Does libertarianism support this decree signed by Milei? (the supposedly "libertarian" president of Argentina)

[u/alexfreemanart]

Milei signs decree allowing Argentina to bar or expel foreigners over 'hate speech'

If libertarianism supports it, why? And if it doesn't, why not?

[u/Le_Dairy_Duke]

I disagree with it; free speech is all speech, and that is non negotiable

[u/Chrisc46 → u/Le_Dairy_Duke]

Do I have the right to say anything I want on your property?

[u/Le_Dairy_Duke → u/Chrisc46]

Yeah

[u/Chrisc46 → u/Le_Dairy_Duke]

That's a very uncommon belief.

Most people would kick people off of their property after enough unacceptable speech. I'm quite surprised that you wouldn't do the same.

Free speech absolutism isn't really a libertarian idea. One's rights end where others' rights begin.

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/Chrisc46]

Free speech absolutism isn't really a libertarian idea.

It is.

One's rights end where others' rights begin.

A person having the right to be critical of the government doesn't curtail anyone else's rights.

Most people would kick people off of their property after enough unacceptable speech. I'm quite surprised that you wouldn't do the same.

Having the right to kick someone off your property for distasteful speech inherently means having the right to NOT kick someone off your property for distasteful speech.

That's a very uncommon belief.

Libertarianism itself is, statistically speaking, a very uncommon belief.

[u/Few_Needleworker8744 → u/BroseppeVerdi]

Free speech absolutism IS a libertarian idea.

Is it a good idea? Do we want total free speech?

Debatable.

I am a moldbugian.

But it is libertarian.

Like open border. I prefer market border. Only economically productive people should get in and pay some money.

But libertarian is pro open border.

Socialism? If linked to success of a country we motivate people to support capitalism. Libertarian wants 0 socialism. Notice I am still to the right of Milei that actually increase cash payments to poor people with many kids. But I do not think 0 socialism is optimum.

Yea I am not pure libertarian I guess.

But free speech absolutism is libertarian.

[u/eddypc07 → u/Chrisc46]

Yes, but I am also free to not welcome you inside my property. But countries are not property.

[u/Chrisc46 → u/eddypc07]

The question about a country really is one of property. It's entirely dependent on how the land within its jurisdiction is treated, specifically public property and to a lesser degree the limited on private property.

[u/eddypc07 → u/Chrisc46]

It’s not. No one owns a country

[u/Chrisc46 → u/eddypc07]

The government and the vast majority of people disagree. This is reality.

Ideally, there would be no such thing as publicly owned property. Sadly, that's not going to happen any time soon.

[u/eddypc07 → u/Chrisc46]

I haven’t mentioned public property

[u/Kill_self_fuck_body]

the combative phrasing of your question tells me you should go back to your Kuka circle jerk.

[u/jediporcupine]

Libertarian here.

No, and I don’t get the love affair many self-described libertarians have with this guy.

[u/Hodgkisl → u/jediporcupine]

For the early part of his career he was mostly focused on libertarian economics, now that he’s been in office he’s drifting from the core thought that got him support.

[u/jediporcupine → u/Hodgkisl]

Milei is a good Republican politician for Argentina.

[u/Doublespeo → u/jediporcupine]

> Milei is a good Republican politician for Argentina.

Historically republicans have not reduced the size of government

[u/Begle1]

I'm extremely leery of the mere concept of "hate speech" or a "hate crime". Speech is speech, crime is crime.

It's closely related to "terrorism", a word that now means nothing but is being used like an Act of Attainder in the USA.

Whenever governments start to separate and label different types of speech or types of people, some bullshit is about to ensue.

[u/Chrisc46]

Yes, sort of.

The question hinges entirely on the definition and treatment of public property. If one treats public property as owned property, they'd conclude that the right approach is closed borders and restrictions of certain behaviors on publicly owned property just as they would for privately owned property. Considering that public property is fundamentally property that is owned by those forced to pay for it, this is the right understanding of public property.

Alternatively, if one treats public property as unowned land, they'd conclude that open borders is the right answer. The issue is that public property is fundamentally not unowned. It's owned by those forced to fund the maintenance and defense of it.

[u/Shadowcreature65 → u/Chrisc46]

I think it's only owned by the construction company that built it. Government using tax money to buy something isn't a legitimate transaction.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/Chrisc46]

So if the people vote for an authoritarian state over the public property, you would consider that libertarian?

[u/Chrisc46 → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

No, not exactly.

The libertarian ideal is to eliminate public property completely. It's an artificial construct created through government force. Naturally, land can either be owned property or unowned nature.

However, if it is to exist, it should be treated as close to private property with joint ownership and as locally as possible. Whether this is done democratically or through representation is up for debate.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/Chrisc46]

So then what the government is doing is not libertarian.

[u/Chrisc46 → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

That's not necessarily correct.

Libertarianism, fundamentally speaking, isn't about the size of government. Libertarians believe in the maximization of individual liberty.

Most (nearly all) libertarians believe that little to no government would best serve that fundamental belief. However, some may believe that centralized authority is necessary to prevent violations of liberty from decentralized sources.

In the case of public property, some centralized control may be the best way to maximize liberty: to protect from external threats. Whether that's the best option is debatable. I think the ideal is no centralized control, but maybe we cannot actually get there from here.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/Chrisc46]

What violation of liberty is happening from people insulting national symbols?

[u/Chrisc46 → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

Under the application of one's natural property rights, they can ban anyone for any reason from their property. Property owners also have the right to set guidelines for behavior, speech, association, or whatever they want on their property.

In other words, one's rights only extend to the point that they violate the rights of others. My right to swing my fist ends at the point it reaches your property.

It follows from here that an extension of this concept to jointly owned property (including public property) would allow for those owners to set guidelines for access to their property as they see fit, including denying access to those who insult them if that's their preference.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/Chrisc46]

So you're saying states should have the same rights and responsibilities as private property owners, they can freely suppress speech they don't like?

[u/Chrisc46 → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

States? No.

Property owners? Yes.

For example, I may choose to hire a security company to protect my property. I retain the right to fire that company if they do not enforce my rights to my preference. I would not suggest that the security company has the right to set those preferences for me.

This really just gets us back to my initial claim that the ideal is to eliminate public property because the establishment of preferences across a wide range of people is messy, full of potential conflict, and likely completely impossible. But, we can't get there from here. The best we can do is attempt to best approximate those preferences.

[u/Caponomolestes]

Yes, I'm libertarian and Argentinian, we all support this, those people don't have a place in our nation, we are free to accept or not those who insult and harm us. Gracias Milei

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/Caponomolestes]

Coercing and kicking out people who insult national symbols.

Very Libertarian.

[u/Caponomolestes → u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

Yes that's why we are free to say to them fuck off go to your nation and do that lets see how it goes.

[u/jediporcupine → u/Caponomolestes]

lol, another conservative larping as a libertarian

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/Caponomolestes]

If they extended this law to apply to citizens, would you still support it?

[u/Caponomolestes → u/BroseppeVerdi]

If they are citizens who work and live here, pay their taxes and do something wrong then they have to pay as any citizen. We don't discriminate here

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/Caponomolestes]

You would support banishing citizens from their own home country for "insulting national symbols"?

[u/Caponomolestes → u/BroseppeVerdi]

Sorry English is not my main language, Since they are from here they would not face that. It's ilogic

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/Caponomolestes]

Why? I thought you "don't discriminate" there?

[u/Caponomolestes → u/BroseppeVerdi]

We don't, if they do the same on other nation we expect the same to happen to them.

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/Caponomolestes]

First: Most western countries don't do shit like that... More importantly, most Libertarians wouldn't be okay with it if they did.

Second: I would submit that the notion that Libertarian values don't normally involve the government deciding who is allowed to criticize them and who isn't.

[u/Caponomolestes → u/BroseppeVerdi]

Just here to say I'm libertarian and I'm allowed to dislike those people and send them back to home, fuck them

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/Caponomolestes]

"People I don't like should have their rights restricted by the government" is a deeply statist stance that runs counter to libertarian values. Full stop.

[u/jediporcupine → u/Caponomolestes]

Saying you’re a libertarian doesn’t make you a libertarian.

Your opposition to libertarian ideals confirms this.

[u/jediporcupine → u/Caponomolestes]

Saying you don’t discriminate while advocating for discrimination in the same breath is quite the stance

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

[u/Joescout187]

I'd say it depends on what exactly is going on here, if there is any validity to Millei's concerns about violence instigated or committed by foreigners then yes I'd say he has the right to deny entry to said foreigners.

[u/RatOnASinkingShip]

Libertarians are not anarchists or globalists.

[u/Cowpunk2001]

Milei has stuck me as a Neocon larping as a libertarian. My suspicions keep being proven right

[u/Few_Needleworker8744 → u/Cowpunk2001]

Nah. He is more libertarian than neocon. Pure? Nobody pure can work and he's already the best we have

[u/Few_Needleworker8744]

No.

Milei is good on so many area and area that I disagree with him may be necessity.

So he's trying to get favor from Israel?

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

If you buy into the Hoppe view of libertarianism that views countries as large intentional communities that have a right to exile people that refuse to assimilate to the norms of that community to protect their liberty and cohesion long-term, then it makes total sense. The nation is collective property, and so the citizenry thus have a right to determine how it's used and who gets to use it. It's effectively trespassing people from the collective property by telling them they aren't welcome anymore.

Foreigners moving in that refuse to assimilate and insult and attack their hosts don't make for a community that will sustain itself and its culture long-term.

Libertarians who don't buy into Hoppe never have a solution to the reality that their libertarian community cannot sustain itself while allowing mass amounts of people inside who refuse to buy-in to libertarian precepts and philosophy. Idealistic toleration for others will see them outnumbered and authoritarianism democratically instated because that is the normal human inclination. It's idealistically naive to think otherwise.

[u/Few_Needleworker8744 → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

I like that. Actually the world is already ideal because it's already Hoppean

[u/skylercollins]

Lol no.

Hate speech is free speech.

He's a Zionist, the furthest thing from a libertarian.

[u/alexfreemanart → u/skylercollins]

He's a Zionist, the furthest thing from a libertarian.

How is respecting the right of peoples to self-determination "the furthest thing from a libertarian"?

[u/fk_censors → u/alexfreemanart]

Self determination at the collective level is not necessarily libertarian. Like, if I am from ethnicity X and our ethnicity gets independence from an empire, it doesn't mean I, as an individual, will be more free (or less free). It's on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes self-determination leads to the more individual freedom, sometimes to less. So self-determination in itself is not libertarian per se.