Thanks Geoff!
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:One thing that people seem to keep overlooking is that agorism is not limited to secret, underground, black market activities. Or if it is, then there are other ideologically driven and guided countereconomic methods that can be pursued in addition.
I tend to use the black market (with all its shortcoings) as a proxy for counter-economic agorism. True agorism, IMO, should rely on a legitimate currency, and not government paper. Some people are too focused on the current system and say, "How would agorism do [insert state-subsidized activity here]?" But that's a loaded question, given that pretty much all of us here on Mises subscribe to some variant of the calculation problem, it's foolish to ask one individual how an entire economy would work!
I have read about a private security service that is in the planning stages, actually it was a working paper I found here on Mises a few summers back.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Private security and arbitration services are booming industries right now though. It would be better if more of them were driven and guided by libertarian anarchist ideas and goals.
Agreed, the last thing we want is to make the State more "efficient" in its violations of our rights! The last thing I want is blackwater running drug raids, or making routine traffic stops!
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Maxliberty:No, what I am asking is why do you think large scale businesses will not form in a free society. You and your fellow agorists made the statement that large business is only a creation of the state. I am simply pointing out with a real world example that your wrong.
Almost all large-scale businesses are formed or enabled by acts of the state; this includes transportation subsidy (railroads and interstates come to mind), IP laws, tariffs, central banking, tariffs, eminent domain, outright land theft (the Enclosure of the Commons, for an example), differential tax rates, regulations, minimum wage laws, and many, many other acts that I can't think of right now. All of these promote the creation of large, vertically-integrated, capital-intensive firms. See the following for the nitty-gritty details:
Government Created Economies of Scale and Capital Specifity
The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand
Austrian and Marxist Theories of Monopoly Capital
Big Business and the Rise of American Statism
The Political Economy of Liberal Corporatism
I'm not saying that large-scale businesses will not form in a free society; I'm saying that the state encourages the formation of large-scale business. Whether or not they will form is an issue that will be resolved when we actually have a free society.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Maxliberty: The counter-economy has plenty of groups that look out for the police and statist activity. Have you ever been in a neighborhood that has high levels of crime, they have lookouts everywhere and they can spot cops in about five seconds.
The counter-economy has plenty of groups that look out for the police and statist activity. Have you ever been in a neighborhood that has high levels of crime, they have lookouts everywhere and they can spot cops in about five seconds.
As you will notice, I have already pointed this out. The problem is that it is scarce and not wide enough - i.e. a tragedy of the commons.
I think you're really overestimating that, by the way. If it were that effective, the US wouldn't be the largest prison nation in the world. Nice try though.
Maxliberty: Not to mention gangs which are in part formed to protect the activity of the gang. How about the drug gangs in Mexico which are quite powerful and have undermined various parts of the Mexican judicial system. Those are jsut two examples all accomplished without agorist ideology.
Not to mention gangs which are in part formed to protect the activity of the gang. How about the drug gangs in Mexico which are quite powerful and have undermined various parts of the Mexican judicial system. Those are jsut two examples all accomplished without agorist ideology.
Great. Now if only that could be formalized and aggregated, which is what Agorism will do.
Maxliberty: I don't think I ever said that people in business don't have obstacles or that there might be other incentives that might make people decide to limit their business activity. What that means is that people are pursuing their own self-interest. Are you saying that the goal of agorism is to convince people to pursue things contrary to their own self-interest?
I don't think I ever said that people in business don't have obstacles or that there might be other incentives that might make people decide to limit their business activity. What that means is that people are pursuing their own self-interest. Are you saying that the goal of agorism is to convince people to pursue things contrary to their own self-interest?
Of course you have. You've routinely demonstrated that you believe entrepreneurship is very seldomly involved in economic production.
Your question didn't have to do with self-interest. It had to do with monetary profit - their business.
Nice red herrings though, if only they weren't so obvious.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: One thing that people seem to keep overlooking is that agorism is not limited to secret, underground, black market activities. Or if it is, then there are other ideologically driven and guided countereconomic methods that can be pursued in addition. Above-ground alternative institutions such as private provision of security, arbitration and adjudication services, and attempts to bring back the gold standard despite the state (for some at least, ideally as part of undermining the state itself) by, for example, a gold-tracking mutual fund with checking. I've given an example several times of one libertarian private security and restitution service that is currently in the planning stage. Private security and arbitration services are booming industries right now though. It would be better if more of them were driven and guided by libertarian anarchist ideas and goals.
One thing that people seem to keep overlooking is that agorism is not limited to secret, underground, black market activities. Or if it is, then there are other ideologically driven and guided countereconomic methods that can be pursued in addition. Above-ground alternative institutions such as private provision of security, arbitration and adjudication services, and attempts to bring back the gold standard despite the state (for some at least, ideally as part of undermining the state itself) by, for example, a gold-tracking mutual fund with checking. I've given an example several times of one libertarian private security and restitution service that is currently in the planning stage. Private security and arbitration services are booming industries right now though. It would be better if more of them were driven and guided by libertarian anarchist ideas and goals.
Absolutely correct! The key is to promote counter-initiatives that provide a quality alternative to living life in fear. We don't propose to move to a small island in the middle of no where and hide in fear. We're directly subverting the state. The reason that Agorists promote the black and grey market is merely because so much of the economy is outlawed by the government.
wombatron: Maxliberty:No, what I am asking is why do you think large scale businesses will not form in a free society. You and your fellow agorists made the statement that large business is only a creation of the state. I am simply pointing out with a real world example that your wrong. Almost all large-scale businesses are formed or enabled by acts of the state; this includes transportation subsidy (railroads and interstates come to mind), IP laws, tariffs, central banking, tariffs, eminent domain, outright land theft (the Enclosure of the Commons, for an example), differential tax rates, regulations, minimum wage laws, and many, many other acts that I can't think of right now. All of these promote the creation of large, vertically-integrated, capital-intensive firms. See the following for the nitty-gritty details: Government Created Economies of Scale and Capital Specifity The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand Austrian and Marxist Theories of Monopoly Capital Big Business and the Rise of American Statism The Political Economy of Liberal Corporatism I'm not saying that large-scale businesses will not form in a free society; I'm saying that the state encourages the formation of large-scale business. Whether or not they will form is an issue that will be resolved when we actually have a free society.
Honestly, this is a bit off-topic. If you want to pursue it further, one of us can start a new thread.
wombatron:The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand
Uh oh! Someone referenced Carson!
wombatron: Honestly, this is a bit off-topic. If you want to pursue it further, one of us can start a new thread.
Yes, let's get back to the topic which is an evaluation of agorism as a means to overthrow the state. Perhaps some simple questions can help direct the conversation. A simple yes or no response will suffice and then we can delve into the specifics.
Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state? I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example.
Do the institutions created by counter-economic actors undermine the state? I offer e-gold as an example.
Are there any quantifiable goals or thresholds in agorism?
Lets start with these. Anyone?
Niccolò: Of course you have. You've routinely demonstrated that you believe entrepreneurship is very seldomly involved in economic production.
I have consistently said that individual self-interest is what motivates people.
I'm really not seeing the argument against agorism here, I'm guessing that it is since agorists can't prove that there is a difference between counter-economic activity and agorism and as the State hasn't fallen yet it can be proven that agorism won't fell the state?
Oh, and a big pissing contest with very little substance.
I also take issue with the claim that the black market led to the Soviet Union's collapse, does anyone seriously believe that if everyone behind the Iron Curtain had been a good little comrade that the socialist system would have somehow managed to overcome the Economic Calculation Problem? Yeah, didn't think so.
Anonymous Coward:I'm really not seeing the argument against agorism here, I'm guessing that it is since agorists can't prove that there is a difference between counter-economic activity and agorism and as the State hasn't fallen yet it can be proven that agorism won't fell the state?
That's a red herring. Agorists hardly need to overthrow the state to prove that there is a difference between it and non-ideological counter-economics. Some of the important differences have already been shown, even if certain people can't seem to see it.
Anonymous Coward:I also take issue with the claim that the black market led to the Soviet Union's collapse, does anyone seriously believe that if everyone behind the Iron Curtain had been a good little comrade that the socialist system would have somehow managed to overcome the Economic Calculation Problem? Yeah, didn't think so.
You're right. The Soviet Union was doomed to fail because it was communist. The black market did improve peoples' lives under communism though and undermined the Soviet state. But when you institute communism you're going to get a black market.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
Maxliberty:I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example.
A great example of tax evasion, but not necessarily of counter-economics. Just because you're transacting business without paying taxes on the income doesn't qualify as counter-economics, IMO. So, to your question,
Maxliberty:Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state?
Minimally. The fact that the farmer is a de facto slave, and will continue to be one in the future, is only incrementally reduced by his roadside bazaar.
Is some combination of "counter-economics" and agorism probably the best route? I'd say it is. Avoid the state, altogether, where you can. And avoid it everywhere else, when possible. (I.e., I can't buy a house like an agorist.)
Maxliberty:Are there any quantifiable goals or thresholds in agorism?
One goal is, of course, increasing awareness. A year ago, I had no idea what agorism was. A year ago, nobody on Mises was talking about it.
The next goal, after increasing awareness, is to find people with whom you can interact and exchange value for value. NB, you're not one of them.
david_z: wombatron:The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand Uh oh! Someone referenced Carson!
And no vulgartarians seemed to notice. I was expecting a flurry of replies calling me a Marxist
Maxliberty:Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state? I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example.
Yes, to a degree.
Maxliberty:Do the institutions created by counter-economic actors undermine the state? I offer e-gold as an example.
Yes, the goals and thresholds made by individuals or groups practicing agorism. Konkin's phases are a broad guideline to which strategies and tactics would be effective, given a certain number of agorists and allies and a certain extent of the counter-economy. More specific goals, to have any meaning at all, would be made by practicing agorists, given the context that they are in.
I assume I am what you call a vulgartarian?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
wombatron: Maxliberty:Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state? I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example. Yes, to a degree. Maxliberty:Do the institutions created by counter-economic actors undermine the state? I offer e-gold as an example. Yes, to a degree. Maxliberty:Are there any quantifiable goals or thresholds in agorism? Yes, the goals and thresholds made by individuals or groups practicing agorism. Konkin's phases are a broad guideline to which strategies and tactics would be effective, given a certain number of agorists and allies and a certain extent of the counter-economy. More specific goals, to have any meaning at all, would be made by practicing agorists, given the context that they are in.
So counter-economic activity irregardless of the quantity of the activity undermines the state to some degree but it appears in general to have minimal effect. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view?
Counter economic institutions irregardless of the size and scope of the institutions undermine the state to some degree but it appears in general to have minimal effect. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view?
The quantifiable goals in agorism are individualistic in nature and there is no way to measure the overall effectiveness of agorism on a society nor are there any quantifiable macro goals of the movement. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view?
david_z: Maxliberty:I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example. A great example of tax evasion, but not necessarily of counter-economics. Just because you're transacting business without paying taxes on the income doesn't qualify as counter-economics, IMO. So, to your question, Maxliberty:Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state? Minimally. The fact that the farmer is a de facto slave, and will continue to be one in the future, is only incrementally reduced by his roadside bazaar. Is some combination of "counter-economics" and agorism probably the best route? I'd say it is. Avoid the state, altogether, where you can. And avoid it everywhere else, when possible. (I.e., I can't buy a house like an agorist.) Maxliberty:Are there any quantifiable goals or thresholds in agorism? One goal is, of course, increasing awareness. A year ago, I had no idea what agorism was. A year ago, nobody on Mises was talking about it. The next goal, after increasing awareness, is to find people with whom you can interact and exchange value for value. NB, you're not one of them.
You say the goal is increasing awareness but there is no numerical goal or percentage that is being strived for in the awareness campaign. Is that what you are sayng?
And I guess by your last comment I have been banned from working with Agorists. Is that what that is supposed to mean?
Maxliberty:So counter-economic activity at best only has a minimal effect on undermining the state no matter how much of it is occurring. Is that what you are saying?
No, obviously, if everyone refused to pay taxes, then the state would crumble under its own weight as soon as the soldiers stopped receiving paychecks. However, if the farmer refuses to report income he earns when he sells me Apple Butter from his roadside stand, the State loses a few pennies in lost sales tax, and a nickel in lost income tax. He turns around and tosses this money back into buying a television at Best Buy, and being a good corporate citizen, best buy reports the income, pays taxes on it, levies taxes against its employees wages, etc.
In this regard, the counter-economic farmer has merely shifted the burden. He is a nickel or a dime wealthier. The income taxes that he didn't pay, or the sales tax he didn't collect, is just being collected somewhere else along the way.
And of course, if everyone practiced agorism, the state would likewise crumble. But because a dollar's equivalence of true agorism is a whole dollar, not just some marginal fraction, the effects are magnified. If I exchange some goods with my neighbor, not only do we both maintain the same bank account balance in terms of Federal Reserve Points, but we also have become wealthier through the acquisition of additional goods and/or services.
Maxliberty:You say the goal is increasing awareness but there is no numerical goal or percentage that is being strived for in the awareness campaign. Is that what you are sayng?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not a central planner, I don't have a five year plan. All I can do is spread the idea to people who are receptive towards it. If people are receptive, and I believe, trustworthy, then we can start working out ways to enrich ourselves outside the state's purview.
Maxliberty:And I guess by your last comment I have been banned from working with Agorists. Is that what that is supposed to mean?
I certainly don't intend to speak for all agorists. I am interested in discussing and practicing agorism with people who are receptive to the idea. You're clearly not interested. End of story. So yeah, you're officially blackballed from my network.
But of course, agorism doesn't work, so you shouldn't have a problem with that.
First, quickly, thanks to Wombatron for taking my suggestion and running with it. I'm happy to see that, despite the efforts of some, notably Max and Niccolo, this thread has not become as poisonous as the last. Yet. And there's loads more good and useful information. Thanks to those providing it.
Note: calling people 1) stupid and 2) Marxist/comrade is pointless and detracts from the discussion. I'd like to see a cessation to such behavior. But hey, that's just me. More questions coming...
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
Maxliberty:No, what I am asking is why do you think large scale businesses will not form in a free society.
Can you prove that large scale business *would* form in a free society? I don't see how.
Another way of putting this: why do you seem so certain that in a free society, 747's would be a product which would be deemed necessary? It's entirely possible that all sorts of things we cannot imagine being without would not evolve, and other things we cannot currently imagine would, in their place. Maybe dirigibles would be the preferred flying mode. Maybe something comlpetely different. The economics of the situation would be so vastly different, I think it's probably futile to speculate. But it certainly is fruitless to presume that the same products would be required.
This argument that large scale businesses similar to what we see today must necessarily exist in a free society cannot possibly be proven, since this has never existed in the modern age. I think the arguments against it given by david_z and by wombatron, in particular, with references included, are compelling. Clearly, State protectionism has benefited multinationals beyond all reason. One of the most persuasive arguments IMO is this: without the State to tilt the playing field in their favor, larger, less nimble companies would find it difficult to compete with smaller more agile companies. I've worked as a professional engineer in startups, mid sized companies, and huge multinationals. I can attest to the fact that there are serious diseconomies of scale, as I think wombatron pointed out, as a company grows (in fact, there has been some published research done on this exact topic - will see if I can dig it up). Bureaucracy is one of the worst of these, which impedes innovation and efficiency, whether in business or government. Accordingly, the growth of in-company bureaucracy can result in disfunction which allows smaller competitors to come knocking on the door - I could give you examples from as recently as two weeks ago. It cost us a piece of the business at an important account. So the VERY relevant point that david_z made was to reference Bastiat's enormously important dictum to consider 'what is not seen'. It is certain that, in the balance between economies of scale, and diseconomies of scale, what counts is the NET, and that net is precisely what the State can affect by putting obstacles in the way of smaller businesses seeking to play David to the corporate Goliaths. After all, that's precisely what politicians get elected for.
This is very similar to evolution, BTW. The peacock with the largest tail may often get the peahen, but if that tail grows *too* large, it makes for easier prey in the presence of predators (though you'd not know this from watching them at the zoo - with their protectors [analogous to the State] keeping predators from the door). In fact, this is a commonly recognized balancing mechanism across species in the natural world (including humans). Every adaptation can yield advantage only up to a point, at which point it can actually become disadvantageous - especially as surrounding species adapt also (saber tooth tigers are extinct, after all). It's all evolution, natural selection, adaptation pressure. The same mechanisms at work in the natural and in the business world.
I suspect there is a range of 'business size' which would be naturally occuring and established - and enforced - by natural market forces in a free market society. It strikes me as absurd to imagine a gargantuan business like GE in the absence of the State. Never happen. So it may well be that we do without 747s and stick with dirigibles. Which works for me aesthetically as well. Business travel in coach blows.
wombatron: And no vulgartarians seemed to notice. I was expecting a flurry of replies calling me a Marxist
Marxist.
There - feel better? ;-)
Funny thing: when I quote Albert Jay Nock at length - and a more vociferous and articulate opponent of the State has never existed - I am often accused of being a Marxist. Especially when the person I'm quoting him to is an 'unabashed' capitalist (by which of course I mean not a capitalist at all but a fan of the current corporatist regime). It's especially funny how it then turns out that I am a much bigger proponent of free markets and free peoples than said unabashed capitalist.
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