By Ryan McMaken
With this latest policy turn, the evidence continues to mount that Milei is more a typical conservative or “rightist” than he is a free-market libertarian in any meaningful sense.
related posts
38 sats \ 2 replies \ @TomK 18 Sep
If You need a final katharsis of politicians, read Max Stirner
reply
47 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Sep
I've not read any of his work.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK 19 Sep
It's the real stuff. Next level libertarian
reply
28 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 19 Sep
What’s the second graph?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Sep
I'm not entirely certain what the difference is between the two graphs. The indication is that they are different approaches to converting to dollars and adjusting for inflation.
From what's written, I suspect the second graph is doing something akin to a purchasing power parity adjustment: i.e. trying to account for how local prices actually changed rather than just the exchange rate.
It would be nice if the author had been more clear about it.
reply
21 sats \ 13 replies \ @didiplaywell 18 Sep
Gotta love keyboard-libertarians, they are so cute :')
reply
0 sats \ 12 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Sep
What's your disagreement with the article's characterization?
It's not clear to me that Milei isn't talking about the private sector, despite the author dismissing that possibility.
reply
60 sats \ 11 replies \ @didiplaywell 19 Sep
The premise of the article is flawed right from the start: it accuses Milei of being a conservative and not a libertarian because he is investing in the armed forces, while that's exactly the one thing libertarianism dictates the state should be in charge of. The fact this author misses something so simple and basic is staggering.
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Sep
Increasing military spending is certainly not unambiguously libertarian and many libertarians do not think the state should have permanent armed forces. I wouldn't say this is the author missing anything.
reply
21 sats \ 9 replies \ @didiplaywell 19 Sep
It is. It strictly is, in the very sense of the word, a Libertarian policy:
- Adam Smith: "The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force."
- Von Mises: "The peoples who have developed the system of market economy and cling to it are in every respect superior to all other peoples. The fact that they are eager to preserve peace is not a mark of their weakness and inability to wage war. They love peace because they know that armed conflicts are pernicious and disintegrate the social division of labor. But if war becomes unavoidable, they show their superior efficiency in military affairs too. They repel the barbarian aggressors whatever their numbers may be."
- Von Hayek: “I am convinced Reagan is right not to reduce arms expenditure. World peace depends upon America staying strong. We already have so many atomic weapons that a nuclear war would mean the end of civilization: so the discussion as to whether arms increases intensify the threat of war is nonsense. In fact it’s no longer a question of whether nuclear war can be avoided or not; the real problem is whether we have got ourselves into a situation in which the Soviets can intimidate us to such an extent that we knuckle under completely. We can’t afford that kind of weakness. Ergo, the West must stay at least as strong as the Soviet Union."
- Milton Friedman: "Unfortunately, we need to have an army, and we need to have a good army and an efficient army."
- Gadsden Flag: The basic principle of being able to defend yourself is the one outstanding symbol in the liberal flag, underscoring it's core importance.
Right above I have just showed he is missing everything, literally to the point of being both laughable and lame. To start, he is missing what's the meaning of Libertarianism and what it stands for. He demonstrates in his article a profound ignorance on the most simple and basic principles of the libertarianism, and I have just demonstrated that with actual names and quotes on the above paragraph. It's there, it's all over the foundational bibliography, I have just quoted it. Now the author can disagree, but then he can't call his view to be "the" libertarian view.
...are not "all libertarians" and much less are they "the Libertarianism" in itself, again, as demonstrated at the very beginning of this post.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Sep
Libertarianism is the combination of the Non Aggression Principle and Lockean Homesteading theory.
You also should have started that first quote where I started it. None of the thinkers you cite assert that military budgets always need to be increased, which is the objection of the author of the article.
The entire branch of libertarianism that Milei has been associated with, Anarcho-Capitalism, is opposed to state militaries.
You're just going to have to take the L on this one. Nothing in libertarianism requires support for state-run tax-funded militaries.
reply
21 sats \ 7 replies \ @didiplaywell 19 Sep
None of them assert it should be reduced either, the debate is on how it can be maintained long term.
That's the problem of the ones who made said association.
For what? I have just proved you wrong on every single point again.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 19 Sep
You really didn't and it's wild that you see it that way. Libertarians do not have to support state funding for anything. If you think they do, then you fundamentally don't know what you're talking about.
You often warn about the path America is headed down. I'll return the favor. Libertarianism plus an expansive military is how you end up where we are. A big socialized military will trickle out into everything else.
view replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwearyDoctor 18 Sep
he was alyways a US plant and an imperial stooge. Also quite visible in his re-invitation of the IMF to the country, which is the ball and chain of empire. He's a fraud if there ever was one.
reply