> A false dichotomy requires that I explicitly stated that there are no other alternatives
you do not have to prepend and append your posts with "I AM CONSTURCTING A FALSE DICHOTOMY ITP JUST SO YOU KNOW" in order to construct a false dichotomy, the only thing you need to do is consider only two possibilities to the neglect of any others
& you address all your points to some hypothetical marxist leninist maoist despite being repeatedly assured that you aren't talking to one.
e.g.:
> Clearly the regimes you support are not all flowers and candy.
> the Stalinist dictatorship you have just admitted to supporting.
> This is a more effective method of reducing poverty than a pointless bloody revolution that is as likely to result in a super happy worker's paradise as your mom to lose weight.
> Let me translate the jist of my argument into hardcore marxist speak for you.
>Friedman convinced a fascist dictatorship to maintain some economic freedoms and not eliminate all it's civilian ties to the outside world. Would you prefer Chile to have completed the transition to totalitarianism as North Korea did?
you're still going to have to convince me that the freedom to start businesses was the only thing keeping pinochet from creating the chilean reich.
> Sorry but this is absolutely wrong. Allende refused to step down after a vote to have him impeached.
> http://www.pensionreform.org/icpr/eys/declaration.html
The mechanism for ejecting the President of Chile is listed in Art. 39 & Art. 42 of the 1925 Constitution. You can read it yourself (pdf warning).
http://www.bcn.cl/lc/cpolitica/1925.pdf
That is not it. The CDP appealed directly to the military to overthrow Allende.
As for the accusations, Chile's political climate at the time was pretty crazy, with reactionary and revolutionary elements constantly at each others' throats. To compound it, economy was in the shitter (n.b. not entirely or even mostly Allende's fault, there were some nasty external factors).
> If you want me to tell you what I think about alternatives then go right ahead and suggest some.
what do you think about social market democracy without kissengers
> Lastly what part of "essentially" don't you understand?
okey you're probably right this, i read the first post and immediately took to thinking that you were some sort of fukuyama end of history type who thinks that society will reach some sort of perfected free market democratic paradise and never change again ever. sorry.
> belgium and luxembourgh
but this is still a silly example. i don't think anyone would argue that given two arbitrary countries they will inevitably be at war at some point unless they are neoconservative/neoliberal demoracies.
> As I already mentionned I consider democracy to be but one factor that reduces the likelyhood of war and globalisation and neoconservatism reduce it's possibility to levels similiar to the chance of war between Belgium and Luxembourg.
regarding democracy and war: oh okay.
regarding globalisation and war: now that i think of it i would be very interested to see levels of trade between countries prior to and after war between them
regarding neoconservativsm/neoliberalism and war: this i find pretty specious. i guess they are moderately successful at creating instable democracies, but in each of these little projects the levels of low intesity warfare increased dramatically.
> In total war generates losses for the business community even if a few profiteers enrich themselves
this seems like a pretty naive reading of a complicated system.
> it's peace that us evil capitalist peegs want.
i know
--------------
>>11
haha what.