The Argentine government has sent back to Congress a bill aimed at eliminating laws that are outdated or that can no longer be applied due to incompatibilities with newer laws or the Constitution.
Known as “Hojarasca Law,” or “Dead Leaves Law,” the provision’s goal is to sweep 70 regulations that have become obsolete.
The bill is part of President Javier Milei’s model of reducing state bureaucracy and flexibilizing regulations. It was created by Deregulation Minister Federico Sturzenegger.
It had already been filed in October 2024, but the government decided to file it again given tha lawmakers never debated it in over a year since of its presentation.
Old laws
The bill seeks to overturn 62 laws and modify or eliminate sections of nine others, including some that have become outdated due to technological advances, or others that are related to institutions that no longer exist.
Some of the laws that the government wants to eliminate include one from 1868 that establishes a cash reward to individuals who discover a coal mine.
Law 94, dating back to 1864, establishes a 10-year ban on holding public office for officials who have whipped someone. Such floggings, the bill points out, are banned by the Constitution.
Other examples include a specific law on smallpox vaccination superseded by the general vaccination law, an old law allowing color television broadcasts, a 2015 regulation of carrier pigeons, and a 1983 norm stating mandatory hospitalization for patients with leprosy, which the government considered violates constitutional rights.
One 1974 norm even regulated hitch-hiking, creating a “backpackers’ permit,” which is not enforced nor known about in current times. The government has said it was likely a pretext allowing the security forces to shake down anyone they suspected of belonging to what at the time were known as “subversive” groups.
The Milei administration has stated that keeping those old laws adds to the complexity of Argentina’s legal system for no reason. In addition, they argue that some of the laws affect individual liberties or respond to control logics that are no longer in place under the current democratic system.
Most of the laws that aim to be eliminated or modify were issued during the presidency of María Estela “Isabel” Martínez de Perón (1974-1976), and dictators Alejandro Agustín Lanusse (1971-1973) and Reynaldo Benito Bignone (1982-1983).
Sturzenegger called these laws “obsolete” and said there will be a “normative depuration” if the bill is approved. “Less laws means more justice. Like our president has demanded, Argentina will be the most free country in the world,” he wrote on X on Friday.
Facts Only
The Argentine government has reintroduced a bill called the "Hojarasca Law" or "Dead Leaves Law" to Congress.
The bill seeks to eliminate or modify 70 outdated or unenforceable laws.
The legislation targets 62 laws for repeal and proposes modifications to nine others.
Examples of outdated laws include a 1868 law offering cash rewards for discovering coal mines and a 1864 law banning public office for officials who administered floggings.
Other laws slated for repeal include a 1974 regulation on hitchhiking permits, a 1983 norm mandating hospitalization for leprosy patients, and a 2015 regulation on carrier pigeons.
The bill is part of President Javier Milei’s deregulation agenda, led by Deregulation Minister Federico Sturzenegger.
Many of the laws were enacted during the presidencies of María Estela "Isabel" Martínez de Perón (1974-1976) and military dictators Alejandro Agustín Lanusse (1971-1973) and Reynaldo Benito Bignone (1982-1983).
The government argues that these laws complicate the legal system and violate individual liberties.
The bill was first submitted in October 2024 but was resubmitted after lawmakers did not debate it for over a year.
Sturzenegger stated that the goal is to achieve "normative depuration" and reduce legal complexity.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative frames the "Hojarasca Law" as a necessary step toward modernizing Argentina’s legal system, removing archaic regulations that no longer serve any purpose and, in some cases, violate constitutional rights. The government’s argument that obsolete laws create unnecessary bureaucracy and infringe on individual liberties aligns with Milei’s broader libertarian agenda. However, the pattern of resubmitting the bill after a year of inaction by lawmakers raises questions about legislative priorities and the potential for political theater. The focus on laws from authoritarian eras—such as the hitchhiking permit, which may have been used for surveillance—could be interpreted as a symbolic rejection of past abuses, but it also risks oversimplifying the historical context of these regulations.
Root cause: The narrative assumes that deregulation inherently leads to greater freedom and efficiency, a paradigm that echoes neoliberal reforms of the past. It also assumes that all outdated laws are harmless or oppressive, without considering whether some might have been preserved for historical or procedural reasons. The implications for human agency are mixed: while removing obsolete laws could reduce legal confusion, the broader deregulation push may also weaken protections that were once necessary but are now taken for granted.
Bridge questions: What criteria determine which laws are "obsolete" versus those that might still serve a purpose? How might this deregulation effort interact with other legal reforms, such as those affecting labor or environmental protections? Could the focus on symbolic repeals distract from more substantive legal challenges?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook might involve framing deregulation as an unassailable good while downplaying potential risks, such as the erosion of hard-won rights. However, the actual content does not appear to match this pattern, as it provides specific examples and acknowledges the historical context of the laws in question. The narrative remains within the bounds of a legitimate policy debate.
Sentinel — Human
The article appears to be written by a human journalist, as it displays varying sentence lengths, a personal voice, and focuses on historical context.