Ego: Rich333, this is my last response. You've already stated in another thread that you troll instead of debating, and you're keeping your word. My remarks stand on their own merit. I ask readers to read the entire thread to understand that I'm not mischaracterizing Rich333's remarks. I would like to respond to this, however: A suggestion that I shouldn't use roads? I suppose if I lived under the rule of a socialist state which managed all food production and distribution, you'd advise me to starve too. Your statism's showing. No, in fact, I've always said the exact opposite. You can't blame people for using the state. It's the system under which they live. You expressed a different belief, however. That's why I pointed out that you, by using the Internet, are being hypocritical. Go ahead and continue to pretend you're at the helm of a great revolution. Go ahead and wish for a brutal state in hopes that people will be driven to join you. You said you are opposed to a smaller, more tolerable state because people will be less likely to join you. You're a tyrant -- a tyrant who views people as expendable pawns in your game.
Rich333, this is my last response. You've already stated in another thread that you troll instead of debating, and you're keeping your word.
My remarks stand on their own merit. I ask readers to read the entire thread to understand that I'm not mischaracterizing Rich333's remarks. I would like to respond to this, however:
A suggestion that I shouldn't use roads? I suppose if I lived under the rule of a socialist state which managed all food production and distribution, you'd advise me to starve too. Your statism's showing.
No, in fact, I've always said the exact opposite. You can't blame people for using the state. It's the system under which they live. You expressed a different belief, however. That's why I pointed out that you, by using the Internet, are being hypocritical.
Go ahead and continue to pretend you're at the helm of a great revolution. Go ahead and wish for a brutal state in hopes that people will be driven to join you.
You said you are opposed to a smaller, more tolerable state because people will be less likely to join you. You're a tyrant -- a tyrant who views people as expendable pawns in your game.
A tyrant? He's not the one advocating voting and using the system. He's not even trying to use force. How exactly is he a tyrant? Or are you just trying to be dramatic?
He is correct in stating that the worst things get the more distrust in government occurs. To deny this is lunacy.
By creating more trust you are holding back the governments demise. If you're ok with a smaller government instead of no government that's fine, but please stop calling yourself an anarchist.
Ego:Rich333, this is my last response. You've already stated in another thread that you troll instead of debating, and you're keeping your word.
I said I often like to troll while debating, not instead of debating. Were I just trolling, it'd be pretty obvious. It wasn't my intention to troll at all here, but when you start sounding like the retarded, barely sapient, neocons on protestwarrior.com, it just sort of happens.
Ego:No, in fact, I've always said the exact opposite. You can't blame people for using the state. It's the system under which they live. You expressed a different belief, however. That's why I pointed out that you, by using the Internet, are being hypocritical.
How is use of the internet a use of political means?
Ego:Go ahead and continue to pretend you're at the helm of a great revolution.
Go ahead and continue to mischaracterize everything I've said. It's hilarious.
Ego:Go ahead and wish for a brutal state in hopes that people will be driven to join you.
The state is always brutal. You're confusing quantity with quality. The difference between high taxes and low taxes is quantitative. The difference between taxes, high or low, and no taxes is qualitative.
Ego:You said you are opposed to a smaller, more tolerable state because people will be less likely to join you. You're a tyrant -- a tyrant who views people as expendable pawns in your game.
rofl
Corporations are an extension of the state.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
minorgrey: Ego: Rich333, this is my last response. You've already stated in another thread that you troll instead of debating, and you're keeping your word. My remarks stand on their own merit. I ask readers to read the entire thread to understand that I'm not mischaracterizing Rich333's remarks. I would like to respond to this, however: A suggestion that I shouldn't use roads? I suppose if I lived under the rule of a socialist state which managed all food production and distribution, you'd advise me to starve too. Your statism's showing. No, in fact, I've always said the exact opposite. You can't blame people for using the state. It's the system under which they live. You expressed a different belief, however. That's why I pointed out that you, by using the Internet, are being hypocritical. Go ahead and continue to pretend you're at the helm of a great revolution. Go ahead and wish for a brutal state in hopes that people will be driven to join you. You said you are opposed to a smaller, more tolerable state because people will be less likely to join you. You're a tyrant -- a tyrant who views people as expendable pawns in your game. A tyrant? He's not the one advocating voting and using the system. He's not even trying to use force. How exactly is he a tyrant? Or are you just trying to be dramatic? He is correct in stating that the worst things get the more distrust in government occurs. To deny this is lunacy. By creating more trust you are holding back the governments demise. If you're ok with a smaller government instead of no government that's fine, but please stop calling yourself an anarchist.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego:I respect this opinioin. As I said in an earlier response on a previous page, I fear that individuals in government will use tax-evasion and black markets as an excuse to increase their own powers (as they already do all over the world).
I'm not opposed to any of what you said; I just think we should use elections any chance we can.
Let's say taxes get so high that even pro-tax statist leftists agree that it's unbearably miserable. Why do you assume they would want to eliminate them? Why wouldn't they just cut them back to a less miserable point? At that point, several years (decades?) have been wasted.
Ego:He wants others' lives to be as miserable as possible in hopes they'll change their mind. He doesn't have faith in other individuals to become capitalist if their taxes are cut. That's why I made that statement.
Yeah but they're voting for it, he's just letting them live with their choices. It's not like he's working on the Hillary campaign or anything lol. It's like you're calling him a tyrant simply because he hopes the people get what they're voting for.I'm curious, why do you think people will suddenly become capitalist when their taxes are cut? During the industrial revolution socialism was on the rise yet people were being taxed less. I really don't think taxes influence people as much as a nanny state would.
Ego:He wants others' lives to be as miserable as possible
You're still not getting it, or the mischaracterization is deliberate. Black and grey markets make life easier, not more difficult. As they expand and become more widespread, life for most people will become easier still.
Ego: Let's say taxes get so high that even pro-tax statist leftists agree that it's unbearably miserable. Why do you assume they would want to eliminate them? Why wouldn't they just cut them back to a less miserable point? At that point, several years (decades?) have been wasted.
Because it will take years to roll the taxes back to a bearable point. In the meantime more people will look for a way around the system for their own relief. Government is slow but the people are pretty quick to pick things up. While congress is bickering about how much needs to be cut normal people will be using a system that was created years in advance. At that point it wont matter how much taxes are cut, the people will have found a system that gives them what they wanted without the extra cost and force. The government will become less and less relevant until it is ignored altogether.Agorism isn't the end all be all to getting rid of the government but it is absolutely necessary if we want a stable world after the government is gone. Something needs to replace government institutions and I'd rather it be business that's been working within this philosophy than some hyper-huge state backed corporation.
Yeah but they're voting for it, he's just letting them live with their choices.
That's a collectivist mindset. "They" aren't all voting for the same person, and those of "us" who don't vote still have to live with the consequences of the election. If elections didn't have an effect on anyone but the winners' supporters, no one would have any right to complain!
Ego:That's a collectivist mindset. "They" aren't all voting for the same person, and those of "us" who don't vote still have to live with the consequences of the election. If elections didn't have an effect on anyone but the winners' supporters, no one would have any right to complain!
"They" is the majority and that's who he's talking about. It's easier to convince individual people not to rule you than vote for a candidate and hope he/she doesn't screw up to the point of dragging your philosophy through the dirt. One bad move by a candidate can become a huge train wreck that will take years to get out of.
If you're worried about how it's going to affect you then refuse to support it. Refuse to give your money! Refuse to submit to their rule.
If it were as simple as everyone refusing to give money, that would be fine.
Taxes aren't voluntary though. I'd rather pay taxes and obey the law than risk being jailed.
Ego:If it were as simple as everyone refusing to give money, that would be fine.
Ego could you also address this:
minorgrey:I'm curious, why do you think people will suddenly become capitalist when their taxes are cut? During the industrial revolution socialism was on the rise yet people were being taxed less. I really don't think taxes influence people as much as a nanny state would.
If we can manage to shrink the state and open up the markets (and that doesn't mean lowering taxes and increasing regulations and spending), people will notice the benefit. That, combined with education about economics in general, can cause the pendulum to swing to our side for the time.
No matter what we do, we'll have to talk to people about capitalism.
maxpot46: Very dramatic rhetoric, but I'm still waiting to hear how agorists expect to economically out-compete a state armed with a "magic checkbook". It takes more than intentions to prevail, and even more than strategy... it also takes tactics.
Very dramatic rhetoric, but I'm still waiting to hear how agorists expect to economically out-compete a state armed with a "magic checkbook". It takes more than intentions to prevail, and even more than strategy... it also takes tactics.
The magic checkbook happens to be the state's demise. Through inflation they doom all those who use their currency to ever-worsening boom-bust cycles and a mounting pile of debt. Besides this, the general inefficiencies related to the calculation problem mean that their capital (or rather plunder) would always be far less efficiently invested than on a free market.
Ego:If we can manage to shrink the state and open up the markets (and that doesn't mean lowering taxes and increasing regulations and spending), people will notice the benefit. That, combined with education about economics in general, can cause the pendulum to swing to our side for the time. No matter what we do, we'll have to talk to people about capitalism.
Could you tell me how you came to the conclusion that if we lower taxes, and regulation, and educate others about capitalism, people will suddenly switch to capitalism? From what I've seen, socialism actually rises in the face of low regulations and taxes.I’m just wondering what you’re looking at that makes you think your plan will have any positive effect.
Socialism rises in the face of low taxes and high taxes! ;)
Capitalism works, and people will notice it working. We need to educate people about markets to remind them that the bumps in the road the economy may face are the result of intervention, not a sign we need more.
Juan: The size of the state can't be reduced from the top. If a libertarian gets elected he wouldn't be able to do much, because the whole system exists for only one purpose - legal plunder.
The system exists for positive reasons, not normative ones. Most of those involved do not see it as "plunder" in this day and age; most think the government is benign or at least necissary for civilization. The state doesn't need anyone malicious or evil in order to exist. Don't confuse the results an institution produces with the motives of its members, because they are often two very different things.
The problem with a counter economy, as I see it, is the extreme difficulty in providing capital-intensive goods and services with a government as your sworn enemy. The obvious example of this is banking, through which the government can control much of the economy. As long as the government maintains control of the "commanding heights", I don't see how any counter-economy could succeed or even gain a foothold.
In my view its just a coordination problem, one giant negative externality. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down, and so no individual or small group has enough to gain by opposing a state in order to do so on their own. Most individuals don't even have the incentives to adopt rational political beliefs, let alone act on them.
Ego, the goals of logic and rhetoric are often at odds. Typically the later requires the absence of the former in order to get people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, so I wouldn't bother arguing.
My suggestion is to at least use proper tools for the job of figuring out how to reduce coercion: prediction markets. Libertarians aren't at all immune to the biases and incentives which cause everyone else to adopt irrational political beliefs. Prediction markets make people put their money where their mouth is; they sift away much of the BS.
Grant:The system exists for positive reasons, not normative ones. Most of those involved do not see it as "plunder" in this day and age; most think the government is benign or at least necissary for civilization.
Juan:If an organization commits crimes on a massive scale, then the people who make this organization possible are criminals. That you claim "they don't consider themselves criminals" is really beside the point - and also false. I'm sure that some or most of the people working for the state know full well what they are doing.
Most? I'd bet thats certainly not true. I'd even bet the large majority of the people who commit the actual acts of coercion (i.e. the tax-man, not the lady working at the DMV for $10 an hour) don't think they are criminals. Of course, when you believe criminality is defined by the organization you work for, its easy to rationalize that sort of thing, but the point stands.
Most institutions in human history haven't accomplished the goals they've set for themselves, or the ones their members held. Think of all the false religions and shamans, and most all of medicine up until very recently. Bad results don't need bad motives, just bad ideas.
Juan:My point was that the state can't be dismantled by electing a 'libertarian' president who would sign 'executive orders' closing down the departments of state, education, DEA, FBI, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc (there are quite a few bureaucracies out there...)
Its extremely unlikely, I agree.
Juan: Your claim that criminals are not criminals because they don't consider themselves to be criminals is ridiculous. Perhaps we should start the "Three cheers for moral relativism" thread.
I never said anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that the vast majority do not consider themselves to be criminals, thats all.
Regarding the point about the state having a 'blank check' against those trying to overthrow it and thus having an economic advantage over them. First of all, agorists would encourage commodity money as to try to prevent this and to cut the government from currency. If the government did try to inflate it would only convince more people who have not switched from the state fiat money to resort to private money, as their savings are being reduced.
The government would be losing its base of customers in money and at the same time would only quicken the process by inflating.
Hey, this is a private residence man...
Ego:Socialism rises in the face of low taxes and high taxes! ;)
minorgrey: Ego:Socialism rises in the face of low taxes and high taxes! ;)Uh right, but it explodes during times of low tax and regulation. The industrial revolution is one example.Capitalism works, and people will notice it working. We need to educate people about markets to remind them that the bumps in the road the economy may face are the result of intervention, not a sign we need more.I'm not even trying to suggest we shouldn't educate people about free markets, that's obviously something that needs to be done. I'm wondering why you think trying to shrink government, via the political system, is a worthy cause. History has shown us that when government is smaller socialism tends to have a growth spurt.
In any event, that seems to be a dangerous way of looking at things. I know you haven't said this directly, but it's similar to saying:
"We need to make sure that government control over individuals' lives grows to prevent socialism from growing."
Maybe you could also ease my fears about state sponsored capitalism and the possibility of more corporatism even with a smaller government.
State-sponsored "capitalism" is always a threat, small government or not. In fact, that will probably be one of the easier things to roll back electorally. As my signature suggests, it's usually the leftist policies that are the most difficult to undo.
Ego:I'm not sure why you think government explodes mainly during times of limited government; look at the New Deal, look at the Great Society, look at the... now.
In any event, that seems to be a dangerous way of looking at things. I know you haven't said this directly, but it's similar to saying:"We need to make sure that government control over individuals' lives grows to prevent socialism from growing."
I think I am starting to swing toward the agora
Swinging as in voting is immoral, or swinging as in it's a useful tactic?
I've been reading up on Agorism, and while it's interesting, I'm not sure how far one can get with an approach based around black market activity before the state takes action against it.
I think the Montana Freemen were a near example of what Agorism might look like in action. Agree, disagree?
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to paint a picture of armed standoffs, but I think Agorists need to be realistic that their black/grey market approach will not go unnoticed or unfettered by the state until it hits criticial mass. There will be setbacks. Some people will bear the cost of state coercion in incarceration, beatings, harassment, confiscation of their property, etc.
To me, it definitely does not seem like an activity for the meek, or unsure. Principled as all get out. But actionable only through extreme courage.
It is actionable as a matter of everyday occurence. It is literally impossible for a person to obey all the state's laws, all the time. As the NLM points out, every peaceful action that the state deems unlawful is part of the counter-economy. If you speed, you are participating in the counter-economy. If you deface a dollar bill, you are participating in the countereconomy. If you hoard your coins, you are participating. If you don't report a barter transaction, you are participating. It only takes a fraction of that activity, turned to economic use, to make a difference. It's not insurrection or sedition, it simply ignoring the state in a proactive manner.
We're not telling people to immediately start participating exclusively in agorist markets. The point is for as many people as possible to do it as much as possible, and at this time that means not going all-out and attracting too much notice. But if you start paying for your car repairs in beer and home-canned vegetables, that's a good start. It benefits you and your trading partner, and it cannot be easily observed by the state. Eventually, barter moneys will become more common as the state currency becomes less usable. That doesn't have to do with agorism as much as it does simple economic fact.
The point is to start laying the groundwork NOW for the eventual, inevitable time when the mainstream economy will lose its appeal; to develop the counter-economy as much as possible so that when that time comes, it is the better choice. The more agorists we have, the better - but we're not going to win by converting everybody to agorism. We're going to win by developing the counter-economy so that it does a better job of feeding, clothing, transporting, protecting and entertaining people than the "white market". We will win because the state will lose; because its currency is untenable and free markets cannot be stamped out, even under the most brutal regimes.
In fact, once the counter-economy is established, state atrocities will only bolster the agorist movement. The appeal is already there, to anyone who understands it - a counter-economic transaction cannot be taxed, and free market prices cannot inflate as much as state money must. The alternative markets already exist, but in a nebulous form. We intend to condense those markets in a principled and organized fashion. Start trading and bartering; do as much business as possible with fellow counter-economists. Remove ourselves as far as we can from the ability of the state to exploit us. Educate people about the exploitative nature of the state and state currency.
And then we wait for things to follow their natural, economically inevitable course, and just make sure that when the SHTF we're there to pick up the pieces.
But the beauty of agorism is that we don't have to wait for a grand historical singularity with a Declaration of Independence and a shot heard 'round the world. Those things will come, but in the meantime, we just do what we can. And every counter-economic transaction makes you and those you trade with a bit freer, and deprives the state of a bit of its sustenance.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall, the fact that we all participate in the counter-economy while the state is still growing at a tremendous speed should give you some pause.I certainly find agorism a good idea, but like the poster above, I think it's amazingly risky. At some point, the government will crack down. I don't think that the statists would wait until it's too late, either. If agorism becomes widespread, knowledge of it will become wide-spread. The government will pass new laws and create new agencies to deal with the problem, and it will become more and more frightening and dangerous to participate.It can't hurt to vote for less statist candidates, no matter what else you want to try at the same time.
In order for alternative markets to flourish, the state must act statelike. And they will flourish, as they have in every despotic nation in every era of history. The difference is that this time, there will be a principled movement with a particular goal behind them. It is not the goal of agorists to achieve a less statist government. All that would accomplish is to postpone the eventual re-tyrannizing of the government, if that.
I agree with using local offices to aid the movement, and I plan to promote that. But federal and State government can only serve to prolong the process if it doesn't reverse it. It is impossible to achieve an apolitical goal through political means. At best, one can hope to achieve a different form of statism by wielding the state apparatus. Whatsoever thou soweth, that also shalt thou reap.
I just can't get down with the good being the enemy of the perfect stuff. Agorism is interesting, but it doesn't sound like something you can sell to a young working couple with two children in a state school, whose parents are beneficiaries and dependent on state pensions and health care.
MacFall: In order for alternative markets to flourish, the state must act statelike. And they will flourish, as they have in every despotic nation in every era of history. The difference is that this time, there will be a principled movement with a particular goal behind them. It is not the goal of agorists to achieve a less statist government. All that would accomplish is to postpone the eventual re-tyrannizing of the government, if that. I agree with using local offices to aid the movement, and I plan to promote that. But federal and State government can only serve to prolong the process if it doesn't reverse it. It is impossible to achieve an apolitical goal through political means. At best, one can hope to achieve a different form of statism by wielding the state apparatus. Whatsoever thou soweth, that also shalt thou reap.
MacFall, I don't understand the distinction you make between federal and local office. In addition, I don't agree with this statement:
It is impossible to achieve an apolitical goal through political means.
I really don't understand this. Having a Senate or House of Representatives is necessarily anti-capitalist; if they tax and regulate, it is.
liberty student: Agorism is interesting, but it doesn't sound like something you can sell to a young working couple with two children in a state school, whose parents are beneficiaries and dependent on state pensions and health care.
Agorism is interesting, but it doesn't sound like something you can sell to a young working couple with two children in a state school, whose parents are beneficiaries and dependent on state pensions and health care.
Is such a young working couple somehow unqualified to trade without using federal reserve notes or credit even occasionally? You don't have to never use the mainstream economy to be an agorist. You only need to do as much as possible, and believe in a libertarian goal. As more becomes possible, do more. Until then, do as much as you can.
MacFall:You only need to do as much as possible, and believe in a libertarian goal. As more becomes possible, do more. Until then, do as much as you can.
I think that is how some of us feel about politics.
You don't think trying to elect anti-statists does anything to help you?
liberty student: I just can't get down with the good being the enemy of the perfect stuff. Agorism is interesting, but it doesn't sound like something you can sell to a young working couple with two children in a state school, whose parents are beneficiaries and dependent on state pensions and health care.
Chances are they've used the black market already, and it was probably much cheaper than going to a white market business. They don't need to be convinced of anything right now anyway. If the black market is selling goods that are cheaper and in better quality then people will use it regardless of their current economic position.