Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

The Republican and Democratic parties have chosen then presidential candidates and both of them are war mongers. I’m not shy when it comes to pointing this out to my politically oriented friends. Since they’re unable to counter my accusations against their candidates they have began using another tactic, they’re trying to lay the blame for the war mongering nature of the United States on me. OK, not specifically me, they’re blaming everybody who they perceive as whining instead of actually doing something. In their eyes whenever I complain about the war mongers running for president I’m simply whining. Their responses are usually variations on telling me to stop whining and run for office. Such responses always make me smile.

People seem to have a habit of getting so caught up in their own methodologies that they fail to see that other methodologies exist. Furthermore they becomes to wrapped up in their own methodologies that they fail to see when those methodologies prove to be ineffective. Combining these two factors seems to be a recipe for lashing out at anybody who don’t approach a problem the same way as they do.

My friends that support the Democratic Party are now cheering on four more years of Obama. This response is interesting to note because it was only four years ago when they wanted to nominate Obama because he promised to close Guantanamo Bay, end Bush’s wars, work to legalize marijuana, and push for legislation that would lost the cost of healthcare for Americans. After four years of Obama as president Guantanamo Bay is still open, we are now embroiled in more wars than we were during Bush’s reign, marijuana dispensaries that are legal in the states they reside are being raided by the federal executive branch , and the cost of healthcare is going to go nowhere but up now that everybody is forced to buy health insurance or face state inflicted consequences. To claim that the political means failed to achieve any of my Democratic friends’ goals would be an understatement. Yet when I challenge them about this they resort to calling me a whiner because I’m not trying to change things.

What my friends aren’t considering is the fact that I am working to change things, I’m merely taking advantage of the knowledge I’ve gained from observing their failures. As I just explained my friends have failed to achieve their desired ends using the political means. Electing Obama didn’t close Guantanamo Bay, end the wars, legalize marijuana, or bring the cost of healthcare down. An impartial outside observer would point out that reelecting Obama isn’t going to accomplish any of those ends either. When something fails to work trying the exact same thing again isn’t rational. Their failure is valuable though because it demonstrates what not to do. Now that we know what doesn’t work we can try something else.

How am I working to close Guantanamo Bay, end the wars, legalized marijuana, and reduce the price of health care? By removing the entity that has enabled all of the headaches, the state. The state opened Guantanamo Bay, involved itself in the wars, prohibited marijuana, and raised healthcare prices criminalized free competition that market. Even if the political means could be utilized to correct all of these issues, logic would dictate, it could be used again later to recreate all of these issues. Why would I waste my time doing something that a proven failure and doesn’t guarantee long-term results?

Ending the state is no easy task. Attempts have been made in the past with varying results. The Revolutionary War was effective in ending the British state that reigned over the American colonies so violent insurrection has a demonstrated history of toppling states. Yet the long-term results were less than stellar. Shortly after the establishment of the new American state force was already being used to coerce individuals. Today, under the same state that has its roots in the Revolutionary War, we once again have high taxes and an overbearing state. Needless to say violent revolution is not the methodology to achieve long-term liberty so we must learn from past mistakes and try something different.

I advocate agorism. Agorism is a method specifically ended at ending the state through counter-economics and preventing a new state from rising later down the road. If it’s effective it will accomplish all of the goals my Democratic friends desired when Obama was running for his first term. Can I say it will work for certain? No, and if it fails that failure should be learned from and something new tried. Does practicing agorism constitute mere whining? No, it has a greater chance to achieve a better society than the political means that has been demonstrably impotent. Is agorism the only possible tactic? Absolutely not. Perhaps working inside a third party will accomplish great things. Historically it hasn’t accomplished much but it’s still a far better tactic than working inside of the current major political parties.

If you work outside the political system, or even if you working inside of the political system through third parties, you will suffer accusations of wasting time. These accusations should be ignored because they are coming from myopic individuals who are entirely incapable of seeing strategies outside of those that they’ve been using with little or no success. People working outside of the political system or inside through third parties are doing far more work in the name of changing the United States than those working inside the Democratic or Republican parties.

When your Democratic or Republican friends accuse you of not doing anything to fix the problems you raise know that you’re actually doing far more than they are. Instead of trying to beat a screw into a board with a hammer you’re trying a different tool. Is it the right tool? Maybe not, but continuing to try the hammer has a long history of failing and any untried tool will give you better odds. Sure, those who invested thousands of dollars in new hammers will say you’re wasting your money but they’re the ones who keep doing the same thing over and over again without notable results.

Yesterday I briefly discussed the primary issue with the labor movement, namely is the movement’s blaming of employers instead of the state. While the employers often treated their employees poorly the workers were put at a disadvantage by the state’s monopolization of money, land, tariffs, and ideas. Today I want to briefly discuss the real labor movement, that is what workers can do to improve their working conditions. Anybody who has read my blog for any length of time can likely guess where I’m going to go with this:

Yes, I’m going to discuss how agorism can be used by workers to improve the conditions they work under. As I discussed yesterday, the state has put workers at a disadvantage. In order to keep themselves free of the state’s cages workers must pay taxes, fines, and other fees issued by the state in the state’s currency. The state, through its monopoly on money, ensure that employers are the first receivers of state issued currency. As the state maintains a monopoly on land and grants monopolies on ideas workers are unable to build a competing business to their current employer. Finally the state also prevents workers from utilizing foreign production of goods that compete with their current employer due to tariffs. When combined, these monopolies ensure workers are left with few options, at least if they want to remain legal.

What if workers didn’t care about remaining legal? In that case a whole work of possibilities would open up to them. Negotiating with an employer would become entirely unnecessary to those running their own businesses. Workers who were unsatisfied with the conditions under which they were working could start producing goods and services themselves and eliminate their dependency on an employer. In essence decentralization allows individuals to become more independent (I know, that’s a crazy idea but bear with me).

If you study economics for any length of time you may come across the philosophy of distributism. Distributism is an economic system based on Catholic teachings, namely the teaching of subsidiary. In Catholicism subsidiary is the idea that the smallest social unit that can perform a function should perform that function. As you can expect distributism advocates small businesses over large corporations. While I don’t agree with distributism (it also advocates a tax system to redistribute wealth, which I oppose on the grounds that such actions require a coercive state) the idea of many small businesses should appear to workers. Not only does it give more options to workers (if you don’t like your current employer you can apply with any number of different employers) but such a work environment necessarily requires the state to interfere minimally in economic matters, which allows workers to start their own businesses easier. Because of this distribusim has many ideas that should appeal to workers and agorism can make those ideas a reality.

Agorism, I believe, will lead to the creation of many small businesses as opposed to a handful of large businesses. This is because a large business would have a hard time avoiding the eye of the state whereas a small business can easily do so. The more customers served by a single business the more likely it is that one of those customers will either intentionally or unintentionally alert the state to its existence and that would likely be the business’s end. Due to this fact agorism encourages decentralization and encourages individuals to be their own bosses, effectively weaken employers’ power. Workers not wanting to start a business will still gain an advantage as there will be more employers for them to chose from and workers who want to become producers themselves can directly improve their working conditions instead of using coercive methods against an employer.

Agorism has the potential not only to destroy the state that has given employers an unfair advantage but it also the potential to improve the negotiating power of workers.