The libertarians of libertarianism
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 01/12/2023
Share:
The world continues to seek “good government,” which it has been doing since ancient times. And it has not been easy, to the point that it would not be repulsive to consider that it is in humanity's interest to govern itself.
More than one looks, in fact, at “a minimum government”, that is, “minarchism”, the desideratum of liberal fundamentalism. The sources draw attention to opinions according to which it is legitimate for the State to monopolize defense, protection and justice. But not that it is involved in the achievement of “social well-being.” Supporters of “minarchism” are described as “libertarians.” Those who advocate a free society, of cooperation, tolerance and mutual respect.
The most recent decades have led Donald Trump, in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro, in Brazil, and much more recently, Javier Milei, to be classified as supporters of “libertarianism”, after being elected President of Argentina. This is because, as we read, they promote “the libertarian model”, that is, “the contemporary political current that has its roots in the tradition of political individualism of the 17th century.” For some in the United States, the Brazilian and the Argentine, obvious coincidences are observed. Those who raise the trend are described as “radical liberals or extremists.” It is also written that they defend individualism, economic freedom and the defense of the market, strictly speaking, “natural rights.” The people, subject to the pendulum between minimal governments, with little concern, if not none, for "equal opportunities and the materialization of human rights" versus the so-called "laissez faire", whose mechanisms involve the "free market and manufacturing, low or no taxes, labor freedom and minimal government intervention.” The State is feared, because it is considered invasive, unnecessary and prolix, since societies naturally and spontaneously develop much better. “State leadership is considered, in essence, distorting.
For the sake of objectivity, a “state macrocephalism” that has generated a harmful “bureaucratization” cannot be denied, coming from the charismatic abilities of a person, individually considered, or in conjunction with established statutory guidelines, in some hypotheses by “the magnanimous.” or by the human conglomerate that he summons. It reads that “bureaucracy” is an administrative system of continuous and regular operation whose activities are systematically organized in pursuit of efficiency and productivity. It is a “management machine” that allows us to reduce the contingencies of the world in order to increase human control over it and, thus, productivity. But reality has shown that the task of governing people is overwhelmingly complex, which consequently generates serious distortions, both in terms of its design and its operation. It is written, in fact, that it generates “nepotism and corruption.”
In the recent presidential elections in Argentina, Javier Milei, voted as First Magistrate, seems to have defined “bureaucratization,” including political parties and specifically those who lead them, as well as its harmful effects as “the caste.” , a word already used in political confrontations in Spain and described as “the worst insult.” People use it, as we read, “a meaning that is more psychological and sentimental than grammatical.” A word that was barely used and has been revived as a pejorative, insulting word towards those who are the object of its diction. It is also written that "the caste" is pronounced by clicking the tongue, "almost spitting out the expression", in the classification of a political class that has earned contempt and even vilification (the corrupt), the loss of respect (those tolerant of bad practices), inconsideration (the inept), indignation (the arrogant), and in all cases the loss of public esteem. Because, in general, politicians have disappointed, and excuse the exceptions, there are some, but they are so covered by the majority that they cannot be seen. Although it is singled out to insult politicians, there is no caste, which could be understood as a "marker of people's identity", but rather castes, in the plural. But in Spanish politics, no one wants to belong to “the caste.”
The scenario today is so worrying that it seems not to fall into extremes if it is stated that "the substitution of one caste for another" in the exercise of public powers itself seems to have become widespread, including even the "constituent processes." But the most serious thing is that they are located both in the government and in the opposition and whose nutrient continues to appear as a distinction of classes, habits and good customs for many something more worrying, that is, "citizenship", that is , “the condition of the people who allow them to intervene in politics, understood as “the science and art of governing”, today severely distorted, with very few exceptions. It is read that “every individual contains a citizen, which means that individuals are not automatically citizens, but we can construct ourselves as such.” For whom these notes write “There is no authentic democracy without citizenship.” And a considerable part of the world suffers from this evil. The truly regrettable thing is that in developed countries and with democracies that have been consolidated throughout history, the usual setbacks lead to undemocratic deviations protected by symbolic proposals, tricks and patronage.
In Latin American countries, the diversity regarding methodologies for governing is still serious. The vicissitudes in both dictatorships and democracies have generated deviations in governments and in the people themselves. In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez expressed the desire to fry in a cauldron with hot oil the leaders, militants and sympathizers of the political parties, which had been the support of a forty-year regime. He failed to do it, but he left them “scorched.” Perhaps, if he had known Javier Milei was familiar with the word “caste” he would have used it. However, to his satisfaction and that of a few, as expressed by Gustavo Velásquez in his recent book “The bankruptcy of the political model” (Rise and decline of the parties, 1958-1998), which had been established in Venezuela based on consensus and political, economic and social development declined at the end of the years. The ground was fertile for “the so-called Bolivarian revolution”, whose branches still not only endure. Well, from “the government of the commander's heirs”, as we hear, there does not seem to be any intention to give up power. The weapon that is most mentioned today is “a regime of disqualifications.” According to the Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Legal Spanish, “the deprivation of a right of a political, civil or professional nature or the suspension of its exercise. The majority of Venezuelans hear "the disqualification of María Corina Machado", adding "the legitimate option to be elected in the 2024 presidential elections." The most hopeful instance for a clear electoral definition has transcended the national level, unfortunately becoming a kind of exchange operation by the United States for the release of restrictive measures for significant amounts of money impounded by “the giant of the north” in exchange for free elections without disqualifications to be held in 2024, a topic that Francisco Rodríguez analyzes in depth in his interesting research Can Venezuela Chart a Path Out of Crisis?, published in the magazine Foreign Affairs. And on this same date.
Finally, it would be useful to ask whether the problem related to “libertarians and libertarianism” is also typical of South American countries, which would require much more analysis than to elucidate whether the remedy to the problematic situation they face would involve replacement of “the castes”, which, suddenly, are found in both the government and the opposition. But, additionally, an adequate choice of an ideal way of comprehensive development.
Comments welcome
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».