Unexpectedly, although understandably, Argentina has just elected Javier Milei as president. It is understood that Argentines will not trust Sergio Massa, the economy minister who leaves office with inflation at 140% year-on-year, one of the worst rates in the world, and 18.5 million poor Argentines. But Milei’s triumph is unusual. For many reasons. Initially, he only came into politics two years ago with the support of YouTubers, TikTokers and other social media professionals. He had neither a party nor the support of the trade unions, the Catholic Church and the conventional press. Second, his histrionic character and the insults to which he has accustomed his opponents are not common, even in quaint Argentine politics. Third, Milei’s personal image is quite far removed from that of a presidential candidate. He lives alone with four dogs – named in honor of his favorite economists Milton (Friedman), Murray (Rothbard), Robert and Lucas (Robert Lucas) – and his style is a cross between Mick Jagger and Elvis Presley passed through the Latin American sieve . Fourth, he presents himself as a libertarian and proposes radical reforms aimed at ending what he identifies as an enemy triad: communism, statism and collectivism.
This fourth point is the one with the greatest political importance. Some media outlets have pointed out that it is the first time in history that a country has elected a libertarian president, a hasty statement given that Thatcher and Reagan shared fundamental aspects of that ideology. But Milei is not only considered a libertarian. In Spain, the right, at least that represented by Esperanza Aguirre, sees him as just another “liberal,” while the left combines the superlative “ultraliberal” with the label “populist.” It is advisable to unravel this “totum revolutum” of political concepts, not so much to indulge in label fetishism – after all, as Shakespeare said, what is in a name? – but to better understand Milei’s ideology and its nature. perceived.
More information
The first thing we have to ask is whether Milei is a libertarian, the adjective he prefers. The term sounds artificial: “libertarian” is an automatic translation of the English word “libertarian”, which also causes some confusion in the Spanish context, since it refers to the libertarian movement, the anarcho-syndicalist organization of the late 1930s, which has nothing to do with it do do what Milei advocates. Libertarianism has its origins in the classical liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith, which identifies individual freedom as the highest value and derives from this important limits on the size of the state and its requirements. For reasons that are unclear, the term “liberal” in the United States referred to any new idea, whether or not it was related to the classical liberal conception. Progressive thought, which advocated a strong state with large taxing capacity, was identified as “liberal” and therefore the proposals of economists such as Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman, who remained faithful to the original liberalism, were placed in the orthopedic category “libertarian”. . “.
If you would like to support the production of quality journalism, subscribe to us.
Subscribe to
This label shift did not occur in Europe. In contrast to the American left, the European left rejects the liberal epithet, which continues to be associated with the defense of individual freedoms and goes beyond considerations of distributive justice and the common good. There are those who believe that in these areas the distinction between libertarians and liberals is artificial and unnecessary: they are the same. But more and more people are using “libertarian” to describe the most extreme liberals, those least willing to endanger freedom. What is clear is that libertarians are liberals, although, depending on who you ask, they only represent the most fanatical.
Liberalism is not homogeneous. It is a multi-nave cathedral with common foundations, which we can summarize in three points supported by all liberals: 1) comprehensive civil, political and economic freedoms; 2) free markets; and 3) a modest role of the state. These premises lead liberals to also unanimously reject political systems that place great importance on the authority of the state: fascism and communism, of course, but also the modern welfare state. From here, internal disagreements begin, leading to the emergence of three large liberal families, in which Milei participates to varying degrees.
First, there are the liberal anarchists, also called anarcho-capitalists. They are the most radical, the ones who reject any state, no matter how minimal. They believe that a social relationship is only legitimate if it is voluntary. Since the state is not a voluntary organization but a coercive organization – its rules apply to us whether we want them or not – it is illegitimate. Job. Milei has stated several times that she identifies with them, at least in theory. Influenced by the Austrian School economist and historian Murray Rothbard, he does not shy away from portraying the state as a criminal organization that practices its particular form of armed robbery with taxes. Replacing the state with the market means replacing violence with freedom: from a system in which a few – the politicians – impose their criteria on the rest, to another in which we all and no one in particular make decentralized decisions. The term “ultraliberal” therefore makes perfect sense when one considers that in Milei’s utopia there are no constitutions, but rather treaties; We are not citizens, but customers.
But running for president with this doctrinaire body is like saying, “I want to head a criminal organization,” “I want to be Al Capone.” This explains, secondly, that Milei has turned to a Lockean or mini-anarchist such as Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand or Robert Nozick, who justifies the existence of a minimal state or gendarme focused on defense against external enemies and the protection of the right Life, liberty and property. The only legitimate taxes are those necessary to maintain the institutions of this mini-state: the army, the police, the courts and the land registry. Many of Milei’s proposals attempt to minimize the gigantic Peronist-driven state. His government program includes, among other things, the privatization of loss-making public companies, the abolition and reduction of taxes to encourage the development of private initiatives, the lifting of restrictions on access to foreign currencies, the abolition of withholding taxes on exports and, one of his more daring proposals, “Get the Get rid of the central bank.
Javier Milei greets his supporters at the end of the campaign on November 16 in Córdoba, Argentina. Tony Cuesta (GETTY IMAGES)
Of course, Milei’s program will not turn Argentina into a minimal state. However, for a third group of liberals, the Kantians, this need not be the case. They believe that the state can also have a limited welfare function in addition to its role as gendarme. Hayek, for example, advocated, albeit vaguely, ensuring a minimum standard below which no one should fall, especially those who could not care for themselves. More decisively, Milton Friedman proposed replacing the benefits of the welfare state with a kind of basic income: the negative income tax, which allows the state to grant an income supplement to those who do not reach a minimum income. Milei did not embrace this form of liberalism, or at least not explicitly, as he did the previous two. But in an interview with the weekly newspaper “The Economist” he admitted that it was not possible to completely abolish social benefits, which is why he suggested optimizing them. An example in this direction is his proposal to replace the public education system with a voucher or check model à la Friedman, which consists in giving parents a sum of money – an exchangeable voucher – to pay the costs of the educational center. You are opting for what economists call a “demand subsidy.”
Milei walks through the various naves of the liberal cathedral as he sees fit. Is he also a right-wing populist? The allegations stem from his flirtation with Trump, Bolsonaro and Abascal – he says he doesn’t know Orbán well enough. During the campaign, Milei addressed these leaders with a strong speech against feminism, climate change and the LGTBI community. Some say this is a strategic move to win over conservative voters, but dangerous connections don’t come for free. Trump, Bolsonaro and Abascal openly represent protectionist, nationalist, anti-abortion and anti-immigrant positions that explode the foundations of liberalism. Tariffs, tightened borders, “Make America Great Again” and abortion bans are restrictions on freedom that no one can defend without questioning their liberal pedigree. Milei remains committed to protecting economic freedoms, but has promised to repeal the abortion law and is beginning to propose a tough line on immigration from neighboring countries, which makes up 5% of Argentina’s population.
Milei’s choice raises serious questions. On even days he is an economist well-versed in liberal doctrine, and on odd days he is a total populist. Who will rule? Friedman student or Trump admirer? Will Argentina be the new laboratory of liberalism, like Pinochet’s Chile was? Or will left-wing populism transform into right-wing populism? It won’t be long before we hear that Milei and her “little four-legged children” – Milton, Murray, Lucas and Robert – will be moving into the official residence on December 10th.
Jahel Queralt (Alcanar, Tarragona, 1982) is professor of political philosophy at the University of Pompeu Fabra. He edited Public Reasons. An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Ariel, 2021).
Fernando Teson (Buenos Aires, 1950) is a professor of legal philosophy at Florida State University (USA) and an expert on libertarianism.
Sign up for the weekly Ideas newsletter here.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_