Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: DoctaFeelgood on October 03, 2012, 10:13 am
-
I remember reading somewhere that Rothbard had a big problem with Agorism and said it was a failure or wasn't compatible or something along those lines. I was never really too familiar with Agorism until recently, and from the simple descriptions I have read, it seems to hit the nail on the head with everything I have come to believe. As somebody who hold's Rothbard's teachings in the highest regards, what exactly was his problem with Agorism and why are they not compatible? Hopefully one of you can give me a short and sweet answer so I don't have to do anymore homework and research then I already have on my plate. :-\
-Doc
-
It looks like Rothbard's critique of Agorism is related to Ronald Coarse's The Nature of the Firm.
There is a good synopsis here: http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm
And konkin's rebuttal to rothbard: http://www.anthonyflood.com/konkinreplytorothbard.htm
I'm speedreading, but it appears from this that Konkin's vision of Agorism would mean everybody's an independent contractor. Rothbard sees this as absurd, we need group organization like corporations etc.
It looks like the transaction costs argument. That some transactions are too expensive and must be internalized within units of organization called corporations instead of being all market based.
Rothbard then says there are severe limitations to the scope of the black market being used for freedom (Konkin's argument), because practical stuff like making cars, concrete factories have no reason to be black market economy stuff. Essentially he accuses Konkin of overly focusing on exotic elements e.g. illegal drugs rather than the more mundane production necessary for the world.
--
I think it would be very interesting to know what Rothbard and Konkin would think about cryptocurrencies! It is possible Rothbard is completely correct in 1980 and completely wrong in 2020!
Must add: I find left wing libertarians seriously confusing animals. I don't see what's left wing about them exactly. They seem to think being against American policies is somehow an automatic left wing position, but markets and/or private ownership is ok. As far as I'm concerned meritocracy and egalitarianism are exact opposites. Somebody explain to me how these dudes live with themselves, they seem neither fish nor fowl to me.
-
Thanks for finding these Pine. Rothbard and Konkin were the two main inspirations for creating Silk Road, so it is interesting to see that they disagreed on some things. They both have the same ends: abolition of the state. However, they disagree on what the best path to get there is, and what the world will look like if we do. Regarding how labor will organize absent government controls, as I've mentioned in other posts, no one really knows, but I tend to side with Rothbard on this one, that organizations of different sizes would be optimal and have their place along side sole-proprietorships. Konkin cedes this point as unimportant in his reply anyway.
The main difference I see in these essays is the means that should be pursued to bring about a free society. Konkin advocates agorism, while Rothbard advocates political action. In this case, I think Rothbard is out of touch with business, markets and the messy power struggle of the real world. He's an amazing economist, political scientist, and historian, but he's not a businessman or entrepreneur. Konkin is no where near the academic that Rothbard is, but his genius lies in his simple insights he called agorism and counter-economics. He saw that society is simply the aggregate of the billions of human to human interactions that go on daily and that the power of the state is derived from their control of those interactions. The more they control, the more powerful they are, the less they control, the less powerful they are and the more freedom individuals have. Simple. So, if you want to be free and remove your support from the state, stop engaging in interactions that they control as much as possible.
Honestly I see no major problem with either approach that would make it unworthy of pursuit. Electing officials that will take steps to dismantle the state apparatus and give people more freedom is great. Break up and weaken that monopoly from the inside. At the same time, actively creating alternatives to it in the free market and making it easier for people to withdraw their support is also great, weaken it from the outside.
Both have their pitfalls and drawbacks, and liberty is still only a dream we can work toward but may never obtain, but I hope that if these men were still alive and saw Silk Road, they would have hope for the future and agree that their views are compatible.
-
Thank you both for the help in teaching me something. :)
I too wonder what some of the great libertarian minds of the past would say if they saw all this. I assume they would be filled with the same overwhelming delight I was when I stumbled upon this amazing place. The black market is the only thing supplying the demand for a free market as of right now, and thanks to bitcoin I suppose that almost any industry could participate outside of state control. Take Wikispeed for example, the first car manufacturer to accept bitcoins as payment for automobiles that they build from scratch. If they could manage to pull that off anonymously, then they could operate solely in the black market. It seems that with the right technology maybe we can all be independent contractors after all. It makes my head spin thinking about what the world will look like in the next 10 or 20 years.
As far as the so called "libertarian socialists", if such an oxymoron is even possible, I am even more confused than you are. Their attempts to make life "equal" for everyone leave no motivation for those who come up with the good ideas. If they want to start a business and hire unqualified and incompetent people to run the show then by all means let them, but there's no way to give equality to everyone without using force and coercion to steal money.
-
Thanks for finding these Pine. Rothbard and Konkin were the two main inspirations for creating Silk Road, so it is interesting to see that they disagreed on some things. They both have the same ends: abolition of the state. However, they disagree on what the best path to get there is, and what the world will look like if we do. Regarding how labor will organize absent government controls, as I've mentioned in other posts, no one really knows, but I tend to side with Rothbard on this one, that organizations of different sizes would be optimal and have their place along side sole-proprietorships. Konkin cedes this point as unimportant in his reply anyway.
The main difference I see in these essays is the means that should be pursued to bring about a free society. Konkin advocates agorism, while Rothbard advocates political action. In this case, I think Rothbard is out of touch with business, markets and the messy power struggle of the real world. He's an amazing economist, political scientist, and historian, but he's not a businessman or entrepreneur. Konkin is no where near the academic that Rothbard is, but his genius lies in his simple insights he called agorism and counter-economics. He saw that society is simply the aggregate of the billions of human to human interactions that go on daily and that the power of the state is derived from their control of those interactions. The more they control, the more powerful they are, the less they control, the less powerful they are and the more freedom individuals have. Simple. So, if you want to be free and remove your support from the state, stop engaging in interactions that they control as much as possible.
Honestly I see no major problem with either approach that would make it unworthy of pursuit. Electing officials that will take steps to dismantle the state apparatus and give people more freedom is great. Break up and weaken that monopoly from the inside. At the same time, actively creating alternatives to it in the free market and making it easier for people to withdraw their support is also great, weaken it from the outside.
Both have their pitfalls and drawbacks, and liberty is still only a dream we can work toward but may never obtain, but I hope that if these men were still alive and saw Silk Road, they would have hope for the future and agree that their views are compatible.
I agree with Rothbard. Saying that everything would be privately contracted out and wages as we know it would be eliminated doesn't sound very realistic.
But I do not agree that you can change the state through political action. Now keep in mind I have not read ANY thing by Rothbard (recommendations? :D Man, Economy & the State?) or The New Libertarian Manifesto
I try to be an agorist whenever I can, (avoid taxes when it is plausible that I will not get audited for it) but I feel there is a tradeoff with agorists in that. you keep your integrity and money, but you have a higher chance of being hunted down by the state.
So I don't know, when I do a contract job, I don't pay the taxes, (unless it was my major source of income), I always opt to be paid in cash when it is available. Is this agorism? or because I do not commit to it 100% of the time it is some sort of pseudo-agorism? some insight in this would interesting.
Freedom psychologically takes priority over economic freedom for me.
-
Thanks for finding these Pine.
Agreed. I knew the two had argued over agorism, but I hadn't seen the essays until now (filed away for future reading).
Rothbard and Konkin were the two main inspirations for creating Silk Road, so it is interesting to see that they disagreed on some things.
Good to know what the main inspirations were. I mean I already figured Konkin was one because of the NLM, but I wasn't sure how much of the non-agorist libertarian-left/mutualist/anarcho-capitalist stuff was too.
Honestly I see no major problem with either approach that would make it unworthy of pursuit. Electing officials that will take steps to dismantle the state apparatus and give people more freedom is great. Break up and weaken that monopoly from the inside. At the same time, actively creating alternatives to it in the free market and making it easier for people to withdraw their support is also great, weaken it from the outside.
I'm inclined to agree in that the world is a big and complex place so I think we need to borrow liberally (if you'll pardon the pun) from both camps to get where we want to go. To paraphrase numerous martial arts teachers: do whatever gets you more freedom. So that means get involved in politics where it can actually help (not necessarily in a party, these days lobby groups can be more effective) and cut out the state middle-man where you can.
Both have their pitfalls and drawbacks, and liberty is still only a dream we can work toward but may never obtain, but I hope that if these men were still alive and saw Silk Road, they would have hope for the future and agree that their views are compatible.
I reckon your best bet to get an actual answer to that is to create a disposable Tor Mail account and email J. Neil Schulman for his opinion. ;)
Assuming you haven't already done so that is.
-
Now keep in mind I have not read ANY thing by Rothbard (recommendations? :D Man, Economy & the State?) or The New Libertarian Manifesto
Man, Economy & State is his best, most illuminating book, but it is a 1000 page economics text, so unless you want the knowledge bad, it's a beast of a read. "Anatomy of the State" is a bit more manageable and a good starting point.
Is this agorism? or because I do not commit to it 100% of the time it is some sort of pseudo-agorism?
It's easier if you judge actions instead of people. Getting paid in unreported cash (or bitcoin) is an agorist action, while getting a paycheck with taxes deducted is not. Anything you do that is outside the control of the state is agorist, so in some sense we are all agorists whether we know it or not. Some people just take those actions because of the personal gain they can obtain, which is perfectly fine, but some do it as a conscientious objection and act of rebellion against the state as well.
I'm out to turn unconscious agorists in to conscious active ones :)
-
It's easier if you judge actions instead of people. Getting paid in unreported cash (or bitcoin) is an agorist action, while getting a paycheck with taxes deducted is not. Anything you do that is outside the control of the state is agorist, so in some sense we are all agorists whether we know it or not. Some people just take those actions because of the personal gain they can obtain, which is perfectly fine, but some do it as a conscientious objection and act of rebellion against the state as well.
I'm out to turn unconscious agorists in to conscious active ones :)
As I understand Konkin, Agorism is quite distinct from countereconomics in that it requires a conscious revolutionary goal, which awareness and focus would tend to produce more activity as a consequence. So actually you'd be converting run-of-the-mill countereconomists (which, yes, to some extent includes EVERYONE who lives under a state) into agorists. I know a lot of people (especially the Free Talk Live crew) are critical of people who stick to their guns on definitions like that, but what was the point of Konkin coming up with a word to distinguish consciously revolutionary countereconomics if it is to be conflated with countereconomics in general? Agorism is, at its heart, a theory of revolutionary strategy, not of ethics or economics; although a revolution must have an ethical goal, and economics explains why Agorism can work.
-
Must add: I find left wing libertarians seriously confusing animals.
Especially when they tell the animals they have "rights". :P
Speaking of corporations, has anyone seen the satire "Utopia, Limited"?
(Wikipedia's "Today's featured picture" pointing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia,_Limited )
Do I need more culture? Wonder if I should check it out. ???
The more they control, the more powerful they are, the less they control, the less powerful they are and the more freedom individuals have. Simple. So, if you want to be free and remove your support from the state, stop engaging in interactions that they control as much as possible.
Exactly, tune in, turn on, and drop out of conventional society to just become a slave to the concept of "freedom." :o
Maybe like Charles Manson or the Unabomber? >:(
Too much hassle. You're fucked every which way. :-\
I'm already exhausted by all the hoops I've had to jump through to finally get here on the Silk Road Forum. :-[
Existence is feudal. :'(
Honestly I see no major problem with either approach that would make it unworthy of pursuit. Electing officials that will take steps to dismantle the state apparatus and give people more freedom is great. Break up and weaken that monopoly from the inside. At the same time, actively creating alternatives to it in the free market and making it easier for people to withdraw their support is also great, weaken it from the outside.
How about some accountable transparency? Sunlight is the only disinfectant. 8) Oh, except here on the Silk Road.
You're fighting a self-perpetuating system bought and paid for, including the politicians and their burly servants. I'm not saying you shouldn't fight the power but I only fight for my right to party since I've gave up hoping for a better world.
As far as the so called "libertarian socialists", if such an oxymoron is even possible, I am even more confused than you are. Their attempts to make life "equal" for everyone leave no motivation for those who come up with the good ideas. If they want to start a business and hire unqualified and incompetent people to run the show then by all means let them, but there's no way to give equality to everyone without using force and coercion to steal money.
I think I'm a "libertarian socialist". I may be a moron but I've yet to try oxy so I'm not an oxymoron, though I am a walking paradox - as we all are (or are hypocrites in denial). I believe in equal fair access to roads, health care, education, employment, and the pursuit of happiness. I also believe in rights to what's earned. I don't believe in the rights of private ownership (not the same thing as personal ownership). Balance is skewed in favour of those higher up our globalized pyramid schemes.
I agree with Rothbard. Saying that everything would be privately contracted out and wages as we know it would be eliminated doesn't sound very realistic.
But I do not agree that you can change the state through political action.
I am unquestionably disillusioned and agree to disagree and agree with your disagreement. You can try to change the state through political action, but you will fail or it will be "managed" and dealt with by consensus of the inbred elite matrixed powers that are consuming this planet's resources as fast as their power-addicted egos can suck. >:( And we all want to be just like them. I can be bought.
So I don't know, when I do a contract job, I don't pay the taxes, (unless it was my major source of income), I always opt to be paid in cash when it is available. Is this agorism? or because I do not commit to it 100% of the time it is some sort of pseudo-agorism? some insight in this would interesting.
It's passive-agorism. ;)
To paraphrase numerous martial arts teachers: do whatever gets you more freedom.
YES! :D
So that means get involved in politics where it can actually help (not necessarily in a party, these days lobby groups can be more effective) and cut out the state middle-man where you can.
Generally, "lobbyist" is just a nice way of saying "corrupt briber". Without money it's like entering a cock measuring contest against a horse - you're sure to loose. :P
Didn't know of Rothbard or Konkin before this. Thanks for the intro.
~RutGroove
Just catching up on this fascinating topic. Sorry I'm late. New here.
-
had posting issues with my first reply so i am going to keep this one short just in case i lose it all again.
a place that is economically literate <3
libertarian socialists have a flawed theory from noes to tail
rothbard would have dismissed bitcoins on face value simply because of the historical value money requires, part of the 7 characteristics of money.
rothbard died in the mid 90's and never saw our state as it is now and how the markets are voiding them with cunning and the latest tech.
great posts so far, i hope i make it back around here to read more at some point.
-
rothbard would have dismissed bitcoins on face value simply because of the historical value money requires, part of the 7 characteristics of money.
History has to start somewhere. We are writing that history. What was Bitcoin's prior value though before being used as money? Novelty?
-
As I have told many others, Rothbard and the rest of the Mises gang while being incredibly intelligent are not the be all end all of the anarchist world.
I am an anarchist who follows the non aggression principle.
Everything else, is chicken feed and doesnt mean a damn thing to me personally. I love bitcoin, hard silver, copper, gold and barter. In my local area we have several satisfying markets that are grey in nature, avoidance of the state is of primary concern.
Regardless, my hat is off to those who have worked so hard on this wonderful avenue of true liberty.
-
rothbard would have dismissed bitcoins on face value simply because of the historical value money requires, part of the 7 characteristics of money.
History has to start somewhere. We are writing that history. What was Bitcoin's prior value though before being used as money? Novelty?
bitcoins would be nothing to him as it is to many of the mises fellows, but as they also understand, the internet is completely uncharted waters. bitcoins work because governments and their currency dont. bitcoin is a limited fiat currency, all other currencies are unlimited fiat, so as long as the governments of the world are crooked and the number of coins are limited, by default bitcoin has a place in this world, IMO.
there is of course the anonymous factor, but that is only a factor because governments dont work, they want to control the market and the people, and that does not work.
-
i think i just unwittingly gave a huge endorsement to investing in bitcoins before i figured out how to purchase them.... good thing this is an extremely small community and this thread has so few views. ;)
-
i think i just unwittingly gave a huge endorsement to investing in bitcoins before i figured out how to purchase them.... good thing this is an extremely small community and this thread has so few views. ;)
Don't worry. Check out the speculation board at bitcointalk.org is you want to see a sea of opinion.
-
rothbard would have dismissed bitcoins on face value simply because of the historical value money requires, part of the 7 characteristics of money.
History has to start somewhere. We are writing that history. What was Bitcoin's prior value though before being used as money? Novelty?
Its value was "expected future money".
-
Interesting it is still seen as an "evil" money substitute by many ;)
-
Rothbard thought everything could be provided more efficiently by the private sector.
Agorism is basically market anarchy. They're pretty similar, but differ slightly on some specifics.
-
rothbard would have dismissed bitcoins on face value simply because of the historical value money requires, part of the 7 characteristics of money.
History has to start somewhere. We are writing that history. What was Bitcoin's prior value though before being used as money? Novelty?
Its value was "expected future money".
what a retarded and political notion. any and everything can have a future value, even pieces of paper. if that was the original theory behind bitcoin, it was a lucky play, not a smart one. it happened to turn out well but if a limited and time released product was created just to be a limited product and assume it would have a growth in value without a physical form or the base value of materials, seems like a bad idea. pet rocks were a hit at one point in time, so odd things do happen. there is nothing to stop an unlimited number of competitors, there is that first established firm/product/whatever benefit, but that does not stop competition
it turns out bitcoins have found a role in the market place, in part because it removes governments, in part because it is the first new currency(that i know of) to a new market (the internet), in part because of the dispersal mechanism .
bullish on bitcoins even if that was the foolhardy notion behind them.
-
i think i just unwittingly gave a huge endorsement to investing in bitcoins before i figured out how to purchase them.... good thing this is an extremely small community and this thread has so few views. ;)
Don't worry. Check out the speculation board at bitcointalk.org is you want to see a sea of opinion.
i like small communities, less group think.
-
I agree, small is good
The individual is better
-
I am a Voluntaryist/Agorist so i use as much agorism as possible while still using self preservation so for example:
when i go and eat i say its to go so i dont pay sales tax, eat it their
I use bitcoins as much as possible since they are untracable and more valuable then fiats
I sell grey market compounds thinning the line between grey and black market is key in my opinion
however i do have to pay some taxes no one is a pure agorist unless your self sustaining everyone pays some type of tax/theft
most people are agorist at heart selling pirated CD's in jr high and selling weed in high school im a agorist most people are truely but you can use the state like konklin wants to destroy it self from withing.
check out the Free State Project opt the fuck out of the system
-
check out the Free State Project opt the fuck out of the system
To many people to close- otherwise the idea is good.
-
Rothbard, huh?
His theories are all nice and fine, but I bet you shit on them when your house is on fire and not a firefighter in sight because you live in a not-so-profitable area no private fire department wants to serve...
-
Rothbard, huh?
His theories are all nice and fine, but I bet you shit on them when your house is on fire and not a firefighter in sight because you live in a not-so-profitable area no private fire department wants to serve...
Yes much better for us to hire some armed men to steal money from others for us (for a cut to them!) so that we can fund a million dollar fire department for buttfuck nowhere population ten people.
-
Rothbard, huh?
His theories are all nice and fine, but I bet you shit on them when your house is on fire and not a firefighter in sight because you live in a not-so-profitable area no private fire department wants to serve...
Yes much better for us to hire some armed men to steal money from others for us (for a cut to them!) so that we can fund a million dollar fire department for buttfuck nowhere population ten people.
See what you just did there? It's called "deflection", look it up. It has never solved a problem.
-
I've started to read Rothbard but it's a real struggle. Couple of dozen pages in, and he's trying to argue about 'natural order'. Which natural order? Back when we weren't top of the food chain, or before we started eating grains? What knowledge or basis do you have to comment on what is 'natural' regarding the behaviour of the human species? Perhaps the entire world, the way the world currently sits, is the most natural system never be be devised?
The other real big issue I have with American style libertarianism, is that it comes with historical baggage. The original zeitgeist of the US was one of escape from they tyranny of the British Empire, into new and unexplored lands. "Every man for himself!" I'm sure was utmost in the minds of many. The great irony is of course 300 years later and the US is in fact the new Empire - nothing has changed.
Because of this historical baggage, it appears many US libertarians cannot reconcile the natural human proclivity for power with the the need for an advanced society to have an underlying structure over and above 'survival of the fittest'. It's almost to the point where if you believe that in order for society to function requires rules, you're automatically advocating the state and therefore can't be a libertarian. And by rules I don't mean 'freedom above all', I mean an agreed structure in which people can live and prosper.
If you think a platform of 'freedom' will solve the world's ills, I think that's an incredibly naive thing to think. Without some framework, human nature (we're back to the first paragraph again) I believe would have a propensity towards chaos and you're back to square one again - the power struggle.
And this is the thing I struggle with the most - if it's human nature to destroy itself and everything else - and I think that's not a difficult road to argue, historically - then how is libertarianism going to respond to that, if it is indeed the true 'human nature'?
I think
-
Both were market anarchists. What voluntary relationships will evolve from pure market anarchy is open for debate. A relationship that works well in one industry, might not work well in another. The most important thing is, ALL economic relationships are voluntary and open to market forces. The market ultimately decides the organizational components of business.
I think Karl Hess brings it into perspective with, "Anarchy Without Hyphens".
http://www.panarchy.org/hess/anarchism.html
-
Rothbard, huh?
His theories are all nice and fine, but I bet you shit on them when your house is on fire and not a firefighter in sight because you live in a not-so-profitable area no private fire department wants to serve...
Yes much better for us to hire some armed men to steal money from others for us (for a cut to them!) so that we can fund a million dollar fire department for buttfuck nowhere population ten people.
See what you just did there? It's called "deflection", look it up. It has never solved a problem.
But, but, but, who will build the roadzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?
-
I've started to read Rothbard but it's a real struggle. Couple of dozen pages in, and he's trying to argue about 'natural order'. Which natural order? Back when we weren't top of the food chain, or before we started eating grains? What knowledge or basis do you have to comment on what is 'natural' regarding the behaviour of the human species? Perhaps the entire world, the way the world currently sits, is the most natural system never be be devised?
The other real big issue I have with American style libertarianism, is that it comes with historical baggage. The original zeitgeist of the US was one of escape from they tyranny of the British Empire, into new and unexplored lands. "Every man for himself!" I'm sure was utmost in the minds of many. The great irony is of course 300 years later and the US is in fact the new Empire - nothing has changed.
Because of this historical baggage, it appears many US libertarians cannot reconcile the natural human proclivity for power with the the need for an advanced society to have an underlying structure over and above 'survival of the fittest'. It's almost to the point where if you believe that in order for society to function requires rules, you're automatically advocating the state and therefore can't be a libertarian. And by rules I don't mean 'freedom above all', I mean an agreed structure in which people can live and prosper.
If you think a platform of 'freedom' will solve the world's ills, I think that's an incredibly naive thing to think. Without some framework, human nature (we're back to the first paragraph again) I believe would have a propensity towards chaos and you're back to square one again - the power struggle.
And this is the thing I struggle with the most - if it's human nature to destroy itself and everything else - and I think that's not a difficult road to argue, historically - then how is libertarianism going to respond to that, if it is indeed the true 'human nature'?
I think
See: Polycentric Law (David Friedman, Bruce Benson, Tom Bell, and recently, Gary Chartier has a new book that just came out.)
http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Legal-Order-Politics-Stateless/dp/1107032288/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352858957&sr=8-1&keywords=gary+chartier
I haven't read it yet.
Rothbard on "Statelessness":
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
-
Rothbard, huh?
His theories are all nice and fine, but I bet you shit on them when your house is on fire and not a firefighter in sight because you live in a not-so-profitable area no private fire department wants to serve...
Yes much better for us to hire some armed men to steal money from others for us (for a cut to them!) so that we can fund a million dollar fire department for buttfuck nowhere population ten people.
See what you just did there? It's called "deflection", look it up. It has never solved a problem.
But, but, but, who will build the roadzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?
Mmmkay, you made fun of the question. Now back up the lulz and answer it, who will build the roads? Are you stipulating that automagically landowners big and small will somehow each build a section of road on their land that just so happens to be compatible with neighboring sections of like-minded landowners? And since the market is all about profit, how is that going to work? A toll booth every 50 yards?
You can belittle the question all you want, as long as you don't have an evidence-based answer, or at least a falsifiable model, those giggles are more like the giggling of a teenage girl trying to evade an embarrassing question.