The two-stage path to freedomLet me begin by establishing the definition of a state. A state is a territorial monopolist on ultimate jurisdiction and arbitration and its enforcement. The definition of freedom is having the choice of appeal in the event of a conflict. The problem posed is how to transition from a state to freedom without the state's cooperation.A state, from having a monopoly on law, can increase its power by further monopolizing all force and more importantly the production of security. Once that is accomplished and its subjects completely defenseless to object further, more monopolies are established, such as on land, cities and roads, education, health, the environment and so on.While it is worthwile to object to the latter monopolies, attacking them does not in any sense weaken the state, for they are only the benefits of the state's power and not its power base. In order to achieve freedom, the power base itself must be attacked.While we may attempt to resist the monopoly directly by openly defying the state's law, that does not challenge the monopolist position unless we can ourselves credibly act as a judge and arbitrator over disputes. In order for a market for law and order to appear, we must create the supply. But in order to create this supply, we must first be able to produce and supply security.And so a strategy for freedom would involve first, in defiance of government monopolies and in parralel to mafia operations, selling protection to those individuals who have been left victimized by the state's monopoly and neglect. These individuals would then transfer their loyalty to us, and would be likely to come to us for arbitration in case of a conflict.Once a sufficient number of individuals are willing to protect us from the state's reprisal, we will then have the strength to challenge the monopoly on law, come out of obscurity and openly defy the state's legislation. Should the state be unable to stop us at this stage, a market for law would be established, and this having been done, the state would have no choice but to surrender the rest of its monopolies in an orderly manner.The question we therefore face is, what kind of organization allows us to produce security against the state's will?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation
Stranger:The question we therefore face is, what kind of organization allows us to produce security against the state's will?
There are three methods I can think of.
1. Stealth. You avoid detection. You only trade with people you trust and who agree to respect your privacy.
2. Bribe State employees to ignore you. Many drug dealers do this. If the cost of bribing State employees is less than taxes owed, then this is profitable. Plus, resources are funneled away from the State and to individuals who are friendly towards you.
3. Direct violent confrontation. This isn't feasible in the present, due to the State's superior resources. By the time this becomes a viable option, the State will have already lost. For example, the State demands you pay property taxes. You refuse. They raid your property to kick you off *AND LOSE THE CONFRONTATION*. That isn't feasible in the present.
Some combination of stealth and bribery seems optimal. Remember that the State is an abstract fictional entity. You real enemy is the front-line State enforcers who attempt to detect and suppress your economic activity. They should be evaded or bribed.
How will an underground economy enforce justice? Initially, the counter-economy will lack police and jails. The power of ostracism should not be underestimated. If you cheat your trading partners, you'll rapidly find yourself unable to do anything. In a free market, trust is important.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
I'm not sure if your proposal is any different than standard agorism but with a more warlike "mafioso" leaning; meaning a stronger emphasis on protection agencies than smuggling, tax evasion etc.
I think Mises, although for sure no agorist or anything near that (see Rothbards remarks on him here : http://mises.org/story/2968) , came up with a pretty well founded explanation on the question of power and might. http://mises.org/humanaction/chap8sec6.asp
Given he is right, which I think he is, the way to go is ideology. It is ideas and idealsl that make men develop their goals, and thereby determine the bulk of their actions. fsk is certainly right about his "tactics" for survival in an statist society, - I wouldn't call it methods though :-) -.
Yet, the issue is, that such actions do not get us any further toward our ultimate goal, living in a society that is based on the inalienable right of each man to posses himself and on a legal system , that logically and strictly derives its rules from this very single principle.
It is not enough to know ones own "ideology" but to educate the fellow men about it.
Only after men knows he is free and understands the implications, will he consider to make that way of thinking his. Every human being that has choosen that way is a powerful additional seedfalling on the fields of freedom, because he will not only live by himself in this new conciousness but also his whole behavior will refelct his creed and his children have a good chance to incorporate his creed as well.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
I agree with this approach, and it seems rather similar to agorism. A mixture of educating individuals and spreading the correct ideas, as well as promoting secession and non-state markets is the way to go.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
majevska: I'm not sure if your proposal is any different than standard agorism but with a more warlike "mafioso" leaning; meaning a stronger emphasis on protection agencies than smuggling, tax evasion etc.
The problem with the agorist approach is that it does not challenge the state's "core" monopoly, only its secondary monopolies, and thus cannot weaken the state.
nhaag: Only after men knows he is free and understands the implications, will he consider to make that way of thinking his. Every human being that has choosen that way is a powerful additional seedfalling on the fields of freedom, because he will not only live by himself in this new conciousness but also his whole behavior will refelct his creed and his children have a good chance to incorporate his creed as well.
Suppose that every man knows about the virtue of freedom because we have won the battle of ideas. The state still exists. There is still a class of exploiters that benefits from the state and will not give it up.
Stranger: The problem with the agorist approach is that it does not challenge the state's "core" monopoly, only its secondary monopolies, and thus cannot weaken the state.
The State's core monopoly (violence) derives from its secondary monopolies.
Suppose the State loses its monetary monopoly, due to agorists using sound money. Suppose the State loses the ability to collect taxes. Suppose the dollar collapses in hyperinflation.
How is the State going to pay its policemen? It's one thing to hire thugs to terrorize people for a paycheck. It's another thing when that paycheck bounces.
Once there's an established free market economy, it's too hard to shut it down. A free market is decentralized. There's no leader to arrest or assassinate.
Has the crackdown on P2P filesharing eliminated filesharing? No. The filesharers are using cleverer and cleverer tactics. If the ISPs block BitTorrent, then people will start using encrypted BitTorrent.
fsk: Suppose the State loses its monetary monopoly, due to agorists using sound money. Suppose the State loses the ability to collect taxes. Suppose the dollar collapses in hyperinflation. How is the State going to pay its policemen?
How is the State going to pay its policemen?
They will invent new taxes. On foreign trade, on land, on property, whatever. They will sell monopolies. If they can get away with it, they will.
What would happen if there were 1 million anarchists living in north america?
"Ethical subjectivism is not merely indefensible; it is praxeologically indefensible." - Roderick Long, Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action, p. 152.
Sage: What would happen if there were 1 million anarchists living in north america?
Nothing unless those 1 million anarchists did something.
Stranger:Nothing unless those 1 million anarchists did something.
Hmm. Good insight. I didn't think of that.
Perhaps the question could be better put as "What could 1 million anarchists do?"
Sage: Perhaps the question could be better put as "What could 1 million anarchists do?"
All the approaches people suggest aren't mutually exclusive.
They could move to the same area and vote for a less intrusive government. This is the "Free state project".
They could move to the same area and form a self-sufficient community, strong enough to repel State-sponsored invaders/police.
They could work towards a free market where they live right now, which is the agorist solution.
I prefer agorism. However, I'm not saying that you're barred from trying other things. I'm just saying that other approaches are less likely to succeed.
If you could get a true libertarian candidate on the ballot, I'd probably vote for him. I'm not waiting for that to happen.
fsk: All the approaches people suggest aren't mutually exclusive.
If we live in a world of scarcity, then yes they are mutually exclusive. If we expend our energy fighting the monopoly on money, that is less energy we can use to fight the monopoly on law and force.
Stranger: If we live in a world of scarcity, then yes they are mutually exclusive. If we expend our energy fighting the monopoly on money, that is less energy we can use to fight the monopoly on law and force.
That's exactly wrong. If you fight the monetary monopoly, your savings aren't stolen via inflation. This means you have more resources to fight the violence monopoly.
The correct agorist question is "Can you fight the monetary monopoly and show a profit at the same time?" My answer is "yes", via gold/silver/FRN barter networks and off-the-books banking businesses.
Stranger:The problem posed is how to transition from a state to freedom without the state's cooperation.
Not sure if I am answering this the way you intended, but I would say here are several organizations that come to mind for me.
Class A - Direct
1. Insurance companies
2. Home Owners associations
Class B - Indirect
3. Liberty markets
4. Educational organizations including but not limited to, book clubs, Mises Circles, community outreach
Class C - Independent
5. Commodity warehousing
Stranger: Suppose that every man knows about the virtue of freedom because we have won the battle of ideas. The state still exists. There is still a class of exploiters that benefits from the state and will not give it up.
Right, but than those exploiters face a huge crowd of people that understand they are exploited. Which means they do not have any ideological support anymore. At that time, there will be enough public support to overthrow them. The main issue today seems to be that people have incongruent beliefs about the world that support the lofty claims of those in power. For example think of the global warming issue. From a rational point of view, the whole thing is a very much unsettled science with more and more evidence, emerging almost every day, that support the view that it is a non-issue. Yet, people are scared to death, because they incorporated the belief system, that global warming is not only happening (which is correct and hopefully stays true for some time) but that it is a catastrophy for all mankind (which is far from being the case). Only by such held believes, those in power can gain support for their schemes. Educated people concious about their ability to evaluate those fishy claims would never be willing to buy in to such a drastic fear mongering.
I for example was impressed by Al Gores movie, but because I was impressed I wanted to learn more, understand the issue better, and, sure enough, found out that it was not solid science at all but mere propaganda.
Bottom line, before can overcome an excisting belief system, you have to build up another one and convince others to share that view. Until you reach that goal, you are a guerilla force, at best -even though I do not like that martial terminology for this purpose-, that must struggle to survive until it has common support.
And for this small group, FSK's tacticts are a good way to survive in an hostile environment.
I agree. Given your approach works it is in fact a way. If it doesn't work, at least the drection is right. So searching in this direction to find a working process is the way to go, from my point of view.
Stranger: majevska: I'm not sure if your proposal is any different than standard agorism but with a more warlike "mafioso" leaning; meaning a stronger emphasis on protection agencies than smuggling, tax evasion etc. The problem with the agorist approach is that it does not challenge the state's "core" monopoly, only its secondary monopolies, and thus cannot weaken the state.
The problem with challenging the "core" monopoly is that it scares people and leaves the state in a better position to conjure up hobgoblins, real and imaginary, as an excuse for the conversion of additional social power to state power. Agorism is a guerrilla strategy that has much more of a chance for the population to join, or at least be sympathetic to. The general populace will be very scared, and very hostile to anyone besides the state who uses violence. However, the more they see the state using violence against peaceful citizens (agorists and others) the more their believe in the state's legitimacy will be shattered and they'll be tempted to aid and abet the state's enemies.
In the late nineteenth century, some anarchists adopted the tactic of assassinating State employees. All that accomplished was that it created sympathy for the State.
If you're trading peacefully as an agorist, now it's easier to portray the State as the bad guys, when they use violence to stop you.
For resolving disputes among agorists, the power of ostracism should not be underestimated. If you're banned from the community, that's a pretty severe penalty. In a free market, trust and reputation are very important.
fsk: In the late nineteenth century, some anarchists adopted the tactic of assassinating State employees. All that accomplished was that it created sympathy for the State. If you're trading peacefully as an agorist, now it's easier to portray the State as the bad guys, when they use violence to stop you. For resolving disputes among agorists, the power of ostracism should not be underestimated. If you're banned from the community, that's a pretty severe penalty. In a free market, trust and reputation are very important. Talk about Spin City.
For resolving disputes among agorists, the power of ostracism should not be underestimated. If you're banned from the community, that's a pretty severe penalty. In a free market, trust and reputation are very important. Talk about Spin City.
Agreed & agreed with Stranger above; an un-intended consequence for physically fighting the enemy is breeding possible sympathy for the enemy, even though they (the state) are clearly the oppressors.I think the power of ostracism is actually going to become more apparent to more people thanks to social networking; there is a fair bit of it (as well as drama) going on within Facebook / MySpace circles if you look hard enough ;).
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Here is my plan
1. Educate and convert at least 5 million people
2. Have all able bodied converts join the military
3. Point guns at DC.
4. Do not bother invading the states, but make all federal land into An-Cap.
5. Deal with states later.
Currently there are 3 million active and reserve in the military, If we could become half of that I say we have a good old fashion coup on our hands. A coup where we do not want power.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
ChaseCola: Here is my plan 1. Educate and convert at least 5 million people 2. Have all able bodied converts join the military 3. Point guns at DC. 4. Do not bother invading the states, but make all federal land into An-Cap. 5. Deal with states later. Currently there are 3 million active and reserve in the military, If we could become half of that I say we have a good old fashion coup on our hands. A coup where we do not want power.
I agree with Item 1 of your plan :-) Yet, Juan is right to say that the military is in fact a closed community with its majority in an ideological symbiosis with the state (what he calls commies).
To join the military is not a great plan item to me though. I think that militia is the way to go, once there is enough manpower to make a difference. But, this is far away to date.
And always remember your own signature as Basiat is right in my opinion (I am a former planer )
Juan:The military are the real commies. You don't get it do you ?
They wouldn't be such commies if they were made up of libertarians and abolished the government, now would they?
If we were the military we wouldn't have to fight them.
Obviously only a .00000000000001% chance of this happening but I think it is a better plan than a counter-economy, when was the last time that worked in an industrial nation? Not as good as the trusty old Coup d'état.
ChaseCola: They wouldn't be such commies if they were made up of libertarians and abolished the government, now would they?
Not as good as the trusty old Coup d'état.
ChaseCola: If we were the military we wouldn't have to fight them. Obviously only a .00000000000001% chance of this happening but I think it is a better plan than a counter-economy, when was the last time that worked in an industrial nation? Not as good as the trusty old Coup d'état.
Since when is the old Coup d'état "trusty?" If I remember correctly, the strategies that have been most effective for liberty are "guerrilla" type things. The Coup d'état has generally been used by the Hitlers, Caesars, FDRs and Stalins.
The reason most people have a hard time taking anarchy seriously is in part due to "propaganda of the deed," that made anarchists look like lunatics, the result of which is a general attitude towards anarchism like this:
Actually that's not true at all. Agorism does suggest black market provision of the what the state has a "core" monopoly over. The illegal provision of defense is central to agorism, but not as much during the early stages.
Brainpolice: Stranger: majevska: I'm not sure if your proposal is any different than standard agorism but with a more warlike "mafioso" leaning; meaning a stronger emphasis on protection agencies than smuggling, tax evasion etc. The problem with the agorist approach is that it does not challenge the state's "core" monopoly, only its secondary monopolies, and thus cannot weaken the state. Actually that's not true at all. Agorism does suggest black market provision of the what the state has a "core" monopoly over. The illegal provision of defense is central to agorism, but not as much during the early stages.
True. But what I said is "more emphasis." No matter what SEK3 or anyone says, I'm convinced that nonviolent resistance is a much sounder strategy than open confrontation. I thought SEK3 placed more emphasis on nonviolent resistance but I could be wrong. I don't have any moral qualms with black market takeovers of the core monopolies, but as you say, in the early stages it won't occur so much because of practical reasons. I think it's much more successful to resist passively.
If you want to try to start a black market police force to arrest senators and IRS agents, go ahead and try but I think it will have a tragic ending. Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding the OP but that's the general theme I got: "forget about civil disobedience, let's use a little more force."
nhaag:Right, but than those exploiters face a huge crowd of people that understand they are exploited. Which means they do not have any ideological support anymore. At that time, there will be enough public support to overthrow them. The main issue today seems to be that people have incongruent beliefs about the world that support the lofty claims of those in power.
The problem we face is knowing at what point we do have sufficient public support, and whether it takes as much public support to overthrow the government's smoking ban, for example, as it does to overthrow the private police ban. If we can challenge the smoking ban and win by protecting those who smoke in public from government retaliation, then we have made a small revolution that gains us more freedom and more public support.
Nitroadict:Agreed & agreed with Stranger above; an un-intended consequence for physically fighting the enemy is breeding possible sympathy for the enemy, even though they (the state) are clearly the oppressors.
The reason the early anarchists failed is that they did not have the right targets. The enemy is not any man but an institution, and institutions are physically immune. The moment they killed a president, another man was immediately instituted as president, and therefore their action had no positive effect whatsoever except make it easier for crazy men to become presidents.
I actually kinda like this idea. How would you go about doing it, (the smoking thing).
If enough people violate the smoking ban together, and enough people ignore the fines and penalties they have received, then the ban is effectively null and void.
The problem then is having an organization that can coordinate such a thing. That is what our political party ought to do.
I agree that we need to know, at least in terms of a magnitude, what public support we have. Yet, I do not think we can get very far by lobbying for specific issues, like the smoking ban, without conveying our basic principles. Because on the next issue, say global warming, the public, holding believes contrary to our principle of freedom and personal property, will not join in unless they realize that their whole belive system is contaminated with collectivistic ideas.
This is why I believe that education and convincing others is more important than any specific action, though these actions are not useless, if they achieve at least a state that leans closer toward our own philosophy.
nhaag:Yet, I do not think we can get very far by lobbying for specific issues, like the smoking ban, without conveying our basic principles.
Who said anything about lobbying? It is action that is necessary, not words.
nhaag:Because on the next issue, say global warming, the public, holding believes contrary to our principle of freedom and personal property, will not join in unless they realize that their whole belive system is contaminated with collectivistic ideas.
Most people do not have a belief system. They simply do what they are told. If we start with the obviously unfair issues and progressively work our way to the more revolutionary issues, people will transfer their loyalty to us and be ready to accept more unconventional ideas. It is not necessary for them to understand the entire philosophy in its full complexity.
For example, overthrowing the smoking ban could be followed by attempting an overthrow of the prescription drug ban, then the medical licensing monopoly, then compulsory insurance programs, and so on. As people see that we have the power to bring them freedom, more and more of them will come to us to appeal for justice in their conflict with the state. Once we get that ball rolling, we have become a de facto competing government and it is only a matter of time before we completely liberate the country.
Well, I have to agree I have been using the term wrong. Lobbying is arguing to get privileges, which is not what you proposed. So I take that one back.
Stranger: nhaag:Because on the next issue, say global warming, the public, holding believes contrary to our principle of freedom and personal property, will not join in unless they realize that their whole belive system is contaminated with collectivistic ideas. Most people do not have a belief system. They simply do what they are told. If we start with the obviously unfair issues and progressively work our way to the more revolutionary issues, people will transfer their loyalty to us and be ready to accept more unconventional ideas. It is not necessary for them to understand the entire philosophy in its full complexity.
I have to disagree on your remarks regarding the belief system. Every indivudual has one or even more. It is those things people are certain about to be right, we call a belief system. Often there is more than one belief system that opposes each other, in one person, which is called incongruence and leads to unpleasant states. Belief systems are actually what people use to define their goals, which in turn define the means and as a last step defines their actions.
Given you are right, that would mean, freedom would have to be enforced onto those that "just do what they are told" by those that "know". This is quite the opposite of freedom and liberty as it is understood by libertarians and the classic liberals. Loyality is a requirement of the collectivist systems, not of a free society. Supposed people would be loyal to a libertarian system because they do what they are told, such a system would soon become another oligarchy and tyranny.
The whole libertarian creed is about individual freedom and liberty and requires that each individual understands that he/she is free and does not have to do what he/she is told. Told by whom? On what rights? To whos benefit?
The basic principle of freedom is not hard to grasp. Like one and one equals 2 is not real infinitesimal calculus. This principles are only 2. First I own myself and everything i have rightfully aquired. Second it is imoral and therefor a crime to start aggressing against someone others property. The rest of the philosophy follows out of this.
And, even if I know you meant it not literal, one can not liberate a country, one can only make people aware about the fact that they are free. Everything else follows from that. It is the old means and ends thing.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap