I was recently in a discussion with gotlucky about this in my other thread regarding anarchism's place on the political spectrum, and I am further interested to know the thoughts of all people here on the Mises forums about agorism, which is Samuel E. Konkin III's philosophy. I did a search, and I haven't found much on agorism, so this is the place where I thought I'd start up a discussion on it. I'm a little undecided on the philosophy myself.
The tax evasion part is my favorite one.
Black market is good and all, as long as its voluntary.
As far as voting, i think the only time you should vote is for a liberty candidate such as ron paul. Other than that, boycott the elections.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I thought I'd repost this essay by Rothbard on the subject, since it's relevant to this thread. I think Rothbard has some great points against agorism being effective. My favorite was that while it is easily possible to have a black market in marijuana or cigarettes or other small goods and services, it is far more difficult to have a black market in the production of large goods such as cars. However, years ago I read an article on the shadow economy in Europe, and there was a section about black market deals regarding houses. Basically, if someone was going to sell a house for 300,000 Euro, they might report selling it for 150,000 Euro and do the remainder of the deal under the table.
I cannot find the article I read, so unless someone else can confirm this, you'll just have to take me at my word. Anyway, I doubt this is a widespread practice, and one of Rothbard's points is that stuff like this is incredibly difficult to pull off (especially in this day and age of everything being recorded). Try selling your $500,000 house now and reporting it as being sold for $250,000. The government is going to wonder what happened to the rest of the money, and the buyer is still going to have a record of the money when it comes to cash like that.
Most people are not going to be interested in black market dealings unless the government gets so intrusive that it's actually worth the risk. But as of now, as Rothbard points out, the vast majority of people cannot hide their taxes or engage in under the table work. Many people can work under the table, but it's just not a practical way of "fighting" against the government.
Ah, I see. Well if anyone is interested, I actually found the New Libertarian Manifesto on YouTube, so let's hear it from the man himself:
Does this new libertarian mannifesto teach me how to evade taxes?
One of the worst problems Libertarianism faces is that it doesn't have anything to point to, as a concrete example that the State isn't needed to provide things like security, legal system, etc. Widespread Agorism could be a solution to that problem. Agorism, unlike Anarcho-Capitalism, doesn't require complete re-education of the population in order to gain support either. Will it eliminate the State? No. Will it weaken the State? Yes.
Ive always been wondering...
If we truly believe the state to be killing/murdering, stealing property, violating us, screwing us, raping the populace....
Then isnt it justified to use force/violence against the state in terms of self defense?
Justified perhaps, but not productive, nor conducive to a prosperous life.
@ kelvin silva
This is an issue I brought up in an old thread located here. This is perhaps why I am more in favor of peaceful ways to libertarianism like agorism, rather than just an all out revolution. I think Brian Doherty says it best when he says "libertarians have always been more likely to head to a bookstore than an armory, which some think is half the problem."
I'm reviving this thread because I have new content to add: