Who said what you believe in is economic freedom, other than yourselves? One's own philosophers can name one's movement anything. Do you really think the Nationalists are good for the nations, or in your opinion are we Socialists very social or those of who identify as Communists very interested in the Community? By what logic then can you claim that being for the policies Liberalism identified as economic freedom are, in an objective sense or in the eyes of the majority of the people, libertarian in nature - or that is to say - economic freedom?
Claiming the wage system as one of freedom for the individual requires all sorts of mental gymnastics and relies on a large handful of "first truths", that is preconceived notions. What makes you a liberal, and thus a Liberal party member, is that you accept those preconceived notions as your own; and indeed they may have been your own.
But on what grounds do you claim those preconceptions to be either objectively correct and thus correct regardless of popularity or correct in the eyes of the people?
If all it takes to make a certain set of economic beliefs the belief in economic freedom is claiming it to be so adamantly, then the Nationalists believe in economic freedom.
It all depends on one's preconditions and one's prejudices. For instance, because you are a liberal you are inclined to give no weight to the possibility that the name liberalism - evoking liberty - was as much an act of propaganda as the Nationalists using a term that usually has positive connotations "nation" to identify themselves.
Saying you believe in economic freedom, or freedom of any kind, is an empty statement. It is how you define freedom that matters. And we all know that the way you define freedom is filled with logical errors and outright falsehoods. For instance you claim that freedom is non-intervention, and the the purpose of good government is to prevent unwilling intervention of one person upon another person; yet the economic system you define as being "free" in that context is, by your own standard of freedom, entirely not free; as economic success in the liberal economic system relies entirely on government intervention harmfully upon the persons of others.
So think next time before you claim to the workers and farmers of Chile that the privilege capitalist government grants to certain individuals by giving them an power they do not themselves possess, to claim more natural territory than they can use, is economic freedom. If you truly believe it to be so, then you do not, no matter what you say, define freedom as non-intervention and personal autonomy from the harmful influences of others. The entire substructure of the economic system you are claiming to be free is of force and theft, and of setting one group above others through that state force.
After all, even if we were to accept the liberal philosophers' definition of natural law, an ideal world where no one is able to intervene against others and the works of others against those others' will, then no man would possess the right - the natural right or negative liberty - to walk into a previously undiscovered valley and claim ownership of it. That is not a right that, by the natural law laid out in liberal philosophy, any man possesses. It is, by your own liberal principles, an artificial right - a positive liberty - a government subsidy or program such as the social reforms we favor.
The only reason you are able to call that economic freedom, when by your own underpinnings of philosophy it is not a state of freedom at all, is because you and others like you have called it such for a long time. As that is the only claim to truth you have for that statement, that would identify your underlying values not as liberal as you define liberal but as what most people objective consider to be conservative.
You do not believe the economic system you represent is free because it is by your philosophies free, as it is not, you believe it to be free because it has been the economic system for such a long time and you believe the status quo is good and freedom is good therefore the status quo is freedom.
Simply put, as if the differences between the Republicanos and Liberales weren't vanishly rare already, you and the other Liberales in Chile and across the world, are merely conservatives. No more no less, no worst no better. You are merely agents of the status quo, of the definitions of freedom that are subjective to the well being of the bourgeoisie at the expense of all others, because those definitions were created by the bourgeoisie when they revolutionized the world.
If you wonder where communistas gain our predilection for understanding the value of political education and propaganda, it is from you liberals - after all, the entire way political terms are defined in this age have all been decided by liberals and as such are liberal propaganda designed to prejudice people in favor of liberal ideas and to make it easy for liberals to dismiss well reasoned arguments such as this, because they have the weight of history and the approval of the state on their side.
How you can claim to be some sort of rebel against tyranny, some heroic underdog when your entire philosophy is only so prominent - yet not prominent enough for a majority or even a plurality of the population to support it, hence all your cross-ideological coalitions - is because it is the official state ideology, and the official cultural ideology of much of the world? The fact that liberalism is called liberalism and manner call the economics you believe in free market are no more proof that your beliefs represent liberty and freedom than if a nationalist or a communist society was dominant and communism or nationalism was called liberalism and the economics called free market economics.
By refusing to even dignify intellectual arguments based upon liberal philosophy, treating them as absurdities when people have been using the terms you use for so long, you are resting the weight of your argument entirely on one factor - not the truth or even your ability for rhetoric, but on the subsidy of the state in favor of a certain ideology.
By any objective, reasonable standard, the Liberales and liberalism represent the official state ideology of the world-wide establishment; an entire planet's worth of wealthy capitalists who have been saying that 1 + 1 is 3 for so long that they think just repeating it counts as a winning argument.
))
