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have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.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.
IMO the state can be compatible with freedom if it loses its coercive elements. I think this is theoretically possible via a system of voluntary taxation supplemented by the government participation in some markets (as an equal participant). It's within this framework that I think it valuable to get an Austrian into the presidency (plus, ideally, a large proponents of Austrians into congress, perhaps emulating Newt's Contract with America coup).
Also, it seems to me that agorism is somewhat coercive, in that it advocates physical conflict between its private enforcers and the state. IMO any physical conflict must resolve itself as coercion enforced by the winner on the loser and must therefore be discarded on ethical grounds (i.e. the ends doesn't justify the means). However, I should note that I'm unfamiliar with agorism so perhaps this has been addressed.
I should add that, as a strictly tactical matter, I see no conflict with agorism's ends and temporarily achieving a political position for the sole purpose of eliminating an opponent's tactical advantage (in this case, the "magic checkbook"). That is, getting a President to eliminate the Fed would seem to me to be a strategic necessity before an agorist counter-economy has any hope of out-competing the state-sanctioned economy.
maxpot46: IMO the state can be compatible with freedom if it loses its coercive elements. I think this is theoretically possible via a system of voluntary taxation supplemented by the government participation in some markets (as an equal participant). It's within this framework that I think it valuable to get an Austrian into the presidency (plus, ideally, a large proponents of Austrians into congress, perhaps emulating Newt's Contract with America coup). Also, it seems to me that agorism is somewhat coercive, in that it advocates physical conflict between its private enforcers and the state. IMO any physical conflict must resolve itself as coercion enforced by the winner on the loser and must therefore be discarded on ethical grounds (i.e. the ends doesn't justify the means). However, I should note that I'm unfamiliar with agorism so perhaps this has been addressed.
IMO the state can be compatible with freedom if it loses its coercive elements.
At which point it would cease to be a state and become a voluntary private protection or arbitration organization. Take away the territorial monopoly and the power to tax and it basically is no longer a state, as those are the fundamental keystones of state power.
I think this is theoretically possible via a system of voluntary taxation supplemented by the government participation in some markets (as an equal participant).
Voluntary taxation is a contradiction in terms. If it's truly voluntary than it is nothing but donations, gifts and market prices.
If it's literally a part of the market itself, it no longer is a state and we have market anarchism.
It's within this framework that I think it valuable to get an Austrian into the presidency (plus, ideally, a large proponents of Austrians into congress, perhaps emulating Newt's Contract with America coup).
Well that's not the framework we'd be working with. We'd be working with an institution with a coercive territorial monopoly - a state.
Also, it seems to me that agorism is somewhat coercive, in that it advocates physical conflict between its private enforcers and the state.
I don't recall ever reading any Agorist literature that advocates initiating force. But if the state decided to initiate force against private groups, then by all means Agorists support the liberty of the private groups to engage in defense against the aggressor. As does libertarian theory in general.
IMO any physical conflict must resolve itself as coercion enforced by the winner on the loser and must therefore be discarded on ethical grounds (i.e. the ends doesn't justify the means).
I've never been a proponent of the idea that the ends justify the means. But I think you're using the term coercion in too general of a sense. Libertarianism does not oppose all force regaurdless of context. It opposes the initiation of force. Thus, by all means, self-defense is fine.
maxpot46: I should add that, as a strictly tactical matter, I see no conflict with agorism's ends and temporarily achieving a political position for the sole purpose of eliminating an opponent's tactical advantage (in this case, the "magic checkbook"). That is, getting a President to eliminate the Fed would seem to me to be a strategic necessity before an agorist counter-economy has any hope of out-competing the state-sanctioned economy.
The agorist's ends is ultimately for government to be absorbed by the market itself. By definition, this cannot be done by diverting resources away from the market in order to persue the political process and by joining the very organization you're supposed to be abolishing. The point is essentially to outcompete the state. You don't do that by joining the ranks of the state, you do it externally through separate independant organizations.
Ego: maxpot46: IMO the state can be compatible with freedom if it loses its coercive elements. I think this is theoretically possible via a system of voluntary taxation supplemented by the government participation in some markets (as an equal participant). It's within this framework that I think it valuable to get an Austrian into the presidency (plus, ideally, a large proponents of Austrians into congress, perhaps emulating Newt's Contract with America coup). Also, it seems to me that agorism is somewhat coercive, in that it advocates physical conflict between its private enforcers and the state. IMO any physical conflict must resolve itself as coercion enforced by the winner on the loser and must therefore be discarded on ethical grounds (i.e. the ends doesn't justify the means). However, I should note that I'm unfamiliar with agorism so perhaps this has been addressed. I'll respond to the other posts in a bit, but this is nearly exactly my position. We don't need to get rid of the state, we just need to make sure it doesn't steal.
Well this entire discussion is rather strange then, because you're viewing things from a minarchist perspective when the context of agorism is from an anarchist perspective. This isn't supposed to be a minarchist vs. anarchist debate. The assumed ultimate goal here is the elimination of the state, not the taming of the beast to a hypothetical nightwatchman role.
What's the difference between miniarchism and anarchism if the "state" can't initiate force? It's much more likely to be accepted by others, as well.
Ego: What's the difference between miniarchism and anarchism if the "state" can't initiate force? It's much more likely to be accepted by others, as well.
As soon as the state ceases to initiate force, it also ceases to exist as a state. Hence, minarchism by default must advocate at least some sort of coercion, otherwise the state you advocate is just a private firm competing with others. So I think you're misrepresenting minarchism.
If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.
Solreyus
I'm not the one who called myself a miniarchist; Brainpolice did. My point is that our ideas are much more acceptable if framed as "we want keep our government, just make sure it doesn't initiate force" than "we are anarchsits, we don't want government".
edit: hilarious spelling
Ego: Well yes, I do believe in compromise.
Well yes, I do believe in compromise.
Then you are a counter-revolutionary; you should be black balled from the movement.
Ego: 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.
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.
You've admitted to being a counter-revolutionary, so you are not apart of us, and we are no allies of you.
Ego: 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.
Compromise just means combining differences to reach a mutual conclusion. Anarchists and Statists cannot do this, however, for the very fact that they are sworn enemies and as long as one reigns the other cannot deal with it but by blood.
It doesn't matter what compromises you want. A compromise is a compromise, it is no less evil.
Ego: 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?
Voting isn't the only variable in the political process. In itself, voting means nothing. It is the time, effort, and resources that are wasted in politics.The question is a loaded one for that reason.
Still, I would not. I would prefer to see a bullet in his brain.
Ego: 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.
Karl Hess openly refused to pay taxes; he was a well known celebrity for it. Still, however, the general sympathies were on his side. People possess a natural persuasion towards laissez-faire. Similar to the situation in the Middle East. If the United States did not expand its empire in that area, there would be general peace amongst the different nations - despite the fringes that disagree distinctly with the American model.
The purpose of Agorism is to create a counter-economy (encompassing a counter-society). As the state grows and becomes more forceful, more people become resentful of it. This is analogous to your silly draft objection.
You're really just grasping at straws now.
Maxpot, you're just bringing up the Randian idea of the "state" now - stripped of its power to tax, a State is nothing but a private territorial monopolist of force. Take that away too, and you have market anarchism.
As for opposing it violently being coercive, the state is the aggressor here. It is self-defence. Do I honestly care for those statists who get their just dessert? No. They had no problem imposing their rule on innocents. This is not coercion. This is corrective justice.
Niccolò: Ego: Well yes, I do believe in compromise. ... You've admitted to being a counter-revolutionary, so you are not apart of us, and we are no allies of you.
...
Why thank you for become the collective voice for libertarians (seeing as now I'm apparently not one)! I'm sure they appreciate it.
If I may liberally use bold text: It is counter-productive and silly to oppose reforms that reduce the state's power in the name of eliminating the state's power.
You view this as a game. It's not. Real people are being robbed, and it's silly to oppose laws that would minimize the robbery on the grounds that it's still robbery.
While I wish that tax-evasion and black markets would truly get rid of the state, statists usually find a way to parlay those efforts into more power for themselves.
I haven't really made up my mind on agorism. I see the benefit of political action on thigns such as lowering taxes or ending government corporate welfare, but at the same time, I see the contradiction in forcing a political candidate onto someone else.
As long as that candidate is shrinking government, it's not forcing anything on anyone! Just because voting is exercising control over others doesn't mean that voting in self-defense is wrong!
How can a candidate exist within the institutional framework of the state without employing political means in order to hold such a position to begin with? Their very existance as a politician requires forced wealth redistribution to ensure or secure their position.
Yes but the same would apply to the more statist candidate who would otherwise be holding that position.
Ego: Yes but the same would apply to the more statist candidate who would otherwise be holding that position.
But then this easily leads straight into pragmatic "lesser of two evils" kind of thinking. It does not address the institutional problem itself. The institutional problem will continue so long as the same institutional means are still used. The fundamental question at hand is not a matter of who should have the helm of political power but whether or not the helm itself should exist. While the beast could concievable be steered in one direction or the other, the beast still exists nonetheless and it must be fed in order for you to keep steering it. As an institutional agent, one is dependant on the institutional means and structure.
If you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, why wouldn't you choose the lesser evil? In the course of ending the state, no matter which path you chose, there will be several steps taken, all of which result in smaller government, none of which result in no government. That doesn't mean those steps shouldn't be taken, it simply means that you have to keep taking more steps!
Ego: If you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, why wouldn't you choose the lesser evil? In the course of ending the state, not matter which path you chose, there will be several steps taken, all of which result in smaller government, none of which result in no government. That doesn't mean those steps shouldn't be taken, it simply means that you have to keep taking more steps!
If you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, why wouldn't you choose the lesser evil? In the course of ending the state, not matter which path you chose, there will be several steps taken, all of which result in smaller government, none of which result in no government. That doesn't mean those steps shouldn't be taken, it simply means that you have to keep taking more steps!
I would prefer to choose no evil at all. If I genuinely consider something to be evil, why would I so easily asqueisce to it? I have no obligation to choose between two evils, so why not just abstain from the decision-making process? It certainly would seem to virtuous to do so. Is the political process truly a gigantic lifeboat situation in which you must make a bad decision against your own conciensce no matter which way you cut it? If so, then why participate in it? Why not follow your moral sense as consistantly as possible?
Do atheists participate in the church's decision-making process? Do egalitarians and anti-racists participate in the KKK's decision-making process? I would think not, for it would make absolutely no sense to do so as they would be participating in a decision-making process that fundamentally opposes their principles. Why shouldn't the same apply to libertarianism? Why should an anti-statist participate in a statist decision-making process? What sense does this really make?
Regardless of whether you choose the candidate, they are going to be ruling over you. The choice isn't Candidate A, Candidate B, and No Candidate! Just because you abstain from the process doesn't mean it will affect you.
[late edit: added last second sentence for clarity]
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