WTF with democracy and Pinochet? it is very clear that Hayek was very comfortable saying that he would much rather have an authoritarian classical-liberal government then a democratic government that followed “illiberal” economic policies. But where are these authoritarians respect the rule of law supposed to come from? Why should governments that do not respect the lives of their people–that throw people out of helicopters into the South Pacific–or the liberty of their people–that “disappear” critics who cross the line and are too strident–respect the property of their people? Both theoretical and empirical considerations would tend to teach the lesson respect for the rule of law is a seamless garment: governments committed to respecting free speech and free elections would seem to be much more likely to commit themselves to respecting property than those that did not. Yeah I asked does not see it in the way I would regard as natural. Why not?Probably because Hayek didn't have a cartoonish idea of what had happened in Chile in the 1970s, as most--if not all--of DeLong's commenters seem to. Samples;
...that lesson would be that brutal totalitarian regimes are very good at advancing the conservative agenda. Democracy, not so much.
....The Chilean Miracle: Neo-classical economics plus machine guns