Niccolò:
First you're assuming that an institution such as the ones associated with the LGT is an example of a free market/counter-economic resource for agorists (unconscious or not) to seek. The fact is, however, in its social context with something like LGT you have a situation where there are political constraints and pressures causing the situation to move towards a statist agenda. The atmosphere of all the societies around the world is now such that if the organization/group/person is not explicitly anti-state, it moves towards a spectrum of pro-state.
No doubt that wealth management organizations as intimately connected with states as the LGT are no agorist ventures. I'd like to point out, however, the competitive (and therefore, by tendency, not as oppressive) character of "tax havens" such as Liechtenstein and their peculiar business groups. While not furthering the agorist/anarchist agenda, they represent an intermediate phase between full-blown statism and the agora, a minarchist island amongst collapsing and voracious social democracies which serves as some kind of life boat for peoples' fruits of labor.
Sure there are issues with this view. First and foremost, LGT's offers are mostly unreachable for average Joes and appeal especially to the super-rich. Secondly, these super-rich corporatists have often gathered their wealth by using the state exploitation mechanism. Thirdly, moving capital from one state to another is no systematic change, but just a convenient reallocation of investments, therewith at best one of those abhorrent "reformist" activities.
Still, the general criticism (not just in the MSM, also amongst common people like family and friends I've talked to) didn't turn on the "reformist" attitude of these tax evaders, but rather on their alleged moral misconduct. Paying taxes was considered "one's necessary share", a "contribution to the public good".
So, if people don't even think beyond the supposed need to raise taxes, how can you possibly argue they are "ripe for agorism"?
And yes, maybe it's different in Italy. Dunno, never been there, perhaps I should come visit.
Niccolò:
From those I actually know in Europe whom are active in G8 protests and related demonstrations, I've not heard anything about support for the harassment and imprisonment of tax evaders. Most are friendly to me when I tell them I refuse to pay the largest group of mass murderers in the history of mankind.
Please note most socialists would agree with your sentiments about the current state of affairs, they do not, however, draw agorist conclusions from that. While opposing the momentary structure of the state as being imperialist, chauvinist etc, they argue for a change of state systems, not for an abolition of the state itself.
That's pretty much the core of our disagreement: While you argue the intention of Europe's anti-system protesters is to abolish the state in power and leave it at that, it appears to me they wish to replace it with a more socialist-oriented framework.
Niccolò:
You think of yourself as a neoliberal then I suppose? 
I wanted to point out everything from conservatism to market anarchism tends to be called "neoliberal" these days.
I'd consider myself a friend of liberty and property who has not chosen a specific faction within the libertarian community as of yet. Alternatively, to use an expression I've recently learned, you might call me a "parlor revolutionary".
Niccolò:
I personally know people who participated in the riots at Genoa; I'm even related to one. When my cousin told me why he went up to Genoa from Roma for the demonstrations he was quite clear that he did so to protest the world governments and their murderous sadism.
As far as an economy not being able to be out of control, I suppose the Soviet economy was just right then.
Again, you can protest murderous sadists without being against government in general. It's a huge step from opposing bad governments to realizing
all governments are inherently immoral.
Talking about the Soviet union, one protester I know was/is more or less a closet stalinist. Others support socialism because they consider it to be the only viable alternative to the current system. One protester told me the world can't do without collectivism. Not so much libertarian harvest to reap there, huh?
Niccolò:
Well, yes... I am an anti-capitalist, because capitalism has always meant a system of government involvement on the behalf of economic interests. I am a class warrior, because the true class lines are distingusihed between the producing class - the workers and the entrepreneurs - and the parasitic class - the politicians, the capitalists (those businessmen on the side of government), corrupt labour union officials, and military mass murderers. I am an anti-globalizationist, that is if you consider anti-globalization to be the exploitation of the producing class in other countries by the parasitic class in wealthier ones.
That's fine, but your definitions are most certainly not common. Maybe capitalism is largely considered to be corporatism, but by defining yourself as a "class warrior", you inevitably enter the Marxist realm. And associate yourself with those philosophies, whether you wish to do so or n