Far Right Presidential Candidate Wins in Argentina

[tabzer]

Functionally speaking a single person on a plaza or park can be considered a protest. It’s not a function of how many, it’s a function of what is going on. The law features definitions like this to make things clear, and in the case of Argentina they’ve defined it as “three or more”, which as a good enough definition of what a “group” is.

EDIT: The document we’re discussing is publicly available, by the way. The “three or more” clause describes what is understood as a gathering for the purposes of exercising the right to protest, and the requirement is notifying the government 48 hours in advance that you intend to protest. There’s also an additional provision for spontaneous protest.

ARTICLE 334 - Spontaneous Demonstration. In the event that the meeting or demonstration is spontaneous, the notification established in the previous article must be submitted as soon as possible, respecting the content established in said article.

Is "notify" similar to "seeking permission"? I can see if one has no respect for an institutional government, that it could *somehow* be interpreted that way, but for people who want a government to rely on, I am not sure if I understand how the words can be interchangeable.

1. Notification: This is a process of informing authorities about an event. It typically includes details like the time, location, purpose, and expected number of participants. The main objective is to ensure public safety and order, allowing authorities to make necessary arrangements like traffic control, public safety measures, or any other logistical support.
2. Seeking Permission: This implies that the event cannot proceed without explicit approval from the authorities. It often involves an assessment and a decision-making process where the authorities have the discretion to approve or deny the request.

*Nevermind. There is an element of "permission seeking" in the following articles, namely 335 and 336:

ARTICLE 335 - Obligation and Authority of the Ministry of Security. Upon receiving the notification established in the preceding articles, the Ministry of National Security must issue a receipt confirming its proper submission. At this time, the Ministry of National Security may oppose the holding of the meeting or demonstration, based on issues related to the safety of people or national security. It may also propose modifications to the time, location, or date of the event.

ARTICLE 336 - Warning to Organizers. If there is non-compliance with any of the elements established in this Section, the Ministry of National Security must warn any of the organizers of the meeting or demonstration, or those acting as such, to cease their non-compliance and adjust the meeting or demonstration to the provisions of this law. Otherwise, they will be liable for corresponding actions and fines established in the following chapter.

These are exploitable loopholes, but I haven't seen them not exist in a government. How many countries did not use "pandemic" as justification to exercise authoritarian pressure/control?

See you in a few months when this dude is fleeing the country with yet another show of how fucking stupid libertarianism is.

If you want to measure "how stupid" something is, you can choose anything and be disappointed. I think expecting me to take you for your word because you wear a flag on the internet to be pretty stupid, but some people genuinely feel that is all you need to do to have credibility.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah, very democratic having to ask for permission to protest in any way shape or form. I wonder how many will they approve.
I'm done with this thread lol. See you in a few months when this dude is fleeing the country with yet another show of how fucking stupid libertarianism is.

Yeah, it’s very democratic, actually. If you intend to be a nuisance, you have to notify the governing body in the area so that they can divert traffic and make necessary adjustments. This way your little protest doesn’t inconvenience other citizens. It’s as if you’ve only just discovered what a permit it.

 

[Darth Meteos]

Yeah, it’s very democratic, actually. If you intend to be a nuisance, you have to notify the governing body in the area so that they can divert traffic and make necessary adjustments. This way your little protest doesn’t inconvenience other citizens. It’s as if you’ve only just discovered what a permit it.

there is a shocking level of idiocy in this post
what do you think a protest is, the whole point is it's a demonstration of collective power to attempt to force change that isn't forthcoming
under your system, the government can
1) choose to not give permits unless it benefits them
2) force the protest to take place away from public eye
3) use the knowledge of who's at the protest to put them on a list
4) send cops to the location of the protest to arrest them
5) use their definition of a 'protest' to enforce oppression against legal gatherings they don't like

you can't possibly think that the people who should decide whether a protest can happen is the government! that's like saying only a boss can allow a union to form, there's every opportunity for the system to be exploited for the benefit of those in power!

 

[Foxi4]

there is a shocking level of idiocy in this post
what do you think a protest is, the whole point is it's a demonstration of collective power to attempt to force change that isn't forthcoming
under your system, the government can
1) choose to not give permits unless it benefits them
2) force the protest to take place away from public eye
3) use the knowledge of who's at the protest to put them on a list
4) send cops to the location of the protest to arrest them
5) use their definition of a 'protest' to enforce oppression against legal gatherings they don't like

you can't possibly think that the people who should decide whether a protest can happen is the government! that's like saying only a boss can allow a union to form, there's every opportunity for the system to be exploited for the benefit of those in power!

If your planned demonstration is going to disrupt traffic then yes, you need a permit. It’s not unusual to require permits for demonstrations. The situation in Argentina is very specific - they’re addressing an on-going issue with protesters blocking public roads. Public means they’re for everyone, not just protesters. You don’t get to keep people hostage just because you think your protest is important.

 

[tabzer]

To support @Foxi4's point

ARTICLE 337 - Violation of the Rights of Third Parties. Any meeting or demonstration in which constitutional rights of third parties not involved are violated will subject its participants to the sanctions provided in this Chapter, in addition to those applicable in civil and/or criminal matters.

To address @Darth Meteos's point

Force/compel, pressure, refuse, and encourage awareness and support are varying reasons why one does protest.

Even the US doesn't seem to have a reasonable way to avert this conflict of interest. January 6, in the US, crossed the threshold of pressure into "force" and therefore was branded as an "insurrection", but not particularly because of the "force" part, but "who" was at the receiving end.

None of these systems are perfect, but it'd be "progressive" to acknowledge if they are a step toward to something better.

If it were up to me, nobody would rely or make an authority of a centralized government, and instead, would be flexible in attending to the needs of their communities. But no, you people love your flags.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I think that calling a protest "holding people hostage" is rather disingenuous. Hostages are the victims of hamas, not people in their own car held up for half an hour.

 

[Foxi4]

I think that calling a protest "holding people hostage" is rather disingenuous. Hostages are the victims of hamas, not people in their own car held up for half an hour.

You just described false imprisonment, a crime and a tort. You have no authority to “hold people up”, for any amount of time. If you organise a protest on a road, make triple sure that your victims have a way by which they can bypass your blockade or at the very least turn around, otherwise you’re risking criminal charges *and* civil liability. Ideally don’t protest on public roads *at all*, and if you absolutely must, obtain a permit so that a reasonable diversion can be organised.

 

[ceeka]

Far right libertarian candidate Milei has won the Argentinian presidential election.

Famous for vowing to slash spending (wielding a chainsaw at rallies), dissolve the central bank and balance budgets - this student of the Austrian school of economics is an unknown quantity and political outsider in Argentina - and will soon hold its highest office.

But that's what Argentinians have shown they want - in a hotly contested runoff election between Milei and his peronist rival (whose faction has held the presidency for 16 of the last 20 years), Milei came out squarely on top. Economic woes are at the center of most voter's concerns as the once thriving nation now has a 40% poverty rate and has experienced crushing inflation this year.

Trump, Bolsonaro and other far right political figures have voiced their support and congratulations. Left leaning Latin American leaders have voiced worries about the direction of Argentina moving forward.

Elon Musk, for his part, xeeted his support and confidence that Argentina will have a bright future under Milei.

Financial markets are bracing for market volatility and people will be watching to see if Milei makes good on his promise to dollarize the economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tarian-javier-milei-wins-after-rival-concedes

"Far right libertarian" lol. Stalin would be right of the Guardian

 

[x65943]

"Far right libertarian" lol. Stalin would be right of the Guardian

The soviet constitution said "he who does not work does not eat" which most would say is a far right belief today

So you're not wrong

Ideas of left/right shift over time

Stalin had more in common with Hitler than he does with modern socialists

 

[tabzer]

It's interesting that the people who want to speak truth to power are trying to take advantage of their perceived power over other people. If those doing so cannot be convinced, how do they think that they can convince others? It's amazing how confident they are in assuming that others cannot see their intentions.

If you are incapable of asking questions, then maybe you are on the side of forcing your will,

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You just described false imprisonment, a crime and a tort. You have no authority to “hold people up”, for any amount of time. If you organise a protest on a road, make triple sure that your victims have a way by which they can bypass your blockade or at the very least turn around, otherwise you’re risking criminal charges *and* civil liability. Ideally don’t protest on public roads *at all*, and if you absolutely must, obtain a permit so that a reasonable diversion can be organised.

Are you saying that each traffic jam is a false imprisonment?

 

[Foxi4]

Are you saying that each traffic jam is a false imprisonment?

A traffic jam is not deliberate action, it’s happenstance. Forget about the road and forget about the car for 5 seconds - let’s say that you stand in a corner, I stand in front of you with my protest sign and refuse to budge. You want to leave, but you can’t. There’s two walls behind your back and me in front of you, and I’m not letting you go. I’m doing this on purpose - I know you’re there and you don’t want to be “held up”, but I just don’t care. Am I keeping you hostage or not? Are you cool with waiting for me to finish protesting or are we going to have an altercation?

 

[Darth Meteos]

If your planned demonstration is going to disrupt traffic then yes, you need a permit. It’s not unusual to require permits for demonstrations. The situation in Argentina is very specific - they’re addressing an on-going issue with protesters blocking public roads. Public means they’re for everyone, not just protesters. You don’t get to keep people hostage just because you think your protest is important.

no, they're not addressing anything
they're weaponizing the situation to crack down on dissent
if they were addressing the issue, they'd be making specific changes to public nuisance laws to prevent that one thing, carefully preserving the right to protest
but that's not what's occurring, it is as clear as day what their intentions are

 

[Dark_Ansem]

A traffic jam is not deliberate action, it’s happenstance. Forget about the road and forget about the car for 5 seconds - let’s say that you stand in a corner, I stand in front of you with my protest sign and refuse to budge. You want to leave, but you can’t. There’s two walls behind your back and me in front of you, and I’m not letting you go. I’m doing this on purpose - I know you’re there and you don’t want to be “held up”, but I just don’t care. Am I keeping you hostage or not? Are you cool with waiting for me to finish protesting or are we going to have an altercation?

I dunno, are you holding me prisoner?

 

[nWo]

I'm from Mexico, which is, sadly, a fucked up country on its own. But I don't know the details on Argentina's situation. Reading some things here, looks really bad. But could somebody please just, long story short, give a quick roundup of the situation? Is it really THAT bad? Or is it even worse? That guy is really a psycho? Damn.

 

[Foxi4]

I dunno, are you holding me prisoner?

You can’t leave. The question is aimed at you, not me.

no, they're not addressing anything
they're weaponizing the situation to crack down on dissent
if they were addressing the issue, they'd be making specific changes to public nuisance laws to prevent that one thing, carefully preserving the right to protest
but that's not what's occurring, it is as clear as day what their intentions are

They haven’t outlawed protesting.

 

[Darth Meteos]

They haven’t outlawed protesting.

you aren't this dense, foxi, i know you aren't
distrusting the government should be second-nature to all of us for one reason or another, it is not hard to grasp how easily this can be exploited for personal gain

 

[Foxi4]

you aren't this dense, foxi, i know you aren't
distrusting the government should be second-nature to all of us for one reason or another, it is not hard to grasp how easily this can be exploited for personal gain

Oh, I definitely don’t trust the government. I also don’t trust anyone who tries to exert any form of unearned authority over me. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. There’s a second catapult right next to the one aimed at a volcano, and it’s aimed at the Ebola needles factory. I don’t know why someone would operate a factory manufacturing needles contaminated with Ebola, but I don’t question such things, I just aim with the catapults.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You can’t leave. The question is aimed at you, not me.

I probably can just by shoving you, can't I. You don't have a weapon aimed at me.

 

[tabzer]

I probably can just by shoving you, can't I. You don't have a weapon aimed at me.

Whew, look at those gears turn. Answering with crime.

The thought exercise was pretty clear.

Your answers are making your predisposition clearer.