Franklin Roosevelt v. Augustine Pinochet

[??????????]

FDR

While Roosevelt had a poor understanding of economics, and ultimately hurt the lower classes through his politically popular class-warfare economic policies, he was not really a socialist, in that he made no move to put productive capacity in the hands of the government.  His administration never really challenged the concept of private ownership of the means of production, and once he was forced by the need for war materials to shift his policies to make them more favorable to investment and expansion of productive capacity, the economy got a lot better.  If he'd only done it sooner, the depression wouldn't have lasted 10 long years.

While I don't fully demonize Pinochet the way a lot of liberals do (as they would never demonize a left-wing anti-American ruler with the same repressive domestic policies), there is no comparison between Pinochet and FDR.  Pinochet may have been a good cold war ally, but I wouldn't choose him as a ruler.

I guess you've never heard of the NIRA, eh?

[they don't love you like i love you]

While I don't fully demonize Pinochet the way a lot of liberals do (as they would never demonize a left-wing anti-American ruler with the same repressive domestic policies), there is no comparison between Pinochet and FDR.  Pinochet may have been a good cold war ally, but I wouldn't choose him as a ruler.

False. What's happening here? https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=37779.0

What's wrong with demonizing Pinochet? Why can't you just take the position all repressive dictators are evil, period, whether left or or right or anti- or pro-American like Winfield here did? And if you don't want him as a ruler, would your view be any different if you lived in Chile?

[Jake]

Because all repressive dictators are not "evil".

[opebo]

Pinochet in a heartbeat.

Hah, you owe what little economic well-being you have, worker, to FDR.  True, you'ld get to see people you hate being killed under a Pinochet, but your own condition would be even more slave-like.

[opebo]

Real freedom is spending money however you want.  By supporting government safety nets that would allow for others to have 'a bare minimum', you're only making them reliant upon others.  Nobody is free in this situation because the taxpayer isn't able to choose not to pay taxes and the recipient of the services is a slave to the welfare system.

There is no 'choice' under your system, capitalist - the State imposes everyone's position in the social heirarchy upon him, just as in every other system.  You have money to spend in precise relation to this position in the heirarchy of power.  I'm sure it feels good and 'free' to have money to spend, but what you are doing is excersizing power - also fun, but by definition involving the subjugation of another.

[adam]

Frankly, I see FDR as a constitution bender and a greedy power hungry individual who simply manipulated the times. He added suoreme court justices to get what he wanted and served 4 terms because he just couldn't let go. Poor individual...Harry Truman was a real statesman.

[Max]

Poor individual...

A poor individual who freed Western Europe from Nazi dictatorship?

[MaC]

To me, libertarianism means freedom to those who can afford it.

Freedom for the few, not freedom for the many.

Ah, but that's the current system.  The current 'mixed economy' doesn't let poor people accumulate wealth.  In a more pure system the poor wouldn't have nearly as much of a tax burden on them, nor would excessive regulations be hurting them as much.  Granted there will always be 'poor' people, but in a libertarian society the poor will be better off to make decisions for themselves and able to invest.

There is nothing 'free' about liberal economic veiws, Max.

I don't think that is true.

Part of freedom is having enough food.
Only if you needn't worry about your and your family's survival, you are FREE to live your life, to read books, to to discuss about politics and to participate in society.
All this is necessary to call a man free!

So to me, a law that guarantees every citizen enough food to survive - which would usually be called an economically liberal law - , is a law of freedom.

There are two options in life, Max: either you are a libertarian, in which case you can't understand how anyone can not be a libertarian, or you are not a libertarian, in which you can't understand how anyone can be a libertarian.

Keep this in mind when talking to one.

How is this any different than trying to talk to a liberal, Gabu?

Real freedom is spending money however you want.  By supporting government safety nets that would allow for others to have 'a bare minimum', you're only making them reliant upon others.  Nobody is free in this situation because the taxpayer isn't able to choose not to pay taxes and the recipient of the services is a slave to the welfare system.

There is no 'choice' under your system, capitalist - the State imposes everyone's position in the social heirarchy upon him, just as in every other system.  You have money to spend in precise relation to this position in the heirarchy of power.  I'm sure it feels good and 'free' to have money to spend, but what you are doing is excersizing power - also fun, but by definition involving the subjugation of another.

The State does not impose everyone's position in the social hierarchy.  Only in historical feudal systems and socialism/communism in practice is it the state's imposition on the hierarchy.

The system is only harmful when force is involved.  Force in an economic decision is a characteristic of this system, not a capitalist one.

 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Granted there will always be 'poor' people, but in a libertarian society the poor will be better off to make decisions for themselves and able to invest.

Yes, the planet needs to become more libertarian so that poors starving to death can invest in the stock market.

[MaC]

poors won't starve to death.  It's the high taxes that are killing them.  The stock market's a risky investment-however working poors could invest in a retirement account, bonds, other plans so they can have a safety net when they retire/get sick/ try helping kids pay some of college.  If social security never existed, people could put that money into one of the aforementioned plans could retire comfortably.

[Max]

poors won't starve to death.  It's the high taxes that are killing them. 

Are you serious? The cause of the Sudan famine is high taxes?

[adam]

Is every non-socialist a freedom fighter?

No, but all socialists aren't.

[jerusalemcar5]

I'm not a big fan of brutal military dictatorships.  So I vote FDR without hesitation. 

I think America votes like so:

FDR:507
Pinochet:31

[adam]

I'm not a big fan of brutal military dictatorships.  So I vote FDR without hesitation. 

I think America votes like so:

FDR:479
Pinochet:59

You think Alabama would vote for the socialist FDR in this day and age?

[jerusalemcar5]

I'm not a big fan of brutal military dictatorships.  So I vote FDR without hesitation. 

I think America votes like so:

FDR:479
Pinochet:59

You think Alabama would vote for the socialist FDR in this day and age?

1)FDR was not a socialist, he was a strong liberal.  What he did was not on ideaology, but on necessity.  he greatly helped Alabama and the country has a significant amount of Democrats.  Also, Pinochet is a dictator, he would scare Alabamans enough.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The Dakotas, Wyoming and Idaho are far too free-spirited to support a brutal dictator.

[??????????]

1)FDR was not a socialist, he was a strong liberal. 

Same difference.

[MaC]

The Dakotas, Wyoming and Idaho are far too free-spirited to support a brutal dictator.

Chances are they'd more likely go FDR because most of the New Deal money was targeted at the western states. (They were a good deal better off, but were swing states so funding went there to get votes.  The southern states that needed the help were ignored because they were solidly democratic)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Er... TVA?

[jerusalemcar5]

The Dakotas, Wyoming and Idaho are far too free-spirited to support a brutal dictator.

Chances are they'd more likely go FDR because most of the New Deal money was targeted at the western states. (They were a good deal better off, but were swing states so funding went there to get votes.  The southern states that needed the help were ignored because they were solidly democratic)

Like Al said, the powerful Tennessee Valley Authority, still around today, greatly benifted the South, especially Alabama and Tennessee.  The western states would probably forget such help that they receieved especially since they are solidly conservative.  I am not saying these votes wouldn't be close, though.