My learned friend Hans Hermann-Hoppe has recently offered a critical evaluation of Javier Milei, president of Argentina. If I had to summarize it in one single advertising jingle it would be: “He is as good as any leader of any country, at present, and better than some.” This, perhaps, is an unlikely way of presenting the matter, but an accurate one.

Hoppe full well acknowledges that Milei did indeed get rid of rent control and axed several Argentinian business regulations. But he insists that this libertarian president instituted others, to take the place of those which disappeared.  Worse, he promised to rid his country of the central bank, but did not do so. Nor did he end all taxes, which Hoppe correctly identifies as nothing less than theft. My only objection, so far, is a judgement call. I maintain that this evaluator was quite a bit too critical of his target. He is engaged in damning him with very faint praise. Hoppe does not take into account the precariousness of Milei’s position. If this politician had acted like the Rothbardian Hoppe presumably requires of him, he would long ago have been impeached, and would no longer be in a position to bring liberty and sound economics to Argentina. But these are only disputes over degree, not kind, that I have with Hoppe.

On which issues do I claim Hoppe leaves the libertarian philosophy in the dust? First, this applies regarding his views on decentralization. He maintains that it is a core aspect of this viewpoint that the lowest level of government should always take precedence over those higher up in the hierarchy, more centralized. Thus, the neighborhood should outrank the city, the city should be preferred to the state or the province, and the latter vis a vis the federal government. He charges Milei with ignoring this pyramid. Yes, indeed, there is a presumption in favor of such decentralization. The point is, if you do not like how your local government is treating you, you can move to a different area within the city. If you wish to rid yourself of the orders of the city mayor, it is not too difficult to relocate to the next city in the state. Ditto a move from one province to another. But if you are dissatisfied with your federal government it takes a far greater effort to transfer to an entirely different country.

But decentralization does not always win the libertarian sweepstakes. This is particularly true in Argentina under Milei. Here, the central government, under his auspices, is far more oriented toward free enterprise and economic liberty than the junior entities, still under Marxist control. When Ronald Reagan was president of the US, he issued threats against the government of New York City that the latter should end their rent control legislation. He threatened the Big Apple with additional taxes and reduced subsidies. Which side of this battle would the libertarian support? The proper answer, Hoppe to the contrary notwithstanding, is to side with President Reagan.

The next issue upon which Hoppe and I strongly diverge is his claim that the President of Argentina should stick to his knitting. He should focus on his own country, only, and say and do nothing concerning any other nation. But this isolationism, too, is not a requirement of libertarianism. Yes, of course, stay out of other country’s business. Do not interfere with other countries. Be neutral. But not to have opinions on world affairs? Not to offer to mediate between other nations at each others’ throats?  That is not at all a requirement of this philosophy.

Then there is the issue of war. Hoppe states that libertarians favor peace. Not so; or at least not necessarily so! Other things equal, peace is of course the preference of this philosophy. But other things are not always equal. Libertarians certainly oppose offensive war, wherein nation A attacks nation B unjustifiably. But we support defensive war, in such a case on the part of B. Hoppe’s and my mentor, Murray Rothbard, favored at least two defensive wars of which I am aware. First, the thirteen colonies secession fight against the United Kingdom in 1776 and second, the Southern attempt to secede from the North in 1861. Extrapolating from this, I go so far as to say that Rothbardian libertarians, among whom I count myself and Hoppe, should favor all wars of secession; indeed, all defensive wars.

Last but certainly not, this author and I have very different views on Israel. He and I have tangled on this issue before, so I will be brief. Hoppe sees Netanyahu in particular, and the Israeli Defense Force in general, as war criminals. I, in sharp contrast, see them as country B, defending their Jewish State against enemies who wish to dismantle it, and kill all the Jews not only there, but everywhere. They have been unjustifiably attacking Israel since its inception in 1948, and even before that in a series of pogroms.

Hoppe holds Israel guilty of genocide. Not so, not so at all. A sufficient condition for this war crime is purposefully aiming to kill enemy women and children. Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies are certainly guilty of this wrongdoing. Yes, Israel, in defending itself, also, kills Arab women and children. But not purposefully. Never purposefully. Instead, with its warnings and leaflet programs, it makes every reasonable effort to protect them. Why, then, the regrettable, collateral damage to these innocents? That is because the Arab terrorists use their own people as shields, placing missile and drone launching apparatus in schools, hospitals, etc. Israel is supposed to give them a free pass? So basic and simple a distinction seems to be beyond Hoppe’s ability to recognize, let alone acknowledge.

Milei, bless him, is a strong Zionist. That is, he thinks that Israel has a right to exist as a home for the Hebrews. Hoppe hates him for that stance with a purple passion. Milei has visited Eretz Yisroale several times, and prayed at the Wailing Wall. Nor is he at all behind hand at expressing these Philo-Semitic views of his.

With the bias, Hoppe’s fairness in evaluating Milei from a libertarian perspective can be called into serious question.