Change the content of my position in order to conform to the contemporary meaning of the terms in statist public discourse? No.
What precisely are you suggesting?
I partially disagree. Agorism is the main strategy of libertarian philosophy. It is a significant portion of it. I don’t mean to imply that the other portion of it should be political libertarianism or reformism. I just see Agorism as an undeniably significant part of a broader strategy of civil disobedience and education.
In that case, why don’t you go around speaking old- or middle-English? I’ll tell you why: it’s confusing and misleading!
It’s confusing to use defunct words and defunct definitions of words, especially when a words’ new definition is the polar opposite of the original.
I should add: left-libertarian has several other meanings other than “a libertarian who doesn’t like it when other libertarians use the political process in self-defense”. For example, it also refers to leftists who like to say they lean libertarian.
A person who votes for “change” can still participate in the counter-economy. I’d certainly prefer that they didn’t vote at all, but I don’t try to predict whether the former indicates an inability to do the latter.
Generalizations are always fallacious. You didn’t qualify your statement with “most” until now.
I agree with this. However -
not necessarily this. Political action is, by definition, non-libertarian. But to advocate turning the state in upon itself is, while naiive in my belief, ethically neutral.
Agorism is certainly the most effective strategy of libertarian philosophy. But Agoric action does not define a libertarian.
I am a diabetic. I need insulin to live. Currently, there is no possible way for me to get insulin except by the state-approved means. Does that mean that I am not a libertarian? Or that I am not a libertarian to that extent? That’s what I mean by refusing to quantify a person’s devotion to liberty. A person who is not actively Agorist may be lazy, or they may be uninformed, or they may be completely enthusiastic and unable to participate.
Is a libertarian by belief any less of a true libertarian if they have never even heard of SEK3 and Agorism? I don’t think so. I maintain that as a strategy, Agorism is suboridinate to libertarianism as a philosophy.
What you are suggesting is the ostracism of dissenters, as far as I can see. In my estimation, that would be counterproductive at best.
Your article didn’t specifically mention any action other than the disassociation with and beratement of the reformists. And while I believe that they deserve a helping of that, I’d much rather set myself apart by example than by crying “heretic”. And for that matter, Agorism is all about leading by example - which is exactly the reason the Agora will prevail. To put it in vulgar terms, it won’t help to set ourselves up as an “in-group” while we yell “YOU ALL SUCK!” at everyone who is not yet ready to join us.
In the off-topic debate in another thread, Ego states:
As I have talked about before ad nauseum, your premises are incorrect. You assume that modern “rightists” are necessarily less statist than modern “leftists”, when the fact of the matter is that they grow the government just as much if not more when they control the helm. In recent years, they indeed have been more “leftist” (in your warped and sweeping definition) than the actual so-called “left”. George W. Bush makes Bill Clinton look like a “small government” guy in comparison! And I’d even go so far as to consider Carter more restrainful than “Ray Gun” (the damn Gipper!). Contemporary “rightists” are expansionist not only in terms of foreign policy but also domestic policy. Most often they are not substantively less statist than social democrats when it comes down to it. There is nothing particularly “easy to undo” about a massive military, police and surveillance apparatus and a corporate state.
The “leftist” Gabriel Kolko engaged in historical revisionism and political analysis in which he characterized FDR’s policies as fascist, not communist. He saw the New Deal as a policy of cartelization on the behalf of big buisiness. He retrospectively opposed the New Deal. Is Kolko therefore “anti-leftist” or a “rightist”? No. Actually, he’s a marxist! Some “leftists” oppose the state altogether (such as, well, pretty much the entire anarchist movement), and in comparison to such people it is actually the contemporary “right” that are the biggest statists around. The right is largely made up of a bunch of traditionalist goons, theocrats, militartists and corporate hacks who are more than willing to use the state to attempt to achieve their ends. The problem is with the political means themselves, not wether a so-called “leftist” or “rightist” uses them. “Rightists” are no less supportive of political means. The only difference between most “leftists” and “rightists” is a matter of what ends or preferences they wish to use political means in the name of achieving. Until you see this fundamental problem, you’ll continue to have a warped view how politics actually works.
Your characterization of “the left” is a package deal that destroys all nuances.
No, it doesn’t refer to state-socialists who think they are libertarians. It rather specifically refers to libertarian anarchists and possibly radical minarchists who don’t share the traits of and wish to disassociate themselves with the statist conservatives who have hijacked our movement. The only reason why a term such as “left-libertarian” exists in the first place is because “the right” has infiltrated libertarianism. If this was not the case, then the term would be a redundancy. Unfortunately, in the public eye libertarianism is largely just another brand of conservatism. Those who do not wish to be associated with conservatism have no choice but to disinguish themselves somehow.
Personally, I don’t wish to be lumped in with the likes of Neal Boortz or Milton Friedman.
Or at least to put them to sleep…
Max is right, some brevity is in order.
I’m becoming quite interested in agorism despite your histrionics. I can’t figure out if you’re playing up the part, trying to appeal to angry single young men attracted to cries of Comrade and the emotion of class warfare, or if you really talk this way to people, berating your family and neighbors for “ultimate corruption of the spirit”.
Either way, it’s sorta funny, in a “thieved and kicked to the ground” sorta way.
So…
Is there like an agorism money bomb or sign wave planned? [;)]
People like Mike Gravel are considered “left-libertarians”; it most certainly is used in that context.
I don’t consider Mike Gravel to be any kind of libertarian.
This is what “left-libertarianism” is supposed to signify: www.all-left.net
Anything from mutualism to individualist anarchism to late 60’s/early 70’s Rothbard.
How about traditional sales techniques? You know, explain the product, collect some testimonials etc.
Bob’s been an Agorist for 2 months, and he thinks it’s grrrrrr-reat!
Maybe an Agorist magazine, with “Ask Niccolo” and “Book Reviews by Brainpolice”. This month’s hottest black market tips!
Again, not trying to be rude, but does it really matter what you or I think about definitions? The Libertarian Party and its supporters have ruined and trashed the definition of “libertarian” to the point where people like Gravel and Boortz are seriously considered libertarian.
This entire discussion started when you said that I was implying that left-leaning libertarians (as opposed to libertarian-leaning leftists) aren’t really libertarians. I actually wasn’t implying that, and I should have mentioned that sooner! I was specifically talking about Jon in regards to his views on property and rights.
Something like that is tentatively in the works. The Smuggler’s Guide to the World will be a annualy-published almanac of dirty tricks, free time and spare bucks willing.
Sure they can, but can they help the libertarian cause - act in a libertarian way - by both actively promoting and assaulting the libertarian movement?
Also, voting itself is not really my main cause for concern. Of course it’s a waste of time, but only for about an hour every two years. The cause for concern is political action in general - that is taking resources away from the strength of libertarianism and then investing them in the state.
Oops, I didn’t mean to add “most.” All reformists are idiots, such is the definition of a reformist.
Generalizations are always fallacious, except for when they’re true by definition.
Ethics hasn’t a thing to do with it. It may be ethically neutral, but it isn’t libertarian.
Yes, yes it does.
Sigh… This sounds like an “Ego” argument. No. That doesn’t mean that you’re not libertarian.
A. There’s a difference between acting under state constraints and acting to promote state power and state authority - that is acting to promote the action of a state.
B. As Agorism is a phasal strategy, certain activities are not yet available on the counter-economy - or at least not to the extent applicable to the individual phase. This being the case then, the purchase of one item outside of its proper phase would be less than extremely productive itself.
A. One does not need to be totally informed about SEK3 or Agorism to act Agorically.
B. Not knowing the laws of libertarian action does not excuse acting counter to libertarian principles. One can be totally versed in libertarian theory, but if one does not act in a libertarian manner, it matters not for that person merely remains a man studying a philosophy that others practice.
You mischaracterize it by conflating “dissent” with counter-revolutionary activity. Counter-revolution is a form of dissent, but dissent is not always counter-revolutionary.
Counter-revolutionary activity is any activity that progressively demeans, demotes, destroys, and disqualifies the libertarian movement as a serious revolutionary process. These are not people that will not work in the counter-economy, and if they are, they are people that can neither be trusted nor should be brought further along for the revolution. They will sell you out for a Ron Paul the first chance they get.
Building your cell on reformists and Ron Paul occultists is like building your house on the sand closest to the waves during low tide. Now, I may not be a friend to many for being purist, but I do it regardless because I know it’s no use having friends you can’t trust.
Again, you mischaracterize the actual words in the article.
First, berating and beating back reformists is a central pillar of Agorism, see SEK3’s NLM (61-62).
This is the first phase of the Agorist revolution. We are in it, I am in it, it’s why I call for the beginning of the beginning of the New Libertarian Alliance as Konkin advises.
Second, Agorism is about leading by example, but it’s also about being successful and to do that all counter-productive and counter-revolutionary activity must be purged.
Yes, reading will make the stupid sleepy, or at least frustrated. Is that why you have to resort to attempts at sarcasm to substitute wit?
Libertarians don’t “lean left,” we are left.
No, we aren’t. Maybe, just maybe, you are correct if we use the original definition (but even that’s a bit of a stretch). Still, why would you stop there? “Left” didn’t always have a political usage, does that mean that the political usage is incorrect because it wasn’t the original definition?
To comment about voting: I’m not “supporting the state” if I speak out against the concept of democracy while casting a vote in self-defense against Obama. It just doesn’t follow.
Besides: revolutions (of all sorts) rarely turn out well; incrementalism has been king throughout history.
You are correct; you go wrong when you start claiming that voting in self-defense (especially while denouncing the concept of democracy and voting for less-statist candidates) promotes the state any more than denouncing Social Security while depositing the checks.
As has already been pointed out, you wouldn’t really be engaging in self-defense. I don’t see how voting for a politician constitutes self-defense. Surely you recognize that politicians don’t really defend people. You inevitably would not only be voting AGAINST Obama, but also FOR someone else, and that someone else would not represent “defense” with respect to (1) those who voted against your guy and (2) those who didn’t vote at all. There are 3rd parties or innocent bystanders of people that are effected. No matter who you vote for, their authority is illegitimate and they are an aggressor. Even if you wish to patronize such a person for “defense”, it is coercive with respect to everyone else who does not want to patronize that person. You can legitimately choose a leader for yourself, but not for anyone else.
In casting a vote for any politician, you are supporting their position of power by definition. That isn’t to say that you necessarily consent to whatever they do with that power, but the act of voting quite obviously enables their power. I don’t see how one can escape this. Voting is a mechanism for enabling certain people to hold positions of political power. The state depends on the existance of such positions of power within the institution. The act of choosing who will have such a position most certainly does enable the state. By voting for any politician you are actively participating in a process of power transfer to various individuals within the state apparatus. That’s quite simply what the democratic process does. It transfers power from one individual or group to another within the state apparatus. By definition, it enables and sustains the position of power itself and the particular individual’s control over the position.
The problem is not with incrementalism so much as pragmatism, that is, action that sacrifices a principle and is actually counterproductive to the desired end. Not an incremental step without abandoning principle, but a move that inherently negates the principle and does not lead to the desired end. The problem is with sacrificing a value in order to obtain another one when both values should be upheld. Pragmatism never leads to liberation, for it sacrifices the ultimate goal itself in the name of short-term gain to eleviate current conditions. Pragmatism is a low time preferance phenomenon. Since the pragmatist wants results now, they are willing to sacrifice a higher value that may require patience or vigilance in the name of achieving a lesser value now. It is actually the pragmatists who seek a get liberty quick scheme, while the rational revolutionary thinks more long-term.
The problem with the pragmatist is not incremental steps but steps that are counterproductive, steps that require one to actually give up some segment of their own goals and virtue. The pragmatist compromises with the uncompromisable. They allow the mediocre to become the enemy of the good. They settle for mediocrity and effectively give up on the long fight. They become a conservative in practise: too afraid to accept a signficant change to the point where they end up actually rejecting what was formerly their ultimate goal and reconciling themselves to the comfort that they can get in the short-term. Thus, they perpetuate the status quo in practise. They possess such a degree of pessemism that they aschew all foreword-looking and long-term thinking in the name of achieving comfort and stability in the short-term.