IMO the state can be compatible with freedom if it loses its coercive elements. I think this is theoretically possible via a system of voluntary taxation supplemented by the government participation in some markets (as an equal participant). It’s within this framework that I think it valuable to get an Austrian into the presidency (plus, ideally, a large proponents of Austrians into congress, perhaps emulating Newt’s Contract with America coup).
Also, it seems to me that agorism is somewhat coercive, in that it advocates physical conflict between its private enforcers and the state. IMO any physical conflict must resolve itself as coercion enforced by the winner on the loser and must therefore be discarded on ethical grounds (i.e. the ends doesn’t justify the means). However, I should note that I’m unfamiliar with agorism so perhaps this has been addressed.
I should add that, as a strictly tactical matter, I see no conflict with agorism’s ends and temporarily achieving a political position for the sole purpose of eliminating an opponent’s tactical advantage (in this case, the “magic checkbook”). That is, getting a President to eliminate the Fed would seem to me to be a strategic necessity before an agorist counter-economy has any hope of out-competing the state-sanctioned economy.
I’ll respond to the other posts in a bit, but this is nearly exactly my position. We don’t need to get rid of the state, we just need to make sure it doesn’t steal. [:)]
At which point it would cease to be a state and become a voluntary private protection or arbitration organization. Take away the territorial monopoly and the power to tax and it basically is no longer a state, as those are the fundamental keystones of state power.
Voluntary taxation is a contradiction in terms. If it’s truly voluntary than it is nothing but donations, gifts and market prices.
If it’s literally a part of the market itself, it no longer is a state and we have market anarchism.
Well that’s not the framework we’d be working with. We’d be working with an institution with a coercive territorial monopoly - a state.
I don’t recall ever reading any Agorist literature that advocates initiating force. But if the state decided to initiate force against private groups, then by all means Agorists support the liberty of the private groups to engage in defense against the aggressor. As does libertarian theory in general.
I’ve never been a proponent of the idea that the ends justify the means. But I think you’re using the term coercion in too general of a sense. Libertarianism does not oppose all force regaurdless of context. It opposes the initiation of force. Thus, by all means, self-defense is fine.
The agorist’s ends is ultimately for government to be absorbed by the market itself. By definition, this cannot be done by diverting resources away from the market in order to persue the political process and by joining the very organization you’re supposed to be abolishing. The point is essentially to outcompete the state. You don’t do that by joining the ranks of the state, you do it externally through separate independant organizations.
Well this entire discussion is rather strange then, because you’re viewing things from a minarchist perspective when the context of agorism is from an anarchist perspective. This isn’t supposed to be a minarchist vs. anarchist debate. The assumed ultimate goal here is the elimination of the state, not the taming of the beast to a hypothetical nightwatchman role.
As soon as the state ceases to initiate force, it also ceases to exist as a state. Hence, minarchism by default must advocate at least some sort of coercion, otherwise the state you advocate is just a private firm competing with others. So I think you’re misrepresenting minarchism.
I’m not the one who called myself a miniarchist; Brainpolice did. My point is that our ideas are much more acceptable if framed as “we want keep our government, just make sure it doesn’t initiate force” than “we are anarchsits, we don’t want government”.
Then you are a counter-revolutionary; you should be black balled from the movement.
You’ve admitted to being a counter-revolutionary, so you are not apart of us, and we are no allies of you.
Sure it does.
Compromise just means combining differences to reach a mutual conclusion. Anarchists and Statists cannot do this, however, for the very fact that they are sworn enemies and as long as one reigns the other cannot deal with it but by blood.
It doesn’t matter what compromises you want. A compromise is a compromise, it is no less evil.
Voting isn’t the only variable in the political process. In itself, voting means nothing. It is the time, effort, and resources that are wasted in politics.
The question is a loaded one for that reason.
Still, I would not. I would prefer to see a bullet in his brain.
Karl Hess openly refused to pay taxes; he was a well known celebrity for it. Still, however, the general sympathies were on his side. People possess a natural persuasion towards laissez-faire. Similar to the situation in the Middle East. If the United States did not expand its empire in that area, there would be general peace amongst the different nations - despite the fringes that disagree distinctly with the American model.
The purpose of Agorism is to create a counter-economy (encompassing a counter-society). As the state grows and becomes more forceful, more people become resentful of it. This is analogous to your silly draft objection.
Maxpot, you’re just bringing up the Randian idea of the “state” now - stripped of its power to tax, a State is nothing but a private territorial monopolist of force. Take that away too, and you have market anarchism.
As for opposing it violently being coercive, the state is the aggressor here. It is self-defence. Do I honestly care for those statists who get their just dessert? No. They had no problem imposing their rule on innocents. This is not coercion. This is corrective justice.
Why thank you for become the collective voice for libertarians (seeing as now I’m apparently not one)! I’m sure they appreciate it.
If I may liberally use bold text: It is counter-productive and silly to oppose reforms that reduce the state’s power in the name of eliminating the state’s power.
You view this as a game. It’s not. Real people are being robbed, and it’s silly to oppose laws that would minimize the robbery on the grounds that it’s still robbery.
While I wish that tax-evasion and black markets would truly get rid of the state, statists usually find a way to parlay those efforts into more power for themselves.
I haven’t really made up my mind on agorism. I see the benefit of political action on thigns such as lowering taxes or ending government corporate welfare, but at the same time, I see the contradiction in forcing a political candidate onto someone else.
As long as that candidate is shrinking government, it’s not forcing anything on anyone! Just because voting is exercising control over others doesn’t mean that voting in self-defense is wrong!
How can a candidate exist within the institutional framework of the state without employing political means in order to hold such a position to begin with? Their very existance as a politician requires forced wealth redistribution to ensure or secure their position.
But then this easily leads straight into pragmatic “lesser of two evils” kind of thinking. It does not address the institutional problem itself. The institutional problem will continue so long as the same institutional means are still used. The fundamental question at hand is not a matter of who should have the helm of political power but whether or not the helm itself should exist. While the beast could concievable be steered in one direction or the other, the beast still exists nonetheless and it must be fed in order for you to keep steering it. As an institutional agent, one is dependant on the institutional means and structure.
If you have a choice between the lesser of two evils, why wouldn’t you choose the lesser evil? In the course of ending the state, no matter which path you chose, there will be several steps taken, all of which result in smaller government, none of which result in no government. That doesn’t mean those steps shouldn’t be taken, it simply means that you have to keep taking more steps!
I would prefer to choose no evil at all. If I genuinely consider something to be evil, why would I so easily asqueisce to it? I have no obligation to choose between two evils, so why not just abstain from the decision-making process? It certainly would seem to virtuous to do so. Is the political process truly a gigantic lifeboat situation in which you must make a bad decision against your own conciensce no matter which way you cut it? If so, then why participate in it? Why not follow your moral sense as consistantly as possible?
Do atheists participate in the church’s decision-making process? Do egalitarians and anti-racists participate in the KKK’s decision-making process? I would think not, for it would make absolutely no sense to do so as they would be participating in a decision-making process that fundamentally opposes their principles. Why shouldn’t the same apply to libertarianism? Why should an anti-statist participate in a statist decision-making process? What sense does this really make?
Regardless of whether you choose the candidate, they are going to be ruling over you. The choice isn’t Candidate A, Candidate B, and No Candidate! Just because you abstain from the process doesn’t mean it will affect you.
[late edit: added last second sentence for clarity]