I know a few Argentinians and since I live in Chile I know a lot about what’s going on there. They have a lot of useless ministers for almost everything, at this point the previous government could have easily added the ‘ministry of non-important matters’ Their state manages the education really bad, many Argentinians complain about that, all those things managed by the state work really bad and are fueled by taxes. I agree that Milei’s ideas are crazy, but seeing the options in Argentina, he was the less bad option there.
Imagine a state sucking almost every currency from every citizen just to fuel useless state institutions. I hope Argentina will recover with this change.
The right wing is always stupid. Everyone else is sometimes stupid. But the right? Always completely pants on head stupid, if not cartoonishly evil.
Do not attribute malice to that which can be explained by stupidity… But never fully discount it.
Everytime I see this sentence my brain just refuses to understand it. What does this mean?
If you want to look for more information:
In this case it’s definitely both.
He’s a libertarian. So he wants to abolish the state. This is expected.that doesnt mean he wants to turn it into a dictatorship nor does it mean he is a big bad nazi facist far from it your free to read up on libertarianism ill post a wikipedia article in the comment below. He’s also trying cut back on unnecessary government spending and get rid of goverment institutions. I personally just think milei might just be off his rockers as said he might be a good competent leader who knows hes only been in office for abouts a week if he isnt then i will eat my words woop de doo.
Libertarianism is essentially putting it as simply as I can is where a state or plot of land may split into little self governing microstates
Libertarianism will always quickly devolve into authoritarian corporatocracy. Basically they support the law of the jungle, i.e. the strong can do whatever they want to the weak. Which is textbook fascism.
In properly set democracy this should not be possible. President should not have that kind of power to affect other branches of power.
In general president should not have too much power at all, because it is stupid to have just one person to be able to cause so much change in general. Looking at you US.
Presidential offices and ministries are both part of the executive branch of governments, though. Ministries are primarily there to organize the executive’s work, so while removing ministries will affect that, it won’t affect the separation of powers (like, say, the removal of responsibilities from a court or a chamber of parliament would).
That absolutely doesn’t mean that the power to create or disband ministries has to rest with the executive branch.
In fact, it can easily be argued that creating the framework in which the executive branch operates is the domain of the legislative branch - so the creation, merging, splitting or disbanding of ministries should also be a power of the legislative branch.
Or you could argue that it should be a power that should be shared between an administration and parliament, where an administration could introduce a motion to change ministries to parliament, and parliament would have to vote on it.
Lots of possibilities.
Is there a Department of Women or is he just going to get rid of every woman in the country?
In case anyone is genuinely curious
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Women,_Genders_and_Diversity_(Argentina)
Link broken by formatting for me, this one works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Women,_Genders_and_Diversity_(Argentina)
