Argentine here.
This is false: we will abolish legal tender.
Currencies will compete. Many people will choose the dollar.
This is the fulfillment of Hayek dream of stripping control of the currency from the state.
This is false: we will abolish legal tender.
Currencies will compete. Many people will choose the dollar.
This is the fulfillment of Hayek dream of stripping control of the currency from the state.
Choosing the dollar isn't "stripping control" from the state, it's giving it to a sovereign state that doesn't have your interests in mind. Given the current situation it may be better, but lets stay in reality here.
Until now, the government of Argentina has abused its currency monopoly by printing money, with devastating consequences. Inflation is approaching 150% per year. By "We'll abolish legal tender, stripping control from the state", GP means "We'll abolish legal tender, eliminating the government's currency monopoly and allowing the people to choose a sound currency." This is, by definition, "stripping control from the state", where "the state" obviously refers to the Argentine government.
> it's giving it to a sovereign state that doesn't have your interests in mind.
This would be true if the Argentine government was imposing the dollar as legal tender, but they're not. They're allowing the people their choice of currency. For now, that may well be the dollar. But if the US government begins to abuse the dollar (via inflationary policies, for example), dollars will lose favor and a more sound currency will take its place.
This also prevents the Argentine government from steering their economy with monetary policy, but Libertarians view this as a feature rather than a bug.
With devastating consequences for the middle class.
It's printing money to keep entitlements for the poor and to keep the rich from paying for those entitlements (more than they already are).
Does Argentina even have a middle class anymore?
I was looking at wealth inequality - and to be in the top 10% in Argentina - you need barely more than $100k.
It seems like, historically, a decent chunk of the top 10% wouldn't even count as middle class in Argentina right now.
So in practice it is very inconvenient not to have one and to be able to refuse anything you want or to have to accept anything. The workaround is to have a contractual clause that specifies exactly how a debt may be discharged.
In the case you mention this is called "defence of tender before claim". It means the person offered to the money but that was refused, so they go and pay it into court to protect themselves. In effect it means that if someone offers to settle in legal tender and is refused, then follow that legal procedure, then the creditor cannot do anything anymore expect recovering the money from the court.
Is that still the case?
Very German thing to do, yet in the UK I have not had a need to pay in cash, just use your card (or phone/watch if you are into that). Dunno if it was the money type, or just not want to be dealing with cash per se.
A few years ago, I managed a team of developers and analysts. They were all paid in USD through a shell company, if you will. Everyone expected this. The first question new recruiting firms asked us was, “You will be paying in USD, correct?”
We had one guy who had to be paid 50% in ARS because he had child support obligations, and it was a headache. Not because of the split on our side, but for the shell company. He was actually the lone ARS exception employee to be paid in ARS
https://devonzuegel.com/post/inside-argentina-s-currency-exc...
In cybersec, the Argentinian scene is also one of the hottest producers of zero-day vulnerabilities. Those get paid in crypto, which is then washed to USD/EUR locally.
However, remember that the vast majority of Argentines are paid in pesos. Even with salary adjustments, the vast majority of Argentine salaries cannot keep up with triple digit inflation. Bank accounts have a minimum of double digit interest rates and your money still loses value in relation to inflation. This is a large part of why the poverty rate has increased from a little under a third of the country to over 40% of the country.
So I would question the consistency of his freedom ideology. If you use the state to enfore strict law on abortion, meaning deciding over other peoples bodies, how will you do so without a state? Or why do so, when you do not want a state at all?
Good luck, Argentines.
(According to argentinians I know)
Oh yeah, and Cristina and all her shenanigans.
Oh, you mean in addition to being an ancap?
Anarcho-capitalism is a nonsense label to allow libertarians to cosplay as anarchists without having to give up on their positions of power. It seemingly only exists so rich people can be against paying taxes or having to follow laws and regulations while getting to pretend they're revolutionaries "fighting the system".
That’s an incredibly bold claim. When did he say that and what was the context?
> If you use the state to enfore strict law on abortion, meaning deciding over other peoples bodies, how will you do so without a state? Or why do so, when you do not want a state at all?
If you consider the top job of government is to protect life, it flows pretty naturally. Just because you personally don’t agree with it does not mean it’s irrational.
See Wikipedia:
"In a June 2022 interview, when asked about his stance on the sale of children, Milei initially said that "it depends"
But being a populist, apparently he took that back after some public outcry.
And when you want to abolish the whole state, then it is really not rational to use the state to enforce some radical ideology with the help of the state in my opinion. But I won't discuss forcing a 10 year old rape victim to carry a baby in the name of life here any further.
I have no idea what milei said, I’m just stating how bad I find Wikipedia sometimes on political topics
https://www.minutoar.com.ar/actualidad/2022/6/29/javier-mile...
This might as well be a sourced from the Wikipedia admin's blog.
edit: Lol, in the last hour, the awful source was removed and the ridiculous quote removed. The wiki now reads:
"When questioned on the topic of selling children, Milei initially responded ambiguously [womp womp] but later clarified his opposition, stating, "Obviously, I do not agree with the sale of children.""
The next level of such nonsense would be framing it like, “Do you think both parents should have a say in the sale of children?” or “Would your universal flat tax on the sale of livestock apply to the sale of children?”.
Did you bother reading the part of "do not want a state at all"... this includes "no government" at all.
The irrational part is that enforcing something using government is impossible without government.
Right there, when I made one?
But no, what you're claiming doesn't align with other proponents of the ideology I've seen. They are only opposed to state coercion, but market pressures can certainly be coercive and they don't resist that.
And by what mechanism would anarcho-capitalists prevent the selling of children or child labor? They don't hold that the state has such a power. Children also don't consent to be even their parents' wards, so the consent of children is not a sufficient framework to construct a basis of opposition.
Markets don't have the will to decline child exploitation and anarcho-capitalism doesn't invest an entity with the power to prevent it. Individuals may honestly say they don't want it but the system offers nothing to oppose the incentives that will cause it.
Market pressures aren't coercion, they're called incentives.
> And by what mechanism would anarcho-capitalists prevent the selling of children or child labor? They don't hold that the state has such a power.
Anarcho-capitalism has never been put into practice, so the specifics are speculative. Just as the specifics of a functioning democratic republic were speculative until the theory was put into practice.
Right now, the government has a monopoly on "justice". If you have a criminal or civil case before the courts, your case is judged according to the "common law", by a state-selected "common judge". In anarcho-capitalism, both the law and the judge would be optional. You choose your law and your judge, I choose mine, and they get together and figure out the case. "Judicial services" organizations interact and cut deals with each other all the time--the only difference is that, right now, they're all run by governments.
This begs the question of good faith (I could just say "my judge is me, and my law is that I do whatever the fuck that I want", but the incentives of such a choice don't make sense. If I murder you, who would provide justice? Thus everyone is incentivized to pay for, one way or another "judicial services", such that if you need them, they are able to come to your aid. This sounds ridiculous on its face, but if you actually think about it, it makes plenty of sense. We pay ~30% of our incomes in taxes in the US, and only a vanishingly small proportion goes to pay for government-monopolized "judicial services". It would likely be pretty cheap--just do the math on how much of your taxes go to paying for the judicial system.
But wait! All that would need to happen to enable child slavery would be for someone to form a legal-services corporation which would not view this as a crime! Sure, but for such a corporation to actually function, they would have to be viewed as legitimate by other legal-services corporations. Can you imagine GEIKO judicial services doing business with an organization that's on the record enabling child slavery? Neither can I.
Thus, if you sold a child into slavery, that child would naturally have a case against you, as you sold something that didn't belong to you and did them tremendous damage.
It's worth remembering that, while such a system might be imperfect, the current system is far from perfect. As with everything else, the state is pretty shit at preventing children from being bought and sold.
> The Children also don't consent to be even their parents' wards, so the consent of children is not a sufficient framework to construct a basis of opposition.
Children don't pick their parents, ergo consent isn't a thing? I don't buy it, and by golly, my legal-services corp won't stand for it!
> Markets don't have the will to decline child exploitation.
Markets have the will to fire people for racist tweets, but not to fight child exploitation?
> and anarcho-capitalism doesn't invest an entity with the power to prevent it.
Yes it does, as mentioned above.
> Can you imagine GEIKO judicial services doing business with an organization that's on the record enabling child slavery?
I absolutely can! Nestle is known to have practiced child slavery and people did and do business with them. Cobalt mines in Congo, south african countries during apartheid, etc. I have known all kinds of horrors in service of the capitalism we have now and nothing you're saying is persuasive to me about why they would stop under this other, more extreme capitalism.
No, they're not. (you're right we should probably skip that!)
> Nestle is known to have practiced child slavery and people did and do business with them.
You're referring to activities in other countries, all outside of the jurisdiction of any "judicial service", be it the US government or otherwise. Why would "judicial services corporations" in an anarcho-capitalist society be expected to address and/or stop evils outside of their jurisdiction, which states are not expected to stop?
> Cobalt mines in Congo, South African countries during apartheid, etc. I have known all kinds of horrors in service of the capitalism we have now and nothing you're saying is persuasive to me about why they would stop under this other, more extreme capitalism.
Mining isn't unique to capitalism. At least in capitalism, you have the option to not patronize unpalatable organizations, which is not the case in any alternative system. And, as you well know, Apartheid, much like Slavery and later Jim Crow in the American South, was imposed via the state's police power. Such systems would be impossible in an anarcho-capitalist society.
> I have known all kinds of horrors in service of the capitalism
This is a joke, right? Capitalism has lifted a billion people out of absolute poverty in the last 30 years, and would have done so 50 years earlier (as evidenced in the natural experiments in Taiwan/China, South/North Korea, and West/East Germany) if it weren't for big-hearted, empty-headed dolts and their irrational, uninformed hatred for capitalism. Leftists killed 100,000,000 million people to prolong their anti-capitalist experiments, with nothing to show for it. More heavy-handed state intervention isn't going to out-do capitalism. The only way to improve capitalism is to free it from the yoke of the state, free it from politicians and grifting bureaucrats, and to let the people run their own lives.
I can tell you have strong opinions about how society should function. Have you considered the possibility that you would be more empowered to improve people's lives in the absence of government? You, and everyone who thinks like you, would have 30% of your income back to plug into whatever social causes you'd want to support. The best part, of course, would be that you wouldn't have to win an election to see your preferred changes come into being--you'd just have to organize and implement your programs without coercion. And don't forget the best part--there's no coercion, ever, by those people who scare the shit out of you! There's no state schools indoctrinating your kids! No monopolies being bought by mega-corp lobbyists! No religious dogma enshrined in law!
I'm also convinced that a lot of the problems people fear ("there will be people starving in the streets!") will not only be easily solved, but we will be better for having the opportunity to solve them. How many old folks are sitting around in their homes feeling useless, who could be running the voluntary welfare societies that used to be so prevalent in the United States? How many families have been spread to the four winds because the nanny state has replaced family support networks? How many men and women are desperate for meaningful work, which has been forcibly relegated to a calcified network of ineffectual bureaucrats who couldn't care less? As Scalia said, the welfare state has given us "donors without love and recipients without gratitude". By removing the state as a faceless intermediary, the urgent need for charity would not be deniable by those who hate paying taxes, and the tremendous blessing that is charity will replace the rampant sense of entitlement to other people's money. Without politicians who are incentivized to drive us apart, social cohesion would greatly improve. We would better understand that we're not opponents in some contrived power for control, we're neighbors who have a very personal duty to help each other get by.
This is why it drives me nuts to hear folks dismiss libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism with assumptions of bad-faith, or accusations of "just being rich people who want to keep their money". It is a recipe for human flourishing. It is imperfect, of course, but better to have an imperfect system based on the ideal of maximum human freedom for all rather than one based on the principle of the minority being forced into the service of the majority.
Say, taking over a factory requires real power, no? How to deal with people who object (like the current owners)? Using force is power by my definition. And if it all is spontaneus with nor formal powet structure, then it still comes close or equals rule of the strong by my experience. And I think I read and debated all or most of the theories of anarchism with various people, but this contradiction, I could not get satisfactory answers for to solve it.
Can you explain how this is different than a government?
To me, it seems like a repeat of history, we had an anarcho-capitalist society already, but people started to self-organize into larger groups with rules, tradition, processes ⇾ states.
A small feudal lord has fewer subjects, but also fewer (no) limits. Nothing preventing him from killing you without repercussions on a whim.
You can not enforce property claims without violence. "Anarchocapitalists" either handwave this with private armies (which is just feudalism with extra steps) or insist on everyone following the Non-Aggression Principle, which is nonsense without a system of enforcement. The more honest types usually fall back to minarchy, i.e. having a small state that basically only consists of a legal system and police force to enforce property claims and resolve disputes.
Heck, the person who came up with the name opposed not only taxes but also the civil rights movement and universal suffrage. The only coherent ideological thread in his life was not wanting to pay taxes, not wanting to have to follow regulations and being convinced he was very smart.
Also, is Murray Rothbard like Voldemort to you? You seem to refuse to even say his name.
In all cases it's explicitly community driven, because no claim on on property can withstand disagreement with the local community.
Take land ownership - it's de facto not enforceable without either government or communal support.
Anarchism is by definition "left-wing". If flat earthers redefined "globe" to mean a saucer shaped object and the media started to run with that because flat earthers made for "good content", opposing that usage wouldn't be dismissed as "arguing semantics" either. Sometimes it's important that words mean things. Heck, the entire political right in the US has spent the past years making the changing meanings of words their main issue. Clearly "arguing semantics" matters sometimes.
Calling yourself "anarcho-capitalist" is like calling yourself "punk" because you're knee-deep in Sex Pistols merch. It's using a label as a fashion accessory, not a political statement. Clearly you think political labels have some use or else you wouldn't refer to "left-wing" anarchists.
There's no historical basis for the label "anarcho-capitalism". Ancaps claim they're building on individualist anarchism if asked to justify their label but even Stirner was to the left of them. "Anarcho-capitalism" isn't promoting individualist anarchism, it's promoting autocracy. Anarchism is the absence of oppression and power hierarchies, "anarcho-capitalism" is the absence of regulations and limitations on individual power, relying on The Market instead of Divine Right as a justifying cause.
"Anarcho-capitalism" is not only not "real anarchism", it's not any anarchism, just like throwing bricks at Starbucks windows is neither necessary nor sufficient (i.e. almost entirely orthogonal) for being an anarchist.
Good luck.
I don't buy into the attendant far right libertarian whackjobbery, so not sure the new president is the answer to anything, but clearly if things have been so bad for so long, especially with the same hard left ideas one that have historically shown to end in the same place over and over again, radical change in the opposite direction looks very attractive.
And it might off in spades, if not pursued in the same stupid ideological manner as the socialists, but it's high risk. I hope it pays off for them bigtime. I'm not wedded to any ideology, unlike some.
This will simply regress Argentina to the mean of the poor, deinstruialized, primary resource exporting countries of the rest of Latam.
I wish you could do even a hint of research to spew this pathetic apologia.
Now the middle class in this country will get to see to what extend their sustenance was being managed through wealth transfers.
140% inflation, currency controls, 16 years of K government destroying institutions and you want to come at me with the "lots of English speakers", now things are gonna be worse.
Mate, people emigrate from Argentina to the rest of LATAM, not viceversa (unless you earn in USD).
The fact that you're pretending people live better here and you're just trying to make it about class shows how little perspective you have. Speaking for "the People" right?
If you really think there is no middle class in Argentina, seriously, you need to travel around more, what can I say.
Do you know any argentines who wouldn't choose the dollar as the currency of choice?
Libertarians, like Marxists, are terribly naive about the prevalence and maliciousness of psychopaths and hustlers. The global economy is a dark forest.
I wish him good luck, sincerely, but if it looks like it works a lot of other countries will start going to great lengths to mess it up.
Oh word? Where has this worked in the past?
The Case of Ecuador https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/The-Case-of-Ecua...
From my experience it’s worse than that. Some are idealists as you mention, but a lot of them plan or hope that they will be doing the hustling.
Too late. That already happened a long time ago.
I remember an Argentinian friend telling me of a time when she and her coworkers would get paid and they'd all immediately leave work to spend their money before the prices went up. Waiting until the end of the day meant taking a significant haircut.
What do you mean by this?