Daily Anarchist Forum
December 06, 2022, 09:05:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: The difference between agorism and anarchism  (Read 23500 times)
David Hollis
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2010, 06:36:56 AM »

Hi I am new here!This is my first post.Your site is excellent.

An example of modern agorism that I participate in can be found here - http://bitcoin.org
I consider myself a crypto-agorist. Grin

The first step in rolling back the state is to set up competing organisations that will replace its functions.Bitcoins are just the start of a new onslaught from the "dark" economy.Soon more will come.The crypto-agorists are legion ,the next revolution is anonymous. Smiley
Logged
FormerlyBrainwashed
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2010, 09:19:36 AM »


Simply put: minarchism = the sanction of the use of force and/or coercion, even if on an allegedly smaller scale. Force is force... Period.


Logged
NickyTheHeel
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2010, 04:26:31 PM »

I just think that minarchism is one more step on the way to anarchism.  It's a lot easier to "convert" a minarchist than a nanny-statist so I try to be nice to them and nudge them along.
Logged
FormerlyBrainwashed
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2010, 02:00:51 PM »



I just think that minarchism is one more step on the way to anarchism.  It's a lot easier to "convert" a minarchist than a nanny-statist so I try to be nice to them and nudge them along.

Maybe so. I would submit though, that a so-called minarchist is more dangerous than the typical disconnected run of the mill dupe which constitutes most of the society. I say this because min's typically have enough knowledge to discern the truth from the lies that the statist oligarchs have perpetuated, yet they still participate in the destruction of others. At least the dupes have the ability to claim "dupe status" as their alibi.

Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2010, 02:31:40 PM »

Complicity and guilt are different than potential for change. The fact that the Ron Paulites are minarchists means that they are still legitimizing a corrupt system, but they at least give a shit about the world they live in and are going to work to make it better. Once they get converted they will be a force to reckon with. I used to be a hardcore Paulite and now I'm a hardcore anarchist. I think Paulites will be the easiest to convert.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
FormerlyBrainwashed
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2010, 02:35:28 PM »

...and are going to work to make it better.

An impossibility until they wake up and snap into a slim-Jim.

Until then, their incrementalism amounts to sanctioning of immoral means to achieve their stated goals.

A is still A.
Logged
Sima Qian
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 63



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2010, 08:50:34 AM »

...and are going to work to make it better.

An impossibility until they wake up and snap into a slim-Jim.

Until then, their incrementalism amounts to sanctioning of immoral means to achieve their stated goals.

A is still A.


On the other hand, more freedom is more freedom, and less statism is less statism.  A+5-3 is closer to A than A+5.  The cost of have these discussions is much less today than during the middle ages partially because of the work minarchists did for liberty. (As in, for the most part we don't have to worry about the "king's" thugs breaking down our doors and killing us on the spot.) It will be much easier to create private banks and money systems once the minarchists are successful in repealing taxes and regulations concerning gold and silver.  If I understand you correctly, you mean to say that it's impossible for minarchists to make things better, but they already have.
Logged
FormerlyBrainwashed
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2010, 09:12:03 AM »

Quote
If I understand you correctly, you mean to say that it's impossible for minarchists to make things better

No - you do not understand me correctly.

Immorality is immorality. As long as minarchist's use an immoral method to strive towards their stated goals, their sanctioning (via direct participation in) of such immorality is contrary to the liberty that is alleged to be their aim.

All the incremental gains notwithstanding... It's still immoral! There's really no legitimacy in attempting to sugar coat that which cannot be morally justified.  

« Last Edit: August 22, 2010, 09:15:26 AM by FormerlyBrainwashed » Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2010, 02:48:38 PM »

Reducing the size of the state is definitely a double-edged sword. Where I live, in California, there is going to be a proposition on the ballot this November to decriminalize marijuana.

Now, clearly, I'd love to see a lot less aggression towards those growing, buying, selling, and consuming marijuana, so my inclination would be to vote yes on the proposition. However, if I do that, I am essentially legitimizing the state. If the proposition fails, are people going to all-of-a-sudden stop using their marijuana? No. If it passes, however, the marijuana crowd will have state legitimacy reinforced and feel that the best way to reform the system is to continue to win the vote.

I've come to view the state as a criminal organization and that I care neither way what they do. Would it be better if Ron Paul wins in 2012, or loses? I say, it's irrelevant. To me, it's not just a matter of weighing the pros vs. cons if he wins or loses. The state has no legitimacy either way and the pragmatic solution is to vote Ron Paul. But the principled, and libertarians are nothing if not principled, solution is to undermine the state and delegitimize it through non-participation, non-cooperation.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
FormerlyBrainwashed
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2010, 03:01:27 PM »

And that is a good example of principled consistency; action consistent with thoughts, based in morality!
Logged
Noaidi
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2010, 04:22:22 AM »

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I would describe myself as a market anarchist with a theoretical interest in agorism - though I only discovered libertarian philosophy a few months ago and still have a lot to learn.  Smiley

Re. the post on bitcoin above, I was wondering what you guys make of the idea of creating tax-free internet currencies.

Virtual tax-free currencies already exist in online fantasy gaming worlds. But outside of games, people either give away stuff for free, or use PayPal etc. to buy stuff with ‘real’ money.

But let's say, you invent a new currency called ‘e-coins’ which could be used to purchase quality stuff that people would not willing give away for free, and other people would not willing pay for with real cash, but wouldn’t mind purchasing with virtual money.

You set up a forum whose members all agree to use ‘e-coins’ to trade goods and services. A member would pay e-coins to download an original music track or a game, or to access written material. You could earn e-coins by, say, reading an ad and answering a couple of questions on it, writing a review of a product, contributing a comment or article, ghostwriting, proofreading, translating, solving a maths problem, drafting a letter for someone … the list of possible jobs is endless. The e-coins you saved could be spent anywhere else on the forum.

E-coins would be unbacked currency. They could be loaned at interest and could accrue interest while they sat in your account, just like 'real' paper money.

Once e-coins became established within this forum, or within a group of forums, other sites might launch competing currencies that could be used only in certain domains. Trading blocs would develop. Before long, I think, we would have a free market in virtual currencies that could not be taxed by the government.

There would be no attempt (in the beginning) to link e-coins with actual money; they would simply operate as a parallel system in the virtual world – like gaming money which could be used outside of games. But if e-coins caught on, they could become an alternative mode of payment on Ebay and other sites. Then they would present a serious challenge to fiat paper money.

Does anyone know whether this has ever been tried? Or if there are good reasons why it would not work?
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2010, 12:06:14 PM »

I don't see it working. Here's why: What separates good money from bad is that good money is a commodity. It's supply is scarce and the creation of new money requires labor and resources. Unbacked money could be multiplied infinitely without cost. Why would anyone sell a good for worthless e-money? They wouldn't. You can try that right now if you want. Tell people you just created a million e-coins and see how much goods and services you get for them. You won't get any. The only reason the government can get away with worthless money is because they use force.

On a side note, I've been hearing more and more people talk about how they just learned of the libertarian philosophy and within months became anarchists. That's a fantastically quick progress. I wonder if there is hope after all.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Noaidi
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2010, 06:25:45 AM »

Thanks, Seth, it’s obvious now that you point it out. As I said, I still have a lot to learn, especially when it comes to markets and how they function. I have no background in economics whatsoever, but I’m hoping to come to a better understanding of why our western economies are in such a mess.

I found it easy to convert to anarchism once I understood the ethical argument. I mean, you can be pro-violence or anti-violence, but it’s very difficult to be pro-a-small-amount-of-violence. I tried arguing from a pragmatic (minarchist) position on a different forum for a while, but felt that what I was saying was logically inconsistent. I just had a natural fear of being absolutist. But when it comes to ethics it’s hard to be other than absolutist. I actually think the majority of people would be anarchists if they understood the ethical arguments.

Re. more people converting to anarchism after only a short while, I would say Stef Molyneux has been a major influence.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2010, 10:42:21 AM »

That's good to hear. I think you're right, Stephan has done wonders for the anarcho-capitalist movement, although it was Murray that did it for me. If you want to learn more about sound economics the absolute most important first book to read, I believe, is Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. That book is wonderful even for seasoned libertarian veterans but easy enough for the newcomer. You can also help out this website if you purchase it from the bookstore. =)
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Noaidi
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2010, 06:23:45 PM »

Absolutely! Rothbard made me see it too, though I wouldn’t have seen it nearly as quickly if I hadn’t been arguing with people on the forum whom (I realize now) had been heavily influenced by Molyneux, or others like him.

I read Rothbard alongside Hayek over the summer, and I came down firmly on Rothbard’s side every time. That was what convinced me I was an anarchist at heart (though I have to say, I find some of Rothbard’s views on children’s rights a little odd!).

I also found Rothbard’s initial chapters on ‘natural rights’ rather offputting. I could see why he wanted to root his case in ethics rather than in utilitarian arguments, but the language seemed a little foreign to me. I live in the UK – we don’t have a written constitution and we don’t talk much about inalienable rights, whereas for educated Americans, I guess, the language must strike an emotional chord. Molyneux, on the other hand, goes straight to the heart of the ethical argument, and perhaps for that reason he reaches out well to a popular international audience.

Thanks for the tip on Henry Hazlitt – I downloaded it a while ago but will make a fresh effort to finish it. I’ve also started Mises’s ‘Human Action’, which is really excellent.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!