Apolitical Libertarianism and Agorism

Apolitical/Alternative Strategies

Brainpolice — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:58:07 GMT

This thread is for discussion or debate about apolitical strategies for the attainment of liberty involving social and/or economic means as opposed to political means. General concepts worth discussing are: civil disobedience, direct action, secession (with emphasis on individual secession), agorism, participatory democracy, spontaneous order, social evolution, implications of the calculation problem to the sustainability of the state in the long-term, defeating the state inside of your head, the familial roots of the state, education and possible beneficial cultural climates for liberty.

You're also welcome to vote in the poll about agorism:

[Please visit the site to access the poll]

Crime & Punishment in an Anarcho Capitalist Society

Bill — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:24:13 GMT

by Bill Smith on Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 11:17am

In the paper "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism" by Walter Block. The author puts forth a scenario in which a convicted car thief is forced to make restitution to the victim plus an equal amount for the punishment of his crime. Two teeth for one. That theory got me thinking about ways to deal with Law enforcement , the court system,correctional facilities, and the rehabilitation of criminals.

In Libertarian theory if there is no victim there is no crime. Victimless Crimes are just an attempt by one group to force another to adopt their moralities or principals. That is not a matter for the Justice system to decide. Once this theory is adopted it will immediately free law enforcement officers, judges, and jailers of costly time consuming and detrimental functions.

In our present system of justice the police catch a car thief, he is found guilty by a jury of his peers and the judge sends him to prison for say five years. What happens next? The taxpayers including the victim cut a check for the police the courts and the jail. The criminals wife and kids go on Welfare so we pay for them too. The victims car gets wrecked in the police chase but at least he has the satisfaction of knowing that this guy won't be able to steal his new car for five years.

Consider this,the police catch a car thief. He is found guilty. The court then decides on a monetary judgement against the defendant. This will include restitution to the victim for his property, for his pain and suffering et al. A judgment would be placed on the defendant for the cost of his apprehension and trial. He is then remanded to a privately owned Penal Institution. Where he can apply for a job at a competitive wage and work until all parties are made whole. If he chooses not to work in the Widget factory, Farm or whatever for profit business venture this institution offers he will not have enough money in his account to purchase meals or rent a comfortable cell. However if he does decide to work and prosper in his new found profession he may then be awarded performance based wage increases and the opportunity to work overtime, gaining an early release. What happens next? Well maybe the guy gets out and steals back the car he bought you. Or maybe the guy applies for a job at the local widget factory. When asked for his qualifications he can proudly say I did a five year sentence in two and a half and I'm the best damn widget maker you ever saw.

I'm New: Labor Unions and Voting

NewFoundingFather — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:09:07 GMT

Like I said I am new, specifically to the Agorist Philosophy but fairly new to Mises and Libertarianism in general. I've always known that Liberty (capitalized on purpose) is a natural right for every man but also that it is the basis for any functioning society. For the better part of my formative years I considered myself a conservative and even a Republican (big R). But have found within the past 2 years that association to be incompatible with my core philosophy of Liberty; for reasons you all have known. Therefore, with my newly lossed Libertarian Virginity, please be gentle with me in your answers to my questions; I'm still learning. However, please be in depth in any response you may choose to give and notations and sources are welcome as I long for knowledge and further research opportunities. (I read 2-3 books a month and am always looking for my next "fix")

As some may sympathize with, I am struggling with my "new" identity as a Libertarian and searching for synthesis in my life. I work for the government and am a member of a union. Both, I realize, are in most respects anti-libertarian. I justify my continued choice of career in that 1.) I am functioning as a protector of life and property (as a firefighter) and 2.) I continue my affiliation with my Local branch of the IAFF in an effort to change it from within. My struggle continues, however, in an effort to reconcile the split personalities of Libertarian and Government Agent/Union Member; and so I turn to the brilliant libertarian minds here on Mises for understanding.

As I understand Agorism and most of Libertarian thought, there is no natural right or legitimacy for government to exist and that all services, even the one I am apart of, can and should be controlled and operated by the private sector. Personally, my financial life, thus my entire life, is tied directly to the continuation of my empoloyment with the fire department. I am working to create my own opportunities and business outside of that employment so that I will not be dependent on my government job and pension in the future. But nonetheless, I must maintain it for the time being. Bring on the condemnation, but also please advise as what I can do while I am here. What steps should I take to bring Libertarianism to the Fire Service? Is their any legitimate reconciliation to be had while I remain employed by the very government I look to dispense with (or at least limit)?

Secondly, I have remained a "non-active" member in my Local. I continue to pay my monthly dues and object to almost every action the Local and IAFF take. There is currently a mild upheaval in our Local and I see it as an opportunity, finally, to inject some libertarian reforms in the process. Without giving him too much credit, as I know a majority of his policies go against Libertarianism, Ronald Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild and went on the become the only example of a (semi) free market president I've seen in my lifetime. Again, I understand the argument against participating in politics and the illegitimacy of government altogether. However, is there a place for me in the restructuring of my Local considering the viewpoints and libertarian ideas I posess? If so, what outline or guideline would you suggest I follow and what policies on a Local level should I endorse, encourage and battle for? My assumption is that Libertarianism and Agorism allow for the free association of people towards a common goal, thus the background of the union itself. Furthermore, I understand that that process has become perverted through government intervention and legislation. So how do I change it from within? Or is it even remotely possible?

Third, as I mentioned before, I understand the objection to involvement in politics to a certain extent. I understand that the undermining of government monopoly can be accomplished by focusing on "black market economics" and eventually private defense of the free-market economic system. (meaning a revolution, violent if necessary) I can't help but wonder, why not work both angles to achieve the end of anarchocapitalism? Wouldn't it be beneficial to have members, i.e. Ron Paul, in the government halls to defend liberty and peacably diminish the size of government to the point of non-existence?

I thank you all for your time and consideration of my predicament and for your thoughtful (thought provoking) answers to my questions. Please note I plan on submitiing this request for information in several different groups or forums, so please don't think badly of me for copying and pasting around this site, I am only looking for the most information and ideas as possible.

Barr Gets LP Nomination

Brainpolice — Mon, 26 May 2008 12:48:55 GMT

So Bob Barr got the LP's nomination at their most recent convention. There is a lot of dirt on this man from a libertarian perspective, ranging from his past support for the drug war and actually being the author of the defense of marriage act. Like all political oppurtunists, he has claimed to have changed his position since then in order to appease the demands of his consistuency. Like all political oppurtunists, this does not mean that he is sincere or that he does not still hold to those positions or would not support them pragmatically.

In the two-party system, politicians usually move (I.E. flip-flop or oppurtunistically change their position) towards "the center" in order to get more support. In the libertarian party, politicians usually move to a more radical position (rhetorically, that is) in order to shy away from their blatantly unlibertarian or even anti-libertarian past. In the case of "Big L" libertarians, this is usually in the conservative direction (their past, that is).

To me, this just proves what I've been trying to tell libertarians for a long time: that the movement is being infiltrated by conservatives and that the party is a waste of time that becomes less principled each year. The libertarian party has become little more than a mini-GOP that some old disguntled conservatives have flocked to out of disillusionment with the Republicans and neoconservatives.

On the other hand, with people like Mary Ruwart aside, the closest thing to a libertarian "left" within the party now is Mike Gravel, who isn't even a libertarian at all in the philosophical sense. Not only is the LP being infiltrated by conservatives, but the "left-wing" of the libertarian party is essentially non-existant. Since I'm a "left-libertarian", this makes me dislike the party even more.

While I'm not in favor of the party or political strategies at all, putting myself in a cost-benefit analysis mindset for a moment, Mary Ruwart was probably the best option presented (even though she's been chided by the conservative elements of the movement for her position on/against the age of consent, which really should not be controversial at least within libertarian circles). She did get close at first but Barr moved past her by the end of the convention.

views on the IWW?

wombatron — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:29:37 GMT

What are some opinions on the Industrial Workers of the World? I am somewhat divided on this issue. A radical union would be a great tool for liberty. But... the stated goal of the IWW is the "abolition of the wage system". I would think that forcibly stopping the voluntary hiring of employees in a free market would be unlibertarian. Also, I have major problems with vulgar syndicalists, such as Chomsky, who make up some of its membership. Any comments?

Forums of the Libertarian Left

wombatron — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:43:20 GMT

New forum for left-libertarianism! Forums of the Libertarian Left. If you'd like to join, follow the link and sign up!

The Ethics of the Political Process

Brainpolice — Wed, 21 May 2008 08:26:41 GMT

This thread is for discussion or debate about the ethics of the political process. What is the ethical nature of being a politician or bureaucrat? What precisely is the ethical status of either membership of or patronage with the state apparatus? Is voting unethical? Or is it a positive obligation, a legitimate as a form of self-defense, or ethically neutral?

You're also welcome to vote in the poll about the ethics of voting:

[Please visit the site to access the poll]

The Impracticality of the Political Process

Brainpolice — Wed, 21 May 2008 08:14:40 GMT

This thread is for discussion or debate about the practicality or impracticality of the political process as a means for the purpose of counteracting, reducing and ultimately abolishing political power. Questions worth exploring are: How meaningful is voting? How does the incentive structure of representative democracy affect the likelyhood of meaningful change in the direction of liberty? How likely does legislation truly carry out its intended purposes in an efficient way? How does the political process relate to the concept of interventionism? What is the empirical record of the effects of libertarian and classical liberal attempts to use the political process in the past and present? Does a trojan horse strategy in which one tries to abolish the state from within really make that much sense? What say you?

You are also welcome to vote in the poll about the practicality of the political process:

[Please visit the site to access the poll]

To what degree of state involvement?

majevska — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:25:38 GMT

So Ive been kicking these ideas about inside my head and want to hear what others think. To what degree should an apolilitical libertarian be involved with the state? You might say he should be involved not at all but that is a near impossibility. Probably even the least involved in the state do things like drive on state funded roads, hang out in public parks, walk on state funded sidewalks, pay at least some amount of taxes, purchase things from corporations at least somewhat in bed with the state etc. The other side of this is that people may accuse you of being hypocritical for using any degree of state services. I was telling my friend about agorism and mentioned that one easy yet probably highly profitable thing to do would be to bring lower tax cigarettes from VA to higher tax areas and sell them below local cost but above VA cost and she said "wont you have to use the governments roads for that?" The way I see it, there is a wide spectrum of involvement with the state, on one side would be living completely on your own, with absolutely NO state involvement as a subsistence farmer or something of the sort and on the other side would be a member of the political class. Agorists, apolitical libertarians are obviously not in the latter, but probably slightly more involved with the state than the former.

Truth in political advertising: libertarians or market liberals?

Nitroadict — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:58:25 GMT

I read this up this morning, and more or less agreed with the application of a different term towards the "Libertarian" Party, minarchists & partyarchs (although I think it's much longer overdue, in hindsight):

[the following is from: http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/980]

...a campaign to convince the LP to change their name to something else; something other than “Libertarian” as a “truth in advertising” thing.

My proposed umbrella term for neo-libertarian conservatoids, minarchists and partyarchs is also the term favored by the Cato Institute, so there is some appropriate precedent there. It’s “market liberal”.

I believe this serves our purposes by complementing the term “market anarchist”, potentially reinforcing the frame of the future “moderate left” being variations on “market liberal” and the future “radical left” mostly being or containing versions of “market anarchism” (until eventually the “market” part gets dropped because it’s just taken for granted and goes without saying).

Thoughts? I think this looks to be a promising development to bring clarity back to the term libertarianism, but of course, many an-caps, vulgar libertarians, minarchists, and political libertarians will most likley disagree with such.

Molyneux's Argument for "...Living Our Ethics" ?

Nitroadict — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:20:57 GMT

Hopefully this isn't too specific for a topic.

I recently came across one of Molyneux's article's:
( http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/02/ron-paul-revolution-postmortem.html ), where towards the end, he wrote the following:

The most basic inconsistency in libertarianism is that morality is considered both essential and immaterial. It is essential, because it underpins the entire philosophy – it is immaterial, however, in that libertarians continue to associate with people that they define as evil.

If you define a man as evil, and you continue to associate with him – whether he is your brother, father, friend or whatever – then all your words and speeches and ethical theories amount to less than nothing.

This is why I say that education and political activism will never advance the cause of libertarianism one single inch.

Freedom will advance only when we act with integrity in our personal relationships – when we reject those we define as evil.

As libertarians, we expect people to accept wrenching changes in their lives as a result of our philosophy. We expect public sector employees to switch over to the private sector. We expect drug enforcement agents to lose their entire careers. We expect corporate participants in the military-industrial complex to accept catastrophic downsizing. We expect people trapped in the quicksand of the welfare state to claw their way out. We expect a decommissioned soldier to make the transition to a civilian life, even if he wants to spend the rest of his career in the military. We expect those who exploit the existing system – the financiers, politicians and state-protected unions – to give up their inflated profits.

We expect so much from everyone else – and so little from ourselves.

“You should give up your lucrative and comfortable public sector position,” we say, “though I will not give up spending time with my cousin who supports the war in Iraq.”

“You should give up your war profiteering,” we say to mercantilist corporations, “though I will continue to party with my friends who fully support the state pointing its guns at my head.”

Is it any wonder that the Ron Paul revolution could never have succeeded?

Is it any wonder that for the past few hundred years, libertarianism has made virtually no progress whatsoever?

The answer is very, very simple.

If we want to free the world, we have to stop lecturing others about our ethics, and start living them ourselves.

If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine of course – but if you don’t want to live your ethics, can you do the rest of us a favor please?

Please – just stop talking about “ethics,” and thus discrediting those of us who are actually trying to make a difference."

I recall this stance briefly came up in passing at the forums at some point (I don't remember which topic), but I thought it was an interesting point concerning a 'change in tactics' on Molyneux's part.

While I do not really agree with the idea of shutting those out who do not support our views (slightly collectivist, I would think), I do think he has a point concerning the arguments libertarians have traditionally taken should change.

Thoughts?

Solidarity, Somalia, and defending Hope.

Harpakhrad11 — Sat, 24 May 2008 20:59:05 GMT

I would like to approach the topic of stateless Somalia and how we could allow this opportunity to pass us by. Many times I have heard both anarchists and our critics refer to the stateless nation of Somalia as an example of anarchy in action. Now we must recall that the situation in Somalia is not one of the peoples choosing, but rather one of circumstance, a side effect of war. This fact will clearly be overlooked by statist historians who will tell readers about the horrors of war, poverty, and inflation that dominated statelessness; no question the UN will be cast in the hero of this story. The story that will haunt we anarchists for generations is in the making as I type this, yet we sit idle.

Does there not seem to be something strange in all this? When discussing these things with others I was asked why I (a young man) did not make a pilgrimage to the country myself. One issue that has hindered me is financial, but in time this could be overcome. The real problem is that one mans travel to a war-torn land would serve only his curiosity. What really must be asked is if we, as a movement, should be putting more of a stake in the outcome of this conflict; including, but not limited to, relocating to Somalia. And, if we do, what should be our tactics?