david_z:FUBAR
F***ed up beyond all recognition. :D
I like military acronyms like that. I was a military intelligence analyst in the Louisiana Army National Guard as an undergrad, prior to becoming a libertarian - Battalion Intelligence NCO for a mech infantry unit.
Other favs are:
1) the ever popular SNAFU, which is really telling - normal situation in a statist military is f***ed up!;
2) FUMTU - f***ed up more than usual;
3) SAPFU - surpasses all previous f**k ups.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
david_z: ozzy43:This example may be a little clearer.: what if instead of barter, I use a medium of exchange like silver in exchange for the bike? Both silver and bike must remain exclusively in the counter economy, right? If that silver, say, makes it into the State economy, then the State obtains the same benefit, right? My understanding is that the ultimate goal is a counter-economy where little, if any of that silver ever makes it back to the State. ozzy43:But on net nothing has changed. That is, if we look at the total economic state of you + neighbor, nothing has quantitatively changed. Only if we account for subjective measures are you both better off - i.e. things have changed qualitatively. But subjective/qualitative measures have no bearing on undermining the State, per agorist theory, is that right? I don't see how this particular transaction does anything whatsoever to accomplish the goal: undermining the State by setting up a shadow economy. Sure, you've gotthe same amount of paper monies, and you've got a few extra things that didn't require a slave job. Taken to the extreme case of 100% agorism, you gain all the things you need and complete economic freedom. There is a point at which, if enough people are creating enough things of value in a counter-economy, that the regular economy ceases to function. If all of the productive people leave, then the parasites have nothing left on which to feed. I like to think of Galt's Gulch, in this regard. If all the really smart, productive people just vanished, the world would be completely FUBAR. It probably only takes a small proportion of people who are actually productive, to accomplish this.
ozzy43:This example may be a little clearer.: what if instead of barter, I use a medium of exchange like silver in exchange for the bike? Both silver and bike must remain exclusively in the counter economy, right? If that silver, say, makes it into the State economy, then the State obtains the same benefit, right?
My understanding is that the ultimate goal is a counter-economy where little, if any of that silver ever makes it back to the State.
ozzy43:But on net nothing has changed. That is, if we look at the total economic state of you + neighbor, nothing has quantitatively changed. Only if we account for subjective measures are you both better off - i.e. things have changed qualitatively. But subjective/qualitative measures have no bearing on undermining the State, per agorist theory, is that right? I don't see how this particular transaction does anything whatsoever to accomplish the goal: undermining the State by setting up a shadow economy.
Sure, you've gotthe same amount of paper monies, and you've got a few extra things that didn't require a slave job. Taken to the extreme case of 100% agorism, you gain all the things you need and complete economic freedom. There is a point at which, if enough people are creating enough things of value in a counter-economy, that the regular economy ceases to function. If all of the productive people leave, then the parasites have nothing left on which to feed. I like to think of Galt's Gulch, in this regard. If all the really smart, productive people just vanished, the world would be completely FUBAR. It probably only takes a small proportion of people who are actually productive, to accomplish this.
Still not clear on the quantitative aspect, but I get the general drift. I do agree that critical mass is, well, critical. I suppose my concern is that it seems a catch-22 - until you reach the point at which you have enough people creating enough 'things of value', there may not be sufficient activity to sustain the system. What is the argument that this will not be a discontinuity? That is, is the expectation that there will be a steady ramp up until that point is reached? What's the evidence for this? It seems more likely to me - though I haven't given this a great deal of thought - that you will involve everyone that is prepared to be involved, and that will hit some sort of limit, which may oscillate, but will not continue its upward trajectory unimpeded, because you are going to have some large block of people who have been effectively conditioned by the State and its institutions who will NOT agree to be actively involved. You seem to be assuming - and forgive me if I am wrong - that the number of those who will agree to become involved will just keep increasing. I would maintain that that is not consistent with my understanding of Americans, or even of humans.
I base this just on my experience with people, with politics, etc. If this limit is less than critical mass - what then?
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
ozzy43:I suppose my concern is that it seems a catch-22 - until you reach the point at which you have enough people creating enough 'things of value', there may not be sufficient activity to sustain the system. What is the argument that this will not be a discontinuity?
Well, I certainly advocate a mix of agoric and non-agoric counter-economy, i.e., trade where you can, and exploit the system through tax avoidance where possible.
ozzy43:That is, is the expectation that there will be a steady ramp up until that point is reached? What's the evidence for this?
Anecdotal, at best. A year ago, nobody on Mises.org was talking about agorism. Now, it garners some attention. The concept, at least, has gotten people's attention. Commencing practical agorism as a bit of a sticking point, to be sure.
ozzy43:you are going to have some large block of people who have been effectively conditioned by the State and its institutions who will NOT agree to be actively involved. You seem to be assuming - and forgive me if I am wrong - that the number of those who will agree to become involved will just keep increasing.
Agreed. Some people argue that as the scope of agorist activity increases, the disincentives to participating decrease.
To your point, they would assume that the number of people involved will continue to increase. I'm not entirely convinced of this argument, though. If the best that agorism can do is give me back a piece of my freedom, a few hours of my time each week, a few weeks each year, then I'm better off. Further, I'm not at all interested in interacting with a great deal of these people who have been conditioned by the State. As an agora becomes more sophisticated, it might be possible to avoid the bulk of interactions with these folk.
If you're the only person growing food in your neighborhood co-op, you're SOL. If a handful of people start contributing, you start to realize the benefits of scale economies and divisions of labor. It becomes easier for the late-adopters to make the transition. At that point, e.g., you no longer need your neighborhood Wal-Mart or On's or Meijer to provide you with most produce items. The goal is for the agorists to get to this point, or as near to it as is possible, where they can avoid interacting with the State, and do so practically.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
david_z: ozzy43:I suppose my concern is that it seems a catch-22 - until you reach the point at which you have enough people creating enough 'things of value', there may not be sufficient activity to sustain the system. What is the argument that this will not be a discontinuity? Well, I certainly advocate a mix of agoric and non-agoric counter-economy, i.e., trade where you can, and exploit the system through tax avoidance where possible. ozzy43:That is, is the expectation that there will be a steady ramp up until that point is reached? What's the evidence for this? Anecdotal, at best. A year ago, nobody on Mises.org was talking about agorism. Now, it garners some attention. The concept, at least, has gotten people's attention. Commencing practical agorism as a bit of a sticking point, to be sure. ozzy43:you are going to have some large block of people who have been effectively conditioned by the State and its institutions who will NOT agree to be actively involved. You seem to be assuming - and forgive me if I am wrong - that the number of those who will agree to become involved will just keep increasing. Agreed. Some people argue that as the scope of agorist activity increases, the disincentives to participating decrease. To your point, they would assume that the number of people involved will continue to increase. I'm not entirely convinced of this argument, though. If the best that agorism can do is give me back a piece of my freedom, a few hours of my time each week, a few weeks each year, then I'm better off. Further, I'm not at all interested in interacting with a great deal of these people who have been conditioned by the State. As an agora becomes more sophisticated, it might be possible to avoid the bulk of interactions with these folk. If you're the only person growing food in your neighborhood co-op, you're SOL. If a handful of people start contributing, you start to realize the benefits of scale economies and divisions of labor. It becomes easier for the late-adopters to make the transition. At that point, e.g., you no longer need your neighborhood Wal-Mart or On's or Meijer to provide you with most produce items. The goal is for the agorists to get to this point, or as near to it as is possible, where they can avoid interacting with the State, and do so practically.
This post reveals the contradictions of agorism. On the one hand it is supposed to be a mass movement to undermine the state and yet the individual goals of an agorist are just some more personal freedom by participating in more organized conuter-economic activity.
My questions still stand unanswered. Where are the agorists to provide the response to the challenges?
ozzy43:Still not clear on the quantitative aspect,
Yes, there are no quantitative aspects to agorism.
Maxliberty:This post reveals the contradictions of agorism. On the one hand it is supposed to be a mass movement to undermine the state and yet the individual goals of an agorist are just some more personal freedom by participating in more organized conuter-economic activity.
I suppose it's too much to realize that while some might settle for just a little more freedom, others will not. Or that saying you'd be happy if it only brought you some more freedom does not mean that you wouldn't be happier still if it overthrew the state since the latter is still the ultimate goal. I suppose it's also too much for a libertarian to understand the value of division of labor and the effectiveness of spontaneous order. I suppose if one has difficulty with seeing these things, one might see contradictions where there are none.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Maxliberty:This post reveals the contradictions of agorism. On the one hand it is supposed to be a mass movement to undermine the state and yet the individual goals of an agorist are just some more personal freedom by participating in more organized conuter-economic activity. I suppose it's too much to realize that while some might settle for just a little more freedom, others will not. Or that saying you'd be happy if it only brought you some more freedom does not mean that you wouldn't be happier still if it overthrew the state since the latter is still the ultimate goal. I suppose it's also too much for a libertarian to understand the value of division of labor and the effectiveness of spontaneous order. I suppose if one has difficulty with seeing these things, one might see contradictions where there are none.
The issue is that agorists claim that the agorist ideology has some measurable effect and yet refuse to provide any way to measure it. If you can't measure the effectiveness of the activity why would anyone participate and believe that it could possibly overthrow the state. With agorism you have no idea what progress is being made to your ultimate goal or if its even attainable.
Agorists in a thread started by agorists to discuss agorism can't even answer the most basic questions about the ideology and strategy. Everything just turns into agorists claiming things with no evidence or even basic logic to back up the claims.
Perhaps you would care to explain why person A not paying taxes has little to no effect on the government but person B (the agorist) not paying taxes is underminining the state by some exponential level.
Maxliberty:Perhaps you would care to explain why person A not paying taxes has little to no effect on the government but person B (the agorist) not paying taxes is underminining the state by some exponential level.
Asked, and answered.
And, for the record, I never use the term "exponential."
This thread has become a broken record...
banned: This thread has become a broken record...
Some of it has, but much of it is providing the info I'm looking for. Thus, not without purpose or value from where I sit.
Makes sense. Seems like there should be a way to model this ramp mathematically so that the dependencies of the various factors can be better understood.
I also agree with you about even a partial win. It doesn't have to succeed in undermining and toppling the State to be a very good thing, on net. To hold out that agorism would be an abysmal failure if that does not happen is simply not reasonable IMO.
Again, I see the most probable value in being that those participating would be well positioned when the State self-destructs to seed these ideas and communities. So even if it comes nowhere close to undermining the State, it could still be exceedingly valuable in such a situation.
ozzy43:Again, I see the most probable value in being that those participating would be well positioned when the State self-destructs to seed these ideas and communities. So even if it comes nowhere close to undermining the State, it could still be exceedingly valuable in such a situation.
I think having libertarians stay and continue to spread our ideas and develop alternatives institutions is absolutely necessary to bringing about lasting liberty in the future, even if it doesn't end up being the main reason for the fall of the state. If and when a state collapses, if there are zero or not enough libertarians in a given place, one or more unlibertarian states will almost certainly rise out of the ashes. Similarly if all libertarians do is attempt to educate. We need functioning alternative institutions here for people to turn to after the collapse. But education is very important too.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: ozzy43:Again, I see the most probable value in being that those participating would be well positioned when the State self-destructs to seed these ideas and communities. So even if it comes nowhere close to undermining the State, it could still be exceedingly valuable in such a situation. I think having libertarians stay and continue to spread our ideas and develop alternatives institutions is absolutely necessary to bringing about lasting liberty in the future, even if it doesn't end up being the main reason for the fall of the state. If and when a state collapses, if there are zero or not enough libertarians in a given place, one or more unlibertarian states will almost certainly rise out of the ashes. Similarly if all libertarians do is attempt to educate. We need functioning alternative institutions here for people to turn to after the collapse. But education is very important too.
I agree with much of this. But here is where we probably disagree: I don't see anything special about America. Why the insistence on staying here? Are not other peoples just as, perhaps even more, entitled to a shot at liberty? Americans had it, or close to it, and gave it away - hell, nearly BEGGED for it to be taken from them. As far as I am concerned, when America collapses, there will be more opportunity to realize liberty-oriented societies elsewhere. Americans don't know the first thing about liberty or its demands, despite all the rhetoric about it, and at every point they have been confronted by these demands, they have balked. And, far more than most other nations, they have been so thoroughly conditioned as sheep, I see little point in attempting to undo that training. So I think the chances to realize liberty here on anything like a wide scale are more limited than in other countries. Americans have too many myths, and cling to them no matter what. Besides which, America is too big, geographically. Think it was Montesquieu who first remarked to that effect. A smaller nation would be far preferrable. Not than any place is ideal, but I think many places may prove more fertile than America.
I wonder: is agorism a strictly 1st world phenomenon, or might it also be found in 3rd world countries? Seems like it would be a helluva lot easier to get off the ground in some of those. far fewer agents of the State poking their nose into people's business...
ozzy43: I think this partly addresses some of the question I had - very interesting. Can you say more about these cuonter economic capital goods and consumer goods? Or a pointer to specifics would suffice.
I think this partly addresses some of the question I had - very interesting. Can you say more about these cuonter economic capital goods and consumer goods? Or a pointer to specifics would suffice.
I may have misspoken a bit there - it's not that the goods themselves are fundamentally different, but the manner in which they are used. Taking for example the most commonly regarded counter-economic good (and for that mater the one which is most broadly shared between Agorist and non-Agorist counter-economists) - drugs. The average black-marketeer will grow and process them, ship them, and sell them for FRNs, which they then use to buy mainstream economic goods, some of which are re-investment into their business. Only the last contributes positively to the counter-economy.
An Agorist, on the other hand, would avoid the exchange of FRNs, selling as much as possible to trusted persons in exchange for alternative currencies or other goods. They would then use the profit within the Agora - buying counter-economically produced consumer goods, and re-investing like the non-Agorist. Those from whom they buy use their own profits to consume from within the Agora, and develop their own capital goods, and so on. Because (and to the extent that) they are using commodity money, it is not likely for that money to be reabsorbed into the mainstream economy. So as long as the Agorist refrains from "cashing in" for some FRNs by selling their products into the mainstream market (which is possible, but far less likely amongst Agorists than others), the Agora profits by absorbing capital at the expense of the state system. That is the positive function of it - there is also the neutral function of depriving the state of taxation on those goods.
This is the machinery of a counter-economic cell, which in acting strengthens and expands itself, while weakening the state's power over the economic activities of those who participate. It is not hard for one to imagine that such a cell could provide all or nearly all of the staples of a person's life, leaving only such things as transportation, communication and housing reglated and taxed. And there are certainly counter-economic possibilities for those things as well. As the Agora expands - as those cells begin to network with one another and the division of labor develops - such possibilities are more likely to become realities.
I am a part of such a cell. Though not nearly so developed as I have described, it is functioning and increasingly more self-aware (it was just a bunch of libertarians who enjoyed barter before I and others introduced the concept of Agorism to the participants). To honor your request for specifics, several farmers grow crops significantly in excess of what they report to the government, and trade for things like homebrewed alcoholic drinks (the manufacture and transportation of which involves myself), tobacco products (which in PA are very highly taxed and regulated - minimum prices, for example, guarantee a grey-market profit) and also services such as construction and car repair. The cell is not fully Agoric since much (though not a majority) of these grey-market goods are sold for FRNs, but until the influence of local Agorists, it was 100% non-Agorist. The trade of precious metals and other commodities as money have begun to emerge in the past year.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: We need functioning alternative institutions here for people to turn to after the collapse.
We need functioning alternative institutions here for people to turn to after the collapse.
Cannot be stressed enough. Even if dozens of secessionist communities as in the Liberty Colony are successful, it will not cause the paradigm shift which must occur for that freedom to be maintained. Only if people have a free-market alternative available to them when their precious state collapses, will there be any chance that the masses won't just go and set up another one, probably worse than the one that had just failed them.
ozzy43:I agree with much of this. But here is where we probably disagree: I don't see anything special about America. Why the insistence on staying here?
I don't insist on everyone staying here (as in the US). But there's nothing wrong with staying here either. There are a number of obstacles in the way of moving to another country. Sacrifices that have to be made. Job, friends, family, language and cultural differences, etc.
There is also a difference between moving to another less populated country to be an agorist there and moving to an unpopulated out of the way place to start a colony free of any government intervention. These are two different strategies. Both are fine. At this point, neither one is for me - for both personal and strategic reasons.
My wife is from India, so moving there is a very real option. But that's another big country with a very corrupt government.
ozzy43:I wonder: is agorism a strictly 1st world phenomenon, or might it also be found in 3rd world countries? Seems like it would be a helluva lot easier to get off the ground in some of those. far fewer agents of the State poking their nose into people's business...
I don't know. Maybe.
MacFall:Cannot be stressed enough. Even if dozens of secessionist communities as in the Liberty Colony are successful, it will not cause the paradigm shift which must occur for that freedom to be maintained. Only if people have a free-market alternative available to them when their precious state collapses, will there be any chance that the masses won't just go and set up another one, probably worse than the one that had just failed them.
This in my opinion, is the biggest isue with Agorism. The presumption that the state will fail, and there will be a vacuum for Agorism to explode into.
I might be able to see it, if I believed "the state" was in isolation. But if for some reason, the US government fell, your foreign creditors would be landing troops on your shore to snatch up everything that isn't bolted down. That's if your enemies don't nuke you first out of frustration and vengeance.
MacFall: ozzy43: I think this partly addresses some of the question I had - very interesting. Can you say more about these cuonter economic capital goods and consumer goods? Or a pointer to specifics would suffice. I may have misspoken a bit there - it's not that the goods themselves are fundamentally different, but the manner in which they are used. Taking for example the most commonly regarded counter-economic good (and for that mater the one which is most broadly shared between Agorist and non-Agorist counter-economists) - drugs. ...The cell is not fully Agoric since much (though not a majority) of these grey-market goods are sold for FRNs, but until the influence of local Agorists, it was 100% non-Agorist. The trade of precious metals and other commodities as money have begun to emerge in the past year.
I may have misspoken a bit there - it's not that the goods themselves are fundamentally different, but the manner in which they are used. Taking for example the most commonly regarded counter-economic good (and for that mater the one which is most broadly shared between Agorist and non-Agorist counter-economists) - drugs. ...The cell is not fully Agoric since much (though not a majority) of these grey-market goods are sold for FRNs, but until the influence of local Agorists, it was 100% non-Agorist. The trade of precious metals and other commodities as money have begun to emerge in the past year.
This was an excellent summation, thanks, and congratulations. I'm overjoyed to hear you are having some success - very exciting. I hope it continues to grow!
BTW, regarding housing: seems earthships would fit beautifully into the agorist concept.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: My wife is from India, so moving there is a very real option. But that's another big country with a very corrupt government.
India has regions where governmental intrusion is virtually unknown, from what I understand. I have friends who intend to emigrate there. Might be the perfect spot. ;-)
But I understand and respect your reasoning. Clearly, it's specific to one's personal situation and outlook. There is no question that obstacles confront expatriates, and the ones imposed by the State will continue to grow, IMO. Currency and emigration controls are to be expected, especially when they get around to implementing a draft.
liberty student: MacFall:Cannot be stressed enough. Even if dozens of secessionist communities as in the Liberty Colony are successful, it will not cause the paradigm shift which must occur for that freedom to be maintained. Only if people have a free-market alternative available to them when their precious state collapses, will there be any chance that the masses won't just go and set up another one, probably worse than the one that had just failed them. This in my opinion, is the biggest isue with Agorism. The presumption that the state will fail, and there will be a vacuum for Agorism to explode into. I might be able to see it, if I believed "the state" was in isolation. But if for some reason, the US government fell, your foreign creditors would be landing troops on your shore to snatch up everything that isn't bolted down. That's if your enemies don't nuke you first out of frustration and vengeance.
Well, the Liberty Colony can be invaded too. Or have international political and economic sanctions placed on it. So what?
In any event, do you foresee no resistance to such an invasion?
But in the event of invasion and resistance, wouldn't it still be better the more libertarians (and agorists) there were
david_z: Maxliberty:I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example. A great example of tax evasion, but not necessarily of counter-economics. Just because you're transacting business without paying taxes on the income doesn't qualify as counter-economics, IMO. So, to your question, Maxliberty:Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state? Minimally. The fact that the farmer is a de facto slave, and will continue to be one in the future, is only incrementally reduced by his roadside bazaar. Is some combination of "counter-economics" and agorism probably the best route? I'd say it is. Avoid the state, altogether, where you can. And avoid it everywhere else, when possible. (I.e., I can't buy a house like an agorist.) Maxliberty:Are there any quantifiable goals or thresholds in agorism? One goal is, of course, increasing awareness. A year ago, I had no idea what agorism was. A year ago, nobody on Mises was talking about it. The next goal, after increasing awareness, is to find people with whom you can interact and exchange value for value. NB, you're not one of them.
Maxliberty:I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example.
A great example of tax evasion, but not necessarily of counter-economics. Just because you're transacting business without paying taxes on the income doesn't qualify as counter-economics, IMO. So, to your question,
Maxliberty:Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state?
Minimally. The fact that the farmer is a de facto slave, and will continue to be one in the future, is only incrementally reduced by his roadside bazaar.
Is some combination of "counter-economics" and agorism probably the best route? I'd say it is. Avoid the state, altogether, where you can. And avoid it everywhere else, when possible. (I.e., I can't buy a house like an agorist.)
Maxliberty:Are there any quantifiable goals or thresholds in agorism?
One goal is, of course, increasing awareness. A year ago, I had no idea what agorism was. A year ago, nobody on Mises was talking about it.
The next goal, after increasing awareness, is to find people with whom you can interact and exchange value for value. NB, you're not one of them.
These were your answers followed up by if everyone stopped paying taxes then the state would collapse. So which is it, not paying taxes accomplishes nothing or can it in fact collapse the state? Classic agorist contradiction.
The counter-economic farmer selling on the side of the road accomplishes nothing but the agorist engaged in the exact same activity is undermining the state.
I understand why no agorist can provide coherent answers to my questions. The reason is that to provide a logical answer undermines the whole foundation of the agorist ideology. Agorists are not any different than anyone else that for whatever motivation are doing things that undermine the state. That is the simple reality.
This is aloo why agorists can't quantify any activity of agorists nor do they have any quantifiable goals or objectives and can not measure the effectivness of their own strategy. It's not quantifiable because it's indistinguishable from other activity that is already quantified.
The reason agorism should not be adopted as a strategy for undermining the government is that it doesn't do anything that isn't already being done without agorism and without any way to measure the effectiveness of the strategy in relation to the stated goal there is no possible way to determine if we are in fact accomplishing the stated goal.
We started this thread for agorists to answer challenges and there has been no answer to those challenges. Any objective reader of this thread wil come to the same conclusion that I have demonstrated and outlined above.
liberty student: But if for some reason, the US government fell, your foreign creditors would be landing troops on your shore to snatch up everything that isn't bolted down.
But if for some reason, the US government fell, your foreign creditors would be landing troops on your shore to snatch up everything that isn't bolted down.
I'd like to see them try it. I don't think they would find whatever we have to snatch worth facing 60 million armed and pissed off Americans.
That's if your enemies don't nuke you first out of frustration and vengeance.
And that's not likely, as those with the means don't have the motivation. But even if it were true, that's more of a point for me than for you. The crumbling of government-integrated infrastructure in the event of a major city being nuked makes decentralized, alternative markets all the more important.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: liberty student: MacFall:Cannot be stressed enough. Even if dozens of secessionist communities as in the Liberty Colony are successful, it will not cause the paradigm shift which must occur for that freedom to be maintained. Only if people have a free-market alternative available to them when their precious state collapses, will there be any chance that the masses won't just go and set up another one, probably worse than the one that had just failed them. This in my opinion, is the biggest isue with Agorism. The presumption that the state will fail, and there will be a vacuum for Agorism to explode into. I might be able to see it, if I believed "the state" was in isolation. But if for some reason, the US government fell, your foreign creditors would be landing troops on your shore to snatch up everything that isn't bolted down. That's if your enemies don't nuke you first out of frustration and vengeance. Well, the Liberty Colony can be invaded too. Or have international political and economic sanctions placed on it. So what? In any event, do you foresee no resistance to such an invasion? But in the event of invasion and resistance, wouldn't it still be better the more libertarians (and agorists) there were
So if we recognize that certain strategies have weaknesses what is wrong with applying that same scrutiny to agorism?
Max: please see my reply to Ozzy on the previous page.
MacFall: ozzy43: I think this partly addresses some of the question I had - very interesting. Can you say more about these cuonter economic capital goods and consumer goods? Or a pointer to specifics would suffice. I may have misspoken a bit there - it's not that the goods themselves are fundamentally different, but the manner in which they are used. Taking for example the most commonly regarded counter-economic good (and for that mater the one which is most broadly shared between Agorist and non-Agorist counter-economists) - drugs. The average black-marketeer will grow and process them, ship them, and sell them for FRNs, which they then use to buy mainstream economic goods, some of which are re-investment into their business. Only the last contributes positively to the counter-economy. An Agorist, on the other hand, would avoid the exchange of FRNs, selling as much as possible to trusted persons in exchange for alternative currencies or other goods. They would then use the profit within the Agora - buying counter-economically produced consumer goods, and re-investing like the non-Agorist. Those from whom they buy use their own profits to consume from within the Agora, and develop their own capital goods, and so on. Because (and to the extent that) they are using commodity money, it is not likely for that money to be reabsorbed into the mainstream economy. So as long as the Agorist refrains from "cashing in" for some FRNs by selling their products into the mainstream market (which is possible, but far less likely amongst Agorists than others), the Agora profits by absorbing capital at the expense of the state system. That is the positive function of it - there is also the neutral function of depriving the state of taxation on those goods. This is the machinery of a counter-economic cell, which in acting strengthens and expands itself, while weakening the state's power over the economic activities of those who participate. It is not hard for one to imagine that such a cell could provide all or nearly all of the staples of a person's life, leaving only such things as transportation, communication and housing reglated and taxed. And there are certainly counter-economic possibilities for those things as well. As the Agora expands - as those cells begin to network with one another and the division of labor develops - such possibilities are more likely to become realities. I am a part of such a cell. Though not nearly so developed as I have described, it is functioning and increasingly more self-aware (it was just a bunch of libertarians who enjoyed barter before I and others introduced the concept of Agorism to the participants). To honor your request for specifics, several farmers grow crops significantly in excess of what they report to the government, and trade for things like homebrewed alcoholic drinks (the manufacture and transportation of which involves myself), tobacco products (which in PA are very highly taxed and regulated - minimum prices, for example, guarantee a grey-market profit) and also services such as construction and car repair. The cell is not fully Agoric since much (though not a majority) of these grey-market goods are sold for FRNs, but until the influence of local Agorists, it was 100% non-Agorist. The trade of precious metals and other commodities as money have begun to emerge in the past year.
Here is a big part of the agorist arguement that I think is confused because it is so based on the US lifestyle. As I have stated before the types of activities that you describe as being the result of some agorist cell development in the US happen all the time in the developing world without any agorist ideology at all. Barter and people exchanging labor for stuff and selling things outside of the reach of the tax man is very common. I think in general if agorists had more experience with places outside of their suburb in the US then some of these things would be easier to recognize as not being the result of some agorist driven super ideology.
But as several posts have pointed out, even if the State does not fall, leaving no vaccuum for agorism to explode into, that does not render the project futile. It's not a digital thing, either working or not - it's analog, and includes a continuum of functionality. Now, I'm trying to think about if there are discontinuities on that continuum, because I think those will be the obstacles to sustainability.
I also have to say (somewhat, but not competely whimsically), that, when it comes to committed ideologues, repression tends to maximize the # of followers. Just look at persecuted religions. So perhaps State oppression would be just the thing...
I also do not take seriously the notion of foreign creditors landing troops. When the State collapses, what will there be that will be worth the investment for a foreign creditor to try to come take? Rockefeller Center? The gold at Fort Knox? Well, OK, maybe China will want Hawaii, but as far as I am concerned, they can have it. With any luck, we can convince 'em to take California, too, as part of a package deal. ;-)
Of course, personally, I do not think that the State itself will collapse (although the financial industry probably will) until oil exports go the way of the dinosaurs, and the mechanisms which the State uses to enforce its will no longer exist. At that point, we are at a point where Jeffersonian agrarianism not only can establish itself, but would be one of the only possible options.
Maxliberty:So if we recognize that certain strategies have weaknesses what is wrong with applying that same scrutiny to agorism?
The better question is: why not apply the same scrutiny to all strategies equally? It's not as if the Liberty Colony has no weaknesses. But I don't see the one's mentioned by liberty student as significant weaknesses of agorism. Indeed, they are not necessarily weaknesses of agorism at all but rather merely a possible byproduct of statism. If a state collapses, it is better to have more agorists in the area than less. Calling the possibility of invasion post-collapse a weakness of agorism implies that there is some viable alternative to bringing about liberty in these statist areas. The Liberty Colony doesn't strike me as such an alternative. It's an alternative for particular people to find liberty for a time elsewhere, sure, but it is not much of an alternative for producing liberty in the US or most other major countries.
Max: Can you show where in any of those instances, those participating are acting to undermine their states' currrencies, or to develop counter-economic alternatives to things which are available through the mainstream economy? I submit that most such instances occur when access to the mainstream economy is limited, or where there is some sort of a cultural barrier.
Additionally, you must recognize that a society with an advanced division of labor and existing capital base, integrated geographically (though not monetarily) with the mainstream economy, would be far more effective in creating alternative markets than islolated backwoods communities.
Maxliberty:Here is a big part of the agorist arguement that I think is confused because it is so based on the US lifestyle. As I have stated before the types of activities that you describe as being the result of some agorist cell development in the US happen all the time in the developing world without any agorist ideology at all. Barter and people exchanging labor for stuff and selling things outside of the reach of the tax man is very common. I think in general if agorists had more experience with places outside of their suburb in the US then some of these things would be easier to recognize as not being the result of some agorist driven super ideology.
I don't see the problem.
MacFall:I'd like to see them try it. I don't think they would find whatever we have to snatch worth facing 60 million armed and pissed off Americans.
They will be mostly disarmed by then. The state is not going to collapse without gun confiscation and martial law first.
MacFall:And that's not likely, as those with the means don't have the motivation. But even if it were true, that's more of a point for me than for you. The crumbling of government-integrated infrastructure in the event of a major city being nuked makes decentralized, alternative markets all the more important.
As long as you aren't standing in the blast radius.
ozzy43:But as several posts have pointed out, even if the State does not fall, leaving no vaccuum for agorism to explode into, that does not render the project futile. It's not a digital thing, either working or not - it's analog, and includes a continuum of functionality. Now, I'm trying to think about if there are discontinuities on that continuum, because I think those will be the obstacles to sustainability.
If we're going to "settle" let's all support Bob Barr then.
ozzy43:But I understand and respect your reasoning. Clearly, it's specific to one's personal situation and outlook. There is no question that obstacles confront expatriates, and the ones imposed by the State will continue to grow, IMO. Currency and emigration controls are to be expected, especially when they get around to implementing a draft.
Congress recently passed a new exit tax law applying to expatriats.
http://www.hodgsonruss.com/Home/News_Seminars/Alerts/USEnactsNewExitTaxOnExpatriates
I thought I remember reading about a tax on property for those renouncing citizenship too, but I might be wrong.
liberty student: MacFall:I'd like to see them try it. I don't think they would find whatever we have to snatch worth facing 60 million armed and pissed off Americans. They will be mostly disarmed by then. The state is not going to collapse without gun confiscation and martial law first.
I don't know about that - it may well be gun confiscation efforts and attempts to implement martial law that bring the State down.
liberty student: MacFall:And that's not likely, as those with the means don't have the motivation. But even if it were true, that's more of a point for me than for you. The crumbling of government-integrated infrastructure in the event of a major city being nuked makes decentralized, alternative markets all the more important. As long as you aren't standing in the blast radius.
I think nukes are a real possibility - not a large possibility, but remember:
risk = consequences * probability
So even a smallish probability can yield a large risk.
However, I don't consider it likely that there will be a LOT of nukes (i.e. nuclear war with Soviets/Chinese), though this could not be ruled out entirely as the resource/oil wars intensify as global production continues to drop. Probably just onesy-twosy if at all. Can't blame the rest of the world for holding a grudge - we have screwed over soooooo many people that comeuppance in the form of a nuke would not be surprising. I'd bet there are a million or so Iraqis who would jump at the chance.
Another reason expatriation is a reasonable option, IMO.
ozzy43: India has regions where governmental intrusion is virtually unknown, from what I understand. I have friends who intend to emigrate there. Might be the perfect spot. ;-) But I understand and respect your reasoning. Clearly, it's specific to one's personal situation and outlook. There is no question that obstacles confront expatriates,
But I understand and respect your reasoning. Clearly, it's specific to one's personal situation and outlook. There is no question that obstacles confront expatriates,
Plus, my wife will not want to live in the middle of nowhere. She dislikes middle-of-nowhere places in America as it is. Middle-of-nowhere in India will be worse. Also, I could be wrong but those places in India are less likely to be welcoming to a non-religious Indian woman married to a non-religious white man.
First, you make an unwarranted assumption that people would just roll over and die if that were to happen. Standard fallacy among statists, that only indigent cowards want liberty. I'd expect more from a libertarian.
Second, you seem to be missing that the whole point of Agorism is to create market-based competition to state "security". If that were to happen with some development of the Agorist infrastructure, we'd at least give the state a run for its money. And since (as you suggest) it is going to happen anyway, you are once again arguing in favor of Agorism, as without it any resistance would be crushed without any chance of success.
The advantage of developing decentralized alternative markets is that it ensures that it can't be taken out by an event like that. And I wonder why you think a foreign government would have any motivation whatsoever to nuke American citizens following the collapse of their government. You really seem to be grasping at straws to discredit Agorism. I wonder why? It's not as if we're any threat to you.
MacFall:First, you make an unwarranted assumption that people would just roll over and die if that were to happen. Standard fallacy among statists, that only indigent cowards want liberty. I'd expect more from a libertarian.
Don't call me a statist. Second, what are people doing today? Rolling over. They roll over when they feel threatened. That is how government's control people. That is how the American government murders hundreds of thousands of people while it's citizens bicker over Sanjaya or Bret Favre.
MacFall:Second, you seem to be missing that the whole point of Agorism is to create market-based competition to state "security". If that were to happen with some development of the Agorist infrastructure, we'd at least give the state a run for its money. And since (as you suggest) it is going to happen anyway, you are once again arguing in favor of Agorism, as without it any resistance would be crushed without any chance of success.
It is going to happen anyway? I'm arguing against the fallacy that the state will reach some sort of tipping point, and Agorism will be able to step in. Is it possible? Sure. But Agorists count this as absolutely likely, and that is the one variable they have to fix, in order to explain how Agorism reaches critical mass. It's all predicated on the notion that the state doesn't drug us, or exterminate us, or biometric scan us, or infect us or brainwash us (further).
It's pie-in-the-sky thinking. Big old evil statism, run by long range planning statists with massive political, scientific and material resources, are just going to blindly carry on towards their own destruction, and when they are at the edge of the cliff, they will just jump off without trying to stop or save themselves.
Libertarians are losing the propaganda war. Have been for a long time.
MacFall:The advantage of developing decentralized alternative markets is that it ensures that it can't be taken out by an event like that. And I wonder why you think a foreign government would have any motivation whatsoever to nuke American citizens following the collapse of their government. You really seem to be grasping at straws to discredit Agorism. I wonder why? It's not as if we're any threat to you.
I'm not grasping at straws. I'm testing the ideology. If it can't withstand internet forum criticism (this applies to you as well), it certainly isn't going to topple the state. You ruined the last Agorism thread by personalizing it. Don't repeat the same mistake twice.
Again, you're assuming everyone is rational except the state, and that the US state in this instance exists in a vacuum, one where no UN or EU or RUS or CN forces will come in to prop up the existing government or replace it altogether.
If/when the moment comes, Agorism can't "scale" to accommodate security and provision for the masses faster than another government (from whatever source one could imagine), then it will have failed.
MacFall: Max: Can you show where in any of those instances, those participating are acting to undermine their states' currrencies, or to develop counter-economic alternatives to things which are available through the mainstream economy? I submit that most such instances occur when access to the mainstream economy is limited, or where there is some sort of a cultural barrier. Additionally, you must recognize that a society with an advanced division of labor and existing capital base, integrated geographically (though not monetarily) with the mainstream economy, would be far more effective in creating alternative markets than islolated backwoods communities.
I will give you a US example. E-gold operated a gold currency not with the express purpose of undermining the state but because the founders are libertarian in their overall philosophy and believers in gold currency. There was lots of counter-economic activity involved in e-gold and the creation of an alternate currency specifically backed by gold clearly even without the intent of specifically doing so undermines the state currency.
So we have counter-economic activity, counter-institution and a counter currency. I think by anyone's definition here that is the kind of activity that we would agree undermines the state. For those of you who don't knwo the story these guys recently plead guilty to money laundering and operating an unregulated financial business.
My point is that agorist ideology wasn't a requirement to undermine the state. This activity based on a making a profit and a desire to create a gold currency was sufficient to create activity to undermine the state. All counter-economic activity undermines the state. Once you understand that truth then you can quantify what activity is occurring and it's effect on the state. From that point you can then extrapolate to what it is you need to realistically do to actually undermine the state. If you make any attempt at this type of calculation for undermining the state by trying to actively grow the underground economy you quickly realize that as a strategy to undermine the state this isn't going to occur in your lifetime or your children's lifetime.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: ozzy43:But I understand and respect your reasoning. Clearly, it's specific to one's personal situation and outlook. There is no question that obstacles confront expatriates, and the ones imposed by the State will continue to grow, IMO. Currency and emigration controls are to be expected, especially when they get around to implementing a draft. Congress recently passed a new exit tax law applying to expatriats. http://www.hodgsonruss.com/Home/News_Seminars/Alerts/USEnactsNewExitTaxOnExpatriates I thought I remember reading about a tax on property for those renouncing citizenship too, but I might be wrong.
Yet another agorist worried about the tax man. Isn't the whole point of agorism to live outside the state control? Comical how you continue to bring up what the state tells you to do. Since you probably plan on working for the state as a teacher I can understand your concern. Also, if living in isolated places in Amreica is too much for you do you really think your ready to take on the state?
Maxliberty:My point is that agorist ideology wasn't a requirement to undermine the state.
So what? This is a really weak objection.
liberty student: ozzy43:But as several posts have pointed out, even if the State does not fall, leaving no vaccuum for agorism to explode into, that does not render the project futile. It's not a digital thing, either working or not - it's analog, and includes a continuum of functionality. Now, I'm trying to think about if there are discontinuities on that continuum, because I think those will be the obstacles to sustainability. If we're going to "settle" let's all support Bob Barr then.
Yes, if the goal is to undermine the state and the state never fails and gets replaced then you have failed. Agorists don't want goal lines because they can not be reached with that strategy.