In 2023, Javier Milei became the new hope of libertarianism, as he managed to be elected president of a very left-wing and very troubled state using open anarcho-capitalist rhetoric. Since then, he has been under the close scrutiny of libertarians, and gradually they are beginning to turn away from him. This is inevitable. The problems of minarchism as an approach to the political imposition of libertarianism by the state were outlined by me in the corresponding chapter of my book on ancap. But here we have a slightly different situation: libertarians are turning away from Milei not because he is too radical, but because he is not radical enough. Every compromise generates disappointment among supporters, and some of them have begun to speculate that he was a plant from the start, and that Milei was put in place specifically to discredit libertarianism.
Among the latter is such a master of the Austrian School of Economics as Saifedean Ammous, author of the books “The Bitcoin Standard“, “The Fiat Standard“, and another that has not been translated into Russian. His recent tweet denouncing Milei’s policies was translated by the SVTV publication and continues to be discussed in the Russian-speaking libertarian community. Earlier, another prominent libertarian theorist, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, turned away from Milei. I suppose I will have to figure out what is actually happening in Argentina, and whether I should already start justifying to socialists that this was the “wrong” kind of libertarianism, as Ammous and Svetov have begun to do.
I have little insider information about Argentina: some say it has become a bit safer, others complain that it has become noticeably more expensive, others are sad that it has become harder for immigrants to naturalize. Therefore, an interrogation of ChatGPT was conducted. Those interested can look at the transcript of this conversation, but I will move straight to my reflections.
What turned out to be an unpleasant surprise for me?
- The budget surplus so widely advertised in laudatory articles is not exactly a surplus. The state collects more in taxes than it spends on officials, public employees, the army, infrastructure, and so on, but taking into account the necessary payments on old loans, it is still in the red, and therefore borrows more.
- Milei is indeed increasing spending on the army. Yes, from the position of minarchists, national defense is a strictly state prerogative; however, in conditions where the country’s neighbors pose no threat, this increase in spending is completely untimely. I can only assume that this is driven by a desire to arrange a second Falklands conflict, should it become necessary to urgently raise his popularity before running for a second term.
- Inflation is indeed accelerating again.
- Migration policy is indeed tightening, and in many ways, this is economically senseless.
The key attack by Hoppe and Ammous on Milei—that he did not close the central bank—is akin to reproaching him for not bringing down the moon from the sky. Milei himself did not have such powers. The parliament had the power, but it did not pass the bill. What should global libertarian authorities do in this case? Certainly not accuse him of never intending to close anything. Moreover, although he failed to stop the printing of pesos, he at least permitted, by decree, the use of any currencies and goods in private contracts. So Ammous can be at ease: Argentines are free to switch to the Bitcoin standard in private settlements, and only buy government wrappers for settlements with the state.
Overall, in my view, Milei is very effectively using the opportunity granted to him to make Argentina freer in some respects; however, he should also ensure that in the future, these changes are difficult to roll back by any given opponent who might occupy the presidential chair. Purely technically, by expanding the powers of the executive branch, Milei is actually, conversely, making it easier to repeal most of his reforms through a simple series of decrees. It is already clear that he will not obtain a majority in the next parliamentary elections, which means it is important for him to devote maximum attention to PR. The obtained freedoms must look so necessary and natural to society that their removal should seem unthinkable. In principle, something like this was achieved by Saakashvili. The Georgian Dream tightened the screws in politics and put Saakashvili’s supporters in prisons, yet it fears touching economic freedoms and has even cautiously continued liberalization in some areas.
By a strange coincidence, both Hoppe and Ammous are unanimous in their criticism of the Israeli state’s actions against Palestinians, while Milei emphatically sides with Israel. I maintain a strong suspicion that this factor is precisely what drives their desire to criticize Milei; once bias exists, arguments can always be found.
Both critics claim that Palestinians have the right to wage war against Israel because the property rights of Palestinians to their land have been violated. However, Palestinian Arabs, in general, have never had property rights to this land that were particularly legitimate for libertarians. Their ancestors conquered Palestine, including from the Jews. Then they were conquered by the Turks. Then the Turks lost the First World War, and their inheritance was distributed by the British.
A specific Palestinian can always defend his property right to a specific plot of land that belonged to his grandfather and was seized by the state of Israel. If he agrees to live peacefully on this land of his, then what is the problem? However, this Palestinian denies an analogous right to Jews, even if their grandfathers acquired their specific plots of land through voluntary market transactions. Consequently, according to the principle of estoppel, he cannot insist on the return of his own land, for he recognizes the right of one people to forcibly expel another people from their land.
Israeli Jews and friendly Israeli Arabs have, in my eyes, the full right to evict unfriendly Palestinian Arabs to any state that agrees to accept them. Of course, for this purpose, it is desirable to distribute Palestinian Arabs in small portions, settle them dispersedly, and under no circumstances allow them to form ghettos—that is, to ensure their full right to work and do business, but provide no social welfare except for a small sum of relocation assistance. This is, undoubtedly, ethnic cleansing (de facto ideological, because belonging to the Arabs does not in itself make a person an enemy of the Jews). And this is, undoubtedly, preferable to genocide. But if the world community is against ethnic cleansing, what can be done—there will be genocide.
Why does Milei support Israel? I hope there is more pragmatism in this (potential economic ties with Israel and the USA, support of the Jewish diaspora in Argentina, distancing from the rhetoric of the previous Argentine government) than emotion; however, I cannot rule out that this support is his mistake, since he received a mandate primarily to save his own country, not to help a foreign state. I hope that supporters of Hoppe and Ammous will restrain them before their blind hatred for Milei begins to bring tangible harm to Argentine liberal reforms, and that Milei himself will moderate the degree of his public support for Israel when he feels that it puts his policy at risk.
Overall, the Argentine reforms clearly show that a libertarian society cannot be built through politics alone. Milei is doing his part, but he cannot do it all. Libertarians should not forget their part. And this is not so much about constructive criticism of the locomotive of reform. It is far more important to cite his real achievements at every convenient opportunity on every public platform, to defend the people’s right to freedom, carajo!—and to live in accordance with one’s own conception of that right.
Thank you all for your attention; the topic turned out to be complex. The italics are the part of the article that could probably have been done without, but somehow it didn’t work out that way. Let it remain for the sake of generating flame wars.
