The topic is Agorism; consistent libertarian thoughts, actions, and counter-economics are all up for discussion, as well as discussions about Samuel Edward Konkin III
Are you promoting 100% "pure" agorism, as in no state intervention at all toward any non-aggressive action, or do you see it more as something to stretch toward like plants stretch toward the sun?
Can we now displace (outperform+depopularize) "Police"
with a decentralized entity that enforces only The One Law ?
"Oath Keepers" comes to mind, but their emo+word-salad is hopeless.
I think that will be a natural first step to abandoning the state.
The state claims a monopoly on violence.
What is counter-economics?
A minarchy is the larval stage of an empire.
Everybody has the right of self-defense. When the attacker trying to harm you is more powerful than you(Mafia, Mob, Gang, State etc.) you can be protected by a security organization.
Such an organization must be cheaper than taxes, and its employees must be paid more than the police to poach the police.
Does it seem likely to you that such a setup will ever be set up, and sustainable? Also, what happens when two people both claim to be oppressed by each other?
Then an independent arbitrator or court is required whose judgment both parties to the conflict trust
No, there is no monopoly of security and no monopoly of jurisdiction. A court that keeps making bad decisions disappears from the market. So you cannot be forced to pay taxes for poor service
So what happens in my scenario when the two parties cannot agree on an independent arbitrator? Also, can they both hire a "security" force (hired guns), and have a war with each other?
Regarding "A court that keeps making bad decisions disappears from the market", this would be true if everyone had perfect knowledge and so on. As it is, it is probably more true to say that ...
"A court that fails to make self serving decisions disappears from the market". This also touches the general issue of funding. Are these courts supposed to be charities funded by volunteers?
Someone who is just looking for trouble and harming others cannot find an insurer.
Security companies will avoid expensive wars and settle on arbitration tribunals. This is already the case today when disputes arise between companies in different countries
So security companies will act in a self serving manner. And we know that companies that do this quite often do not do what is good for "the people". And there is no authority (state) to keep them
When companies act selfish, they will keep their customers happy.Otherwise customers go away. state can harm its people because you only have a choice between bad and very bad service every 4years
Agorism is just a cooler word for voluntaryism; the idea that all human interaction should be voluntary.
If you are not an Agorist you believe that coersion against peaceful people is sometimes neccessary to get your way.
My main problem (or lack of understanding?) with agorism is two-fold I suppose. I would love to see it challenged (see self-replies).
