although I think barter networks are much closer to true market anarchy
I respectfully disagree on economic grounds.
The context of my point was in that using methods such as eBay and the like, do not divorce the perpetuation of the monetary system that is run by the oligarchy. I have no issue with the use of various forms of currency. However I do believe that a monopoly on currency is a mockery to market anarchism. Any currency used in the trade of goods and/or services must have some value associated with it. As long as [someone] finds "value" in participating in a mutual exchange of goods or services, then the parties involved are the final arbiters of whether or not it was a good exchange.
I don't disagree with your point about a system of currency, per-se.
I don't see a couple of guys in a backyard shop making things like integrated circuits for quite some time.
Again - I don't disagree in the least bit. That being said, I am willing to trade plenty of 'modern conveniences' for freedom any day of the week.
Personally, my thought is that when confronted by a threat, such as being robbed in perpetuity by statists, the rational thing to do is focus on reducing the threat, not ignoring it.
Since there aren't typically armed security forces monitoring our each and every transaction in the market place; I'd suggest that the "threat" (as it relates to [most] market activity, with the exception of labor) is conducted without direct visibility in the first place. In other words, we are able to choose whether or not we will trade via the state run scheme (which is very traceable), or do our best to trade outside of the realm of their general purview. I agree with the point of specifically reducing the threat and not merely
ignoring it. But in terms of the types of exchanges for goods or services that we choose to participate in, there are countless ways of doing this now via the black market (aka counter economy). I do not use the example of flea market goods or chicken eggs and beef as though we are limited to those types of exchanges. Any exchange that can be negotiated under the radar DOES
reduce the threat because, as I said, there isn't someone holding a gun to your head (yet) forcing you to buy goods in the state run market.
For what its worth - I am not proposing that such activity or insight is going to be the end of the state
as we know it. This is nothing more than a way to achieve certain incremental liberties that are real and measurable, now. I believe Konkin's approach is still completely relevant if people who seek to employ his methods do so within the context of the time/environment they live in (ergo, us... now!).
My personal strategy is to focus on attacking the ideological foundations of the state to effect mass abandonment, rather than simply trying to hide and be left alone as much as possible. Because, they aren't going to leave us alone.
I don't disagree, however I'd suggest that mass abandonment necessarily requires an alternative. This is not merely
ideas about ones worldview we are talking about. Consistent/practical application of the fruits
of such an ideology needs to be able to resonate with those who finally come to realize the absurdity of the state.
Make no mistake, I'd greatly enjoy "just being left alone." But I know that such is not the reality of the situation. The "goal" of working within the counter economy is certainly not to "hide." The "goal" is to enjoy instant gratification by way of making free choices without instrusion, while simultaneously starving the state. This does not mean there is no risk, but it sure beats the hell out of doing nothing but theorizing all day about what liberty would look like.