@Aristophanes,
is that book something you picked up on your own or was it for a class? which class? did you see it cheaper anywhere else?
http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/software/konkin-interview.html
Q: In one of the first issues of New Libertarian Notes you had a discussion with David Nolan about the morals behind running for the office accusing him of betraying the Libertarian ideals, but a few months later you joined the Free Libertarian Party of New York. Was it a sudden change of views or did you just try do destroy the party from the inside? SEK3 - Actually, it wasn't THAT early in our publication. It was in issue 17, in 1972, and it got NLN kicked out of Laissez Faire Books because I "dared" to compare our exchange to that of Lysander Spooner and Senator Thomas Bayard in the 1870s. Ed Clark, the founding chair of the New York LP (before he moved to California) turned over the Free Libertarian Party (it was called because the New York Liberal Party threatened to sue the LP for confusing the ballot) to Jerry Klasman. Jerry invited me to join the FLP Executive Board. When I told him I didn't believe in the Party and would work for its demise, he said "That's O.K." In 1973 I was re-elected with the highest vote of any candidate, but was unable to bring any of the rest of the slate of the Radical Caucus into office. (The closest second was my then-girlfriend and later briefly my first fiancee, Nona Aguilar.) By 1974 we were, in alliance with Upstate Reformers against the "Anarchocentrist" Manhattan machine, poised to win control of the FLP. The last thing we wanted (in the RC) was to take political power, so I and a few of the hardest core (I admit, some of my comrades were tempted to stay in and try for power) refused to enter the convention hall and vote. We sat outside and sold NLNs. Basically, I had expressed the internal contradictions of partyarchy. I simply demanded that the LP apply the same tactics of decentralization and weakening of authority to its own structure as it wish to do to the State. Rothbard and Gary Greenberg led the Centralists who argued that the LP had to have disciplined cadre and a minimum of internal bickering (i.e. debate and dissent). Strangely enough, my approach seemed to appeal more to libertarians than their Leninoid tactic. Murray Rothbard, viewing the chaos he could no longer control with frustration, pointed to me through the open door of the convention hall and said, "Is he the only other person who understands what's going on here?" Before we left the FLP we had won ourselves Delegate Status to the Dallas National Convention so we decided to try out tactics there. I allied our Radical Caucus delegates with challenger Eric Scott Royce's delegates (whom we called the Reform caucus), against the Nolan Machine. But Nolan had already lost control to Ed Crane, who won easily. At that point, the Radical Caucus (minus two turncoats) walked out of the LP forever, and we took quite a few of the Reformers with us, including Royce who has written for my publications to this day.
SEK3 - Actually, it wasn't THAT early in our publication. It was in issue 17, in 1972, and it got NLN kicked out of Laissez Faire Books because I "dared" to compare our exchange to that of Lysander Spooner and Senator Thomas Bayard in the 1870s.
Ed Clark, the founding chair of the New York LP (before he moved to California) turned over the Free Libertarian Party (it was called because the New York Liberal Party threatened to sue the LP for confusing the ballot) to Jerry Klasman. Jerry invited me to join the FLP Executive Board. When I told him I didn't believe in the Party and would work for its demise, he said "That's O.K." In 1973 I was re-elected with the highest vote of any candidate, but was unable to bring any of the rest of the slate of the Radical Caucus into office. (The closest second was my then-girlfriend and later briefly my first fiancee, Nona Aguilar.) By 1974 we were, in alliance with Upstate Reformers against the "Anarchocentrist" Manhattan machine, poised to win control of the FLP. The last thing we wanted (in the RC) was to take political power, so I and a few of the hardest core (I admit, some of my comrades were tempted to stay in and try for power) refused to enter the convention hall and vote. We sat outside and sold NLNs.
Basically, I had expressed the internal contradictions of partyarchy. I simply demanded that the LP apply the same tactics of decentralization and weakening of authority to its own structure as it wish to do to the State. Rothbard and Gary Greenberg led the Centralists who argued that the LP had to have disciplined cadre and a minimum of internal bickering (i.e. debate and dissent). Strangely enough, my approach seemed to appeal more to libertarians than their Leninoid tactic.
Murray Rothbard, viewing the chaos he could no longer control with frustration, pointed to me through the open door of the convention hall and said, "Is he the only other person who understands what's going on here?"
Before we left the FLP we had won ourselves Delegate Status to the Dallas National Convention so we decided to try out tactics there. I allied our Radical Caucus delegates with challenger Eric Scott Royce's delegates (whom we called the Reform caucus), against the Nolan Machine. But Nolan had already lost control to Ed Crane, who won easily. At that point, the Radical Caucus (minus two turncoats) walked out of the LP forever, and we took quite a few of the Reformers with us, including Royce who has written for my publications to this day.
now you might say "but Malachi, this guy was hobnobbing around with Rothbard in the 70's, and we have all heard of Rothbard because, duh, its Rothbard. and barely anybody knows who Samuel Edward Konkin is, but here we are after Ron Paul's presidential campaigns and Gary Johnson got over a million votes! who cares about agorism?"
well my question for you is who has more power and freedom, the Sinaloa Cartel or the Libertarian Party? are you gonna start an Austrian Party? (j/k I know austrians are too individualist and eclectic to do that).
agorism is, instead of Rothbard's big red button, quadrillions and quadrillions of tiny red buttons.
I've been calling myself a libertarian for a long time, and prior to '07 you would have gotten more blank stares at the mention of "Ron Paul" than by mentioning "libertarian" even though people tended to conflate the political philosophy with the political party of the same name. conservatives co-opting libertarian ideas and rhetoric is also nothing new. I'm a ron paul supporter, and I believe in the "many roads to liberty" strategy. that said, its easy to overstate his influence. a lot of ron paul supporters arent even real libertarians.
Yet libertarians were still a far rarer breed in 07 than today, and that's largely because of Ron Paul's run.
estimated 1.8 billion jobs worldwide. how many libertarians are there in the us? lets say about 4 non-voters for every gary johnson voter...about 5 million libertarians. the black market in the us is estimated to turn over between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually. I'd say that agorism is already ahead of political libertarianism. all of that aside, your comment falls flat anyway because we have to start somewhere. additionally, political libertarianism is a performative contradiction. you say your argument against the state is economic in nature? then why not employ economic means to solve the problem? you say your argument against the state is moral in nature? how can it then be moral to run for office, or encourage people to vote? you say your argument against the state is based on legitimacy and consent, or the lack thereof? then why confer legitimacy upon the state by associating yourself with it, and why consent to the political process by filing paperwork with the state to participate in politics?
The state doesn't need your consent, it just requires that you don't resist it as it pillages you. Sure, if you get half of the population not paying taxes it would collapse, but to turn your "4 non-voters for every Gary Johnson voter" idea around, there are maybe 10 Gary Johnson voters for every libertarian actually fighting the state through agorism or not paying taxes. See, participating in the counter economy requires, again, multiple libertarians with goods to actually create an economy with. The overwhelming majority of the US "black market" is from things that are already illegal like drugs, so they don't much undermine the state at all.
Also, you still missed the point that it brings over... well... basically no one. Okay, if the US government strangles the economy enough that people jump ship without changes in ideology maybe, but the US government presently isn't and thus the businesses avoid the ire of the government by paying their taxes and following regulations. So long as the US government continues this, the only people in the counter economy will be activists (a very small and irrelevant minority) and people involved in already illegal markets.
the state absolutely cares about unregulated markets, thats why they have things like atf, dea, fda, and the ftc in order to enforce the prohibitions on economic freedom. but I dont participate in free markets "because the state doesnt like it" I participate in free markets because they have goods and services that I prefer, and I am not a slave so I have no incentive to purchase those goods and services in a slave market (where those goods and services carry a premium anyway). what I am achieving is catallactic trade, meanwhile you can wait for the next ron paul to convince 535 criminals to agree that its ok for you to do what I already do.
But Jim and Jane average libertarian aren't going to risk being thrown into a cage and having their family destroyed for the sake of making a few bucks, getting a few things the state doesn't want them to have, and basically making an economic point. Furthermore, Bob and Barb average lukewarm statist aren't going to consider the views of what they basically consider to be drug dealers and "dirty tax dodgers" trying to justify themselves ideologically, regardless of how well argued the points are. Sure, the state comes after you, but you're a sufficiently minor threat that they don't need to worry too much and occasionally arrest people. A few billion dollars (Which is realistically what they lose from people actively participating in the counter economy) is drops in the bucket compared to the multi trillion empire that they control.
finally, its laughable for you to imply that unregulated markets dont have potential for growth in the presence of criminal aggressors who continually extend their regulation of markets that they do control. theres natural incentive for participation, its called "profit."
Sure, but there's also an extreme amount of risk that doesn't come with participating in "legitimate" markets, there's a disproportionate amount of work to be done in avoiding being thrown in a cage (dealing with income tax returns, etc), there's a societal stigma that really isn't loosened by it becoming more common, there's a far smaller market to reach in the first place, and there are limits on scale that come with avoiding the authorities. Realistically speaking, you aren't going to make a profit by switching unless you're in an already heavily controlled industry AND you have no way of wiggling into a favoured position and getting the government to scratch your back.
EDIT: I suppose the Sinaloa Cartel is more powerful than the Libertarian Party. But then, the Sinaloa Cartel murders people and engages in massive acts of aggression. If every libertarian in the US went for a gun and started running about killing government officials, cops, soldiers, etc then no doubt we would make a huge impact. Hell, with 5 million angry armed libertarians shooting people indiscriminantly, we might even trash the apparatus of the state in the US in a permanent way! However, it would carry with it unacceptable means, many, many dead innocents, and a very angry public afterwards. I don't really think drug cartels are the ideal alternative to the government, especially since they basically starve to death when the government even moderately liberalizes laws (because even a very heavily restricted market is generally considered preferable to going underground).
It is not for a class. It is not found any cheaper, unfortunately...I looked for a long time before deciding to buy it...and I got these too
The Gulf War 1991 had thousands of casualties that the US covered up with the help of the Western media. Written by a journalist, prose is very drawn out as if the author is expecting you to shit a brick so he tells you tiny pieces of the story with the worst filler...
Theory of transnational bureaucracy is developed through several essays on the growing influence of MNCs in transnational policy making. (Has an essay on Bilderberg - from Cambridge UP)
80's examination of the TC from various angles (has an essay written on the history of BB as well); foreign policy,
Have not read yet. - Gramscian theory of western multilateral hegemony
Introductory work on the types, methods, history; the difference in persuasion and propaganda.
Title says it all starts at WWI, examines several social movements then the corporate and intellectual takeover of the discipline.
(Anthropoloigy) Examines corporate management, PR, and the reality of what MNCs do. Chapters on DeBeers, GE, United Fruit, etc.
Chapter 8 must have been Ron Paul's actual campaign plan because my jaw was dropped as I read it. Every suggestion that is made in chapter 8 Ron Paul took advantage of in 2012.
Country by Country Ganser goes over the NATO intelligence operations involving the stay-behind network (each country had a different iteration) all through the Cold War. This isn't as conspiratorial as it sounds. NATO built up hidden weapons caches in various places in Europe so they could over night activate guerilla networks to act against the USSR. Some of them went rogue with the guns and NATO kept it secret instead of taking responsibility.
Haven't read
(anthropology) Examines historical cases of states cooperating with mafias, gun smugglers, diamond smugglers, etc. Examines the NATO stay behind in Italy (because the NATO sponsored rogue network assassinated the PM and the conspiracy was propogated within The Grande Oriente of italy (Masonic Lodge - eventually leading to their prohibition from relation to people in any positions of official power.).
(Anthropology) Looks at international drug trades, illegal markets in Africa, etc.; particularly cases where States turn a blind eye.
there is also this and this
I think you need to step back a minute and think about this, youre not making much sense. first of all, the state literally doesnt even exist, its just a fiction. so when you talk about the state pillaging me, you actually mean an agent of the state depriving me of property (like sales tax). so thats where the white marketeer actually supports the state, no matter what his ideology is. because, you see, participating in the counter economy only requires effective demand and another counter economicist. it doesnt need a boatload of libertarians with goods etc. the goods are already there. and to suggest that the drug market doesnt undermine the state, are you serious? you think they made them illegal <i>just because?</i> the truth is that freedom to own and consume chemicals is a medical issue, and goes hand in glove with the socialization of the field of medicine, which is another way of controlling who lives and who dies.
a) already happening
b) brings over counter economicists, who are strongly composed of entrepreneurs and accustomed to providing their own security
c) ok I can see this doesnt appeal to you, go borrow some hayek from the public library and pay your taxes and follow regulations like a good little slave if that makes you happy, if youre afraid that buying groceries at the farmers market makes you irrelevant.
But Jim and Jane average libertarian aren't going to risk being thrown into a cage and having their family destroyed for the sake of making a few bucks, getting a few things the state doesn't want them to have, and basically making an economic point.
maybe you dont get out much, or watch the news, or whatever, but Jim and Jane average (fill-in-the-blank-political-jurisdiction) are already at risk of that for not doing anything but minding their own business. youre telling me its ok for them to pay tribute to criminal aggressors, because, who gives a shit? I think you need to check your principles.
Furthermore, Bob and Barb average lukewarm statist aren't going to consider the views of what they basically consider to be drug dealers and "dirty tax dodgers" trying to justify themselves ideologically, regardless of how well argued the points are.
Bob and Barb average lukewarm statist are probably customers of one or more drug dealers. you really need to get out more.
Sure, the state comes after you, but you're a sufficiently minor threat that they don't need to worry too much and occasionally arrest people. A few billion dollars (Which is realistically what they lose from people actively participating in the counter economy) is drops in the bucket compared to the multi trillion empire that they control.
how are the majority of revenues collected? coercion or rapine? and youre telling me that people who already resist the coercion are not good candidates for libertarianism? why dont you just think about this some more and come back when your thoughts are more coherent?
A black market for many types of consumer goods, such as drugs, is easy enough to imagine. However, how would large-scale production find its way into the black market? How does a car factory hide its activities to avoid paying taxes and observing regulations? Or a steel plant? Or a mine? Or a farm? Or a chemical plant? Or an electricity generating plant? How about financial markets? How about banks? Seems to me that the most important parts of a modern economy cannot operate in such a way as to avoid the attention of the State, which means they cannot operate in a black market.
how would large-scale production find its way into the black market?
Have you heard of guns and drugs?
Forgive me if I'm wrong Minarchist, but Aristo:
I believe that large-scale in that case was referring to the goods in question and not their processes of production.
Even if it wasn't, neither guns or drugs are particularly hard to make. Car engines on the other hand...
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
haha okay. i totally didn't read anything except the bold line...but now that I think about it China has a lot of production facilities that they cannot control and regulate (and over there as long as you pay taxes you can do whatever you want) that steal IP from the West (blueprintes for nuclear reactors, speakers, cars, factories, and software, for instance, then reproduce them at the lowest possible cost; a car for instance can be counterfeited and when it is sold, that is the black market. So China. Is how large scale production can make it to the black market. (I also made a post that went to moderation about a list of books, two of which are about how black markets function in various contries (Illicit Flows and States and Illegal Practices).
As for car engines, have you heard of chop shops? What do you think they do?
As for financial services in the black market that is the mafia's specialty. need money scrubbed? They will launder it and they have hoards of black market cash from drugs and guns and people and organs, etc. they can use to make loans on the black market. Protection rackets keep regulators away asd do second book accounting practices. Now that I think ab out it, money laundering is a financial service specific to the black market. it only has the potential to grow...unless the black and white markets are merged into a grey one.
Diamond mines (and oil, coal, gold, lithium, etc) are fairly complex engineering processes that can be entirely black market. The World simply cannot regulate black market trades.
Minarchist hasn't really thought too much about it.
Satellites might be tough for the black market to get operational...but then again you can just hijack ones that are already up there (unless yours has special technology that those don't).
All I know is, the serious use of terms like 'Islamofascist' and 'liberal democracy' are surefire triggers for my bullshit meter. And closet neocon arguments masquerading as 'libertarian' rhetoric is primo FOX news bullshit
The counter economy also requires effective SUPPLY, which is severely limited by the State (which exists as much as any corporation or association). Supply is only going to exist if the "white" market is sufficiently messed up that the black market is the only alternative, and that's only the case, again, when the thing is question is banned outright or else production is simple (so drugs for the first and food for the second). Drugs are banned because a bunch of moral-majority types became influential and happened to think they were evil, which in turn created a thriving black market as with alcohol. Remind me, what happened when Prohibition ended? Did the mafia and rum runners get richer by avoiding regulations? No, because you only make lots of profit from markets like that if they stay ILLEGAL, merely REGULATED doesn't do the trick.
a) already happening b) brings over counter economicists, who are strongly composed of entrepreneurs and accustomed to providing their own security
Yeah! Let's get the drug cartels on OUR side! Great idea!
Oh yeah, the statists are really quaking in their boots at the thought of you avoiding maybe $100 in taxes and a handful of regulations by buying super-revolutionary black market cabbage. God forbid you REALLY strike at the root of statism and buy a gram of weed or something because then the system would be seriously endangered.
Yet the overwhelming amount of this aggression is merely annoying and can be avoided, and it's still possible to live a somewhat decent life under the present system for most. Unsustainable and immoral yes, but most people aren't really willing to risk their livelihoods for trivial gains and the moral high ground.
Because the average soccer mom does meth on her spare time, y'know.
...So you want to create a revolution of drug dealers (who, by virtue of not obeying the law, are apparently all moral people that don't do bad things)?
The counter economy also requires effective SUPPLY, which is severely limited by the State
lol no its not, we are talking about black markets. supply in white markets is severly limited by the state in some cases, yes. not so in black markets, the price settles and the market clears. when effective demand increases supply quickly (and I mean QUICKLY) follows suit.
Supply is only going to exist if the "white" market is sufficiently messed up that the black market is the only alternative, and that's only the case, again, when the thing is question is banned outright or else production is simple (so drugs for the first and food for the second).
every white market in existence is "messed up" to that extent, thats what makes it a white market. otherwise men with guns wouldnt need to enforce the regs.
Drugs are banned because a bunch of moral-majority types became influential and happened to think they were evil,
dyou really believe that? "drugs" arent even "banned", your generalization is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. as I suggested above, you arent very well informed on this subject and seem to be spouting reflexive assertations without thinking them through (because the cartels are sooooo evil I would rather pay taxes to legitimate criminals like agents of the state). I'm going to stop here in the hopes that youll take some time to read and think some more before you become emotionally invested in this absurd anti-thesis of yours. please enjoy your evening, thanks for replying.
The free market is efficient, it isn't magic. The costs of complying to regulations, generally speaking, are lower than the costs of trying to operate through the black market and having to hide your activities from the Feds, especially as you expand to things that require workers and large scale production to work.
Yet it's sufficiently free that people can still do fairly well with just it, regulated or not. Otherwise, men with guns wouldn't be able to stop all the people flocking to the black market (as was the case in, say, the Soviet Union).
The drugs that are commonly trafficked, and make the most money, are banned. See: Cocaine, meth, heroin, marijuana, etc.
Yeah, let's get rid of that damned modern state and replace it with drug cartels. That's a brilliant idea. While we're at it, let's remind people that we think Al Capone is a real hero for sticking it to the Feds. Because literally every problem in the world can be traced directly to the state, and therefore every person who opposes it, be it a drug cartel, axe murderer, mad bomber, or mass murderer, is a good guy.
I consider that an article of faith. generally speaking, the cost of avoiding criminal aggressors is less than the cost of appeasing them.
Yet it's sufficiently free that people can still do fairly well with just it, regulated or not.
1.8 billion jobs, remember? nobody on the planet is does anything without black markets facilitating it in some respect. also please explain to me why white markets are "sufficiently free" but drug dealers are too evil to proselytize?
Otherwise, men with guns wouldn't be able to stop all the people flocking to the black market (as was the case in, say, the Soviet Union).
ftw? men with guns cannot and do not stop people from "flocking" (as you put it) to the black market. some people choose to submit to regulation because of ideas and ideology. the black markets obviously thrived in the soviet union. right now I am really disappointed that you didnt take my advice.
none of those drugs are banned in the united states. they are controlled substances and your ignorance is wasting my time. please educate yourself because, guess what, no one else can educate you.
Yeah, let's get rid of that damned modern state and replace it with drug cartels. That's a brilliant idea.
drug cartels are self-evidently evil, perhaps thats why you would rather play sarcastiball than explain why coercive governments are supposed to be "better" than cartels, who at the very least provide goods that people are willing to pay for. who commits more murders in a given time period, cartels or states? do you have a sarcastic answer for that one? or can you actually put a coherent argument together, for once?
Jargon:I believe that large-scale in that case was referring to the goods in question and not their processes of production.
Actually, I did mean the processes of production.
Minarchist:How does a car factory hide its activities to avoid paying taxes and observing regulations? Or a steel plant? Or a mine? Or a farm? Or a chemical plant? Or an electricity generating plant? ...cannot operate in such a way as to avoid the attention of the State, which means they cannot operate in a black market.
Aristophanes,
If a product cannot be produced as cheaply in a black market as in a white market, then it will not be produced in a black market. Though it may be technically possible to produce just about anything in the black market, how competitive would those goods be, considering the constraints which operating in a black market places on the scale of production? Could you produce petroleum distillates without attracting the attention of the state? Sure, I could set up a petroleum still in my basement, or maybe get a warehouse or some other building without attracting too much notice...but is there any way I could compete with Exxon? Of course not. The same with many other sorts of heavy industry and manufacturing. The inability of black market firms to achieve the scale of white market firms puts them at a hopeless competitive disadvantage in many cases. This is why you don't see black market production of cars, ships, railcars, petrochemicals, steel, glass, etc, etc.
Are guns produced in the black market? To my knowledge the guns sold in the black market are produced in the white market. As for drugs, there is no white market at all, so black market production is profitable. If drugs were legalized, one would expect drug producers in the white market to outcompete black market producers.
but now that I think about it China has a lot of production facilities that they cannot control and regulate (and over there as long as you pay taxes you can do whatever you want) that steal IP from the West (blueprintes for nuclear reactors, speakers, cars, factories, and software, for instance, then reproduce them at the lowest possible cost; a car for instance can be counterfeited and when it is sold, that is the black market. So China. Is how large scale production can make it to the black market. (I also made a post that went to moderation about a list of books, two of which are about how black markets function in various contries (Illicit Flows and States and Illegal Practices).
If the Chinese state permits those producers to produce, it is not black market production, by definition.
They strip parts from stolen cars for resale. They do not produce cars, nor compete with white market auto manufacturers.
Black market financiers cater to those already in the black market for other reasons. They deal in money which cannot be accounted for legally. That is, people don't use them because they offer competitive prices, but because they have no other option. The mafia is not competing with BNY Mellon in the loan market.
Diamond mines (and oil, coal, gold, lithium, etc) are fairly complex engineering processes that can be entirely black market.
How does one hide an open strip mine from the state?
If a product cannot be produced as cheaply in a black market as in a white market, then it will not be produced in a black market.
No. See my point further down.
Actually I know why you think thoise things. You are not thinking about the international system. You are only considering various national states. The fact is that in the international economy there is much that is unregulated - the system is anarchic; what happens between states doesn't need to conform to one law or the other because all nations fight for jurisdiction.. You can buy slaves in some markets, but you can also employ legal sweat shops (for virtually the same money), if your logic were taken as universal then this would not be the case.
Chop shops output is just like OEM software. Much of the OEM world is technically illegal as you are not suppoed to sell them apart from the hardware that they are legally bound to....but people do it anyways....even computer stores. Microsoft will pay top dollar for copies of OEM windows that have been legally purchased...used...then put up on ebay (which is illegal as OEM is not for resale). This not to mention the piracy world of software...which is precisely why M$ won't stop people from selling OEM copies...they buy them back because at least then they can make money on them since people who pirate the software don't pay anything.
Chop shops can be said to take cars apart and sell them where the parts are then reconstituted as new cars (not in their entirety I concede, but synthetic).
Again, you are not considering that most of the governments of the world do not allow Chinese companies to acquire the IP necessary to build the counterfeit vehicles in the first place. This is a demonstration that "law" is not monopolistic internationally. The market is bigger than the jurisdication of China or the U.S. What is legal there may be illegal in the US, but always there is an in the middle which is international markets. look at Bulgaria. They will sell counterfeit things...i.e., they import them from China. Top Gear did a whole episode on Chinese counterfeiting of US and EU made cars, check it out it is pretty funny.
I can't believe you would bold a comment like that and then not read the following paragraph...
Yeah, right. Why don't you look that "market" up? I mentioned two books written on black markets did you consult those? You make so many generalizations and assertions that fit your prescription that it isn't worth it. As if those large multinational banks can provide services for things that are illict, but not illegal...you need to look some of this up and open yourself up to the third level of systems imaging (international) which you completely and obviously, imo, are missing.
For instance, mafias and drug cartels invest in their cover companies and their laundering companies...construction, shipping, oil, insurace, etc. Black markets, in this way, are in a dynamic dimensional way participating in the white markets for the interests of the black. [...] We might even be able to make a case for capital accumulation and investment theory within the black market in this sense.
You do not have to hide it if the State is too weak to stop you. Look at Africa. Every country there is an example of this. And wouldn't you know it there are countries that are willing to buy resources from those companies.
Regarding your point about the international market:
Black market production means production which is illegal per the laws of the state that has jurisdiction over the area where this production is occurring. If something is produced legally, the mere fact that the product in question may be illegal somewhere else, outside the state where it is being produced, does not make it black market production. If something is illegally produced in Ruritania, this is black market production. If something is legally produced in Ruritania and then exported to some place where it is illegal, this is not black market production. There is black market activity involving the product (buying, selling, distributing), but it was not produced illegally.
There are no black market producers of cars any place where car production is legal (i.e. everywhere, so there are no black market producers of cars anywhere). The same for the other heavy industries I mentioned. If black market producers in these industries could compete, they would compete. Since they don't, we can infer that they can't. And I hypothesize that the reason they can't compete (at least one reason) is that they can't achieve sufficient economies of scale without attracting the attention of the state.
mafias and drug cartels invest in their cover companies and their laundering companies...construction, shipping, oil, insurace, etc. Black markets, in this way, are in a dynamic dimensional way participating in the white markets for the interests of the black. [...] We might even be able to make a case for capital accumulation and investment theory within the black market in this sense.
Insofar as black market money enters the white market, that money becomes subject to taxation and control by the state. Isn't avoiding that the entire point of agorism?
You do not have to hide it if the State is too weak to stop you.
Of course. But if agorism cannot work unless the state is already weak, then of what value is it as a means to weaken the state?
agorism already works. the state is unnecessary.
illegal arms and weaponry manufacture already takes place on a large scale, its like you have never even heard of a cartel. they make guns, tanks, submarines, uav's, whatever they want.
your argument about the cars reminds me of the old joke about economists: two. economists are walking down the street, and one steps over a $50 bill and goes on, ignoring it. the other gentleman asks him "why didnt you pick up that note with the picture of U.S. Grant on it?" the first economist says to him "that cant be there, someone would have picked it up by now." I'm sorry that you think that, since there havent been enough counter-economicists that produce automobiles for their underground activity to come to your attention, there necessarily will never be a sufficient number of automobile producing counter-economicists. I suppose the same argument could illustrate the inevitable failure of anarchism, and also minarchism. I am getting bored with this discussion maybe counter-economics isnt right for you guys, if it causes the arrow of time to disappear inside your head.
Malachi:agorism already works
So that's why we're living in a free society right now?
@Min
So, there is no international black market then? Beacause you keep making excuses for the illegal doings that states partake in, simply because they label it illegal for private citizens?
I'm not making the agorist claim so you aren't undermining my arguments by appealing to whether or not it furthers agorism or not. I am a realist in this sense. I am only pointing out that, in my Bulgaira example: the whole market for illegal goods is the producing market (China) and the consumption market (Bulgaria). Black market production happens there, and duh, economies of scale for markets where you don't go to jail for producing the good are going to outperform others, but that doesn't mean that illegal cars, software, speakers, nuclear plants, etc. aren't being counterfeited. Nuclear plants in China are black market as China knows the production models are illegal; they just don't do anything about it. Neither does bulgaria where there are no restrictions (at least enforced).
Or in Africa where large scale mining production does go on without paying taxes, using slaves, etc., even though it is illegal, the state cannot do anything about it because the mining companies have more power of which their power is extended when other countries are willing to trade with them.
The Mexican Cartels and the Italian Mafia both legitimize their money, laundering it only means you are able to move it to bank accounts, not that you are bending over backwards to pay taxes on it, after all you can launder money in the Caymen Islands and they are not paying taxes. it is a mway of adding the illegal money to your usual production deposits. Like i said, this can be seen as a method of capital accumulation on the black market; making sure the money is able to be spent just as freely in the legal markets.
If a certain line of production violates the laws of the state where it is occurring, but the state permits it to proceed anyway, ignoring its own law, that is "illegal" or "black market" production in a completely trivial sense - while it is de facto legal production. The distinction I'm making between legal and illegal production is not about legal forms, it is about whether or not the state really enforces a prohibition on the production in question. That is what matters for the economic analysis, right? It is not legal forms which make black market production uncompetitive with white market production, it is the very real fact that former has to be hidden from the state, or face being shut down by force. So, the ultimate point I'm trying to make here is that there cannot be any black market production in the sort of industries I've mentioned, and so therefore production in those industries will be undertaken by white market producers who will be subject to the taxes and controls of the state.
So this is the limit of agorism. There's nothing it can do to get this very large segment of the economy (mining, farming, all manner of heavy industry, etc) out of the hands of the state if the state is strong enough to enforce its own laws. And if it's not, as I said, then the state is already effectively absent, and there's no need for agorism or any other strategy for reducing the power of the state. In short, agorism is either impotent or superfluous. It is not a viable strategy for reducing the power of a strong state, such as the U.S. federal government, for example.
not "we," just the counter-economicists (who outnumber libertarians btw).
but the state permits it to proceed anyway, ignoring its own law, that is "illegal" or "black market" production in a completely trivial sense - while it is de facto legal
a distinction without a difference. the fact is, no government can possibly enforce all of its prohibitions at most times, it can only endeavor to punish infractions. the fact that the state cannot stop the market, knows it cannot stop the market, and does not try despite the stated desire to do otherwise, is a result of the ultimate impotence of coercive government as compared to market forces.
@Malachi
A state doesn't have to enforce all of its laws at all times in order for it to make black market production in certain industries unprofitable - and therefore non-existent. Black market production of gasoline in the US - there is none. Why? Because the state is able to enforce it's law regarding gasoline production (taxes, regulations, etc) sufficiently to make it impossible for someone to set up an illegal refinery on a large enough scale to be competitive with white market refineries. The same with so many other industries. Obviously this will vary with the power of the state. Could one set up a viable commercial refinery in West Africa and avoid paying the taxes and following regulations of the local state? Perhaps. But if the state is so weak as to be unable to shut it down or force it to comply with the law, then what agorism is supposed to accomplish (the reduction in state power) is already done.
By the way, getting away with selling drugs is in no way comparable to successfully evading taxes when operating some large industrial plant. The drug dealer gets away with it because the state doesn't notice him, whereas the state can't possibly miss the big industrial plant. Even the strongest state will miss some drug dealing or similar stealthy activity, only the weakest state will be unable to extort taxes from a highly visible industrial plant. In fact, one could argue that if it is too weak to extort taxes, and its subjects can openly defy it in this manner, it's not even a state anymore.
it is about whether or not the state really enforces a prohibition on the production in question. That is what matters for the economic analysis, right?
No...
And besides, like I said, I'm not an agorist. I am a realist.
And yes, if you add criterion after criterion to the defintion oif black market (to exclude sales, to make judgements on the capacity of enforcement, ignore discrepency in laws between nations states) then you'll be able to justify anything (except agorism? - not that I care, however). Even, the "legally" produced goods that are sold in illegal markets add money to the legal market and prove demand beyond what should be there in the legal market's capacity (and purchasing power). You are ignoring like four or five crucial things to make your case all of which "matters for the economic analysis."
I'd say rather than seraching for the limit of agorism, you search for the limit of statism.
A state doesn't have to enforce all of its laws at all times in order for it to make black market production in certain industries unprofitable - and therefore non-existent. Black market production of gasoline in the US - there is none.
Strawman. My African example is a counterexample to this claim...
The same with so many other industries. Obviously this will vary with the power of the state. Could one set up a viable commercial refinery in West Africa and avoid paying the taxes and following regulations of the local state? Perhaps. But if the state is so weak as to be unable to shut it down or force it to comply with the law, then what agorism is supposed to accomplish (the reduction in state power) is already done.
Strawman and setting the stage. If the state's power is non-existent, then agorism has no goal, therefore it doesn't need to be pushed forward. You assume here that once there is nothing for agorism to do then it reaches its limit, but when it reaches its limit there is no more need for it..........so you cannot fault it for that.
By the way, getting away with selling drugs is in no way comparable to successfully evading taxes when operating some large industrial plant.
Do you know how cocaine or heroine are produced? Or methlabs for that matter? Look at the gun markets in Pakistan. they melt old soviet tanks and make any gun you can think of from the metal.
The drug dealer gets away with it because the state doesn't notice him, whereas the state can't possibly miss the big industrial plant.
This is also a fallacy of generalization based on inductive logic. (see: David hume on the unfeasibility of inductive reasoning)
In fact, one could argue that if it is too weak to extort taxes, and its subjects can openly defy it in this manner, it's not even a state anymore.
So, China isn't even a state anymore? You realize that many many people in China have second children that they do not report to the State. it cannot collect taxes on probably 200 or 300 million people (the entire US population to them). Are they a failed state due to this? China also cannot maintain proper influence over the Xinjhang province that is heavily Moslem. Does this make them a failing state?
Another example is Moscow during and after Yeltsin. the Russian government could not even keep control of the city under the mafia there. The KGB referred to it as a city-state during this period of time because they had such little influence in it. There was all kinds of industrial production happening.
You need to hit the books.
Stupid forum wrecked my longer post ><
Anyway, I think you seem to be missing the "cause" versus the "effect". There are three situations where the black market is strong: when the economy, or sector (drugs in the US for example) is literally strangled by tight control, when the state is already too weak to enforce it's own laws, and when the state defacto accepts the black market's existence for it's own benefit.
The prime example of the first would be the Soviet Union. The black market was huge because consumer goods were practically non-existant as a result of the Communist system. This doesn't say much about the effectiveness of agorism, however, this says more about the inefficiency of communism. If anything, the thriving black market allowed the Soviet regime to last longer, because the people were able to do well enough by doing as they were supposed to and going to the black market for anything extra, rather than trying to, say, overthrow the government.
The second, obviously, would mostly apply to countries in Africa, Pakistan, etc. However, in these places, the government is already weak and a large counter economy is an effect of this, not a cause. So saying "look at how much stuff is made outside government control in Angola/The DROC/Pakistan!" is a largely pointless observation.
The third is the case in Communist China, and is fairly well supported by the government. In China, there are many laws and controls, but most of them are just there to provide excuses to arrest dissidents and so on when politically convenient. Black marketeers operate basically with an understanding with government officials that they won't be bothered while doing so, and in turn the black marketeers won't bother the government. In this way, the Chinese economy is a bit more durable than it otherwise would be and dissent is distinctly lower, a win-win for both parties. Of course, there are certain industries that the Chinese government very jealously protects from competition (banking comes to mind especially), and as a consequence they don't face black market competition.
Come to think of it, I can't think of a single place where Agorism is a successful tactic as opposed to a side effect of something else. Can you?
A state doesn't have to enforce all of its laws at all times in order for it to make black market production in certain industries unprofitable - and therefore non-existent.
yes, entry into certain industries is unprofitable regardless of what criminal elements are doing what to whom.
Black market production of gasoline in the US - there is none. Why? Because the state is able to enforce it's law regarding gasoline production (taxes, regulations, etc) sufficiently to make it impossible for someone to set up an illegal refinery on a large enough scale to be competitive with white market refineries.
no, its because we arent aware of any counter-economic entrepreneurs entering that field.
thats an article of faith. youre assuming that because youre not aware of it happening, it doesnt happen, and since it doesnt happen, it cant happen. instead of thinking in terms of "the power of the state" you should be rigorously methodologically individualistic and realize that if any industry is beset by enough criminal aggressors, and benefits from few enough customers, it wont succeed. this has nothing to do with "the power of the state" but is simply an economic reality based on the cost of doing business versus profitability. agorism isnt supposed to accomplish "reduction in the power of the state" so much as agorism is unfettered trade, which is what we like and want to do.
I guess it depends on the context, they are easily comparable. there are some pretty big drug labs out there and they make a lot of money. you have to explain why a counter-economic investor would forgo those profits in order to enter some other industry like petroleum or automobiles (which already have significant black market components youre obviously unaware of.
The drug dealer gets away with it because the state doesn't notice him, whereas the state can't possibly miss the big industrial plant. Even the strongest state will miss some drug dealing or similar stealthy activity, only the weakest state will be unable to extort taxes from a highly visible industrial plant. In fact, one could argue that if it is too weak to extort taxes, and its subjects can openly defy it in this manner, it's not even a state anymore.
could you tell me how you are defining "state"?
it seems like youre employing a state-centric view when its wildly inappropriate. first you tell me that if the state's regulations are too onerous, they cant stop people from ignoring them. then you tell me that even when the regulations arent too onerous, they still arent strong enough to enforce them. thirdly, when the government gives up and ceases to pretend to enforce its own prohibitions, somehow this is just the benign behavior of a government letting people do whatever they want.
The prime example of the first would be the Soviet Union. The black market was huge because consumer goods were practically non-existant as a result of the Communist system. This doesn't say much about the effectiveness of agorism,
lol agorism is market anarchy, I dont think I should need to establish the effectiveness. people got the products they wanted, bam! what more do you want?
If anything, the thriving black market allowed the Soviet regime to last longer, because the people were able to do well enough by doing as they were supposed to and going to the black market for anything extra, rather than trying to, say, overthrow the government.
if by that you mean that people, even agents of the state, were able to survive because they turned to to the freemarket, and that somehow demonstrates the omnipotent power of the state, you lost me.
The second, obviously, would mostly apply to countries in Africa, Pakistan, etc. However, in these places, the government isalready weak and a large counter economy is an effect of this, not a cause. So saying "look at how much stuff is made outside government control in Angola/The DROC/Pakistan!" is a largely pointless observation.
so getting the goods and services you want without third party intervention is pointless, whats really important is getting even with criminal aggressors. got it.
again you ignore the fact that people are buying and selling what they want without interference from criminal aggressors. why? I dont understand why someone is supposed to be at war with the government or whatever, because otherwise it doesnt matter what you do, the govt let you do it, etc. its ridiculous.
one, false dichotomy. two, anytime two people transact catallactically, its a success. so youre missing the forest for the trees.
Minarchist:A state doesn't have to enforce all of its laws at all times in order for it to make black market production in certain industries unprofitable - and therefore non-existent.
Malachi:yes, entry into certain industries is unprofitable regardless of what criminal elements are doing what to whom.
Yes, and that's sidestepping my point, which is that black market production in certain industries is unprofitable precisely because the state is sufficiently capable of enforcing its laws.
Let's suppose in the US an oil refinery is required by law to comply with a certain environmental regulation, which adds cost to production. Thus an oil refinery which does not comply with this regulation would be more profitable than an oil refinery which does, all else being equal.
Is it possible for an oil refiner to consistently avoid compliance with this regulation? Sure. I can stealthily refine oil in my basement without complying with the regulation. Thus I, the black market producer, save on production costs relative my white market competitors. But I still cannot offer distillates at a competitive price, because the added cost which the regulation imposes on my competitors is more than offset by the reduction in cost they enjoy due to their economies of scale, so that on balance I still have higher production costs.
Thus either no one attempts to engage in black market oil refining in the US in the first place or, if they do, they find that they can't compete and are driven out of business.
If someone could avoid compliance with the regulation while refining oil on a commercial scale, then and only then could this black market producer be competitive. But it is physically impossible to hide a commercial scale oil refinery, and the state in the US is sufficiently strong to impose its regulations on economic activity which it can plainly see: in contrast to economic activity which is capable of being hidden.
Thus there will be no black market oil refining in the US until/unless the state here becomes too weak to enforce its laws on economic activity which it can plainly see. The same is true of all other types of economic activity which by nature cannot be hidden. What this means is that black market production in these fields can only ever be an effect of a decline in the state's power, not a cause of a decline in state power.
I guess it depends on the context, they are easily comparable. there are some pretty big drug labs out there and they make a lot of money.
Drugs are totally prohibited, hence the black market producers have no white market competition and can be profitable. Likewise, if oil refining were totally prohibited, I might be able to profitably refine oil in my basement, because I would have no competition from more efficient white market refineries.
you have to explain why a counter-economic investor would forgo those profits in order to enter some other industry like petroleum or automobiles
Firstly, why is it that only existing "counter economic investors" could invest in black market oil refining? If there is an opportunity to sell a product at a price above the cost of production, someone sooner or later is going to start producing it. If this opportunity lies in the black market, and no one already involved in the black market wants to exploit it, then someone will be drawn into the black market for the first time to exploit it. This is always happening, as no one is born into the black market. People previously uninvolved in it choose to enter it because of profit opportunities that they identify.
Secondly, if everyone piles into the most profitable black market industry, production in that industry is going to increase, and profit margins are going to fall, making other industries look more attractive for investment.
we arent aware of any counter-economic entrepreneurs entering that field.
Indeed, we're not, so why would be assume there are any? Are we to assume that they exist precisely because we see no evidence of their existence? Moreover, I expect that if you actually ran the numbers, and looked at the economies of scale involved in oil refining, it would be pretty obvious why a basement oil refiner cannot compete with commercial refinery. I think it's plain prima facie.
I'm not using any precise definition of the state for the purpose of this discussion. My only point was that if you consider the imposition of taxes and regulations to be characteristic of the state, then obviously a "state" which passes such laws, but is entirely impotent to enforce them, is a state in name only.
agorism isnt supposed to accomplish "reduction in the power of the state" so much as agorism is unfettered trade, which is what we like and want to do.
You can only have unfettered trade in the areas of economic activity where state power is not effective in preventing unfettered trade, and, as I have pointed out, there are many areas where state power is effective in preventing unfettered trade. How do we get to a point where we can have unfettered trade in those areas as well?
To reiterate, these are the areas of economic activity where, to be competitive with white market producers, you have to have an operation of a sort which cannot be hidden from the state, by its very nature: oil refining, oil production, mining, agriculture, all manner of heavy manufacturing, electricity generation, shipping, rail transport, etc. How do we get free markets in those areas in the US, for example, or in other strong states?
There are two ways to have free markets in a given field. It can be in a black market, or in a white market - i.e. there can be free markets operating against the laws of the state, or free markets which the state makes no effort to fetter in the first place. If, as I have argued, black market production in certain fields is impossible in territoies controlled by strong states, then in such states the only way to have free markets in these fields is on a white market, i.e. for the state to choose to repeal its taxes and regulations and allow a free market. The state as it presently exists in the US, or in any other strong state in the world, is not going to do this of its own accord. It has to be made to do this, either through violent revolution, or through the political process. I opt for the latter.
Minarchist:A state doesn't have to enforce all of its laws at all times in order for it to make black market production in certain industries unprofitable - and therefore non-existent. Black market production of gasoline in the US - there is none.
Aristophanes:My African example is a counterexample to this claim
My claim is that, where the state is strong enough to impose its taxes and regulations on visible businesses, the operation of black market entrepreneurs will not be visible and that, in certain industries (as oil refining), the price of stealth is giving up economies of scale, which makes the stealth black market business uncompetitive with white market business. Your point about Africa is not a counter-example, as it doesn't meet the underlined condition.
Moscow during and after Yeltsin. the Russian government could not even keep control of the city under the mafia there. The KGB referred to it as a city-state during this period of time because they had such little influence in it. There was all kinds of industrial production happening.
Per what "My Buddy" said, are you claiming that black market activity caused state power to decline, or that it was an effect of the decline of state power?
because youre a statist, you reflexively believe this to be true. but its actually irrelevant because agorism is a market phenomenon. there are greater gains to be made in other investments, its kind of like maneuver warfare, but peaceful. you dont attack the beast where it is strongest. besides that, there are any number of reasons why it might not be profitable to invest in a given market. you cant just assume that its because of "the power of the state" as if "the power of the state" is a fixed thing. "the power of the state" is an idea and is only as powerful as it has an effect on the actions of the people, meaning it can be educated away.
Drugs are totally prohibited
wrong.
Firstly, why is it that only existing "counter economic investors" could invest in black market oil refining?
that is not the case, neither did I imply such. please explain why any current or potential black market investor would choose 1% profits when he could have 15% with less risk? furthermore, it obviously hasnt been the case that the margins in those other fields have been driven down, so you should be able to solve number two yourself. refer to the two economicists.
Indeed, we're not, so why would be assume there are any? Are we to assume that they exist precisely because we see no evidence of their existence?
since the black market is hidden/secretive, we have no license to assume either way. youre begging the question.
My only point was that if you consider the imposition of taxes and regulations to be characteristic of the state, then obviously a "state" which passes such laws, but is entirely impotent to enforce them, is a state in name only.
which represents a victory condition for my side, and defeat for yours. so stop trying to gloat over the impotent carcass of beaucrats passing meaningless resolutions. thats a "w"
You can only have unfettered trade in the areas of economic activity where state power is not effective in preventing unfettered trade,
q trying to intimidate people by abstracting everything into meaningless generalizations. you can only have two party transtions when a third party is invited into the transaction by one original party, or when that third party physically interferes with the transaction. enforcement is egregiously expensive. "state power" is a scare term.
tell me, are you an entrepreneur? stop telling me what can and cannot be done as if underground laboratories dont and couldnt exist. how do illegal workers pick strawberries in the u.s. if agriculture "cannot be hidden"? so much for almighty state power. your last paragraph is also abstract and generic. you cant "force the state" to do anything because the state doesnt do anything. only individuals act. and you certainly can use market forces to gradually supplant the state achieving a peaceful voluntaryist revolution.
Malachi:"the power of the state" as if "the power of the state" is a fixed thing. "the power of the state" is an idea..."state power" is a scare term.
Guns are real, property seizure is real, prisons are real - not mere ideas. This is what the "power of the state" means. And as long as it exists, it will have an effect on the behavior of people in general, and on economic activity in particular - obviously, otherwise there would be no need for a libertarian critique of the state.
and is only as powerful as it has an effect on the actions of the people
Right, and it in fact does have an effect on how people act, because most people take into consideration things like the risk of going to prison when deciding how to act. For example, due to the power of the state, an entrepreneur might choose to conduct illegal business in secret, rather than out in the open - since otherwise he would risk undesirable consequences for himself (e.g. property seizure or prison). Business conducted in secret may be materially different than business conducted in the open, depending on what sort of sort of business it is. As I have been saying, one cannot generally achieve the same economies of scale in a secret business operation as in a visible business operation, for the simple reason that economies of scale often require physically large operations, and the larger an operation is the harder it is to hide.
Why do you think black market production of alcohol in the US basically collapsed as soon as prohibition was lifted? Black market producers had to keep their operations hidden, which limited their size, which prevented them from achieving the same economies of scale which white market producers could achieve, which made their cost of production higher than that their white market competitors, thus making their products uncompetitive in the market.
how do illegal workers pick strawberries in the u.s. if agriculture "cannot be hidden"?
Apparently it's possible to hide the legal status of your workers, but it obviously not possible to hide the fact that you are farming. The state can see that they're farming, and can tax and regulate them - and the states does in fact tax and regulate farms in the US. Go set up a tomato farm and try not paying property tax, for example, and watch what happens. Will you be able to compete with white market farms? No, you'll get shut down, or you'll be forced to comply and become a white market farm. And what if you set up your farm in your basement, hydroponics with artificial light ala pot production? You will most likely get away with it, but you won't be able to compete on the market because your production costs are too high, because you don't have economies of scale.
the black market is hidden/secretive
Indeed. And state power is the reason it is hidden.
and you certainly can use market forces to gradually supplant the state achieving a peaceful voluntaryist revolution.
Explain to me, for example, how "market forces" could create a situation where I can start up a commercial scale tomato farm and avoid paying property taxes? How is this possible? Only if the state is already too weak to collect the tax, in which case market forces are not "supplanting the state," rather the power of the state is declining for some other reason, which in turn allows broader scope for market forces to operate unfettered.. As My Buddy pointed out, you agorists have got your causality inverted.
please explain why any current or potential black market investor would choose 1% profits when he could have 15% with less risk?
1) the state is a social fiction, and state power is also fictional in nature. guns and prisons are tangible. theft is an act, requiring an actor. those three things you mentioned are not "state power." the state only exists insofar as it affects people's behavior, so youre the one inverting causality here.
Aristophanes: It is not for a class. It is not found any cheaper, unfortunately...I looked for a long time before deciding to buy it...and I got these too Secret State, Silent Press The Gulf War 1991 had thousands of casualties that the US covered up with the help of the Western media. Written by a journalist, prose is very drawn out as if the author is expecting you to shit a brick so he tells you tiny pieces of the story with the worst filler... Leviathans: Multinational Corporations and the New Global History Theory of transnational bureaucracy is developed through several essays on the growing influence of MNCs in transnational policy making. (Has an essay on Bilderberg - from Cambridge UP) Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management 80's examination of the TC from various angles (has an essay written on the history of BB as well); foreign policy, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission Have not read yet. - Gramscian theory of western multilateral hegemony Propaganda and Persuasion Introductory work on the types, methods, history; the difference in persuasion and propaganda. Propaganda and Democracy: The American Experience of Media and Mass Persuasion Title says it all starts at WWI, examines several social movements then the corporate and intellectual takeover of the discipline. Cultural Critique and the Global Corporation (Anthropoloigy) Examines corporate management, PR, and the reality of what MNCs do. Chapters on DeBeers, GE, United Fruit, etc. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy - this still has not come (Published from Brookings though!) The Politics Of Policy Making In Defense and Foreign Affairs: Conceptual Models and Bureaucratic Politics Chapter 8 must have been Ron Paul's actual campaign plan because my jaw was dropped as I read it. Every suggestion that is made in chapter 8 Ron Paul took advantage of in 2012. NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe Country by Country Ganser goes over the NATO intelligence operations involving the stay-behind network (each country had a different iteration) all through the Cold War. This isn't as conspiratorial as it sounds. NATO built up hidden weapons caches in various places in Europe so they could over night activate guerilla networks to act against the USSR. Some of them went rogue with the guns and NATO kept it secret instead of taking responsibility. U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis Haven't read Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State Haven't read States and Illegal Practices (anthropology) Examines historical cases of states cooperating with mafias, gun smugglers, diamond smugglers, etc. Examines the NATO stay behind in Italy (because the NATO sponsored rogue network assassinated the PM and the conspiracy was propogated within The Grande Oriente of italy (Masonic Lodge - eventually leading to their prohibition from relation to people in any positions of official power.). The Iran-Contra Scandal (The National Security Archive Document) - this has in it arms orders and bills of sale signed by Felix Rodriguez himself (the CIA assassin responsible for killing Guevara) and Ollie North). It is a collection of the main documents involved in the Iran Contra investigation. A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affairs - this goes over the bureaucratic movements that allowed the DoD to use Congressional authority and resources without the Congress OR the NSC knowing...Ollie North! Illicit Flows and Criminal Things: States, Borders, and the Other Side of Globalization (Anthropology) Looks at international drug trades, illegal markets in Africa, etc.; particularly cases where States turn a blind eye. there is also this and this
thanks for the answers and the list.
Out of curiosity did you ever go back?
this YAL treated them as if they are the frontrunning writers and inspirations for the movement.
Milton Friedman and even Ayn Rand are frontrunning writers and inspirations for the libertarian movement, much more than Murray Rothbard or HHH. Of course that's not the opinion held by the libertarian faction here in this site. Some kid was just describing to me in another thread why Hayek and Friedman were full blown lenin style communists. LoL
Flavors, tones, and moods mon ami: notice and appreciate their power and truths.
Some libertarians get off on being creedal sectarian cranks looking for the next witch hunt, purge, and inquisition , doing nasty inside hit pieces and character assassinations - and seemingly make an infelxibale economic science used it as nothing but a basement for politcal thought and activism (kind of like Marxists).
Others will be even more hilarious and pathetic "uncle tom's" bending over backwards, oscillating between being overly apologetic, diplomatic, reciting the usual more "progressive creeds" - to making fun of "the wrong kind" of libertarian just to avoid the labels "right wing", "crank", or whatever other progressive word of alienating condemnation that can get thrown in their direction. This reminds me of a Nietzsche passage that went something lik:e when you follow the crowd, you can not keep up with it, you always (as a rule) will be two steps back: how true.
One side purges itself of itself - the other side tries to flee itself from itself: kind of like a snake eating it's own tail.
On a more interesting note:
It is odd seeing some people who are self proclaimed libs which could be legitimently seen as"more statist" in ways than people who make no claims or pretentions to libertarianism ranging anywhere on the spectrum from Glen Beck to Lenin - so there may be a serious issue here - it may just show the vacuousness of overly unfocused heterodox political and/or philisophical positions. If that's the case it's time to seriously rethink about how to label oneself, and on what line one should draw such labels.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle