Does Argentina's Bailout Prove Libertarians Wrong?

Plus: the “No Kings” protests, Trump pays troop salaries during government shutdown, and the continued bombing of drug boats in Venezuela

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Does Argentina's Bailout Prove Libertarians Wrong?

HD Video Download

This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch examine Argentina's $20 billion bailout and what it means for President Javier Milei's promise of a libertarian turnaround. They debate whether foreign aid undermines his free market agenda and what the deal suggests about Washington's own commitment to fiscal restraint.

The editors also discuss this weekend's "No Kings" protests. They analyze Trump's growing use of executive authority during the ongoing government shutdown, including his decision to keep paying troop salaries amid federal layoffs. The panel then looks to Trump's continued bombing of the alleged drug boats off Venezuela's coast, and the decision to repatriate survivors. Finally, a listener asks what checks and balances could exist in a truly libertarian country to prevent the kind of centralization of power seen in the United States today.

 

0:00—The U.S. bailout of Javier Milei's Argentina

15:11—The "No Kings" protests and Trump's response

32:54—Growing executive power during the government shutdown

41:45—Listener question on checks and balances

48:56—Bombing of alleged Venezuelan drug boats

57:05—Weekly cultural recommendations

 

Mentioned in This Podcast

"Javier Milei's Libertarian Experiment is in Jeopardy. Argentina's Midterm Elections Will Determine Its Fate," by César Báez

"Vast Right-Wing Astroturf Conspiracy Revealed!" by Matt Welch

"Medical Mosh Pits," by Jesse Walker

"Forget Obama: Trump's Pen and Phone Are Bigger Even Than FDR's," by Matt Welch

"Did the U.S. Just Kill a Random Fisherman?" By Liz Wolfe

 

Upcoming Reason Events

Mini Documentary Screening: The Socialist Housing Plan for New York, October 29

• Producer: Paul Alexander
• Video Editor: Ian Keyser

What are we consuming this week?

Peter Suderman

• After the Hunt

Matt Welch

• Baseball, by Ken Burns

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison 1776-1826

Nick Gillespie

• Manhattan Murder Mystery

---

Comments

[Roberta]

Are the editors fishing for an affirmative answer to that question?

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

If you can fix decades of mismanagement in a few years it is your fault. Think that's the way they are going with it.

[Chumby]

Perhaps Milei has been following libertarian economists Sullum, Boehm, and VdG.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You want to rein in government? There has to be a way for ordinary people to veto laws and regulations that is independent of government control. Lawsuits decided by government judges in government courts are hopelessly naive.

Here is a general outline I've mentioned a few times before.

1. Any citizen can pay a random jury to interpret any law or regulation.

2. Put each juror alone in their own room, with a pad of paper, a pen, the law or regulation, and a table and chair. No erasers. Maybe a dictionary.

3. They write down what they think the law or regulation means; or, alternatively, they answer a question about it, such as "does this allow passing student loan debt to the taxpayers".

4. All opinions are published. If more than 1 or 2 disagree about what it means, it is voided. Or if enough (90%?) agree that it is unconstitutional or just plain don't like it for any reason, it is voided.

5. No appeals. No government courts have anything to say about the result, only about the process. Was the jury truly random? Did they collude with each other? Were they bribed?

Any government which defines itself, with government judges in government courts, is doomed to expand until it collapses.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Q. What about complicated laws, like 2700 pages of Obamacare? You expect random citizens to understand any of that?

A. Yes I do. As James Madison said, "It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read." If a law is too complicated for ordinary people to understand, I would hope the jurors would simply say, "It's too damned complicated. I reject it." Or they would all disagree so thoroughly in its interpretation that it would be voided for failing step 4.

[The Mysterious Edwin Dunkel]

Never. Real libertarianism has never been tried.

[creech]

At least the path to real libertarianism doesn't require liquidating dissenters like the path to real communism does.

[DesigNate]

Considering what he was able to accomplish, even with massive resistance and pushback, I’d say the answer is: No.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

Rome was not built in a day and will not be dismantled in a day either. Javier Milei has improved Argentina's economy enough that a bailout can be considered.

Nick Gillespie is once again, trying too hard to get his personal digs against Trump and is be-clowning himself.

There is something hollow with the "No Kings" protests. Essentially, it is just a complaint that their preferred candidate didn't win the election. We saw it during Trump's first term and like clockwork we see it again during Trump's second term.

My preferred candidate didn't win either, but I don't take to the streets to protest the entirety of a candidate regardless of any substantial actions. "No Kings" is not against any "King", just not the current "King". It's a huge pile of hypocrisy.

The vast majority of the federal government has been decidedly more left than right for the entirety of my life and even my parent's life. The right appears to be gaining a small amount of gains and the establishment, deep state (defined as un-elected bureaucrats), corporate media, and leftists start to freak out.

The reality is that we have a two party monopoly, or more accurately described as a uni-party with two factions. Both factions will and always do, over reach, but the trend is to move leftward not rightward. The fact is that the republican party is still a liberal party, just less liberal than the democrat party.

The vacillations between each faction do help to weed out some of the loony, unsustainable ideas, but many remain and government is reticent to eliminate any program.

Nick Gillespie is COMPLETELY WRONG about the shutdown. The democrats are more guilty for the shutdown than the republicans. The gall of Nick Gillespie to attempt to even argue otherwise with such lame nonsense that cements the reality that he is simply more of a leftist than a libertarian.

True that both are to blame, but typically the republicans receive more blame than they deserve and the democrats receive a pass.

Meme bombs are designed to direct the focus of the idiots like Nick Gillespie who hates Trump and everything that Trump says or does regardless of the action or words. Nick Gillespie is a 180 degree puppet who's opinion is completely ruled by an emotional reaction to Trump.

Even though I dislike Trump, I despise people like Nick Gillespie even more. I expect a more thoughtful and nuanced reaction to Trump than the unbridled hatred the Nick Gillespie spews. Reason should be embarrassed of Nick Gillespie.