A two-stage strategy for freedom

Economics Political Theory
1

The two-stage path to freedom

Let me begin by establishing the definition of a state. A state is a territorial monopolist on ultimate jurisdiction and arbitration and its enforcement. The definition of freedom is having the choice of appeal in the event of a conflict. The problem posed is how to transition from a state to freedom without the state’s cooperation.

A state, from having a monopoly on law, can increase its power by further monopolizing all force and more importantly the production of security. Once that is accomplished and its subjects completely defenseless to object further, more monopolies are established, such as on land, cities and roads, education, health, the environment and so on.

While it is worthwile to object to the latter monopolies, attacking them does not in any sense weaken the state, for they are only the benefits of the state’s power and not its power base. In order to achieve freedom, the power base itself must be attacked.

While we may attempt to resist the monopoly directly by openly defying the state’s law, that does not challenge the monopolist position unless we can ourselves credibly act as a judge and arbitrator over disputes. In order for a market for law and order to appear, we must create the supply. But in order to create this supply, we must first be able to produce and supply security.

And so a strategy for freedom would involve first, in defiance of government monopolies and in parralel to mafia operations, selling protection to those individuals who have been left victimized by the state’s monopoly and neglect. These individuals would then transfer their loyalty to us, and would be likely to come to us for arbitration in case of a conflict.

Once a sufficient number of individuals are willing to protect us from the state’s reprisal, we will then have the strength to challenge the monopoly on law, come out of obscurity and openly defy the state’s legislation. Should the state be unable to stop us at this stage, a market for law would be established, and this having been done, the state would have no choice but to surrender the rest of its monopolies in an orderly manner.

The question we therefore face is, what kind of organization allows us to produce security against the state’s will?

2

There are three methods I can think of.

  1. Stealth. You avoid detection. You only trade with people you trust and who agree to respect your privacy.

  2. Bribe State employees to ignore you. Many drug dealers do this. If the cost of bribing State employees is less than taxes owed, then this is profitable. Plus, resources are funneled away from the State and to individuals who are friendly towards you.

  3. Direct violent confrontation. This isn’t feasible in the present, due to the State’s superior resources. By the time this becomes a viable option, the State will have already lost. For example, the State demands you pay property taxes. You refuse. They raid your property to kick you off AND LOSE THE CONFRONTATION. That isn’t feasible in the present.

Some combination of stealth and bribery seems optimal. Remember that the State is an abstract fictional entity. You real enemy is the front-line State enforcers who attempt to detect and suppress your economic activity. They should be evaded or bribed.

How will an underground economy enforce justice? Initially, the counter-economy will lack police and jails. The power of ostracism should not be underestimated. If you cheat your trading partners, you’ll rapidly find yourself unable to do anything. In a free market, trust is important.

3

I’m not sure if your proposal is any different than standard agorism but with a more warlike “mafioso” leaning; meaning a stronger emphasis on protection agencies than smuggling, tax evasion etc.

4

I think Mises, although for sure no agorist or anything near that (see Rothbards remarks on him here : http://mises.org/daily/2968) , came up with a pretty well founded explanation on the question of power and might. http://mises.org/humanaction/chap8sec6.asp

Given he is right, which I think he is, the way to go is ideology. It is ideas and idealsl that make men develop their goals, and thereby determine the bulk of their actions. fsk is certainly right about his “tactics” for survival in an statist society, - I wouldn’t call it methods though :slight_smile: -.

Yet, the issue is, that such actions do not get us any further toward our ultimate goal, living in a society that is based on the inalienable right of each man to posses himself and on a legal system , that logically and strictly derives its rules from this very single principle.

It is not enough to know ones own “ideology” but to educate the fellow men about it.

Only after men knows he is free and understands the implications, will he consider to make that way of thinking his. Every human being that has choosen that way is a powerful additional seedfalling on the fields of freedom, because he will not only live by himself in this new conciousness but also his whole behavior will refelct his creed and his children have a good chance to incorporate his creed as well.

5

I agree with this approach, and it seems rather similar to agorism. A mixture of educating individuals and spreading the correct ideas, as well as promoting secession and non-state markets is the way to go.

-Jon

6

The problem with the agorist approach is that it does not challenge the state’s “core” monopoly, only its secondary monopolies, and thus cannot weaken the state.

7

Suppose that every man knows about the virtue of freedom because we have won the battle of ideas. The state still exists. There is still a class of exploiters that benefits from the state and will not give it up.

8

The State’s core monopoly (violence) derives from its secondary monopolies.

Suppose the State loses its monetary monopoly, due to agorists using sound money. Suppose the State loses the ability to collect taxes. Suppose the dollar collapses in hyperinflation.

How is the State going to pay its policemen? It’s one thing to hire thugs to terrorize people for a paycheck. It’s another thing when that paycheck bounces.

Once there’s an established free market economy, it’s too hard to shut it down. A free market is decentralized. There’s no leader to arrest or assassinate.

Has the crackdown on P2P filesharing eliminated filesharing? No. The filesharers are using cleverer and cleverer tactics. If the ISPs block BitTorrent, then people will start using encrypted BitTorrent.

9

They will invent new taxes. On foreign trade, on land, on property, whatever. They will sell monopolies. If they can get away with it, they will.

10

What would happen if there were 1 million anarchists living in north america?

11

Nothing unless those 1 million anarchists did something.

12

Hmm. Good insight. I didn’t think of that.

Perhaps the question could be better put as “What could 1 million anarchists do?”

13

All the approaches people suggest aren’t mutually exclusive.

They could move to the same area and vote for a less intrusive government. This is the “Free state project”.

They could move to the same area and form a self-sufficient community, strong enough to repel State-sponsored invaders/police.

They could work towards a free market where they live right now, which is the agorist solution.

I prefer agorism. However, I’m not saying that you’re barred from trying other things. I’m just saying that other approaches are less likely to succeed.

If you could get a true libertarian candidate on the ballot, I’d probably vote for him. I’m not waiting for that to happen.

14

If we live in a world of scarcity, then yes they are mutually exclusive. If we expend our energy fighting the monopoly on money, that is less energy we can use to fight the monopoly on law and force.

15

That’s exactly wrong. If you fight the monetary monopoly, your savings aren’t stolen via inflation. This means you have more resources to fight the violence monopoly.

The correct agorist question is “Can you fight the monetary monopoly and show a profit at the same time?” My answer is “yes”, via gold/silver/FRN barter networks and off-the-books banking businesses.

16

Not sure if I am answering this the way you intended, but I would say here are several organizations that come to mind for me.

Class A - Direct

  1. Insurance companies

  2. Home Owners associations

Class B - Indirect

  1. Liberty markets

  2. Educational organizations including but not limited to, book clubs, Mises Circles, community outreach

Class C - Independent

  1. Commodity warehousing
17

Right, but than those exploiters face a huge crowd of people that understand they are exploited. Which means they do not have any ideological support anymore. At that time, there will be enough public support to overthrow them. The main issue today seems to be that people have incongruent beliefs about the world that support the lofty claims of those in power. For example think of the global warming issue. From a rational point of view, the whole thing is a very much unsettled science with more and more evidence, emerging almost every day, that support the view that it is a non-issue. Yet, people are scared to death, because they incorporated the belief system, that global warming is not only happening (which is correct and hopefully stays true for some time) but that it is a catastrophy for all mankind (which is far from being the case). Only by such held believes, those in power can gain support for their schemes. Educated people concious about their ability to evaluate those fishy claims would never be willing to buy in to such a drastic fear mongering.

I for example was impressed by Al Gores movie, but because I was impressed I wanted to learn more, understand the issue better, and, sure enough, found out that it was not solid science at all but mere propaganda.

Bottom line, before can overcome an excisting belief system, you have to build up another one and convince others to share that view. Until you reach that goal, you are a guerilla force, at best -even though I do not like that martial terminology for this purpose-, that must struggle to survive until it has common support.

And for this small group, FSK’s tacticts are a good way to survive in an hostile environment.

18

I agree. Given your approach works it is in fact a way. If it doesn’t work, at least the drection is right. So searching in this direction to find a working process is the way to go, from my point of view.

19

The problem with challenging the “core” monopoly is that it scares people and leaves the state in a better position to conjure up hobgoblins, real and imaginary, as an excuse for the conversion of additional social power to state power. Agorism is a guerrilla strategy that has much more of a chance for the population to join, or at least be sympathetic to. The general populace will be very scared, and very hostile to anyone besides the state who uses violence. However, the more they see the state using violence against peaceful citizens (agorists and others) the more their believe in the state’s legitimacy will be shattered and they’ll be tempted to aid and abet the state’s enemies.

20

In the late nineteenth century, some anarchists adopted the tactic of assassinating State employees. All that accomplished was that it created sympathy for the State.

If you’re trading peacefully as an agorist, now it’s easier to portray the State as the bad guys, when they use violence to stop you.

For resolving disputes among agorists, the power of ostracism should not be underestimated. If you’re banned from the community, that’s a pretty severe penalty. In a free market, trust and reputation are very important.