Maxliberty:Yet another agorist worried about the tax man. Isn't the whole point of agorism to live outside the state control? Comical how you continue to bring up what the state tells you to do. Since you probably plan on working for the state as a teacher I can understand your concern. Also, if living in isolated places in Amreica is too much for you do you really think your ready to take on the state?
Still unable to be civil. Tsk tsk.
I don't plan on going completely off the grid unless I have to.
The whole point of agorism is to develop alternative institutions to the state. Gil's planned security service is one example of an above-ground (as opposed to underground) alternative institution.
What do you mean by "if living in isolated places in Amreica [sic] is too much for you do"? Are you implying I'm weak or cowardly or not that devoted to liberty? It seems so. None are true.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan PlaucheDoctoral CandidatePolitical ScienceLouisiana State University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Maxliberty:My point is that agorist ideology wasn't a requirement to undermine the state. So what? This is a really weak objection.
Maxliberty:My point is that agorist ideology wasn't a requirement to undermine the state.
So what? This is a really weak objection.
A really weak objection? It is the underpinning of agorism that only agorist counter-economic activity is undermining the state and capable of creating the institutions to do so. If it's false and all counter-economic activity undermines the state and counter-economic institutions can be created without agorist ideology then agorism as an ideology is of no more value than current activity for undermining the state through counter-economic means.
The objection, which has never been answered by agorists, dismantles the whole strategy of the agorist ideology.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Maxliberty:Yet another agorist worried about the tax man. Isn't the whole point of agorism to live outside the state control? Comical how you continue to bring up what the state tells you to do. Since you probably plan on working for the state as a teacher I can understand your concern. Also, if living in isolated places in Amreica is too much for you do you really think your ready to take on the state? Still unable to be civil. Tsk tsk. I don't plan on going completely off the grid unless I have to. The whole point of agorism is to develop alternative institutions to the state. Gil's planned security service is one example of an above-ground (as opposed to underground) alternative institution. What do you mean by "if living in isolated places in Amreica [sic] is too much for you do"? Are you implying I'm weak or cowardly or not that devoted to liberty? It seems so. None are true.
Now let me get this straight, you advocate agorism which as part of it's strategy is to move completely off the grid so to speak and yet you have no intention of doing it yourself.
The whole point of agorism is to develop alternative institutions? Well at least your one agorist coming to your senses that growing the counter-economy to undermine the state isn't going to work. We are making progress.
I am not implying anything, I am flat out stating that if being inconvenienced is too much of a sacrifice for freedom then it is obviously not a very high priority for you. It's you who is leading the agorist crusade and are admitting to not being willing to back it up with your own actions.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:The whole point of agorism is to develop alternative institutions to the state. Gil's planned security service is one example of an above-ground (as opposed to underground) alternative institution.
I have been meaning to read that, but haven't had the time yet.
If you don't mind, could you maybe answer one question I have? If Gil's service is above ground, does that mean it pays taxes, remits payroll taxes, registers firearms etc?
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
Maxliberty:Now let me get this straight, you advocate agorism which as part of it's strategy is to move completely off the grid so to speak and yet you have no intention of doing it yourself.
Is agorism only about operating in a black market to undermine the state?
Maxliberty:The whole point of agorism is to develop alternative institutions? Well at least your one agorist coming to your senses that growing the counter-economy to undermine the state isn't going to work. We are making progress.
How does any of this follow?
Maxliberty:I am not implying anything, I am flat out stating that if being inconvenienced is too much of a sacrifice for freedom then it is obviously not a very high priority for you. It's you who is leading the agorist crusade and are admitting to not being willing to back it up with your own actions.
Ah great. So you admit to explicitly insulting me. Well, you're wrong. And an ass. Good luck with your Liberty Colony with a personality like that.
Maxliberty: A really weak objection? It is the underpinning of agorism that only agorist counter-economic activity is undermining the state and capable of creating the institutions to do so. If it's false and all counter-economic activity undermines the state and counter-economic institutions can be created without agorist ideology then agorism as an ideology is of no more value than current activity for undermining the state through counter-economic means. The objection, which has never been answered by agorists, dismantles the whole strategy of the agorist ideology.
Yes, a really weak objection. It doesn't undermine agorism at all.
Maxliberty:It is the underpinning of agorism that only agorist counter-economic activity is undermining the state
This is false. You should know that by now. No excuse not to.
liberty student: Geoffrey Allan Plauche:The whole point of agorism is to develop alternative institutions to the state. Gil's planned security service is one example of an above-ground (as opposed to underground) alternative institution. I have been meaning to read that, but haven't had the time yet. If you don't mind, could you maybe answer one question I have? If Gil's service is above ground, does that mean it pays taxes, remits payroll taxes, registers firearms etc?
Probably, once it starts, otherwise the state will put a stop to it right quick. That's not some kind of weakness for the strategy. The point is to create alternative institutions for people to use instead of the state. Such a service is one step toward that.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:I thought I remember reading about a tax on property for those renouncing citizenship too, but I might be wrong.
Nope. You were right. All your property are belong to uncle sam.
=====
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Probably, once it starts, otherwise the state will put a stop to it right quick. That's not some kind of weakness for the strategy. The point is to create alternative institutions for people to use instead of the state. Such a service is one step toward that.
Ok, I know it seems like I was asking all of the right questions to exploit it, but I wasn't. Thanks for the reply, I was just curious if I should move it up my reading list or not. If it is going to be near term compliant, then it is a little less interesting to me, and I won't put other things off to read it then.
Maxliberty: liberty student: ozzy43:But as several posts have pointed out, even if the State does not fall, leaving no vaccuum for agorism to explode into, that does not render the project futile. It's not a digital thing, either working or not - it's analog, and includes a continuum of functionality. Now, I'm trying to think about if there are discontinuities on that continuum, because I think those will be the obstacles to sustainability. If we're going to "settle" let's all support Bob Barr then. Yes, if the goal is to undermine the state and the state never fails and gets replaced then you have failed. Agorists don't want goal lines because they can not be reached with that strategy.
liberty student: ozzy43:But as several posts have pointed out, even if the State does not fall, leaving no vaccuum for agorism to explode into, that does not render the project futile. It's not a digital thing, either working or not - it's analog, and includes a continuum of functionality. Now, I'm trying to think about if there are discontinuities on that continuum, because I think those will be the obstacles to sustainability. If we're going to "settle" let's all support Bob Barr then.
ozzy43:But as several posts have pointed out, even if the State does not fall, leaving no vaccuum for agorism to explode into, that does not render the project futile. It's not a digital thing, either working or not - it's analog, and includes a continuum of functionality. Now, I'm trying to think about if there are discontinuities on that continuum, because I think those will be the obstacles to sustainability.
If we're going to "settle" let's all support Bob Barr then.
Yes, if the goal is to undermine the state and the state never fails and gets replaced then you have failed. Agorists don't want goal lines because they can not be reached with that strategy.
I think goal lines are fine and arguably *do* exist if not in particularly concrete form (undermining the State, precipitating its collapse) - but the concrete milestones which verify that progress is being made toward that larger, less well defined goal - while in the normal 'project' sense are undoubtedly useful, may in fact be a hindrance here. Consider: projects are implemented top down. Thus, the planners need to have milestones to verify that steps are proceeding as planned, to ID those steps which are falling behind, etc. These are useful things in a top down planning sense.
But agorism - insofar my admittedly poor understanding goes - seems to be to be all about bottom up. Consider the Iraqi insurgents: did they have goal lines? Sure! Americans out. Did they have mapped out milestones? Nah. Basically, commit murders and bombings, try to incite chaos and terror. But all of that - the tactics - done at a local or cell level. And if they had been smart about it and not killed so many fellow Muslims (and thus alienated their natural global constituency), they may well have achieved their goals, or at least be closer to them. And hell for all we know they still may. Same thing goes for Afghanistan. Of course, you could argue that it was lack of top down planning which has - so far - prevented effectuation of their goal, and that may be a fair critique - but really there was no choice. Top down is vulnerable to command and control intel and take-down strikes, so bottom up is the only way to go in some circumstances, whatever the potential limitations.
But the notion that top down planning is the ONLY way to effectuate success is, I think, wrong. It is ONE way, and one we are confortable with, and you clearly would give up some things by not using that way, like - knowing if progress is 'on schedule'. SO the very thing you are asking for 'are things on schedule' ar6e the things that have, by virtue of choosing a non-top down strategy - unknowable.
I'd be interested to hear if any agorists who have read Col Thomas Hammes' 'The Sling and the Stone' which is where he introduced the notion of 4th generation warfare vs 3rd. It seems somewhat relevant to the conversation. 3rd generation would correspond to what Max seems to be thinking, if I'm not mistaken.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Maxliberty: A really weak objection? It is the underpinning of agorism that only agorist counter-economic activity is undermining the state and capable of creating the institutions to do so. If it's false and all counter-economic activity undermines the state and counter-economic institutions can be created without agorist ideology then agorism as an ideology is of no more value than current activity for undermining the state through counter-economic means. The objection, which has never been answered by agorists, dismantles the whole strategy of the agorist ideology. Yes, a really weak objection. It doesn't undermine agorism at all. Maxliberty:It is the underpinning of agorism that only agorist counter-economic activity is undermining the state This is false. You should know that by now. No excuse not to.
No wonder you didn't answer any challenges, you can't even articulate what your advocating.
The agorists have consistently argued that agorist counter-economic activity has a different impact than regular counter-economic activity. You need to pay attention.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Is agorism only about operating in a black market to undermine the state?
Accoridng to agorists the black market doesn't undermine the state. Try and keep up.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Ah great. So you admit to explicitly insulting me. Well, you're wrong. And an ass. Good luck with your Liberty Colony with a personality like that.
No, I merely point out that people who advocate that others do the work they are unwilling to do dont have much of a leg to stand on.
david_z: Geoffrey Allan Plauche:I thought I remember reading about a tax on property for those renouncing citizenship too, but I might be wrong. Nope. You were right. All your property are belong to uncle sam.
Yup - this is the exit tax I was talking about. But what I meant was: additional restrictions on top of this will likely be forthcoming, including currency controls and potentially emigration controls. So you've paid the exit tax and now when you try to transfer what's left, you find that you can only move $10k/yr out, or something similar. Because not just half of your property belongs to the State - it all does.
BTW, there are some obvious ways that you can structure things such that this exit tax will not apply to all of your assets and which is lawful, but it takes some planning ahead of time. Which is why waiting until the last minute is a bad idea if your intent is to expatriate. The Sovereign Society is probably a good place to start for information. Just don't get sucked into their gimmicky offers.
liberty student: Don't call me a statist.
Don't call me a statist.
I didn't. I pointed out that you were falling into the same fallacy that statists do.
Second, what are people doing today? Rolling over. They roll over when they feel threatened. That is how government's control people. That is how th