Everyone is Guilty

Just to note: 2 years ago, the self-proclaimed “Paul McCartney” of Agorism mocked my anonymity because it more or less denied him the ability to compare my relative status to his as means to dismiss my critique of his Glenn Beck shilling. Not only was this clown guilty of the logical fallacy of the argument from authority, but as someone who was at one time actively involved on the production side of “black market activity,” I found it a bit ironic that this supposed co-inventor of “agorism” was criticizing anonymity. Frankly, from my experience, if you wanted a profile template for people to avoid if you are actively engaged in the “production side” of things, that person would be it. It was just a reminder of why I have never been able to take agorism, promoted as a form of “revolutionary activity,” seriously.

Recently, it appears that a former contributor of c4SS had participated as a drug informant as a means to ameliorate possible punishment of a drug charge. This has brought out the wolves. Obviously, there are violations of personal duties this person had with respect to the people this person “ratted out” but violations to the “cause”? Please…Are you paying taxes? Do you maintain your proper papers, “drivers license, social security card, etc.? Do you have a bank account? Do you pay for your transactions in the state approved currency? Do you watch movies, TV, etc? In other words, are you more or less in compliance with the organs of the State. Of course you are. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to operate. You would either be in jail or out in the woods somewhere. The very act of communicating with others on any meaningful scale is an indication that you are in compliance.

We all know that if that if a sufficient number of people refused compliance, then the State could not persist. But why does it continue to persist? Anthony de Jasay wrote a classic, “The State,” which tried to explain why the State persists even when everyone hates it, including the so-called “ruling class.” The reason why the State persists, the reason why you do not opt out of compliance(in any meaningful way) is the same reason why individual agents turn police informants. The problem of revolution(and reform) is very real and serious problem. It is largely an intractable problem. Any delusions of agorist revolution are comic book fantasies.

Indeed, the public pronouncement of agorism as a revolutionary strategy, a strategy predicated on “crime” as a means, and a publicly articulated orthodoxy of non-cooperative silence with the cops, sets it up as a trivial, slam dunk RICO Statute conspiracy case if agorism was ever deemed an actual threat by the State. In fact, it’s so easy, because it is so open, that it could be applied to take down the libertarian movement as a criminal conspiracy. Konkin was right about one thing: it would definitely be sold out by a professional libertarian class.

The over-arching theme of this blog is the empirical, positive problem with the State: it acts largely as a conspiracy against reform. And its ends(objective) largely appear to be to make revolution an intractable problem(self-preservation). The solution to the problem of revolution, I believe, is an entrepreneurial problem, but this solution is not agorism. That is, the solution is not to make “the market” an ends-related device, something as a device for a consistent application of theory to every action, as necessary means to bring about a “libertarian society.” It is this kind of stuff that turns something into a cult. And it explains why you have people ranting about people being a traitor to the cause, gossip about “slutty” sexual mores, moral self-righteous commentary about the incompatibility of “liberty and libertinism,” etc.

I’m not in the business of defending police informants, but I am in the business of cutting down bullshit impersonal moral obligation claims. People don’t engage in black market transactions(e.g. drugs) to demonstrate a principle of consistency or to play a role in bringing about a “free society. They do it to derive utility. In the case of drugs, they do it to get high. These are the ends of market agents….


5 thoughts on “Everyone is Guilty

    1. Dr. Long, I’m not in disagreement with ole Socrates, but I’m not really making a moral equivalence argument between, say, paying taxes and serving as a police informant. The first is a type of moral obligation that is usually considered a type of impersonal duty. The second would be violation of a personal duty to the people that were ratted on. My argument is that the second is not a violation of an impersonal duty(to the cause). If one considers it to be a violation of of an impersonal obligation(and I read quite a few comments that portrayed it as such), then one would have to consider compliance with the State(e.g., paying taxes) to be a similar violation.

    2. I’m curious about the distinction regarding taxes. Is the injustice of paying taxes the fact that I am deprived of my wealth, or that my (former) wealth is being used to kill and imprison innocent people? There’s also issue of how by paying taxes I am reinforcing the state’s incentive to levy and collect taxes… but that seems to be a more esoteric point.

      So is paying taxes okay because I can wash my hands of responsibility as soon as I write the check? I dunno about that… it seems similar to how the President washes his hands of “collateral damage” during wars.

      Basically, I can see how “ratting” can be considered a greater sin than earning income and paying the taxes that fund the narcs, but it is only a quantitative matter (due to the proximity of my action to the harm being done) than a qualitative difference.

      1. Sorry about the delay in answering.

        The point of my critique was not to compare “the moral violation” of paying taxes relative to that of serving as a police informant. It was simply to point out that most commenting about “the betrayal” weren’t actually personally betrayed and any attempt by these commenters to extend it to an impersonal betrayal are full of it because they are far too much in compliance with the State to be babbling about that. And the reason they are in compliance with the State is the same reason the person was forced to be a police informant in the first place.

        It is not a moral failing…The problem of “revolution” is a very difficult one and largely an intractable one. It’s not subject to comic book fantasy resolutions…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s