He's not criticizing political libertarians. Politicial libertarians are out there, engaging in politics.
Agorism opposes political libertarianism. Engaging in the political process, from an agorist perspective, is not an example of libertarians practising what they preach. It's counterproductive and contradictary to what they preach. You still don't seem to understand this.
He's talking about Library Libertarians. The masters of theory, who don't do what they talk about.
Right. Which is dominated by political libertarians, who talk about liberty but make no moves whatsoever to civilly disobey. This is what is meant by a lack of action, I.E. not doing anything at all in one's personal life to resist the state. You still don't seem to understand this.
Nice attempt at spin though. Methinks it may have been wiser for you to continue the art of the dodge.
Not really. The spin is entirely your own, as you disingenously attempted to use an Agorist quote to argue against Agorists.
Brainpolice: He's not criticizing political libertarians. Politicial libertarians are out there, engaging in politics. Agorism opposes political libertarianism. Engaging in the political process, from an agorist perspective, is not an example of libertarians practising what they preach. It's counterproductive and contradictary to what they preach. He's talking about Library Libertarians. The masters of theory, who don't do what they talk about. Right. Which is dominated by political libertarians, who talk about liberty but make no moves whatsoever to civilly disobey. This is what is meant by a lack of action, I.E. not doing anything at all in one's personal life to resist the state. Nice attempt at spin though. Methinks it may have been wiser for you to continue the art of the dodge. Not really. The spin is entirely your own, as you disingenously attempted to use an Agorist quote to argue against Agorists.
Agorism opposes political libertarianism. Engaging in the political process, from an agorist perspective, is not an example of libertarians practising what they preach. It's counterproductive and contradictary to what they preach.
Right. Which is dominated by political libertarians, who talk about liberty but make no moves whatsoever to civilly disobey. This is what is meant by a lack of action, I.E. not doing anything at all in one's personal life to resist the state.
I wonder; how many posts until this all becomes a rendition of "Annie, Get Your Gun" ?It's all getting rather silly.
liberty student: I'm just going off what you have posted about yourself, and what others have posted to you. I take it you aren't disputing what I wrote, only expressing surprise that I would call you on it? I'm not aware of anything you have done that merits admiration, and thus, can't imagine why I would admire you, secret or otherwise.
I'm just going off what you have posted about yourself, and what others have posted to you. I take it you aren't disputing what I wrote, only expressing surprise that I would call you on it?
I'm not aware of anything you have done that merits admiration, and thus, can't imagine why I would admire you, secret or otherwise.
I think you need to study my habits, past, condition, and family a little more in depth.
I'll give you a hint. My father spent about a third of my life in prison for tax evasion.
P.S. You not being aware of anything I've done is the point. Guess you missed the part about self-incrimination.
Do we really need MORE regulators?
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Brainpolice:Agorism opposes political libertarianism. Engaginga in the political process, from an agorist perspective, is not an example of libertarians practising what they preach. It's counterproductive and contradictary to what they preach. You still don't seem to understand this.
Brainpolice:Right. Which is dominated by political libertarians, who talk about liberty but make no moves whatsoever to civilly disobey. This is what is meant by a lack of action, I.E. not doing anything at all in one's personal life to resist the state. You still don't seem to understand this.
Brainpolice:Not really. The spin is entirely your own, as you disingenously attempted to use an Agorist quote to argue against Agorists.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
Irrelevant. You're once again avoiding the discussion. He specifically wrote "library libertarians", and made mention of people who do not do what they preach. There was no reference to politics whatsoever.Art of the dodge.
You're misinterpreting it favorably towards your own worldview. I don't think you understand what you attack, or what you're cherrypicking. From an Agorist perspective, libertarians who participate in the political process are not practising what they preach, they're contradicting it. You don't seem to understand this.
Again, you're attempting to conflate political libertarians with library libertarians. By their very definition, political libertarians are involved in the political process, and not in the library. You come across as someone who might be a library libertarian, a master of theory, but it's questionable what your level of action is.
You still don't get it, do you?
What I would like you to do, is to post that you believe that SEK3 meant "political libertarians" when he wrote "library libertarians".
Brainpolice:You're misinterpreting it favorably towards your own worldview. I don't think you understand what you attack, or what you're cherrypicking. From an Agorist perspective, libertarians who participate in the political process are not practising what they preach, they're contradicting it. You don't seem to understand this.
I'm taking library libertarians, and SEK3's further definition precisely as written. No where do I see any mention of politics, political action etc in that statement. I see him criticizing libertarians of words and not deeds. It's not my worldview, but I do think it directly attacks yours, which might be why you are arguing against what is plainly written so vehemently.
Brainpolice:You still don't get it, do you?
I get it. You'd be wise to drop a dishonest position.
Brainpolice: The agorists lack credibility by the lack of their own actions. Again, this is just an assertion on your own part. You have presented no evidence that there are no practising agorists. You have yet to present any rational arguement to prove your sweeping assertions.
The agorists lack credibility by the lack of their own actions.
Again, this is just an assertion on your own part. You have presented no evidence that there are no practising agorists.
You have yet to present any rational arguement to prove your sweeping assertions.
What evidence is there that there are practicing agorists? What evidence is there that any of this widespread agorist activity that you say is going on has had any effect? The absence of something is usually considered reasonable evidence that something isn't there.
You have repeatedly failed to answer any question regarding the effectiveness of agorism.
One reason people aren't more active in agorism is that nobody can answer a basic question about it.
Brainpolice: Irrelevant. You're once again avoiding the discussion. He specifically wrote "library libertarians", and made mention of people who do not do what they preach. There was no reference to politics whatsoever.Art of the dodge. You're misinterpreting it favorably towards your own worldview. I don't think you understand what you attack, or what you're cherrypicking. From an Agorist perspective, libertarians who participate in the political process are not practising what they preach, they're contradicting it. You don't seem to understand this. Again, you're attempting to conflate political libertarians with library libertarians. By their very definition, political libertarians are involved in the political process, and not in the library. You come across as someone who might be a library libertarian, a master of theory, but it's questionable what your level of action is. You still don't get it, do you?
How can it be misinterperted, it is a direct quote from the NLM. It is very straightforward referencing people who only talk and don't do anything. A little too close to home I suppose.
Niccolò: liberty student: I'm just going off what you have posted about yourself, and what others have posted to you. I take it you aren't disputing what I wrote, only expressing surprise that I would call you on it? I'm not aware of anything you have done that merits admiration, and thus, can't imagine why I would admire you, secret or otherwise. I think you need to study my habits, past, condition, and family a little more in depth. I'll give you a hint. My father spent about a third of my life in prison for tax evasion. P.S. You not being aware of anything I've done is the point. Guess you missed the part about self-incrimination.
If you say your fighting the good fight and that you have sacrificed then fine. The real question is, is it working? If it's not working which by your own experiences seems to born out, then maybe you should admit it's not working. If you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging.
Maxliberty: If you say your fighting the good fight and that you have sacrificed then fine. The real question is, is it working? If it's not working which by your own experiences seems to born out, then maybe you should admit it's not working. If you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging.
What have I done that has not worked?
What don't you get about the distinguishment between counter-economists and Agorists?
Have you ever read anything about Agorism?
Niccolò: Maxliberty: If you say your fighting the good fight and that you have sacrificed then fine. The real question is, is it working? If it's not working which by your own experiences seems to born out, then maybe you should admit it's not working. If you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging. What have I done that has not worked? What don't you get about the distinguishment between counter-economists and Agorists? Have you ever read anything about Agorism?
Agorists apparently can only answer questions with questions. Are you not trying to convince people to become agorists? If you can not point to some agorist activity somewhere that is having the desired effect how do you expect to convince someone to join the cause?
What have you done or someone else has done that has worked?
Yes please explain in practical detail the difference between an agorist and a counter-economist because the only difference I see is the phiosophical intent.
Yes, I have read about agorism and I think I have summarized it fairly well. Why are you unwillinging to debate the subject? I am just asking basic questions about the strategic philosophy you think will bring about worldwide freedom.
Maxliberty: Agorists apparently can only answer questions with questions. Are you not trying to convince people to become agorists? If you can not point to some agorist activity somewhere that is having the desired effect how do you expect to convince someone to join the cause?
I am not attempting to convince people to become Agorists at this moment, no.
Agorism entails two parts, a macro and a micro. Individually, on a micro level, the incentive is to profit. Generally, on a macro level, the idea is to contribute to the libertarian movement by undermining the state, thereby helping others to undermine the state until it is so demystified that it possesses no legs tos tand on.
Maxliberty: What have you done or someone else has done that has worked?
What do you mean by worked?
Maxliberty: Yes please explain in practical detail the difference between an agorist and a counter-economist because the only difference I see is the phiosophical intent.
You don't see ideology as an integral part of strategy... I haven't heard that one before from even the most basic of strategists.
Maxliberty: Yes, I have read about agorism and I think I have summarized it fairly well. Why are you unwillinging to debate the subject? I am just asking basic questions about the strategic philosophy you think will bring about worldwide freedom.
See, I don't think you have and I think you lie when you say you have. You may think you've summarized it, but it is painfully apparent to me that you haven't the slightest clue as to what you're talking about - the fact that you hold no strategic regard for ideology is evident of that.
You're wasting your time guys. It's clear that when Maxliberty says "action", he means "giving money to Maxliberty for the Liberty Colony scam".
He's here to sell his dubious product, and we're not buying; he's PO'd about it. That's about it.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: You're wasting your time guys. It's clear that when Maxliberty says "action", he means "giving money to Maxliberty for the Liberty Colony scam". He's here to sell his dubious product, and we're not buying; he's PO'd about it. That's about it.
I don't think is it at all, although I can't speak for ML's motivations, just my perception. I think it's a cop out to point at the liberty colony.
Reality is, I have no colony plans, and I'm not looking for anyone to do anything with me, and I can't get straight answers or responses from people who use Agorism as an answer to every difficult question.
It's sorta funny. All these people gushing about Agorism, and then when someone asks straighforward questions, *crickets*, strawmen or Ad homs.