Agorism activity

[Anonymous_Coward]

@Niccolò

They’re twins.

Oh, yeah, that clears it all up.

I now declare you champion of the agorism debate, please take a bow.

[gplauche]

Here’s an interesting article.

Two recent news stories added important evidence to issues raised in my columns. The first concerns a Fourth Generation war taking place on America’s doorstep, that between the Mexican state and drug gangs. The July 14 Financial Times, one of the world’s best newspapers, reported that the head of Mexico’s intelligence agency

Told a small group of foreign media recently: “Drug traffickers have become the principal threat because they are trying to take over the power of the state.”

Mr. Valdes said the gangs…had co-opted many members of local police forces, the judiciary, and government entities….

Those efforts, he said, could now also be targeting federal institutions such as Congress itself. “Congress is not exempt…we do not rule out the possibility that drug money is involved in the campaigns of some legislators,” Mr. Valdes said.

The news here is not the “possibility” that some Mexican legislators are on drug traffickers’ payrolls. The news is that a prominent Mexican official, one whose position gives him a good look at what is going on, was willing to go public about the threat to the state itself. The fact that he took that risk suggests the cancer is far advanced. For intelligence officers, going public is usually an act of desperation.

From the perspective of 4GW theory, it is beginning to look as if the drug traffickers/Hezbollah model may be more sophisticated and more successful than the al Qaeda model. Al Qaeda seemingly is on the ropes in Iraq, not because of the “surge” but because of its own blunders. To at least some extent those blunders proceed from its strategy, which faces the state with a life-or-death struggle. In contrast, all Hezbollah and the Mexican drug gangs demand is a deal with the state: we’ll leave you alone if you leave us alone. The state’s real sovereignty bleeds away, but the structures remain, allowing the politicians to do what they want, i.e. continue to line their own pockets.

The Lebanese state recently cut a deal with Hamas along exactly these lines, and the Mexican state will have to do the same at some point. The Financial Times reports that under the Merida Initiative, the U.S. will give Mexico $400 million this year for counter-narcotics operations, but the Mexican state is already too deeply suborned to use such aid effectively. Mexican politicians, cops, and military officers will happily accept the U.S. money with their right hands while their left hands take the drug gangs’ payoffs. If the Mexican state wants to restore order, it will have to offer the gangs a “live and let live” deal.

The other story moves from tragedy to farce. It seems Iraq’s pretend Prime Minister, Mr. al-Maliki, gave an interview to Der Spiegel in which he said Obama’s timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq is about the right one. Not surprisingly, the Bush White House went ballistic. I suspect Iraqi officials had not heard the f-word used so many times in one sentence since they last had to pass a roadblock manned by Marine lance corporals.

Here the Bush administration is hoist on its own petard. On the one hand, it wants “democracy” in Iraq. On the other hand, it wants to keep U.S. troops there indefinitely, using Iraq as a base from which the U.S. can dominate the region. But the Iraqi people want the American troops to go home, so “democracy” leads to an American withdrawal at Iraq’s demand. Squaring that circle would take a Bismarck, and Miss Rice isn’t even a Holstein.

Poor Mr. al-Maliki, whose only goal is survival, is left twisting in the wind, an awkward position for a marionette. He remains dependent upon American support, without which he would be either an exile or dead in 48 hours. But he must also grasp at such shreds of legitimacy as he can, which requires setting a date by which the Americans will leave. The two requirements contradict each other fatally. Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr, whose demand for an American withdrawal is unambiguous, follows Iraq’s “government” like Captain Hook’s crocodile. I suspect that if he survives, he will in time enjoy his dinner.

One man could cut the knot and free both Iraq and America from its entanglements. Were Ayatollah Sistani to say what Mr. Maliki said, that Obama’s timetable for withdrawal is about right, no one could gainsay him. The Shiite Iraqi government dare not contradict him, nor could George W. Bush (or John McCain) without risking all-out war between American troops in Iraq and the Shiites. For the sake of both countries, let’s hope he is listening.

[liberty_student]

I read that. But what is unanswered in the context of this discussion, is what the drug dealers want to take over the government for.

Do they want power? Liberty? Profit? Are they trying to use their influence to wield the state as a shield in front of their competitors?

It would be very interesting, if we could gain insight into the motivations of the “lobbyists”.

[Niccolo]

@Anonymous Coward

@Niccolò

They’re twins.

Oh, yeah, that clears it all up.

I now declare you champion of the agorism debate, please take a bow.

You do realize that twins tend to be homogenous in genetics and environment, right?

I will not give names - obviously - but I will tell you that not only is the one more productive, but he actually takes care of the other. What could be the reason here? Their experiences and genetics are largely the same, so could it be some other factor?

[Niccolo]

@Stranger

Well he’s back for this round and stronger than ever, which means your agorism was pointless.

Because the wealthiest man in Italia took advantage of the teetering government while it almost collapsed on itself for the third time in 50 years?

Oh, ok. [8-)]

[Niccolo]

@JimJones

See you are discussing levels of productivity again. The first transaction of selling something is the same for both and has the same effect on the state. The follow-on transaction is a separate transaction. Your example still does not say that the counter-economic actor would not do the same follow-on transaction as your agorist friend.

Again, it’s not my example, it’s yours. Quit trying to dump your failed analogy on me.

First, activity is, again, not singular. One transaction leads to the next and focusing on only one is largely unfruitful. Why would you do that?

Second, the counter-economic is guaranteed not to do the same activities because his incentives are different.

Incentives are a part of production, different elements in production equate to different outcomes.

@JimJones

If one wanted to increase one’s profits which as you argue is the sole function of the counter-economic actor then they could just as easily re-invest their profits into further counter-economic activity, which is what happens all the time. You still have not shown why your agorist ideology creates a different effect let alone a superior effect than profit incentive. You have not demonstrated that an agorist will do things that the counter-economist will not.

Yes, I have. Need I bring back the charts?

If A possesses different incentives, a different effect will occur in his production.

Your example assumed homogenity in everything except for incentives.

A possessed more incentives than B. A having a higher incentive, all things remaining equal, his effects are superior. The fact that you cannot grasp logic is not my fault.

Never heard a man speak like this man before
Never heard a man speak like this man before
All the days of my life ever since I’ve been born
Never heard a man speak like this man before

Never heard a man speak like this man before
Never heard a man speak like this man before
All the days of my life ever since I’ve been born
Never heard a man speak like this man before

@JimJones

By your definition the counter-economist takes action based on pure profit. What evidence is there that counter-economists are required to take their money and leave.

Because this is one of the defining differences between counter-economists and Agorists. Agorists embrace the free-market as a virtue and an honest way of surviving; counter-economists merely embrace it as a way of surviving. Why do so many women go into prostitution in order to feed their children? It is not because they embrace the concepts that women ought to possess the right to sell their bodies. If they made enough money, let’s say, they would choose to go back to school and re-enter the pink economy.

Many dope slingers are the same.

@JimJones

Most counter-economists re-invest at least some portion of their profits back into their business which is what most businesses do in general. This is the natural self-interest that I think drives people. People engage in counter-economic activity to make money, and having made money they usually desire more so they grow the business. No agorist ideology required.

Back to my charts,

@Niccolò

No, Jimmy, I have explained the difference. The difference is the vested interest and the derivatives that come from it. I will express it to you with your farmer example - you messed it up, by the way. I now have to fix it for you.

Suppose farmer A is an Agorist and farmer B is merely a counter-economist. Suppose A and B are homogenous workers in every way except for their vested interests. They are of equal physical ability, equal intelligence, equal past, equal everything, sans the ideology.

Let X then represent their collective production of counter-economic goods.

Letting X represent the production of counter-economics, let Y represent the production of all markets, and let Z represent only the production within the pink economy. This will figure out so that,

Now pay attention to X1 and X2. Suppose that X is made up of two variables. Let those variables be vested interests and everything else, represented by V and C respectively.

Suppose that A possesses a higher vested interest than B. This is a safe assumption, as we have detailed their homogenity in everything except for ideology. If ideology influences ones interests, facilitating that one is more likely to give one’s all for that ideology, then it would follow that the vested interests for one with ideology is higher than it is for one who hasn’t.

Understanding this, we can detail an algebraic equation:

Call this result the Agorist Mentality Effect, or (AME).

Now, observe the change in A’s production with time. It is an example of exponential growth. Let P be interchangeable with X so the P1 = X1. Let t represent time. Let x represent the production and let y represent the positive growth factor. Let the positive growth factor for A be larger than the positive growth factor for B - this principle will derive from A’s added incentive and thus increase efficacy. Use numbers to illustrate the increased efficacy of A to B. Let them be arbitrary.

Arbitrarily let x1 = 2, x2 = 1, y1 = 3, y2 = 2, t = 10.

Assuming that B produces 1 widget on his widget farm and A produces 2 - deriving from the employment of the Equation of Production - and assuming that with each round B doubles his production while A triples his - again deriving from previous axioms, namely AME - we come to this conclusion:

Employing algebra to express the nature by which Agorists (A) produces in comparison to B’s production, it becomes clear that by adding time to the equation and looking at the example through the two dimensional examples given by Jimmy, we can see that the physical production of the Agorist ends alone are enough to increase the time by which the revolution will overtake the pink economy if the pink economy possesses even less V than X2 and X1.

This, however, is not all there is to Agorism. It just makes up the arithmetic of the counter-economy’s progression over the pink economy. Furthermore, just having an arithmetic advantage over the pink economy is not enough. There must also be a progressive movement towards literally overthrowing the government. Possessing a counter-economy is important and without it no revolution will end in real success, but it is not the entire story.

You’ll see that the re-investment of the counter-economist is accounted for, and all things remaining equal, it pales in comparison to the effect brought about by the Agorist. Why? Because the factors involved in their equations of production differ which is painted in AME.

@JimJones

Nope, I used the complete quote the first time I talked about people being motivated by profit/self interest.

No you didn’t.

[Maxliberty]

@Niccolò

Again, it’s not my example, it’s yours. Quit trying to dump your failed analogy on me.

First, activity is, again, not singular. One transaction leads to the next and focusing on only one is largely unfruitful. Why would you do that?

Well, your wrong again. My example was designed for you to illustrate the effects of agorism. Your response is that agorist are more productive by some exponential factor. All of your math is based on this assumption. You have absolutely no evidence that the underlying assumption is correct. In fact all the evidence demonstrates the exact opposite. The very reason people enter the black market is self-interest not agorist ideology. Your false assumption is that agorists are more motivated than the generic counter-economists. You offer no proof of this and can not provide a single real world example.

It is simple logic that every dollar of counter-economic activity has the same effect on undermining the state. The state is not effected differently based on the ideology of the counter-economic actor. More counter-economic activity results in a weaker state. You argue without any evidence that agorists produce more counter-economic activity than other agorists. Even if this was true, it would have the same impact on the state as a more numerous but less productive group of counter-economists.

Agorism and agorists like yourself can not address this very simple logic. This is why agorism is not logically consistent because to recognize this fact undermines the whole agorist agenda.

[banned]

@Maxliberty

It is simple logic that every dollar of counter-economic activity has the same effect on undermining the state.

That’s a very flawed statement, but it’s fundamentally untrue. Each dollar of counter-economic activity would have the POTENTIAL to have the same effect on the state. Because that dollar can be reinvested into state controlled markets and the state can make a profit off of the result of the original transaction.

For instance. I pay you $1 for an apple. and you go buy merchandise off a state controlled market which ends up being $1 after taxes. the state has taken 40-50% of what I gave you. That means that in the end our counter-economic activity did not result in the state not gaining money, because you decided to reinvest in the statist market.

@Maxliberty

The state is not effected differently based on the ideology of the counter-economic actor.

Yes it is, because if the ideology of the counter-ecoonomist is to spend as little as possible on state controlled entities and ideally none, the effect will be much more potent than if the market actor doesn’t mind paying their taxes and fueling the state.

[Stranger]

@banned

Yes it is, because if the ideology of the counter-ecoonomist is to spend as little as possible on state controlled entities and ideally none, the effect will be much more potent than if the market actor doesn’t mind paying their taxes and fueling the state.

He isn’t comparing law-abiding good citizens to agorists. He is comparing gangbangers to agorists. Why doesn’t the mafia’s ideology undermine the state, considering 100% of their income is counter-economic?

[Maxliberty]

@banned

@Maxliberty

It is simple logic that every dollar of counter-economic activity has the same effect on undermining the state.

That’s a very flawed statement, but it’s fundamentally untrue. Each dollar of counter-economic activity would have the POTENTIAL to have the same effect on the state. Because that dollar can be reinvested into state controlled markets and the state can make a profit off of the result of the original transaction.

For instance. I pay you $1 for an apple. and you go buy merchandise off a state controlled market which ends up being $1 after taxes. the state has taken 40-50% of what I gave you. That means that in the end our counter-economic activity did not result in the state not gaining money, because you decided to reinvest in the statist market.

@Maxliberty

The state is not effected differently based on the ideology of the counter-economic actor.

Yes it is, because if the ideology of the counter-ecoonomist is to spend as little as possible on state controlled entities and ideally none, the effect will be much more potent than if the market actor doesn’t mind paying their taxes and fueling the state.

As ususal the agorist can not address the issue with logic. If the counter-economist and the agorist conduct the same transactions then the effect on the state is the same. You keep wanting to say that the agorist is conducting more transactions so it has a greater effect. Your assumption that the counter-economist is not capable of conducting the same transactions for other motivations is just simply false and you can not provide a single example where the agorist will conduct an economic activity that the counter-economist will not.

All of your examples about agorists re-investing in the counter-economy already occur with regular counter-economic activity without any agorist ideology at all. My logic still stands. Try and provide one example of what you are saying and explain why no counter-economist would ever conduct the same activity without agorist ideology. I won’t hold my breath.

[banned]

@Stranger

Why doesn’t the mafia’s ideology undermine the state, considering 100% of their income is counter-economic?

You mean “Why doesn’t the Mafia’s counter-economic activity…”? Their ideology isn’t nessesarily directed towards undermining the state. Anyways, reguardless of whether or not 100% of their income is counter-economic, 100% of their consumption (or close to it) would also need to be counter-economic to have the same effect as an agorist.

[liberty_student]

I think it is clear what he meant. That you and Nick have spent pages of this thread evading answering the most basic of questions is sad.

You lost the argument over a week ago, and still insist on playing it out in a game of semantics.

I find it funny, because I usually root for the underdog, that so many people treated ML poorly for his Liberty Colony project, and ironically it is he who has exposed Agorism (and it’s attendant acolytes) to be without merit.

Bad news boys. You might have to do more than trade tomatoes for pot, or brewing your own beer in order to overthrow the state. You might have to give up a “normal” life in academe or industry and actually take risks confronting the state head on. That is, if you aren’t a hypocrite.

[Maxliberty]

@banned

@Stranger

Why doesn’t the mafia’s ideology undermine the state, considering 100% of their income is counter-economic?

You mean “Why doesn’t the Mafia’s counter-economic activity…”? Their ideology isn’t nessesarily directed towards undermining the state. Anyways, reguardless of whether or not 100% of their income is counter-economic, 100% of their consumption (or close to it) would also need to be counter-economic to have the same effect as an agorist.

Classic agorist logic. unable to respond you now create a new arguement. It is now 100% consumption in the counter-economy that matters. So if a person produces 100% in the counter-economy and consumes 100% in the counter-economy and does so not because he is an agorist but solely because he views it in his own personal interest then he is performing the same activity as an agorist without the ideology and having the same effect…right? Also, if we can find counter-economists producing and consuming more in the counter-economy than agorists are then that would also indicate that agorists are not more motivated than counter-economists. You and niccolo both claim to be practicing agorists. What % of your production and your consumption is in the counter-economy? There are lots of poor subsistence farmers here in Costa Rica whose production is 100% in the counter-economy and whose consumption is probably 90 to 100% in the counter-economy as well. This is of course is not by choice as they would prefer to have more money but there activity is consistent with what you claim would be the overwhelming effects of agorism.

So I have real examples of activity that is either equal too or more productive than agorists without the ideology. I think we have reached the final nail in the coffin of agorism.

I think one of the issues that is apparent in the discussion of agorism is the lack of real world experience of many theoretical agorists. The agorists who have the enthusiasm for the idea lack the experience to validate the theory. The older agorists with more experience realize the flaws in the strategy but like the intellectual cover it provides them for doing very little or nothing.

In truth your thinking Banned and Niccolo is further along than mine at your age in terms of understanding the immorality of government. I am sure in time you will recognize the flaws in agorism as I have demonstrated them here.

[Stranger]

@banned

@Stranger

Why doesn’t the mafia’s ideology undermine the state, considering 100% of their income is counter-economic?

You mean “Why doesn’t the Mafia’s counter-economic activity…”? Their ideology isn’t nessesarily directed towards undermining the state. Anyways, reguardless of whether or not 100% of their income is counter-economic, 100% of their consumption (or close to it) would also need to be counter-economic to have the same effect as an agorist.

So what you’re saying is that agorists remove themselves entirely from the world economy and the division of labor? How do you, I dunno, not starve?

[liberty_student]

I don’t think proposing the diminishing of the division of labour is an effective tactic for the creation of a mass movement. That said, I believe Agorists have “phase theory” which is incrementalism, where you withdraw from the state slowly, not wholly all at once.

[Stranger]

Okay, so here’s an honest question for agorists. At some point in the incremental plan, you are going to have to produce your own security, or at least purchase it from other agorists. How are you going to protect yourself from the state’s response?

[banned]

@Maxliberty

As ususal the agorist can not address the issue with logic.

1. I’m not an agorist. I intend to be one, but I am not currently engaged in agorist activities.

2. I thought Ad Hom was a logical fallacy. Interesting you’d make this statement.

@Maxliberty

You keep wanting to say that the agorist is conducting more transactions so it has a greater effect.

Nope, care to re-read?

@Maxliberty

Your assumption that the counter-economist is not capable of conducting the same transactions for other motivations is just simply false and you can not provide a single example where the agorist will conduct an economic activity that the counter-economist will not.

I did not say they are not capable. I said they are less likely. Counter-economists who are not dissuaded from using the state controlled market are more likely to use it than those who are (agorists). Stop straw manning and actually read what I have written.

@Maxliberty

All of your examples about agorists re-investing in the counter-economy already occur with regular counter-economic activity without any agorist ideology at all. My logic still stands.

Oh really? So you’d have me believe that the Pimps and the drug dealers and the Gangs in my town aren’t spending their profits on material interests they have in the state controlled market? They aren’t buying fancy cars or expensive jewlery? Yeah, your logic is standing strong.

[banned]

@Maxliberty

Classic agorist logic. unable to respond you now create a new arguement. It is now 100% consumption in the counter-economy that matters.

No, It’s been a common theme of my few posts in this thread, sorry if I didn’t get the message accross. And no, 100% consumption is not the soul consern. It is A concern.

@Maxliberty

So if a person produces 100% in the counter-economy and consumes 100% in the counter-economy and does so not because he is an agorist but solely because he views it in his own personal interest then he is performing the same activity as an agorist without the ideology and having the same effect…right?

Mathematically speaking, yes.

@Maxliberty

Also, if we can find counter-economists producing and consuming more in the counter-economy than agorists are then that would also indicate that agorists are not more motivated than counter-economists.

Nope. I do not see how level of production is an indication of motivation as production relies on a multitude of other factors as well.

@Maxliberty

You and niccolo both claim to be practicing agorists.

I don’t.

@Maxliberty

There are lots of poor subsistence farmers here in Costa Rica whose production is 100% in the counter-economy and whose consumption is probably 90 to 100% in the counter-economy as well. This is of course is not by choice as they would prefer to have more money but there activity is consistent with what you claim would be the overwhelming effects of agorism.

You’ve just revealed that if given more wealth, those same people would become actors in the state market, which only further exemplafies why agorism is not the same as counter-economics.

[ozzy43]

Well, I made it to page 3 and then could not go on once I ran into this:

“I don’t need to justify myself to him. He’s a nobody. He’s got what? 4 promised members for his colony now? Including himself? There’s no quarantee any of them will actually move to the colony. And what does he think a little island community of 200 people, even a few thousand, is going to be able to do against all the tyrannical governments in the world? What’s going to happen? Is the rest of the world supposed to see how well liberty works in this one tiny island community and suddenly convert en masse?”

That right there is the problem - to an outsider, y’all seem so enmeshed in your own private visions of what the future of liberty has to look like that you have completely lost sight of the big picture. One group has an idea to advance liberty, and another group has another idea to advance liberty, neither is proven yet, and so the sniping begins. What the f**k is wrong with you? I’d be overjoyed to hear that the Liberty Colony got off the ground and was thriving (IMO, Ecuador should be on the possibles list), and I’d be equally ecstatic to learn simultaneously that agorism was having some measurable impact in progressing toward its stated goal of undermining the State via counter-economic activity!

What do you think liberty is, some sort of zero sum game? Hesus Aitch Christos…it’s no wonder libertarianism hasn’t been able to make any headway for so many years. Same old sh*t, different decade.

The good news is, come the socio-political and technological collapse due to peak oil, you’ll all have a chance to put your plans to the test. At least, the ones still standing after the chaos. I’ll tell ya one thing: buncha guys in some island somewhere or tucked away in a country nobody gives a sh*t about are gonna have a much better chance for survival and long term success that those who stick around in the epicenter that will be America. Just one man’s opinion…

I also have to say, as I understood Niccolo to put it, the micro and macro pieces of agorism are going to ineluctably collide. Call it my dim view of human nature, but whenever it comes down to a choice between turning a profit OR undermining the State, the former’s gonna win out most of the time, except among the true believers, perhaps. History’s pretty clear on this, IMO. As a basis, it’s seems a pretty sketchy one to me.

Let the flames begin…

[liberty_student]

Great post. Shouldn’t be flamed IMO.

Unfortunately, when arriving upon this fourm, one is presented with two attitudes. The first is that anarchy is the only rational philosophy and second that Agorism is the only way to achieve liberty.

I have come to accept the former, but the latter is completely flawed. Unfortunately, the radicalized kids are convinced that Liberty is a zero sum game. If you’re compromising in any fashion (like working for liberty through political channels or opportunity) then it is not only doomed to fail, but you are a failure as a libertarian for doing so.

You’re right, we should all be hoping that Agorism can work, and that a Liberty Colony could thrive and survive to a point that it can not be easily removed from the map. For whatever warts the Liberty Colony has, Agorism to me does not seem to be a well thought out or rational strategy. Deep down, I was hoping to get inspired, but both of the main respondents in this thread are teenagers, neither of whom seem to have economic independence yet.