PDA

View Full Version : What happened to the Movimiento Libertario




Imperial
10-04-2010, 01:04 AM
For those who do not know, the Movimiento Libertario (or Libertarian Movement in English) was once upon a time the premiere Libertarian Party in Latin America, particularly Costa Rica. In 1998 it elected its first legislator, then it elected 6, and today is a member of the government coalition.

But has it become what the American LP fears? Take this article: (http://www.nacion.com/2010-09-09/ElPais/NotasSecundarias/ElPais2515300.aspx)


El congresista Manuel Hernández, del Movimiento Libertario, impulsa un nuevo plan de ley para aumentar el salario de los diputados un 20% al año.

Actualmente, la ley señala un incremento anual del 10% en su remuneración.

De aprobarse, en cuatro años de gestión los legisladores se aumentarían el salario en ¢2,3 millones, con lo que pasarían de ganar hoy ¢2,5 a ¢4,8 millones al mes.

Hernández reta al 96% de los costarricenses que, según el último estudio de la firma Unimer para La Nación, considera incorrecto que los diputados aprueben proyectos para aumentarse el salario.

“Lo vamos a presentar a petición de varios compañeros y así los próximos diputados no tengan el mismo problema que nosotros”, declaró Hernández.

El congresista está seguro de que lleva razón, y afirma que la misma Sala IV señala la necesidad de que se dé una equiparación de salarios entre los jerarcas de los tres poderes de la República.

La propuesta de Hernández sale a la luz a cuatro meses de que seis jefes de fracción intentaran aumentar el salario de los congresistas a ¢4,3 millones por mes.


Ese plan generó el repudio de la población, pero, aun así, la propuesta llegó al plenario y fue aprobada por 35 de 46 diputados presentes el 24 de mayo.


To explain the gist of this in English. A Libertarian congressman proposed to increase legislators' pay from 10% auto-increases per year to 20%. The bill, opposed by 95% of the population, has the support of the three largest parties (including the ML).

Other signs abound to a paradigm shift within the party. Otto Guevara, the founder of the party, eloquently explained to Reason in 2003 (http://reason.com/archives/2003/08/12/the-other-guevara/1) why his party rejected public funding.


When money is given to you as a gift, there's a tendency to dissipate it. We've seen enormous corruption in Costa Rica as a result. For instance, we could sign a contract whereby we have a consulting deal and put that down as a campaign expense. I claim to be paying you, in essence, for some conversations I say we've had. It's like a piñata, but it's very difficult to prove a candidate or a party has done anything wrong. Still, people know it happens, and they're sick of it.

Today, the ML, led by Guevara, accepts public funding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rican_presidential_election,_2006#Otto_Gueva ra).

In 2005 there was a massives schism (http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/archives/00000384.html) within the party. Many of the more ideological members left the party, and Guevara announced that the party was liberal (in the market sense, rather than socialist sense, of the term).

What happened?

ibaghdadi
10-04-2010, 03:19 AM
Two things: the dude they ran for president twice had a very unfortunate name. Guevara for a libertarian president? Aw come on...

Also, in 2005 the party divided and kicked out all the libertarians and now they say they're liberals and not libertarians.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-04-2010, 04:54 AM
Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts -- and the State is absolute power. It's why minarchism is utopian, but let's not get into that here...

Imperial
10-04-2010, 04:03 PM
I think this is a great case study for real-world libertarianism. Honestly, the ideology seems incidental to the flaws that the party is now experiencing.

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2010, 04:20 PM
Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts -- and the State is absolute power. It's why minarchism is utopian, but let's not get into that here...

+a whole bunch. :cool: It's important to distinguish the State from the (minarchist) government IMHO, but you're still correct.