General Question

Caravanfan's avatar

How do you feel about the election of Javier Milei to the Argentinian presidency?

Asked by Caravanfan (13386points) 3 months ago
37 responses
“Great Question” (4points)

Milei has been lauded by some as being the first libertarian president. I have issues with that label as he is anti-abortion but that’s not what I’m asking about.

The Argentinian economy is in shambles. Inflation rates have been hovering about 100% and there is a black market for the far more stable dollar.

Do you think that Millei, social conservative issues aside, can help turn around the Argentinian economy?

Topic:
Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

flutherother's avatar

Federico Finchelstein, an Argentinian historian, said this “Argentina just elected a mini-Trump who is even more unstable and damaged than the original…Milei won by a wide margin…and this victory will reshape the Argentine landscape for the years to come…there is no question that democracy will suffer…”

As far as the economy goes Milei has promised “shock therapy”. As far as the Argentinians are concerned, I wish them good luck. They are going to need it.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Not really germane to me. I agree with @flutherother and his quote on the mini-Trump.

Shock therapy won’t work, unless Mieli intends to have people starve.

This will be another failed country .. sadly, it used to be far better.

gorillapaws's avatar

I’m excited. Hopefully all of the libertarians will immigrate there and they can show us all how great that system works. Maybe then we can get down to the business of finally reversing Reaganomics.

Caravanfan's avatar

@gorillapaws I’m geninuinly curious, myself. Argentina is projected to have a 200% inflation next year. 1 out of 4 people are in poverty. In recent years the Peronists have been a disaster.

seawulf575's avatar

Since the left took power in Argentina in the 40’s, the country has struggled. Inflation has gone crazy, they went from one of the best economies in the world to one of the worst…it has not been pretty. And every leader they elected since has been left leaning. Milei is not. His policies are far more conservative. He’s not for big government, he is for privatization of services…it will be interesting to see how it works.

My thing to look at will be to see if the lefties in the government bureaucracy try to undermine everything he says and does. He has been compared to Trump and that is what we saw with Trump.

filmfann's avatar

My son-in-law is from Argentina, and he was happy with this election, because the other choice was a socialist.
I will defer to him here.

Strauss's avatar

I don’t know much about Argentinean politics, but I have always heard about their high inflation rates, often in triple digits.

I’m wondering if a conservative militaristic regime will try to reclaim the Malvinas/Falklands

seawulf575's avatar

@Strauss I haven’t read a whole lot, but I can’t find where Milei is setting up a militaristic regime. That was done by the preceeding regimes. And as far as I can tell they didn’t try reclaiming the Malvinas/Falklands.

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 Millei isn’t doing anything yet as he is President-Elect. He’s an anarcho libertarian, not a militaristic fascist. He won’t try to retake the Falklands.

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan I understand all that. My point to @Strauss who implied he was a conservative militarist is that I didn’t think he was. However those before him were militaristic. What I have read about Milei is that he is anti-big government. He is for people’s rights and freedoms.

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 Unless you’re a woman wanting an abortion, or a man wanting to get married to his boyfriend. Then he wants to regulate the fuck out of you and make your desires illegal.

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan Are you sure about that? He is a Libertarian. Typically those are all for allowing people to do whatever floats their boats as long as it isn’t impacting anyone else. As I said, I haven’t read that much about his policies other than he wants to shrink the size of government and boost privatization.

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan I just did some research looking at same-sex marriage and abortion in Argentina. Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2010. Abortion was finally passed in 2020. But the interesting thing about the abortion bill is that it only okays it as an elective procedure within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. And that was passed by the uber-lefties. A majority of Argentinians don’t support abortion.

The other interesting thing about that bill as opposed to many of the rules in the USA is that it is far more restrictive than the one in the USA, the ones the lefties here lose their minds over. The Dobbs case that overturned Roe v Wade was involving a Mississippi bill that limited abortion to the first 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health Organization challenged that as being unfair. The basis was RvW. The SCOTUS ruled that RvW was unconstitutional because the Federal government shouldn’t be involved in cases like this. They ruled it should be the jurisdiction of the states.

So the champions of the people in Argentina are more restrictive than the right wingers in the USA and it doesn’t bother you until a right-winger gets elected in Argentina? Interesting. Another thing I found is that Milei is, indeed, considering an effort to overturn the abortion law. He is looking to put it to a popular vote…let the people decide…to see if they want it or not. That does not sound like he is trying to regulate the fuck out of the people. It sounds like he supports what you lefties in this country always push for…a popular vote. I can’t find anything that says he is against same-sex marriage. Could it be that you are just fear mongering because you are either listening to uber-left propaganda or you just plain hate all right-wingers?

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 I made a mistake and he actually supports same sex marriage. He does oppose abortion, which true libertarians do not.

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan But he also isn’t suggesting regulating the fuck out of people. He’s looking to support the will of the people. Obviously your morals should be used to regulate the fuck out of people, but he isn’t seeing it that way.

Caravanfan's avatar

You are misunderstanding what libertarianism is. Libertarianism isn’t “follow the will of the people”. Libertarianism is “let individuals do what they want to do”.

Strauss's avatar

@seawulf575 Here is an article (one of several I’ve seen) about Milei and the Falklands/Malvinas.

jca2's avatar

I just googled him and I see that he is opposed to abortion in the event of rape, saying it’s morally indefensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Javier_Milei

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan I understand fully what Libertarianism is. You are misunderstanding what constitutes regulating the fuck out of people. Putting an issue to a vote of the people is not in that realm.

seawulf575's avatar

@Strauss I have ad blockers and tracker blockers on The Guardian so I can’t read that website easily. But what I have gleaned from it is that he said the Falklands need to be given back to Argentina and that is non-negotiable. This is pretty much what every candidate in Argentina says during campaign speeches. I can see by the tone and tenor of the article that it is, as suspected, a left wing outlet that makes sure to slam Milei in any way they can. I DON’T see anything about military efforts. I DON’T see a militaristic regime puffing up its chest.

The Falklands were part of Argentina until the 1890’s when they became part of the vast British Colonialism. So are you supporting colonialism? Or is it just that you don’t like anything from the right side of the political spectrum (i.e. Milei)?

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 And you’re missing my point. He states he’s a libertarian, but allowing abortion to be decided by a vote is decidedly un-libertarian. Libertarians eschew tyranny by democracy as well as tyranny by decree.

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan And you are missing THE point. If he did whatever he wanted because he wanted without going through the proper channels that would be the definition of tyranny. When he wants to take his suggestions to the people that’s more democracy that is normally found. If the people don’t want it is that then tyranny by public opinion? And putting things to a vote does not qualify as “regulating the fuck out of people”, which is what your original claim was. How does asking the people what they want equate to regulating the fuck out of them?

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 Okay, I’ll try to put it another way. Let’s say you live in California and California passes a law, say by popular election, that you can not have an AR-15 rifle. California government is infringing on your rights as a citizen and regulating your right to own a weapon. Okay, let’s say you live in Texas and you want to have an abortion, but a law was passed that says you can not have one. That’s the government again regulating the rights of you as an individual. Both of these examples are anti-liberty, and anti-libertarian. (It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the principle).

My point is that if Milei were a true libertarian, he would allow people to make their own decisions on abortions and maintain access. A true libertarian would be opposed to a referendum on abortion because such a referendum might restrict a person’s individual liberties.

Here is a Reason.com article which makes my point.
https://reason.com/2023/11/27/rothbardian-javier-milei-takes-control-of-a-major-country/

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan And I’ll put it in your terms. Let’s say North Carolina just held an election and decided abortion is no longer legal. That is not “regulating the fuck” out of the people. They put it to a vote and the people spoke. That is the people exercising their will. And it should be noted that he suggested going to a popular vote on the topic of abortion and the majority of Argentinians are against abortion anyway.

Milei is listed as a conservative Libertarian. I think you might have a somewhat distorted view of Liberalism. This article does a very good breakdown. Per this article he would be what they call a Right Libertarian (as opposed to a Left Libertarian). This means he has some views that are truly Libertarian, but some that would lean farther right of center. The Left Libertarians would, of course, lean left of center.
It sounds as if you are assuming all Libertarians are Left Libertarians and are trying to paint him with that brush (or more accurately say he doesn’t fit the mold of a Libertarian).

But as President, he still cannot just dictate terms to the people. He can push his agenda, he can wheedle or brow-beat people to push things he wants, just as can be done in this country. But he cannot just unilaterally “regulate the fuck” out of people. He still has to work within the framework of the country’s rules of government.

Caravanfan's avatar

Hokay.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Caravanfan is correct. Libertarianism is agnostic as to the Left/Right political axis. It’s the Authoritarian/Libertarian dimension. Some things are Authoritarian such as forbidding people to have abortions or banning people from owning Javalin missiles or preventing people from diverting rivers for fun and profit or having to register for a draft and participate as a Juror when called for Jury duty, etc.—they impose restrictions on the liberties of people to do/not have to do those things. Hardcore Libertarians want a minimalist government, which brings me to one of my top-10 favorite moments in politics from the US Libertarian Party 2012 Debate.

Caravanfan's avatar

@gorillapaws As you know I am sympathetic to many “small l” libertarian ideas but “big-L” Libertarians are more often than not wackadoodles. Gary Johnson was okay, though.

Caravanfan's avatar

@gorillapaws And just for the record I am authoritarian in that I don’t think civilians should be able to own Javelin missiles and I am for laws against that.

JLeslie's avatar

Libertarians are generally “liberal” on social issues, because they are for small government, in the extreme they are practically no government, and against the government trying to control individuals, so @Caravanfan is correct.

It is not Libertarian to go along with a vote to put government into someone’s personal choices. You could argue it is Democratic to go along with a popular vote, but not Libertarian. Most people who call themselves Libertarians today are actually far to the right and not really Libertarians.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws and @JLeslie So in your view if you put something to the vote of the people you are “regulating the fuck” out of them?

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 It depends what you’re voting on, but Libertarians would tend to not pass much legislation.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 If we vote to make it illegal for Black and white people to get married is that ok with Libertarian values? No. If people vote to remove all guns from citizens is that Libertarian? No. It’s not about voting, because sometimes people vote against a political philosophy.

Are you going to be ok with people killing a 9 month fetus just because people vote for it? No. No one is ok with that, even if Republicans want to believe it. Giving women control over their bodies at all times does not mean they can kill a viable healthy baby. Even the Roe ruling maintained that. No doctor is doing that.

Here are some opinions on abortion from self proclaimed Libertarians. https://www.lp.org/libertarians-on-abortion/

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws How is a popular vote “regulating the fuck” out of the people?

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I get that there are trigger topics. But if the people in a country want a law and vote for that law how is that “regulating the fuck” out of them? You are putting this all on Milei. He isn’t dictating anything. He is putting it to the people. After all, don’t Libertarians believe in personal choice? That what people want they should be able to do? And Libertarians also are not much on eglatarian efforts. They don’t mind if you want to do something but you really shouldn’t have the say over someone else’s money. So if the previous administration pushed an abortion law that is not popular with the people and the taxes are paying for the abortions, don’t the people have the right to not have their tax money spent on someone else’s desires?

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws and @JLeslie You are dodging the real question. @Caravanfan said: “Unless you’re a woman wanting an abortion, or a man wanting to get married to his boyfriend. Then he wants to regulate the fuck out of you and make your desires illegal.” So the what I have maintained all along here is that he is putting things to a vote to see what the people want. That is in no way, cannot be, “regulating the fuck” out of the people.

Are either of you saying that as a Libertarian a person should never put any rules on people? That everyone should be able to do whatever they want?

gorillapaws's avatar

Hypothetical: Let’s say there was a prop 0 that instituted 10,000 new regulations and people vote directly to pass it via referendum. Did the voting alter the fact that the state is now “regulating the fuck” out of people? It’s not the mechanism for passing laws that makes something libertarian or not, it’s the nature of the laws that do.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws Not Hypothetical, but Actual: Name one law that was ever proposed that was going to institute 10,000 new regulations all at once. When you can’t you can just admit it is a strawman argument and a foolish one at that. In the case of Milei he as stated that he is willing to put the issue of abortion, and only abortion, to the vote. That is one law, not 10,000.
Bringing up the strawman just means you know I’m right and you are trying to make up something completely silly, a scenario that never has and likely never will occur to try making your argument reasonable. See the contradiction in that?

And you avoided the question of whether a Libertarian should ever put any rules into place. Because when you answer that, your own hypothetical is shot down. If you say yes, then the idea of putting something to a vote to establish laws for the society is perfectly acceptable and cannot be put into the “regulate the fuck” category. If you say no, you are saying you believe in complete mayhem with everyone doing whatever they want to do with no laws. If you say any form of maybe you are admitting that some regulations are necessary to keep from having complete mayhem. And putting one issue to a vote is not unreasonable. Of course that also shoots a hole in your idiotic supposition of one law instituting 10,000 new regulations.

Another concept is that you could just let bureaucrats establish those 10,000 new rules without any actual new laws coming into play. You know, like Democrats LOVE to do in this country? Or like they do in many Socialist and Communist countries? You know…you love those too.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`