I can vote the State, I can’t vote the CEO.
You vote for certain politicians, other people vote for other politicians, and whoever wins, the tyranny of majority will emerge. The success of the CEO is dependent of supply and demand, if there are no monopolical privileges. (I discussed this in another reply).
That’s the citizens job, not his.
Following your logic, the citizens voting him is a perfect clue of this, am I right? Otherwise, I agree with you about what Milei will do with his powers. I don’t trust 100% any politician, even him, but he’s the only one who explicitly showed that, like donating each month his salary (funded by taxes) and not funding certain political campaigns.
Again it’s the citizens that dictate that. I can vote for people wanting to build something in the State, not a CEO that wants to build a highway for the goodwill of mankind.
Citizens has no direct influence in the process of decision politicians make. The CEO (at exception of lobbyists) wanting to build a highway is: using his own factors of production achieved by social-cooperation (capital, land, technology and workers) and his desire of providing it emerges by supply and demand, by competence in a free-market setting and the economic calculation of consumers in a system of prices.
Nobody wants to be the “bad guy”
Sorry, but I don’t get what you’re trying to tell me here. Read about the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Every “work flexibility” I’ve ever seen pitched is just code for turning people into wage slaves.
Leaving aside the exact policies of Milei about this (as I’d prefer no policy at all), any governmental intervention in labor markets will cause unemployment among less productive workers. The term “slave” is not valid because those workers voluntary agreed, in a contract, the amount of money they’d get to do certain job.
“Wages represent the discounted productivity of labor in satisfying consumer demand. Demand for consumer goods translates into demand for workers.”
It’s just that every time I’ve seen someone purpose breaking the system to make it better, they just want to break the system so that they can profit.
Fair enough. Distrust in politicians is perfectly logic and ethical, but accusing him of fascist? It does not make any sense.
the tyranny of majority will emerge
Which is why in most democracies there are inalienable rights and due process.
The success of the CEO is dependent of supply and demand, if there are no monopolical privileges
Unless they are a monopoly. Which most societies have established rules to prevent. Outside of those rules, we’ve seen time and time again such form. Capitalism doesn’t have an inbuilt mechanism that prevents a single person owning everything, that tends to be the problem we run into often.
Following your logic, the citizens voting him is a perfect clue of this, am I right?
He’s allowed to follow the process to remove the process. That doesn’t mean that’s a good choice. But yeah, you can absolutely use that logic to follow to that end. That’s the nice thing about democracy it’s flexible enough to become a ship we built to wreck. And voters are empowered enough to sink themselves if they so wish. So I question what freedom is not present currently that you lament the lack of?
but he’s the only one who explicitly showed that, like donating each month his salary (funded by taxes) and not funding certain political campaigns
Yeah, that’s not the altruism that it looks like. He’s ultimately picking who is getting that money of his. He’s picking which campaigns to not find funding. That’s the point, not the money part the power part. The money part is one thing, the power part is something that one would be ill advised to lose sight of.
Citizens has no direct influence in the process of decision politicians make
They’re not made to. Citizens have oversight and challenge on the wisdom of representatives. It would be unwise to have 500,000 peoples’ hands on the steering wheel. There’s no one direction we would be going in then.
The term “slave” is not valid because those workers voluntary agreed, in a contract, the amount of money they’d get to do certain job
When the choice is “go hungry” or “work” that’s hardly voluntary. You will find it hard to convince me otherwise.
but accusing him of fascist? It does not make any sense.
If you read though my comments, at no point did I indicate him as fascist. Authoritarian, yes. He’s looking to consolidate power to himself to enact change unilaterally, that’s authoritarian. Not every authoritarian is fascist but it is important to understand the fertile ground such leaves for the future. Lenin didn’t invent Stalin but he sure opened the door. And that’s something to consider.
