Well, you guys voted for fascism. Now you’ve got it.
Exactly. Argentina has had an issue with right wing, backwards ass idiots for a long time. They're getting what they wanted
Is funny to claim people are "backwards idiots" when it's literally the first time in history this political spectrum (anarcho-capitalist) has been elected. What's fresher than a first time ever?
They can call themselves whatever they want this decade, they're nothing new.
In that case would you mind explaining what they are that has already been there and has only gotten a glow up?
I bet historians and economists would love to be enlightened
They are fascists. Those existed before.
It appears that we have different definitions of fascism
"A far right political ideology that is anti-democratic, ultra nationalist, and totalitarian"
Which... yeah doesnt fit at all to his so far 7 days of government
Are you really talking about the guy that denies Videla's regime crimes? A guy that is a friend of far-right leaders around the world?
He hasnt done such thing? During Presidential Debates he literally brought them up...
And someone having friends that think alike? What a crazy concept!
Just like Peronism that reivindicated dictators around the world and has ties with Maduro's Venezuela and China, even selling part of the country to them
Glad they didnt win.
"You too" is not an excuse.
And I don't even know what the actual fuck is peronism. Some things look like right wing, some look like left wing, some are cult of personality, some are near anarchist, ... Maybe because I haven't understood it.
I agree, "you too" is not an excuse, but that wasn't what I was trying to imply. For clarification it's a matter of pick your poison because it doesn't matter the person nor the space they belong to, bad apples are gonna be there so wether you prefer those bad apples to come from china or united states is really the only choice you can make.
And there is a saying in Argentina that if Peronism doesnt make sense to you, it means you understood it perfectly. The deal here is that it's been the power that's dominated the country since it's inception... and look how that's going
Then the problem comes from having to chose between Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche and the solution would be to have someone that knows a little about ruling a country.
I mean for what we were discussing, there really is no solution?
And if you actually just radically changed topic... there's really not a problem? There's two pathways that if theoretically executed have pros and cons (if the candidates actually comply to their promises) and choosing is at best a conflict
Lol, if you think this guy is anything other than your run of the mill fascist, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Ah yes, fascists. Not like those werent in power until 2 weeks ago and the opposing candidate to Milei wasnt using government power to investigate, accuse and imprison (if not kill) those who made campaign against him
Not that has anything to do with Milei, but when you consider that... and the fact that Milei has done nothing but comply to his campaign promises you gotta wonder whos the real fascist... or even the definition
"The state is not going to pay for the use of the security forces; organizations that have legal status will have to pay or individuals will have to bear the cost"
The state sending invoices to accused protesters is a about the least ancap thing I've ever seen. Such a fresh take.
German police as well as courts of account have actually been lobbying to make football clubs pay for the operations they cause for quite some while. Would be tied to events with a commercial orientation attracting crowds > 5000 people or something along those lines.
Considering that the security forces will only incur when protesters take away the fundamental right of transiting the streets... which is a crime, an Invoice instead of prison is rather light
Now is it anarcho capitalist? Well people paying for their actions and its consequences being a law sounds rather anarcho-capitalist to me
Man, you sure are making a good argument against anarcho-capitalism.
The principle of no-agression and respecting the other's freedom are literally the principles or Anarcho-capitalism
This measures ensure that those are enforced, how is it against anarcho-capitalism?
I never signed no no-aggression treaty and as ancaps don't consider social contracts valid I'd say I'm free to to whatever the fuck I want.
What are you on about?
Are you confusing principles and ideals of an ideology for an instated regime? Or what's your point here
I didn't say anything about any regieme. I was speaking plain and simple Ancap ideology which is so obviously broken (as I demonstrated) that it's funny. It's a collection of soundbites, sounding good to neoliberal edgelords, masquerading as principles, which break apart as soon as you connect them up because they contradict each other. As, to wit, the "everyone is bound to non-aggression" and "there's no such thing as a social contract" thing. I don't even have to bring up that private property is violence in itself.
I don't know who's interpretation of Anarcho-Capitalism you are following, but since ther has never been an Anarcho Capilist government in the world (which sounds ironical) it's all just ideas and interpretations, of which seem you are grabbing the worst of the pile.
Rothbard's definition includes in the fundamentals of the Contractual Society being voluntarily approached and free of violence or harm, which is to say that if you do not respect the inalienable rights of the others, you are violating the Contract for being in that society, and you are rightfully gonna be aprehended. There is no contradiction
Also, to what you said about "demonstrated" something, mind linking to what you have? There's nothing around here like that
voluntarily approached and
So I must have the opportunity to live outside it. How does Ancap theory limit land ownership, and the defence of that land by force? If you don't then nothing about Ancappery is voluntary.
free of violence or harm,
Then there must not be capital accumulation: For resources are power and accumulation of power corrupts even the most virtuous mind.
which is to say that if you do not respect the inalienable rights of the others, you are violating the Contract for being in that society, and you are rightfully gonna be aprehended.
So if you, or ancaps collectively, own all the land which prevents me from exercising my inalienable right to not be part of any of their fiefdoms then they are violating that contract, and will be rightly apprehended by their goons.
I think the social contract thing came into the general anarchist vs. ancap discussion because social contract theory leads to a lot of things Ancaps don't want, such as universal welfare, so people at least on the internet started dismissing it entirely. But it just so happens that you made your own contradiction so I didn't need to recourse to that, you built a contradiction into your description of ancap fundamentals: Congratulations, you back a political suicide cult.
Names mean nothing, their actions are fascist
In that case, could you please number the "Actions" they've done that deem them fascist? It's been 7 days of government, im sure you'll have no issue narrowing them down in such a timeframe. I would like details if you are able to provide, thanks!
Okay sure,
Number 1: Threatening to jail and/or shoot protestors.
That was a fun game, thanks.
Thanks for the summary, unfortunately I must correct some inaccuracies on the provided bullet points
Number 1: The threat of Jail is only for those protesters who incur on Blocking Public roads and or depriving other citizens of their right to freely transit, which has always been against the law, which makes them Criminals. The threat of Jail is only for criminals. And the claim of shooting protesters is from someone NOT in the government, in fact they are opposition so it's not attributable to the government in any way.
Hope this helps to make a clearer vision of what they have/are actually doing, would you please be so kind to update the list so we can see how many fascist things they are doing with that clarified?
There's been a gazillion times people from that particular political spectrum, that is, neo-feudalists, have been in power.
No actual anarchist ever has ever considered ancaps to be anything else than that, ancaps plain and simply aren't anarchist. You cannot be an anarchist while supporting systems of rule such as, to wit, capitalism.
"Ancaps arent Anarchists"
Yes... exactly. I see you understand why they are called different things
Ancaps are called Ancaps by Anarchists for that reason, yes, not because "anarcho-" wouldn't otherwise be indicative of actual anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, the list is endless. Luckily we got spared Anarcho-withoutadjectivesism.
Either they're trying to appropriate our good reputation, or they're just clueless idiots. Or both. Very likely both.
Or... neither?
Words have meanings beyond the people that use them, if the meaning is appropiate for representing something, it shall be used.
Is not like "Phobia" is on many "Phobias" just for the sake of it.
No, words don't have meaning to Ancaps or they would never have chosen the "anarcho-" prefix.
What would have you chosen instead then? Something more precise would be good to know.
Neofeudalism. Ancaps are people who want their own little fiefdoms just that instead of justifying their rule by the grace of god, they justify it by the "grace" of the unregulated market. Which they, as neolibs generally do, like to equivocate with the free market.
Bro half the country doesn't know how to read wtf are you talking about they aren't backwards idiots?
Half the country doesn't know how to read
Half the country voted for the Minister of Economy that ran the economy to the ground, used 2 Points of the Country's GDP for his Political campaign and was also Defacto President the past 2 Years (not democratically elected) using the Ideology that has governed Argentina for 20 Years now
I think you just cracked the code who the "Backwards idiots" you so speak of might be
He was elected National Deputy for the Province of Buenos Aires in the 2021 Argentine legislative election.
So what indicates he's not in the government?
All I can say is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but I understand investigating profoundly every minor topic is a nuisance, but if you don't, it all basically boils down to "trust me bro" which is what my answer is about to be:
Jose Luis Espert is a Libertarian Legislator sure, but not on Milei's Party, he and her companion are their own block "Avanza Libertad" while Milei's block is "La Libertad Avanza" which Understandably might cause confusion, but the fact is that they arent the same. Meanwhile Espert's block is affiliated with "The Pro" or "Juntos por el Cambio" who Milei's government has made a coallition with to be enabled to govern/pass laws in the Senate. Basically an alliance
Espert is NOWHERE in that picture however. The english article might just be outdated, tho as Milei and Espert used to be friends but they went separate ways when Espert Joined the Pro like 7 months ago. Would recommend the spanish article which is somewhat more accurate
Thank you for taking the time to explain your points and you are correct that I've only really seen headlines and white media about this new leader.
In case you really are intersted, I would suggest r/Argentina on Reddit or r/Republica_Argentina again on Reddit
To clarify the former is more right-oriented (pro current gov, against past) and the latter is Left-oriented (pro past gov, against current)
Official new sources straight from Argentina are hard to trust, as they used to be Paid by the government and served as propagandists for it until like a week ago since Milei made a decree to halt said Payments for at least a Year (You can search about this with the term "Pauta oficial Argentina")
They're not hard to trust they are impossible to trust. They are fantasy, fiction publications. That's to be expected when there's no such thing as anti corruption and half the country is illiterate.
And yet the Argentinian middle class decides it is good to listen to corporate group news mostly.
Here we have few state sponsored media channels. And if they were many, rest assured they have neither the power nor the success of Clarín and La Nación, the two biggest players in the media bussiness in the country. To be completely fair, most news media in Argentina (at least, 80% of which by far those two i mentioned previously are made of) is basically right leaning.
In some cases, too much to look the other way. But Argentinians have success in defeating logic and facts with fictitious campaign slogans, complete disdain for history and ridicule understandings of economics.
That is why the right wing is so strong here.
This new president we got surely is gonna be respecting of freedom /s
I don't know how an Anti-Corruption office would go with Media Outlets spewing misinformation, free speech is fundamental after all. If they say something that's wrong they should be sued by the affected, people should loose interest in their channel and it would die off because there's no profit when nobody watches or trusts them.
On another hand, there are some trustable ones but of course who those are varies from person to person, for now let's just wait until the ones that cant survive without the government's money die off and we'll put up to public scrutiny the rest
Well, you guys voted for fascism. Now you’ve got it.
Exactly. Argentina has had an issue with right wing, backwards ass idiots for a long time. They're getting what they wanted
Is funny to claim people are "backwards idiots" when it's literally the first time in history this political spectrum (anarcho-capitalist) has been elected. What's fresher than a first time ever?
They can call themselves whatever they want this decade, they're nothing new.
In that case would you mind explaining what they are that has already been there and has only gotten a glow up?
I bet historians and economists would love to be enlightened
They are fascists. Those existed before.
It appears that we have different definitions of fascism
"A far right political ideology that is anti-democratic, ultra nationalist, and totalitarian"
Which... yeah doesnt fit at all to his so far 7 days of government
Are you really talking about the guy that denies Videla's regime crimes? A guy that is a friend of far-right leaders around the world?
He hasnt done such thing? During Presidential Debates he literally brought them up...
And someone having friends that think alike? What a crazy concept! Just like Peronism that reivindicated dictators around the world and has ties with Maduro's Venezuela and China, even selling part of the country to them
Glad they didnt win.
"You too" is not an excuse.
And I don't even know what the actual fuck is peronism. Some things look like right wing, some look like left wing, some are cult of personality, some are near anarchist, ... Maybe because I haven't understood it.
I agree, "you too" is not an excuse, but that wasn't what I was trying to imply. For clarification it's a matter of pick your poison because it doesn't matter the person nor the space they belong to, bad apples are gonna be there so wether you prefer those bad apples to come from china or united states is really the only choice you can make.
And there is a saying in Argentina that if Peronism doesnt make sense to you, it means you understood it perfectly. The deal here is that it's been the power that's dominated the country since it's inception... and look how that's going
Then the problem comes from having to chose between Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche and the solution would be to have someone that knows a little about ruling a country.
I mean for what we were discussing, there really is no solution?
And if you actually just radically changed topic... there's really not a problem? There's two pathways that if theoretically executed have pros and cons (if the candidates actually comply to their promises) and choosing is at best a conflict
Lol, if you think this guy is anything other than your run of the mill fascist, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Ah yes, fascists. Not like those werent in power until 2 weeks ago and the opposing candidate to Milei wasnt using government power to investigate, accuse and imprison (if not kill) those who made campaign against him
Not that has anything to do with Milei, but when you consider that... and the fact that Milei has done nothing but comply to his campaign promises you gotta wonder whos the real fascist... or even the definition
"The state is not going to pay for the use of the security forces; organizations that have legal status will have to pay or individuals will have to bear the cost"
The state sending invoices to accused protesters is a about the least ancap thing I've ever seen. Such a fresh take.
German police as well as courts of account have actually been lobbying to make football clubs pay for the operations they cause for quite some while. Would be tied to events with a commercial orientation attracting crowds > 5000 people or something along those lines.
Considering that the security forces will only incur when protesters take away the fundamental right of transiting the streets... which is a crime, an Invoice instead of prison is rather light
Now is it anarcho capitalist? Well people paying for their actions and its consequences being a law sounds rather anarcho-capitalist to me
Man, you sure are making a good argument against anarcho-capitalism.
The principle of no-agression and respecting the other's freedom are literally the principles or Anarcho-capitalism
This measures ensure that those are enforced, how is it against anarcho-capitalism?
I never signed no no-aggression treaty and as ancaps don't consider social contracts valid I'd say I'm free to to whatever the fuck I want.
What are you on about?
Are you confusing principles and ideals of an ideology for an instated regime? Or what's your point here
I didn't say anything about any regieme. I was speaking plain and simple Ancap ideology which is so obviously broken (as I demonstrated) that it's funny. It's a collection of soundbites, sounding good to neoliberal edgelords, masquerading as principles, which break apart as soon as you connect them up because they contradict each other. As, to wit, the "everyone is bound to non-aggression" and "there's no such thing as a social contract" thing. I don't even have to bring up that private property is violence in itself.
I don't know who's interpretation of Anarcho-Capitalism you are following, but since ther has never been an Anarcho Capilist government in the world (which sounds ironical) it's all just ideas and interpretations, of which seem you are grabbing the worst of the pile.
Rothbard's definition includes in the fundamentals of the Contractual Society being voluntarily approached and free of violence or harm, which is to say that if you do not respect the inalienable rights of the others, you are violating the Contract for being in that society, and you are rightfully gonna be aprehended. There is no contradiction
Also, to what you said about "demonstrated" something, mind linking to what you have? There's nothing around here like that
So I must have the opportunity to live outside it. How does Ancap theory limit land ownership, and the defence of that land by force? If you don't then nothing about Ancappery is voluntary.
Then there must not be capital accumulation: For resources are power and accumulation of power corrupts even the most virtuous mind.
So if you, or ancaps collectively, own all the land which prevents me from exercising my inalienable right to not be part of any of their fiefdoms then they are violating that contract, and will be rightly apprehended by their goons.
I think the social contract thing came into the general anarchist vs. ancap discussion because social contract theory leads to a lot of things Ancaps don't want, such as universal welfare, so people at least on the internet started dismissing it entirely. But it just so happens that you made your own contradiction so I didn't need to recourse to that, you built a contradiction into your description of ancap fundamentals: Congratulations, you back a political suicide cult.
Names mean nothing, their actions are fascist
In that case, could you please number the "Actions" they've done that deem them fascist? It's been 7 days of government, im sure you'll have no issue narrowing them down in such a timeframe. I would like details if you are able to provide, thanks!
Okay sure,
Number 1: Threatening to jail and/or shoot protestors.
That was a fun game, thanks.
Thanks for the summary, unfortunately I must correct some inaccuracies on the provided bullet points
Number 1: The threat of Jail is only for those protesters who incur on Blocking Public roads and or depriving other citizens of their right to freely transit, which has always been against the law, which makes them Criminals. The threat of Jail is only for criminals. And the claim of shooting protesters is from someone NOT in the government, in fact they are opposition so it's not attributable to the government in any way.
Hope this helps to make a clearer vision of what they have/are actually doing, would you please be so kind to update the list so we can see how many fascist things they are doing with that clarified?
There's been a gazillion times people from that particular political spectrum, that is, neo-feudalists, have been in power.
No actual anarchist ever has ever considered ancaps to be anything else than that, ancaps plain and simply aren't anarchist. You cannot be an anarchist while supporting systems of rule such as, to wit, capitalism.
"Ancaps arent Anarchists"
Yes... exactly. I see you understand why they are called different things
Ancaps are called Ancaps by Anarchists for that reason, yes, not because "anarcho-" wouldn't otherwise be indicative of actual anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, the list is endless. Luckily we got spared Anarcho-withoutadjectivesism.
Either they're trying to appropriate our good reputation, or they're just clueless idiots. Or both. Very likely both.
Or... neither?
Words have meanings beyond the people that use them, if the meaning is appropiate for representing something, it shall be used.
Is not like "Phobia" is on many "Phobias" just for the sake of it.
No, words don't have meaning to Ancaps or they would never have chosen the "anarcho-" prefix.
What would have you chosen instead then? Something more precise would be good to know.
Neofeudalism. Ancaps are people who want their own little fiefdoms just that instead of justifying their rule by the grace of god, they justify it by the "grace" of the unregulated market. Which they, as neolibs generally do, like to equivocate with the free market.
Bro half the country doesn't know how to read wtf are you talking about they aren't backwards idiots?
I think you just cracked the code who the "Backwards idiots" you so speak of might be
"but he claimed to be Anarcho and anti-government"...
Turns out he was only opposed to good government!
Good thing that the person who said what this article claims IS NOT in the government...
Wikipedia continues:
So what indicates he's not in the government?
All I can say is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but I understand investigating profoundly every minor topic is a nuisance, but if you don't, it all basically boils down to "trust me bro" which is what my answer is about to be:
Jose Luis Espert is a Libertarian Legislator sure, but not on Milei's Party, he and her companion are their own block "Avanza Libertad" while Milei's block is "La Libertad Avanza" which Understandably might cause confusion, but the fact is that they arent the same. Meanwhile Espert's block is affiliated with "The Pro" or "Juntos por el Cambio" who Milei's government has made a coallition with to be enabled to govern/pass laws in the Senate. Basically an alliance
Espert is NOWHERE in that picture however. The english article might just be outdated, tho as Milei and Espert used to be friends but they went separate ways when Espert Joined the Pro like 7 months ago. Would recommend the spanish article which is somewhat more accurate
Thank you for taking the time to explain your points and you are correct that I've only really seen headlines and white media about this new leader.
In case you really are intersted, I would suggest r/Argentina on Reddit or r/Republica_Argentina again on Reddit
To clarify the former is more right-oriented (pro current gov, against past) and the latter is Left-oriented (pro past gov, against current)
Official new sources straight from Argentina are hard to trust, as they used to be Paid by the government and served as propagandists for it until like a week ago since Milei made a decree to halt said Payments for at least a Year (You can search about this with the term "Pauta oficial Argentina")
They're not hard to trust they are impossible to trust. They are fantasy, fiction publications. That's to be expected when there's no such thing as anti corruption and half the country is illiterate.
And yet the Argentinian middle class decides it is good to listen to corporate group news mostly. Here we have few state sponsored media channels. And if they were many, rest assured they have neither the power nor the success of Clarín and La Nación, the two biggest players in the media bussiness in the country. To be completely fair, most news media in Argentina (at least, 80% of which by far those two i mentioned previously are made of) is basically right leaning. In some cases, too much to look the other way. But Argentinians have success in defeating logic and facts with fictitious campaign slogans, complete disdain for history and ridicule understandings of economics. That is why the right wing is so strong here.
This new president we got surely is gonna be respecting of freedom /s
I don't know how an Anti-Corruption office would go with Media Outlets spewing misinformation, free speech is fundamental after all. If they say something that's wrong they should be sued by the affected, people should loose interest in their channel and it would die off because there's no profit when nobody watches or trusts them.
On another hand, there are some trustable ones but of course who those are varies from person to person, for now let's just wait until the ones that cant survive without the government's money die off and we'll put up to public scrutiny the rest
The security minister is not in the govt?
The security minister is in the government, yes.
The person who said "prison or bullet" is not.