Thanks Geoff!
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:One thing that people seem to keep overlooking is that agorism is not limited to secret, underground, black market activities. Or if it is, then there are other ideologically driven and guided countereconomic methods that can be pursued in addition.
I tend to use the black market (with all its shortcoings) as a proxy for counter-economic agorism. True agorism, IMO, should rely on a legitimate currency, and not government paper. Some people are too focused on the current system and say, "How would agorism do [insert state-subsidized activity here]?" But that's a loaded question, given that pretty much all of us here on Mises subscribe to some variant of the calculation problem, it's foolish to ask one individual how an entire economy would work!
I have read about a private security service that is in the planning stages, actually it was a working paper I found here on Mises a few summers back.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Private security and arbitration services are booming industries right now though. It would be better if more of them were driven and guided by libertarian anarchist ideas and goals.
Agreed, the last thing we want is to make the State more "efficient" in its violations of our rights! The last thing I want is blackwater running drug raids, or making routine traffic stops!
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Maxliberty:No, what I am asking is why do you think large scale businesses will not form in a free society. You and your fellow agorists made the statement that large business is only a creation of the state. I am simply pointing out with a real world example that your wrong.
Almost all large-scale businesses are formed or enabled by acts of the state; this includes transportation subsidy (railroads and interstates come to mind), IP laws, tariffs, central banking, tariffs, eminent domain, outright land theft (the Enclosure of the Commons, for an example), differential tax rates, regulations, minimum wage laws, and many, many other acts that I can't think of right now. All of these promote the creation of large, vertically-integrated, capital-intensive firms. See the following for the nitty-gritty details:
Government Created Economies of Scale and Capital Specifity
The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand
Austrian and Marxist Theories of Monopoly Capital
Big Business and the Rise of American Statism
The Political Economy of Liberal Corporatism
I'm not saying that large-scale businesses will not form in a free society; I'm saying that the state encourages the formation of large-scale business. Whether or not they will form is an issue that will be resolved when we actually have a free society.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Maxliberty: The counter-economy has plenty of groups that look out for the police and statist activity. Have you ever been in a neighborhood that has high levels of crime, they have lookouts everywhere and they can spot cops in about five seconds.
The counter-economy has plenty of groups that look out for the police and statist activity. Have you ever been in a neighborhood that has high levels of crime, they have lookouts everywhere and they can spot cops in about five seconds.
As you will notice, I have already pointed this out. The problem is that it is scarce and not wide enough - i.e. a tragedy of the commons.
I think you're really overestimating that, by the way. If it were that effective, the US wouldn't be the largest prison nation in the world. Nice try though.
Maxliberty: Not to mention gangs which are in part formed to protect the activity of the gang. How about the drug gangs in Mexico which are quite powerful and have undermined various parts of the Mexican judicial system. Those are jsut two examples all accomplished without agorist ideology.
Not to mention gangs which are in part formed to protect the activity of the gang. How about the drug gangs in Mexico which are quite powerful and have undermined various parts of the Mexican judicial system. Those are jsut two examples all accomplished without agorist ideology.
Great. Now if only that could be formalized and aggregated, which is what Agorism will do.
Maxliberty: I don't think I ever said that people in business don't have obstacles or that there might be other incentives that might make people decide to limit their business activity. What that means is that people are pursuing their own self-interest. Are you saying that the goal of agorism is to convince people to pursue things contrary to their own self-interest?
I don't think I ever said that people in business don't have obstacles or that there might be other incentives that might make people decide to limit their business activity. What that means is that people are pursuing their own self-interest. Are you saying that the goal of agorism is to convince people to pursue things contrary to their own self-interest?
Of course you have. You've routinely demonstrated that you believe entrepreneurship is very seldomly involved in economic production.
Your question didn't have to do with self-interest. It had to do with monetary profit - their business.
Nice red herrings though, if only they weren't so obvious.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: One thing that people seem to keep overlooking is that agorism is not limited to secret, underground, black market activities. Or if it is, then there are other ideologically driven and guided countereconomic methods that can be pursued in addition. Above-ground alternative institutions such as private provision of security, arbitration and adjudication services, and attempts to bring back the gold standard despite the state (for some at least, ideally as part of undermining the state itself) by, for example, a gold-tracking mutual fund with checking. I've given an example several times of one libertarian private security and restitution service that is currently in the planning stage. Private security and arbitration services are booming industries right now though. It would be better if more of them were driven and guided by libertarian anarchist ideas and goals.
One thing that people seem to keep overlooking is that agorism is not limited to secret, underground, black market activities. Or if it is, then there are other ideologically driven and guided countereconomic methods that can be pursued in addition. Above-ground alternative institutions such as private provision of security, arbitration and adjudication services, and attempts to bring back the gold standard despite the state (for some at least, ideally as part of undermining the state itself) by, for example, a gold-tracking mutual fund with checking. I've given an example several times of one libertarian private security and restitution service that is currently in the planning stage. Private security and arbitration services are booming industries right now though. It would be better if more of them were driven and guided by libertarian anarchist ideas and goals.
Absolutely correct! The key is to promote counter-initiatives that provide a quality alternative to living life in fear. We don't propose to move to a small island in the middle of no where and hide in fear. We're directly subverting the state. The reason that Agorists promote the black and grey market is merely because so much of the economy is outlawed by the government.
wombatron: Maxliberty:No, what I am asking is why do you think large scale businesses will not form in a free society. You and your fellow agorists made the statement that large business is only a creation of the state. I am simply pointing out with a real world example that your wrong. Almost all large-scale businesses are formed or enabled by acts of the state; this includes transportation subsidy (railroads and interstates come to mind), IP laws, tariffs, central banking, tariffs, eminent domain, outright land theft (the Enclosure of the Commons, for an example), differential tax rates, regulations, minimum wage laws, and many, many other acts that I can't think of right now. All of these promote the creation of large, vertically-integrated, capital-intensive firms. See the following for the nitty-gritty details: Government Created Economies of Scale and Capital Specifity The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand Austrian and Marxist Theories of Monopoly Capital Big Business and the Rise of American Statism The Political Economy of Liberal Corporatism I'm not saying that large-scale businesses will not form in a free society; I'm saying that the state encourages the formation of large-scale business. Whether or not they will form is an issue that will be resolved when we actually have a free society.
Honestly, this is a bit off-topic. If you want to pursue it further, one of us can start a new thread.
wombatron:The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand
Uh oh! Someone referenced Carson!
wombatron: Honestly, this is a bit off-topic. If you want to pursue it further, one of us can start a new thread.
Yes, let's get back to the topic which is an evaluation of agorism as a means to overthrow the state. Perhaps some simple questions can help direct the conversation. A simple yes or no response will suffice and then we can delve into the specifics.
Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state? I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example.
Do the institutions created by counter-economic actors undermine the state? I offer e-gold as an example.
Are there any quantifiable goals or thresholds in agorism?
Lets start with these. Anyone?
Niccolò: Of course you have. You've routinely demonstrated that you believe entrepreneurship is very seldomly involved in economic production.
I have consistently said that individual self-interest is what motivates people.
I'm really not seeing the argument against agorism here, I'm guessing that it is since agorists can't prove that there is a difference between counter-economic activity and agorism and as the State hasn't fallen yet it can be proven that agorism won't fell the state?
Oh, and a big pissing contest with very little substance.
I also take issue with the claim that the black market led to the Soviet Union's collapse, does anyone seriously believe that if everyone behind the Iron Curtain had been a good little comrade that the socialist system would have somehow managed to overcome the Economic Calculation Problem? Yeah, didn't think so.
Anonymous Coward:I'm really not seeing the argument against agorism here, I'm guessing that it is since agorists can't prove that there is a difference between counter-economic activity and agorism and as the State hasn't fallen yet it can be proven that agorism won't fell the state?
That's a red herring. Agorists hardly need to overthrow the state to prove that there is a difference between it and non-ideological counter-economics. Some of the important differences have already been shown, even if certain people can't seem to see it.
Anonymous Coward:I also take issue with the claim that the black market led to the Soviet Union's collapse, does anyone seriously believe that if everyone behind the Iron Curtain had been a good little comrade that the socialist system would have somehow managed to overcome the Economic Calculation Problem? Yeah, didn't think so.
You're right. The Soviet Union was doomed to fail because it was communist. The black market did improve peoples' lives under communism though and undermined the Soviet state. But when you institute communism you're going to get a black market.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
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.
david_z: wombatron:The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand Uh oh! Someone referenced Carson!
And no vulgartarians seemed to notice. I was expecting a flurry of replies calling me a Marxist
Maxliberty:Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state? I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example.
Yes, to a degree.
Maxliberty:Do the institutions created by counter-economic actors undermine the state? I offer e-gold as an example.
Yes, the goals and thresholds made by individuals or groups practicing agorism. Konkin's phases are a broad guideline to which strategies and tactics would be effective, given a certain number of agorists and allies and a certain extent of the counter-economy. More specific goals, to have any meaning at all, would be made by practicing agorists, given the context that they are in.
I assume I am what you call a vulgartarian?
wombatron: Maxliberty:Does counter-economic activity without agorism undermine the state? I offer farmers selling produce on the side of the road as an example. Yes, to a degree. Maxliberty:Do the institutions created by counter-economic actors undermine the state? I offer e-gold as an example. Yes, to a degree. Maxliberty:Are there any quantifiable goals or thresholds in agorism? Yes, the goals and thresholds made by individuals or groups practicing agorism. Konkin's phases are a broad guideline to which strategies and tactics would be effective, given a certain number of agorists and allies and a certain extent of the counter-economy. More specific goals, to have any meaning at all, would be made by practicing agorists, given the context that they are in.
So counter-economic activity irregardless of the quantity of the activity undermines the state to some degree but it appears in general to have minimal effect. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view?
Counter economic institutions irregardless of the size and scope of the institutions undermine the state to some degree but it appears in general to have minimal effect. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view?
The quantifiable goals in agorism are individualistic in nature and there is no way to measure the overall effectiveness of agorism on a society nor are there any quantifiable macro goals of the movement. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view?
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.
You say the goal is increasing awareness but there is no numerical goal or percentage that is being strived for in the awareness campaign. Is that what you are sayng?
And I guess by your last comment I have been banned from working with Agorists. Is that what that is supposed to mean?
Maxliberty:So counter-economic activity at best only has a minimal effect on undermining the state no matter how much of it is occurring. Is that what you are saying?
No, obviously, if everyone refused to pay taxes, then the state would crumble under its own weight as soon as the soldiers stopped receiving paychecks. However, if the farmer refuses to report income he earns when he sells me Apple Butter from his roadside stand, the State loses a few pennies in lost sales tax, and a nickel in lost income tax. He turns around and tosses this money back into buying a television at Best Buy, and being a good corporate citizen, best buy reports the income, pays taxes on it, levies taxes against its employees wages, etc.
In this regard, the counter-economic farmer has merely shifted the burden. He is a nickel or a dime wealthier. The income taxes that he didn't pay, or the sales tax he didn't collect, is just being collected somewhere else along the way.
And of course, if everyone practiced agorism, the state would likewise crumble. But because a dollar's equivalence of true agorism is a whole dollar, not just some marginal fraction, the effects are magnified. If I exchange some goods with my neighbor, not only do we both maintain the same bank account balance in terms of Federal Reserve Points, but we also have become wealthier through the acquisition of additional goods and/or services.
Maxliberty:You say the goal is increasing awareness but there is no numerical goal or percentage that is being strived for in the awareness campaign. Is that what you are sayng?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not a central planner, I don't have a five year plan. All I can do is spread the idea to people who are receptive towards it. If people are receptive, and I believe, trustworthy, then we can start working out ways to enrich ourselves outside the state's purview.
Maxliberty:And I guess by your last comment I have been banned from working with Agorists. Is that what that is supposed to mean?
I certainly don't intend to speak for all agorists. I am interested in discussing and practicing agorism with people who are receptive to the idea. You're clearly not interested. End of story. So yeah, you're officially blackballed from my network.
But of course, agorism doesn't work, so you shouldn't have a problem with that.
First, quickly, thanks to Wombatron for taking my suggestion and running with it. I'm happy to see that, despite the efforts of some, notably Max and Niccolo, this thread has not become as poisonous as the last. Yet. And there's loads more good and useful information. Thanks to those providing it.
Note: calling people 1) stupid and 2) Marxist/comrade is pointless and detracts from the discussion. I'd like to see a cessation to such behavior. But hey, that's just me. More questions coming...
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
Maxliberty:No, what I am asking is why do you think large scale businesses will not form in a free society.
Can you prove that large scale business *would* form in a free society? I don't see how.
Another way of putting this: why do you seem so certain that in a free society, 747's would be a product which would be deemed necessary? It's entirely possible that all sorts of things we cannot imagine being without would not evolve, and other things we cannot currently imagine would, in their place. Maybe dirigibles would be the preferred flying mode. Maybe something comlpetely different. The economics of the situation would be so vastly different, I think it's probably futile to speculate. But it certainly is fruitless to presume that the same products would be required.
This argument that large scale businesses similar to what we see today must necessarily exist in a free society cannot possibly be proven, since this has never existed in the modern age. I think the arguments against it given by david_z and by wombatron, in particular, with references included, are compelling. Clearly, State protectionism has benefited multinationals beyond all reason. One of the most persuasive arguments IMO is this: without the State to tilt the playing field in their favor, larger, less nimble companies would find it difficult to compete with smaller more agile companies. I've worked as a professional engineer in startups, mid sized companies, and huge multinationals. I can attest to the fact that there are serious diseconomies of scale, as I think wombatron pointed out, as a company grows (in fact, there has been some published research done on this exact topic - will see if I can dig it up). Bureaucracy is one of the worst of these, which impedes innovation and efficiency, whether in business or government. Accordingly, the growth of in-company bureaucracy can result in disfunction which allows smaller competitors to come knocking on the door - I could give you examples from as recently as two weeks ago. It cost us a piece of the business at an important account. So the VERY relevant point that david_z made was to reference Bastiat's enormously important dictum to consider 'what is not seen'. It is certain that, in the balance between economies of scale, and diseconomies of scale, what counts is the NET, and that net is precisely what the State can affect by putting obstacles in the way of smaller businesses seeking to play David to the corporate Goliaths. After all, that's precisely what politicians get elected for.
This is very similar to evolution, BTW. The peacock with the largest tail may often get the peahen, but if that tail grows *too* large, it makes for easier prey in the presence of predators (though you'd not know this from watching them at the zoo - with their protectors [analogous to the State] keeping predators from the door). In fact, this is a commonly recognized balancing mechanism across species in the natural world (including humans). Every adaptation can yield advantage only up to a point, at which point it can actually become disadvantageous - especially as surrounding species adapt also (saber tooth tigers are extinct, after all). It's all evolution, natural selection, adaptation pressure. The same mechanisms at work in the natural and in the business world.
I suspect there is a range of 'business size' which would be naturally occuring and established - and enforced - by natural market forces in a free market society. It strikes me as absurd to imagine a gargantuan business like GE in the absence of the State. Never happen. So it may well be that we do without 747s and stick with dirigibles. Which works for me aesthetically as well. Business travel in coach blows.
wombatron: And no vulgartarians seemed to notice. I was expecting a flurry of replies calling me a Marxist
Marxist.
There - feel better? ;-)
Funny thing: when I quote Albert Jay Nock at length - and a more vociferous and articulate opponent of the State has never existed - I am often accused of being a Marxist. Especially when the person I'm quoting him to is an 'unabashed' capitalist (by which of course I mean not a capitalist at all but a fan of the current corporatist regime). It's especially funny how it then turns out that I am a much bigger proponent of free markets and free peoples than said unabashed capitalist.
ozzy43:Can you prove that large scale business *would* form in a free society? I don't see how.
If any large-scale goods exist, and simple physical reality demonstrates that to be true, then large-scale business is necessary to produce them.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Maxliberty: So counter-economic activity irregardless of the quantity of the activity undermines the state to some degree but it appears in general to have minimal effect. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view? Counter economic institutions irregardless of the size and scope of the institutions undermine the state to some degree but it appears in general to have minimal effect. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view? The quantifiable goals in agorism are individualistic in nature and there is no way to measure the overall effectiveness of agorism on a society nor are there any quantifiable macro goals of the movement. Is that an accurate representation of the agorist point of view?
That doesn't even seem to be in the same ballpark as what Agorists say. It's the bi-polar opposite.
Counter-institutions do have massive effects. In my grandparent's town in Italia, the local government was all but non-existent because counter-institutions existed for protection, mutual aid, and education.
Stranger:If any large-scale goods exist, and simple physical reality demonstrates that to be true, then large-scale business is necessary to produce them.
I don't believe in airplanes.
david_z: In this regard, the counter-economic farmer has merely shifted the burden. He is a nickel or a dime wealthier. The income taxes that he didn't pay, or the sales tax he didn't collect, is just being collected somewhere else along the way. And of course, if everyone practiced agorism, the state would likewise crumble. But because a dollar's equivalence of true agorism is a whole dollar, not just some marginal fraction, the effects are magnified. If I exchange some goods with my neighbor, not only do we both maintain the same bank account balance in terms of Federal Reserve Points, but we also have become wealthier through the acquisition of additional goods and/or services.
I have some questions about this analysis. It all depends on where things net out, doesn't it? I mean, if I exchange, say, a lawn mower for another agorist's bicycle, then the State has been eluded, monetarily. But later, if I or my neighbor sell what we got on Craigslist and spend the money at Best Buy, we've only postponed the same end right? That is, it still gets 'collected somewhere else along the way', right? So to be workable, not only the individual transaction, but all subsequent transactions attendant to those items which were the subjects of the transactions must be restricted to the counter economy, is that right?
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?
Next question is with regard to this scenario:
david_z:If I exchange some goods with my neighbor, not only do we both maintain the same bank account balance in terms of Federal Reserve Points, but we also have become wealthier through the acquisition of additional goods and/or services.
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. Unless you mean that you both would exhange in place of purchasing from the State economy otherwise. But that doesn't work either, because both you and he would then have one additional asset since no exchange took place.
I doubt I need to state this, but I will anyway: these are honest questions, not attacks or criticisms. I would honestly like to understand the potential for agorist activity better, because I positively love the idea of a counter economy, and of depriving the State of opoprtunities for theft. But I have to say, as it stands, it is difficult for me to take seriously the notion that any amount of this activity - in reality as opposed to theory - could ever seriously imperil the State, which, if history serves as any guide, rather than seeking ways to restrict it, would seek ways to, ironically, profit from it. After all, that's what has happened to the black market in drugs - this has become a space that feeds governmental power rather than undermines it. In fact, it would be helpful if someone would explain why an agorist counter economy should not suffer the same fate as the black market economy which empowers the State.
Thoughtful answers appreciated.
Stranger: ozzy43:Can you prove that large scale business *would* form in a free society? I don't see how. If any large-scale goods exist, and simple physical reality demonstrates that to be true, then large-scale business is necessary to produce them.
The pyramids are large scale goods. Did ancient Egypt feature large scale businesses? Certainly not in the way we think of them.
Alternatively, can you prove that large scale goods *would* exist in a free society? Have you considered that you may just have this backwards? That is, if in a free society there exist mechanisms that inhibit the growth of businesses to gigantic size - and I've already mentioned one (bureaucracy) - then the only goods that will be produced will be the goods that those companies that are capable of existing can produce.
So I'd say you have your cause and effect backwards. The physical reality you are talknig about is that of today's society - not that a free society. Are you assetring these would be the same?
Also, before we proceed, it would probably be beneficial to define our terms. What do you mean, specifically, by "large scale business"?? After all, "large" is a relative term, and what may qualify as "large" in a free market economy may well not be the same thing that qualifies as "large" in our heavily subsidized and regulated mixed market economy, where numerous companies enjoy the patronage and protection of the State.
For example, what were the largest companies in the early to mid-19th centuries that were *not* State managed creatures? That is, no East India Company or anything like that.
I also do not believe in pyramids.
Or any other forms of geometric shapes.
A quick comment on economies of scale.
It must be obvious that there is a limit to the benefits of these. If not, there would be one, giant, universal company at the end, the King of Efficiency. Never happen.
So what is the limit? Obviously, it is the balance between the economies of scale, and the diseconomies of scale. So in order to gain an accurate answer to the how-big question, clearly, one must analyze both economies and diseconomies of scale. The whole idea of government distortions of the market clearly plays into this: once one understands that the State is intended - designed and built, in fact - to serve as "primarily a distributor of economic advantage, an arbiter of exploitation," [Nock - OEtS IV]. then it becomes obvious that the current corporate structure is the mechanism whereby those ends will be achieved (Nock calls this 'economism' or 'mercantilism'). Thus, in America, the State and industry work together to the advantage of both, at the expense of the individual, and in so doing create a single entity - the merchant-State, which is comprised of both government and industry. The fight then is over who gets the lucrative job of running the government, and which companies get plucked out as court favorites. It's a nice, cozy setup, and has served our masters well for over a century now.
At any rate, with this understanding, it should come as no surprise that the way that the State routinely interferes with the economy is to disturb that net balance between economies and diseconomies of scale. For example, laws and regulations that fall more heavily on small companies than large. This of course happens all the time. So it seems silly to me to argue that absent the State, this distortion would not disappear, and that balance shift to whereever it should be naturally, which would overwhelmingly tend to 'disfavor' the largest corporations, which are an integral part of that merchant-State, and which are not therefore properly structured to be able to compete in a free market.
david_z: No, obviously, if everyone refused to pay taxes, then the state would crumble under its own weight as soon as the soldiers stopped receiving paychecks. However, if the farmer refuses to report income he earns when he sells me Apple Butter from his roadside stand, the State loses a few pennies in lost sales tax, and a nickel in lost income tax. He turns around and tosses this money back into buying a television at Best Buy, and being a good corporate citizen, best buy reports the income, pays taxes on it, levies taxes against its employees wages, etc.
Then wouldn't every dollar of taxes not paid have the same effect on undermining the state? How can you tell the difference when a dollar of tax is not paid between an agorist and a non-agorist?
The issue of how long the dollar stays in the counter-economy is relevant to the effectiveness of undermining the state. That is to say the the more turns each dollar has in the counter-economy the more effective that dollar is in undermining the state but this is true for each turn of every dollar regardless of the motivation of the transaction. So if agorists were 10 times more effective than coutner-economic actors in the counter-economy then 1 agorist would equal 10 counter-economic actors. Even if this were true it wouldn't change the effect of the counter-economic actor. Is that really that hard to see?
david_z:Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not a central planner, I don't have a five year plan. All I can do is spread the idea to people who are receptive towards it. If people are receptive, and I believe, trustworthy, then we can start working out ways to enrich ourselves outside the state's purview.
How will you gauge whether or not agorism is succeeding or not? for example, if the population growth is greater than the spread of agorism you will actually be losing ground.
david_z: I certainly don't intend to speak for all agorists. I am interested in discussing and practicing agorism with people who are receptive to the idea. You're clearly not interested. End of story. So yeah, you're officially blackballed from my network.
So you are willing to forego my potential counter-economic ouput for the sake of spite is that it? Is the criteria for agorists to work with counter-economic actors that everyone has to be in agreement on agorism?
liberty student: I also do not believe in pyramids. Or any other forms of geometric shapes.
I see. I'm sending my friend, the trapezoid, over to your place to have a little chat about geographical reality...
Maxliberty: So you are willing to forego my potential counter-economic ouput for the sake of spite is that it? Is the criteria for agorists to work with counter-economic actors that everyone has to be in agreement on agorism?
I don't read this as spite, Max. Based on what I'm reading in this thread, there is a qualitative aspect to agorism, and in fact this piece is essential in differentiating it from the black market, wherein the actors are eager to turn each other in or to do each other harm. In the agorist vision, this me-vs-the-world aspect is absent (or at least, one hopes, less prevalent), and that would make a big difference obviously. It's essentially the difference between having co-conspirators who are eager to turn you in to get off themselves, and having co-conspirators who will refuse to cooperate. Anyone who has watched Law and Order can relate. But to make that a reality, one must choose one's partners carefully, obviously. Trust and shared vision would be primary criteria.
Because of the bad blood that has been generated here, that trust between you and the agorists here seems to have degraded to the point of non-existence, and it's clear there is no shared vision. This is what I was lamenting in the other thread. This was unnecessary, and damages the overall aims of liberty, IMO.
ozzy43: A quick comment on economies of scale. It must be obvious that there is a limit to the benefits of these.
It must be obvious that there is a limit to the benefits of these.
Well at least you are willing to admit that there are benefits to economies of scale. I don't have to know what would happen in a perfectly free market to be able to think about the subject. I can simply think about what I would do and how I would organize large scale projects. in fact if you look at large scale projects they are organized centrally but the various aspects are divided up into smaller units with either contractors or smaller corporations doing the work.
For example the construction of 747's takes place by constructing the engines and wings seperately and assembling the fuselage, wings and engines at one facility. Boeing doesn't amke the engines they have separate companies do that and have 100's of sub-contractors for various tasks. This is evidence that there are limitations to economies of scale but large projects require lots of people and organization.
I think it is wrong to assume that everything being done today is a result of the state. I think just our own reasoning tells us that much of what is created today is a result of what people want and in a free society many of these things would still be desired. For example, I like football and in a free society I would still want a 70,000 person stadium to watch the game and I don't think I would be alone in that desire so there would probably be stadiums in free societies too, and bridges and ships and all kinds of things. Big things usually require lots of people to build them.
ozzy43: Maxliberty: So you are willing to forego my potential counter-economic ouput for the sake of spite is that it? Is the criteria for agorists to work with counter-economic actors that everyone has to be in agreement on agorism? I don't read this as spite, Max. Based on what I'm reading in this thread, there is a qualitative aspect to agorism, and in fact this piece is essential in differentiating it from the black market, wherein the actors are eager to turn each other in or to do each other harm. In the agorist vision, this me-vs-the-world aspect is absent (or at least, one hopes, less prevalent), and that would make a big difference obviously. It's essentially the difference between having co-conspirators who are eager to turn you in to get off themselves, and having co-conspirators who will refuse to cooperate. Anyone who has watched Law and Order can relate. But to make that a reality, one must choose one's partners carefully, obviously. Trust and shared vision would be primary criteria. Because of the bad blood that has been generated here, that trust between you and the agorists here seems to have degraded to the point of non-existence, and it's clear there is no shared vision. This is what I was lamenting in the other thread. This was unnecessary, and damages the overall aims of liberty, IMO.
Well, I was really asking not for myself but for other people in the counter-economy. Agorists are so secretive that its impossible to join anyway.
Maxliberty: ozzy43: A quick comment on economies of scale. It must be obvious that there is a limit to the benefits of these. Well at least you are willing to admit that there are benefits to economies of scale. I don't have to know what would happen in a perfectly free market to be able to think about the subject. I can simply think about what I would do and how I would organize large scale projects. in fact if you look at large scale projects they are organized centrally but the various aspects are divided up into smaller units with either contractors or smaller corporations doing the work. For example the construction of 747's takes place by constructing the engines and wings seperately and assembling the fuselage, wings and engines at one facility. Boeing doesn't amke the engines they have separate companies do that and have 100's of sub-contractors for various tasks. This is evidence that there are limitations to economies of scale but large projects require lots of people and organization. I think it is wrong to assume that everything being done today is a result of the state. I think just our own reasoning tells us that much of what is created today is a result of what people want and in a free society many of these things would still be desired. For example, I like football and in a free society I would still want a 70,000 person stadium to watch the game and I don't think I would be alone in that desire so there would probably be stadiums in free societies too, and bridges and ships and all kinds of things. Big things usually require lots of people to build them.
Max, I think you may have hit on something here in your discussion of Boeing's project management. You note that it is laregly decentralized, uses 100's of subs, etc - that it requires 'lots of people and organization'. Suonds like a perfect fit for the most effective self-organizing system of all - the free market. I see no reason one would need a huge company like Boeing to accomplish this. You would need coordination, planning, etc to occur at the macro level, but that does not take a company of 150k or whatever they're at these days.
In other words, the process may look very much the same, but the actual 'connective tissue' if you will may be very different.
We have a mixed market economy - that indicates that there are free market mechanisms at work, though tightly constrained by State regs, etc. Those will remain. Only in place of the distortions and constraints, we'll see additional free market mechanisms, and extensions of existing ones. And there will no doubt be different constraints - ones that make SENSE from the perspective of the consumer rather than of the State. Think Underwriter's Laboratory, in lieu of OSHA.
So I do not think that 'everything being done today is a result of the state' - I think that the constraining of free market mechanisms results in outcomes which are major distortions due to the interference of the State at all levels. And that goes DEEP! It's hard to imagine how exactly business will operate in the absence of regulations and laws and government inspectors and government audits and so forth - but where useful purposes are being served, the market will deliver NON-govt inspectors and NON-govt audits, no doubt.
For example, you say "in a free society I would still want a 70,000 person stadium to watch the game" - well, if enough of your fellow citizens in a free society agreed with you, then I have no doubt the free market would provide. But that doesn't mean the stadium funding or construction process would resemble today's, does it? Of course not. And then again, if enough of your fellow citizens did not agree, then you may not get what you want. There are no guarantees that the things we enjoy today will still be with us in a free society, after all.
So I don't think we are in disagreement here except perhaps to the degree to which I believe the State has deeply, deeply, distorted the business ecosystem.
Maxliberty: Well, I was really asking not for myself but for other people in the counter-economy. Agorists are so secretive that its impossible to join anyway.
Yeah, I found some of that you-don't-have-a-secret-decoder-ring rhetoric in the other thread to be juvenile and silly.
That said, if I were entering into something where I was putting my liberty on the line, hell yeah, I'd be g*ddamned careful too!
As you have correctly noted, this makes it tremendously difficult to ascertain anything about the true level of agorist activity, or its efficacy. I don't know that there is a reasonable answer to this. I suspect that it's like anything else: you can't know how something is going to turn out, you can only do your best to diligently and objectively evaluate and extrapolate, and then take the action that seems to be called for based on your conclusions, and hope like hell it works. There is massive uncertainty in all directions at this point. Just gotta do what you think best for your circumstances and style, so you can look back on it from the other side and say, well, dammitall, I did *something* anyway. No guarantees.
BTW, for your Colony, I thought of another suggestion which I think may be huge. I'll post on that thread.
One thing that is not being addressed much is that Agorists concentrate on the creation of counter-economic capitial goods which will be used to produce consumer goods which are themselves counter-economic. Non-Agorist black marketeers do not, or at least not to any significant degree. Furthermore, the Agorists' concentration on commodity money - which is inherently counter-economic, is a feature which non-Agorist black markets lack entirely. And that is the focal point of the strategy in its early stages - freeing markets from state control by abandoning the state monetary system, with the taxes, regulations, and inflation that follow it.
Most people don't see the advantage of such activity at this point, but it will become more and more obvious in the very near future. Within two decades - if not much sooner - the entirety of the US budget will necessarily be going to welfare and SS payouts. The only way this can be paid for is with massive inflation or taxation, both of which create equally massive opportunities for black-market entrepreneurs. By recruiting libertarians to participate in Agorism, and black-marketeers to free-market ideas we can direct the inevitably emerging counter-economy toward the goal of liberty when the state falls, while simultaneously weakening the state through monetary (and eventually direct) competition.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: One thing that is not being addressed much is that Agorists concentrate on the creation of counter-economic capitial goods which will be used to produce consumer goods which are themselves counter-economic. Non-Agorist black marketeers do not, or at least not to any significant degree. Furthermore, the Agorists' concentration on commodity money - which is inherently counter-economic, is a feature which non-Agorist black markets lack entirely. And that is the focal point of the strategy in its early stages - freeing markets from state control by abandoning the state monetary system, with the taxes, regulations, and inflation that follow it. Most people don't see the advantage of such activity at this point, but it will become more and more obvious in the very near future. Within two decades - if not much sooner - the entirety of the US budget will necessarily be going to welfare and SS payouts. The only way this can be paid for is with massive inflation or taxation, both of which create equally massive opportunities for black-market entrepreneurs. By recruiting libertarians to participate in Agorism, and black-marketeers to free-market ideas we can direct the inevitably emerging counter-economy toward the goal of liberty when the state falls, while simultaneously weakening the state through monetary (and eventually direct) competition.
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.
BTW, the State will need to inflate quite a bit more than you might anticipate - and taxation will not cut it because even if you taxed everything at 100% you cuold not cover the needs. That's if you consider the *actual* (GAAP-based - including net present value for future entitlement spending) deficits, rather than listening to the deficit numbers the State puts out, which are BS. From shadowstats:
"The statements show that the federal government’s annual fiscal deficit, far from being officially in the low hundreds of billions of dollar — although 2008 numbers rapidly are moving towards the $500 billion mark — is careening wildly out of control, averaging $4.6 trillion dollars per year for the six years through 2007. The difference is in accounting for the net present value, and year-to-year changes in same, for unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities.
The government’s finances not only are out of control, but the actual deficit is not containable. Put into perspective, if the government were to raise taxes so as to seize 100% of all wages, salaries and corporate profits, it still would be showing an annual deficit using GAAP accounting on a consistent basis. In like manner, given current revenues, if it stopped spending every penny (including defense and homeland security) other than for Social Security and Medicare obligations, the government still would be showing an annual deficit.
The results summarized in the following table show the various deficit/debt/obligation measures. The official GAAP-based deficit, including the annual change in the net present value of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare is estimated at more than $4.0 trillion in 2007 versus $4.6 trillion in 2006. The 2007 estimate is based on a consistent year-to-year accounting basis.
Further, contrary to the suggestion of Treasury Secretary Paulson — aside from a weakening economic outlook discussed in the next section — if the annual deficit is beyond containment through standard fiscal actions, then the United States has no way to grow out of this shortfall."
Full article here.
I would think that this sort of thing would make it easier for counter-economics to prosper. Much like, in Zimbabwe, the black market - using the USD ironically - is flourishing. Problem is: we have no other medium of exchange to fall back on. Gold/silver would be problematic, especially since chances are, IMO, we'll see another Gold Confiscation Act (1933 deja vu all over again) once the SHtF. So yeah, I do see an opening here. Not sure what it would take to exploit that opportunity, but there is no question people will be looking for an alternative to carting wheelbarrows of USD's to the store for bread, and whoever can provide it will be in a good - if somewhat precarious - position.
In fact I guess I'd have to say at this point, I do not see the real potential of agorism being that it can - on its own - undermine the State as things stand. Rather, it seems to me that it can be used to position the agorists in such a way as to take advantage of opportunities like the one we're talking about, which is imminent as you say, no doubt. Interesting angle...
Maxliberty:So you are willing to forego my potential counter-economic ouput for the sake of spite is that it? Is the criteria for agorists to work with counter-economic actors that everyone has to be in agreement on agorism?
Nope, I'm willing to forego your potential output because you've given me no reason to assume you have anything to offer me. Honestly, I'm not sure why this would put you off, at all.
Also, I don't beat my wife. You could stop loading questions anytime, and it would make everyone's job here a little bit easier.
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.
Maxliberty:Big things usually require lots of people to build them.
Or a few really big people.
MacFall:Most people don't see the advantage of such activity at this point, but it will become more and more obvious in the very near future. Within two decades - if not much sooner - the entirety of the US budget will necessarily be going to welfare and SS payouts. The only way this can be paid for is with massive inflation or taxation, both of which create equally massive opportunities for black-market entrepreneurs. By recruiting libertarians to participate in Agorism, and black-marketeers to free-market ideas we can direct the inevitably emerging counter-economy toward the goal of liberty when the state falls, while simultaneously weakening the state through monetary (and eventually direct) competition.
Right. When the state collapses, even if this is largely due to its own internal contradictions and the bad policies of its leaders, the more people converted to libertarianism through agorism the better for building a libertarian society out of the ashes rather than another statist one.