Agorists, could you help me understand something?

Economics Political Theory
101

Most? I’d bet thats certainly not true. I’d even bet the large majority of the people who commit the actual acts of coercion (i.e. the tax-man, not the lady working at the DMV for $10 an hour) don’t think they are criminals. Of course, when you believe criminality is defined by the organization you work for, its easy to rationalize that sort of thing, but the point stands.

Most institutions in human history haven’t accomplished the goals they’ve set for themselves, or the ones their members held. Think of all the false religions and shamans, and most all of medicine up until very recently. Bad results don’t need bad motives, just bad ideas.

102

My point was that the state can’t be dismantled by electing a ‘libertarian’ president who would sign ‘executive orders’ closing down the departments of state, education, DEA, FBI, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc (there are quite a few bureaucracies out there…)

Your claim that criminals are not criminals because they don’t consider themselves to be criminals is ridiculous. Perhaps we should start the “Three cheers for moral relativism” thread.

103

Its extremely unlikely, I agree.

I never said anything of the sort. All I’m saying is that the vast majority do not consider themselves to be criminals, thats all.

104

Regarding the point about the state having a ‘blank check’ against those trying to overthrow it and thus having an economic advantage over them. First of all, agorists would encourage commodity money as to try to prevent this and to cut the government from currency. If the government did try to inflate it would only convince more people who have not switched from the state fiat money to resort to private money, as their savings are being reduced.

The government would be losing its base of customers in money and at the same time would only quicken the process by inflating.

105

Uh right, but it explodes during times of low tax and regulation. The industrial revolution is one example.

I’m not even trying to suggest we shouldn’t educate people about free markets, that’s obviously something that needs to be done. I’m wondering why you think trying to shrink government, via the political system, is a worthy cause. History has shown us that when government is smaller socialism tends to have a growth spurt.

Maybe you could also ease my fears about state sponsored capitalism and the possibility of more corporatism even with a smaller government.

106

I’m not sure why you think government explodes mainly during times of limited government; look at the New Deal, look at the Great Society, look at the… now.

In any event, that seems to be a dangerous way of looking at things. I know you haven’t said this directly, but it’s similar to saying:

“We need to make sure that government control over individuals’ lives grows to prevent socialism from growing.”

State-sponsored “capitalism” is always a threat, small government or not. In fact, that will probably be one of the easier things to roll back electorally. As my signature suggests, it’s usually the leftist policies that are the most difficult to undo.

107

I never said government grows I said socialism grows. As in the philosophy becomes more widespread and accepted.

I think you’re misunderstanding my position. I’m not trying to make government grow so there’s no need for me to “make sure” anything happens. I’m not out there campaigning for anyone (at this time), I’m not telling people who to vote for. I’m not even voting in the system. How can that comment represent my position or anything I’ve mentioned in this thread? I’m simply stating that when you take regulations away, and lower taxes, people become more accepting of socialism. This is partly due to the government favoring corporations… something that would honestly only happen with government. I’m asking you how you get around that?

How would it be easier to roll back?

108

I think I am starting to swing toward the agora

109

I think I am starting to swing toward the agora

110

Swinging as in voting is immoral, or swinging as in it’s a useful tactic?

111

I’ve been reading up on Agorism, and while it’s interesting, I’m not sure how far one can get with an approach based around black market activity before the state takes action against it.

I think the Montana Freemen were a near example of what Agorism might look like in action. Agree, disagree?

Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to paint a picture of armed standoffs, but I think Agorists need to be realistic that their black/grey market approach will not go unnoticed or unfettered by the state until it hits criticial mass. There will be setbacks. Some people will bear the cost of state coercion in incarceration, beatings, harassment, confiscation of their property, etc.

To me, it definitely does not seem like an activity for the meek, or unsure. Principled as all get out. But actionable only through extreme courage.

112

It is actionable as a matter of everyday occurence. It is literally impossible for a person to obey all the state’s laws, all the time. As the NLM points out, every peaceful action that the state deems unlawful is part of the counter-economy. If you speed, you are participating in the counter-economy. If you deface a dollar bill, you are participating in the countereconomy. If you hoard your coins, you are participating. If you don’t report a barter transaction, you are participating. It only takes a fraction of that activity, turned to economic use, to make a difference. It’s not insurrection or sedition, it simply ignoring the state in a proactive manner.

We’re not telling people to immediately start participating exclusively in agorist markets. The point is for as many people as possible to do it as much as possible, and at this time that means not going all-out and attracting too much notice. But if you start paying for your car repairs in beer and home-canned vegetables, that’s a good start. It benefits you and your trading partner, and it cannot be easily observed by the state. Eventually, barter moneys will become more common as the state currency becomes less usable. That doesn’t have to do with agorism as much as it does simple economic fact.

The point is to start laying the groundwork NOW for the eventual, inevitable time when the mainstream economy will lose its appeal; to develop the counter-economy as much as possible so that when that time comes, it is the better choice. The more agorists we have, the better - but we’re not going to win by converting everybody to agorism. We’re going to win by developing the counter-economy so that it does a better job of feeding, clothing, transporting, protecting and entertaining people than the “white market”. We will win because the state will lose; because its currency is untenable and free markets cannot be stamped out, even under the most brutal regimes.

In fact, once the counter-economy is established, state atrocities will only bolster the agorist movement. The appeal is already there, to anyone who understands it - a counter-economic transaction cannot be taxed, and free market prices cannot inflate as much as state money must. The alternative markets already exist, but in a nebulous form. We intend to condense those markets in a principled and organized fashion. Start trading and bartering; do as much business as possible with fellow counter-economists. Remove ourselves as far as we can from the ability of the state to exploit us. Educate people about the exploitative nature of the state and state currency.

And then we wait for things to follow their natural, economically inevitable course, and just make sure that when the SHTF we’re there to pick up the pieces.

But the beauty of agorism is that we don’t have to wait for a grand historical singularity with a Declaration of Independence and a shot heard 'round the world. Those things will come, but in the meantime, we just do what we can. And every counter-economic transaction makes you and those you trade with a bit freer, and deprives the state of a bit of its sustenance.

113

MacFall, the fact that we all participate in the counter-economy while the state is still growing at a tremendous speed should give you some pause.

I certainly find agorism a good idea, but like the poster above, I think it’s amazingly risky. At some point, the government will crack down. I don’t think that the statists would wait until it’s too late, either. If agorism becomes widespread, knowledge of it will become wide-spread. The government will pass new laws and create new agencies to deal with the problem, and it will become more and more frightening and dangerous to participate.

It can’t hurt to vote for less statist candidates, no matter what else you want to try at the same time.

114

In order for alternative markets to flourish, the state must act statelike. And they will flourish, as they have in every despotic nation in every era of history. The difference is that this time, there will be a principled movement with a particular goal behind them. It is not the goal of agorists to achieve a less statist government. All that would accomplish is to postpone the eventual re-tyrannizing of the government, if that.

I agree with using local offices to aid the movement, and I plan to promote that. But federal and State government can only serve to prolong the process if it doesn’t reverse it. It is impossible to achieve an apolitical goal through political means. At best, one can hope to achieve a different form of statism by wielding the state apparatus. Whatsoever thou soweth, that also shalt thou reap.

115

I just can’t get down with the good being the enemy of the perfect stuff. Agorism is interesting, but it doesn’t sound like something you can sell to a young working couple with two children in a state school, whose parents are beneficiaries and dependent on state pensions and health care.

116

MacFall, I don’t understand the distinction you make between federal and local office. In addition, I don’t agree with this statement:

I really don’t understand this. Having a Senate or House of Representatives is necessarily anti-capitalist; if they tax and regulate, it is.

117

Is such a young working couple somehow unqualified to trade without using federal reserve notes or credit even occasionally? You don’t have to never use the mainstream economy to be an agorist. You only need to do as much as possible, and believe in a libertarian goal. As more becomes possible, do more. Until then, do as much as you can.

118

I think that is how some of us feel about politics.

119

You don’t think trying to elect anti-statists does anything to help you?

120

Chances are they’ve used the black market already, and it was probably much cheaper than going to a white market business. They don’t need to be convinced of anything right now anyway. If the black market is selling goods that are cheaper and in better quality then people will use it regardless of their current economic position.