Agorists, could you help me understand something?

Economics Political Theory
61

If you don’t like reality, there are plenty of bridges off which you can certainly jump.

Please quote precisely where I said I wanted to do any of that.

I’m not the one advocating the use of political means here.

Is what an ego thing for me?

What point? That you can employ strawmen?

I have every right and reason to be self-righteous; I’m not the one acting hypocritically here. I’d also like to see even the slightest shred of evidence that it doesn’t work any better than your approach. It bears repeating that your approach has in fact failed miserably for centuries. Mine, however, seems to be working fantastically in Zimbabwe right now; the only thing missing from it there is a consciously libertarian component to their counter-economy.

Governments grow all on their own, they don’t need my help, nor will they receive it. Unfortunately you seem to be quite eager to lend them a hand in expanding their power and influence; that is what happens when governments are made small initially, or made to shrink temporarily (because it’s never permanent, and never to the point of complete dissolution of the state). Less intrusive governments provide an environment wherein more domestic wealth is produced. More domestic wealth to plunder means more funding for invasion of foreign lands, providing the state with even more sources of revenue and fewer competing states to worry about. As wealth and power become consolidated in the hands of ever fewer states, the need for expansion to reduce external competition diminishes along with the potential for profit from such military adventures. The political class shifts its focus to the elimination of domestic competitors. The size of the domestic political class shrinks as they fight over the limited pool of plunderable resources, and so the state grows ever larger to make that consolidation of wealth and power a reality. Why do you think the British built an empire? If you want an answer, look to the Magna Carta, to common law, to all those elements of British tradition which kept their state smaller and less intrusive than neighboring states. The same is true of the United States; the experiment to create the world’s smallest government has resulted in the largest government in human history.

I can’t even begin to comprehend how you could think that’s a valid argument against my position. Maybe if I said states magically and instantaneously collapse if they get really big, you’d have a point. I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that though.

lol

62

You expressed safisfaction at the thought of taxes being raised, spending being increased, etc. because it would cause people to have more reason to join your revolution. That’s nuts.

Every step we take should be slow the growth of government and ultimately start shrinking it! You seem to think that by voting for less statist candidates (or even non-statist candidates who want to shrink government), you are contributing towards its growth.

Now sure, you can sit here at an internet forum, call for assasinations of politicians working to shrink government, tell people who don’t believe in your revolution to kill themselves, etc., but all you’ll end up doing is turning everyone against you. Instead of thinking up ways to kill capitalist politicians, how about taking a few minutes to vote for them? If you don’t want anything to do with the state, at the very least get off the Internet!

63

Enough with the straw men and non-sequiters. You’re started to tread into “love it or leave it” territory.

64

I make a point of using neither, Rich333 really did say those things! And I’ll repeat, if you think that voting for capitalist candidates is immoral, using the Internet is immoral, too.

65

Yep. Those who use the political means are the political class; they are enemies of the productive class, they exist only by the exploitation of the productive. I have no problem advocating defensive violence when peaceful measures prove inadequate.

Yes. Those trying to reform slavery so it’s more tolerable are NOT the allies of those seeking to abolish it. The reformer is in fact the worst enemy of the abolitionist, as reform is the last line of defense for those seeking to preserve the institution but, rather than openly displaying hostile intent, the reformer pretends to be the ally of the abolitionist. At least those who openly call for slavery’s preservation are honest about their intentions, or at least smart enough to understand what it is they’re actually doing.

Absolutely nothing. I have no intention of shrinking the government. “Reform” does not appeal to me in the slightest. I seek only abolition.

lol

You use the term “capitalist” in the statist sense, as clearly your intent is mere reform, not abolition. I’m an anarchist, not a “capitalist”.

66

I already touched on this faulty line of argumentation a few posts back. We have no choice but to use public roads and the like if we want to function. But these things are coercive in the first place. It is disingenous to blame the victim and tell them that they must aschew all social cooperation and their very existance in modern society. “Love it or leave it” merely begs the question of legitimacy. I deny legitimacy.

67

You don’t have to use the Internet!

68

“And you don’t have to be in this country. If you don’t like it, why don’t you move to Cuba, commie!?!?!”.

The internet is actually the closet thing to a free press and free market that we have right now. It also contains counter-economic elements such as “illegal” filesharing. In making use of the internet or driving on public roads that I have no choice but to pay for and drive on, it hardly is the case that I’m supporting political power. On the other hand, in running for office or directly patronizing the state, I inherently would be supporting political power and trying to grab it for myself. The former scenario is passive and indirect while the latter is active and direct. In the former scenario I’m a victim. In the later scenario I’m trying to get a piece of the pie of plunder and I would constitute an active participant in the process of plunder.

69

How on earth are you going to abolish government without at some point shrinking it first? This isn’t a videogame. We aren’t going to win a revolution… and even if we would, that would be decades away. There’s nothing wrong with shrinking government.

And let’s look at your first point: you say that it’s self-defense to kill politicians working to decrease the control the scum in government exercise over you? What the hell? Nothing you are doing will shrink or abolish government, so why don’t you apply the same rules to yourself?

You also assume that because I want to cut taxes, I must want taxes. Brainpolice, are you looking? That is a strawman.

70

You’re the one using strawmen!

You have repeatedly expressed that we should dealing with or using the state unless it’s necessary for survival, and that’s why it’s immoral to vote for candidates who want to shrink government. You don’t need to use the Internet for survival. If you admit that using the Internet is ok, than using elections to try to shrink government can’t be immoral, either! You can’t pick and choose.

71

Firstly, voting is not necessary for survival and to be functional in society. Transportation and food and communication is. In using the internet or driving to work, I am not directly patronizing the state in any sense. Such actions are passive with respect to the state. In voting or running for office or lobbying the government, however, I would be much more directly interacting with the state. I could not be said to be a mere passive subject in such a scenario.

Secondly, I never argued that voting is immoral for the reasons you state. In my view, the immorality is ultimately constituted by membership of and direct patronage with the institution itself. What I consider to be immoral is to be an institutional agent of the state. Most of my argument against voting is practical, not moral. Using the internet is an example far removed from what’s really at question here. What’s at question is direct involvement in the state and the practicality of voting.

You brought up usage of the internet and I consider it to be a highly evasive point from the question at hand. We’re talking about running for office and voting, not the passive everyday activities of the common citezen. It does not logically follow from my statements that the libertarian should go live as a hermit in the woods in order to be consistant. It merely posits that they should avoid active participation in the political process itself and engage in civil disobedience instead.

72

The Internet isn’t necessary for survival, either, and you know it!

You aren’t patronizing the state by voting any more than you are by using the Internet. Seriously, what does that mean? By not voting, you simply allow the statists to gain more power.

While at first glance, it might seem like you are patronizing the state by running for office (again, I’m not sure what that means in this context), if you consider that a statist will be holding the office if you don’t win, there’s nothing wrong with running. The only case in which it would be immoral to run would be if the office didn’t exist.

73

You aren’t violating any rights by voting – in self defense – for candidates who work to shrink the state.

74

No, I expressed a lack of disappointment.

How is it nuts? Their condition, and mine, as slaves is not in any way changed by an increase or decrease in the total amount of our own produce we are permitted to keep by our masters. What does change, however, are the reactions to the enslavement. It doesn’t matter if the tax collectors are threatening my life for a penny or for a pound of gold, my life is still being threatened.

No, every step we take should be to abolish the government and establish new, voluntary, institutions in its place.

You are contributing to its growth in the long-term, but that’s not the real issue; the real issue is that you’re contributing to its long-term viability. By seeking to make it more tolerable, you’re working to ensure that it persists. I do not want a more tolerable state, I want no state. There’s also no such thing as “less statist”; there’s only statist and non-statist, and the latter does not include anyone who is a candidate for political office, no matter their rhetoric.

I could spend all my time doing nothing but playing World of Warcraft and I’d still be doing more to end the state than you with your political approach, because at least I wouldn’t be working to improve its chances of survival.

lol

fixed

lol

Only those who insist on using the political means to achieve their own preferred ends.

Capitalist, socialist, it doesn’t matter what they call themselves, the political class must be destroyed. If that can be acheived by non-violent means, great. If not, if the tree of liberty requires fresh manure, so be it.

What’s next? A suggestion that I shouldn’t use roads? I suppose if I lived under the rule of a socialist state which managed all food production and distribution, you’d advise me to starve too. Your statism’s showing.

75

It is disingenous to imply that by using the internet one is supporting political power. Your initial argument is nonsensical.

Yes you are. I am not directly interacting with the state by typing on this message board. In voting, I am more directly interacting with the state and making demands of its agents. In voting, you are clearly implying that you want the state to do something for you. Even if what you ask is more leniency, you are still essentially begging your masters.

By voting, you merely participate in a sham process and the statists gain more power anyways. What don’t you understand about this? The institutional problem itself is not address by a game of musical chairs.

In running for office or holding office, by definition, one would be a statist. An institutional agent of the state. In running for office, one is trying to gain a position of political power. By merely holding such a position, political means are required. All politicians are statists by definition, in the most direct and obvious sense of the term considering that they are literally a part of the state apparatus itself.

76

But that is our advantage. The state’s inflationary policy is exactly what makes the countereconomy worth having, and it’s why the countereconomy will win eventually, whether it is connected with a philosophical movement or not.

Yep. The general strategy is interwoven with the theory - the state will inflate its money, and the currency that the countereconomy uses will be stronger. The idea is in general - to form alternative markets carefully and quietly until the state currency crisis happens - which it will someday soon, whether there’s an organized countereconomy or not. Among these markets will be non-state-affiliated defense and adjudication firms, whose activities will be limited until the time comes for them to quickly rise up and be tested against the state.

The details of the tactics are in not attracting too much attention until the private firms are clearly the better side to bet on, which will happen as a result of the countereconomic markets being more reliable than the state-controlled markets. It doesn’t matter if the government can pay a National Guardsman in billion-dollar bills if he can’t buy a loaf of bread for his family with those bills. The broad support for the countereconomists will not come because of sympathy with principle. No revolution ever has that. It will come because the countereconomy, and the defense firms assocated with it, will fill people’s stomachs and gas tanks, and the state will be unable to do so. We don’t plan to seize and abolish the political apparatus. We plan to starve it out of existence, without getting our hands dirty through handling it.

Therefore it is to our advantage for the state to have bad money - and that explains why many agorists dislike Ron Paul. We don’t want the government to be a strong competitor with the agora.

Naturally, the tactical details deserve more discussion. But it’s not as if the movement has no tactics.

77

It’s not that difficult to figure out. You stop giving the government money via taxes and it will stop growing. Start buying products that are sold independently without being taxed. Stop paying your income tax. If you do side jobs accept only cash or goods.

Need to fix your car? Find a mechanic that will work for cash instead of going to jiffy lube. Need a plumber? Find someone that works off the books. Need a couch? Go to an auction or find one through craigslist. Want some food? Go to a farmers market instead of Jewel. The more people do this the less the government gets. The less the government gets the less it grows. The less it grows the faster people turn to private institutions instead of state backed ones.

Damn half this stuff people do already… they just need to consistently do it instead of it being once and a while.

78

Rich333, this is my last response. You’ve already stated in another thread that you troll instead of debating, and you’re keeping your word.

My remarks stand on their own merit. I ask readers to read the entire thread to understand that I’m not mischaracterizing Rich333’s remarks. I would like to respond to this, however:

No, in fact, I’ve always said the exact opposite. You can’t blame people for using the state. It’s the system under which they live. You expressed a different belief, however. That’s why I pointed out that you, by using the Internet, are being hypocritical.

Go ahead and continue to pretend you’re at the helm of a great revolution. Go ahead and wish for a brutal state in hopes that people will be driven to join you.

You said you are opposed to a smaller, more tolerable state because people will be less likely to join you. You’re a tyrant – a tyrant who views people as expendable pawns in your game.

79

I respect this opinioin. As I said in an earlier response on a previous page, I fear that individuals in government will use tax-evasion and black markets as an excuse to increase their own powers (as they already do all over the world).

I’m not opposed to any of what you said; I just think we should use elections any chance we can.

80

By denying it revenue and increasing its enforcement costs. What exactly about this is so difficult to understand?

I was thinking of suggesting the same to you. “Just punch some holes in this card here, or flip these switches and pull the lever, or hit those buttons, and you’ll be free!” It’s comical.

Not with reformers like you ruining our chances, no.

Statism has existed for thousands of years. If you want instant gratification, go watch TV or something.

Yeah there is. To make slavery more tolerable is to support slavery.

Yep.

No, the control is not decreased, only the degree to which I might be burdened by it. The control is still absolute and arbitary. Maybe if you were working to abolish taxation, rather than just lower it, you might have some semblance of a point, but you’re not even advocating that.

Nothing I’ll tell you about.

I do, actually. I’m not stupid; I’m not going to post on an internet forum what I do, if anything, beyond education and activism. If you and your statist pals really want to know, you’ll have to fund an investigation. Have fun watching those enforcement costs go up as the number of people like me grows ever larger.

Yes, by only cutting them you are reinforcing their existence. Whether this is intentional or not is irrelevant; the effect is the same.