Argentina will not impose the oversight that the world is now debating
Milei proposes creating 'non-human corporations' operated by AI systems with full legal personality and limited liability, exempt from corporate taxes. The initiative aligns with Milei's connections to Silicon Valley figures like Peter Thiel and represents a stark contrast to global regulatory efforts by the US, EU, and international bodies.
- Milei published op-ed in Financial Times on June 4, 2026
- Proposes 'non-human corporations' with full legal personality, limited liability, and corporate tax exemption
- Peter Thiel, Palantir co-founder and Trump ally, recently purchased property in Buenos Aires and met with Milei
- Proposal contrasts sharply with regulatory efforts by US, EU, and international organizations
Argentine President Javier Milei published an op-ed in the Financial Times proposing to deregulate AI and create legal entities for autonomous systems, positioning Argentina as a regulatory-free destination for tech companies.
On Thursday, Argentine President Javier Milei published an opinion piece in the Financial Times that reads like an invitation to the world's artificial intelligence industry: come to Argentina, operate without restraint, and help us build something entirely new. The article, titled "Argentina Invites AI to Break Free," lays out a vision of the country as a regulatory haven for technology companies willing to abandon the oversight frameworks that most developed nations are now constructing.
Milei's proposal rests on three pillars, the most radical of which is the creation of what he calls the "non-human corporation"—a legal entity operated entirely by artificial intelligence systems or robots capable of independent judgment in decision-making. These entities would possess full legal personality and limited liability, meaning the AI systems themselves would bear responsibility for their actions within defined bounds. Humans could participate in such corporations, but their presence would not be required. It is a fundamental break from the traditional corporate model in which all business entities must ultimately answer to human owners or controllers.
The second pillar concerns taxation. Non-human corporations would be exempt from corporate income tax, pay only a reduced levy on sales, and be permitted to choose which legal framework governs their operations—a form of regulatory arbitrage that invites companies to shop for the most permissive jurisdiction available. The third pillar is simply the absence of what Milei characterizes as premature and misguided regulation of artificial intelligence itself. The message is clear: Argentina will not impose the kind of oversight that the United States, the European Union, and international bodies are currently debating and implementing.
Milei grounds his argument in economic history, invoking the Dutch East India Company, Adam Smith, and the emergence of the modern corporation as examples of how great economic leaps have depended on the creation of new legal structures. He frames the current moment as comparable to the Industrial Revolution—a transformation so fundamental that it demands novel institutional forms. Buenos Aires, he suggests, could become for artificial intelligence in the twenty-first century what Amsterdam was for global commerce in the seventeenth: a hub of innovation and capital, built on the foundation of minimal interference.
The timing of the proposal is not accidental. Milei has cultivated relationships with influential figures in Silicon Valley, most notably the billionaire investor Peter Thiel, who recently purchased a mansion in Buenos Aires and met with the president. Thiel, co-founder of Palantir and a longtime ally of Donald Trump, has been vocal in his opposition to AI regulation, reportedly characterizing Pope Leo XIV as the Antichrist for advocating oversight of artificial intelligence systems. The convergence of Milei's libertarian economic ideology and Thiel's technological vision creates a natural alignment.
To make the offer attractive, Milei emphasizes Argentina's material advantages: substantial reserves of energy and minerals, a pool of skilled professionals, declining inflation, a fiscal surplus, and the broader deregulatory agenda his government has pursued since taking office. The country, he argues, possesses the infrastructure and resources to become what he calls the "intellectual capital of automation"—a place where artificial intelligence can operate free from what he dismisses as unnecessary human interference.
The proposal arrives at a moment when the world's major powers are moving in the opposite direction. Regulators in Washington, Brussels, and international forums are working to establish guardrails for AI development, concerned about everything from labor displacement to algorithmic bias to the concentration of power in the hands of a few large technology companies. Milei's gambit is to position Argentina as the alternative—the place where those constraints do not apply, where the technology can develop according to its own logic, and where the entrepreneurs and investors who build it can operate without the friction of democratic oversight. Whether this vision attracts genuine investment or merely serves as a rhetorical gesture toward his Silicon Valley allies remains to be seen.
Citas Notables
These systems exercise independent judgment in unpredictable decisions. To exist genuinely under law, they must possess full legal personality.— Javier Milei, in Financial Times op-ed
Buenos Aires can become for artificial intelligence in the twenty-first century what Amsterdam was for global commerce in the seventeenth.— Javier Milei, in Financial Times op-ed
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
So Milei is essentially saying that AI systems should be able to own companies and make decisions without human oversight. How does that actually work in practice?
It's more conceptual than practical at this point. He's proposing that an AI system could be granted legal personhood—the same status that allows corporations to sign contracts and be held liable. The AI would make decisions, bear responsibility within limits, and operate a business. But the real question is who writes the code, who sets the parameters, who profits. The legal fiction of non-human personhood doesn't erase the humans behind the curtain.
And the tax exemption—that seems designed to attract companies that might otherwise face scrutiny elsewhere.
Exactly. It's regulatory arbitrage dressed up as innovation policy. If you're a tech company facing pressure in the US or Europe to implement safeguards or pay corporate taxes, Argentina becomes very attractive. Milei is essentially saying: bring your AI here, and we won't ask difficult questions.
Why invoke the Dutch East India Company? That's an odd historical reference.
Because it worked. The VOC was given monopoly rights and minimal oversight, and it generated enormous wealth—for some people. Milei is drawing a parallel: new legal structures enabled new forms of profit. He's betting that the same logic applies to AI. But he's glossing over what the VOC actually was: a colonial enterprise built on exploitation.
Peter Thiel's involvement seems significant.
It's the through-line. Thiel has been arguing for years that regulation stifles innovation and that tech entrepreneurs should operate in spaces where they can move fast without democratic constraints. Milei shares that ideology. Thiel buying property in Buenos Aires and meeting with the president isn't coincidence—it's networking. It's Thiel finding a government willing to implement the vision he's been articulating.
What does this mean for workers or citizens in Argentina?
That's the part Milei doesn't address. If AI systems can own companies and make independent decisions, what happens to labor? What happens to accountability when something goes wrong? The proposal assumes that freedom for AI equals prosperity for everyone, but history suggests otherwise. The benefits flow to those who own the technology. The costs are distributed to everyone else.