Every day we hear numb-nuts accusing this Luxon-led government of privatising, de-regulating and defenestrating the state (I wish!). Yet over in Argentina we learn from this guest post that every single day Milei has actually done there what our numb nuts here fear most, and with transforming effect: increasing economic freedom, reducing opportunities for corruption, creating greater transparency in government, helping to formalise the informal sector, stimulating growth, and setting an example for countries around the world to follow —including this small, over-regulated South Pacific one ...

Milei Has Deregulated Something Every Day

by Ian Vásquez and Guillermina Sutter Schneider

Argentina’s President Javier Milei promised to take his chainsaw to regulations when he assumed power a year ago this week. His newly created Ministry of Deregulation began functioning in July and, virtually every day, Minister Federico Sturzenegger announces one or numerous regulatory reforms.

Getting public spending under control and cutting red tape have been Milei’s two policy priorities this year. His success in shrinking government largesse, balancing the budget, and reducing inflation are well known. Less appreciated is how much he’s been deregulating, so we decided to try to measure that effort.

We should note that prioritising deregulation makes sense. A legacy of the corporatist state that Peronism entrenched, Argentina is one of the most regulated countries in the world. On the Fraser Institute’s economic freedom index, Argentina ranks 146 out of 165 countries in terms of regulatory burden.

Measuring regulatory reform is challenging. Argentine government data is sometimes incomplete or vague. How to quantify reform can also be open to judgment. (Does the elimination of various articles of a regulation affecting different forms of economic activity count as one reform or several? What about the elimination of an entire law or its modification?)

The best source on deregulation in Argentina is the deregulation 'czar' himself, Federico Sturzenegger. We used his posts on X and those of his ministry, where deregulations are regularly announced, and cross-checked them on other government websites. We were conservative in our quantification. If one or dozens of articles were eliminated or modified within one law, we simply counted that as one deregulation. (Each law that was deregulated, no matter to what extent, counted as one deregulation.)

What did we find? From December 10, 2023, when Milei assumed the presidency, to December 7, 2024, there were 672 regulatory reforms. On average, that means that during his presidency, Milei has been issuing 1.84 deregulations per day, counting weekends. Out of the total amount of reforms, 331 eliminated regulations and 341 modified existing regulations.

The heat chart above shows how many regulatory reforms Milei’s government has issued per week over the past year. Milei, in fact, began his administration with a deregulatory bang, introducing an emergency “megadecree” last December that consisted of 366 articles and has continued this drive with the creation of the new ministry. Argentine law allows emergency decrees, which are reviewable by Congress, under certain conditions. Most of the deregulations in the “megadecree” are in force.

In June of this year, the congress passed a massive bill that Milei presented (“Ley Bases”) that gave the president the ability to issue further deregulations for a period of one year. That is the authority under which most of Argentina’s deregulations are currently taking place. (The majority of Milei’s deregulations have since come out in the second half of the year.)

The laws and regulations that Milei has abolished or modified date back well into the 20th century and, in some cases, even further. We found that 12 percent of the laws that Milei deregulated took effect during military dictatorships, and 88 percent originated during democracy, including under populist governments of the left. (The chart below is based on deregulations for which we could obtain sufficient information. Some of the laws that were deregulated took effect in the administrations that followed the ones that introduced them.)

Argentina’s deregulation drive covers a wide range of sectors: housing, pharmaceuticals, technology, non-tariff trade barriers, transportation, tourism, energy, agriculture, etc. Some reform has been procedural, affecting a range of areas. For example, Milei has instituted a “positive administrative silence” rule affecting numerous activities by which a requested permission is considered approved if the government bureaucracy does not respond to the request within a determined period of time.

It’s too early to measure the full impact of the deregulations, but there’s no doubt that they are significant given the bureaucratic weight they are lifting. Some indication of that can be seen in the following examples:

• The elimination of an import licensing scheme has led to a 35% drop in the price of home appliances and a 20% drop in the price of clothing items. 
• The lifting of Argentina’s burdensome rent control system has resulted in a tripling of the supply of rental apartments in Buenos Aires and a nearly 50% drop in price.
• The elimination of a floor price of yerba mate, which is widely consumed in Argentina as a tea, led to a 25% drop in its price.

Many other deregulations, whose impact has not yet been measured, could be cited. Argentina has begun implementing an open-skies policy that has increased the number of airlines operating there. The government has also lifted regulations that favoured the state-owned airline Aerolineas Argentinas, such as the requirement that public employees book their flights on the more expensive state airline, or that other airlines cannot park their airplanes overnight at one of the main airports in Buenos Aires. Milei has gotten rid of legally-sanctioned hereditary positions at numerous government agencies (yes, you read that right). The government has permitted Starlink and Amazon to provide satellite internet service in the country, providing connectivity to vast swaths of Argentina that until now had no such connection. Etc., etc.

When one of us and a colleague visited Sturzenegger and his team at the ministry last month (below), we were struck by their sense of urgency, professionalism, and commitment to the task. They made clear that their priority was to increase freedom. When reviewing regulations, their first question is not about how to increase efficiency but rather about whether the government should be involved in a particular regulation at all.

 

The deregulation team, made up of accomplished economists and legal experts, is up against the clock. During our visit, a countdown sign outside the minister’s office read “237 days left,” indicating the time remaining, according to current law, for the government to continue issuing deregulatory decrees. Argentina is a target-rich environment for the ministry’s work, and it is taking recommendations from the public at large (when the ministry recently set up a web portal to that effect called “Report the bureaucracy,” it received more than 1,300 entries within the first eight hours). The biggest challenges are doing as much as they can with the time remaining and prioritizing regulatory reform, which is sometimes informed by large differences in Argentine versus international prices.

Milei and Sturzenegger have their work cut out for them. But what they are accomplishing is more than most thought could be done in such a short period of time. Their deregulations are increasing economic freedom, reducing opportunities for corruption, creating greater transparency in government, helping to formalize the informal sector, stimulating growth, and setting an example for countries around the world to follow.

* * * * 

*Guillermina Sutter Schneider is a data scientist and information designer and a coauthor of the Human Freedom Index. This article draws partially from “Desregulacion: Argentina vs. Estados Unidos,” by Ian Vasquez (November 20, 2024) and “Argentina’s Escape from Kafka’s Castle,” by Guillermina Sutter Schneider (December 5, 2024).

The post previously appeared at the Cato at Liberty blog.

When the future was something to look forward to

"Progress used to be glamorous. For the first two thirds of the twentieth-century, the terms modern, future, and world of tomorrow shimmered with promise.... In the twentieth-century, ‘the future’ was a glamorous concept.
    "Joan Kron, a journalist and filmmaker born in 1928, recalls sitting on the floor as a little girl, cutting out pictures of ever more streamlined cars from newspaper ads. ‘I was fascinated with car design, these modern cars’, she says. ‘Industrial design was very much on our minds. It wasn’t just to look at. It was bringing us the future.’

"When Disneyland opened in 1955, Tomorrowland embodied the promise of progress. A plaque at the entrance announced ‘a vista into a world of wondrous ideas, signifying man’s achievements . . . a step into the future, with predictions of constructive things to come.’
    "Back then, the Year 2000 and the Twenty-first-century were glamorous destinations. Newspaper features and TV documentaries described a future filled with barely imaginable wonders. ...

"As a child, I felt lucky to be born in 1960. I’d be only 40 in the year 2000 and might live half my life in the magical new century. By the time I was a teenager, however, the spell had broken. The once-enticing future morphed into a place of pollution, overcrowding, and ugliness. Limits replaced expansiveness. Glamour became horror. Progress seemed like a lie.
    "Much has been written about how and why culture and policy repudiated the visions of material progress that animated the first half of the twentieth-century ... Like Peter Thiel’s famous complaint that ‘we wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters’, the phrase captures a sense of betrayal. Today’s techno-optimism is infused with nostalgia for the retro future.
    "But the most common explanations for the anti-Promethean backlash fall short. It’s true but incomplete to blame the environmental consciousness that spread in the late sixties. Rising living standards undoubtedly led people to value a pristine environment more highly. But environmental concerns didn’t have to take an anti-Promethean turn. They might have led instead to the expansion of nuclear power or the building of solar energy satellites. Cleaning up smoggy skies and polluted rivers could have been a techno-optimist enterprise. It certainly didn’t require curtailing space exploration. Eco-pessimism itself needs a fuller explanation...."

~ Virginia Postrel from her article 'The world of tomorrow'

 

'Does National Security Justify Trade Restrictions?'

"In a recent article, 'Why Trade Should Be Free,' I made the case for free trade. ... [T]he case for free trade is one that many economists, including Adam Smith, have made. Free trade causes people in the free trade country to produce the goods and services for which they are the least-cost producer and to import goods and services for which people in other countries are the least-cost producers. The case for free trade is no more complicated than the case for hiring someone to mow your lawn.

    "The conclusion that free trade is good for a country’s government to adopt does not depend on other countries adopting free trade. Even if other countries’ governments impose tariffs, we are better off, on average (there could be some losers), if our government refrains from restricting trade.
    "Are there any exceptions to the case for free trade? There’s one main one. Adam Smith himself laid out this exception in 'The Wealth of Nations': restricting trade when the traded item is crucial for national security. But the case for restricting trade even in such cases is not airtight and, indeed, other ways to assure a supply of such items may be better than restrictions on trade. One such way is by stockpiling the crucial items and that may well involve more trade, not less. 

    "Whatever the measures taken to assure availability of crucial inputs to defence, we, unfortunately, depend on government officials with information and competence, two characteristics that are typically in short supply in government."

~ David R. Henderson from his article 'Does National Security Justify Trade Restrictions?'

The Hikoi Hustlers

Tamihere goes bush after a successful recruitment drive

"The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti ('March for the Treaty') was ostensibly a protest against David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill. But things are not always as they seem. ...
    "Rather than an informed protest against the Treaty Principles Bill, the Hīkoi was in fact a Māori Party recruitment drive and promotion, orchestrated by John Tamihere. ...
    "The Māori Party recruitment drive appears to have worked, with thousands shifting from the general roll to the Māori electoral roll. The increase in the Māori electoral roll could translate into another Māori electorate. In the 2023 general election, the Māori Party won six of the seven Māori electorates.
    "On-the-ground Hīkoi leader was Eru Kapa-Kingi ... a paid Māori Party staffer and son of Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, current Māori Party Member of Parliament. ... Māori Party co-leader Rawhiri Waititi was naturally at the heart of the Hīkoi. ...
    "Funding much of this Māori Party political activism is the Waipareira Trust, with John Tamihere as Chief Executive and his wife Awerangi as Chief Operating Officer. ... The Trust currently receives about $20 million in Government funding per annum ... The Trust owns about $120 million in assets. ...
    "On top of being a Māori Party promotion and recruitment drive, Kingpin John Tamihere employed the Hīkoi, and its downstream media coverage, to deflect and distract from ongoing investigations into his [electoral, charities and privacy] skulduggery.
    "Mainstream media coverage of the Treaty of Waitangi is a shroud of lies. ... [And] our institutions and state agencies have a long way to go to re-earn our trust they can uphold the rule of law and principles of openness and honesty ..."

~ John McLean from his post 'John Tamihere's Māori Party Machinations'

Haters overlap

 

[Hat tip Stephen Hicks]

'Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning'

"The suggestion that colonial systems are based on white supremacy is a generalisation that infects much of the debate about colonialism and colonisation. It suggests that 'white supremacy' ... was what motivated colonialism and colonisation. It did not, although there were times when, during the colonial experience, it manifested itself. ...
    "In 2017, [Nigel] Biggar initiated a five-year project at Oxford University ... to scrutinise critiques against the historical facts of empire. Historians and academics widely criticised the project ... 
    "Biggar’s book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, examines the morality of colonialism. ... conced[ing] in the Introduction to the book that the subject matter and his approach were both contentious. ...

"Many commentators of colonialism approach the topic from a critical theory perspective, seeking out any evidence to then suggest that all colonial activity was inherently evil. Biggar does not. His is a more nuanced approach and is that of an ethicist.  ...
    'Biggar’s argument is that the development of Empire and what is called colonialism was an institution that developed over centuries and no one could say that it was wholly good or wholly bad. Biggar cites examples from other imperial activities. The empire of Islam demonstrated examples of racism regarding those from Northern climes (it was too cold to be intelligent) or the tropics (it was too hot to be intelligent). ...

"He commences with the proposition that empire is not an historical aberration or a departure from historical norms. It is part of the natural order of a world that, until recently, lacked stable frontiers formalised by an overarching scheme of international law. The armed migration of peoples in search of resources might serve to unlock the riches of the world and spread knowledge and technical competence, processes which potentially benefit all mankind.
    "Certainly colonialism severely disrupted existing patterns of indigenous life. It was often achieved or maintained through violence and injustice. In the final analysis, all states maintain themselves by force or the threat of it.
    "Governments, imperial or domestic, have always involved light and shade, achievement and failure, good and evil. Biggar’s point is that it falsifies history to collect together everything bad about an institution and serve it up as if it were the whole.

"There are three major points that Biggar makes by way of mitigation when it comes to the legacy of Empire.
    "To begin with many of the worst things that happened were not the result of an ideology or a preconceived and calculated policy. There were abuses. They were recognised and were addressed although not always with the greatest success.
    "Secondly, along with the disruption that was caused to communities there were also benefits. Practices such as slavery, cannibalism, sati and human sacrifice, which were by any standards barbarous, were eliminated. The ground was laid for an economic and social transformation that lifted much of the world out of extremes of poverty.
    "Thirdly and finally not only did colonialism bring disruption but it brought order. The British brought the Rule of Law, constitutional government, honest administration, economic development and modern educational and research facilities, all long before they would have been achieved without European intervention. ...

"There can be no doubt that the British Empire contained evils and injustices but so does the history of any long-standing state. But the Empire was not essentially racist, exploitative or wantonly violent as a general proposition. It could correct errors and sins and importantly it prepared colonised peoples for liberal self-government.
    "What colonialism did bring to the table in the final analysis were liberal, humanitarian principles and endeavours that should be admired and carried into the future. Imaginary guilt should not cripple the self confidence of the British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as pillars of the liberal international order."

~ A Halfling from his post 'Colonialism - A Moral Reckoning'

""This is America’s drug war and America’s war on immigrants, not Mexico’s."

"[S]upporters of Donald Trump do not like people referring to his upcoming presidency as dictatorial, notwithstanding his own promise to be a dictator on Day 1 of his administration (and possibly beyond). ...
    "[R]ecently, in the finest Godfather tradition, [he] made Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum an offer she can’t refuse. He told her that if she fails to enforce his war on drugs and his war on immigrants, he will impose a 25 percent tariff on Mexican products exported to the United States. ...
    "For decades, the U.S. government has had a drug war and a system of immigration controls, ... [that] have produced nothing but death, suffering, corruption, and the destruction of liberty and privacy. ...
    "This is America’s drug war and America’s war on immigrants, not Mexico’s. Why should Mexico be required to enforce America’s dysfunctional and unworkable systems, especially since such enforcement constitutes a destruction of the liberty and privacy of the Mexican people? ...
    "What if Scheinbaum succumbs to Trump’s threat and lines the Mexican border with Mexican troops. ... Does Trump expect the Mexican military to shoot them, just as East German troops were called on to shoot East Germans who were trying to enter West Germany? ...
    "[U]nder [the American] system of government, [a unilateral imposition of tariffs] were supposed to be made by the elected representatives of the people in Congress. But I suppose that Trump’s thinking is that in a Day 1 dictatorship, who needs a stinking Congress? It’s much easier to simply issue dictatorial decrees. ...
    "[And] guess what happens if Trump makes Mexico even more poverty-ridden with his imposition of tariffs. Yep, more immigrants fleeing Mexico to come to the United States, just as millions of Venezuelans fled that country after the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Venezuelan people. ... especially given that Mexico already has significant poverty, which is why so many Mexican citizens risk their lives and liberty to come to the United States. ...
    "I wonder if Trump has thought about that."

~ Jacob Hornberger from his post 'Don Vito Trump'

"...the possibility of a constitutional crisis because of the activism of some judges of New Zealand’s senior courts."

"Bryce Edwards ... has signalled the possibility of a constitutional crisis because of the activism of some judges of New Zealand’s senior courts. ...
    "In New Zealand now, we have ... a breed of judges who are not legal activists but political activists — judges who unashamedly seek to advance political agendas. In doing so, they assume the mantle of Plato’s philosopher kings, the creed of the infallible ruling elite. ... contemptuous of the people of the country, the people they pretend they are serving. ...
    "Incredibly, a number of my King’s Counsel colleagues appear to think this is okay. As part of their calling on the Prime Minister and the National Party to breach a coalition agreement by refusing a first reading and referral to a select committee of ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, they say that 'even if Parliament can legislate in this way (which is uncertain),' the courts may not enforce it. ...
    "They need a short lesson because Parliament’s power is not uncertain. ...
    
"All lawyers, including KCs have a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law. ... When the KCs say it is uncertain that Parliament may legislate in this way, they mean that the courts may refuse to apply the law. Using that as an argument implies acceptance of or even advocacy for defiance of Parliament and the law of the land. How is that consistent with a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law?
    "What the KCs should be saying is that judges, like everyone else, must obey the law and they have by virtue of their office a special obligation to apply it."

~ Gary Judd from his post 'KCs are not a special elite'

But Hipkins never noticed

Accidental Prime Minister Chris Hipkins apparently never read history.

"There have been times when China has been more active in its history," said the child leader at the Labour rump's party conference. "But bear in mind," said the historically-challenged infant, "that China has never invaded any other country."

At this point I hand you over to Bob Edlin, who has a little list ...

Tibet attests to that being bollocks, although maybe it did not come into the curriculum at Waterloo Primary School, Hutt Intermediate and Hutt Valley Memorial College (later known as Petone College), where Hipkins was educated before he completed a Bachelor of Arts majoring in Politics and Criminology at Victoria University,
    In 1950, the newly established Chinese Communist Party launched an invasion of Tibet to incorporate it into the People’s Republic of China. ... 'By seizing Tibet, China gained access to a multitude of rich natural resources and easier access to the strategically significant Indian border.' ....
    'In February 1979, Chinese forces launched a surprise invasion of northern Vietnam ...' '... Diplomatic relations between the two countries were not fully restored until 1991.
    Then there’s tiny Bhutan .... [where] China Is Quietly Expanding Its Land Grabs in the Himalayas.... just its latest move to ... challenge its regional rival India in the Himalayas. ... Constant skirmishing on the border dates back to the Sino-Indian Border War in 1962.
    Then there’s Taiwan, [never ever a part of historical China and] the subject of constant threats from Beijing that it will one day take control of the country ... by force if necessary. ... China’s refusal to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has only added to those fears.

One could also mention Korea, in modern times (1950), which China invaded to maintain the hermit kingdom in its tyrannical solitude.  And in olden times (1636), when it invaded to maintain a vassal state.

And Mongolia, invaded in 1919 to crush dissent.

At this point we can see that China has torched, turned over and touched up nearly every single nation on its border. Yet according to Hipkins Junior, "China has never invaded any other country."

Waterloo Primary School, Hutt Intermediate and Hutt Valley Memorial College would all like a refund on their history teachers.

"What Made America Great was free trade. Let's remember that." [updated]

"Trump uses the expression 'the mighty dollar.' A mighty currency does not need threats to retain its might.
    "The same with the dollar. Trump's bluster gives the impression of weakness.
    "When a country allows its producers to sell to consumers in America, there is no 'sucker.' Not the foreign govt, not the US government, not the foreign seller, not the American buyer.
    "What Made America Great was free trade. Let's remember that.
    "American power--like Britain's power before it--was built in trade not on threats. The more a country operates by forcing other countries to sacrifice their interest for the alleged interest of the country, the more it squanders its power, weakens itself.
    "Production and trade are positive-sum games. The more everyone does it, the richer they all get. Threats, coercion, tariffs, trade wars (and actual shooting wars) are negative-sum games. The more countries engage in it, the more impoverished and weaker they become."

~ Keith Weiner on the BRICs

UPDATE: Trump's defence of 'the mighty dollar' was in response to BRICs "threat" to change the world's reserve currency. But as Brad Sentser points out, "the biggest threat to the dollar's current global role ... is likely to be Mr. Trump."

"What could threaten this role?

    "Well,... fiscal irresponsibility in the US -- which would turn US Treasuries from a high yielding safe asset into a moderate yielding risky asset.

    "But the other big risk was highlighted by Mr. Trump's threat to tariff the BRICs for a nothing burger/ vapor ware .

Threats go both ways. Trump threatens former trading partners for doing something they already do voluntarily, i.e., denominate trade in US dollars. Yet "a US that trades less intrinsically makes the 'global' dollar a bit less attractive ... and forcing countries to do something that they now do voluntarily risks prompting countries to reconsider the risk associated with their voluntarily choice."

To paraphrase FDR, the only thing 'mighty dollar' advocates like Trump need to fear is Trump himself.

"...climate realism is slowly starting to take hold."

"After more than two decades of unyielding climate alarmism, climate realism is slowly starting to take hold.
    "How do I know this? Because ordinary, hard-working [folk] are no longer buying into climate alarmism hook, line, and sinker.
    "According to multiple polls, climate change is no longer a top concern for the vast majority of Americans. [And down as a concern by almost a quarter for NZers over the last five years from 2019 to 2024.]
    "They are finally starting to understand the truth about climate change, while simultaneously becoming aware that climate alarmists have ulterior motives at hand, many of which are in direct opposition to their fundamental best interests ....
    "Thanks to ... many allied organisations, [everyone everywhere is] more able than ever to receive accurate information dispelling common myths and lies pushed by climate alarmists. As anyone can read at ClimateRealism.com, the seas are not rising and weather events like hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, etc. are not becoming more frequent nor deadlier. In fact, in many cases, the exact opposite is occurring.

"Another huge factor that helped [is] the dubiousness of the climate alarmist narrative is that their solutions make no sense, do not address the so-called problems, and all too often end with less liberty and more government. [Many] are beginning to understand that 'climate justice,' for instance, is mostly about wealth redistribution and has little to do with a cleaner environment. ...
    "To be clear, [most people] want to protect the environment and desire clean air and water.
    "They just don’t want their lives upended and their bank accounts drained under the phoney guise of saving the planet."

~ Chris Talgo from his post 'Dear Climate Alarmists, Welcome to Your Worst Nightmare'

What if man were 'just' some kind of a machine?

“Recently I was with a group of mathematicians and philosophers. One philosopher asked me whether I believed man was a machine. I replied, ‘Do you really think it makes any difference?’ He most earnestly replied, ‘Of course! To me it is the most important question in philosophy.’ 

    "I had the following afterthoughts: I imagine that if my friend had finally come to the conclusion that he were a machine, he would be infinitely crestfallen. I think he would think: ‘My God! How horrible! I am only a machine!’ But if I should find out I were a machine, my attitude would be totally different. I would say: ‘How amazing! I never before realised that machines could be so marvellous!’”

    ~ Raymond Smullyan from his book This Book Needs No Title. Hat tip Stephen Hicks, who reckons this to be his favourite response on the issue of 'physicalism' and human dignity.

'Not Left, Not Right . . . Try Up: To the individualist alternative"

"This is addressed to all those repulsed by the political alternatives offered today, those who are seeking a rational social-political position....
    "The solution is not centre-Left, centre-Right or centre-centre. The truth is not a compromise between two errors. What is needed is a radical alternative to both Left and Right, a system that doesn’t attempt to work with the worldview of either tribe, but starts with a fresh, first-handed view of the individual vs. the state.
    "I have found four ethical-political ideas that together open the door to a radical ... alternative.
    "Only four? You may be dubious. But watch.

1. Your life is your own. You are not the slave of any other man, group, or entity—human or divine. “Society” does not own you ...

2. You have rights. ... Each individual has the right to his life, and as corollaries, the right to what living a human life requires: the right to liberty, to property, and to 'the pursuit of happiness.'

3. Only physical force can violate rights. ... Persuasion appeals to the mind. It points to facts and offers incentives. Force negates the mind. It coerces by threats of destruction. Your thoughts, your plans, your decisions become irrelevant, courtesy of the gun of the holdup man or of the Gestapo.
    "The basic social-political alternative is: freedom vs. force. That means: the mind-respecting vs. the mind-negating.

4. Government is force. ... The laws of a government are not suggestions. They are not requests. They are commands. ... A proper government will use its physical force only in retaliation ... But the peaceful man should face no threat of force from the government. ...

* * * * 

"What kind of society do these 4 points mandate? A voluntary society.
    "All human interactions must be voluntary, entered into by mutual consent. ...
    "Both Left and Right are collectivist; neither side takes seriously the reality of an individual life and the individual’s right to live it according tohis own judgment. ...
    "The Left wants the regulatory state or even a socialist takeover of the economy. The Right wants a populist, police-state, whose Supreme Leader can decide to round up 'internal enemies,' deport 'illegals,' legislate morality, and junk the Constitution.
    "The Left used to uphold the right of free speech. No longer. The Right used to uphold business freedom and international free trade. No longer.
    "Try 'up': to the individualist alternative."

~ Harry Binswanger from his post 'Not Left, Not Right . . . Try Up'

Some Economics and Common Law of Property Rights

"Economists are, I think, too prone to examine exchange as a cooperative act whereby the buyer and seller each act in an effort to reach a more desired position. ... 

    "Yet if we look at the fields of economics, say as presented by the American Economic Association's classification of areas of interest or specialisation, we find no mention of the word 'property.' ... [We might] infer that economists have forgotten about the possibility of subjective rigorous systematic coherent analysis of the various forms of property rights ... 

    "Private property rights are rights not merely because the state formally makes them so but because individuals want such rights to be enforced, at least for a vast, overwhelming majority of people ... 

    "Often the idea or scope or private property rights is expressed as an assignment of exclusive authority to some individual ... of the goods deemed to be his private property. .... [to] have an unrestricted right to the choice of use of specified goods. Notice, that we did not add - 'so long as the rights of other people are similarly respected.' That clause is redundant in strict logic. ....

    "What are the effects of various partitionings of use rights? By this I refer to the fact that at the same time several people may each possess some portion of the rights to use the land. « A » may possess the right to grow wheat on it. « B » may possess the right to walk across it. « C » may possess the right to dump ashes and smoke on it. « D » may possess the right to fly an air-plane over it. «E» may have the right to subject it to vibrations consequent to the use of some neighbouring equipment. And each of these rights may be transferable. In sum, private property rights to various partitioned uses of the land are « owned » by different persons ... 

    "[W]hat are commonly called nuisances and torts apply to just such situations in which rights are partitioned and the exercise of one owner's rights involves distress or nuisance for the owners of other right ... 

    "The ability of individuals to enter into mutually agreeable sharing of the rights they possess is evident from the tremendous variety of such arrangements, e.g., corporations, partnerships, non-profit corporations, licenses, bailments, non-voting common stock, trusts, agencies, employee-employer relationships, and marriages. ... The variety of joint sharing of property and ownership rights is a testimony to man's ingenuity."

~ Armen Alchian from his 1965 article 'Some Economics of Property Rights'

Giving thanks

 

We hardly need yet another American holiday here — some of us would still rather make colourful explosions on Nov 5 than dress up as a ghouls a week before — but the idea of Thanksgiving is a good one, i.e., not to take for granted things and people who shouldn't be.

In that respect, I liked this brief shout out* to those everywhere who keep all the wheels running ...

My special thanks this year go to business, both large and small. Business is the mainstay of the free Capitalist economy. What amazes me is how innovative and productive business continues to be given how much the Capitalist—i.e. free—portion of the economy has shrunk under the weight of the massive, and still growing, regulatory welfare state. Add to this that business, especially the most successful, is the most persecuted minority today. It is under attack, not for its vices, but for its virtues. By whom? By egalitarians, who label their money-earning success as "greed." With all of the Woke claptrap about “oppressed” groups, business is somehow not among them. Yet business gets blamed for every societal ill, even as it manages to keep us all alive and somehow moving forward under the meagre remnants of Capitalistic economic freedom—and still make a profit. So, here’s a shout out to business: THANK YOU for your profit-seeking service.

* I've removed the writer's thanks to specifically American businesses. The sentiment should go worldwide.

Entrepreneurs vs 'maximising man'

"[Mainstream] economic analysis of economic behaviour relies heavily on decisions made by [so called] rational units customarily assumed to be seeking ... profit maximisation and utility maximisation. ...
    "[And yet] the mark of success and viability is not maximum profits, but realised positive profits. It does not matter through what process of reasoning or motivation such success was achieved. The fact of its accomplishment is sufficient. This is the criterion by which the economic system selects survivors: those who realise positive profits are the survivors; those who suffer losses disappear.
    "The pertinent requirement—positive profits through relative efficiency—is weaker than 'maximised profits,' with which, unfortunately, it has been confused. Positive profits accrue to those who are better than their actual competitors, even if the participants are ignorant, intelligent, skilful, etc. The crucial element is one's aggregate position relative to actual competitors, not some hypothetically perfect competitors. As in a race, the award goes to the relatively fastest, even if all the competitors loaf. Even in a world of stupid men there would still be profits. 

    "Also, the greater the uncertainties of the world, the greater is the possibility that profits would go to venturesome and lucky rather than to logical, careful, fact-gathering individuals."

~ Armen Alchian, from his 1959 article 'Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory'

Abundance

 

Many years ago when Bob Jones's semi-libertarian New Zealand Party stood for election — the first party I deemed worthy of having my vote — he ran on the slogan "Freedom and Prosperity."

He later quipped, "It was easy getting folk excited about prosperity. But bloody difficult getting anyone interested in freedom."

Little has changed. 

So it was with that in mind I read Mike Grimshaw's call for An Abundance Agenda manifesto for Aotearoa. Nothing about freedom. Or liberty. Just about "abundance." As if you can have one without the other.

The U.S. manifesto on which bases his own piece says: 

The abundance agenda aims for growth, not because growth is an end but because it is the best means to achieve the ends that we care about: more comfortable lives, with more power to do what we want, with more time devoted to what we love.

Who could disagree, however misguided the notion one could find a common political cause for such an agenda with activists mired more in identity politics, enthno-nationalism and anti-colonialism than any devotion to genuine human progress, or any clue how it might be progressed.

Nonetheless, among the grab bag of bromides and buzzwords Mr Grimshaw brings to his manifesto are these few morsels of mixed but genuine hope:

An abundance agenda: understands that pessimism is the enemy of abundance.

An abundance agenda: argues that pessimism is not so much due to scarcity but rather due to policy choices made by local and central government; but also due to pessimistic decisions made business, by institutions and by citizens. ... 

An abundance agenda: argues for innovation and a rekindling of imagination

An abundance agenda: is based in intellectual curiosity, business dynamism, societal and economic growth – and the end of status quo thinking and action...

An abundance agenda: seeks to grow and expand the resource of capable, innovative minds present in Aotearoa. ...

An abundance agenda: recognises that social and economic wealth does not arise from resources, but from what is done to and with them, and this is due to human ingenuity.

An abundance agenda: seeks to make our cities and regions centres for human, social, cultural, economic, intellectual and technological ingenuity for Aotearoa. It recognises that brains are the ultimate resource and that the ultimate source of wealth is the mind.

An abundance agenda: puts access to quality state education front and centre and asks challenging questions and offers options where this is not delivered. It does this because abundance is based in the flourishing of human capital and potential. ...

An abundance agenda: recognises the fundamental importance of access to reliable and affordable energy, asking what steps can local government and businesses take to ensure energy abundance and the productive use of energy. ...

An abundance agenda: seeks local housing affordability that facilitates daily lives of balance and flexibility. ...

An abundance agenda: integrates and facilitates social and economic entrepreneurship in an environment of enabling dynamic possibilities. 

Despite the mixed premises and many platitudes therein, there are many worse things to promote than abundance.

"Finance Minister Willis: my first recommendation is to replace your advisers with ones who do not represent the interests of the biggest monopolies and duopolies in NZ."

"[Bill] English had an Academic Advisory Group when he was Finance Minister, which included me. Willis dumped it. Her adviser outside the Beehive is the NZ Initiative ... a lobbying group for our biggest corporate monopolies.
    "Its board includes Scott Perkins ... a Non-Executive Director of Woolworths. Another Board member is Chris Quinn, who is Chief Executive of Foodstuffs ... Barbara Chapman, another Board member, is former Chair of one of the Big Banks.
    "Can you believe it? This is the Board of the outfit who our Finance Minister takes advice from about how to break-up monopolies? Fletcher Building is a member of the Initiative. I was there around 8 years ago when Key was PM, and the CEO of that company ... lectured me how NZ's infrastructure was 'amazing' and not in need of any significant repair. Air NZ is a member. ANZ is a member. ...
    "So Finance Minister Willis, my first recommendation is to replace your advisers with ones who do not represent the interests of the biggest monopolies and duopolies in NZ."

~ Robert MacCulloch from his post 'Finance Minister Willis Challenges DownToEarth.Kiwi to give her "ideas" about how to Break Monopoly power in the NZ Economy. Here they are.'

More rights for Māori, says Māori Party co-leader

Q: "To be totally clear do Māori have more rights than non-Māori New Zealanders?"
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: "Māori have rights as tangata whenua because we're indigenous ..."
Q: "...and so so those are more rights, right?"
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: "I think those are, um, more also responsibilities and obligations ..."

Q: "So I just want to be really clear here: you're Māori, I'm not Māori, do you have more rights than me in New Zealand?"
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: "I have more obligations and I think I do also have more rights with those obligations, absolutely afforded under Tiriti. ...

Q: "So so do you think then if if Te Tiriti guarantees a carve-out for Māori-specific rights, do you think that if we are to form modern New Zealand on a constitutional basis around Te Tiriti O Waitangi, that we have different standards of citizenship?"

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: "We have different expectations and different rights, absolutely. ... Extra rights absolutely are afforded because we are indigenous, but everyone else gets to be consulted in kaupapa [per our principle/our philosophy]." 

~ Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer from her TVNZ interview 24 Nov 2024

 

"...it's fundamentally poverty, and the solution is to become rich — and that requires using fossil fuels.”

“It's a big mistake on the part of a lot of the media to just focus whenever there's a poor country that suffers from anything that's connected to climate to say, ‘Oh, it's climate change. The solution is get rid of fossil fuels.’ No, it's fundamentally poverty, and the solution is to become rich — and that requires using fossil fuels.”

~ Alex Epstein from his Q+A with students at the John Locke Institute

Property Rights for “Sesame Street”

"Ever seen two children quarrelling over a toy? Such squabbles had been commonplace in Katherine Hussman Klemp’s household. But in her 'Sesame Street Parent’s Guide' she tells how she created peace in her family of eight children by assigning property rights to toys.
    "As a young mother, Klemp often brought home games and toys from garage sales. 'I rarely matched a particular item with a particular child,' she says. 'Upon reflection, I could see how the fuzziness of ownership easily led to arguments. If everything belonged to everyone, then each child felt he had a right to use anything.'
    "To solve the problem, Klemp introduced two simple rules: First, never bring anything into the house without assigning clear ownership to one child. The owner has ultimate authority over the use of the property. Second, the owner is not required to share. Before the rules were in place, Klemp recalls, 'I suspected that much of the drama often centered less on who got the item in dispute and more on whom Mom would side with.' Now, property rights, not parents, settle the arguments.
    "[And] the introduction of property rights actually promoted sharing. The children were secure in their ownership and knew they could always get their toys back. Adds Klemp, ''Sharing’ raised their self-esteem to see themselves as generous persons.'
    "Not only do her children value their own property rights, but also they extend that respect to the property of others. 'Rarely do our children use each other’s things without asking first, and they respect a ‘No’ when they get one. Best of all, when someone who has every right to say ‘No’ to a request says ‘Yes,’ the borrower sees the gift for what it is and says ‘Thanks’ more often than not,' says Klemp."

~ Janet Beales Kaidantzis from her post 'Property Rights for “Sesame Street”'

"Seymour is only doing openly what Māori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly, for the past 50 years."

"David Seymour is right. His bill might be killed at its Second Reading, but the issues he has raised will not die. ...
    "David Seymour’s great sin has been to offer an alternative to this covert effort to change the constitution of New Zealand by changing the Treaty’s historical meaning. Those who argue that the Treaty Principles Bill is a blatant attempt to re-write the Treaty are quite right. What they omit to say, however, is that Seymour is only doing openly what Māori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly, in legal chambers, common-rooms, and public service offices for the past 50 years.
    "The critical difference, of course, is that Seymour was proposing to give the rest of us a vote on his version."

~ Chris Trotter from his post 'Beyond Question?'

 

Javier Milei has revolutionised regulatory reform in his Argentina, taking a virtual chainsaw to useless bureaucracies. In a recent interview with Lex Fridman, Javier Milei revealed his method, described here in this guest post by Daphne Posadas. Here's ere's how his "chainsaw model could still inspire real reform in Washingtom, and even back here in Wellington...

Javier Milei’s Chainsaw on Bureaucracy

by Daphne Posadas

“What is the difference between a madman and a genius? Success.” That opening line set the tone for Javier Milei’s two-hour interview with Lex Fridman. In it, Argentina’s libertarian president reflected on the first few months of his administration following his historic electoral victory on November 19, 2023.

Milei has been called many things, but his methods and philosophy thrive under scrutiny. In a free society, being questioned is both a challenge and an opportunity. What sets Milei apart is his ability to answer tough questions with logic, evidence, and, most importantly, results.

His anarcho-capitaliist rhetoric is—as he said—rooted in a libertarianism that has an “unrestricted respect for the life project of others based on the principle of non-aggression and in defense of the rights to life, liberty, and property,” a definition championed by Alberto Benegas Lynch, Jr., and that follows John Locke’s ideas.

A Model Exported

Milei’s reforms haven’t gone unnoticed in the U.S., especially after the announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to be led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

In the interview, Milei highlighted how Argentina’s Ministry of Deregulation and State Transformation, led by Federico Sturzenegger, is systematically dismantling protectionism and privilege by eliminating 1 to 5 economic restrictions daily.

This approach is catching attention worldwide, as Musk and Ramaswamy have hinted at adapting this “chainsaw” strategy. Ramaswamy recently posted on X: “A reasonable formula to fix the U.S. government: Milei-style cuts, on steroids.”

The Chainsaw Reforms

If there’s one image that defined Milei’s 2023 campaign, it’s the chainsaw. He carried a real chainsaw to his rallies, chanting “¡Motosierra! ¡Motosierra!” (Spanish for “chainsaw”) as a symbol of his promise to slash Argentina’s bloated bureaucracy.

When Milei took office, Argentina’s inflation was out of control, climbing at almost 1% per day. Fixing the fiscal deficit became his top priority, knowing nothing else would work without a solution on that front. In just a few months, he made drastic changes: cutting over 50,000 government jobs, shutting down more than half of the ministries, slashing regulations, and removing subsidies.

The results? Inflation has dropped from 211% year over year in December 2023 to 107.4% in November 2024, according to the latest inflation data from INDEC. According to UFM Reform Watch’s Daniel Fernandez, Javier Milei’s government has now achieved 10 consecutive months of primary fiscal surplus: “Between January and October 2024, the Argentine government accumulated a primary fiscal surplus equivalent to nearly 1.7% of GDP”—a remarkable turnaround.

Milei: A Former Academic

As a former economics professor, Milei excels at breaking down complex economic concepts. Early in the interview, he provided a roadmap for those interested in understanding Austrian economics with big references: Human Action by Ludwig von Mises and Principles of Economics by Carl Menger, two starting points for him. He also name-dropped other thinkers, including Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesús Huerta de Soto, Juan Ramón Rallo, Philipp Bagus, and Walter Block—a quick guide to both Anglo and Hispanic perspectives on libertarian thought.

When Fridman dug deeper and asked about his economic philosophy, Milei replied: “Ideally, anarcho-capitalist; in reality, minarchist.” This summarizes his pragmatic approach to reducing the state’s size through what he calls “the largest structural reform in Argentina’s history” while being realistic about what’s possible. Here Milei also addressed criticism from some libertarians, saying they often fall for the “nirvana fallacy”—expecting perfect solutions in an imperfect world.

Key Takeaways

There are two main takeaways from Milei’s interview with Fridman. First, Milei knows what he’s talking about. Too many politicians don’t really understand economics, but Milei clearly does. He doesn’t just memorise numbers; he explains the reasoning behind his decisions, and it makes sense. Second, market-driven reforms can deliver results. Contrary to popular belief or experts’ advice, these changes don’t require decades to show their impact.

Will these reforms catch on all the way to the White House? [Or here in Wellington?] Only time will tell. But for now, it’s clear that Milei’s approach is turning heads around the world.

I highly recommend watching or listening to the full conversation [dubbed into English]. It’s an incredibly stimulating discussion, particularly for economics enthusiasts eager to see theory translated into real-world policy action.

Daphne Posadas is a Project Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education's FEE en Español, the Spanish branch of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). She holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Universidad Francisco Marroquín, andis pursuing a Master’s degree in Economics at the University of Troy, Alabama. In 2021, she was a panelist at the Mont Pelerin Society conference, becoming one of the youngest speakers in the conference’s history.

Her post first appeared at the FEE blog.

Regulatory Reform: Timid and too easily tamed?

 

David Seymour's regulatory reform bill: less chainsaw and more milquetoast

While one crowd over there are making a fuss about one of David Seymour's bills—his Treaty Principles Bill—another one is heading to be cemented in as law. And it's ... not bad. 

It's his bill for "regulatory reform." And, you know, it's not Javier Milei's "chainsaw" model of bureaucratic reform, unfortunately, that's seen around 50,000 government jobs slashed and more than half Argentina's ministries shuttered — and inflation plummeting from a high of up to one-percent per day to arond 2.7% per month. That would be something to see.

But it might be longer lasting.

“The Bill will codify principles of good regulatory practice for existing and future regulations,” says Mr Seymour.
    “It seeks to bring the same level of discipline to regulation that the Public Finance Act brings to public spending, with the Ministry for Regulation playing a role akin to that of Treasury."

Wishful thinking, I suspect. 

There's already one problem here, of course: that before any regulations are even reformed we already have a whole new bureaucracy: a Ministry of Regulation. And there's a strong suspicion that this new ministry might be less a Treasury-like entity chainsawing offending clauses from new legislation, and more an ombudsman-like sounding board for regulatory nerds.

We shall see.

Seymour is optimistic however. (Well, he has to be.) He says his proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will include:

• a benchmark for good regulation [sic] through a set of principles of responsible regulation 
• mechanisms to transparently assess the consistency of new legislative proposals and existing regulation with the principles
• a mechanism for independent consideration of the consistency of existing regulation, primarily in response to stakeholder [sic] concerns.

The last two will see whether or not the ministry will be any more than another drain on taxpayers' wallets. ("Issuing non-binding recommendations" suggests not.) It's the first one I want to look at here. What "principles of responsible regulation" could give a reliable standard for "good" regulation? (Given that, by my standards, I would say "none.")

The principles [says the Bill's preamble] cover 7 key areas, including the rule of law, protection of individual liberties, protection of property rights, the imposition of taxes and charges, the role of the courts, review of administrative decisions, and good law-making processes.

Rule of law, individual liberties, property rights ... sounds good. As enumerated principles. Except "Any incompatibility with the principles is justified to the extent that it is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Justification for which is to be cleared by either a court so constituted, or a minister signing a certificate. (A bit like our toothless Bill of Rights.)

So expect to hear that exception wheeled out many times, as future ministers explain why keeping society "free and democratic" requires violating your individual liberties.

If they bother at all.

The problem of course is that "You can't address a fundamental problem by making marginal changes." Which is all this really is: raising the political cost of making bad laws, as Seymour admits, without actually stopping the bad laws being made. As Gus Van Horn comments on a somewhat similar approach being made in the US:

Absent a fundamental shift in which our politicians are guided by restoring government to its proper purpose, the protection of individual rights, there will only be this nibbling at the margins. Meanwhile the leviathan will grow out of control until the unsustainable mess mercilessly self-corrects.