Are black-markets free-markets? An entrepreneurial agorist perspective

This is a short essay on some of the false-concepts surrounding Government interference in the marketplace and markets in general. In modern political thought, libertarians freely discuss possible market solutions to the problems of criminal activity in a government-free society. We expound long and complex theories of dispute-resolution-organization structures, private defense agencies, private police firms, and private civil and criminal courts systems. These possible market solutions to the problems of existing crime are well and good, but, in the same step, we argue that these solutions cannot come into action now, in this instant, because of the state, and its monopoly on the use of force. But what IS the state, if not one of these very same violent criminal organizations to which these proposed market solutions are a response? When we refer to the free market, we do not refer to a market-place devoid of theft and property crime; We accept these abhorrent behaviors will always exist, and we propose effective market solutions to keep them at bay. So why then do we define 'the free market' as a market devoid of regulation and government interference? If the concept of ‘the market’ already includes the solutions to deal with violent behavior and forcible interference, then why must our definition of ‘the market’ explicitly exclude that very same behavior? By our own arguments, then, the market should already have an effective solution to the aggressive behavior of government agencies, in the same way it should already have the solution to threats from other aggressive agencies. From this perspective black-markets and free-markets are the same, and governments are simply another form of aggressive entity attempting to stifle the market, to which we should respond accordingly. Agorism aims to bring about a ‘free-society’ by means of counter-economics – starving the government of tax revenue by trading only in the black-market. However, I propose that there is no such thing as a ‘free-society’, nor its antithesis a ‘totalitarian-society’. In virtually every civilization, and, indeed, large group of people, there has been some form of black-market; Black-markets in the USSR, cigarettes in jails, drugs in schools, etc. Therefore, it is satisfactory to conclude that a market exists wherever large groups of people exist. And that the ‘freedom’ of that market depends on how heavily it is subject to bullying by aggressive entities, be they collective or individual. Perhaps then, Agorism should be viewed as a specific market strategy for entrepreneurs to go about continuing to operate in-spite of the aggression, and indeed continuing to work toward a market solution to the aggression. And rather than seeing our situation as one of bondage or slavery, seeing it as a market place which is sick, plagued by aggressive entities. What is needed then, is a cure to the sickness, some real physical defenses. One cannot lobby criminals to stop their criminal behavior. One can educate and advertise, to help restore health to the market. Certainly, the mises institute has been phenomenally successful in this respect. If we are to call things by their proper names, then a black-market is a free-market, and a free-market is a black-market, and indeed both are simply markets. A market must operate on some private contract law, or it cannot exist. Indeed most of the trade in the real-economy is conducted purely in the realm of private-law. So separating white, grey, and black markets on the basis of their adherence to public-law is virtually pointless, and serves only to obfuscate the truth. They are all part of the same private-law market – ‘the market’, without qualifiers. In summary, 1. In the practical sense, the term ‘free-market’ is more or less redundant, and should really be synonymous with the term ‘black-market’, or simply ‘market’. 2. ‘Governments’ should be viewed as dangerous criminal agencies and dealt with or avoided in the most efficient manner possible. 3. The global market is sick by means of excessive aggression, and needs help in the form of trade and wealth defense. 4. Agorism provides a possible entrepreneurial guide to doing business in this highly aggressive economic climate, as well as possible market solutions to the aggression itself. I’ll finish by referring the reader to the new libertarian manifesto (Agorist manifesto): http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf Thanks for reading!

My post seemed to destroy the formatting of the essay. I'll try a second time. Maybe a mod can fix this up? Essay: This is a short essay on some of the false-concepts surrounding Government interference in the marketplace and markets in general. In modern political thought, libertarians freely discuss possible market solutions to the problems of criminal activity in a government-free society. We expound long and complex theories of dispute-resolution-organization structures, private defense agencies, private police firms, and private civil and criminal courts systems. These possible market solutions to the problems of existing crime are well and good, but, in the same step, we argue that these solutions cannot come into action now, in this instant, because of the state, and its monopoly on the use of force. But what IS the state, if not one of these very same violent criminal organizations to which these proposed market solutions are a response? When we refer to the free market, we do not refer to a market-place devoid of theft and property crime; We accept these abhorrent behaviors will always exist, and we propose effective market solutions to keep them at bay. So why then do we define 'the free market' as a market devoid of regulation and government interference? If the concept of ‘the market’ already includes the solutions to deal with violent behavior and forcible interference, then why must our definition of ‘the market’ explicitly exclude that very same behavior? By our own arguments, then, the market should already have an effective solution to the aggressive behavior of government agencies, in the same way it should already have the solution to threats from other aggressive agencies. From this perspective black-markets and free-markets are the same, and governments are simply another form of aggressive entity attempting to stifle the market, to which we should respond accordingly. Agorism aims to bring about a ‘free-society’ by means of counter-economics – starving the government of tax revenue by trading only in the black-market. However, I propose that there is no such thing as a ‘free-society’, nor its antithesis a ‘totalitarian-society’. In virtually every civilization, and, indeed, large group of people, there has been some form of black-market; Black-markets in the USSR, cigarettes in jails, drugs in schools, etc. Therefore, it is satisfactory to conclude that a market exists wherever large groups of people exist. And that the ‘freedom’ of that market depends on how heavily it is subject to bullying by aggressive entities, be they collective or individual. Perhaps then, Agorism should be viewed as a specific market strategy for entrepreneurs to go about continuing to operate in-spite of the aggression, and indeed continuing to work toward a market solution to the aggression. And rather than seeing our situation as one of bondage or slavery, seeing it as a market place which is sick, plagued by aggressive entities. What is needed then, is a cure to the sickness, some real physical defenses. One cannot lobby criminals to stop their criminal behavior. One can educate and advertise, to help restore health to the market. Certainly, the mises institute has been phenomenally successful in this respect. If we are to call things by their proper names, then a black-market is a free-market, and a free-market is a black-market, and indeed both are simply markets. A market must operate on some private contract law, or it cannot exist. Indeed most of the trade in the real-economy is conducted purely in the realm of private-law. So separating white, grey, and black markets on the basis of their adherence to public-law is virtually pointless, and serves only to obfuscate the truth. They are all part of the same private-law market – ‘the market’, without qualifiers. In summary, 1. In the practical sense, the term ‘free-market’ is more or less redundant, and should really be synonymous with the term ‘black-market’, or simply ‘market’. 2. ‘Governments’ should be viewed as dangerous criminal agencies and dealt with or avoided in the most efficient manner possible. 3. The global market is sick by means of excessive aggression, and needs help in the form of trade and wealth defense. 4. Agorism provides a possible entrepreneurial guide to doing business in this highly aggressive economic climate, as well as possible market solutions to the aggression itself. I’ll finish by referring the reader to the new libertarian manifesto (Agorist manifesto): http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf Thanks for reading!

Unownable:

My post seemed to destroy the formatting of the essay.

Two words.  Plain Text.

 

Black markets could become freemarkets if Libertarians were able to take it over...

I have yet to read it other than skimming, but I'll take the initiative & post it here formatted :)

Unownable:

This is a short essay on some of the false-concepts surrounding Government interference in the marketplace and markets in general. In modern political thought, libertarians freely discuss possible market solutions to the problems of criminal activity in a government-free society. We expound long and complex theories of dispute-resolution-organization structures, private defense agencies, private police firms, and private civil and criminal courts systems.

These possible market solutions to the problems of existing crime are well and good, but, in the same step, we argue that these solutions cannot come into action now, in this instant, because of the state, and its monopoly on the use of force.

But what IS the state, if not one of these very same violent criminal organizations to which these proposed market solutions are a response? When we refer to the free market, we do not refer to a market-place devoid of theft and property crime; We accept these abhorrent behaviors will always exist, and we propose effective market solutions to keep them at bay. So why then do we define 'the free market' as a market devoid of regulation and government interference?

If the concept of ‘the market’ already includes the solutions to deal with violent behavior and forcible interference, then why must our definition of ‘the market’ explicitly exclude that very same behavior? By our own arguments, then, the market should already have an effective solution to the aggressive behavior of government agencies, in the same way it should already have the solution to threats from other aggressive agencies.

From this perspective black-markets and free-markets are the same, and governments are simply another form of aggressive entity attempting to stifle the market, to which we should respond accordingly. Agorism aims to bring about a ‘free-society’ by means of counter-economics – starving the government of tax revenue by trading only in the black-market.

However, I propose that there is no such thing as a ‘free-society’, nor its antithesis a ‘totalitarian-society’. In virtually every civilization, and, indeed, large group of people, there has been some form of black-market; Black-markets in the USSR, cigarettes in jails, drugs in schools, etc.

Therefore, it is satisfactory to conclude that a market exists wherever large groups of people exist. And that the ‘freedom’ of that market depends on how heavily it is subject to bullying by aggressive entities, be they collective or individual.

Perhaps then, Agorism should be viewed as a specific market strategy for entrepreneurs to go about continuing to operate in-spite of the aggression, and indeed continuing to work toward a market solution to the aggression.

And rather than seeing our situation as one of bondage or slavery, seeing it as a market place which is sick, plagued by aggressive entities.  What is needed then, is a cure to the sickness, some real physical defenses.

One cannot lobby criminals to stop their criminal behavior. One can educate and advertise, to help restore health to the market. Certainly, the mises institute has been phenomenally successful in this respect. If we are to call things by their proper names, then a black-market is a free-market, and a free-market is a black-market, and indeed both are simply markets.

A market must operate on some private contract law, or it cannot exist. Indeed most of the trade in the real-economy is conducted purely in the realm of private-law.  So separating white, grey, and black markets on the basis of their adherence to public-law is virtually pointless, and serves only to obfuscate the truth. They are all part of the same private-law market – ‘the market’, without qualifiers.

In summary:

1. In the practical sense, the term ‘free-market’ is more or less redundant, and should really be synonymous with the term ‘black-market’, or simply ‘market’.
2. ‘Governments’ should be viewed as dangerous criminal agencies and dealt with or avoided in the most efficient manner possible.
3. The global market is sick by means of excessive aggression, and needs help in the form of trade and wealth defense.
4. Agorism provides a possible entrepreneurial guide to doing business in this highly aggressive economic climate, as well as possible market solutions to the aggression itself.


I’ll finish by referring the reader to the new libertarian manifesto (Agorist manifesto): http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf Thanks for reading!

 

liberty student:

Unownable:

My post seemed to destroy the formatting of the essay.

Two words.  Plain Text.

 

I'm surprised no one has figured this out easily just by pulling out Notepad / Gedit / Vim / Textmate 

Yes, but what do you think of black market as a weapon against the state?

Yes, but how do you see the black market as an effective weapon against the state?