Agorism opposes political libertarianism. Engaging in the political process, from an agorist perspective, is not an example of libertarians practising what they preach. It’s counterproductive and contradictary to what they preach. You still don’t seem to understand this.
Right. Which is dominated by political libertarians, who talk about liberty but make no moves whatsoever to civilly disobey. This is what is meant by a lack of action, I.E. not doing anything at all in one’s personal life to resist the state. You still don’t seem to understand this.
Not really. The spin is entirely your own, as you disingenously attempted to use an Agorist quote to argue against Agorists.
Irrelevant. You’re once again avoiding the discussion. He specifically wrote “library libertarians”, and made mention of people who do not do what they preach. There was no reference to politics whatsoever.
Art of the dodge.
Again, you’re attempting to conflate political libertarians with library libertarians. By their very definition, political libertarians are involved in the political process, and not in the library. You come across as someone who might be a library libertarian, a master of theory, but it’s questionable what your level of action is.
I practice Agorism, my issue isn’t with Agorists per se and you know that.
I do however have an issue with “library libertarians”. Maybe that is why you are manufacturing interpretations, positions and defenses so vehemently.
Well, I want you to know, I imagine you probably are a library libertarian, but I don’t hold it against you. Do as I say, not as I do is a problem at least as old as the NLM.
You’re misinterpreting it favorably towards your own worldview. I don’t think you understand what you attack, or what you’re cherrypicking. From an Agorist perspective, libertarians who participate in the political process are not practising what they preach, they’re contradicting it. You don’t seem to understand this.
What I would like you to do, is to post that you believe that SEK3 meant “political libertarians” when he wrote “library libertarians”.
I’m taking library libertarians, and SEK3’s further definition precisely as written. No where do I see any mention of politics, political action etc in that statement. I see him criticizing libertarians of words and not deeds. It’s not my worldview, but I do think it directly attacks yours, which might be why you are arguing against what is plainly written so vehemently.
I get it. You’d be wise to drop a dishonest position.
What evidence is there that there are practicing agorists? What evidence is there that any of this widespread agorist activity that you say is going on has had any effect? The absence of something is usually considered reasonable evidence that something isn’t there.
You have repeatedly failed to answer any question regarding the effectiveness of agorism.
One reason people aren’t more active in agorism is that nobody can answer a basic question about it.
How can it be misinterperted, it is a direct quote from the NLM. It is very straightforward referencing people who only talk and don’t do anything. A little too close to home I suppose.
If you say your fighting the good fight and that you have sacrificed then fine. The real question is, is it working? If it’s not working which by your own experiences seems to born out, then maybe you should admit it’s not working. If you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging.
Agorists apparently can only answer questions with questions. Are you not trying to convince people to become agorists? If you can not point to some agorist activity somewhere that is having the desired effect how do you expect to convince someone to join the cause?
What have you done or someone else has done that has worked?
Yes please explain in practical detail the difference between an agorist and a counter-economist because the only difference I see is the phiosophical intent.
Yes, I have read about agorism and I think I have summarized it fairly well. Why are you unwillinging to debate the subject? I am just asking basic questions about the strategic philosophy you think will bring about worldwide freedom.
I am not attempting to convince people to become Agorists at this moment, no.
Agorism entails two parts, a macro and a micro. Individually, on a micro level, the incentive is to profit. Generally, on a macro level, the idea is to contribute to the libertarian movement by undermining the state, thereby helping others to undermine the state until it is so demystified that it possesses no legs tos tand on.
What do you mean by worked?
You don’t see ideology as an integral part of strategy… I haven’t heard that one before from even the most basic of strategists.
See, I don’t think you have and I think you lie when you say you have. You may think you’ve summarized it, but it is painfully apparent to me that you haven’t the slightest clue as to what you’re talking about - the fact that you hold no strategic regard for ideology is evident of that.
I don’t think is it at all, although I can’t speak for ML’s motivations, just my perception. I think it’s a cop out to point at the liberty colony.
Reality is, I have no colony plans, and I’m not looking for anyone to do anything with me, and I can’t get straight answers or responses from people who use Agorism as an answer to every difficult question.
It’s sorta funny. All these people gushing about Agorism, and then when someone asks straighforward questions, crickets, strawmen or Ad homs.
So you advocate a course of action that requires the involvement of others and yet you are not trying to get others to join. Clearly, by your own definition your current strategy can not possibly succeed.
Agorism has two parts, macro and micro. On a micro level the incentive is profit. By this definition all counter-economic activity is by your own definition agorist since individuals are engaged in counter economic activity for profit. At this point ideology is irrelevant because the vast majority of people engaged in the micro level agorist activity have no idea what the agorist philosophy is.
At the macro level you say the goal is to essentially spread the message and use the counter-economic activity to undermine the institutions of the state. So any counter-economic activity that undermines the institutions of the state should qualify as agorist activity whether ones intention is to undermine the state or not, as long as one is actually undermining the state. Once, again no ideology is needed to perform this function and large counter-economic activity often undermines parts of state activity without any specific intent of doing so. Is there something I have left out?
What do I mean by has worked? What have you or others done that has undermined the State that has had a visible effect on the State? Isn’t that the purpose of agorism?
No. I’m just not doing it at the moment. I’m not a 24/7 recruiter.
What are you talking about?
It’s fairly clear what I’ve said. There is a distinguishment between counter-economics and Agorism. The goal is to make all counter-economists Agorists thereby putting an ideology behind their actions. Again, if you do not feel that ideology is important, consult any military strategist, I’m sure they’ll yell it into you.
That would be self-incrimination. I’m not so stupid as to incriminate myself over an open line.