Just wondering what everyone's opinion of it is. I think that it is important and is a more revolutionary form of libertarianism, but the idea of counter economics seems a little backwards to me. I agree with them on like majority of the issues but wouldn't a counter economics or a black market hurt small businesses and non statist capitalists. And the idea of private defense firms seems very dangerous and in my opinion in an anarchist capitalist world they would replace the state and would be used by companies to subvert the free market and eventually fall into corporate wars. Maybe i just don't understand enough but would love to know what you all think.
I'm not familar with agorism but after doing a quick google search it seems very similar to anarcho capitalism.
Anarch:And the idea of private defense firms seems very dangerous and in my opinion in an anarchist capitalist world they would replace the state and would be used by companies to subvert the free market and eventually fall into corporate wars.
This concern is addressed in sections 4 and 10 of the article below:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
(4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle
Probably the most popular argument against libertarian anarchy is: well, what happens if (and this is Ayn Rand’s famous argument) I think you’ve violated my rights and you think you haven’t, so I call up my protection agency, and you call up your protection agency – why won’t they just do battle? What guarantees that they won’t do battle? To which, of course, the answer is: well, nothing guarantees they won’t do battle. Human beings have free will. They can do all kinds of crazy things. They might go to battle. Likewise, George Bush might decide to push the nuclear button tomorrow. They might do all sorts of things.
The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, "I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence." Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can.
(10) Robert Nozick and Tyler Cowen: Private Protection Agencies Will Become a de facto Government
Okay, one last consideration I want to talk about. This is a question that originally was raised by Robert Nozick and has since been pushed farther by Tyler Cowen. Nozick said: Suppose you have anarchy. One of three things will happen. Either the agencies will fight – and he gives two different scenarios of what will happen if they fight. But I’ve already talked about what happens if they fight, so I’ll talk about the third option. What if they don’t fight? Then he says, if instead they agree to these mutual arbitration contracts and so forth, then basically this whole thing just turns into a government. And then Tyler Cowen has pushed this argument farther. He said what happens is that basically this forms into a cartel, and it’s going to be in the interest of this cartel to sort of turn itself into a government. And any new agency that comes along, they can just boycott it.
Just as it’s in your interest if you come along with a new ATM card that it be compatible with everyone else’s machines, so if you come along with a brand new protection agency, it is in your interest that you get to be part of this system of contracts and arbitration and so forth that the existing ones have. Consumers aren’t going to come to you if they find out that you don’t have any agreements as to what happens if you’re in a conflict with these other agencies. And so, this cartel will be able to freeze everyone out.
Well, could that happen? Sure. All kinds of things could happen. Half the country could commit suicide tomorrow. But, is it likely? Is this cartel likely to be able to abuse its power in this way? The problem is cartels are unstable for all the usual reasons. That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that a cartel succeed. After all, people have free will. But it’s unlikely because the very incentives that lead you to form the cartel also lead you to cheat on it – because it’s always in the interest of anyone to make agreements outside the cartel once they are in it.
Bryan Caplan makes a distinction between self-enforcing boycotts and non-self-enforcing boycotts. Self-enforcing boycotts are ones where the boycott is pretty stable because it’s a boycott against, for example, doing business with people who cheat their business partners. Now, you don’t have to have some iron resolve of moral commitment in order to avoid doing business with people who cheat their business partners. You have a perfectly self-interested reason not to do business with those people.
But think instead of a commitment not to do business with someone because you don’t like their religion or something like that, or they’re a member of the wrong protection agency, one that your fellow protection agencies told you not to deal with – well, the boycott might work. Maybe enough people (and maybe everyone) in the cartel are so committed to upholding the cartel that they just won’t deal with the person. Is that possible? Yes. But, if we assume that they formed the cartel out of their own economic self-interest, then the economic self-interest is precisely what leads to the undermining because it’s in their interest to deal with the person, just as it’s always in your interest to engage in mutually beneficial trade.
for further Agorist reading:
http://altexpo.org/agorism
Joe: for further Agorist reading: http://altexpo.org/agorism
Better yet: http://agorism.info/
If you are selling things on the black market to try to futher a political cause it seems like a hopelessly bad idea. If something were signficantly profitable on the black market, it would have most likely been taken up by a much more deadly criminal group that you would probably not wish to deal with. If for some reason they were not dealing in that market and you and your peaceful gang of merry men were making enough profit to matter; the more organized, deadly, experienced, and apolitical criminal group would probably muscle in on your territory.
Other than that, black markets are usually not a good idea for some one to look to jump into for a place to make money unless you actually intamatly know the market. You shouldn't enter a black market just for the hell of it, or worse yet for a political cause.
Dondoolee: If you are selling things on the black market to try to futher a political cause it seems like a hopelessly bad idea. If something were signficantly profitable on the black market, it would have most likely been taken up by a much more deadly criminal group that you would probably not wish to deal with. If for some reason they were not dealing in that market and you and your peaceful gang of merry men were making enough profit to matter; the more organized, deadly, experienced, and apolitical criminal group would probably muscle in on your territory. Other than that, black markets are usually not a good idea for some one to look to jump into for a place to make money unless you actually intamatly know the market. You shouldn't enter a black market just for the hell of it, or worse yet for a political cause.
typically you see criminal gangs deal in black market items that are illegal and have no corresponding 'white' market for the same products.
Unless I am mistaken, I believe Agorism is about operating as much as possible in black markets. Which means black markets in things like produce, medicine, etc. Doing the business in gold or silver and staying 'off the grid' as much as possible, and giving as little money to the state in taxes as possible. Its a movement to try and 'opt out' of the state.
Profiting from something that is illegal is using the Black Market.
Profiting from something that is regulated is using the Grey Market.
All Agorism seeks to do is to activly encourage this type of business, because, at least according to Agorism, the Black and Grey Markets are simply supplying a demand for something that people want. The State regulates it or makes it illegal and consequently the State creates an artifical scarcity for that product. This means that anybody wishing to engage in these markets could potentially make a lot of money; and they do.
Now, interestingly Agorism per se would not exist on the free market, because in a free market there would be no state intervention and regulation. Agorism is free market activity. Agorists see Agorism as one revolutionary method of overthrowing the state. It is a movement created as a reaction to state suppression.
Alot of people dismiss it because they dont really understand it properly. I think someone said in another thread that it was some trendy fad that was once cool but now its not. If they properly understood what it was then im sure they wouldnt dismiss it.
If the people who engage in the Black and Grey Markets, became fully aware of Agorism and the implications and consequences of what they were doing instead of wanting to return to legitmate, White Markets then they would activly and enthusiastically persue their agoristic activity instead of feeling like the low lifes that most of them feel that they are.
Most small business owners try to stay "off the grid" as much as possible anyway. As far as regulated markets, I can say from first hand information (I owned a bar) most small business owners will cut every corner they can with taxes, it is a major part in operating a regular business. This is essential to entrpenurship in a regulated market when someone has limited funds. In essence, most rational small business enterprises are "agoristic". It also depends a lot on knowing good acountants and lawyers.
All agorism seems to be promoting is getting philosophers and political crusaders to invest in markets they know nothing about, and most likely losing their capital. Entering a heavily regulated market is NOT a preferable option to make an actual living off of if you do not know what you are doing. It seems you are serving a poilitical cause and not an actual individual cause, which is kind of the main thrust of capitalism.
This seems like a theory for very rich people trying to promote a political cause, it could be catastrophic for someone with limited funds to enter into a regulated market for no good reason.
Dondoolee: Most small business owners try to stay "off the grid" as much as possible anyway. As far as regulated markets, I can say from first hand information (I owned a bar) most small business owners will cut every corner they can with taxes, it is a major part in operating a regular business. This is essential to entrpenurship in a regulated market when someone has limited funds. In essence, most rational small business enterprises are "agoristic". It also depends a lot on knowing good acountants and lawyers. All agorism seems to be promoting is getting philosophers and political crusaders to invest in markets they know nothing about, and most likely losing their capital. Entering a heavily regulated market is NOT a preferable option to make an actual living off of if you do not know what you are doing. It seems you are serving a poilitical cause and not an actual individual cause, which is kind of the main thrust of capitalism. This seems like a theory for very rich people trying to promote a political cause, it could be catastrophic for someone with limited funds to enter into a regulated market for no good reason.
you still seem to be twisting what the idea is about. If you are not an entrepreneur, you can still be an agorist. You would just be an agorist consumer, or an employee for an agorist entrepreneur, willing to accept wages in silver and not file income taxDoing your little part to see the state get as little of your money as possible.
If all agorism is trying to do is make people aware of black markets and make people not feel guilty about buying from them or shirking regulations that is fine, hell it's great. But if it actively promotes and set up morals/ principles/ a system (for lack of a better term) around it, it is setting up something it can not calculate. In essence I am picturing it as becoming a kind of "libertarian socialism". Example, I do not think it wise to tell some one unexperienced in a product or market to blindly seekout something in a black market, it seems kind of dangerous. Normally black markets and knowledge of black markets will naturally arise the more someone gets involved in a situation. Lines of credit (safty, product, etc) between a seller and buyer in a black market would be of the upmost importance.
If I am twisting a mojor concept I am in honest ignorance, you would have to be specific (or point to some specific link) as to where I am wrong about agorism.
http://mises.org/daily/3412
Conza88: http://mises.org/daily/3412
that doesnt address the possibility of tax collection becoming technically unfeasible with the advent of anonymous crypto-currencies though(go BitCoin!!!)
Dondoolee: If all agorism is trying to do is make people aware of black markets and make people not feel guilty about buying from them or shirking regulations that is fine, hell it's great. But if it actively promotes and set up morals/ principles/ a system (for lack of a better term) around it, it is setting up something it can not calculate. In essence I am picturing it as becoming a kind of "libertarian socialism". Example, I do not think it wise to tell some one unexperienced in a product or market to blindly seekout something in a black market, it seems kind of dangerous. Normally black markets and knowledge of black markets will naturally arise the more someone gets involved in a situation. Lines of credit (safty, product, etc) between a seller and buyer in a black market would be of the upmost importance. If I am twisting a mojor concept I am in honest ignorance, you would have to be specific (or point to some specific link) as to where I am wrong about agorism.
I fully agree with you. I can only reiterate you rpoint that, privately everyone is an agorist (as in trying to evade taxes and deal in unregulated circumstances as much as possible), only publicly and collectively are people statists.
In this sense Agorism is just a re-statement of the truth, and a very refreshing one given the non-sensical (to my view) attack to which it has been subjected by Rothbard, in the article that Conza linked. To my mind, some libertarians need to get back to reality and drop silly hopes of political action. The revolution, ultimately, will be agoristic but there is no point in trying to force one by asking of everyone to become black-market entrepreneurs.
nandnor: Conza88: http://mises.org/daily/3412 that doesnt address the possibility of tax collection becoming technically unfeasible with the advent of anonymous crypto-currencies though(go BitCoin!!!)
I'm sorry, I don't follow. You're going to have to elaborate extensively.
Merlin:To my mind, some libertarians need to get back to reality and drop silly hopes of political action. The revolution, ultimately, will be agoristic but there is no point in trying to force one by asking of everyone to become black-market entrepreneurs.
The revolution isn't going to be just one thing. It's going to be a combination of everything. (/general)
Those who completely dismiss political action, as well as movements, organizations and everything else 'attacked' by Konkin are those who need to "get back to reality and drop the silly hopes of" communes, the black market some how saving them and PDA's rising up to defend against the state with violence.