krazy kaju:If you have a statist society versus an anarchist society, who do you think will win? The country that sends soldiers involuntarily to combat or the society in which every member is armed to the teeth and will defend their liberty at any cost?
Armed citizens would be a far bigger problem. But even they can possibly moved into submission. With the whole subject, I'm recalling the Anglo-Boer-War or second Freedom-War as we call it. Although the Boer Republics had parliaments for their "Burgers", They were anarchic in many ways. Most of the White population was armed and minding minding it's own business (In some areas you had Black chiefs ruling their tribes-some of them got involved in the war later). When the Boer armies were facing trouble, the Boers resorted to guerrila warfare - which made the war a very expensive enterprise. Then the British started the scorched earth policy and put the Boer families (as well as Bantu supporting them) into concentration camps where many died. Still the war continued - But there were those Boers that joined the British cause (to end the war and become a British colony). When everything became seemingly hopeless, also the last Boers resigned from the war and the Boer republics were finally occupied.
This example shows some things:
I might add that some of the mining companies may have even favored the take over by the British - A matter one may have to elaborate on, when analyzing this example.
krazy kaju:Think about it like this: it's like the USA reinvaded Iraq all over again, just that this time nobody would want the US imposing their will there and everybody would have access to rifles, RPGs, etc. Do you really think the US military, in all of its glory, would stand any chance short of nuking the whole country?
krazy kaju:And since I can see you're itching to ask about nukes, don't you think private protection agencies would gather some nukes to establish themselves as legitimate protectors against "runaway" and "gangster" protection agencies?
At the moment I also think of the Condotteri and Landsknechst of the early modern era.
Look I have read the literature. I am not opposed to individual action to obtain more economic freedom.
Your recent comments on those subjects indicate precisely the opposite of both of the above statements.
Strategically agorism can not ever replace the state.
That's like saying "none of the attempts at curing cancer have yet succeeded, therefore cancer cannot be cured." Agorism is only getting started. It is impossible to make an accurate judgment of its success.
I live in Costa Rica, half the poulation here is already practicing more counter-economy than you will probably ever do in your lifetime. The governement is nowhere close to the verge of collapsing.
Counter-economic activity and agorism are NOT synonymous. If the c.e. isn't ACTIVELY and PURPOSEFULLY trying to bleed the government through its functions, then it is not agoric. And without meeting those criteria, of course it isn't going to bring about permanent change - because non-agorist black markets profit from keeping the status quo.
If the government here is not even close to collapsing then the U.S. has no chance of collapse in your lifetime.
That is one impressive non-sequitur.
So if Agorism is a 200 year program and an intergenerational plan then I think on the face of it it would be inconceiveable to get people to participate in the fashion you describe.
It is a long-term program in that it may take an awful long time for the state to be erradicated entirely. However, it offers those who wish to participate a great opportunity for a great deal of freedom NOW, without giving their oppressors the sanction of the victim by running away to some remote colony, or wasting time changing one group of thugs for another via "democracy".
Agorism requires the masses to reach a tipping point.
No it doesn't. It requires one more person to start doing business in the counter-economy, or for those who already are to do one more counter-economic thing than is currently the case. A few million people moving a few dollars underground will have as great an effect as a few people moving a few million dollars underground. And every time that happens, no matter by which route, it starves the state just a little bit more.
People who purchase capital goods and don't spend their profits back into the mainstream economy will exacerbate the problem of inflation by the value of their purchase. Thus the mainstream economy gets weaker, and the counter-economy stronger. Which makes it easier for more counter-economic activity to repeat the process. The state's problems are self-compounding, while the agora benefits from each cycle of counter-economic production coupled with mainstream non-spending and non-production.
Already this has enabled many people to become economically free, so don't tell me about the idea being a failure. The state doesn't have to throw their hands up and promise to go away for agorism to "win". It's not a collectivist, self-sacrificial program. Each time somebody finds agorism, and consequently profits from the counter-economy, it makes them that much more free, and starves the state a little bit more.
Look at all of the counter-economy type activities that have gained any size and they have all been shut-down or are under constant harassment.
Which ones?
Strategically we can not rely on the masses to create anything.
No kidding. Which is why agorism is about informed and principled individuals working in their own self-interest to create things which the masses will accept. And you continually discount the fact that the state's money is becoming increasingly costly to use. Therein is the tipping point you are looking for - when people with FRNs are impoverished by their reliance on the government, the counter-economy is the only alternative. That will probably happen in my lifetime, as it happens several times each century. But as I pointed out earlier, the last time it happened, there were no agorists. Now there are.
The Liberty Colony is about right now, in your lifetime. Frankly, from an agorist point of view the Liberty Colony is the best option.
You clearly don't understand the agorist point of view. We are agorists because we don't savor the idea of running away from the state. We do NOT believe in the victim sanctioning the oppressor. This is my home, and I'm not going anywhere. I wish well to anyone who does choose such a route - certainly, we can be allies. But I won't follow you there.
Agorist's want to create small groups that develop the ability to replace functions of the state and thus by demonstration to others grow the movement. What could be better than an actual place that is free, even if very small.
Something that is NOT an actual place, which dampens the likelihood of the state taking it over all at once by force.
The internet gives us enormous ability to interact commercially and things like gold currencies, online banking and other barter and auction related activities are the perfect kinds of things that can be done from the Liberty Colony itself.
While it lasts, yes. And as I said, I wish the Liberty Colony well. But I'm not leaving my home and my friends and family just because the state is here. I'm just going to ignore them, proactively.
Part of my goal on this forum is to agitate and propel those sitting on their couch to action.
First, how is educating people not action? And is discussion of ones ideas with likeminded people not conducive to education?
Second, you have no idea what people on this forum do IN ADDITION TO their forum activities.
Agorism even when practiced is simply not enough to achieve the goal we both desire.
It's not suitable to achieve the goal that YOU desire, which is a large-scale geographically significant freedom. But I'm not interested in that - yet. I am only interested in individual secession, which has the dual purpose of allowing the individual to be free to whatever extent they are willing to withdraw from the state-sanctioned economy, while simultaneously undermining the state's legitimacy.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Macfall missed the biggest pro-agorist argument. An agorist profits by protecting the fruits of his labor from theft via taxation and inflation. Even if an agorist doesn't defeat the State during his lifetime, he still profits from his activity.
Agorism is the only resistance strategy where you fight the State and show a profit at the same time!
Also, Maxliberty has a specific agenda. He's selling his "Liberty Colony" proposal. He hasn't answered key details such as "Where will it be located?" Any suitable location is almost definitely already occupied. If the Liberty Colony succeeds, then good for you. I'm not actively opposing you. I'm just saying you're wasting your time.
I agree with the philosophy of "This is my home and I'm not moving!" Just because I'm not working as an agorist yet, doesn't mean I will in the future.
This is actually promising. I've never seen such an aggressive troll attack of agorism before, or agorism defended by someone other than me. Previously, when I mentioned agorism on the Ron Paul forum, I was ignored. I interpret this as progress!
Most people currently working counter-economically are working on isolated off-the-books businesses. An agorist wants a complete underground economy, replacing *EVERY* State function.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
fsk: Most people currently working counter-economically are working on isolated off-the-books businesses.
Most people currently working counter-economically are working on isolated off-the-books businesses.
Which brings to mind another point: you can't gauge counter-economic activity by what is easily visible from the outside. It is unreported business, after all.
MacFall:No it doesn't. It requires one more person to start doing business in the counter-economy, or for those who already are to do one more counter-economic thing than is currently the case. A few million people moving a few dollars underground will have as great an effect as a few people moving a few million dollars underground. And every time that happens, no matter by which route, it starves the state just a little bit more.
If it doesn't matter by which route the state is being starved then ce activity is not dependent on the intent of the individual to have the desired agorist effect. Therefore ce activity currently in existence and it's effect on the state is relevant. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that this alone does not starve the state.
MacFall:You clearly don't understand the agorist point of view. We are agorists because we don't savor the idea of running away from the state. We do NOT believe in the victim sanctioning the oppressor. This is my home, and I'm not going anywhere. I wish well to anyone who does choose such a route - certainly, we can be allies. But I won't follow you there.
The problem with agorism is that it does not provide for one's ultimate freedom. Lurking in the shadows trying to avoid paying taxes is not freedom. One should not confuse freedom with the fact that the state hasn't gotten to you yet.
MacFall:It's not suitable to achieve the goal that YOU desire, which is a large-scale geographically significant freedom. But I'm not interested in that - yet. I am only interested in individual secession, which has the dual purpose of allowing the individual to be free to whatever extent they are willing to withdraw from the state-sanctioned economy, while simultaneously undermining the state's legitimacy.
Then we are in agreement that the ultimate goal of agorism is not freedom but simply greater autonomy within a state system by hiding certain activities. You say you don't want to leave and be free because you would prefer to hide where you currently are. The danger that agorism presents to the freedom movement is that it is the illusion of action without having any impact on the end result. Many like yourself now believe that this so-called individual secession is bringing down the state. Agorism prevents you from taking meaningful action that can achieve the desired result.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud any attempt to increase your freedom even within the confines of the state. I do have different goals than the agorist crowd. I believe I have the right to be free and in my own lifetime I seek to live in a place where I am not in fear of my life and liberty for exercising this right. Agorism is intellectual crack cocaine, it feels good but in the end accomplishes nothing of real value and delays meaningful progress.
Thanks for due respect Juan.
LC may be more unrealistic. But that's not my point exactly. Agorism is a decent idea, but it's an idea. Everyone talks about it. Who is doing it? I was practicing economic secession long before I knew what Agorism was. I'm out there taking risks. Where are my Agorist brethren who will support me with the cloak of their numbers and the strength of commitment?
We can complain about LC all day. We can say Agorism is better. But if no one does anything, then it's as circular and pointless as most of the philosophy discussions here.
My $0.02 CDN which is equal to $0.0198 US these days.
Maxliberty:Thanks, hopefully you will participate in helping the Liberty Colony establish a free society.
I am following your project but cannot join for at least 2 years. However, based upon the interest and how it develops, I have not ruled out helping promote it, or fund it in the meanwhile.
I too like to see and encourage people to do things. There is no shortage of theoreticians or philosophers in the liberty community. Big shortage of risk takers.
Maxliberty: If it doesn't matter by which route the state is being starved then ce activity is not dependent on the intent of the individual to have the desired agorist effect. Therefore ce activity currently in existence and it's effect on the state is relevant. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that this alone does not starve the state.
I'm quite certain you weren't being honest when you said you'd read the NLM, or you would understand this.
Non-agoric activity only involves black-market profits. It has the effect of making the participant wealthy without paying the state. It does NOT weaken the mainstream economy or the state.
Agorists, on the other hand, invest in the counter-economy. They withdraw capital goods from the mainstream economy, and use them to create consumer goods which can either be sold for black-market profit in the mainstream economy, or to be sold for counter-economic profit (i.e., direct exchange or barter currency). Through this process, they strengthen the counter-economy. And as they do so, they weaken the mainstream economy proportionally.
Every time capital is withdrawn from the economy and the profits derived therefrom are not reabsorbed by it, the counter-economist profits at the expense of the state's monetary system. This process cannot occur with non-agoric, black market activity.
The problem with agorism is that it does not provide for one's ultimate freedom.
Replacing the state with private-law protection services is absolutely necessary to achieving what you call "ultimate" freedom. That is the eventual goal of agorism. What you're doing is just running away; you're not replacing the state with anything.
Lurking in the shadows trying to avoid paying taxes is not freedom. One should not confuse freedom with the fact that the state hasn't gotten to you yet.
Freedom is a condition in which one is not effectively owned by another. If you're not paying taxes and your money's value isn't being stolen, you have economic freedom. I daresay one has more freedom in general in such a situation than if one lives the life of a soldier on an outpost, as one would in the idea you are promoting.
Then we are in agreement that the ultimate goal of agorism is not freedom but simply greater autonomy within a state system by hiding certain activities.
No, that's actually not agorism's goal at all.
You say you don't want to leave and be free because you would prefer to hide where you currently are.
I never said anything about hiding. I'm just going to live as a free man, right now. I don't give a damn what they want to do to me because of it. And I'm not going to concede defeat by running off to the wilderness somewhere, and leave my home to the wolves I'm fighting.
The danger that agorism presents to the freedom movement is that it is the illusion of action without having any impact on the end result. Many like yourself now believe that this so-called individual secession is bringing down the state. Agorism prevents you from taking meaningful action that can achieve the desired result. . . . Agorism is intellectual crack cocaine, it feels good but in the end accomplishes nothing of real value and delays meaningful progress.
The danger that agorism presents to the freedom movement is that it is the illusion of action without having any impact on the end result. Many like yourself now believe that this so-called individual secession is bringing down the state. Agorism prevents you from taking meaningful action that can achieve the desired result.
. . .
Agorism is intellectual crack cocaine, it feels good but in the end accomplishes nothing of real value and delays meaningful progress.
I've been proving all along that this is not the case. If you can't back up your pronouncements, don't make them.
liberty student: Agorism is a decent idea, but it's an idea. Everyone talks about it. Who is doing it?
Agorism is a decent idea, but it's an idea. Everyone talks about it. Who is doing it?
AGORISTS ARE DOING IT, as I've been pointing out all along. How much of your income have you managed to convert to non-taxable barter? As I said, I've done around 20%, and that number is growing. Almost every other agorist I've talked to is doing better than that. I suggest that you aren't finding them because you aren't trying.
MacFall:AGORISTS ARE DOING IT, as I've been pointing out all along. How much of your income have you managed to convert to non-taxable barter? As I said, I've done around 20%, and that number is growing. Almost every other agorist I've talked to is doing better than that. I suggest that you aren't finding them because you aren't trying.
I have respect for what you say you are doing. You are the only Agorist I have met online, who is actually doing something.
That said, you don't know me, so please don't presume. I'm not going to post the details of what I am doing, precisely because I am taking risks, not swapping tomatoes for raw milk.
You will definitely hear more from me on Agorism.
liberty student: That said, you don't know me, so please don't presume.
That said, you don't know me, so please don't presume.
I didn't mean to appear to presume anything; my question was in earnest. I apologize if I came off wrong.
I'm not going to post the details of what I am doing, precisely because I am taking risks, not swapping tomatoes for raw milk.
Well, I respect that entirely. I am taking a small risk because I deal in homebrewed beer and wine, which is strongly discouraged in Pennsylvania. But I don't mind sharing that. I suppose if I were doing much more I wouldn't be so open about it. But that's the thing about agorist activities - when it comes to the people building infrastructure, you're not likely to see them advertise their existence. You'll only hear about the people offering consumer goods and services, who may or may not be the same people.
MacFall: Every time capital is withdrawn from the economy and the profits derived therefrom are not reabsorbed by it, the counter-economist profits at the expense of the state's monetary system. This process cannot occur with non-agoric, black market activity.
So if an individual who isn't specifically ideologically self-described as part of your movement then even if he is conducting the exact same activity then it will have no effect on the state? So your arguement is that it is the intention of the participant not the actions that effectively starve the state? As I understand agorism it's goal to develop the counter-economy to the point that the counter-economy is capapble of providing services to replace state functions. Isn't anyone who is actively involved in the counter-economy promoting the agorist agenda at least by definition.
As an example, the many local farmers here in Costa Rica that sell their goods at the local open markets. These are all cash transactions, no taxation, and then they take these funds and normally pay for everything in their own lives with cash or often barter for other services like auto maintenance and things. Are these people not contributing to the starvation of the state? If you conduct these activities on the other hand then you are leading the agorist revolution.
liberty student: Maxliberty:Thanks, hopefully you will participate in helping the Liberty Colony establish a free society. I am following your project but cannot join for at least 2 years. However, based upon the interest and how it develops, I have not ruled out helping promote it, or fund it in the meanwhile. I too like to see and encourage people to do things. There is no shortage of theoreticians or philosophers in the liberty community. Big shortage of risk takers.
Yes, action matters. I am glad to see that you are a man of action as well. I liked your quote about swapping tomoatoes for raw milk that was funny.
Maxliberty:So if an individual who isn't specifically ideologically self-described as part of your movement then even if he is conducting the exact same activity then it will have no effect on the state? So your arguement is that it is the intention of the participant not the actions that effectively starve the state?
Try actually reading what he writes.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Maxliberty: So if an individual who isn't specifically ideologically self-described as part of your movement then even if he is conducting the exact same activity then it will have no effect on the state? So your arguement is that it is the intention of the participant not the actions that effectively starve the state? As I understand agorism it's goal to develop the counter-economy to the point that the counter-economy is capapble of providing services to replace state functions. Isn't anyone who is actively involved in the counter-economy promoting the agorist agenda at least by definition.
Agorists, by definition, invest in counter-economic capital goods and withold their profits from the mainstream economy, buying black market goods (capital and consumer) with their profits. But not everyone who does that is necessarily agorist. However, I know of no non-agorist counter-economic participants who deliberately draw capital goods from the mainstream economy and make profits which never leave the counter-economy. Only an agorist would have any reason to do so. Non-agorist black-marketeers are interested only in making black market profits, driven upward by their illegal status - which would not be possible in the second and later stages of agorism.
If you're working as an agorist, and willing to leave your profits in the counter-economy, then this solves the "money laundering" problem. Most people who evade taxes have to "launder" their profits, depositing them in a bank account. If you deposit cash in a bank account, your bank is required to report this to the IRS and the State.
If you invest your profits in gold or silver or new businesses, then you don't have to "launder" your profits. If you hold Federal Reserve Notes, you're going to be ripped off by inflation. If you hold gold or silver, your savings are protected.
Is it possible to go into a coin shop and buy gold or silver for cash, without the transaction being reported to the State?
MacFall: Agorists, by definition, invest in counter-economic capital goods and withold their profits from the mainstream economy, buying black market goods (capital and consumer) with their profits. But not everyone who does that is necessarily agorist. However, I know of no non-agorist counter-economic participants who deliberately draw capital goods from the mainstream economy and make profits which never leave the counter-economy. Only an agorist would have any reason to do so. Non-agorist black-marketeers are interested only in making black market profits, driven upward by their illegal status - which would not be possible in the second and later stages of agorism.
We are discussing the effectiveness of such activity. If I engage in the same behavior am I not enaging in agorist activity whether I describe it as that or not? As far as keeping the reinvested profits within the counter economy, that is impossible to know since that would require monitoring everyone else in the counter-economy. All counter-economy activity develops the counter-economy at least in some part so I do not see the difference between you buying food on the black market and someone else buying food on the black market. Your distinction between the same activity doesn't make sense.
Your statement that an agorist takes capital goods from the mainstream economy and invests them in the black market would require my continual participation in the mainstream economy. As such the only relevant factor is to grow the size of the counter-economy and that would mean all counter-economy activity would be beneficial to the agorist philosophy. So there could not be any unconsequential counter economic activity. For instance drug dealers take a large amount of main stream economy and transfer it to the underground economy but by your statement this does not help the agorist cause.
Maxliberty: We are discussing the effectiveness of such activity.
We are discussing the effectiveness of such activity.
That's funny, because we actually weren't.
If I engage in the same behavior am I not enaging in agorist activity whether I describe it as that or not?
Not necessarily, because agorists are market anarchists. It is possible for someone to do that sort of thing without being an agorist, but I doubt you'd find any such people.
As far as keeping the reinvested profits within the counter economy, that is impossible to know since that would require monitoring everyone else in the counter-economy.
Once again you prove that you have not actually read any agorist literature.
If you are doing all your buying and selling with counter-economic currency (or direct exchange), it is very improbable for it to reenter the maintream economy
All counter-economy activity develops the counter-economy at least in some part so I do not see the difference between you buying food on the black market and someone else buying food on the black market. Your distinction between the same activity doesn't make sense.
Do you not know the difference between capital investment and retail? I suggest you read up on your basic economics before we continue this discussion...
Your statement that an agorist takes capital goods from the mainstream economy and invests them in the black market would require my continual participation in the mainstream economy.
No it wouldn't. It would only require the participation of someone, probably not you.
As such the only relevant factor is to grow the size of the counter-economy
Non-sequitur. Do you even READ my posts?
and that would mean all counter-economy activity would be beneficial to the agorist philosophy.
That's true, in the sense that it creates a market opportunity for agorist protection services.
So there could not be any unconsequential counter economic activity. For instance drug dealers take a large amount of main stream economy and transfer it to the underground economy but by your statement this does not help the agorist cause.
The drug dealers take dollars out of the mainstream economy and then they spend those same dollars back in. They do not create capital goods, they only create consumer goods. They do not weaken the state's monetary system by contributing to inflation. They do not build counter-economic infrastructure. They do not offer alternatives to state-monopolized services. They DO NOT do the same things as agorists do.
MacFall:The drug dealers take dollars out of the mainstream economy and then they spend those same dollars back in. They do not create capital goods, they only create consumer goods. They do not weaken the state's monetary system by contributing to inflation. They do not build counter-economic infrastructure. They do not offer alternatives to state-monopolized services. They DO NOT do the same things as agorists do.
Lets specifically take the example of drug dealers. They produce a counter-economy crop which they sell to people who pay with mainstream economy money and the dealers pay their farmers with this and all of the parties involved in the transaction. The dealers buy boats which are then taken out of mainstream application and are at least in part used solely for the counter-economy. Aren't shipping vessels normally considered capital goods? Or the trucks and cars that they use to transport the product? How about the real estate and land they purchase to grow their crops or hide the merchandise? How about the underground network to move money from one place to another? Would not that activity take all of those capital goods out of the mainstream economy and divert it's use to the counter-economy?
The drug dealers hire bodyguards and create gangs in order to provide private protection services for their business. Aren't these replacing some aspects of the state monopoly.
Explain to me how you having a home still is an agorist activity and what they are doing is not?
I would like to offer up an answer to my question and see if it is theoretically true. Honestly I've considered the agorist arguments here to be wrong because it would seem that a subsidized or public military would have, with its greater monies, a lower marginal cost in developing and using killing machines -it is a naturally superior killer. Also, it seems that a private one would be beset by higher marginal costs in a competetive market and so not be as effective in warmaking. Yet also knowing how bad socialized services are at accomplishing their goals, although these subsidized firms should outcompete their private counterparts, still they will be less effective than they were. But here, taking the agorist position that private troops are superior to public ones, it is still consistent to say that 1) a socialized military is better at outcompeting a private one 2) a socialized military is worse at protecting its costumers than a private one 3) its consistent that a private military is superior to a socialized one. But if this is true, than the history of some wars (like vietnam, boer war, etc.) has been to destroy the more effective firm type. From this angle, having deduced the superior nature of the private firm, we can ask why have the private firms failed in the past? My answer: they refused to remain private. For instance, terrorist groups using non-combatants as shields, barbarians raiding and pillaging non-aggressive cities, etc. and we all know how gen. washington turned the cont. army statist. So this is what I believe is a theoretically consistent way to reconcile these opposing facts. Is this a correct argument -criticism very welcome!
fakename:I would like to offer up an answer to my question and see if it is theoretically true. Honestly I've considered the agorist arguments here to be wrong because it would seem that a subsidized or public military would have, with its greater monies, a lower marginal cost in developing and using killing machines -it is a naturally superior killer. Also, it seems that a private one would be beset by higher marginal costs in a competetive market and so not be as effective in warmaking. Yet also knowing how bad socialized services are at accomplishing their goals, although these subsidized firms should outcompete their private counterparts, still they will be less effective than they were.
Honestly I'll don't see that anarcho-capitalist defense model working. The closest one could come to a stateless defense model is perhaps the Swiss one. With all citizens carrying basic arms and supply. And some more expensive equipment owned by a the Swiss state. This is still a conscription army and draws from a clearly defined body of citizens. Since it is clearly defensive, this maybe even the most economic options thinkable.
Torsten:Honestly I'll don't see that anarcho-capitalist defense model working. The closest one could come to a stateless defense model is perhaps the Swiss one. With all citizens carrying basic arms and supply. And some more expensive equipment owned by a the Swiss state. This is still a conscription army and draws from a clearly defined body of citizens. Since it is clearly defensive, this maybe even the most economic options thinkable.
I envision that the Liberty Colony PDA's will function more like a skirmish line against a hostile attack and will not be designed or maintained to repel invasion unilaterally. Rather the individuals in the Liberty Colony will be the primary defenders and the PDA's will encourage volunteer mlitia type organizations (think of volunteer fire departments) within the Colony to have some sort of organized defense.
I had not considered the possibility of the PDA's having some heavier equipment that might be kept but only for the purpose of defense. Certain items that might require very minimal training to operate and could be stored and made available when needed. I am thinking along the lines here of small artillery and mortars which could be used reasonable effectively with minimal training. Also, simply having a stock pile of heavier weapons that could be brought out and distrubuted to the militia colonists, things like RPG's and heavy machine guns would be effective as well.
MacFall: I've converted roughly 20% of my economic activity into counter-economic activity. Others who have been at it longer than I have are doing much more - as much as 100%. Meaning - they do not pay taxes, and their money does not lose value.
Might I inquire as to how and what you are doing specifically? I'm interested but not too clear on ways to go about it.
Stolz2525: MacFall: I've converted roughly 20% of my economic activity into counter-economic activity. Others who have been at it longer than I have are doing much more - as much as 100%. Meaning - they do not pay taxes, and their money does not lose value. Might I inquire as to how and what you are doing specifically? I'm interested but not too clear on ways to go about it.
I trade homebrewed (and stilled, respectively) beer, wine and liquor for food, mainly. That's not illegal in PA, but the distilling itself is, and it is still unreported income. Also, if I do any manual labor I insist on being paid by other means than US dollars. I have a lot of favors owed to me, but it is done with people who understand the value of what we're doing. I also know a privately liscensed mechanic who is willing to barter (I haven't used his services yet, but will in the future), and have a lead to black market medicine sales (not hard at all to find - do a google search). Basically, I have several staples of day-to-day life which will continue to function even if the dollar were to fail completely tomorrow. It's all very local and informal, but it works.
There are a lot of places with more formal Agorist communities, but none where I live as far as I know. The people I trade with are aware of the risks and rewards of what they're doing, but with one exception they're not really aware that they are acting counter-economically. Which I think backs up my point that people will be attracted to the counter-economy without being first converted to Agorism.
Maxliberty:I envision that the Liberty Colony PDA's will function more like a skirmish line against a hostile attack and will not be designed or maintained to repel invasion unilaterally. Rather the individuals in the Liberty Colony will be the primary defenders and the PDA's will encourage volunteer mlitia type organizations (think of volunteer fire departments) within the Colony to have some sort of organized defense.
... An enemy needs to expect that invasion will be costly. AND any neighbours must be convinced that the settlers do not intend to invade their own territory. Militia associations would be a good idea. A well developed civil society should be able to provide what is commonly provided by the state in most countries at the moment.
Maxliberty:I had not considered the possibility of the PDA's having some heavier equipment that might be kept but only for the purpose of defense. Certain items that might require very minimal training to operate and could be stored and made available when needed. I am thinking along the lines here of small artillery and mortars which could be used reasonable effectively with minimal training. Also, simply having a stock pile of heavier weapons that could be brought out and distrubuted to the militia colonists, things like RPG's and heavy machine guns would be effective as well.
That would emulate the Swiss model to some extent. At least as it was in the former times. The question remains on how any common defense against an invader would be motivated. What would happen, if only a small portion of the colony would be invaded? How would the other Colonists react?
I think in a more decentralized world, we'd see a lot of innovation in defensive technology. Not so sure that weapons of mediocore destruction like artillery or mortars would even be relevant. Those are area effect weapons. Remember, it's the colonist's land they are defending. They will want to defend it with a minimum of collateral and permanent damage possible.
Torsten:What would happen, if only a small portion of the colony would be invaded? How would the other Colonists react?
That is a very good question. One would have to consider that the small portion of colonists under invasion might consider surrender if faced with bad or overwhelming odds, and no support from their fellow colonists. Ultimately, there would probably be some diplomacy, I wouldn't rule out capitulation.
Torsten: That would emulate the Swiss model to some extent. At least as it was in the former times. The question remains on how any common defense against an invader would be motivated. What would happen, if only a small portion of the colony would be invaded? How would the other Colonists react?
Most likely an assault against one part of the Colony would be simply the beginning of the assault against the rest of the Colony so the motivation is to help your neighbor because you know your house is next. Also, militias would most likely draw from the entire Colony and thus any attack would immediately involve a fair portion of the Colony to begin with. The PDA's would be involved because most would have mutual defense portions as part of their contracts with each other.
As to the use of artillery or mortars, you may be right Liberty Student that those may not be optimal and I am sure much of the choice would depend on where the Liberty Colony was situated and the surrounding terrain.