If I may put a word on this debate, it refers to the unwanted  
association between "freedom fighters" or libertarian economists (like  
Milton Friedman) and some despicable dictatorships that adhered to  
"liberal" economics, among them (but they seem to be quite few)  
Chile's Pinochet and its barbarian repression over leftist militants  
(who were true socialists or communists, thus adepts of a soviet style  
version of command economy).
	There is no direct association (and it hardly could there be one)  
between the intrinsic value of a Hayekian orientation in economic  
policy and political authoritarianism so common in many developing  
countries and even "developed" ones (I refer to Salazarist Portugal,  
Francoist Spain, military ruled Greece, and so may Latin American  
dictatorships, as in Brazil, Argentina and other countries too).  
General orientation of economic policy in all these countries, despite  
their overall adherence to capitalist and market structures, was  
centralizes, statist, highly regulated and corporatist economic  
activities, with many state monopolies, rent-seeking politicians and  
semi-monopolistic sectors (transportation and communications, energy  
and "strategic" raw materials and so on).
	Let's have no illusion on that: dictators like Pinochet in Chile, or  
Videla in Argentina, were no liberals, no Hayekians at all in their  
confuse mix of capitalist overall orientation and a command, military  
style of economic policy. Military people, in general, are adept  
almost for instinct to a "fascist" version of economics, that is, they  
like self-sufficiency, national control over basic resources, almost  
none dependency on external sources of strategic inputs (among them  
energy and minerals) and controls everywhere: they would like that  
prices of basic foodstuffs obey to their orders like soldiers in rank.  
So, in general, they perform poorly in the command of national  
economy, and this is confirmed by most of Latin American dictatorships  
in the XXth century: like the "structuralist" economists and  
Prebischians of the ECLAC (headquarters in Santiago), military in  
command of politics, adhered to a nationalistic orientation, price  
controls, strategic industries, protectionist tariffs and industrial  
policies based on nationalization of key sectors. Inflation, capital  
flight, high taxation and low growth was the result, and relative good  
performance of Brazil during its "miracle" years is no exception  
(besides, Brazil had few generals in control of economic activities).
	Pinochet was a true "barbarian" in economics (like in political  
repression) and he only "conceded" to liberal economic policies when  
his attempts to control inflation through authoritarian measurs coudl  
hardly respond any longer. Milton Friedman went to Chile in a upturn  
of economic policies some years AFTER the inauguration of Pinochet's  
authoritarian (but not totalitarian) regime, responding to a call from  
some Chilean former Chicago pupils and students.
	Friedman gave an overall liberal orientation to economic policy --  
absence of price controls, unfreeze of State regulation,  
privatization, deregulation and so on -- but he cannot be held  
responsible for other aspects of the rightist regime and its  
repression of the left.
	So Chile started to improve in the middle course of Pinochet's  
dictatorship and thanks to his slow "hayekian" inclination, which is  
no a small thing in a continent almost Prebischian (that is, radical  
keynesianism) in its historical economic performance.
	In Latin America, like in many other countries previously statist,  
liberal economics provided most of growth and wellfare.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida