By being able not to buy this service or to buy it from a competitor who provide cheaper and/or better service?
What better way to met the people’s expectations is there than that?
Yes, I think you’re right. That being said, the US also chooses to tax through inflation. European states do too, but I’m willing to bet the US does so on a far worse scale. This is a tax. and should not be neglected.
-Jon
An interesting point and a compelling one at that. But I see it as this; the State is undoubtedly corrupt, and it may prey on the week and innocent, but it also preys on the week and guilty. Where would all the criminals be if there was no State? Running amok in the streets? Since anarchy is opposed to State-sanctioned murder (i.e capital punishment), then surely it must also oppose incarceration, as they are both actions against the will of another human being. Granted, most criminals have themselves performed (mis)deeds against the will of another human being, so they might deserve their punishment. But this quickly turns into circular logic when this is added to the equation; who punishes the criminals? And who shall see to it so that it is done “correctly”?
I don’t really understand what you mean here.
If I deem myself too selfish to give to charity, and I decide that a third party take money from me to give to this charity, where is the problem in that? Granted of course, that I indeed WANT to give to charity (whether it be by direct or indirect means). If I have misunderstood you, please clarify.
Words like oligopoly and monopoly spring to mind. But that is not my main concern.
How can you trust a health care provider that has the sole intent of making money? What if ALL the health care providers were greedy bastards? How would you deal with that?
A couple of fun quotes on this:
«It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.» (Adam Smith)
«The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system.» (Milton Friedman)
(I actually wanted to find a Friedman’s quote where he says something to the effect that “if someone enters your life because he wants to serve you be very afraid”. – For some reason nobody doubts the motivations of the state.)
Anyway, I would never trust a doctor who says he operates people for free because he loves them. I want someone worried about their reputation, that will get fired and go back to assistance if he makes a mistake. A for-profit hospital will be much more alert to negligence, even if they are all friends, than some outside government official.
John Stossel did a report on greed – which you may find in youtube – where he founds out that a for-profit beach/pool safeguard organization has much better trained and numbers than the several charity safeguard organizations in the area. The owner did research and invented technics for training which were much more sophisticated than the competitors. He would even spy on the safeguards and fire them if he found them they weren’t perfectly concentrated. All to get more contracts and more money. 
By the way, interesting experiment you mentioned there with money. It could very well be true, but I hope you understand that experiment is nothing close to conclusive, much less that greed conclusion of yours. There should have been a group there testing if the matter was one of attention. They should have some poster of a woman or something to have the subjects thinking on something else, because this could very well be a case of diversion.
As soon as a monopoly begin to abuse its consumers, people will search for and create alternatives. A monopoly can’t last without the help of the State to prevent competitor from entering a market. But that’s not the point.
You can be greedy and do a great job. Your sole intent may be making money, but if you do a bad job, people will go elsewhere. So you try to do the best. Unlike governmental health care employes who know that anyway people will pay for what they do, no matter how well or bad they do.
So it’s not greedy capitalist that I fear, it’s bureaucrats who have no incentives whatsoever to do a good job. Just check the fact, private sectors are always more efficient that public one to produce goods or services.
Frankly, the title doesn’t make such sense, since Agorism is not a model for a society to begin with. It’s a strategy for transitioning to a stateless society. I suppose one could say that it’s “an under-society within a society”, but in either case it’s not an end in and of itself but a means to an end. The OP really has nothing to do with Agorism specifically, so I think that there’s some confusion here.
As for Maxliberty’s comment, in conjunction with what I just stated, it makes no sense and seems like an unsubstantiated low blow that he likes to repeat over and over again. “But it just won’t work!”. Yea, it won’t work only to the extent that people like you take precisely such an attitude to begin with, since you don’t have the courage or will to take a meaningful risk. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
The state takes care of the guilty? Maybe, but the problem is that it’s the state that define who is guilty and who isn’t. As it is now we reward those that are guilty of being able to deceive and cheat us best with the presidency. In the market those that can best please the needs of others rise to the top, in politics the best liars and cheaters and those that will discriminate against some in favour of others rise to the top. If we got rid of the state the most dangerous criminals would be taken care of.
As for criminals running amok, these two articles deal with that problem quite nicely.
Who punishes them? The victim or their agents. No “circular logic” involved.
The problem is that you want to force everyone into it. This is odd indeed - why have someone force you to give, voluntarily? I mean, that renders a State utterly useless. Everyone who wants to give, will give, and those who think they’re too “selfish” and approve of someone forcing them to give, can include this in their contract with their PDA. Bizarre.
I’d smite them with a big hammer!
[8-)]
How can you trust a political institution the only concern of which is to garner votes and increase its budget, and that furthermore monopolizes the provision of the service in question? On a market, one is impelled to provide for the consumer out of fear that they may patronize their competitor instead, or simply not consume, or consume alternatives. Greed is a non-issue.
-Jon
Your right the title doesn’t make much sense. Agorism as I understand it has no chance of achieving it’s goal in your lifetime, especially in the U.S. If you were to suggest trying to create these counter-economic institutions in an area more suitable I might understand your strategy. In that vein the Liberty Colony is frankly the agorist dream. A small free society in the midst of relatively unregulated groups who have no real affection for the government where economic activity is largely already part of the underground economy. Of course, that assumes you actually want to create a free society or are you solely interested in an intellectual discussion?
The LC being the Agorist “dream” is a bit dependant on whether or not a said Agorist would think re-location into a supposedly more-free land would be valid towards Agorism, which obviously is not the case entirley with many here. I see no problem in calling it an interesting experiment though that might be an opportunity for Agorists / those interested, but it’s a bit much claiming that it’s tailor fit, especially when there are equally valid criticisms against such a venture being too vauge in some areas of it’s details.
Your repeated point that Agorists are somehow not for bringing about a free society by remaining in their current location, & not either showing interest in your LC venture, is intellectually disingenuous & ignores the basis for creating a parallel economy that supplements the existing ills of The State in the short term, with the aim of replacing the State in the long term. Perhaps I should get a crystal ball as well.
It’s also a bit obvious and redundant to accuse those of simply being for an intellectual discussion on a forum. Or shall we all have to show each other our papers in order to prove that we do “x” and “y” offline, instead of “just talking about it” online?
Criticism aside, I see no harm in your venture (I wish the best of luck & will watch it with an interested eye as it develops), so please do not think I am attacking the LC itself; I am however opposed to the various argument’s you use against Agorists.
The criticism of agorism is how can you possibly think that strategy will work to accomplish your goal. The criticism is based on whether the agorist approach can actually be implemented to produce the desired result. Even if we take out the fact that most people are not actually doing anything, agorism strategically seems to have no leg to stand on.
Whether or not something will work or not is relevant to the theoretical discussion of something. Agorism depends far too much on convincing the masses to pursue the strategy.
Agorism as an individual pursuit of greater freedom, fine, as a coherent strategy for the defeat of the state, I don’t think so.
I have yet to have a single person anywhere explain exactly how agorism will accomplish it’s goal in real practical terms. Its all well in fine to hypothesize in fantasy land but out there in the real world where the undergound can be dangerous and the enemy has real guns and real power whether you like it or not your strategy must account for how it will deal with these issues. I just do not see that in any discussion of agorism.
It is impossible to control other peoples actions, at any time. Any strategy for liberty must involve oneself taking personal responsibility for one’s life and well-being. The only way a free society can ever happen is when a large number of specific individuals, for whatever reason, do the same. So long as people think and act in terms of ‘mass movements’ they’re going to kind of miss the point. You can never rely on the actions of other people to make you free, and even if insurrection against the state on a personal level will not defeat the state now (or ever), it is still the most rational approach. All paralell institutions are is ignoring the state rules whenever you can get away with it. And there is a mass movement of people who do this, even if not for any conscious reason other than making money selling contraband.
Why would you advocate compulsory charity if you are selfish. Most people are good natured and would give in absence of taxes if taxes for the poor previously existed. The greedy people know this, so they would be socially vilified for not giving.
It is sort of like " if I go down I am taking you with me kind of thing ". You are imposing your will of guilt upon others to feel relief. You do not trust yourself, so you get others to insure that you do the objective you doubt your self-trust in.
How this relates to the State, is that anyone that can not trust themselves in the first place, can never trust anyone else. So in order for society to function among people with no trust ( because you project your insecurities on other people ) people must be forced to do everything. This leads to what I believe is Statism:
The advocation of coercion in the realm of human relationships based on the distrust of rationality in all individuals and groups
Why would you advocate compulsory charity if you are selfish. Most people are good natured and would give in absence of taxes if taxes for the poor previously existed. The greedy people know this, so they would be socially vilified for not giving.
I somewhat disagree with your predictions about society. I think a lot of people really don’t care if you give money to crippled housewives who have been beaten, as long as you’re not beating and crippling housewives. I certainly wouldn’t. I actually an fairly anti-pathic towards almost all institutions that call themselves ‘charity’, especially religious ones. In any society there is going to be a plurality of values and standards and in a free society people are going to manifest these differences.
I was talking about the U.S. Most people have been brainwashed into wasting their on charity, when the most greedy people actually run them. I agree with you on ‘charity’. Nothing is more deceptive than a NON-PROFIT organization.
I was talking about the U.S.
Ah, I see. I would expect that mutual aid societies would fill many of the niches which state-subsidized or controlled agencies exist today, since they do in fact insure against real accidents or understadable mistakes and do not have the same behavioural hazards as charity.
I agree. Some studies seem far too confined to the realms of theory and don’t seem to hold water very well in practice. I am a skeptic by nature though so it’s not like I believe everything I read.
You are right. Sorry for being uneducated 
Thanks for clarifying, I actually didn’t know. Proves how much I know about politics. Anyways, what I really meant then, is “a functioning stateless society (which may or may not have been rendered stateless via agoristic means)”. Does that make sense?
Ouch. As a non-conformist, non-traditionalist radical, that hurt
I suppose I may be some sort of a coward, but that is just because I simply cannot imagine stateless welfare.
I just want to be sure that there would be functioning alternatives in a non-state society. Since I’m socialised into statism it’s quite hard for me to think outside that particular box (some people like yourselves may have had it much easier doing this, obviously). It is not because I do not WANT a stateless society.
I am an individualist in every sense of the word but perhaps not “completely”. I need very compelling arguments if I am to abandon the opinion that we must all help each other, through some form of welfare system. Once that part is taken care of, I will embrace anarchy in a heartbeat.
Good point, and thank you for the links.
Fair enough. I hadn’t thought it through quite enough.
I do not. I was trying to understand Andrew’s point. It was just a scenario.
Could you elaborate on this?
There is no need to abandon your opinion of helping one another though - only that we must not use violence to achieve it.
If so many people believe in the welfare of others, then logically speaking there should be no problem for them to contribute to those in need directly (or via a group of competing charities for example), especially given that half their paycheque is not stolen in a free society.
Was there ever a society one could deem an “agorist” society. I now mean in terms of conditions.
To create a free society it must have a geographic territory that can be defended. If you are living in territory controlled by a state then you can not really be free. The structure must be created in order for the masses to be willing to join it.