private military: a question

Economics Economics Questions
41

It is still a question of will power and resources available. If the task of defence is assigned to a few “defence companies”, I would suspect them to switch sides, if the money seems right.

Armed citizens would be a far bigger problem. But even they can possibly moved into submission. With the whole subject, I’m recalling the Anglo-Boer-War or second Freedom-War as we call it. Although the Boer Republics had parliaments for their “Burgers”, They were anarchic in many ways. Most of the White population was armed and minding minding it’s own business (In some areas you had Black chiefs ruling their tribes-some of them got involved in the war later). When the Boer armies were facing trouble, the Boers resorted to guerrila warfare - which made the war a very expensive enterprise. Then the British started the scorched earth policy and put the Boer families (as well as Bantu supporting them) into concentration camps where many died. Still the war continued - But there were those Boers that joined the British cause (to end the war and become a British colony). When everything became seemingly hopeless, also the last Boers resigned from the war and the Boer republics were finally occupied.

This example shows some things:

  • A free society can make it very difficult for a state (even if this is far bigger) to allow occupation of it.
  • Condition is that the citizens are armed and willing to fight.
  • Heterogenity can become a problem for the free society and be instrumentalized by the state forces.
  • One problem can be people that only mind their own business, without resisting the invading state forces or caring about the cause.
  • The biggest problem maybe joiners to the state cause that even fight even against the other members of that free society.

I might add that some of the mining companies may have even favored the take over by the British - A matter one may have to elaborate on, when analyzing this example.

In that situation things would become very difficult for the US. Just that I do not think that there won’t be nobody in that country to assist them. Obviously there maybe those that think they can gain by collaborating with the invading USA.

Just what would the “private protection agency” do in a situation having nukes at their disposal - Isn’t there the possibility that they will go act like a state.

At the moment I also think of the Condotteri and Landsknechst of the early modern era.

42

Your recent comments on those subjects indicate precisely the opposite of both of the above statements.

That’s like saying “none of the attempts at curing cancer have yet succeeded, therefore cancer cannot be cured.” Agorism is only getting started. It is impossible to make an accurate judgment of its success.

Counter-economic activity and agorism are NOT synonymous. If the c.e. isn’t ACTIVELY and PURPOSEFULLY trying to bleed the government through its functions, then it is not agoric. And without meeting those criteria, of course it isn’t going to bring about permanent change - because non-agorist black markets profit from keeping the status quo.

That is one impressive non-sequitur.

It is a long-term program in that it may take an awful long time for the state to be erradicated entirely. However, it offers those who wish to participate a great opportunity for a great deal of freedom NOW, without giving their oppressors the sanction of the victim by running away to some remote colony, or wasting time changing one group of thugs for another via “democracy”.

No it doesn’t. It requires one more person to start doing business in the counter-economy, or for those who already are to do one more counter-economic thing than is currently the case. A few million people moving a few dollars underground will have as great an effect as a few people moving a few million dollars underground. And every time that happens, no matter by which route, it starves the state just a little bit more.

People who purchase capital goods and don’t spend their profits back into the mainstream economy will exacerbate the problem of inflation by the value of their purchase. Thus the mainstream economy gets weaker, and the counter-economy stronger. Which makes it easier for more counter-economic activity to repeat the process. The state’s problems are self-compounding, while the agora benefits from each cycle of counter-economic production coupled with mainstream non-spending and non-production.

Already this has enabled many people to become economically free, so don’t tell me about the idea being a failure. The state doesn’t have to throw their hands up and promise to go away for agorism to “win”. It’s not a collectivist, self-sacrificial program. Each time somebody finds agorism, and consequently profits from the counter-economy, it makes them that much more free, and starves the state a little bit more.

Which ones?

No kidding. Which is why agorism is about informed and principled individuals working in their own self-interest to create things which the masses will accept. And you continually discount the fact that the state’s money is becoming increasingly costly to use. Therein is the tipping point you are looking for - when people with FRNs are impoverished by their reliance on the government, the counter-economy is the only alternative. That will probably happen in my lifetime, as it happens several times each century. But as I pointed out earlier, the last time it happened, there were no agorists. Now there are.

You clearly don’t understand the agorist point of view. We are agorists because we don’t savor the idea of running away from the state. We do NOT believe in the victim sanctioning the oppressor. This is my home, and I’m not going anywhere. I wish well to anyone who does choose such a route - certainly, we can be allies. But I won’t follow you there.

Something that is NOT an actual place, which dampens the likelihood of the state taking it over all at once by force.

While it lasts, yes. And as I said, I wish the Liberty Colony well. But I’m not leaving my home and my friends and family just because the state is here. I’m just going to ignore them, proactively.

First, how is educating people not action? And is discussion of ones ideas with likeminded people not conducive to education?

Second, you have no idea what people on this forum do IN ADDITION TO their forum activities.

It’s not suitable to achieve the goal that YOU desire, which is a large-scale geographically significant freedom. But I’m not interested in that - yet. I am only interested in individual secession, which has the dual purpose of allowing the individual to be free to whatever extent they are willing to withdraw from the state-sanctioned economy, while simultaneously undermining the state’s legitimacy.

43

Macfall missed the biggest pro-agorist argument. An agorist profits by protecting the fruits of his labor from theft via taxation and inflation. Even if an agorist doesn’t defeat the State during his lifetime, he still profits from his activity.

Agorism is the only resistance strategy where you fight the State and show a profit at the same time!

Also, Maxliberty has a specific agenda. He’s selling his “Liberty Colony” proposal. He hasn’t answered key details such as “Where will it be located?” Any suitable location is almost definitely already occupied. If the Liberty Colony succeeds, then good for you. I’m not actively opposing you. I’m just saying you’re wasting your time.

I agree with the philosophy of “This is my home and I’m not moving!” Just because I’m not working as an agorist yet, doesn’t mean I will in the future.

This is actually promising. I’ve never seen such an aggressive troll attack of agorism before, or agorism defended by someone other than me. Previously, when I mentioned agorism on the Ron Paul forum, I was ignored. I interpret this as progress!

Most people currently working counter-economically are working on isolated off-the-books businesses. An agorist wants a complete underground economy, replacing EVERY State function.

44

Which brings to mind another point: you can’t gauge counter-economic activity by what is easily visible from the outside. It is unreported business, after all.

45

If it doesn’t matter by which route the state is being starved then ce activity is not dependent on the intent of the individual to have the desired agorist effect. Therefore ce activity currently in existence and it’s effect on the state is relevant. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that this alone does not starve the state.

The problem with agorism is that it does not provide for one’s ultimate freedom. Lurking in the shadows trying to avoid paying taxes is not freedom. One should not confuse freedom with the fact that the state hasn’t gotten to you yet.

Then we are in agreement that the ultimate goal of agorism is not freedom but simply greater autonomy within a state system by hiding certain activities. You say you don’t want to leave and be free because you would prefer to hide where you currently are. The danger that agorism presents to the freedom movement is that it is the illusion of action without having any impact on the end result. Many like yourself now believe that this so-called individual secession is bringing down the state. Agorism prevents you from taking meaningful action that can achieve the desired result.

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud any attempt to increase your freedom even within the confines of the state. I do have different goals than the agorist crowd. I believe I have the right to be free and in my own lifetime I seek to live in a place where I am not in fear of my life and liberty for exercising this right. Agorism is intellectual crack cocaine, it feels good but in the end accomplishes nothing of real value and delays meaningful progress.

46

Thanks for due respect Juan. [Y]

LC may be more unrealistic. But that’s not my point exactly. Agorism is a decent idea, but it’s an idea. Everyone talks about it. Who is doing it? I was practicing economic secession long before I knew what Agorism was. I’m out there taking risks. Where are my Agorist brethren who will support me with the cloak of their numbers and the strength of commitment?

We can complain about LC all day. We can say Agorism is better. But if no one does anything, then it’s as circular and pointless as most of the philosophy discussions here.

My $0.02 CDN which is equal to $0.0198 US these days.

47

I am following your project but cannot join for at least 2 years. However, based upon the interest and how it develops, I have not ruled out helping promote it, or fund it in the meanwhile.

I too like to see and encourage people to do things. There is no shortage of theoreticians or philosophers in the liberty community. Big shortage of risk takers.

48

I’m quite certain you weren’t being honest when you said you’d read the NLM, or you would understand this.

Non-agoric activity only involves black-market profits. It has the effect of making the participant wealthy without paying the state. It does NOT weaken the mainstream economy or the state.

Agorists, on the other hand, invest in the counter-economy. They withdraw capital goods from the mainstream economy, and use them to create consumer goods which can either be sold for black-market profit in the mainstream economy, or to be sold for counter-economic profit (i.e., direct exchange or barter currency). Through this process, they strengthen the counter-economy. And as they do so, they weaken the mainstream economy proportionally.

Every time capital is withdrawn from the economy and the profits derived therefrom are not reabsorbed by it, the counter-economist profits at the expense of the state’s monetary system. This process cannot occur with non-agoric, black market activity.

Replacing the state with private-law protection services is absolutely necessary to achieving what you call “ultimate” freedom. That is the eventual goal of agorism. What you’re doing is just running away; you’re not replacing the state with anything.

Freedom is a condition in which one is not effectively owned by another. If you’re not paying taxes and your money’s value isn’t being stolen, you have economic freedom. I daresay one has more freedom in general in such a situation than if one lives the life of a soldier on an outpost, as one would in the idea you are promoting.

No, that’s actually not agorism’s goal at all.

I never said anything about hiding. I’m just going to live as a free man, right now. I don’t give a damn what they want to do to me because of it. And I’m not going to concede defeat by running off to the wilderness somewhere, and leave my home to the wolves I’m fighting.

I’ve been proving all along that this is not the case. If you can’t back up your pronouncements, don’t make them.

49

AGORISTS ARE DOING IT, as I’ve been pointing out all along. How much of your income have you managed to convert to non-taxable barter? As I said, I’ve done around 20%, and that number is growing. Almost every other agorist I’ve talked to is doing better than that. I suggest that you aren’t finding them because you aren’t trying.

50

I have respect for what you say you are doing. You are the only Agorist I have met online, who is actually doing something.

That said, you don’t know me, so please don’t presume. I’m not going to post the details of what I am doing, precisely because I am taking risks, not swapping tomatoes for raw milk.

You will definitely hear more from me on Agorism.

51

I didn’t mean to appear to presume anything; my question was in earnest. I apologize if I came off wrong.

Well, I respect that entirely. I am taking a small risk because I deal in homebrewed beer and wine, which is strongly discouraged in Pennsylvania. But I don’t mind sharing that. I suppose if I were doing much more I wouldn’t be so open about it. But that’s the thing about agorist activities - when it comes to the people building infrastructure, you’re not likely to see them advertise their existence. You’ll only hear about the people offering consumer goods and services, who may or may not be the same people.

52

So if an individual who isn’t specifically ideologically self-described as part of your movement then even if he is conducting the exact same activity then it will have no effect on the state? So your arguement is that it is the intention of the participant not the actions that effectively starve the state? As I understand agorism it’s goal to develop the counter-economy to the point that the counter-economy is capapble of providing services to replace state functions. Isn’t anyone who is actively involved in the counter-economy promoting the agorist agenda at least by definition.

As an example, the many local farmers here in Costa Rica that sell their goods at the local open markets. These are all cash transactions, no taxation, and then they take these funds and normally pay for everything in their own lives with cash or often barter for other services like auto maintenance and things. Are these people not contributing to the starvation of the state? If you conduct these activities on the other hand then you are leading the agorist revolution.

53

Yes, action matters. I am glad to see that you are a man of action as well. I liked your quote about swapping tomoatoes for raw milk that was funny.

54

Try actually reading what he writes.

55

Agorists, by definition, invest in counter-economic capital goods and withold their profits from the mainstream economy, buying black market goods (capital and consumer) with their profits. But not everyone who does that is necessarily agorist. However, I know of no non-agorist counter-economic participants who deliberately draw capital goods from the mainstream economy and make profits which never leave the counter-economy. Only an agorist would have any reason to do so. Non-agorist black-marketeers are interested only in making black market profits, driven upward by their illegal status - which would not be possible in the second and later stages of agorism.

56

If you’re working as an agorist, and willing to leave your profits in the counter-economy, then this solves the “money laundering” problem. Most people who evade taxes have to “launder” their profits, depositing them in a bank account. If you deposit cash in a bank account, your bank is required to report this to the IRS and the State.

If you invest your profits in gold or silver or new businesses, then you don’t have to “launder” your profits. If you hold Federal Reserve Notes, you’re going to be ripped off by inflation. If you hold gold or silver, your savings are protected.

Is it possible to go into a coin shop and buy gold or silver for cash, without the transaction being reported to the State?

57

We are discussing the effectiveness of such activity. If I engage in the same behavior am I not enaging in agorist activity whether I describe it as that or not? As far as keeping the reinvested profits within the counter economy, that is impossible to know since that would require monitoring everyone else in the counter-economy. All counter-economy activity develops the counter-economy at least in some part so I do not see the difference between you buying food on the black market and someone else buying food on the black market. Your distinction between the same activity doesn’t make sense.

Your statement that an agorist takes capital goods from the mainstream economy and invests them in the black market would require my continual participation in the mainstream economy. As such the only relevant factor is to grow the size of the counter-economy and that would mean all counter-economy activity would be beneficial to the agorist philosophy. So there could not be any unconsequential counter economic activity. For instance drug dealers take a large amount of main stream economy and transfer it to the underground economy but by your statement this does not help the agorist cause.

58

That’s funny, because we actually weren’t.

Not necessarily, because agorists are market anarchists. It is possible for someone to do that sort of thing without being an agorist, but I doubt you’d find any such people.

Once again you prove that you have not actually read any agorist literature.

If you are doing all your buying and selling with counter-economic currency (or direct exchange), it is very improbable for it to reenter the maintream economy

Do you not know the difference between capital investment and retail? I suggest you read up on your basic economics before we continue this discussion…

No it wouldn’t. It would only require the participation of someone, probably not you.

Non-sequitur. Do you even READ my posts?

That’s true, in the sense that it creates a market opportunity for agorist protection services.

The drug dealers take dollars out of the mainstream economy and then they spend those same dollars back in. They do not create capital goods, they only create consumer goods. They do not weaken the state’s monetary system by contributing to inflation. They do not build counter-economic infrastructure. They do not offer alternatives to state-monopolized services. They DO NOT do the same things as agorists do.

59

Lets specifically take the example of drug dealers. They produce a counter-economy crop which they sell to people who pay with mainstream economy money and the dealers pay their farmers with this and all of the parties involved in the transaction. The dealers buy boats which are then taken out of mainstream application and are at least in part used solely for the counter-economy. Aren’t shipping vessels normally considered capital goods? Or the trucks and cars that they use to transport the product? How about the real estate and land they purchase to grow their crops or hide the merchandise? How about the underground network to move money from one place to another? Would not that activity take all of those capital goods out of the mainstream economy and divert it’s use to the counter-economy?

The drug dealers hire bodyguards and create gangs in order to provide private protection services for their business. Aren’t these replacing some aspects of the state monopoly.

Explain to me how you having a home still is an agorist activity and what they are doing is not?

60

I would like to offer up an answer to my question and see if it is theoretically true. Honestly I’ve considered the agorist arguments here to be wrong because it would seem that a subsidized or public military would have, with its greater monies, a lower marginal cost in developing and using killing machines -it is a naturally superior killer. Also, it seems that a private one would be beset by higher marginal costs in a competetive market and so not be as effective in warmaking. Yet also knowing how bad socialized services are at accomplishing their goals, although these subsidized firms should outcompete their private counterparts, still they will be less effective than they were. But here, taking the agorist position that private troops are superior to public ones, it is still consistent to say that 1) a socialized military is better at outcompeting a private one 2) a socialized military is worse at protecting its costumers than a private one 3) its consistent that a private military is superior to a socialized one. But if this is true, than the history of some wars (like vietnam, boer war, etc.) has been to destroy the more effective firm type. From this angle, having deduced the superior nature of the private firm, we can ask why have the private firms failed in the past? My answer: they refused to remain private. For instance, terrorist groups using non-combatants as shields, barbarians raiding and pillaging non-aggressive cities, etc. and we all know how gen. washington turned the cont. army statist. So this is what I believe is a theoretically consistent way to reconcile these opposing facts. Is this a correct argument -criticism very welcome!