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