Skip to main content

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

Against the Partyarchy

Political parties don’t have members, they have victims.

These are typically good people, who so desperately crave liberty that they're duped into joining an organization whose goal is to become the very antithesis of liberty, the state. Like the mother of a sick child being sold snake oil, these poor saps are filled with false hope and good intentions. Perhaps party membership allows the public to rationalize their chains. Maybe “Big L” libertarians pay their dues, swear to vote libertarian faithfully, and are thus satisfied that they’ve done everything within their power to fight the Leviathan.

These otherwise good Americans fall prey to an old military strategy: induce your enemy into expending their resources and energy into unproductive ends. Surely, the state would have preferred Satoshi Nakamoto to be working phone banks at the LP rather than authoring the white paper. Likewise, they would have preferred Cody Wilson to be canvassing neighborhoods for a local candidate, rather than designing the Liberator. Undoubtedly, the sacrifice of heroes like Ross Ulbricht and Irwin Schiff did more to spread the message of liberty than every vote ever cast for an LP candidate.

Political action isn’t useless you say? Consider that in 2016 Gary Johnson ran against an orange version of Hitler and grandma Nixon, and yet, was still only able to eek out 3.27% of the vote - a record for LP candidates. One popular excuse for poor electoral performances, is that LP candidates are deliberately kept out of debates by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Well, duh. If you wouldn’t stay in a card game that you knew was rigged, why stay in the LP knowing the elections are rigged before the fist ballot is cast? Moreover, whether or not Gary “Just Bake the Cake” Johnson is actually a libertarian, is up for debate. Certainly though, none would refer to him as a nap-abiding, voluntaryist.

The desire to rule over others is something that we’ve come to expect from R’s and D’s, which is why it seems particularly egregious when it comes from supposedly “pro-liberty” organizations like the LP. This wasn’t always the case either. The devolution of the liberty movement into party politics is well documented by Sam Konkin in his Agorist Primer. Aside from the inefficiencies and legal obstacles outlined above, the movement is hampered by the structural defects of institutional party politics. The role of technology and the rise of candidate-centered campaigns reinforce the duopoly and discourage the rise a third party.


In his book, Politics In Action: Cases in Modern American Government, Gary Wasserman points out that politics and technology are not strange bedfellows. The ‘84 Reagan/Bush campaign successfully used robocalls in a bid to register new voters. Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign leveraged a strong internet presence to shatter previous fundraising records for Democratic candidates. Indeed, the portion of donors coming from online sources has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years. Consider that one method political parties use to find donors, is to shell out big bucks for lists - this includes everything from subscribers to the Wall Street Journal, buyers of luxury cars, new homeowners, etc. This information is then cross-referenced with existing voter databases to find unregistered members of the public who are likely to either join the party, or donate to it. All of this requires one thing: money.

Money to pay strategists to identify key demographics, to pay companies for client lists, for computers to process the data and for staff to man the operation. Technology then, gives the advantage to the party with more funds in the coffer. It serves to strengthen party institutions and officials. Arguably, the unelected chair of RNC/DNC has more power over national politics than does any individual member of congress. It is therefore, almost impossible for a third party candidate (let alone an unaffiliated candidate) to achieve any semblance of success in electoral politics.

Also, the growing trend of candidate-centered campaigns, serves to undermine the Libertarian Party in two ways. First, it minimizes the prominence of the political platform. Whether or not the party has good ideas matters little to the average Joe in an age of political bombast and showmanship. Observe Trump’s rallies and it quickly becomes obvious, people vote for bread and circuses over well-thought out arguments 8 days out of the week. Secondly, it increases the likelihood that funding and support will be derived from special interest groups rather than donations from the general public. For good reason, Libertarian candidates seem predisposed to rejecting this funny money, and all the strings that come with it.

Even if we put these pragmatic arguments aside, is it not a logical contradiction for a group whose mission it is to banish coercive political power, to actively seek out coercive political power?


The idea that political parties are mutually exclusive to individual liberty is not a new one. George Washington, whose experience crushing the Whiskey Rebellion makes him a qualified expert on the subject of tyranny, wrote in his farewell address:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”

Mises knew it too. In Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition, he wrote:
“There can be no more grievous misunderstanding of the meaning and nature of liberalism than to think that it would be possible to secure the victory of liberal ideas by resorting to the methods employed today by the [other] political parties.”

If liberty cannot be achieved through party politics, then how? At this point, the answer should be obvious. If you’re concerned about inflation, rather than donating to the LP, wouldn’t it be better to invest that money in cryptocurrency? Rather than knocking on your neighbor’s door to talk about gun rights, are you not better off buying a ghost gunner? What is a more effective way of protecting your privacy rights: giving your money to Bill Weld or downloading Tor?

Leave the party friends, because it’s already left you.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About Global Warming

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools. Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary. Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compound

The Counter-Economics of COVID

In March 2020 - some say earlier, but by March 2020 at latest - the banking had sector collapsed. In response, coronavirus was manufactured as a scapegoat to justify the liquidity injection necessary to keep the Federal Reserve’s ponzi scheme alive. The State’s narrative would henceforth be: ‘Since all businesses were shut down, an unprecedented amount of money must be printed and distributed to the public.’ Milton Friedman’s helicopter money had come to fruition. But like a junkie chasing his initial high, the Fed had become immune to the effects of monetary stimulus. Each injection requiring a stronger, more potent dose of cheap & easy money. Less than two years later, and the effects of that stimulus have now waned & the banksters are poised to pull off another heist. As the business cycle continues to ebb and flow until the day of final reckoning, the State can be expected to behave in an increasingly erratic fashion. Like a cornered cat, or a fish out of water, the State

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom