I'll cut it short: could someone give me a hypothetical example of agorism working?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Somalia?
I'm trying to understand the process...
I've only a read a bit of the New Libertarian Manifesto, and some articles on the A.L.L. (I recommend that site highly).
As I see it they oppose all involvement in the government, including voting. What they advocate is 'ignoring' the government, that is, peaceful resistance. Stopping payment of all taxes, not receving any services from government and no longer seeking government employment (that includes military service) and income. Also they encourage black market behaviour. Selling all products without government licenses or restrictions. Producers stop applying for government licenses and consumers stop seeking government licenses in products.
Eventually as government loses its influence it would just fade away.
Hey, this is a private residence man...
Wouldn't that result in the government cracking down instead?
As I see it, the whole point would be to encourage less and less employment in the arms of government that crack down. To encourage people to not work for the police, to not enlist in the army, to not enlist in the military police etc. Once the governments enforcement is taken away whats left? A bunch of bureaucrats.
Thats how I picture it at least. Any agorist is free to help me out. Im curious to.
The problem I see is that as long as there is a non-agorist majority, it still wouldn't matter because there would plenty of people/money for the state to use. Even if many people in your area became agorist, if there were enough people in another state that weren't, the federal government could use their money to come after you.
It seems that if there were enough agorists for agorism to work, then voting would work too...
Ego: The problem I see is that as long as there is a non-agorist majority, it still wouldn't matter because there would plenty of people/money for the state to use. Even many people in your area became agorist, if there were enough people in another state that weren't, the federal government could use their money to come after you. It seems that if there were enough agorists for agorism to work, then voting would work too...
The problem I see is that as long as there is a non-agorist majority, it still wouldn't matter because there would plenty of people/money for the state to use. Even many people in your area became agorist, if there were enough people in another state that weren't, the federal government could use their money to come after you.
Well thats why agorists preach education and getting the message out to as many people as possible, that includes at a federal level. What is the government going to do when most of its armed forces and police have been, through debate and arguement, convinced that they should no longer serve the state. As I see it, once the military is out, theres no need to convince anyone else, although it still should be done. I mean... is the IRS still going to try to enforce taxes when there is no one to enforce. They know theyre thought of as the scum of the earth.
But agorists are opposed to voting per se, as it is part of the political structure they are trying to bring down. If the majority of people were agorists I think voting would be equivalent to an athlete in top physical condition starting to use drugs, not training, and starting to eat junk food.
When governments start to run out of enlistees, wouldn't they either raise salaries or start a draft? I just can't see a case where agorism would work and elections wouldn't.
Who would enforce the draft? They're short on enlistees, that's why they're having a draft in the first place.
I imagine agorists would hope the government would be unable to do what you recomended because a) tax revenues would be falling since tax resistance is encouraged and b) use of government money is discouraged while use of private commodity money is at the same time encouraged thus loosening governments grip on money and making its ability to raise salaries for any state jobs obsolete.
Ego: I'll cut it short: could someone give me a hypothetical example of agorism working?
Sure.
Give me an example where you traded X for Y with B without any government involvement.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Ego: Wouldn't that result in the government cracking down instead?
I suggest reading the New Libertarian Manifesto by Samuel Edward Konkin III.
In it he goes through the phases of Agorism establishing that the possibility of government "crackdowns" or Pogroms would not be likely until the second phase of the Agorist revolution, at which point Agorists exist to such a level that small pockets of Agorists exist to help ensure mutual protection from the state. This is where the seeds for the Revolutionary Agorist Cadre begin to take place.
I did a video on protection methods for Agorists here.
Ego: The problem I see is that as long as there is a non-agorist majority, it still wouldn't matter because there would plenty of people/money for the state to use. Even many people in your area became agorist, if there were enough people in another state that weren't, the federal government could use their money to come after you.
The problem I see is that as long as there is a non-agorist majority, it still wouldn't matter because there would plenty of people/money for the state to use.
Even many people in your area became agorist, if there were enough people in another state that weren't, the federal government could use their money to come after you.
Revolutions have never required majorities. Less than 1/3 of the Americans really supported the secession from Britain. All that is required is enough Agorists and enough connections in the black market so that the Revolutionary Agorist Cadre can function and protection agencies can begin to rely on eachother for information to prosecute criminals holding government positions.
Phase 3: High-Density, Large Condensation Agorist Society In this phase, the State moves into a series of terminal crises, somewhat analogous to the well-known Marxist scenario, but with different causes - in this case, real ones. Fortunately, the potential for damage has been drastically reduced by the sapping of the State's resources and the corrosion of its authority by the growth of the Counter-Economy. In fact, as the resources of the economy approach equality between the State and Agora, the State is pushed intro crisis. Wars and rampant inflation with depressions and crack-ups become perpetual as the State attempts to redeem its authority. It may be possible to reverse its declilne by corrupting the agora with seductive anti-principles*, so the NLA's first task is clear: to maintain vigilance and purity of thought. In this phase, the NLA (New Libertarian Alliance/Revolutionary Agorist Cadre/etc.) may no longer hold either label or much of its old form. The most motivated New Libertarians will move into the research and development of segments of the budding agorist protection and arbitration agencies and into positions as directors of the protection company syndicates. The situation now approaches revolution but is still reversible. Again the New Libertarians are in the forefront of maintaining and defending gains to this point, but are looking ahead to the next phase. The NLA (now just a collective term for the most forward-looking elements) can accelerate the process by discovering and developing the optimal methods of protection and defense, both by word and deed, for their industry and by entrepreneuring its innovations. At this phase transition between three and four we have the last unleashing of violence by the Ruling Class of the State to suppress those elements that would bring them to justice for all past state crimes. The State's intellectuals perceive that its authority has failed and all will be lost; things must be reversed now or never. The NLA must prevent premature awareness of this status or premature action on this awareness. This is the final strategic goal of the NLA. When the State unleases its final wave of suprression - and is successfully resisted - this is the definition of Revolution. Once realization has occured that the State no longer can plunder and pay off its parasitical class, the enforcers will switch sides to those better able to pay them and the State will rapidly implode into a series of pockets of statism in backward areas - if any. New Libertarian Manifesto, IV: Revolution, Our Strategy 65-66
In this phase, the State moves into a series of terminal crises, somewhat analogous to the well-known Marxist scenario, but with different causes - in this case, real ones. Fortunately, the potential for damage has been drastically reduced by the sapping of the State's resources and the corrosion of its authority by the growth of the Counter-Economy.
In fact, as the resources of the economy approach equality between the State and Agora, the State is pushed intro crisis. Wars and rampant inflation with depressions and crack-ups become perpetual as the State attempts to redeem its authority. It may be possible to reverse its declilne by corrupting the agora with seductive anti-principles*, so the NLA's first task is clear: to maintain vigilance and purity of thought. In this phase, the NLA (New Libertarian Alliance/Revolutionary Agorist Cadre/etc.) may no longer hold either label or much of its old form. The most motivated New Libertarians will move into the research and development of segments of the budding agorist protection and arbitration agencies and into positions as directors of the protection company syndicates.
The situation now approaches revolution but is still reversible. Again the New Libertarians are in the forefront of maintaining and defending gains to this point, but are looking ahead to the next phase. The NLA (now just a collective term for the most forward-looking elements) can accelerate the process by discovering and developing the optimal methods of protection and defense, both by word and deed, for their industry and by entrepreneuring its innovations.
At this phase transition between three and four we have the last unleashing of violence by the Ruling Class of the State to suppress those elements that would bring them to justice for all past state crimes. The State's intellectuals perceive that its authority has failed and all will be lost; things must be reversed now or never. The NLA must prevent premature awareness of this status or premature action on this awareness. This is the final strategic goal of the NLA.
When the State unleases its final wave of suprression - and is successfully resisted - this is the definition of Revolution. Once realization has occured that the State no longer can plunder and pay off its parasitical class, the enforcers will switch sides to those better able to pay them and the State will rapidly implode into a series of pockets of statism in backward areas - if any.
New Libertarian Manifesto, IV: Revolution, Our Strategy
65-66
*Like your parlour-revolutionary ideals.
No, because voting is on the level of the statists and as Agorists are the anti-statists, the statists would have no choice but to band together and battle the Agorists - a battle the Agorists would obviously lose as it is out of their element.
Agorism is better than voting for several reasons.One, the idea is new and revolutionary, not old and reformist. Votes do not rally people so much and there is less incentive involved. In the Agora, one profits while fighting the state. With the state, one just signs away their mortgage to a failed Ron Paul campaign. Two, the purpose of Agorism is to utilize the market advantage against the socialist weakness - calculating capital in an efficient way.
Three, reformists, like you, are corruptible by anti-principles - such as giving into compromise. Agorists, on the other hand, should not be, as it is inherently uncompromising and purist.
Ego: When governments start to run out of enlistees, wouldn't they either raise salaries or start a draft? I just can't see a case where agorism would work and elections wouldn't.
If the government were to bring back the draft then the Agorist population would explode in numbers.
If the government raised salaries - they won't to the extent that people would start to find military life profitable - then they'd essentially lose out on all those precious resources you speak of for paying a group that cannot fight in the way that the Agorists are fighting.
For those who think convincing people to become agorists would be hard, ask yourselves just how much harder it is to convince people to vote for libertarian parties... I think agorism is much sounder.
Inquisitor: For those who think convincing people to become agorists would be hard, ask yourselves just how much harder it is to convince people to vote for libertarian parties... I think agorism is much sounder.
It's also the audience you're aiming to convince. People interested in voting usually already have their minds made up. People not interested in voting will be easier to recruit.
Niccolò: Ego: The problem I see is that as long as there is a non-agorist majority, it still wouldn't matter because there would plenty of people/money for the state to use. Even many people in your area became agorist, if there were enough people in another state that weren't, the federal government could use their money to come after you. Revolutions have never required majorities. Less than 1/3 of the Americans really supported the secession from Britain. All that is required is enough Agorists and enough connections in the black market so that the Revolutionary Agorist Cadre can function and protection agencies can begin to rely on eachother for information to prosecute criminals holding government positions. Phase 3: High-Density, Large Condensation Agorist Society In this phase, the State moves into a series of terminal crises, somewhat analogous to the well-known Marxist scenario, but with different causes - in this case, real ones. Fortunately, the potential for damage has been drastically reduced by the sapping of the State's resources and the corrosion of its authority by the growth of the Counter-Economy. In fact, as the resources of the economy approach equality between the State and Agora, the State is pushed intro crisis. Wars and rampant inflation with depressions and crack-ups become perpetual as the State attempts to redeem its authority. It may be possible to reverse its declilne by corrupting the agora with seductive anti-principles*, so the NLA's first task is clear: to maintain vigilance and purity of thought. In this phase, the NLA (New Libertarian Alliance/Revolutionary Agorist Cadre/etc.) may no longer hold either label or much of its old form. The most motivated New Libertarians will move into the research and development of segments of the budding agorist protection and arbitration agencies and into positions as directors of the protection company syndicates. The situation now approaches revolution but is still reversible. Again the New Libertarians are in the forefront of maintaining and defending gains to this point, but are looking ahead to the next phase. The NLA (now just a collective term for the most forward-looking elements) can accelerate the process by discovering and developing the optimal methods of protection and defense, both by word and deed, for their industry and by entrepreneuring its innovations. At this phase transition between three and four we have the last unleashing of violence by the Ruling Class of the State to suppress those elements that would bring them to justice for all past state crimes. The State's intellectuals perceive that its authority has failed and all will be lost; things must be reversed now or never. The NLA must prevent premature awareness of this status or premature action on this awareness. This is the final strategic goal of the NLA. When the State unleases its final wave of suprression - and is successfully resisted - this is the definition of Revolution. Once realization has occured that the State no longer can plunder and pay off its parasitical class, the enforcers will switch sides to those better able to pay them and the State will rapidly implode into a series of pockets of statism in backward areas - if any. New Libertarian Manifesto, IV: Revolution, Our Strategy 65-66SEK3 was very concerned, however, about the objection you raise that one smaller Agorist area will be used to combat a larger one. For this, it is required that the NLA move fast over all areas - or as many as they can - or at least defend against such encroachments successfully by either battling or evacuating. *Like your parlour-revolutionary ideals. It seems that if there were enough agorists for agorism to work, then voting would work too... No, because voting is on the level of the statists and as Agorists are the anti-statists, the statists would have no choice but to band together and battle the Agorists - a battle the Agorists would obviously lose as it is out of their element. Agorism is better than voting for several reasons.One, the idea is new and revolutionary, not old and reformist. Votes do not rally people so much and there is less incentive involved. In the Agora, one profits while fighting the state. With the state, one just signs away their mortgage to a failed Ron Paul campaign. Two, the purpose of Agorism is to utilize the market advantage against the socialist weakness - calculating capital in an efficient way. Three, reformists, like you, are corruptible by anti-principles - such as giving into compromise. Agorists, on the other hand, should not be, as it is inherently uncompromising and purist.
Well yes, I do believe in compromise. No, I don't think that it's fair to us; no, I don't think that revolution is immoral in any way; I think that compromise, for the time being, is the only option we have.
Compromise does not mean raising taxes a litltle bit, and it does not mean starting a new welfare program slightly smaller than the leftists would have liked. It means cutting taxes, cutting back on welfare, and cutting regulations. Just because we can't cut them down all way doesn't mean that we shouldn't cut them down some.
If you had the chance to vote for a (USA) candidate who wanted to flatten the tax brackets and allow people to opt-out of Social-Security, would you not vote for him/her?
Under agorism, when the state first begins cracking down on people, how do you plan on keeping your average citizen in the movement? Especially if it happens fairly early on? All it takes is one bunch of arrests, the statist media and academia calling for stiff sentences for the tax evaders, and your average mom and pop would probably leave the movement.
Ego, how successful has the state been at "cracking down" on such activities to begin with? Is it not the case that such black markets exist precisely because of the failure of the state's prohibitions and a considerable factor of unenforcability to begin with? And when faced with the prospect of an even larger black market to deal with, how will the state somehow manage to increase its efficiency at prohibiting these things? It seems to me that basic prohibition theory makes a good case for agorism, as it demonstrates the virtual impossibility for the state to truly control these things. As agorism progresses, the law effectively becomes even less enforcable, not more enforcable.
It is true that there is always a risk of the state applying brute force to supress dissent and rebellion, but that would only delegitimize them in the eyes of the public by revealing the essentially violent nature of the institution more clearly. While states may be founded on violence, they usually don't like to excerize it too openly on their own populations (although when they're beligerant they do). In order to sustain themselves, they prefer more pacifying methods meant to create complacency or submission (the control of information, ideological manipulation, social bait, bread and circuses, patronage, etc.).
My views on how states sustain themselves and how to overcome political power is drawn straight from Etienne La Boetie's Discourse. Political power depends in large part on the ascquiescance of the people to their own plunder and servitude. It is rather amazing that it even is sucessful considering that the population outnumbers their rulers by far, yet they still are submissive to and even collusive with the state. Political power becomes unenforcable if people merely engage in mass civil disobedience, and agorism is nothing but a significant subset of a strategy for mass civil disobedience.
Strategically, how are agorists expected to challenge the state when the state has a "magic checkbook" (aka the Fed)? Even if agorists insulate themselves from having their wealth stolen by creating their own (presumably commodity-backed) currency, the "magic checkbook" would still have access to the wealth of any law-abiding citizens. As a tactical matter, it seems to me absolutely essential to get an Austrian into the Presidency, where via executive order he could re-establish a gold standard (or free market in money). We've already seen individual candidates with some components of what's needed to accomplish this... the understanding of Ron Paul, the charisma of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, the vast personal fortune and willingness to spend it of Ross Perot. Get all 3 of those things into one candidate, and we'll be in business.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
So long as we're still thinking in terms of placing "the right people" into political power, I don't see how we'll ever reach the ultimate goal of eliminating the state apparatus itself. The goal is not to have the right people in political power but to eliminate such political power relationships to begin with. Placing someone into such a position who will implement reform but still maintain the existance of the position itself and use its means doesn't seem like a strategy for abolishing the state. The idea of someone gaining power over the executive branch in order to abolish it, as if they would dissolve their own position of political power, seems laughable to me. The trojan house strategy doesn't make any sense to me at all.
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