Stefan Molyneux recently released a video on Pinochet and Chile. As usual, it's excellent. I'd forgotten that his takeover was nearly unique in that the parliament literally voted to have him take over to put down Allende and teh communists that had run the country into the ground.
One of the points that ends up being covered, of course, are the abuses byPinochet of human rights - secret arrests and helicopter rides, and the question is brought up as to whether or not it was right. Stefan of course brings up that while it was wrong to do these things, the stark difference between the body counts of any socialist takeover, and that of Pinochet, especially when combined with the knowledge that the communists were planning on killing far more, and the praise that the left has for mass murderers like Che and Castro, are stunning.
I'd like to present a different view.
Like Stefan, I agree that it is wrong to murder someone in cold blood.
But was it cold blood?
Let's leave aside the relative body counts. I 'm not going to argue how much better only killing 2000 people is than 200,000, or two million, or 20 million.
Communism, marxism, socialism, progressivism, are evil, are all death cults. Post modernism is their offspring and completes the process of killing the mind and the soul.
It's been noted that post-modernists only care about power and value nothing else. It's been noted that leftists only care about rights when they can use them against others, as they value no such thing in and of itself. The Weather underground in all seriousness discussed having to put a quarter of teh US population in death camps, and communist governments regularly kill off their own people in "peacetime" to the tune of doube digits.
I'd argue that simply being a marxist, a progressive, a socialist, marks you as either a well meaning but ignorant believer of platitudes, or a broken person perfectly happy to excuse a hundred million or more "broken eggs."
The die hard ones are, of course, always revolutionaries, trying to colonize and subvert everything they can.
So when you end up having to go to de-facto war to throw out communist revolutionaries who are perfectly happy to rob banks, kill politicians, beat and intimidate and even butcher their neighbors, and have no concern for your rights, all for their cause, then they've declared the same rules apply to them.
If they don't like it, tough.
No, it's not a step taken lightly, but one must remember reprisals exist in the laws of war for a reason. Not all choices are between good and bad, but between which is the greater evil, and if one will allow petty tyrants to slaughter and oppress them and their loved ones.
And yes, one should take steps that you don't catch the innocent and "disappear" them as well.
Pinochet was at war with people who'd already made clear their disdain for niceties as human rights, no matter what the converged media, academia, and news here say.
The hard choice, the ugly choice, may have very well been the only moral choice.