Not really what I meant but let's run with that. A bit over 100 years ago, 1895, Argentina was the richest country in the world. Are you saying those people have great grandchildren exactly opposite of them?
I don't know about richest but it was certainly one of the richest. I think you can tell a story that when things got bad in Argentina during the great depression, people came to power who basically promised something for nothing. The electorate took to that and mostly voted for people promising that (e.g., Juan Peron). This gradually caused Argentina to "underdevelop" itself. Lots of people were employed in unproductive jobs or were the beneficiaries of some sort of favorable treatment so things never really got better.
My understanding’s that the libertarian position was for the US to stay out of it so that the Nazis & Soviets would destroy each other, killing two birds with one stone.
Ah I'm glad you're following Milei and developments in Argentina. I'm keen to see human stories around the massive changes taking place.
I lived in New Zealand from 1999-2007, which had always been held up as an example of successful gov't reduction/reform in the 1980s inspired by Friedman and Hayek, but I discovered that most New Zealanders I spoke with hated it, saw that time as awful and harmful. Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas (the ntl Finance Ministers that drove the privatizations/dergulation) are despised by many. Everyone went through job loss or knew family that suffered. The changes did NOT have widespread public support. NZ has more of a 'cradle-to-grave' mindset, despite the paradoxical strong individualistic, do-it-yourself streak. They do remember the awfulness of a fixed exchange rate, high prices, mini-monopolies everywhere, inefficiencies. But the personal pain of change was more vivid than any longer term benefits, which get taken for granted perhaps.
It's one thing to look at national stats on inflation, debt and say it's a success. I'd love to look at employment and wealth X years down the road. I'd like to look at the people directly affected; are they better off 5 yrs, 10 yrs later? What kind of economic growth resulted? How did they cope/adjust. I do hope we seen them finding a 'lion' mindset, finding their agency.
Argentinian here, currently under a severe recession. My hope is that people with extreme views about things stop experimenting with other people's lives and future (impossible).
It’s not clear, but it seems that by “extreme” you’re referring to Milei. In fact, your country has been in crisis because the people had extreme views which they thought were normal. Milei is actually bringing normal views back into effect. Of course, there is always a shock when severe overindulgence is curbed.
You should check and double-check Milei's sayings and actions. His economic program is, at best, primitive. I don't think anything about his government and party reflects normal views in any part of the world (this post confirms it).
My point, however poorly presented, was that what most people think of as normal - socialist, statist policies - is bad (as evidenced by Argentina’s situation), and should not be normal. Anyway, hopefully we’ll get a chance to find out if Milei’s ‘primitive’ program is better than the previous ‘modern’ ones. Either way, best wishes to you!
Luis, I don't think you know what is "extreme" or "experimental". Argentina's been under an experiment for 100 years. Compare it with other nations. It's no joke economists singled out Argentina and Japan from ordinary countries. The only nation its economic system for the past 100 years resembles is India before the 2000s, but India was not as rich as Argentina anyway so it's not singled out.
To give you an idea, Luis, one of the most economically radical nations was Russia during Lenin's leading the party, while there was also Japan under the Edo period, where it limited trade with foreigners. Along with Argentina, Japan was singled out but for a different reason. It had few natural resources, and yet limited trade until Perry came along, then the Meiji period began, where industrialization happened, even with the lack of natural resources, and it surpassed even China and Russia in wealth and military power, but also post-WW2 an economic miracle occured there, where it further grew to have the second-largest economy. Unfortunately this was followed by the Lost Decades, but economists see the same economic problems European countries face so it's not that unique.
The Team America argument isn't all that different from the Socialist argument. "If only the right people were in charge." Non-interventionism will allow other governments to be bad. But that's OK in the grand scheme. Organizations need to live and die based on their own structure.
Saying it another way, moving from a command and control economy to a free market involves short term pain and long term gain. That's true of international relations as well, except that the "short term" is longer.
I don't think that's the issue. Without US intervention, we would have far more Russias invading Ukraine/Georgia/etc., Chinas invading Taiwans, and far less world trade that benefits all countries if not all individuals.
US intervention in Ukraine and Georgia dates to at least 2008, when NATO (under pressure from Dubya) promised to admit both countries at some point in the future. In 2014, the Obama administration rubber stamped (and some would say engineered) the coup that resulted in the ousting of the elected President of Ukraine (in the aftermath of which Putin annexed Crimea). It is a well-known fact that Russia is extremely touchy (some would say paranoid) about the geopolitical policies of the countries that border its territory. US and other Western critics of US intervention in the Ukraine-Russia conflict argue that US intervention in Ukraine 'provoked' Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but at the very least, it is impossible to say whether, absent US intervention, the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict would have ever happened, and we will never know one way or the other.
The ousting of the Ukrainian President was illegitimate as it was not achieved via an election. Impeachment just provided a thin facade of legitimacy for the coup, like putting lipstick on a pig, or smetana on gavno. I would argue the same for any country that purports to be a democracy (including the US), and not just Ukraine.
I don't think I'd label allowing countries into NATO as intervention.
I would agree US and NATO antagonized Russia. Biden did even more to provoke. Doesn't mean what Russia is doing is justified. Be that as it may, my point, my opinion, is there would be more, not less of these situations without US.
Ukraine and Georgia are both relatively poor, corrupt countries that are politically and economically dysfunctional. Their strategic value to the USA derives solely from the fact that they share a border with Russia; if they were located in some other part of the world, no one would care about them. My only experience in Georgia was during the Soviet period, and it was a relatively dodgy place even then (though Georgian cuisine is indeed tasty). I don't think it's an accident that it produced one of the most murderous tyrants in world history. As an American citizen and taxpayer, it is not in my interest for the US to burden itself militarily and financially by admitting these countries into NATO. If you want to stick it to Russia, why not just let them assume the burden of keeping these countries afloat? If you read the mainstream media and listen to the 'experts,' you get the impression that Russia is surrounded by countries that would be vibrant liberal democracies if only they were freed from being under Russia's thumb. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Not poor, dysfunctional, or former Soviet block but Finland borders Russia and rcently joined NATO. Are you going to argue that a bad thing too? If not, why is it different?
I'm at a loss to understand why you don't think Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet bloc countries wouldn't want to join a group providing mutual prot action from outside aggressors. Making this about US seems completely backwards to me.
By design, NATO has 2 fundamental flaws: 1) a type of 'free rider' (cheap rider) problem; 2) a 'moral hazard' problem, i.e. it may incentivize smaller countries to engage in more provocative behavior then they would absent membership in the alliance (see Walter MacDougall, NATO at Three Score and Ten, Law & Liberty, April 1, 2019). If Russia really is a threat to neighboring countries, please explain to me why it makes any sense to reduce the latter countries' incentives to invest in their own defense. If Russia is a threat, they had damn well better learn how to defend themselves, because it is absurd to think that we are going to come to their rescue. Maybe you've read that the US military is struggling to meet its recruitment goals. Who are we going to send, trannies? Do you really believe the American public would be willing to shoulder the kind of losses that Ukraine is experiencing on the battlefield? Or that they would put with the reinstitution of the draft? How are we going to get our men and equipment across the ocean without being blown up by Russian submarines?
And do you want to run the added risk of being ensnared in international conflicts because of the provocative behavior of countries bordering Russia? According to one narrative, it was Georgia that provoked the confrontation with Russia (after being promised NATO membership), not the other way around. Get real. As for Finland, it strikes me as bizarre that they joined NATO more than 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, as if Russia today is more of a threat than Soviet communism was.
Look if a country of 144 million wants to write the security policy of 15 other sovereign nation who's combined population totals 298 million that's cute, but people who can count just laugh.
For your sake I hope you get paid in Dollars not Rubles ;)
I'm not an Ivan, I'm a Yentl who is very grateful that my grandparents had the good sense to emigrate to the US from the fringes of the then Russian Empire (including what is now Ukraine) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In its role as the 'world's policeman,' the US has been using military power in a (mostly failed) attempt to write the security policy of many sovereign nations since the end of the Cold War (off the top of my head, including Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan), not to mention the use of non-military means (the CIA, USAID, NGOs, etc.) to foment 'color revolutions' around the globe, including several failed attempts in countries bordering Russia. Perhaps you think it is ok when we do it, because we are the 'good guys,' and you buy that crap about defending freedom and democracy, even though the foundations of freedom and democracy have been steadily eroding in the USA and its Western allies. Anyway, I don't believe anyone in the foreign policy establishment gives a crap about Ukraine. According to the statements of US officials and members of Congress, this is all about regime change in Russia, or bleeding Russia dry at Ukraine's expense. I think that policy is immoral and reckless, and it isn't working. And btw, reports suggest that bordering states like Georgia and those in Central Asia are enabling Russia to evade the restrictions on microchips and other advanced electronic components that the Russian defense industrial complex uses in its missiles and other military equipment, so not all the countries bordering Russia are as suicidal as Ukraine appears to be. Putin is a bad guy, but unlike the current US Administration, he has the good sense not to try to force other sovereign nations to indoctrinate their populations with LBGTQ+.
Maybe but one thing we definitely would get is less Americans invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Somalia, Grenada, Haiti, Serbia, Libya, etc. Nor do I think the US running trade sanctions in one form or another on the entire world is increasing trade.
But sure Russia.....China. you know, those injuns.
No idea, I don't follow him but I assume because he's the US Libertarian darling of the moment he's no less sensible that their international darlings Melei and Netanyahu.
The only thing that jumps out at me is he was anti-COVID vax which does impinge on his libertarian street cred a little /s
"I can tell you that if you get the United States out of the role of the world’s policeman, the world would be even worse. Is it ideal? No. But in a world where others play by different rules, if you remove the United States and its role, you will end up encountering a much worse world."
What a wonderful, uplifting, positive statement. I agree with this opinion but how sure can we be that it is true?
I've yet to see him implement anything to advance liberty as opposed to just being a free marketeer and looking to enrich himself. I said it at time of election and I'll say it again, he's not a libertarian. He's simply a homage to a 1980's Republican who never existed, the Republicans who left the GOP post-Gingrich Last I checked he still hasn't relinquished the Falkland claim and you still can't send your kids to the Argentinaian 7-Eleven to buy crack and I'm pretty sure his thoughts on both those and they aren't pro liberty nor NAP.
My retort is revealed preferences, i.e. if a person claims he's libertarian but doesn't enable libertarian policies once in power, can they really be called a libertarian? If we agree libertarianism is a better system, then he should focusing on liberty and not personal enrichment.as that is how Argentina gets fixed, i.e. better poor and free than wealthy and oppressed. Free . markets are a byproduct of individual liberty, not the other way around.
But hey I guess Bush was a libertarian as well because he signed NAFTA.
I don't know about the personal enrichment you keep mentioning, but as I understand it he has closed many government agencies, for example. Politicians are somewhat constrained in what they can do, at least by time if nothing else, so it seems strange to prioritize corner store crack purchasing above, say, slashing regulation. I expect most sensible libertarian politicians could be in office decades before that was the next best use of their time. Hell, pick any top living libertarian philosopher or economist and ask them, and I doubt that crack at 7-11 would hit their "First year in office" to do list. Higher on the list might be "stop extorting 7-11 owners" or even "let people open 7-11's."
I would suggest that is because most ivory tower libertarian economists, in my experience, are more about taxes are theft than the rank and file libertarian who wants to be free to own machine guns, associate freely with whom they want, get high, not go to jail for littering, and raise their kids as they see fit. Melei got elected not appealing to Argentinaian libertarians but the masses with along the tide raises all boats line, i.e. "if you support me in enriching myself, I'll hook you up too". I can't recall a single pledge around criminal justice reform for example and you know what's worse that red tape preventing you from opening a business because you have to fill out an extra form, being in prison for a victimless crime because the moral panic of some bored prosecutor.
The average person, and I'd suggest even the average libertarian, couldn't care less about the plight of "rich" businessmen trying to increase their wealth but instead care more about "leave me alone and let me live my life as I wish IAW the NAP".
Ever notice how rare the libertarian talking heads ever mentions actually liberty outside financial liberty. In fact I'd generally say they flee from it as fast as possible.
Possibly we listen to a different class of libertarian. Honestly, I don't quite know who I would describe as a "libertarian talking head". Generally when I think of libertarian issues I read folks talking about over the past few years, COVID obviously looms large, school choice, deregulation of business, a bit of drug issues (I don't pay much attention there so there might be more) and immigration. Guns don't come up as much as I might like, although there have been many court wins in that regard lately.
I do think the "crack at 7-11" issue is a bad one for libertarians to push, and is frankly what people who want to discredit them would say they want. While logically it follows that one can buy a dangerous substance and do something stupid with it, whether it be gasoline or crack, pushing that is foolish. You might as well say your platform is "I want to be free to drive nails through my dick!" Even if people agree in principle that you should be allowed to do that they are hardly going to line up behind you to fight for their right to do so, too.
The libertarians like to whine about being stuck under a bus after having been tossed there by the conservatives. It’s a tough life for them here in the U.S. Maybe time to test the amnesty programs available to them in Argentina?
You are proposing an absurd strawman. Just because Milei claims to be a libertarian it doesn't mean Argentina is a utopian destination. Unlike some progressives, I don't know any libertarians arguing things are better elsewhere. Maybe Milei will one day be successful and libertarians will indeed have reason to go there but that day isn't going to be soon.
Most libertarians I know or follow tend to argue many places are better, just not Argentina. Iceland, Singapore, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Israel, Hong Kong, Antigua, and Ukraine seem to be libertarian paradises.
No one, not anyone, anywhere, has argued that Ukraine is a libertarian paradise. A lot of what you've said sounds more like insults than an attempt to persuade.
The problem for Milei is that Argentina is still full of Argentinians.
Bingo but it's a faux pas to say out loud a nations ethnic culture is the root of the problem.
I didn't expect that from you.
Why not? It is true. It isn't an accident that Argentina has been governed so badly for a century- the common factor is the population.
Not really what I meant but let's run with that. A bit over 100 years ago, 1895, Argentina was the richest country in the world. Are you saying those people have great grandchildren exactly opposite of them?
I don't know about richest but it was certainly one of the richest. I think you can tell a story that when things got bad in Argentina during the great depression, people came to power who basically promised something for nothing. The electorate took to that and mostly voted for people promising that (e.g., Juan Peron). This gradually caused Argentina to "underdevelop" itself. Lots of people were employed in unproductive jobs or were the beneficiaries of some sort of favorable treatment so things never really got better.
I wonder what Libertarians would have said about Hitler as well as japan in 1941?
My understanding’s that the libertarian position was for the US to stay out of it so that the Nazis & Soviets would destroy each other, killing two birds with one stone.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is a corrupt policeman, policing only when and where it believes its own (or its cronies’) interest is at stake.
Ah I'm glad you're following Milei and developments in Argentina. I'm keen to see human stories around the massive changes taking place.
I lived in New Zealand from 1999-2007, which had always been held up as an example of successful gov't reduction/reform in the 1980s inspired by Friedman and Hayek, but I discovered that most New Zealanders I spoke with hated it, saw that time as awful and harmful. Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas (the ntl Finance Ministers that drove the privatizations/dergulation) are despised by many. Everyone went through job loss or knew family that suffered. The changes did NOT have widespread public support. NZ has more of a 'cradle-to-grave' mindset, despite the paradoxical strong individualistic, do-it-yourself streak. They do remember the awfulness of a fixed exchange rate, high prices, mini-monopolies everywhere, inefficiencies. But the personal pain of change was more vivid than any longer term benefits, which get taken for granted perhaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Richardson
It's one thing to look at national stats on inflation, debt and say it's a success. I'd love to look at employment and wealth X years down the road. I'd like to look at the people directly affected; are they better off 5 yrs, 10 yrs later? What kind of economic growth resulted? How did they cope/adjust. I do hope we seen them finding a 'lion' mindset, finding their agency.
Argentinian here, currently under a severe recession. My hope is that people with extreme views about things stop experimenting with other people's lives and future (impossible).
It’s not clear, but it seems that by “extreme” you’re referring to Milei. In fact, your country has been in crisis because the people had extreme views which they thought were normal. Milei is actually bringing normal views back into effect. Of course, there is always a shock when severe overindulgence is curbed.
You should check and double-check Milei's sayings and actions. His economic program is, at best, primitive. I don't think anything about his government and party reflects normal views in any part of the world (this post confirms it).
My point, however poorly presented, was that what most people think of as normal - socialist, statist policies - is bad (as evidenced by Argentina’s situation), and should not be normal. Anyway, hopefully we’ll get a chance to find out if Milei’s ‘primitive’ program is better than the previous ‘modern’ ones. Either way, best wishes to you!
Luis, I don't think you know what is "extreme" or "experimental". Argentina's been under an experiment for 100 years. Compare it with other nations. It's no joke economists singled out Argentina and Japan from ordinary countries. The only nation its economic system for the past 100 years resembles is India before the 2000s, but India was not as rich as Argentina anyway so it's not singled out.
To give you an idea, Luis, one of the most economically radical nations was Russia during Lenin's leading the party, while there was also Japan under the Edo period, where it limited trade with foreigners. Along with Argentina, Japan was singled out but for a different reason. It had few natural resources, and yet limited trade until Perry came along, then the Meiji period began, where industrialization happened, even with the lack of natural resources, and it surpassed even China and Russia in wealth and military power, but also post-WW2 an economic miracle occured there, where it further grew to have the second-largest economy. Unfortunately this was followed by the Lost Decades, but economists see the same economic problems European countries face so it's not that unique.
Extremism in defense of rolling back a century of economic destruction is no vice.
You maybe have to grab a history book, pal.
I completely sympathize with this. May you be blessed with responsible government.
The Team America argument isn't all that different from the Socialist argument. "If only the right people were in charge." Non-interventionism will allow other governments to be bad. But that's OK in the grand scheme. Organizations need to live and die based on their own structure.
Saying it another way, moving from a command and control economy to a free market involves short term pain and long term gain. That's true of international relations as well, except that the "short term" is longer.
I don't think that's the issue. Without US intervention, we would have far more Russias invading Ukraine/Georgia/etc., Chinas invading Taiwans, and far less world trade that benefits all countries if not all individuals.
US intervention in Ukraine and Georgia dates to at least 2008, when NATO (under pressure from Dubya) promised to admit both countries at some point in the future. In 2014, the Obama administration rubber stamped (and some would say engineered) the coup that resulted in the ousting of the elected President of Ukraine (in the aftermath of which Putin annexed Crimea). It is a well-known fact that Russia is extremely touchy (some would say paranoid) about the geopolitical policies of the countries that border its territory. US and other Western critics of US intervention in the Ukraine-Russia conflict argue that US intervention in Ukraine 'provoked' Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but at the very least, it is impossible to say whether, absent US intervention, the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict would have ever happened, and we will never know one way or the other.
2014 was not the coup and not engineered by US. I do not know why people are repeating this myth.
President of Ukraine was impeached by Ukrainian parliament. Impeachment was succesful because presidents own party abondened him.
The ousting of the Ukrainian President was illegitimate as it was not achieved via an election. Impeachment just provided a thin facade of legitimacy for the coup, like putting lipstick on a pig, or smetana on gavno. I would argue the same for any country that purports to be a democracy (including the US), and not just Ukraine.
I don't think I'd label allowing countries into NATO as intervention.
I would agree US and NATO antagonized Russia. Biden did even more to provoke. Doesn't mean what Russia is doing is justified. Be that as it may, my point, my opinion, is there would be more, not less of these situations without US.
Ukraine and Georgia are both relatively poor, corrupt countries that are politically and economically dysfunctional. Their strategic value to the USA derives solely from the fact that they share a border with Russia; if they were located in some other part of the world, no one would care about them. My only experience in Georgia was during the Soviet period, and it was a relatively dodgy place even then (though Georgian cuisine is indeed tasty). I don't think it's an accident that it produced one of the most murderous tyrants in world history. As an American citizen and taxpayer, it is not in my interest for the US to burden itself militarily and financially by admitting these countries into NATO. If you want to stick it to Russia, why not just let them assume the burden of keeping these countries afloat? If you read the mainstream media and listen to the 'experts,' you get the impression that Russia is surrounded by countries that would be vibrant liberal democracies if only they were freed from being under Russia's thumb. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Not poor, dysfunctional, or former Soviet block but Finland borders Russia and rcently joined NATO. Are you going to argue that a bad thing too? If not, why is it different?
I'm at a loss to understand why you don't think Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet bloc countries wouldn't want to join a group providing mutual prot action from outside aggressors. Making this about US seems completely backwards to me.
By design, NATO has 2 fundamental flaws: 1) a type of 'free rider' (cheap rider) problem; 2) a 'moral hazard' problem, i.e. it may incentivize smaller countries to engage in more provocative behavior then they would absent membership in the alliance (see Walter MacDougall, NATO at Three Score and Ten, Law & Liberty, April 1, 2019). If Russia really is a threat to neighboring countries, please explain to me why it makes any sense to reduce the latter countries' incentives to invest in their own defense. If Russia is a threat, they had damn well better learn how to defend themselves, because it is absurd to think that we are going to come to their rescue. Maybe you've read that the US military is struggling to meet its recruitment goals. Who are we going to send, trannies? Do you really believe the American public would be willing to shoulder the kind of losses that Ukraine is experiencing on the battlefield? Or that they would put with the reinstitution of the draft? How are we going to get our men and equipment across the ocean without being blown up by Russian submarines?
And do you want to run the added risk of being ensnared in international conflicts because of the provocative behavior of countries bordering Russia? According to one narrative, it was Georgia that provoked the confrontation with Russia (after being promised NATO membership), not the other way around. Get real. As for Finland, it strikes me as bizarre that they joined NATO more than 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, as if Russia today is more of a threat than Soviet communism was.
Hello Ivan,
Look if a country of 144 million wants to write the security policy of 15 other sovereign nation who's combined population totals 298 million that's cute, but people who can count just laugh.
For your sake I hope you get paid in Dollars not Rubles ;)
I'm not an Ivan, I'm a Yentl who is very grateful that my grandparents had the good sense to emigrate to the US from the fringes of the then Russian Empire (including what is now Ukraine) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In its role as the 'world's policeman,' the US has been using military power in a (mostly failed) attempt to write the security policy of many sovereign nations since the end of the Cold War (off the top of my head, including Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan), not to mention the use of non-military means (the CIA, USAID, NGOs, etc.) to foment 'color revolutions' around the globe, including several failed attempts in countries bordering Russia. Perhaps you think it is ok when we do it, because we are the 'good guys,' and you buy that crap about defending freedom and democracy, even though the foundations of freedom and democracy have been steadily eroding in the USA and its Western allies. Anyway, I don't believe anyone in the foreign policy establishment gives a crap about Ukraine. According to the statements of US officials and members of Congress, this is all about regime change in Russia, or bleeding Russia dry at Ukraine's expense. I think that policy is immoral and reckless, and it isn't working. And btw, reports suggest that bordering states like Georgia and those in Central Asia are enabling Russia to evade the restrictions on microchips and other advanced electronic components that the Russian defense industrial complex uses in its missiles and other military equipment, so not all the countries bordering Russia are as suicidal as Ukraine appears to be. Putin is a bad guy, but unlike the current US Administration, he has the good sense not to try to force other sovereign nations to indoctrinate their populations with LBGTQ+.
Maybe but one thing we definitely would get is less Americans invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Somalia, Grenada, Haiti, Serbia, Libya, etc. Nor do I think the US running trade sanctions in one form or another on the entire world is increasing trade.
But sure Russia.....China. you know, those injuns.
Sensible not ideological Libertarians needed.
Like that good old Libertarian stalwart Robert Kennedy Jr. right? LINO's are among the reasons libertarianism makes zero inroads.
You think RFK is sensible? Ridiculous!
No idea, I don't follow him but I assume because he's the US Libertarian darling of the moment he's no less sensible that their international darlings Melei and Netanyahu.
The only thing that jumps out at me is he was anti-COVID vax which does impinge on his libertarian street cred a little /s
"I can tell you that if you get the United States out of the role of the world’s policeman, the world would be even worse. Is it ideal? No. But in a world where others play by different rules, if you remove the United States and its role, you will end up encountering a much worse world."
What a wonderful, uplifting, positive statement. I agree with this opinion but how sure can we be that it is true?
I've yet to see him implement anything to advance liberty as opposed to just being a free marketeer and looking to enrich himself. I said it at time of election and I'll say it again, he's not a libertarian. He's simply a homage to a 1980's Republican who never existed, the Republicans who left the GOP post-Gingrich Last I checked he still hasn't relinquished the Falkland claim and you still can't send your kids to the Argentinaian 7-Eleven to buy crack and I'm pretty sure his thoughts on both those and they aren't pro liberty nor NAP.
I somehow doubt those items are at the top of the “Priorities to fix Argentina” list.
My retort is revealed preferences, i.e. if a person claims he's libertarian but doesn't enable libertarian policies once in power, can they really be called a libertarian? If we agree libertarianism is a better system, then he should focusing on liberty and not personal enrichment.as that is how Argentina gets fixed, i.e. better poor and free than wealthy and oppressed. Free . markets are a byproduct of individual liberty, not the other way around.
But hey I guess Bush was a libertarian as well because he signed NAFTA.
I don't know about the personal enrichment you keep mentioning, but as I understand it he has closed many government agencies, for example. Politicians are somewhat constrained in what they can do, at least by time if nothing else, so it seems strange to prioritize corner store crack purchasing above, say, slashing regulation. I expect most sensible libertarian politicians could be in office decades before that was the next best use of their time. Hell, pick any top living libertarian philosopher or economist and ask them, and I doubt that crack at 7-11 would hit their "First year in office" to do list. Higher on the list might be "stop extorting 7-11 owners" or even "let people open 7-11's."
I would suggest that is because most ivory tower libertarian economists, in my experience, are more about taxes are theft than the rank and file libertarian who wants to be free to own machine guns, associate freely with whom they want, get high, not go to jail for littering, and raise their kids as they see fit. Melei got elected not appealing to Argentinaian libertarians but the masses with along the tide raises all boats line, i.e. "if you support me in enriching myself, I'll hook you up too". I can't recall a single pledge around criminal justice reform for example and you know what's worse that red tape preventing you from opening a business because you have to fill out an extra form, being in prison for a victimless crime because the moral panic of some bored prosecutor.
The average person, and I'd suggest even the average libertarian, couldn't care less about the plight of "rich" businessmen trying to increase their wealth but instead care more about "leave me alone and let me live my life as I wish IAW the NAP".
Ever notice how rare the libertarian talking heads ever mentions actually liberty outside financial liberty. In fact I'd generally say they flee from it as fast as possible.
Possibly we listen to a different class of libertarian. Honestly, I don't quite know who I would describe as a "libertarian talking head". Generally when I think of libertarian issues I read folks talking about over the past few years, COVID obviously looms large, school choice, deregulation of business, a bit of drug issues (I don't pay much attention there so there might be more) and immigration. Guns don't come up as much as I might like, although there have been many court wins in that regard lately.
I do think the "crack at 7-11" issue is a bad one for libertarians to push, and is frankly what people who want to discredit them would say they want. While logically it follows that one can buy a dangerous substance and do something stupid with it, whether it be gasoline or crack, pushing that is foolish. You might as well say your platform is "I want to be free to drive nails through my dick!" Even if people agree in principle that you should be allowed to do that they are hardly going to line up behind you to fight for their right to do so, too.
So Galt’s Gulch is in Buenos Aires? Who would have thought?
Keeping my fingers crossed that there will be a mass migration of the oppressed libertarians in the U.S. down to Argentina.
Oppressed? As much as libertarians might want the US to be different in a variety of ways, I doubt most would say they are oppressed.
The libertarians like to whine about being stuck under a bus after having been tossed there by the conservatives. It’s a tough life for them here in the U.S. Maybe time to test the amnesty programs available to them in Argentina?
You are proposing an absurd strawman. Just because Milei claims to be a libertarian it doesn't mean Argentina is a utopian destination. Unlike some progressives, I don't know any libertarians arguing things are better elsewhere. Maybe Milei will one day be successful and libertarians will indeed have reason to go there but that day isn't going to be soon.
Most libertarians I know or follow tend to argue many places are better, just not Argentina. Iceland, Singapore, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Israel, Hong Kong, Antigua, and Ukraine seem to be libertarian paradises.
No one, not anyone, anywhere, has argued that Ukraine is a libertarian paradise. A lot of what you've said sounds more like insults than an attempt to persuade.
We know and follow very different libertarians.