All you are saying is that agorists will be more productive counter-economists than those without a similar belief. What you intentionally avoid is why the counter-economy person’s activities do not undermine the state while the agorists activities do undermine the state. According to your previous arguements and that of other agorists the counter-economy person’s activities do not undermine the state whereas the agorist activity does. This is why I specifically discussed one transaction versus another rather than comparing productivity.
However, let’s use your example. Which basically states, genreally speaking, that more motivated people will produce more in the counter-economy. This seems basic common sense and I would agree. So in any circumstance where one is motivated by greed, revenge or any other motivation that person may produce more than someone else not similarly motivated. So it seems quite possible and in fact is true that many people that are motivated solely by greed are producing at much higher rates in the counter-economy than the agorists. Clearly, greed is a greater motivator than agorism. So why does the production in the counter-economy motivated by greed not undermine the state?
In your final paragraph you argue that the counter-economy is essential to eliminating the government and yet you argue only the counter-economy of the agorists count toward this goal?
Does all counter-economy activity undermine the state?
I will state the questions again as simply as possible.
Does all counter-economic activity undermine the state?
If no, then why does only agorist counter-economic activity undermine the state? Please, provide a specific example limted to one transaction?
My arguement is simple. All counter-economic activity undermines the state. Any activity that the state would normally benefit from that it does not benefit from weakens the state. So growing the counter-economy would be the only logical goal of a strategy based on counter-economy. It is not relevant for the purposes of weakening the state what the motivation of the counter-economist is. In fact, most counter-economic activity is motivated primarily by greed and this motivation has shown itself highly effective in production output.
So for agorists to argue that non-agorist counter-economy activity does not undermine the state is not logical.
If we are in agreement that all counter-economy activity undermines the state then we can discuss why this doesn’t mean that the state will collapse.
I have asked specific reasonable questions and outlined my arguement again. The ball is now in your court.
I am glad you brought up examples of black markets undermining the state or even perhaps causing it’s downfall. You understand of course that this runs counter to agorist philosophy. This is in fact evidence that an ideology is not required in order for the counter-economic activity to destroy the state.
So my arguement that agorist activity is not different than general counter-economic activity is bolstered by your own examples.
See my post with Brainpolice for my questions and arguement.
I never said that ideology is necessary to overthrow the state. It is necessary for any significant chance of liberty afterwards, however, and Niccolo has already shown how ideology changes things while the market is still underground. If a number of un-directed counter-economists could help overthrow the second-largest state in history, a number of agorists would be that much more effective.
Yes, all counter-economic activity undermines the state. The difference with agoric counter-economic activity is that it is motivated by principle. Again, Niccolo has written about how ideology influences action several times above. I don’t think that anyone was arguing that non-agorist counter-economists undermine the state. Agorist counter-economy is certainly more effective at it, though, as agorists question the basic assumptions behind the state and are working actively to replace it, while non-ideological counter-economists are merely trying to make a profit.
As for the collapse of the state, are you trying to say that it is not inevitable? No, its not. It has happened before, though, and it can happen again. Agorist counter-economy is an improvement in that it builds alternative institutions that can replace the state, instead of another state taking over or emerging.
You are the first agorist to state that all counter-economic activity undermines the state. You state that agorist counter-economic is more effective at it…this is a theoretical statement as there is no demonstration that greed is not as significant of a motivation factor as political ideology. In fact if one were to look at all counter-economic activity the overwhelming bulk of it occurs outside the agorist philosophy. Agorists can not point to a single area in the world that would demonstrate a substantial increase in counter-economic activity as a result of agorism.
So if counter-economic activity is all that is required to eliminate the state then the only function that agorists serve is to help create alternate institutions to the state. Based on this premise we would expect to see in a non agorist counter-economy to have no institutions similar to what agorists would create otherwise you wouldn’t need agorists. How does this explain private security in the third world, tribal courts like in Afghanistan and a whole host of counter-economy type of institutions that would seem to be the perview of only the agorists? When States collapse we in fact see a variety of groups establishing various aspects of security and enforcement all without an ideological background.
So if all counter-economic activity counts would you agree with Niccolo that once this reaches a third of the economic output of a country then the state will collapse? There is pretty strong evidence and examples that this in fact is not true. If there are other reasons a state can survive beyond this then this would suggest that agorism can not claim to be able to replace the state.
If 1/3 of counter-economic activity were successful what percentage of this activity would need to be directed by agorists? If a third of economic output is in the counter-economy what percenteage of the population would you expect to be involved in the counter-economy and what percentage would have to be agorists?
When did I say that the counter-economists don’t undermine the state? I think you need to back track on that one. Counter-economists do undermine the state, just not to the same kind of effect.
You do realize that there can be different types of undermining by extent and flavor, right?
On the contrary, it was your example. Just thought I’d clear that up.
Greed is not a greater motivator than ideology. That is a commonly held, professional opinion in the world of tactics and warfare.
Freedom fighters fight harder than mercenaries even though mercenaries are paid a great deal more and have the chance to earn more money.
You really should read Machiavelli’s, The Prince. I’m a distant cousin of his, don’t you know?
Here is an excerpt,
Here is a simple illustration that I hope you finally get, for if not I give up on you and you are a true dolt.
Muslim freedom fighters often employ suicide bombers. Now, there are several factors that go into a suicide bombers decision, but none of them include profit. Mostly, the suicide bomber has filled his heart up with both pride and desire to see his side succeed and conversely enough hate for the enemy to destroy their bases and personel within his homeland. Now, as suicide is the ultimate testament to the level at which one is willing to give for a cause, it goes without saying that if this extreme level of self-sacrifice is not motivated by profit, but instead by ideology, ideology is quite clearly a better motivator than profit.
This is not to say that profit does not play a key role in things. I disagree with Machiavelli about the effectiveness of mercenaries - or at least to an extent. I see great use for mercenaries and with similar opponents they appear to really keep the peace as a mechanism for mutual destruction; however, I acknowledge that against a foe who is ideologically driven and not profit driven, he can’t win - in fact, he won’t stand a chance unless his weaponry is decades beyond his opponents, and even then it is a great challenge.
Your first question is incoherent.
For your second question, yes, all counter-economic activity undermines the state, it is merely that Agorists are more motivated because they are driven by both profit and the key ideology.
Ah yes, the libertarian courts of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sub-Sarahan Africa. I hear that their decisions often include quotes from The Ethics of Liberty.
Sorry about the sarcasm, but seriously now. The entire point of agorism is to establish a libertarian society. Not a tribal or feudal society, or another state, which is what happens when non-agorist counter-economists overthrow states.
Again, see Niccolo’s posts about ideology as a motivating factor. If you are going to continue to deny that ideology can be more important than greed, then we aren’t going to get anywhere in this discussion.
Even further back I pointed out how SEK3 already addressed the issue by pointing to the Soviet Union and it’s large black market that basically served as the economy for the average person, sans protection agencies that actively defend people from the government.
Jimmy doesn’t like to pay attention to that though. He only likes to make blind assertions without reading previous books. I hear the real Jim Jones didn’t like to read books either… Uncanny!
Now maybe libby will run to the rescue to suck Jimmy’s cocK out of a cute, spiting vengeance and hate for me, but to any person with an ounce of intelligence, it’s clear that Jimmy possesses almost no understanding about Agorism. That being said, I think we can safely put a fork in Jimmy and his “liberty colony.”
I mean, they already have a well, organized association for Jimmy’s kind. The central hub is located at 1010 Wayne Avenue, Suite 650 Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Nice, another Ad hom but you still have not answered ML’s question. You continue to dodge and evade.
Perhaps you think that by being vulgar you can score a point, or someone will back off, but you’re not getting out so easily. You’ve already displayed poor judgment and hypocrisy by planning to protest a political event, while claiming to be apolitical. Now you’re being questioned about this approach you adamantly (and ignorantly) defend, called Agorism, which as far as I can see, is only possible for you to endorse because Mommy and Daddy are paying the bills. Where are the middle age Agorists with a family to support? And why can’t you explain the difference between counter-economics and Agorism?
Not the difference in ideology, but consequence.
Just more Ad Homs and personal attacks. Still no answers. When will you abandon cowardice and act like the leader you pretend to be?
In the counter-economy what evidence do you have that agorist phiolosophy of establishing a free society is more powerful than greed? Let me quote from your hero SEK3
So the critical element is people’s natural instincts to pursue their own self-interest not an overriding philosophy. SEK3 specifically quotes the profit incentive as what moves society not some ideological purity. In this regard SEK3 is correct. Do you disagree with the founder of agorism?
So what are the specific goals that agorists are trying to accomplish? What is the role of the agorist? If people are predisposed to pursue their own self-interest as SEK3 and I believe then what is the purpose of an agorist? To spread the message? What is the message? If spreading the message is the key element in agorism then when do I become free under agorism?
It is good we all agree now that all counter-economic activity undermines the state. If that is the case then growing the counter-economy is all that matters, irregardless of the motivation of those involved in the counter-economy. So being an agorist for the purposes of undermining the state is not relevant.
It would seem to me the only purpose an agorist might have is promoting the counter-economy and understanding that counter-institutions need to be developed to create a framework for society when the state collapses. So if first the state has to collapse then we need to understand how much larger the counter-economy has to grow before the state collapses. Let’s use the US as an example. Niccolo stated that about 1/3 of the economy would need to be counter-economy for it to collapse. I don’t think that is true but let’s say it is. That would mean the counter-economy would need to be about 4 Trillion dollars. Current estimates from the Wall Street Journal suggest the US counter-economy is about 1 Trillion (notice how this 1 Trillion economy was created without any ideological incentive). So agorists need to create an additional 3 Trillion dollars of counter-economy. Let’s put this in perspective, if we roughly assume the productive output of a society is proportional to its population then agorists need to convince another 60-70 million people to participate in the US counter-economy. How far along are you?
Saw your charts. They are based on a false premise. That people with ideological motivation will do more.
If that was true, why are so many drug dealers living completely off the grid, protecting themselves with violence, while folks like you live off of Mom and Dad, and preach from your college?
Ideologically, the drug dealers are inferior. And yet again, where are the Agorists, who supposedly, based on your maths and false premise, have a higher motivation level?
Fail, fail, fail. Try again Nicky, I already warned you that this argument was lost by you a long time ago, you are only extending the endgame, and increasing how foolish your POV is.
Sigh… I’ve already showed you the more powerful factor.
Unless you want to attempt to argue with one of the most talented and influential tacticians in history, Machiavelli.
Sigh… There is no one critical element to the success of Agorism. What distinguishes Agorism from all other sub-societies is the use of counter-economics - though the ideology is there, the counter-economics is not - and what distinguishes Agorism from counter-economics is the ideology - though counter-economics utilizes the profit factor, the ideology is absent.
You’re really bad at this cognitive effort, aren’t you?
Overthrow the state. Agent of the counter-economy representing the libertarian creed. Agorists educate people about the libertarian creed; they serve as the most dedicated to the Agorist message, that being the utilization of the counter-economy to overthrow the state, something that the counter-economy does not possess by itself - unless you wish to argue that it does. The last question is incoherent.
You don’t possess a high reading comprehension level do you?
You’re selectivity precedes you.
In any case, no. Counter-economics does not necessitate the use of its means to achieve an ends. Agorism, however, does. This is the distinct difference, Jimmy.
Again, the counter-economy cannot swallow the state unless there is an ideology to do so.
Suppose the economy were 7/8 counter-economic. The fact that it is only 7/8 and not fully counter-economic shows that there is still a state. The purpose is to build an infrastructure to facilitate for the overthrow of the state. I used 1/3 as an arbitrary number because that seems like a likely scenario for which a effective enough protection syndicates would be capable of defending people from the state.
The rest of your math is fuzzy and assumes a perfect GINI coefficient. This is not surprising though, coming from an Arc child.
I don’t know how many Agorists are currently in action. Agorism, by nature, is to be decentralized - something cultists like you would not understand - so it would defeat the purpose to know how many, at what point, at what time, and all the other inconsequential tid-bits reminiscent of a census conducted by your local state - or colony, apparently.
Take it up with the top strategists in the world. Start with Machiavelli.
Then answer to my example of the suicide bomber.
What? Ummm… Yeah, without being incriminating, I’ll let you in on a little secret. Most drug dealers do not live “completely off the gird.” I wish! But we don’t.
I live off of my family, of which I am a member. We’re an association. I’m sorry yours is not as successful.Trouble in the home? Is your woman sneaking off at night, tired of bacon and ready for some steak? That’s sad.
Are you or have you ever been involved in the drug trade? If not, how would you know?
I’ll give you an inside scoop, for the record. Most entrepreneurs in illegal goods have not heard of Agorism, but when they do, they are the most - or second most - receptive to it.
It’s getting the word out about Agorism that must occur.
You still haven’t answered me about how one “loses an internet argument.”
Jump back on Jimmy’s dick, now. He did take both man and woman before mixing that koolaid, y’know?
Agorism forks perfectly with your belief in the Catholic Church then. Believe in what you cannot see, cannot prove, cannot quantify etc.
Which begs the question, are you the cult leader, or is ML? What he’s talking about is a very transparent and open source plan. What you are talking about is continuing to dodge and evade, hide in the shadows, refuse to give direct answers, refuse to account for progress, refuse to offer a timetable or s structured plan, refuse to collaborate with other Agorists etc.
I don’t know how anyone reading this, and your comments, as their first introduction to Agorism, can possibly buy into what a load of malarkey it is.
As per my previous example, drug dealers may or may not have any interest in a free market society, but they do understand the profit motive, and actively disobey, disrupt and resist the state to accomplish their ideologically neutral objectives.
Meanwhile your so-called ideologically committed Agorists don’t actively and openly resist the state to conduct their counter-economic activity, which begs the question, does ideology defeat profit? Or in other words, is capitalism superior to all other ideologies?
I hate to break it to the leftists, but that may be so.
@ML, you might want to consider adding a profit motive to the LC. I bet with the right angle, you could increase participation and/or interest exponentially.
Sure, I’ve got a copy of the Prince right here. You do realize that he wrote it for the Medicis, as a guide to rulership, but that it is ideologically negative, or that it’s highest ideology is the acquisition and maintenance of power. I don’t see how Machiavelli is relevant in the least. Explain further.
I missed it. That’s a likely consequence of your Ad Homs. I do a lot of skim reading, because your posts are fluffed with insults and personal attacks, not relevant information.
I assume you are using the commitment of a suicide bomber to illustrate the power of ideology? If that is the case,
Why haven’t you been arrested or blown yourself up yet?
What about the ideological commitment of the occupier, to squeeze harder on the suicide bombers? One suicide bombing rarely if ever ends the occupation.
You’re not a drug dealer. You have a leather jacket and you wear gloves. Please don’t play gangster, it’s laughable. I don’t think you would last 2 minutes at a chapter house of one of the major bike gangs in North America.
This is funny. You own up to being a parasite, then you try to make a personal attack. I’m not like you, in my 20s and still living off of Mom and Dad. I have no backup plan, I can’t beg Mom for money, or ask Dad to buy me a present. Those boats were burned long ago, there is no going back. Unlike you, I live a degree of financial independence, which makes your rants and claims to leadership all the more laughable.
Do I use or sell drugs? No. Have I lived and worked with people who have? Yes. How I would know, is this thing called life experience. Where you get out in the world, you live on your own, and you suffer or gain by the consequences of your decisions. There is no running back to Mommy to bail you out. You sink and swim and learn to survive. One day, this honour will be preserved for you.
I’ll give you an inside scoop. Real people who have to make real money to pay for real bills that support their own lives and the lives of those they care about, don’t buy a lot of BS from a kid who lives off his parents, ok?
People who conduct business which is not profitable, go bust. Entrepreneurs go where profit is, not where ideology is. Dreamers who have never had a full time job, or had to feed, clothe or house someone else with their labour don’t get this.
I think you are providing a sterling example of how to look foolish and talk about things you know nothing about, and in that regard you have lost.
The inevitable personal attack. SighThe issue is, ML and I are defeating you intellectually, with sound arguments, and all you can do is resort to gay baiting and vulgar sexual references. This is where your childish and immature side manifests itself. You have never had to earn anything, so you don’t understand how to win an argumnent, and the frustration boils over into these Ad Homs and vulgar references.
So then the counter-economy doesn’t matter if all that is required is for people to stop sanctioning the state. Which is it Niccolo, either the counter-economy undermines the state or is it the spread of agorist philosophy? I can tell by your other posts that you apparently disagree with other agorists about what the role of the counter-economy is?
If the requirement of agorist success is now for people to abandon the state then what percentage of the people in the U.S. do you think you need? These questions keep coming up because you constantly are forced to change your arguement as each previous arguement is shown to flawed. Where are all the other agorists rushing to your defense…after all they are supposed to be the most motivated right?
So there is no number as far as achieving the agorist reality. Usually when people want to reach a goal they establish quantifiable results to measure progress. Are agorists serious about achieving this?
What percentage of people have to believe this ideology or do you expect 100% compliance?
So let’s use a military analogy since you are the expert military tactician. You do not know the strength of your own numbers, you have no organization, no pre-determined goal, you do not know where the battle is nor when it will take place and the fact that you do not have this information you deem as inconsequential…I wonder what Machiavelli would say.
Liberty thanks for the input. I have tried to add some profit options by investing in various projects within the Colony but perhaps I should emphasize that more or make it less of SDK directed venture and more strictly investment opportunities.
Did you have anything in particualar in mind? I am actively looking for some additional investors to create an online gold currency. Would you or anybody you know be interested?
I’m a Catholic of Roman descent, libby. Not a Roman Catholic.
I’m not refusing to collaborate with other Agorists or to give any information - in a secure location. This is not a secure location, ergo, I’m not going to do it. As for who teh cult leader is. Yes, anyone that plans to move a group of people, not to mention forcing them to pay, to one compound in the middle of nowhere - presumably - is a cult leader.
An Agorist cannot be an Agorist unless he is conducting counter-economic activity.
Aw… Is this the result of your home problems, Libby? I think it’s cute.