What is the difference between someone who conducts the exact same counter economic activity but without the philosphical ideology? How is the effect on the state different because the intent is different? How is that counter-economic activity different than what you are suggesting? How long do you expect agorism to be in phase 0 in America? Is Agorism in any other phase in any other place besides Phase 0? How many people do you estimate are needed in America to become agorists before the state ceases to exist?
Let’s get started with those questions. Any agorist is free to answer.
For one, it is not the exact same counter-economic activity.
Ventures are more than just capital and numbers. They include goals and objectives. SEK3 noticed this when he referred to previous examples of widespread black and grey markets in Soviet Russia. This brings you to the second reason, the ideology or philosophy of street entrepreneurs.
To a large extent, anyone within a country today will internalize the state to some degree. Black marketeers do not look at their activity as a way of living, but rather as simply making money to re-enter the “legitimate society” (what I call the pink market). The simple fact that most counter-economists are not Agorists does rest upon their internalization of the nation. The only way to fix that is to convert as many as possible, individual by individual luring them away by the incentive of profit and the applicable aesthetic of a free society.
Because it is a different kind of activity.
Doing counter-economic ventures for monetary profit only leads to monetary profit.
Doing counter-economic ventures for monetary profit and for an idea will lead to monetary profit and the promotion of that idea.
In some places Agorism is in a different phase. Where some live, it is entering phase 2, where others live it is nearing or ending phase 1.
It’s not people; it’s percentage of the aggregate markets, Jimmy.
I know a bunch of people who are engaged in ‘counter economic activity’ in their daily lives that if I asked would have a thought out justification for voting for St. Obama or McBush. Just because they are dodging taxes doesn’t mean they have no love for the state. They don’t want change, they just don’t want to pay their ‘fair share’ of the tax burden.
The agorists on the other hand want change so structure their counter economic activity based on this premise, in theory at least as I’m not sure of how much goes on in actual practice. To set up a counter economy requires a lot of people who are good at different tasks—the whole division of labor thing—hence it will require a lot of people to set up an agorist system.
If Nikky and his five friends are trying to establish an agorist system they will fail unless they are all self-sufficient yeomen farmers and even then they would have to go outside their little group to get things like medical care and other things that can’t be produced on a small scale by an individual.
So here you have your phase 0, trying to get enough people behind the idea to make it viable for a group to be self-sufficient with very limited outside trade that would tip off the authorities. As you need all kinds of people to enjoy a modern lifestyle this will take time, maybe generations, who knows.
I would also think that a side effect of getting a bunch of people behind agorism would be that others that don’t necessarily believe the state is inherently evil will see what they are doing and try to use the political process to right some of the wrongs that the agorists point out to them. Unintended consequences and all that. It’s not like the radical government the Founders set up in the States grew out of a vacuum, people were aware of the concepts far and wide before independence was declared. Even today common folk are starting to learn about libertarian ideals through the liberal media by the activites of Ron Paul and the pseudo-Libertarian Party who are both getting air time.
There’s your key right there, the ‘state’ will never wither away as long as there is a market demand for it. Prohibition doesn’t work, that has been proven time and time again, what is needed is to show people how the activities of the state can be performed by private companies and there you have agorism. You can’t depose an idea, you have to replace it with a viable substitute.
You want a libertarian campaign based on the War on Drugs or the Velvet Revolution?
Well, I don’t actually identify myself as an agorist nor do I really practice counter economics other than my habitual crimes against the state.
If you want to exist outside of the ‘legal’ economy they you would need to take measures to not be detected by the Tax Man so he doesn’t come knocking on your door and start asking how you can afford all these nice things that you own that are way out line with your detectable income.
Without the overhead of the State you don’t think you would have a higher relative income in comparison to your peers who do follow all the laws?
And I don’t mean setting up factories to produce products which can be bought quite cheaply on the market but having alternative ways to acquire these items without having to go through sources who will report your purchases to the authorities. Somewhere along the line the goods will have to disappear from under the eyes of the Watchers.
Once they start poking around the edges of your operation they can get a pretty good idea of what you’re up to unless you take care to not leave a paper trail with ‘honest’ businesses who will hand over their records in a heartbeat.
Unless you believe the State will die a quiet death that is.
I’ll take option C: the alternative markets will be strengthened by the fact that poor counter-economic actors will fall to the state’s police actions. The state will be horribly bad at stomping out the successful ones. It will not die a quiet death; it will end in a brief period of violent (but impotent) spasms.
Two farmers A and B grow their crops and take them to the local farmers market and sell them. Both farmers do not report their sales to the state and pay no taxes either on the transaction or the income. Which one is the agorist? Why does the activity of the agorist have a different impact on undermining the state than the other one?
If we are talking about actions then the same action has the same effect on the state. If I engage in activity that undermines the state then that activity has the same effect regardless of my intentions. For instance I may be interested in underming the state for a completely different reason than the agorist philosophy but my actions have the same effect. It is not logical to believe that one person engaging in identical activity as another will have completely different results based solely on what they think in their head. Refer to my farmers question. It may be true that an agorist may be more motivated to conduct counter-economic activity but this would be an increase in activity which would have a greater effect not because he thinks something.
Doing counter-economic activity for profit leads to profit. Promoting an idea leads to the promotion of an idea. These are two seperate activities. I do not increase my profit because I promote an idea nor does creating profit mean that the idea is promoted.
You really should read Machiavelli’s The Prince or some military strategy book. People with an ideology tend to fight harder and do better. This is just an observed fact that every strategist acknoweldges.
No, it doesn’t.
There are re-actions to the initial action. An Agorist will handle these re-actions differently than a counter-economist - for one example.
Well, with every philosopher and manager in the field of strategic management disagreeing with you, I’m going to take their word first.
In Machiavelli’s The Prince, Machiavelli notices that people in a military fighting for a goal do better than mercenaries or auxilaries. Why do you think this is? Many agree that it is because mercenaries and auxilaries are less likely to have emotional stakes in their activities. Emotions promote a higher standard of activity and a bigger advantage to people that want to profit. They go hand in hand, but again, go take a business class in strategic management.
Let’s just say no for the sake of whatever fallacy you have in mind…
This does bring up an interesting point though, there are countries that the State exists entirely off the revenue of nationalized industries which would seem to be a high hurdle for the agorists to overcome since their activities would in no way effect the income of the government.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia come to mind where they not only don’t tax the citizens but pay them a share of the oil revenue.
Most non-western government governments seem to derive their spoils from one or two key industries as they don’t have the means to enforce an income tax and it’s mostly the local officials who prey on the citizens to survive. Sure, you can starve the local bureaucrat with agorist activities but the main target, the central government, wouldn’t be hurt enough to care more than to use its resources to ensure the bureaucrat could do their job on behalf of them.
How do the agorists propose to overcome this problem?
Please explain on what it depends? This concept that there is a distinction between these two actions based on philosophy is at the heart of agorism and you seem unable to articulate it given a very simple example.
In fact you are completely wrong. Military strategy is not in any way dependent on the ideology of the soldiers. The correct military strategy is unchanged because of ideology. What you are talking about is the motivation of the soldiers. The motivation level of the soldiers does impact the effectiveness of the strategy but doesn’t effect what the correct strategy is. I choose to flank the enemy not because of my ideology but because it would be the best strategy. The execution of the strategy is affected by the motivation and the morale of the troops but it is a separate issue. Highly motivated troops are preferrable because they allow the commander to do more. However, poor strategy with highly motivated troops is still poor strategy.
In fact I have read the Prince and a variety of other military strategy books and have actually had practical application in military strategy and formal military strategy instruction.
Again, you are unable to respond to the simple farmer example I mentioned previously. Action is action, it is not based on what I am thinking in my head at the time. Again, you are confusing motivation with actions. In none of your examples do you explain how taking an identical action is more effective if you are thinking something in your head.
With regard to naming locations of agoric activity I was hoping for a city or perhaps a county in America not a street address. I think the real reason you can’t name a city or county in phase 2 agorism is because there isn’t one. How small of a geographic were you thinking of when I asked the question? What you and your next door neighbor? So what city or county has the greatest concentration of agorism and what has been the effect?
For the percentage of the aggregate market you are looking for greater than a 1/4 and less than a 1/3. In America that would mean you would need approximately 70 to 100 million agorists. What number are you at now, approximately, after 30 years of trying?
It depends on the context. Which one is an Agorist? Which one is merely a counter-economist? You do realize that ventures go much farther than just A trading for X, don’t you? How does A invest the capital made from X? How does that contrast to B? Who is a libertarian in the situation? It depends on a lot of things, your inability to see that is a direct example of your stupidity.
Why were the Irish Catholics capable of ousting the Crown from most of Ireland then?
Well, that’ll be scary for any Congressmen Ryans, won’t it?
No, action is not action and psychology is important. I suggest going back to your “formal military strategy classes,” Jimmy.
I’m unaware of an example, again, that would be incriminating.
It doesn’t matter how large the designation is. I’m not giving any information like that out to incriminate myself or others - think of it as you will, Mr. Jones.
Again, it’s share of the market, not amount of people.
As for the 30 years, it’s hardly been that long. SEK3 didn’t do the best job of expanding out anywhere from Long Beach after he wrote NLM. After the loss of MLL, Agorists have largely been sidetracked until the recent founding of ALL.
Nah, then they’ll have to admit that I’m right about the self-sufficiency part that the agorists ‘detest’.
If they purchase the government monopoly gasoline to fuel their economic engine then they are acting in a self defeating manner so they have to find a way to acquire it outside of the state run system which means self-sufficiency.
Now, once home brewed ethanol becomes viable from lawn clippings or solar powered cars then it’s an altogether different story but under a fossil fuel/nuclear powered economy it’s impossible to defeat the state through agorism.