Mi humilde opinión desde Curaco de velez. Chiloé. Seguridad, Kast y el futuro de Chile

Main points / arguments

• Current evaluation of Chile’s direction: The speaker says that although Chile has many terrible problems, they want to focus specifically on security—especially the security plan proposed by José Antonio Kast.

• No-regret voting for Kast (with criticism of his plan):

  • The speaker states they voted for Kast in the second round and doesn’t regret it (they also mention voting for Johannes Kaiser in the first round).
  • However, they does not like Kast’s security plan because it doesn’t make them feel safer. They argue the plan lacks clear, concrete proof of political commitment to security.

• What the speaker believes is missing:

  • Not just changing the Constitution to gain tools, but immediate action using existing legal powers (with professionals and law enforcement).
  • Strong emphasis on political support and resources for police and the military. The speaker argues the government should defend law enforcement rather than leave accused officers without adequate legal protection.
  • They claim the situation requires fighting now, then building prevention tools afterward.

• Critique of “only Constitutional change” logic (and accusations of hand-washing):

  • The speaker argues that saying “you can’t fight crime/terrorism without Constitutional reform” is a way for politicians to avoid responsibility. They compare it to whitewashing past records (Bachelet, Piñera, Boric).
  • They frame Chile’s “conflict zones” as a state failure, insisting citizens deserve safety—not being shot while living normal lives.

• Security as an economic necessity (not only a policing issue):

  • The speaker uses an analogy about starting a bakery/business: if crime/robbery risk is high, people won’t invest or open businesses.
  • They argue the economy develops from local initiative and families, and that without security there is no growth.

• Preference for expertise over political messaging:

  • They say they would be more convinced if the plan included senior security experts (they mention “General Cuella”) rather than politicians seeking applause and trying to distance themselves from past mistakes.

Future-looking critique: Kast’s next budget (October)

• The speaker argues that some criticisms of Kast this year aren’t fully his fault because he is working within the budget framework already proposed by Boric.
• They predict that in October Kast will present the first budget plan for next year, and they urge close scrutiny because spending reveals priorities.

What they want to see in the budget

• Reduce funding for the National Institute for Human Rights (INDH) because they claim it “does nothing.”
• Increase funding for the armed forces to strengthen security.
• Invest in future projects and SMEs/small businesses as the “engine” of Chile.
• Promote decentralization.
• Avoid spending on what they mock as inappropriate items for current needs (examples include sexuality books for children and other unrelated cultural content).

Overall stance / conclusion

• The speaker positions themselves as opposition (they say they’re a “national libertarian” and would prefer to be opposition) mainly because they believe Kast must be stronger and more committed on security.
• They conclude with a directive: commit first to security, demonstrate it through actions and budget choices, and only then consider further constitutional/tool changes—reminding that state tools can be misused and should be implemented responsibly.

Presenters / contributors

• Marcelo Castillo