1. State repression in response to your activities - might expand the state further, and you won’t be able to call them on it and use the constitution to outlaw it.

2. Violent state repression. When you do something illegal to the government, they can use violence against you and your followers.

3. Civil war. They fight,m you respond, etc.

4. Because of your tactics, people don’t follow you. You become a small group of bandits rather han a large movement.

5. People do follow you but then choose to “regress” and re-join society once the violence breaks out. This adds to the misery, violence and break up of families and communities.

6. Coup d’Etat. Once there is no government in some areas, and after the state has been abandoned by so many - the state that is still there could be overthrown by another group who may then take power and be willing to use force to keep that power - because it is more willing to supress the masses, it will be harder to uproot and we may then live under a dictatorship.

– I could go on. All of these are possible outcomes, likely even, if your movement got very far. Instead, if you use the constitution that we have and repeal the 16th amendment and make big moves like that, you have a n actual real chance of limiting government to a tiny role - and then possibly even eliminating it safely.

Once again, I ask you: why not try to it that way?

Your concerns about agorists taking power in a Bolshevik style dictatorship don’t hold water, because we don’t advocate the coup d’etat model of revolution that Bolsheviks embraced.

My summary of how counter-economics at the micro level ultimately becomes revolution at the macro level is at the bottom of agorism.info.

Agorist Revolution in a Nutshell

Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism.

In a market anarchist society, law and security will be provided by market institutions, not political institutions. Agorists recognize, therefore, that those institutions can not develop through political reform. Instead, they will come about as a result of market processes.

As government is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of government by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and therefore can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy — black and grey markets.

But that doesn’t correspond to any reality that has ever existed. The “wild west” was much more stateless than we have today, as are some warlord areas. Why would people stop trying to gain power while the “victims” somehow break free? Its a utpian fantasy that has no basis in historical, theoretical or mathematical truth.

You say “but there is no real eason to imagine the remaining victims will choose to remain oppressed when the libertarian alternative is so visible and accessible.” — but you ignore the fact that many people feel safer with a government, others may be taken in by propaganda, still others are also interested in power and hence want to live in a society with a government in order to try to curry favors. Later you say “In this phase, the State moves into a series of terminal crises,somewhat analogous to the well-known Marxist scenario,but with different causes -in this case r,eal ones.” You have no proof for any of your claims. Its hogwash. Its as bad as Marx.

You are assuming a change in human nature, ignoring facts and history and living in a fantasy world. ne step away from what you declare will happen, is what you slip in just in little bits here and again eg “unless the State launches an all-out last aggression” — what does it actually mean?

Civil war.

The economic realities of collectivism, socialism, is: totalitarianism

The economic realities of an immediate move from a state society to a completely stateless one are almost as deterministic: anarchy = civil war

However, if you would give up this stupid revolutionary, manifest drivel and just work on incremental change, founded in a constitution which states the limits of government and the rights of the people - which is all the government can do - you can get there. Then, if its still so important, you can go the next step, clealry, consciously and when its only a small step to take. At that point, it wouldn’t be anarchy, it would be the final privatizations of the last of the important institutions. Then it would simply be a private society. It wouldn’t be crazy, we would know what to do if anyone tried to take power, we would have a police consistantly, it would just go from a public force to a private force and nobody would really even notice.

But you have an incremental idea too. You have your several-steps, included among them “These communities, whether above or underground, can now sustain the New
Libertarian Alliance, NLA acts as spokesman for the agora with the statist society, using every chance to publicize the superiority of agorist living to statist inhabiting and perhaps argue for tolerance of those with “different ways.”"

Two obvious questions:
1. Isn’t that spokesman kind of like a politician?
2. If you are going to do it incrementally anyway, why not do it the way I suggest and reduce government until is weilds almost no power anyway (by using our constitution!) and then we can eliminate it if we so desire quite easily at that point. It seems like your way is much harder, less likely to work, could end up in a State backlash and/or civil war and devastating revolution (”When the State unleashes its final wave of suppression -and is successfully resisted - this is the definition of Revolution.”), and the only thing it provides that my way doesn’t is power for you, by leading the movement. Is that your real motive?

Furthermore, read a lot of those other links I posted specifically for you. I’ve had a great deal to say about why reformism (the approach you advocate) doesn’t work. I say that as someone with roughly a decade and a half of Libertarian Party activism under my belt.

By the way - this formula is exactly what most libertarian-conservatives plan, and there are even some republican congressmen advocating each of these steps.

On the left you have people advocating the steps to take us to socialism, on the right you have some advocating the steps toward a stateless (or at least very very limited state) society. Then you have thugs in both parties who just want a bigger state because it suits their interest and they are being bribed.

Why not work with libertarians, the Libertarian Party…

This might answer that: Why are you left libertarian?

The only way to prevent abuse of power is to strictly limit it. Abolishing it will only leave a vacuum which will be filled by those with ill-intent.

The most successful stateless society so far was medieval Ireland. Their tuath system of privatized law and defense lasted roughly a thousand years — which makes it at least 4 times as successful at protecting freedom as the American experiment with constitutionalism has been. If you date the Civil War as the overthrow of constitutional government, then the tuath system was more than 10 times as successful. If you date the loss of liberty back to the wrong people losing the Whiskey Rebellion under the George Washington regime, the Irish tuath system was so much more successful that I personally don’t care to take the time to calculate exactlly how much more so.

I have to guess that its because you want to do away with all government, which means you have to work with other “revolutionaries”. But this puts you in a position where most of your allies favor much more regulation, statism, while you want less. You are polar opposites, only connected by your urge to overthrow the government. Its not a good position. You’ll probably get nowhere, but if you get somewhere you are likely to be as destructive as he Bolsheviks in 1917. In yout case you would start with no-government instead of communism, but soon a coup would take back the seat or small warlords, gangs and mafia would take control, or some such thing.

The only way to prevent abuse of power is to strictly limit it. Abolishing it will only leave a vacuum which will be filled by those with ill-intent.

As for the one discussing seizure of state proerty - thats just wrong. It should be sold to the higest bidder, made private. There is no nuanced reasoning to explain how it was stolen and now rightfully owned by the workers - that’s just communism. Contorting around things just makes you invert your own belief system.

Fundamental rights - the founding fathers knew it, America was libertarian until the socialists came along - life, liberty and property. They need to be respected and protected and that is the single role for a democratic government. If rights are not protecred (and only voluntarily respected) you have anarchy. Anarchy is not good; its not conducive to economic prosperity or freedom. You have criminals who can easily steal your property and not face justice. You cannot invest in a business without worry that someone will embezzle funds and leave you bankrupt or simply murder you and take all your money. A lawless society is not a pleasant one as many from tribal countries can avow.

If right of life, liberty and property are protected by a government - and its role is limited to just that; no regulation on wages or contracts, no government run firms or watch-dog agencies; no subsidies for firms or for people; just protection of rights, enforcement of voluntary contracts and the few departments and agencies for this enforcement - courts, prisons, congress to appoint judges and declare war, etc. What we have only without about 75% of the budget and without any price and output regulations and so forth; then you have a free and prosperous society. Simple as that - we had it when this country was founded.