Most Bitcoiners are very likable.
Most Bitcoiners are very likable.
Yes, but that's not because they wanted the powers of the government limited like a anarcho-capitalist. It's because they were concerned with local rule and thought of their states/colonies as separate sovereigns and where the true power should lie (analogous to today's disputes in the European Union about the power of the EU vs. national soveregnty).Sure, that's why I said it was akin to what we were founded on. Based on the role of a central government, the founders were minarchists (Classical Liberals if you prefer). The idea being that the federal government would be much less powerful and far-reaching than it is today. The argument at the time between the feds and anti-feds was basically how much the federal gov't was limited in scope and power while still limiting the possible damage of "the factions".
Argentina has a federal system. Unless I've missed it, he's not calling for an end to the provincial or municipal governments. His focus is on what he views as a corrupt and out of control federal gov't. He's said he can't go full-on Anarchy, so he's going to strive for a minarchy, which takes me back to my previous statement that it shares some commonality with what founding fathers were all about.Yes, but that's not because they wanted the powers of the government limited like a anarcho-capitalist. It's because they were concerned with local rule and thought of their states/colonies as separate sovereigns and where the true power should lie (analogous to today's disputes in the European Union about the power of the EU vs. national soveregnty).
But within those state governments, they still had far more expansive notions of the police power than just security and courts, and the people in power certainly did not view their own state govts as "enemies."
I don't know how he thinks about local government. As an avowed anarchocapitalist, I'm taking him at his word. Maybe--hopefully--he's more pragmatic than that.Argentina has a federal system. Unless I've missed it, he's not calling for an end to the provincial or municipal governments. His focus is on what he views as a corrupt and out of control federal gov't. He's said he can't go full-on Anarchy, so he's going to strive for a minarchy, which takes me back to my previous statement that it shares some commonality with what founding fathers were all about.
I'm a big fan of the Austrian School generally and Mises & Rothbard specifically. I can't go full Rothbard, but I appreciate a lot of what he wrote. As an aside, one of my favorite Rothbard quotes is "It is clearly absurd to limit the term 'education' to a person's formal schooling"I don't know how he thinks about local government. As an avowed anarchocapitalist, I'm taking him at his word. Maybe--hopefully--he's more pragmatic than that.
Here's a link to links about anarchocapitalism. It's really interesting to read about:
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Anarcho-Capitalism, But Were Afraid to Ask - Econlib
The most intellectually serious proponents and fellow travellers of anarchism are, paradoxically, a bunch of stodgy economists. That’s one of the lessons of Ed Stringham‘s new 700-page anthology, Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice. This volume brings together: The classic...www.econlib.org
And even then, it only took a few years for them to figure out that it didn't work, and they needed the federal government to have more power.Yes, but that's not because they wanted the powers of the government limited like a anarcho-capitalist. It's because they were concerned with local rule and thought of their states/colonies as separate sovereigns and where the true power should lie (analogous to today's disputes in the European Union about the power of the EU vs. national soveregnty).
But within those state governments, they still had far more expansive notions of the police power than just security and courts, and the people in power certainly did not view their own state govts as "enemies."
Sure, that's why I said it was akin to what we were founded on. Based on the role of a central government, the founders were minarchists (Classical Liberals if you prefer). The idea being that the federal government would be much less powerful and far-reaching than it is today. The argument at the time between the feds and anti-feds was basically how much the federal gov't was limited in scope and power while still limiting the possible damage of "the factions".
He is cutting out wasteful government jobs. I like it. People in government need to go work in the private sector before the enter government service and then once they are in the government they should get out and live under the crazy laws they just passed.Javier Milei: Argentina's far-right outsider wins presidential election
Ex US President Donald Trump congratulates Javier Milei, saying he will "Make Argentina Great Again".www.bbc.com
Can you name any of the wasteful jobs he's cutting?He is cutting out wasteful government jobs. I like it. People in government need to go work in the private sector before the enter government service and then once they are in the government they should get out and live under the crazy laws they just passed.
I specifically remember reading he was cutting 1 out of 4 jobs that were appointment jobs. He also got rid of jobs concerning climate change and women's strategy positions. Really, I think what he is doing is what we need in our country. We don't have the money to keep on doing what we are doing. Only cuts make a lot of sense because people are taxed too much already.Can you name any of the wasteful jobs he's cutting?
All of them.Can you name any of the wasteful jobs he's cutting?
Bill Clinton says “hello”- best law and order president on the crime of others I ever saw- but he like Trump, Prince Albert, Allen Dershowitz, and Bill Gates names all came out in Maxwell trial so screw him and all pedophiles- even while some in Water Cooler root for themTime line is too short … Reagan said the Democrats left him decades ago.
When was the last time anyone saw a law and order Democrat.
21 ministries to 9 by his first Executive Order. Good job.All of them.
21 ministries to 9 by his first Executive Order. Good job.
I’m good with it if it’s allowed. Also, cutting the government and turning it over to the private sector is the opposite of a dictator.So you're good with a single politician unilaterally gutting the government apparatus without any participation from the legislature? Dictator much?
Uh, no. A dictator is any individual who is empowered to dictate what the law is. Doesn't mean he can't dictate privatization.I’m good with it if it’s allowed. Also, cutting the government and turning it over to the private sector is the opposite of a dictator.
lol…because there is a long history of dictators turning over power and capital to private citizens 🙄Uh, no. A dictator is any individual who is empowered to dictate what the law is. Doesn't mean he can't dictate privatization.
That's actually where the term comes from.lol…because there is a long history of dictators turning over power and capital to private citizens 🙄
That guy was awesome. Milking cows on Monday and taking souls on Saturdays. He’s the farmer version of William Wallace.That's actually where the term comes from.
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Bill Clinton says “hello”- best law and order president on the crime of others I ever saw- but he like Trump, Prince Albert, Allen Dershowitz, and Bill Gates names all came out in Maxwell trial so screw him and all pedophiles- even while some in Water Cooler root for them
SC, but what if the leader turns over the government run entities to cronies for his and their control and profit ?I’m good with it if it’s allowed. Also, cutting the government and turning it over to the private sector is the opposite of a dictator.
I assume most of the positions are just being cut. There isn’t anything being turned over to cronies. The market will decide if the jobs are needed or not.SC, but what if the leader turns over the government run entities to cronies for his and their control and profit ?
Think Putin.
I assume most of the positions are just being cut. There isn’t anything being turned over to cronies. The market will decide if the jobs are needed or not.
As for your question, I wouldn’t consider cutting government jobs and giving it to another person a free market practice, so I’d be against it. It would be just more of the same.
Biden signed an executive order to stop the keystone pipeline. Were you ok with that? Btw, what is wrong with cutting government? The bigger. Government is the.less freedom people have.So you're good with a single politician unilaterally gutting the government apparatus without any participation from the legislature? Dictator much?
So you're good with a single politician unilaterally gutting the government apparatus without any participation from the legislature? Dictator much?
Biden signed an executive order to stop the keystone pipeline. Were you ok with that? Btw, what is wrong with cutting government? The bigger. Government is the.less freedom people have.
Why would he align with us? I don't think he did what he did because he's pro-US. I think he did it because he's naturally inclined to nationalism and protectionism. You think I'm reading him wrong?And good for us. If this dude is successful and can make Argentina a successful US aligned model in South America, that would be great for us.
Why would he align with us? I don't think he did what he did because he's pro-US. I think he did it because he's naturally inclined to nationalism and protectionism. You think I'm reading him wrong?
It seems like a no brainer. What he is trying to accomplish is much more similar to the U.S. than China/Russia. Not to mention he’s in the U.S. backyard. He’d be a fool to not ally with us in my opinion. I know he is a blow hard and eccentric, but he’s essentially a hardcore free market capitalist…..aka my animal spirit.Why would he align with us? I don't think he did what he did because he's pro-US. I think he did it because he's naturally inclined to nationalism and protectionism. You think I'm reading him wrong?
It seems like a no brainer. What he is trying to accomplish is much more similar to the U.S. than China/Russia. Not to mention he’s in the U.S. backyard. He’d be a fool to not ally with the U.S. I know he is a blow hard and eccentric, but he’s essentially a hardcore free market capitalist…..aka my animal spirit.
He campaigned on closer U.S. relations, I think.Why would he align with us? I don't think he did what he did because he's pro-US. I think he did it because he's naturally inclined to nationalism and protectionism. You think I'm reading him wrong?
Interesting. I'm just reading some of his statements now. Pro-US and pro-Israel? Thatcher fanboy? Things must be really bad in Argentina for him to get elected on that sort of platform.He campaigned on closer U.S. relations, I think.
Ha wrong!!! They’re World Cup champions. Get yourself a Messi prayer cardInteresting. I'm just reading some of his statements now. Pro-US and pro-Israel? Thatcher fanboy? Things must be really bad in Argentina for him to get elected on that sort of platform.
Things have been bad in Argentina for a long time.Interesting. I'm just reading some of his statements now. Pro-US and pro-Israel? Thatcher fanboy? Things must be really bad in Argentina for him to get elected on that sort of platform.
So, to sum up, you're OK with Presidents issuing orders without Congressional approval, but are against it when done by a libertarian in another country?Yeah, those are totally comparable. SMH
Happy holidays, Van.