some kind of ravenous wannabe mass murderer because I do not think Pinochet was the incarnation of all that is evil and that sometimes it's good to kill evil people.

And I see you are still obsessing over the discussion in that last thread. On that point, my terminology was skewed there. If it is justified to kill a person, it is also a contextually good act. I had thought I'd cleared that up, but apparently I did not.

"Obsessing" Why the derogatory qualitative assessment? Should I assert that you are a whim worshipping inconsistent transcendalistist who thinks from one moment to the next you have no consistent identity? Or are you just clasping at straws to insult me, as if deriding me for bringing up the conversation immediately prior to this one in which the morality of killing evil people was discussed is in anyway insulting in the first place, let alone 'obsessing' given it's directly related to this topic.

"If it is justified to kill a person, it is also a contextually good act"

Great, now we've made some progress. If it is just, and good, then can it be something you can feel pride for, or depending on that definition, at least having a positive emotional assessment of the act and reflecting on it?

Pinochet was no doubt a scumbag and cruel even if he was not the incarnate of all that was evil. I have no doubt a large portion of what he did was wrong and evil, but I also have no doubt that some of what he did was necessary and the state of Chile today, in contrast to the rest of South America, and the fact that he established a constitutional democracy and voluntarily stepped down, is a testament to that.

You've taken one judgment of mine, that Pinochet is evil for torturing and killing tens of thousands of his own citizens, and constructed a bizarre web of accusations against me: that I value peace in itself, that I divorce ends from means, that I am against war in general, etc. etc.

It was a combined implication from your comments here, and your comments in the thread that discussed the morality of killing, in which you said (and never contradicted until now) that it might be right to kill an evil person, but never good. In that case, even if Pinochet killed only evil people who deserved to be killed (which I think we can assume is not the case) you would *still* consider him at least not good, perhaps even evil.

Michael D (Matus1976): After a quick reading of your last post my question is whether you have acknowledged the obvious Greek/Roman influence on Christianity?

--Brant

What influences are you speaking of in particular? I'd say there are very little over all influences that the values of Greece and Rome had on Christianity, in fact it was almost anti-thetical in every regard. For Starters, Romans thought that a virtuous life led directly to material well being here on earth, either in wealth, or in politics. Great generals and leaders would be honored as Gods. In Christianity, a virtuous life was rewarded in the afterlife, not in this life, and in fact people of material wealth in this life were regarding as having any of a multitude of sins. Christians advocate un-earned forgiveness, while Romans emphasized justice and retribution, these are completely dichotomous. Christians also advocated poverty and ascetism, which Romans obviously did not. Later Christian philosophers, like Aquinas, attempted to integrate some of the values of the classical societies, and in particular Aristotlean philosophy, into Christianity, but this was not until the 13th century. While Christianity did adopt much of Plato's ideas, classical greece and Rome DID NOT, since Plato advocated communal ownership of property, absolute enslavement to the state which was ruled by elite philosopher kings, and a metaphysical subjective reality.

Matus--

A man who murders murderers is still a murderer. See under Dexter.

That depends on how you define 'murder' vs 'killing' An executioner carying out sentance of a serial rapist murdering pedophile is not someone I would call in any rational sense a 'murderer' 'Killing' is merely an objective descriptive term. A drunk drive may 'kill' someone just as a soldier or violent criminal may. But the word 'murder' has legal and moral connotations to it that distinguish it from mere killing. A man who kills another unjustly is a murderer.

Rooting out Communism in Chile was necessary. Committing murder, mayhem, and torture in order to do so was not.

I agree on the murder and mayhem, and mostly on torture, though in those rare cases where authorities knew some knew where a bomb was, torture would have been justified. However, I have no idea how often that was the case - if at all.

Committing murder, mayhem and torture on people who were not Communists was even more certainly not necessary.

Oh, and what of people who WERE communists and actively worked to destroy the government? I find it amazing that everyone assumes that every single person Pinochet persecuted or assaulted was in fact NOT a communist. Amazing!

2) You calmly kill the person with your rational volition by blowing him/her in half with the ten gauge semi automatic

shotgun you have for just such a rational volitional choice.

From Wikipedia, a great place to start this question -

Pride is, depending upon context, either a high sense of the worth of one's self or one's own or a pleasure taken in the contemplation of these things. One definition of pride in the first sense comes from Augustine: "the love of one's own excellence." [1] In this sense, the opposite of pride is humility.

Pride is sometimes viewed as excessive or as a vice, sometimes as proper or as a virtue. While some philosophies such as Aristotle's consider pride a profound virtue, most world religions consider it a sin. The Roman Catholic Church lists pride as the most deadly of the seven deadly sins.

Would I feel a high sense of self worth - or, would it be elevated because of this action? NO. The action took place because of that pre-existing high sense of self worth - I value my own existence and that of my loved ones quite highly. The second definition is not applicable, since it refers only to contemplating your own sense of self worth. I'm not quite sure 'pride' could be used properly in this context, but its a squirmy word and concept. I would certainly not feel shame nor regret at such an act of self defense. If pride is the opposite of that, then perhaps I would, but pride to easily conjures up an arrogant boasting or narcissistic self absorption.

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, proud comes from late Old English prut, probably from Old French prud "brave, valiant" (11th century) (which became preux in French), from late Latin term prodis "useful", which is compared with the Latin prodesse "be of use".[2] The sense of "having a high opinion of oneself", not in French, may reflect the Anglo-Saxons' opinion of the Norman knights who called themselves "proud", like the French knights preux.[citation needed]

Interesting etymological history. 'I am of use' transformed into 'brave and valiant' could that have come from one defending their ability to be useful? e.g. 'I am a being of worth and useful, and I will continue to defend my existence' or perhaps being brave and valiant was merely one's attempt at proving one's usefullness.

It's interesting that every major religion condemns pride in all forms, and here we have objectivists who are perfectly content in feeling proper pride in every other area of their lives, but yet scoffing for some reason and feeling pride for defending the most important of all values, their own existence - why? All I am seeing here is the Christian remnant of humility and pride as a sin.

I believe Pride in it's original connotation, the of the Greek or Roman conceptions of, respectively, megalopsuchia (great sould ness, Aristotle) or severitas / magninimtas (the highest manifestation of human soul) then yes, I would feel pride. But just like selfishness, pride has been corrupted by religion and modern philosophy, and that characterization of pride is definitely not something I would feel. Either way, I think I would feel that what I did was right and just.

Michael (Matus),

You kinda crack me up.

If you only knew my history...

In Brazil they say you are trying to teach the Lord's Prayer to the Priest.

Go forth in ignorance and peace, bro. I wish you well.

You still don't know jack about how South America works (or, I suspect, the world), but I still wish you well.

Michael

If you have points to make MSK, do so. Otherwise dispense with the appeals to the irrevocable logic of that which you have not said nor shared. Apparently you know nothing of the cold war struggles and the threat that communism posed to every single aspect of life. Funny that I know *nothing* about how world works yet I gave a presentation to the Navy War College's Strategic Studies Group for nearly two hours on the path the US Foreign Policy should follow for the next 50 years. So you can appeal to your pristine secrets of the South American world all you want, but if you want your experience to have any impact on people forming opinions on such matters you ought to consider SHARING THEM, instead of this twisted form of derision you launch against people who do not have telepathic access to your life story. But, as you say, go forth in ignorance and peace, I wish you well.

I'm done. If this miserable little creep wants to treat the systematic torture and murder of tens of thousands of innocent people like it's something out of The Lord of the Rings, he can do so by himself. I should have learned my lesson with him when he was waxing poetic about the joy of killing people.

Well, I had to take a break from torturing puppies and beating my wife, right? Of course, you never actually answered that very basic challenge to your philosophical position, where you said that sometimes killing was justified and right, but that it was NEVER good. THAT is the most obvious manifestation of some philosophical corruption you hold, which seems to be the same giving you this knee jerk post hoc reaction to the struggles of the Cold War. You obviously have a hard time defending such a position, so you can go ahead and make up all the nonsense you want to about me, like I'm so creepy wannabe serial killer, just to make yourself feel better about not answering a basic philosophical challenge or coming to terms with the logical implications of your own values. I should have learned my lesson when you were standing around campfires holding hands singing 'give peace a chance' flying the communist flag of North Vietnam while tens of millions of people were getting murdered and you kept right on patting your self on your own back congratulating yourself for being so morally pure.

This interpretation is borne only of an inherent contradiction in your values.

Michael,

There is no contradiction in my values.

Obviously there is, because like MichelleR you can not consider 'unpleasant' things good even if they are just, right, and necessary. Garbage is a consequence of existing in a real world with tangible material realities related to achieving things you value. Yet you are disgusted by it's existence and could never feel 'pride' at removing it. In fact what you desire is some other kind of metaphysical reality where every value is attained perfectly without any 'unpleasantness' such as trash you must take out to the curb. You desire a certain existence but deride the material requirements necessary to achieve that existence, as if some platonic ideal could form itself right out of the Aether. And you used this specific example as an equivocation to killing evil people so clearly you harbor this contradiction. Garbage is a consequence of an existence where you achieve certain material goods withing reality. Killing evil people is a consequence of an existence where you achieve certain political and philosophical goods within reality.

I have seen attitudes like what you express,

And I've seen attitudes like yours, people who live in all the fruits and comforts the efforts of those who fought for their values - and sometimes killed innocents accidentally in those struggles - wrought, but deride their actions as unjust or immoral. People who some how magically want a world which is a manifestation of all their deepest values, but without the effort required to actually achieve those values. People who champion their refusal to bow down to the 'lesser of two evils' - elevating their platonic idealism over the material reality necessary to actually promulgate their goals - wanting some perfect existence to spring from Zeus's head without the trash and death of innocents along the way. People whose adherence to abstract ideals are more important than the manifestation of their values in the real world - even though pursuing the 'best of available goods' has been the source of ALL the material and political progress the world has seen. How many people were tortured and executed during the American revolution? How many soldiers of the American revolution were conscripted? And what was borne of the American revolution but nation of conscription and slavery where women couldn't vote. My god! And yet here we are now, one of the free-est nations on the planet.

with the full dose of ignorance of events and culture you yourself admit,

No such thing was admitted, the ignorance was only of actually living in a military dictatorship. Here is a picture I took when my best friend and I best visited the grave of the CIA agent most directly responsible for Che's capture and death

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2148990&l=1ce4f5170f&id=500676324

But hey, I know nothing about South American involvement during the Cold War.

keep Americans blind to what their government has been doing in South America.

Much like platonic idealists blind to the reality they live in. If you are not omniscient nor omnipotent, than achieving values has material consequences. To reject those is to hold man up to a moral standard of omniscience.

This kind of thinking makes it easy to pass out pompous opinions about what is better for South Americans than what the South Americans know for themselves.

Nice, appealing to collectivism and group thought. I wasn't aware that South Americans had a unanimous collective idea of what is good for themselves, nor a absolute collective sense of Identity, nor that you are their official representative. I'm pretty sure Pinochet was from south america, and apparently he disagreed with at least a few thousand people about what was best. Nor was I telling them what is better for themselves. It was the Soviet Union that made every other nation of the world a battleground against communism - not the US.

MichelleR, Talk about being disingenuous! Your post is nothing more than a series of evasions, strawmen, and false dichotomies!

it is anyone's guess how much worse it would have been had the communists obtained power

Right. Because SOMETIMES, oh, like 50% of the time, communist revolutions turn out quite nice? No, Actually, EVERY SINGLE TIME the communist took over a nation MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people were killed. One does not need a crystal ball to determine how a political philosophy which enslaves men might turn out, especially when it had all ready been done dozens of times and killed well over one hundred million people! 3,000 deaths? That is probably how many people Che Guevera PERSONALLY EXECUTED in his communist revolution in Cuba, which, by the way, was the primary sponsor of Allende's efforts. It is probably about how many are executed every year in Cuba now for being 'counter-revolutionaries' Let me ask you, by 1973, how many people had communism killed? There has never been a greater ideological threat to humanity and civilization than communism, nothing is as anti-life anti-reason as communism is. And you're going to sit here and tell me, hey, Maybe Pinochet could have secured power in the threat of a global expansionist communist menace without killing 3,000 people, while simultaneously crying no one knows what would have happened? How do YOU know he could have done that? Pinochet's defeat of communism and transition to a free state was the LEAST bloody and MOST PEACEFUL of ANY such effort in the history of the cold war!

I don't know, and, unlike you, I'm not going to pretend to know. Most likely it would have been a much worse situation.

But you seem pretty damn sure about how someone might have come to power and prevented a communist insurgency from winning, somehow, without killing a single suspected communist terrorist?

Your train scenario is rubbish. Pinochet was not some innocent fellow who had to make some rough choices in order to avert the greater disaster.

You miss the point. I was not making the analogy one of choices and consequences, because you hold Pinochet's actions up against a mystical other world divination of some perfect peaceful transition into a free state, even though this has never happened, not once, ever, in the entire history of human civilization. Oh, but PINOCHET! He's the incarnation of EVIL! Even though Chile's defeat of communism and rise to prosperity is perhaps the least bloody one ever.

Reality did not compel him or his Junta to sanction or commit the kinds of atrocities that were sanctioned and committed.

I mean, really, please explain to me how torturing 30,000+ people serves the cause of freedom. How does playing Russian Roulette with an inmate stave off communism?

Let's turn that question around on you in the same manner, lets say that there was no possible way to secure a free state without torturing 30,000 people, and that perhaps in a metaphysical sense this was the only possible way for chile to today be a free wealthy nation. It's obvious that in any state it's just and proper to sequester and interrogate treasonous offenders. What kinds of interrogation methods are justified in your opinion? If Pinochet had only killed 300 people, and interrogated and tortured 3,000, would that be more 'reasonable' to you? 30 and 300? You're question is just as irrational a claim to omniscience. I sure as hell hope there was a way for Pinochet - or any person in any similiar situation - to lay the foundations for a free nation without spilling a single drop of blood. But IS there?

You end this post with a false dichotomy. A rather patronizing one at that: apparently we can either treat political opponents (though, again, more innocents than socialists were tortured) like VIP guests, or we can subject them to pointless and cruel torture exercises designed for no other reason than to force people to say what they want them to say. Torture, after all, is a notoriously unreliable way to get real information from a person. Torture a person enough and you can make him confess to anything. Although I should have said 'to delight the sadistic fancies of the torturers' as well. After all, they were burning people alive in the streets, and electrocuting them to death in their state torture centers. I'm curious as to how those methods in particular served freedom.

Oh, right, they can lock them up, blast them with loud annoying music...that seems to be about it, and I'm sure loud annoying music will be deemed cruel and unusual soon too. But *I* used a false dichotomy? Actually there are fundamentally only three ways to get information from people, you ask them politely, bribe them, or force them. Tell me how many communist terrorists would have answered questions if asked politely? Should Pinochet have offered every suspected terrorist a Villa on the beach? And actually done properly, torture is a very accurate way of getting information, in Ancient Rome, testimony was NOT considered valid UNLESS it was the result of torture. Israel, routinely faced with 'ticking time bomb' type life and death situations, does a good job of this with a heavily regulated system integrated into their justice system, where evidence must be presented proving the suspect has the information, and a specific set of procedures are followed, much like your typical sentencing procedures in the US. They don't hand the guy over to someone and say 'go at it'

Let me ask you this, say you have a pedophile serial killer, he's killed a dozen kids, he now in custody and all evidence proves his guilt beyond any doubt and he confesses to the crimes. However, a 13th kid is still missing, and is known to be alive, but is buried somewhere running out of air. He won't say where she is unless he's guaranteed freedom and a villa on beach. Torturing this man would be proper and just if handled correctly, and would in fact serve freedom and justice.

Michael,

Good. (Our posts crossed.)

Now take a good hard look at phrases like "comparable evil" and how you brush off one as almost inconsequential. And how you speculate at all the evil monsters in Chile, the ones you admit you know nothing about. Etc., etc., etc.

I admit to not having 1st hand knowledge about living in a military dictatorship, which was apparently your prerequisite for speaking at all on the morality of military dictatorships. I did not admit to knowing nothing about Pinochet, Chile, or the Cold War and US Involvement in other nations during that time - in fact I know quite alot about all of them.

If you don't want to say murdering them was good, and the innocents was merely collateral damage to that good, you should not imply it so strongly.

again, you infer what was not implied. Murdering innocent people is not ever good and I never said nor implied it was. Fighting battles against the enemies of proper rational values *is always* good. Some battles, in some circumstances, have 'collateral damage' that does not mean the battle is unjust, as long as the efforts to contain collateral damage are proper withing that historical context. Other people dying in the course of a battle is not MURDER, to suggest it is (as discussed in the "Objectivist Death Cult thread" - is a great philosophical corruption - and if enacted literally, no war which has promulgated Freedom would have ever been fought or won.

btw - The Soviet government was not responsible for the military dictatorships in South America. The South Americans were.

And you say I know nothing about such things? Absent the Soviet Union - there would have been NO serious marxist presence anywhere in the world. The Soviet Union had a great deal to do with EVERY communist nation in the world, and every communist insurgency in the world. Those military dictatorships, as murderous and shitty as they often were, often were the only possible rational manner for the US to contain and combat communism. I don't hear you or MichelleR condemning Sigmen Rhee, who was probably far more vicious of a person than Pinochet was. Why not? Those military dictatorships were often the only way to prevent a communist take over, because the standard operating procedure of the Soviet Union and all the communist insurgencies it sponsored - was to assassinate political opponents or merely people who they thought may become political opponents some day. Fledgeling democracies were the prime target of communist expansionism because of their volatile nature and lack of rule of law. Sponsoring a 'democracy' would have resulted in another one of those amazing communist votes that have 99.9% turnout and they all 'vote' for the wannabe communist dictator. The Soviet Union often spent half of it's GDP sponsoring wars and revolutions, and the US spent a good portion of it's GDP combating them (8% at it's peak) So to suggest military dictatorships in South America were only the responsibility of South Americans is disingenuous - and very insulting to South Americans. It's no more accurate than saying Vietnam was merely a disagreement between the people of the North and South, instead of a small group of communists funded by the soviet union attempting to conquer and enslave another country. Without the Soviet Union's backing, The Vietnam War would have been a nutcase shouting in the town square that no one paid any attention to.

Who is preaching the MURDER OF INNOCENTS is *good*? This is an insulting and disgusting mis-interpretation of my comments.

Michael,

I am glad you feel that way. So take a good hard look at your rhetoric because that is precisely the message that comes through. Especially when you tell me what I think.

If you feel insulted by people receiving the message you give off, maybe it would be a good time to find a clearer form of expressing what you mean. I'm not the only one who gets that message from you.

Michael

This interpretation is borne only of an inherent contradiction in your values.

And your language is deliberately twisting the point of contention here. I do not feel insulted by the way you 'receive' the 'message' I 'give off' I am insulted at your either deliberate mis-representation or accidental one with deliberate disregard for my established ethical standards (or perhaps forgotten) on this forum. The error is either in my inaccurately conveying my message, or in your inaccurately 'interpreting it' since i never said that the "MURDER OF INNOCENTS" was "GOOD" Nor even remotely IMPLIED such a thing, then you are not 'receiving' my message, but instead are inferring something not ever implied.

That is the context for the appeal of the left-wing ideology in South America. I know it does not fit the current ideology where crony capitalism is treated as if it were real capitalism and the unwashed masses are duped because they are stupid robots controlled by puppet-master intellectuals and reactionaries, but facts are facts. And this is what you and Michael (Matus) think should be solved by even more murders.

I can't even begin to vocalize my disgust at such a comment ... and I can't fathom how you can take my position in this thread, let alone that combined with the regular interactions we've had, to suggest, for Christs sake, that I am ADVOCATING MURDERS. This is utterly absurd. It would be decent of you to extend the simple respect and courtesy of a rational human being to me, and not immediately label me a callous murderer. I no more advocate murder than the citizens in the US during WWII advocated 'murder' merely by supporting the US involvement in that war, a war of self defense (which the Cold War was also)

Mike,

That's no problem. Why don't we put your family among the next 3,000 or so? Since it would be your family among the families you are brushing off with such indifference, how would that feel? A move in the direction of a better world?

That's an illogical post hoc fallacy. It's like saying "The war in Iraq isnt that bad compared to fighting in WWII, where 1 in 100 are killed in iraq, and 1 in 10 are were killed in WWII" and you say "Oh, tell that to the soldier who was killed!" It's non nonsensical, no soldier KNOWS he is one of the percentage that will be killed. the MOST you can say is "would you fight in a war where 1 in 10 were killed or 1 in 100 were killed?" Similarly, the only analogous scenario you could offer my family would be "would you prefer a system where you have a 1 in 10,000 chance of being killed or a 1 in 100 chance of starving to death?"

My choice is obvious.

And who said anything about indifference? Your refusal to recognize one path as less evil than another, and act on it, would be morally and objectively indistinguishable from indifference.

That "probably" of yours includes this possibility since it is not a "definitely." (btw - That 3,000 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too low.)

evidence?

You show you know nothing of the brutal military dictatorships they had in South America. I lived under one. If the left rose there, it was in defiance of an enormous injustice, not because people fell in love with Karl Marx. Latins don't care much for him or his ideas.

You are absolutely correct, but what difference does that make? I'm glad I know nothing of the brutal military dictatorships in South America, I'm sad anyone ever had to. But it was the Soviet Union that created that situation, the US only responded to in the best ways (or at least tried) in that context. And I understand the strong revulsion many had to the right wing dictatorships, which were often brutal, but regardless of whether leftists were driven to murderous totalitarian communism because they hated the right or loved marx, the result was still the same, murderous totalitarian communism.

Further, unless MichelleR lived in Chile, she also 'knows nothing' of the brutal military dictatorships of south America, at least not anything more than I do in the context of your comment. Yet you do not chide her for having an opinion about what should be done in such a situation with whatever limited options are available - in fact the best we get from both of you is 'eh, it just sucks!!!' yeah it does, but you better make a choice, and make one quick, choosing not to choose does not morally absolve you of the consequences.

Also, to emphasize "I know nothing about..." suggests that I have no right to speak on things or have opinions about things which I have not directly experienced. This is hogwash. I do not need to actually get an abortion in order to have an opinion on it's moral stature, nor kill a mean to have an opinion on the morality of that. That is not to say you might have better things to say on the topic, or a more informed opinion, having lived in such a situation, but it gives you no right to demand (at least implicitly) everyone else shut up about it.

You asked how we get to the kind of world I mentioned. I already said it, but I will say it again. Brazil is doing an excellent job of moving in the right direction without murdering its own citizens over ideology.

Great. Good for Brazil. Of course that's much easier to do in a world without global expansionistic murderous communistic superpower Soviet Union.

Brazil has a far better economy than Chile (although it is much bigger). In some parameters Chile does better, especially since it is now so heavily dependent of foreign trade, but there is no real comparison between the two. Brazil is a giant and Chile is normal size.

Chile has a GDP per capita that is 50% higher than Brazil's. Brazil's violent crime rate is almost 10 times higher than Chile's, in fact, Chile has the lowest violent crime rate in South America.

Brazil has instituted numerous idiotic socialist reforms over the past few decades, for one, they banned imports of computer technology for about 8 years, which is an eon in computer terms, and they have not yet recovered. This was a pathetic attempt to bolster their domestic computer manufacturing industry. So I wonder, in a nation of 170 million people, how many people have died because good computers and software were not available?

It was not necessary for Pinochet to do what he did.

There is no way for you to know that. Maybe if he didn't, Allende would have secured power with the help of Cuba and the USSR, and instituted a Pol Pot like national murder epidemic. Maybe if he did not crack down hard on suspected communists, they would have succeeded in many more murderous terrorist attacks and directed political assassinations (this was their tactic in South Vietnam, executing people merely because they *thought* they might become intellectual opposition to Communism) Unfortunately for Pinochet and the people who lived in the cold war, they had to make these judgement calls without the benefit of your crystal ball.

The other Latin American countries that are doing relatively well prove that. He knew what he was doing and it was out of spite and hatred, not out of love for his people.

With disgustingly poor economies and murderously high violent crime rates, I don't know if I can agree with your sentiment.

I find it odd for people of any stripe to preach murder of citizens (including innocent ones) over ideology as a good thing.

It's not a good thing.

Michael

Who is preaching the MURDER OF INNOCENTS is *good*? This is an insulting and disgusting mis-interpretation of my comments.

Ted and Matus:

The entire argument against my judgment of Pinochet as pure evil seems to be that what happened in Chile was preferable to the alternative of communism. Perhaps, but this does not make Pinochet any less of an evil scumbag.

In fact, it makes him the least evil of all available avenues. Perhaps you say? was it or was it not preferable to that kind of communism that had risen every where else and killed millions? And if it was preferable then, was it good that it occurred instead that megadeath hole of communism?

If murderer A kills five people every month, and murderer B kills thirty people every month, it is rational to conclude that this former is less dangerous than the latter. It does not mean, however, that he is a good man, let alone some kind of hero of freedom. It is still completely immoral to idolize a murderer or dictator of any kind.

A disingenuous analogy, because you act as though there was some other world where no one needed to be murdered and somehow communists jet let Pinochet take power and lay the foundations for freedom - in opposition to everything they have fought and murdered for. A more proper analogy would be to consider a runaway train, and an operator has control over one switch. On path makes him run over 5 people, the other path makes him run over 50 people. Would that conductor be a good man if he made the train run over only those 5 people?

The Soviet Union sent those trains on runaway courses, plowing over millions and millions of people. It is the only nation in the history of the world that was founded with the explicit principle of taking over every other nation on the planet, and it expended tremendous effort to try to do so.

Here are just a few of the techniques used by this regime on their capitives:

* Deliberate corporal lesions

* Bodily hangings [suspensions]

* Application of electricity

* Mock execution by firing squad

* Sexual aggression and violence

* Witnessing and listening to torture committed on others

* Russian roulette

* Witnessing the execution of other detainees

* Asphyxia

* Exposure to extreme temperatures

Yes I suppose in some perfect world none of this would have been at all necessary, and assuming actions of some sort were required by Pinochet to secure the foundations of freedom, then perhaps he could have just made a resort compound and sequestered suspected communists to that palace, keeping them well fed and well treated, explaining that he disagrees with them but does not advocate murdering them, but sees the world they want as a threat to humanity. Of course, assuming some of them were involved in assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks (standard fare for communist insurgencies) I don't know how good this polite treatment would have worked.

The choice between two evils is still evil.

You may not be able to help doing it under the circumstances, but in such a case, it is nothing to feel guilty for or be indifferent to. Or be proud of for that matter.

The only good (as opposed to "lesser evil") ...

I find such sentiments hardly more than a semantic game attempting to create some philosophical truth, of course "the choice between two evils is still evil" obfuscates the difference between a horrific murderous communist dictatorship that kills tens of millions - and a Pinochet like dictatorship that lays the foundations for a free nation, but kills 3,000, many of which probably were communist terrorists. Yes they are both evil, but they are not comparably evil.

If, in fact, you acknowledge one is a 'lesser' evil, then, since every statement implies it's logical opposite, the one is also the "best of available goods" losing cite of that is a surrender to cynicism.

is to move on from there and make a world where this kind of limited choice is no longer possible.

And how do we get to that world? If we don't acknowledge the best of available goods - and work to pursue those courses - then we will never make salient progress toward a world where that kind of limited choice is the only available.

By worst estimates, he is said to have killed some 3,000 people.

More than 30,000 people were tortured in the state detention and torture centers. Also, note that the Valech Report only took the testimony of people who were tortured in these centers. So when people were being tortured and maimed in the streets during the eighties, they weren't included. Like Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was burnt alive for demonstrating against this dictatorship.

You're seriously going to point to this scumbag and his goons who killed, tortured, and forcibly disappeared tens of thousands of people and say he is a proponent of freedom? To say that I am disgusted is an understatement. Apparently torture and death are fine tools of the state when they're used in the context of a capitalist economy.

The problem is you act as though the choices available here were progressive free market based representative government or Pinochet's military dictatorship. This is not the case, the choices available to Chile at this time were Pinochet's military dictatorship or a communist totalitarian hell hole run by Allende where 3,000 people would have probably died *every day* Allende was a communist, backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba, and sought to establish a dictatorship and communist utopia. Allende and his socialist and communist supporters had nationalized most of the major industries of Chile and confiscated most of the land for 'redistribution' Every other time this has ever happened, millions of people died. Allende's socialist revolution had thrust Chile into chaos and poverty, Allende himself lamented in a public address that they had a mere few days of flour left - after crushing the means of production. So you tell me, what should have been done? And we're not talking hippy lala land where magically everybody behaves properly. Were talking about armed communist insurgencies, funded by Cuba and the Soviet Union, which terrorized Chile, attacking civilians, politicians, and military installations, through bombings and outright assassinations. These were the common tactics of communist insurgency. But by 1980 Pinochet's Chile was drafting a civilian authored constitution that ensured private property and democratic elections. Pinochet would eventually *voluntarily* step down after losing an election which HE arranged.

From Wikipedia

Pinochet thus left the presidency on 11 March 1990 and transferred power to the new democratically elected president.

Please, show me ONE single COMMUNIST nation that voluntarily converted itself to a representative government.

Your opinion of Chile is no doubt the product of an immense demonization campaign instituted by the modern left propoganda machine, which drops context and dreams of communism utopias. Though responsible for nearly 200 million deaths this century (See R.J. Rummels Power Kills site, or the Black Book of Communism) the left views Pinochet as the incarnate of right wing evil, even though at his worst he killed less than the LEAST bad of the Communist dictatorial hell holes.