In response to a very good suggestion:
ozzy43:Here's a suggestion: collect the questions being asked about agorism by Max and others and create a new thread which posts the answers explicitly. That way, you can stop saying they've been answered already, and he can stop saying they haven't, which activity at least appears to consume the majority of communication in this thread. I sure as hell have seen precious few actual answers in this thread, although innumerable posts have said those answers have been made.
I have made this thread about agorism, as the first was going nowhere fast.
In response to the OP of that thread:
Maxliberty:There has been considerable discussion about how much agorist activity is really going on in the world and the overall effectiveness of agorism. So I started this thread to both allow the agorists to clarify exactly what they think agorist activity is and for those wanting to debate the various aspects of agorism and evaluate it's likely chances of achieving its goal of replacing the state. As I understand agorism it is using the counter-economy to create insitutions that do the same essential functions as the state thus causing the state to wither away. Agorism as an individuals way to have greater economic autonomy is I think a given. That is to say nothing more than if I do less things that are controlled by the state I will have more freedom. I don't know that we need to call that agorism but that is fine. Agorism as a way to undermine the state seems so remote as to be not taken seriously. There is plenty of counter-economic activity in the world and this doesn't seem to be creating the types of instituions that would create an anarchist society. Agorism seems nothing more than an intellectual tap dance and to give solace to those not willing to take more direct action.
As I understand agorism it is using the counter-economy to create insitutions that do the same essential functions as the state thus causing the state to wither away.
Agorism as an individuals way to have greater economic autonomy is I think a given. That is to say nothing more than if I do less things that are controlled by the state I will have more freedom. I don't know that we need to call that agorism but that is fine. Agorism as a way to undermine the state seems so remote as to be not taken seriously. There is plenty of counter-economic activity in the world and this doesn't seem to be creating the types of instituions that would create an anarchist society.
Agorism seems nothing more than an intellectual tap dance and to give solace to those not willing to take more direct action.
Agorism does indeed undermine the state. The example of the Soviet collapse (here and here for state-socialist views) will do nicely here. What agorism does is provide a specific goal (establishing a free society), and begins to build the institutions of the free society in the shadow of the state, "Building the new society in the shell of the old." There is more to agorism thatn counter-economics. Other kinds of direct action, such as mass civil disobedience, establishing free communities (Maxliberty's own Liberty Colony and Seasteading), etc., are also parts of an agorist/left-libertarian strategy. Education, of course, is the most important action. Unless people realize that the state is evil and impratical, and that there are alternatives, then the collapse of the current state will only be followed by the rise of another, possibly worse state.
For anyone unfamilar with agorism:
New Libertarian Manifesto
Agorist Class Theory
Interview with SEK3
Responses?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
While I understand how agorism works in theory, it seems that unless you can convince a large number of people to practice it, its efforts will be counterproductive. For example, while a few million people refusing to pay their income taxes would likely have a significant effect, if I as an individual were to not pay me income taxes, I would likely be put in tax prison for a number of years. So, should a person use a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether practicing agorism would have a positive effect or a negative effect?
shazam:if I as an individual were to not pay me income taxes, I would likely be put in tax prison for a number of years.
I think you need to reconsider the likelihood of that penalty. The fact of the matter is that the chances of you being put in jail for not paying your income taxes isn't very high. They might come after you and take some of your property, but it's not very likely that you'll end up in jail.
The fact of the matter is that you probably don't need to convince a large number of people to practice it. You can probably get most things you need with a relatively small network of trustworthy individuals. Maybe you're not 100% agorist, and none of them are 100% agorist, but if you're 50% agorist, you're 50% free. That's more than most of us can say.
Even if this is true, it's no different, in fact it's the same problem facing political libertarianism, which has given us nothing but an ever-expanding federal government. Except, if even if you're 100% libertarian, you're still 100% government slave. Agorism is a means by which individuals acting in concert can endeavor to free at least a part of their life, from the grips of the state.
I've been thinking about agorism a lot lately. A drug smuggler and a raw-milk purveyor face very similar risks.
The difference between agorism and traditional black market operations, I believe, needs to be in how the agorist addresses the problem of risk management. Risk management is the most important problem facing agorists. A successful agorist recognizes the risks and acts in accordance therewith. Most black market operations fail in this regard, and in that sense, their "risk management" plan is essentially not risk management, it's a gamble.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
I don't think you have responded to the issue Max raised, which is sorta ironic, if this thread is meant to address the unaddressed.
The issue he puts forth, is that how does non-Agorist and Agorist counter-economic activity differ in it's effect on the state? Not what the people are thinking when they do it, such as why, but if an Agorist trades home brew for tomatoes, how does that differ in effect on the state from a non-Agorist practicing the exact same activity?
Or as I believe I chimed in, what is the difference in effect on the state from a profit motive, and an ideological motive if the activity is the same? It seems to me there are a lot more armed and (if you can call it a PDA) protected black market operators, from drugs to theft to murder etc than there are Agorists.
Max can't see one, I can't see one and no one has been able to give a meaningful answer as to why we should practice Agorism and not drug dealing for bling bling and the honeys.
Adding on, if these black market operators are automatically pricing in the cost of security up front, then why are the SEK3 phases required? FSK has made the case that by not paying taxes, you are profiting significantly from Agorist activity. If that is so, shouldn't Agorists immediately proceed to full blown Agorism and security to ape the methodology of black market operators?
liberty student:The issue he puts forth, is that how does non-Agorist and Agorist counter-economic activity differ in it's effect on the state?
This has already been addressed ad nauseam and he has refused to accept every single answer.
I'll re-post what I said.
Maxliberty:It is simple logic that every dollar of counter-economic activity has the same effect on undermining the state.
That's a very flawed statement, but it's fundamentally untrue. Each dollar of counter-economic activity would have the POTENTIAL to have the same effect on the state. Because that dollar can be reinvested into state controlled markets and the state can make a profit off of the result of the original transaction.
For instance. I pay you $1 for an apple. and you go buy merchandise off a state controlled market which ends up being $1 after taxes. the state has taken 40-50% of what I gave you. That means that in the end our counter-economic activity did not result in the state not gaining money, because you decided to reinvest in the statist market.
Also, Agorism is not just about participating in the counter-economy, it's also about getting others to do the same.
liberty student:Max can't see one, I can't see one...
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
liberty student:The issue he puts forth, is that how does non-Agorist and Agorist counter-economic activity differ in it's effect on the state? Not what the people are thinking when they do it, such as why, but if an Agorist trades home brew for tomatoes, how does that differ in effect on the state from a non-Agorist practicing the exact same activity?
Most traditional black-market opportunities have increased the State's power. Once the state decides that it's profitable (politically or otherwise) to combat a certain free exchange, it directs resources towards its eradication. Of course, these resources are misallocated, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone engaging in traditional black-market profit earning, is likely contributing further to the erosion of liberties and the expanse of the state.
The agorist, on the other hand does not seek to engage in trade with the massive cartels that embody the traditional black market. As long as the agorist is producing and trading relatively innocuous items, on a relatively small scale, with a few trusted trading partners, it is not profitable for the State to put its boot on their neck.
david_z: liberty student:The issue he puts forth, is that how does non-Agorist and Agorist counter-economic activity differ in it's effect on the state? Not what the people are thinking when they do it, such as why, but if an Agorist trades home brew for tomatoes, how does that differ in effect on the state from a non-Agorist practicing the exact same activity? Most traditional black-market opportunities have increased the State's power. Once the state decides that it's profitable (politically or otherwise) to combat a certain free exchange, it directs resources towards its eradication. Of course, these resources are misallocated, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone engaging in traditional black-market profit earning, is likely contributing further to the erosion of liberties and the expanse of the state. The agorist, on the other hand does not seek to engage in trade with the massive cartels that embody the traditional black market. As long as the agorist is producing and trading relatively innocuous items, on a relatively small scale, with a few trusted trading partners, it is not profitable for the State to put its boot on their neck.
We see massive contradictions within agorism and within agorists. One agorist starts the thread by saying that black-market activities in the former Soviet Union undermined the state and then another agorist comes along saying agorists don't want anything to do with black markets. So is the agorist supposed to build a large counter-economy or stay on a relatively small scale?
I would like an agorist to follow one transaction or a series of transactions that might occur in the real world and demonstrate why the agorist will take actions that a counter-economic actor will not. Please no more generalizations about pink, blue and yellow markets. Let's keep the discussion based on real activity as much as possible. Again, are there any agorists willing to provide explicit examples for demonstrating how agorism is actually supposed to work?
This is of course exactly where we ended the last thread.
banned: liberty student:The issue he puts forth, is that how does non-Agorist and Agorist counter-economic activity differ in it's effect on the state? This has already been addressed ad nauseam and he has refused to accept every single answer. I'll re-post what I said. Maxliberty:It is simple logic that every dollar of counter-economic activity has the same effect on undermining the state. That's a very flawed statement, but it's fundamentally untrue. Each dollar of counter-economic activity would have the POTENTIAL to have the same effect on the state. Because that dollar can be reinvested into state controlled markets and the state can make a profit off of the result of the original transaction. For instance. I pay you $1 for an apple. and you go buy merchandise off a state controlled market which ends up being $1 after taxes. the state has taken 40-50% of what I gave you. That means that in the end our counter-economic activity did not result in the state not gaining money, because you decided to reinvest in the statist market. Also, Agorism is not just about participating in the counter-economy, it's also about getting others to do the same. liberty student:Max can't see one, I can't see one... There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I will help you with a simple example, yet again. Two people each buy a $100 product in the counter-economy. The state sales tax is 10%. What is the effect of this singular transaction on the state? The secondary question is which one is the agorist?
My simple answer to this is that the state is deprived of receiving it's 10% cut on each purchase of the $100 product in the counter-economy. The effect is the same for both transactions so which one is the agorist is irrelevant.
Maxliberty: For instance. I pay you $1 for an apple. and you go buy merchandise off a state controlled market which ends up being $1 after taxes. the state has taken 40-50% of what I gave you. That means that in the end our counter-economic activity did not result in the state not gaining money, because you decided to reinvest in the statist market. Also, Agorism is not just about participating in the counter-economy, it's also about getting others to do the same.
Let's say you normally buy an apple at the store for $1 and pay the state sales tax of 10%. So the state normally receives .10 every time you buy an apple. Now you decide to buy from the counter-economic actor for a $1 with no taxes. The state does not get it's normal cut on the transaction so the state loses the .10. What happens next is not relevant to the state losing out on this transaction. All that can be said is that the more counter-economic activity that exists the more the state suffers lost revenue. Agorist ideology does not appear to have any advantage over personal profit motive/self-interest.
As far as agorism is about getting others to participate in the counter-economy then you are a little behind because personal profit motive convinces billions of people to conduct counter-economic activity everyday without any exterior motivation like agorism.
Maxliberty:One agorist starts the thread by saying that black-market activities in the former Soviet Union undermined the state and then another agorist comes along saying agorists don't want anything to do with black markets. So is the agorist supposed to build a large counter-economy or stay on a relatively small scale?
One agorist is probably wrong. Massive government spending, compounded by the "Calculation problem" under socialism is what eventually bankrupted the USSR. It had little (or nothing) to do with someone trading a pair of Levis for a bushel of wheat.
It's entirely possible for a "large" counter-economy to develop, but for the atomistic parts of the whole to be relatively small. Agorism is unlikely to produce organizations the size of General Motors. That is, the eventual size of "the counter-economy" has nothing to do with the sizes of the networks comprising it.
shazam: While I understand how agorism works in theory, it seems that unless you can convince a large number of people to practice it, its efforts will be counterproductive. For example, while a few million people refusing to pay their income taxes would likely have a significant effect, if I as an individual were to not pay me income taxes, I would likely be put in tax prison for a number of years. So, should a person use a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether practicing agorism would have a positive effect or a negative effect?
A number of years? Well, not exactly... My father was arrested for tax evasion and got five years, he was out before the third year.
I don't pay income tax, personally, and it's really not that hard.
Also, consider, if you go to prison, you could perhaps make the best out of that situation, couldn't you? Most likely you'll go to a prison where other white-collar criminals are and I'm sure they'll mostly be receptive to the idea of - I can organize to not pay taxes and not have to go to prison again? SIGN ME UP!
Also, all out tax evasion isn't necessary in your first phase. All that is necessary for the first phase is organizing your cell and doing as much counter-economics as you feasibly can whilst minimizing risk.
Organize with other revolutionaries and go forward to actually living free in your lifetime? Hell, I don't see why not! It's a risk, but isn't freedom worth it?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Maxliberty: Let's say you normally buy an apple at the store for $1 and pay the state sales tax of 10%. So the state normally receives .10 every time you buy an apple. Now you decide to buy from the counter-economic actor for a $1 with no taxes. The state does not get it's normal cut on the transaction so the state loses the .10. What happens next is not relevant to the state losing out on this transaction. All that can be said is that the more counter-economic activity that exists the more the state suffers lost revenue. Agorist ideology does not appear to have any advantage over personal profit motive/self-interest. As far as agorism is about getting others to participate in the counter-economy then you are a little behind because personal profit motive convinces billions of people to conduct counter-economic activity everyday without any exterior motivation like agorism.
Well, again, you're wrong, but whatever.
Let's assume that you're right and no one ever does anything for anything other than a pathetic version of profit - monetary gain. What Agorists argue is that self-interest is compounded within Agorism. If that is true, then being an Agorist and ideological revolutionary couldn't hurt, at the least. Could it?
If Agorists are basically actors that move within the counter-economy to organize and minimize risk, then why is this not a goal that should be worked towards? You say that Agorism does not appear to have any advantage over self-profit, that's fine - wrong, but fine - because Agorism seeks to utilize, not replace self-interest by minimizing the risk for people to get involved in the counter-economy. If counter-economists are convinced to be libertarians afterwords, then why is this a bad thing?
Accepting your assumptions - which, again, are wrong - and ignoring any ideological advantages that Agorism may possess, then what needs to exist is merely what Agorists are trying to create, a more formal counter-economy that is more reliable to serve regular people who are currently being exploited by the state's market.
david_z: Maxliberty:One agorist starts the thread by saying that black-market activities in the former Soviet Union undermined the state and then another agorist comes along saying agorists don't want anything to do with black markets. So is the agorist supposed to build a large counter-economy or stay on a relatively small scale? One agorist is probably wrong. Massive government spending, compounded by the "Calculation problem" under socialism is what eventually bankrupted the USSR. It had little (or nothing) to do with someone trading a pair of Levis for a bushel of wheat. It's entirely possible for a "large" counter-economy to develop, but for the atomistic parts of the whole to be relatively small. Agorism is unlikely to produce organizations the size of General Motors. That is, the eventual size of "the counter-economy" has nothing to do with the sizes of the networks comprising it.
I know you agorists hate real world examples. Bear with me though, why is it you think that people in the counter-economy do not want to grow their business? Isn't it natural that agorists will grow their business in both size and sophistication. Any study of counter-economic activity indicates that people will naturally grow their business so why is it unlikely that agorists will not do the same and if they don't grow the business then isn't that less productive than someone who attempts to increase their counter-economic activity?
Your arguement is that agorists conduct more activity on one side but won't grow the business on the other side.
Can you give one example of real world counter-economic activity where people are not trying to grow their business? Do things like economies of scale or mass production have any bearing on your philosophy? Do you think the general principles of economics don't apply in the counter-economy? Can you imagine an agorist car factory that could produce 500,000 cars a year at competitive prices without being fairly large?
Provide real world examples not just the usual agorist generalities.
liberty student: I don't think you have responded to the issue Max raised, which is sorta ironic, if this thread is meant to address the unaddressed. The issue he puts forth, is that how does non-Agorist and Agorist counter-economic activity differ in it's effect on the state? Not what the people are thinking when they do it, such as why, but if an Agorist trades home brew for tomatoes, how does that differ in effect on the state from a non-Agorist practicing the exact same activity?
This has already been addressed by taking his static example and expanding it to a temporal one. He was proven wrong, the logic and algebra used was ironclad. He responded with a cop-out.
However, to be constructive, let's assume you're correct. All entrepreneurs are merely robots and the only thing anyone ever considers is a menial version of profit where one person makes extra money without going through te state. Assuming this, there's no difference between counter-economists and Agorists. Assuming that entrepreneurs are all homogenous, there's no difference between one counter-economist and one Agorist. To this, I would reply,
So? Even if Agorists are just libertarian counter-economists and possess no more effect on the state than other counter-economists do, isn't it still advantageous to expand a free-market in hopes that it can eat the pink market?
I contend that you and Jimmy are wrong, not only that, but I contend you're both stupid; however, that being said, even assuming your moans of homogenity among entrerpreneurs, it seems worth it to still develop the counter-economy. Furthermore, is it not advantageous to convince others of libertarianism? If the two occur simultaneously, what's the problem?
liberty student: Or as I believe I chimed in, what is the difference in effect on the state from a profit motive, and an ideological motive if the activity is the same? It seems to me there are a lot more armed and (if you can call it a PDA) protected black market operators, from drugs to theft to murder etc than there are Agorists.
First, if the profit motive and the ideological motive are combined, isn't it possible that there could be a benefit? This is Agorism. It neither rejects profit, nor does it reject ideology; it accepts both. Why you try to make it about a difference between the two, I don't know.
But again, assume ideology accounts for nothing and current counter-economists (those that do not necessarily hold political leanings) do outnumber Agorists. So what? It isn't advantageous to contribute and minimize risks at the same time? It isn't advantageous to convince as many people from as many places as possible? It isn't advantageous to profit whilst convincing people?
What exactly is your point? Or were you just trying to come to the rescue of your boyfriend again?
liberty student: Max can't see one, I can't see one and no one has been able to give a meaningful answer as to why we should practice Agorism and not drug dealing for bling bling and the honeys.
Because you said you were libertarians and if you are libertarians then you do both.
liberty student: Adding on, if these black market operators are automatically pricing in the cost of security up front, then why are the SEK3 phases required? FSK has made the case that by not paying taxes, you are profiting significantly from Agorist activity. If that is so, shouldn't Agorists immediately proceed to full blown Agorism and security to ape the methodology of black market operators?
Shouldn't loggers immediately proceed to full blown log selling? Well, of course. The problem is that they haven't put in place the resources to do it.
That's the purpose of the phase system.
Maxliberty: Can you give one example of real world counter-economic activity where people are not trying to grow their business?
Can you give one example of real world counter-economic activity where people are not trying to grow their business?
A woman that has a child without a job and needs money quickly and whores herself out.
As far as "hating" real world examples though, I've given almost half a dozen real world examples, so that really isn't true.
david_z: Most traditional black-market opportunities have increased the State's power. Once the state decides that it's profitable (politically or otherwise) to combat a certain free exchange, it directs resources towards its eradication. Of course, these resources are misallocated, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone engaging in traditional black-market profit earning, is likely contributing further to the erosion of liberties and the expanse of the state. The agorist, on the other hand does not seek to engage in trade with the massive cartels that embody the traditional black market. As long as the agorist is producing and trading relatively innocuous items, on a relatively small scale, with a few trusted trading partners, it is not profitable for the State to put its boot on their neck.
David, whereas you are technically correct, I question. Is it really the drug war that expands the state or the amount of people willing to pay for it that does so?
That is, if we get enough people involved to where the government can no longer pay for its drug wars, won't they cease?
Niccolò: Well, again, you're wrong, but whatever.
If that were true you should be able to demonstrate it.
Niccolò: Let's assume that you're right and no one ever does anything for anything other than a pathetic version of profit - monetary gain. What Agorists argue is that self-interest is compounded within Agorism. If that is true, then being an Agorist and ideological revolutionary couldn't hurt, at the least. Could it?
I don't think monetary gain/self interest is pathetic but that stems I guess from the Marxist undertones of Agorism. I see no harm in agorism to the extent that one admits that it is only an individual motivation to not support the government. The problem agorism has is when this is placed in the context of the effort to replace the state. This is where the agorist ideology fails.
Niccolò: If Agorists are basically actors that move within the counter-economy to organize and minimize risk, then why is this not a goal that should be worked towards? You say that Agorism does not appear to have any advantage over self-profit, that's fine - wrong, but fine - because Agorism seeks to utilize, not replace self-interest by minimizing the risk for people to get involved in the counter-economy. If counter-economists are convinced to be libertarians afterwords, then why is this a bad thing?
I never said having ideological motivation is bad. I challenge the agorist strategy and advocacy that their philosophy can replace the state.
Niccolò: Accepting your assumptions - which, again, are wrong - and ignoring any ideological advantages that Agorism may possess, then what needs to exist is merely what Agorists are trying to create, a more formal counter-economy that is more reliable to serve regular people who are currently being exploited by the state's market.
If this is all you argued for and didn't try and say that agorism produces superior production and that without agorism counter-economic activity has no effect and that the agorists have a plan for undermining the state that will work then it would be reasonable. Mind you this wouldn't be saying that agorism is really doing anything different than people already in the counter-economy other than having a little ideological motivation for otherwise profit motivated actions.
It is really quite amusing that an agorist started the thread for agorists to respond to challenges about agorism and the agorists have not responded yet.
Niccolò:A woman that has a child without a job and needs money quickly and whores herself out.
This is a very mixed or confused example. What is the difference in this example as compared to say a junkie selling himself sexually for drugs? That behaviour happens all of the time on skid row.
Niccolò: Maxliberty: Can you give one example of real world counter-economic activity where people are not trying to grow their business? A woman that has a child without a job and needs money quickly and whores herself out. As far as "hating" real world examples though, I've given almost half a dozen real world examples, so that really isn't true.
Yes the prostitute wants more clients rather than less. Your example proves the point that people will grow their counter-economic activity until they feel it is no longer in their self interest to do so. In fact your example implies that the woman was not involved in counter-economic activity at all prior to becoming a prostitute so the first client is in fact an entirely new counter-economic business. Her business was at 0 and now has grown. Your real world example demonstrates my point.
liberty student: I don't think you have responded to the issue Max raised, which is sorta ironic, if this thread is meant to address the unaddressed.
It was kind of hard to find any concrete issues among all the personal attacks and hostility in the thread
liberty student: The issue he puts forth, is that how does non-Agorist and Agorist counter-economic activity differ in it's effect on the state? Not what the people are thinking when they do it, such as why, but if an Agorist trades home brew for tomatoes, how does that differ in effect on the state from a non-Agorist practicing the exact same activity? Or as I believe I chimed in, what is the difference in effect on the state from a profit motive, and an ideological motive if the activity is the same? It seems to me there are a lot more armed and (if you can call it a PDA) protected black market operators, from drugs to theft to murder etc than there are Agorists.
The difference is what the black marketeer and the agorist are doing with their money. An agorist is investing education, alternative institutions, and other liberty projects.
Why Be Libertarian? by Murray Rothbard
Because the number of agorists and allies is also important.
Maxliberty:I know you agorists hate real world examples.
I'm going to be civil. I would appreciate a little bit of reciprocity, and if you could avoid poisoning the well, that would be nice, too.
Maxliberty:Bear with me though, why is it you think that people in the counter-economy do not want to grow their business?
I've not said anything of the sort.
Maxliberty:Any study of counter-economic activity indicates that people will naturally grow their business so why is it unlikely that agorists will not do the same
Because, as I recently concluded, for an agorist to be successful he needs to effectively manage risk. This is where traditional black-markets, "counter-economies" fail. If, your business can only increase its revenue by increasing its expenses, it's not becoming more profitable. If your business can only increase revenue by increasing its exposure to systematic risk, then you're better off playing roulette at the Casino. You have a much smaller chance of getting shot.
Maxliberty:Do things like economies of scale or mass production have any bearing on your philosophy? Do you think the general principles of economics don't apply in the counter-economy?
Economies of Scale is really a euphemism for special privileges and immunities. Big Business is only as big as it is, because governments allow them to exploit people. This might be exploiting them here, or it might be exploiting them overseas. But its a market distortion parading as efficiency. To paraphrase Bastiat, you're simply ignoring "that which is not seen."
Maxliberty:Can you imagine an agorist car factory that could produce 500,000 cars a year at competitive prices without being fairly large?
Nope. I sure can't. Then again, I don't imagine a free economy that would drain our productivity in the same manners that the current system does. Anecdotally, I spend $7,000 a year to pay for, maintain, insure, and fuel my car, just to get to work and back. That doesn't count leisure travel. Practically everyone I know needs a car, and the principal reason they need it one is so they can drive an hour each way to and from some job they hate just so they can earn enough money to pay for the damned thing!
I can imagine an economy that doesn't depend on subsidized sprawl and corporate welfare to provide for man's needs. That's a far cry better, IMO.
Whether we can get there, of course, is another story. Revolutions are never easy.
Niccolò:David, whereas you are technically correct, I question. Is it really the drug war that expands the state or the amount of people willing to pay for it that does so? That is, if we get enough people involved to where the government can no longer pay for its drug wars, won't they cease?
I think it's probably a little bit of both.
If enough people are involved, then sure, the drug wars will cease. But I don't think the correct approach is to try and convince people to start making Meth in their basements. I think it's far less risky to engage in counter-economic activity that isn't the primary focus of a half-million armed thugs.
Maxliberty: I know you agorists hate real world examples. Bear with me though, why is it you think that people in the counter-economy do not want to grow their business? Isn't it natural that agorists will grow their business in both size and sophistication. Any study of counter-economic activity indicates that people will naturally grow their business so why is it unlikely that agorists will not do the same and if they don't grow the business then isn't that less productive than someone who attempts to increase their counter-economic activity? Your arguement is that agorists conduct more activity on one side but won't grow the business on the other side. Can you give one example of real world counter-economic activity where people are not trying to grow their business? Do things like economies of scale or mass production have any bearing on your philosophy? Do you think the general principles of economics don't apply in the counter-economy? Can you imagine an agorist car factory that could produce 500,000 cars a year at competitive prices without being fairly large? Provide real world examples not just the usual agorist generalities.
Large enterprises are almost always creatures of the state. Economies of scale would, in a truly free market, be counter-balanced by diseconomies of scale (results of Hayekian information problems, mostly, although I have seen arguments that the Misesian calculation arugment also applies).
david_z: Because, as I recently concluded, for an agorist to be successful he needs to effectively manage risk. This is where traditional black-markets, "counter-economies" fail. If, your business can only increase its revenue by increasing its expenses, it's not becoming more profitable. If your business can only increase revenue by increasing its exposure to systematic risk, then you're better off playing roulette at the Casino. You have a much smaller chance of getting shot.
Do you know anything at all about running a business? Once again provide a real world example of what you are talking about. Show me where the agorists manage risk and the regualar business doesn't?
david_z:Economies of Scale is really a euphemism for special privileges and immunities. Big Business is only as big as it is, because governments allow them to exploit people. This might be exploiting them here, or it might be exploiting them overseas.
Yes, now the Marxism comes out. So the accumulation of capital for a business only occurs because of the state. I guess the idea that a person running a business would want to grow the business for their own benefit doesn't conform with Marxism. Economies of scale occur because people naturally want to do things better, it has nothing to do with the government.
david_z:Nope. I sure can't. Then again, I don't imagine a free economy that would drain our productivity in the same manners that the current system does.
So in Agorism there is no longer large scale production of anything because....?
david_z:I can imagine an economy that doesn't depend on subsidized sprawl and corporate welfare to provide for man's needs.
I thought individuals pursuing their own needs was what we were striving for....perhaps at the end of agorism we have to rely on the cadre to provide for man's needs eh comrade. From each according to his worth to each according to his need...is that the agorist motto?
wombatron:Large enterprises are almost always creatures of the state. Economies of scale would, in a truly free market, be counter-balanced by diseconomies of scale
So in a free market you are saying that there are no large businesses? That heavy machinery and large scale construction will be done by a couple of guys working in their basement? That there will be no organizations specializing in international trade that requires...oh I don't know...large scale shipping and transportation.
The more the agorists talk the more absurd your ideology becomes.
Once again provide an example of how the production of a current large business (like 747 construction) will operate in your agorist free society without being a large business.
Maxliberty:Do you know anything at all about running a business? Once again provide a real world example of what you are talking about. Show me where the agorists manage risk and the regualar business doesn't?
The discussion was about how a business ought to manage risk and how black-market/counter-economic organizations generally don't.
Maxliberty:So the accumulation of capital for a business only occurs because of the state. I guess the idea that a person running a business would want to grow the business for their own benefit doesn't conform with Marxism. Economies of scale occur because people naturally want to do things better, it has nothing to do with the government.
No, I've not said anything of the sort. All I've said is that the scale of businesses with which we've become familiar is a product of a profoundly distorted market.
Maxliberty:I thought individuals pursuing their own needs was what we were striving for....
That's precisely what I'm striving for, and why I'm vehemently opposed to subsidized sprawl and corporate welfare.
Comrade.
liberty student: Niccolò:A woman that has a child without a job and needs money quickly and whores herself out. This is a very mixed or confused example. What is the difference in this example as compared to say a junkie selling himself sexually for drugs? That behaviour happens all of the time on skid row.
And is an example of a counter-economic act where an actor doesn't do it to expand their business.
That's all that was required to answer.
Maxliberty: If that were true you should be able to demonstrate it.
Maxliberty: I don't think monetary gain/self interest is pathetic but that stems I guess from the Marxist undertones of Agorism. I see no harm in agorism to the extent that one admits that it is only an individual motivation to not support the government. The problem agorism has is when this is placed in the context of the effort to replace the state. This is where the agorist ideology fails.
Monetary gain is the most basic example of profit. When unsophisticated people talk about profit, they mean monetary gain. When Agorists talk about profit, they talk about monetary gain, but also other gains - like the solidarity gained with other Agorists by organizing, for example.
In any case, what is the problem when Agorism is used to overthrow the state?
You don't think the free-market should replace the state?
Maxliberty: I never said having ideological motivation is bad. I challenge the agorist strategy and advocacy that their philosophy can replace the state.
The Agorist ideology is purely to overthrow the state and reach the free-market society. Does the free-market contradict your desires?
Maxliberty: If this is all you argued for and didn't try and say that agorism produces superior production and that without agorism counter-economic activity has no effect and that the agorists have a plan for undermining the state that will work then it would be reasonable. Mind you this wouldn't be saying that agorism is really doing anything different than people already in the counter-economy other than having a little ideological motivation for otherwise profit motivated actions.
No, it would be different sans the ideology anyways. The difference is the doctrine. No other group currently out there wants to gather and minimize risk on an aggregate basis. All individuals want to minimize their own risks, but they do not consider the rest of their market. It is an example of a tragedy of the commons, I think.
Maxliberty: It is really quite amusing that an agorist started the thread for agorists to respond to challenges about agorism and the agorists have not responded yet.
What are you talking about? I'm responding right now.
But it's flawed for the purposes you are using that example.
She obviously wants as much business, as quickly as possible to get the needed money. So she's in it for the "fast buck" pun intended.
But again, what is the difference between her activity and the activity of a drug addict who sells their body for drugs? In that she needs money, she is driven to produce profit, and in that the drug addict needs drugs, purchased with money or in barter of sex, he is also driven to profit, to improve his condition.
I don't think your example proves what you want it to prove, and is not really relevant to the discussion.
Besides Nicky, is anyone else seeing a connection I am missing?
Maxliberty: Yes the prostitute wants more clients rather than less. Your example proves the point that people will grow their counter-economic activity until they feel it is no longer in their self interest to do so. In fact your example implies that the woman was not involved in counter-economic activity at all prior to becoming a prostitute so the first client is in fact an entirely new counter-economic business. Her business was at 0 and now has grown. Your real world example demonstrates my point.
No, she doesn't.
All she wants is a little extra money. Once she reaches that, she wants less. This is an example of opportunity cost. There is a higher opportunity cost for her to expand her "business" than there would be to get the money and go.
Now, you're bringing a temporal concept into the equation. That would have been fine, had you not objected to the much more obvious temporal implications I provided for Agorism.
Hypocrite.
liberty student: But it's flawed for the purposes you are using that example. She obviously wants as much business, as quickly as possible to get the needed money. So she's in it for the "fast buck" pun intended. But again, what is the difference between her activity and the activity of a drug addict who sells their body for drugs? In that she needs money, she is driven to produce profit, and in that the drug addict needs drugs, purchased with money or in barter of sex, he is also driven to profit, to improve his condition. I don't think your example proves what you want it to prove, and is not really relevant to the discussion. Besides Nicky, is anyone else seeing a connection I am missing?
Again, the prostitute wants the money. She only wants X amount of dollars. Once she gets X amount of dollars she will no longer want to expand her business, period.
Assume she receives X amount, what is she going to do then? Expand? No. She's going to decrease her production. This is also common in retirement.
david_z: The discussion was about how a business ought to manage risk and how black-market/counter-economic organizations generally don't.
Tragedy of the commons.
The counter-economy currently possesses few safe-guards for counter-economic activity. Yes, individuals protect themselves slightly, but there is no formal organization that contracts to do it for them. To make production secure. To watch out for statists and police.
Something like that has been created on a smaller scale in teh Milwaukee area. Success has occurred.
david_z:The discussion was about how a business ought to manage risk and how black-market/counter-economic organizations generally don't.
Black markets don't manage risk. Your joking right? Black market actors are almost always intensively focuses on risk because they explicitly do not have the state to protect them. What example are you thinking of?
david_z: No, I've not said anything of the sort. All I've said is that the scale of businesses with which we've become familiar is a product of a profoundly distorted market.
Niccolò: The counter-economy currently possesses few safe-guards for counter-economic activity. Yes, individuals protect themselves slightly, but there is no formal organization that contracts to do it for them. To make production secure. To watch out for statists and police.
The counter-economy has plenty of groups that look out for the police and statist activity. Have you ever been in a neighborhood that has high levels of crime, they have lookouts everywhere and they can spot cops in about five seconds. Not to mention gangs which are in part formed to protect the activity of the gang. How about the drug gangs in Mexico which are quite powerful and have undermined various parts of the Mexican judicial system. Those are jsut two examples all accomplished without agorist ideology.
Niccolò: Maxliberty: Yes the prostitute wants more clients rather than less. Your example proves the point that people will grow their counter-economic activity until they feel it is no longer in their self interest to do so. In fact your example implies that the woman was not involved in counter-economic activity at all prior to becoming a prostitute so the first client is in fact an entirely new counter-economic business. Her business was at 0 and now has grown. Your real world example demonstrates my point. No, she doesn't. All she wants is a little extra money. Once she reaches that, she wants less. This is an example of opportunity cost. There is a higher opportunity cost for her to expand her "business" than there would be to get the money and go. Now, you're bringing a temporal concept into the equation. That would have been fine, had you not objected to the much more obvious temporal implications I provided for Agorism. Niccolò:Your example proves the point that people will grow their counter-economic activity until they feel it is no longer in their self interest to do so. Hypocrite.
Niccolò:Your example proves the point that people will grow their counter-economic activity until they feel it is no longer in their self interest to do so.
I don't think I ever said that people in business don't have obstacles or that there might be other incentives that might make people decide to limit their business activity. What that means is that people are pursuing their own self-interest. Are you saying that the goal of agorism is to convince people to pursue things contrary to their own self-interest?
Maxliberty:Black markets don't manage risk. Your joking right? Black market actors are almost always intensively focuses on risk because they explicitly do not have the state to protect them.
No, I'm absolutely not joking. Black markets depend on the State to keep their potential for profit artificially high.
If you have an operation growing drugs in your basement, for your own consumption, it's impossible to get caught unless you're an idiot. If you scale, you start incurring additional risk, and at each level of scale the risk becomes greater. This is the financial equivalent of simply doubling a losing bet when playing casino games.
Moreover, this prisoner's dilemma faces every agency on the black market: any individual "firm" benefits if it can eliminate some of its rivals. Maybe they do this through a turf war, maybe they bribe the State to crack down on them, etc. But all firms face this incentive. The result is a Pareto sub-optimal solution to the game.
The ideological difference with an agorist, is that nobody is going to try and wield the ham-fist of the State against their trading partners because they understand that an abundance of goods and services is the true indicator of wealth in an economy, not high prices propped up in one way or another by government violence.
Maxliberty:Tell me how the agorist's build a 747 then?
Dude. You know damn well that I can't even tell you how to build a pencil, let alone a 747.
What you're asking is, "How does David_Z/Niccolo/Etc. propose that Agorism will preserve the exact same economic system that we currently have?"
This is where you're entirely missing the point.
david_z:What you're asking is, "How does David_Z/Niccolo/Etc. propose that Agorism will preserve the exact same economic system that we currently have?"
No, what I am asking is why do you think large scale businesses will not form in a free society. You and your fellow agorists made the statement that large business is only a creation of the state. I am simply pointing out with a real world example that your wrong.
david_z: If you have an operation growing drugs in your basement, for your own consumption, it's impossible to get caught unless you're an idiot. If you scale, you start incurring additional risk, and at each level of scale the risk becomes greater. This is the financial equivalent of simply doubling a losing bet when playing casino games.
So is the agorist supposed to be self-sufficient or grow the counter-economy? If you don't expand beyond your basement how does the agorist have the exponential effect that Niccolo says they do?
david_z: This is where you're entirely missing the point.
I am not missing the point. There isn't a point. Provide some examples in the real world if you can.
Maxliberty:No, what I am asking is why do you think large scale businesses will not form in a free society.
I'm not saying that "no" large scale business will form in a free society, only that the likelihood of companies operating on the scale with which we're familiar is not terribly likely. Every large company, and a lot of medium-sized ones, too, suffer from the same calculation problem that Mises and Hayek described under socialism. They are able to overcome this, to an extent, thanks to certain privileges granted by state governments: these may be in the form of tax incentives, laws regulating their competitors, limited liability asset-shielding, etc.
Maxliberty:I am simply pointing out with a real world example that your wrong.
No, you're trolling. Your "real world examples" rely on a set of assumptions that don't hold in a free market. I shouldn't have to explain to you how, for instance, the concept of "limited liability" is a massive state subsidy.
Maxliberty:So is the agorist supposed to be self-sufficient or grow the counter-economy? If you don't expand beyond your basement how does the agorist have the exponential effect that Niccolo says they do?
I'm not sure why you're asking me to explain something that Niccolo said. My point is that you can expand beyond your basement, as long as you can effectively manage risk. Playing tit-for-tat with a government which simultaneously helps and hinders you (e.g., a drug cartel) is not effective risk management, it's a roll of the dice.
You could effectively operate on a "black-market" in an area where the government is not prepared or equipped to surveill you constantly. These may be nominally unprofitable, like a local food co-operative. Maybe you grow food and your neighbor home schools or sits for the kids, and the guy across the street fixes everyones lawnmowers and furnaces and the old lady bakes everyone apple pies. In a sophisticated version, you might trade with something really valuable, like gold. In a less-sophisticated system, you'll probably resort to some combination of bartering and social credit.
You're not going to make a billion Federal Reserve Points by working as an agorist, but what you're going to do is increase, if only to a small extent, your own freedom and that of the others with whom you interact.
One thing that people seem to keep overlooking is that agorism is not limited to secret, underground, black market activities. Or if it is, then there are other ideologically driven and guided countereconomic methods that can be pursued in addition. Above-ground alternative institutions such as private provision of security, arbitration and adjudication services, and attempts to bring back the gold standard despite the state (for some at least, ideally as part of undermining the state itself) by, for example, a gold-tracking mutual fund with checking. I've given an example several times of one libertarian private security and restitution service that is currently in the planning stage. Private security and arbitration services are booming industries right now though. It would be better if more of them were driven and guided by libertarian anarchist ideas and goals.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com