Milei’s Dilemma

The problem libertarians face in governing is the voting public, which is not, by nature, libertarian.

Most voters favour higher spending, both personal and state, lower taxes except for the rich, cheaper credit, higher savings rates, a stronger currency, a weaker currency, the right to emigrate, limited immigration, social and religious tolerance, religious intolerance, security, a small military that does courageous things to make them proud, low crime rates, peace, freedom to do as they please, and freedom from the consequences of their follies.

During the heyday of libertarian governments, let us say 1750-1914, countries in the Anglosphere (plus a few enlightened others) had low taxes, a small military that did courageous things overseas, plenty of personal freedoms, and little else on the list above. They were not democracies in the modern sense of the word; the UK, including its colonies, was a Constitutional Monarchy; the US was a Constitutional Republic. These forms of government differ from a democracy in that although everybody is represented in a legislature, the representatives are elected by a few eligible voters.

Today, Argentina is the world’s sole libertarian government, and it is a precarious one. Only the executive, and not the legislature, is libertarian, and the president governs largely by decree. An election this year might change this, but to broaden support for his policies, President Milei needs the voting public to return politicians sympathetic to his libertarian program. If he appeals to the majority’s wishes by satisfying what they favor (see above), he should be successful. Good luck with that.

For argument’s sake, let us fantasize that he broadens his legislative support sufficiently for him to pass libertarian laws. A year from now, Milei will be in the final two years of his present term and looking to return for four more years. Let us dream further and believe that he will avoid the temptation to abandon his principles to run on a ‘strong and stable government’ platform. What, from a libertarian perspective, should be his focus to attract the votes he needs for re-election?

Beyond the obvious—keeping inflation low, staving off debt default, abolishing currency controls—the voter demand Milei most needs to address is freedom from the consequences of their follies.

If you ever ask what brought the death of liberalism (as libertarianism was once known), then look no further for an answer than a widened franchise that sought this demand. The consequences have been welfare statism, high regulation, low economic growth, high taxes, high debt, high emigration, high immigration, sectarian strife, high crime rates, big government, and a military that does things abroad of which nobody can be proud.

Milei can reflect that the West has been here before. At the end of the 70s, again requiring relief from the consequences of their folly, electorates returned Reagan and Thatcher to deliver economic growth with a modicum of self-esteem. As with the voters, neither of these leaders was libertarian, so once economic growth was reestablished, voters turned to past follies while abandoning, gaily, self-esteem as a value.

In 2022, facing an economic meltdown, Argentines opted for libertarianism as a remedy for their past abject follies. It was a wise choice, and so far, disaster has been averted. But once the economy stabilizes and growth is restored, the smart money will go on voters returning to statism. Unless…

As I have argued before, to avoid the fate of tango dancers and forever suffering the dual emotions of loss and regret, Argentines need to undergo a fundamental change in their relationship with the state by opting for self-esteem over state relief.

So, what can Milei do to help facilitate this change? He has argued publicly with puritanical libertarians that, as a political leader (as opposed to an armchair economist), he needs to be practical and patient in implementing his reforms.

For instance, Argentina’s high tariffs need to go, but allowing consumer goods from overseas to compete with domestically produced goods will devastate domestic manufacturing, causing unemployment to rise sharply in Buenos Aires Province, a key state he needs to win in the coming round of mid-term elections.

Blowing up the thieving central bank is a noble aspiration, but for now, ironically, he needs the proceeds of its thievery to pay the state’s bills and balance the budget.

Abolishing currency controls (the notorious ‘Cepo’) without foreign currency reserves will bring back inflation. Thankfully, a solution is at hand.

Once sufficient oil and gas sales from Argentina’s abundant unexploited reserves hit the world market, currency issues hampering debt repayment, the Cepo abolition and an end to the central bank’s nefarious activities will evaporate. Argentina needs time and, as a bridge, it needs the IMF to lend more money to replenish foreign reserve stocks. Good luck with that.

But this does not address the key issue—how to convince people that, like cocaine, the state is an inappropriate vehicle to relieve the pain of life’s shortcomings. If the state cannot compete with the private sector in service supply (imagine state-controlled food distribution), goods creation, entrepreneurial discovery, innovative delivery, or property maintenance, why do people insist it involves itself in these endeavors? Because the state has power and money.

Influence through redistribution has grown with the wealth of nations, and governments of all hues use this to achieve their primary goal—maintaining power. Given these dynamics are not going away any time soon, the pragmatic libertarian Milei can at least recognize the state’s limitations and confine its redistributive powers to funding.

For instance, the state can fund the poor’s education without providing the service. The same is true for healthcare. It can pay pensions to those previously promised while refusing the same promise to new state employees. It can sell any property it owns and lease what it needs. It can insist that the criminal justice system receives its funding through a surcharge on commercial contracts it expects the government to enforce. And, through a reduction in support for and regulation of civil institutions, it can encourage civil governance of the professions, cultural institutions, and charities.

All this a libertarian government can implement with sufficient legislative backing. Milei needs to introduce this debate immediately into the public domain and convince the populace how it will improve their lives.

Nothing in human affairs is determined. Agency permits change, and change provides opportunity. If Milei can convince voters that relief from the consequences of their follies comes not from the state but their endeavors (i.e. the market), perhaps they will support him long enough for him to do his thing while rediscovering their self-esteem through taking responsibility for themselves.