Economics Questions

Re: private military: a question

Maxliberty — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:36:10 GMT

Torsten:

That would emulate the Swiss model to some extent. At least as it was in the former times. The question remains on how any common defense against an invader would be motivated. What would happen, if only a small portion of the colony would be invaded? How would the other Colonists react?

Most likely an assault against one part of the Colony would be simply the beginning of the assault against the rest of the Colony so the motivation is to help your neighbor because you know your house is next. Also, militias would most likely draw from the entire Colony and thus any attack would immediately involve a fair portion of the Colony to begin with. The PDA's would be involved because most would have mutual defense portions as part of their contracts with each other.

As to the use of artillery or mortars, you may be right Liberty Student that those may not be optimal and I am sure much of the choice would depend on where the Liberty Colony was situated and the surrounding terrain.

Re: private military: a question

liberty student — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:57:17 GMT

Torsten:
What would happen, if only a small portion of the colony would be invaded? How would the other Colonists react?

That is a very good question. One would have to consider that the small portion of colonists under invasion might consider surrender if faced with bad or overwhelming odds, and no support from their fellow colonists. Ultimately, there would probably be some diplomacy, I wouldn't rule out capitulation.

Re: private military: a question

liberty student — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:54:33 GMT

Maxliberty:
I had not considered the possibility of the PDA's having some heavier equipment that might be kept but only for the purpose of defense. Certain items that might require very minimal training to operate and could be stored and made available when needed. I am thinking along the lines here of small artillery and mortars which could be used reasonable effectively with minimal training. Also, simply having a stock pile of heavier weapons that could be brought out and distrubuted to the militia colonists, things like RPG's and heavy machine guns would be effective as well.

I think in a more decentralized world, we'd see a lot of innovation in defensive technology. Not so sure that weapons of mediocore destruction like artillery or mortars would even be relevant. Those are area effect weapons. Remember, it's the colonist's land they are defending. They will want to defend it with a minimum of collateral and permanent damage possible.

Re: private military: a question

Torsten — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:14:32 GMT

Maxliberty:
I envision that the Liberty Colony PDA's will function more like a skirmish line against a hostile attack and will not be designed or maintained to repel invasion unilaterally. Rather the individuals in the Liberty Colony will be the primary defenders and the PDA's will encourage volunteer mlitia type organizations (think of volunteer fire departments) within the Colony to have some sort of organized defense.

... An enemy needs to expect that invasion will be costly. AND any neighbours must be convinced that the settlers do not intend to invade their own territory. Militia associations would be a good idea. A well developed civil society should be able to provide what is commonly provided by the state in most countries at the moment.

Maxliberty:
I had not considered the possibility of the PDA's having some heavier equipment that might be kept but only for the purpose of defense. Certain items that might require very minimal training to operate and could be stored and made available when needed. I am thinking along the lines here of small artillery and mortars which could be used reasonable effectively with minimal training. Also, simply having a stock pile of heavier weapons that could be brought out and distrubuted to the militia colonists, things like RPG's and heavy machine guns would be effective as well.

That would emulate the Swiss model to some extent. At least as it was in the former times. The question remains on how any common defense against an invader would be motivated. What would happen, if only a small portion of the colony would be invaded? How would the other Colonists react?

Re: private military: a question

MacFall — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:46:48 GMT

Stolz2525:

MacFall:
I've converted roughly 20% of my economic activity into counter-economic activity. Others who have been at it longer than I have are doing much more - as much as 100%. Meaning - they do not pay taxes, and their money does not lose value.

Might I inquire as to how and what you are doing specifically? I'm interested but not too clear on ways to go about it.

I trade homebrewed (and stilled, respectively) beer, wine and liquor for food, mainly. That's not illegal in PA, but the distilling itself is, and it is still unreported income. Also, if I do any manual labor I insist on being paid by other means than US dollars. I have a lot of favors owed to me, but it is done with people who understand the value of what we're doing. I also know a privately liscensed mechanic who is willing to barter (I haven't used his services yet, but will in the future), and have a lead to black market medicine sales (not hard at all to find - do a google search). Basically, I have several staples of day-to-day life which will continue to function even if the dollar were to fail completely tomorrow. It's all very local and informal, but it works.

There are a lot of places with more formal Agorist communities, but none where I live as far as I know. The people I trade with are aware of the risks and rewards of what they're doing, but with one exception they're not really aware that they are acting counter-economically. Which I think backs up my point that people will be attracted to the counter-economy without being first converted to Agorism.

Re: private military: a question

Stolz2525 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:45:12 GMT

MacFall:
I've converted roughly 20% of my economic activity into counter-economic activity. Others who have been at it longer than I have are doing much more - as much as 100%. Meaning - they do not pay taxes, and their money does not lose value.

Might I inquire as to how and what you are doing specifically? I'm interested but not too clear on ways to go about it.

Re: private military: a question

Maxliberty — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:50:21 GMT

Torsten:
Honestly I'll don't see that anarcho-capitalist defense model working. The closest one could come to a stateless defense model is perhaps the Swiss one. With all citizens carrying basic arms and supply. And some more expensive equipment owned by a the Swiss state. This is still a conscription army and draws from a clearly defined body of citizens. Since it is clearly defensive, this maybe even the most economic options thinkable.

I envision that the Liberty Colony PDA's will function more like a skirmish line against a hostile attack and will not be designed or maintained to repel invasion unilaterally. Rather the individuals in the Liberty Colony will be the primary defenders and the PDA's will encourage volunteer mlitia type organizations (think of volunteer fire departments) within the Colony to have some sort of organized defense.

I had not considered the possibility of the PDA's having some heavier equipment that might be kept but only for the purpose of defense. Certain items that might require very minimal training to operate and could be stored and made available when needed. I am thinking along the lines here of small artillery and mortars which could be used reasonable effectively with minimal training. Also, simply having a stock pile of heavier weapons that could be brought out and distrubuted to the militia colonists, things like RPG's and heavy machine guns would be effective as well.

Re: private military: a question

Torsten — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:12:37 GMT

fakename:
I would like to offer up an answer to my question and see if it is theoretically true. Honestly I've considered the agorist arguments here to be wrong because it would seem that a subsidized or public military would have, with its greater monies, a lower marginal cost in developing and using killing machines -it is a naturally superior killer. Also, it seems that a private one would be beset by higher marginal costs in a competetive market and so not be as effective in warmaking. Yet also knowing how bad socialized services are at accomplishing their goals, although these subsidized firms should outcompete their private counterparts, still they will be less effective than they were.

The problem I would see is a motivational one. Soldiers defending their country will be differently motivated from mercenaries:

Soldiers defending their country are motivated by patriotism. They even may do this as a profession, but still their motive is a calling. So they will find even when the odds have turned against them.
Mercenaries are however motivated by financial gain. They'll will "cancel the contract" with their client, ones the odds are against them. While they'll still try to extort money from that client.

Honestly I'll don't see that anarcho-capitalist defense model working. The closest one could come to a stateless defense model is perhaps the Swiss one. With all citizens carrying basic arms and supply. And some more expensive equipment owned by a the Swiss state. This is still a conscription army and draws from a clearly defined body of citizens. Since it is clearly defensive, this maybe even the most economic options thinkable.

Re: private military: a question

fakename — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:15:12 GMT

I would like to offer up an answer to my question and see if it is theoretically true. Honestly I've considered the agorist arguments here to be wrong because it would seem that a subsidized or public military would have, with its greater monies, a lower marginal cost in developing and using killing machines -it is a naturally superior killer. Also, it seems that a private one would be beset by higher marginal costs in a competetive market and so not be as effective in warmaking. Yet also knowing how bad socialized services are at accomplishing their goals, although these subsidized firms should outcompete their private counterparts, still they will be less effective than they were. But here, taking the agorist position that private troops are superior to public ones, it is still consistent to say that 1) a socialized military is better at outcompeting a private one 2) a socialized military is worse at protecting its costumers than a private one 3) its consistent that a private military is superior to a socialized one. But if this is true, than the history of some wars (like vietnam, boer war, etc.) has been to destroy the more effective firm type. From this angle, having deduced the superior nature of the private firm, we can ask why have the private firms failed in the past? My answer: they refused to remain private. For instance, terrorist groups using non-combatants as shields, barbarians raiding and pillaging non-aggressive cities, etc. and we all know how gen. washington turned the cont. army statist. So this is what I believe is a theoretically consistent way to reconcile these opposing facts. Is this a correct argument -criticism very welcome!

Re: private military: a question

Maxliberty — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:36:21 GMT

MacFall:
The drug dealers take dollars out of the mainstream economy and then they spend those same dollars back in. They do not create capital goods, they only create consumer goods. They do not weaken the state's monetary system by contributing to inflation. They do not build counter-economic infrastructure. They do not offer alternatives to state-monopolized services. They DO NOT do the same things as agorists do.

Lets specifically take the example of drug dealers. They produce a counter-economy crop which they sell to people who pay with mainstream economy money and the dealers pay their farmers with this and all of the parties involved in the transaction. The dealers buy boats which are then taken out of mainstream application and are at least in part used solely for the counter-economy. Aren't shipping vessels normally considered capital goods? Or the trucks and cars that they use to transport the product? How about the real estate and land they purchase to grow their crops or hide the merchandise? How about the underground network to move money from one place to another? Would not that activity take all of those capital goods out of the mainstream economy and divert it's use to the counter-economy?

The drug dealers hire bodyguards and create gangs in order to provide private protection services for their business. Aren't these replacing some aspects of the state monopoly.

Explain to me how you having a home still is an agorist activity and what they are doing is not?

Re: private military: a question

MacFall — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:18:29 GMT

Maxliberty:

We are discussing the effectiveness of such activity.

That's funny, because we actually weren't.

If I engage in the same behavior am I not enaging in agorist activity whether I describe it as that or not?

Not necessarily, because agorists are market anarchists. It is possible for someone to do that sort of thing without being an agorist, but I doubt you'd find any such people.

As far as keeping the reinvested profits within the counter economy, that is impossible to know since that would require monitoring everyone else in the counter-economy.

Once again you prove that you have not actually read any agorist literature.

If you are doing all your buying and selling with counter-economic currency (or direct exchange), it is very improbable for it to reenter the maintream economy

All counter-economy activity develops the counter-economy at least in some part so I do not see the difference between you buying food on the black market and someone else buying food on the black market. Your distinction between the same activity doesn't make sense.

Do you not know the difference between capital investment and retail? I suggest you read up on your basic economics before we continue this discussion...

Your statement that an agorist takes capital goods from the mainstream economy and invests them in the black market would require my continual participation in the mainstream economy.

No it wouldn't. It would only require the participation of someone, probably not you.

As such the only relevant factor is to grow the size of the counter-economy

Non-sequitur. Do you even READ my posts?

and that would mean all counter-economy activity would be beneficial to the agorist philosophy.

That's true, in the sense that it creates a market opportunity for agorist protection services.

So there could not be any unconsequential counter economic activity. For instance drug dealers take a large amount of main stream economy and transfer it to the underground economy but by your statement this does not help the agorist cause.

The drug dealers take dollars out of the mainstream economy and then they spend those same dollars back in. They do not create capital goods, they only create consumer goods. They do not weaken the state's monetary system by contributing to inflation. They do not build counter-economic infrastructure. They do not offer alternatives to state-monopolized services. They DO NOT do the same things as agorists do.

Re: private military: a question

Maxliberty — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:26:16 GMT

MacFall:

Agorists, by definition, invest in counter-economic capital goods and withold their profits from the mainstream economy, buying black market goods (capital and consumer) with their profits. But not everyone who does that is necessarily agorist. However, I know of no non-agorist counter-economic participants who deliberately draw capital goods from the mainstream economy and make profits which never leave the counter-economy. Only an agorist would have any reason to do so. Non-agorist black-marketeers are interested only in making black market profits, driven upward by their illegal status - which would not be possible in the second and later stages of agorism.

We are discussing the effectiveness of such activity. If I engage in the same behavior am I not enaging in agorist activity whether I describe it as that or not? As far as keeping the reinvested profits within the counter economy, that is impossible to know since that would require monitoring everyone else in the counter-economy. All counter-economy activity develops the counter-economy at least in some part so I do not see the difference between you buying food on the black market and someone else buying food on the black market. Your distinction between the same activity doesn't make sense.

Your statement that an agorist takes capital goods from the mainstream economy and invests them in the black market would require my continual participation in the mainstream economy. As such the only relevant factor is to grow the size of the counter-economy and that would mean all counter-economy activity would be beneficial to the agorist philosophy. So there could not be any unconsequential counter economic activity. For instance drug dealers take a large amount of main stream economy and transfer it to the underground economy but by your statement this does not help the agorist cause.

Re: private military: a question

fsk — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:26:59 GMT

If you're working as an agorist, and willing to leave your profits in the counter-economy, then this solves the "money laundering" problem. Most people who evade taxes have to "launder" their profits, depositing them in a bank account. If you deposit cash in a bank account, your bank is required to report this to the IRS and the State.

If you invest your profits in gold or silver or new businesses, then you don't have to "launder" your profits. If you hold Federal Reserve Notes, you're going to be ripped off by inflation. If you hold gold or silver, your savings are protected.

Is it possible to go into a coin shop and buy gold or silver for cash, without the transaction being reported to the State?

Re: private military: a question

MacFall — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:00:26 GMT

Maxliberty:

So if an individual who isn't specifically ideologically self-described as part of your movement then even if he is conducting the exact same activity then it will have no effect on the state? So your arguement is that it is the intention of the participant not the actions that effectively starve the state? As I understand agorism it's goal to develop the counter-economy to the point that the counter-economy is capapble of providing services to replace state functions. Isn't anyone who is actively involved in the counter-economy promoting the agorist agenda at least by definition.

Agorists, by definition, invest in counter-economic capital goods and withold their profits from the mainstream economy, buying black market goods (capital and consumer) with their profits. But not everyone who does that is necessarily agorist. However, I know of no non-agorist counter-economic participants who deliberately draw capital goods from the mainstream economy and make profits which never leave the counter-economy. Only an agorist would have any reason to do so. Non-agorist black-marketeers are interested only in making black market profits, driven upward by their illegal status - which would not be possible in the second and later stages of agorism.

Re: private military: a question

hayekianxyz — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:49:25 GMT

Maxliberty:
So if an individual who isn't specifically ideologically self-described as part of your movement then even if he is conducting the exact same activity then it will have no effect on the state? So your arguement is that it is the intention of the participant not the actions that effectively starve the state?

Try actually reading what he writes.