by 
[ad#righthandside-tall]Peter Klein wrote a blog post yesterday on the Mises Economics blog continuing the agorist vs. anarcho-capitalist discussion on organization. In his post, Klein summarized his contribution to the discussion followed by a quoting Rothbard’s assessment of agorists view on organization. But both Klein and Rothbard make unsupported general conclusions that they seem to base on some agorists’ personal preferences rather than agorist theory.
It is true that agorists in general do not fancy “organization, hierarchy, leaders and followers, etc.”, which is a common preference among anarchists of all varieties. Rothbard (and Klein) is right in that there is not necessarily anything wrong with voluntary organization or voluntary “membership” in hierarchical structures where one is subjected to the rule of majority vote or the whims of a ruler. But as good economists both Rothbard and Klein seem to assume too much: there is nothing wrong with making an informed decision to take a low-level position in a hierarchy ceteris paribus.
Ceteris paribus should here be understood as choosing in a situation where the only thing that distinguishes the hierarchical position from the non-hierarchical is hierarchy. But this is hardly ever the case in State society. Rather, individuals have to choose (if at all) from a very limited set of alternatives, where hierarchy and submission is part of all or most of the alternatives. Vietnamese children working in a Nike sweatshop are better off than as child prostitutes, ceteris paribus. But one cannot take the choices as exogenous to the political situation in the area, the region, the country, or the world. A political theory such as agorism needs to take into account the effect of political rule in the choices people make.
Agorists do just that: they realize that the limited options for a child, i.e. working in a sweat shop or becoming a prostitute, are not the result of the market but of political institutions. The choice in itself may be easy, but the context certainly isn’t. The person making the choice is subjected to political oppression through the unavailability of choices due to political regulation, rule, and coercive institutions.
This is not the same as making choices “subject to” alternatives made available in a free(d) market. The market measures costs to benefits and awards individuals with alternatives to the extent economically feasible. Political rule, however, causes imbalances in the marketplace which forcefully (directly or indirectly) removes alternatives that should have existed were it not for political oppressive rule. The choice between a sweat shop and prostitution is a choice only because of politics; it is not a “real” choice set, since it is forcefully limited.
The same is true with any choices we make today, and agorists, compared to other anarcho-capitalists, tend to put more weight on the choices that have been forcefully taken away from us. While many libertarians would compare a choice to status quo, an agorist would compare the choice situation with that which should obviously have been real in a free market. It is not an economic analysis, it is a political analysis based on a radical passion for justice.
This is relevant to the debate on organization, since agorists have a slightly different perspective than anarcho-capitalists, especially economist anarcho-capitalists. There is of course nothing supporting any counter-factual view on what would have been the case under different circumstances. But it is reasonable to draw some conclusions: the child would have more alternatives in a free market than sweat shop work and prostitution, of which some would likely have been better than both.
Only the better alternatives are important to our analysis, but it is safe to say that we can remain fairly confident that such better alternatives (subjectively identified and valued) would exist. State oppression has therefore deprived the child (in this case) from the choice he or she would have made were it not for State oppression. An economic analysis, at least using the tools commonly taught in academia, is too limited: it does not take into account the fundamental and far-reaching effect of the State on institutions and individual as well as collective behavior.
From this perspective, it is not necessarily the case that people in a freed setting would organize the way the presently choose to. It could be the case that people organize in large corporations, but it is unlikely. Why? Because people in general tend to dislike being “bossed around” by others, and they tend to very often dislike management because it is management or because they believe management’s decisions are incorrect or improper. Ask yourself: in a free(d) market, would more or fewer people choose to work in large structures where their actions are subjected to the decisions/management by others?
The answer isn’t necessarily obvious, but considering the multitude of organizational solutions that would be available were it not for the State, as well as the cost of e.g. corporation-like limited liability if fully internalized by the individual actor/organization, the answer becomes clearer. Agorists don’t despise or dislike organization per se, but I believe it is reasonable to say their analysis takes more facts into account. In quantitative economics lingo, agorists tend to control for many more variables.
So how does this relate to Klein’s post and the Rothbard quote? It provides the reason agorists, on average, are more skeptical than other libertarians to contemporary organizational structures. Agorist theory does not dismiss organization, but agorist class theory identifies, comparatively speaking, a great many more State-caused and State-inflicted problems with severe effects on the very bases on which choices are made. This makes agorists more skeptical towards organizational choices in contemporary State society.
If it were indeed the case that agorists were opposed to organization in and of itself, they would abstain from organize themselves. But this is not the case: agorists organize their efforts in the Molinari Institute as well as the Center for a Stateless Society and the Agorist Action Alliance.
Furthermore, agorists are strong proponents of voluntary organizing of free markets to create individual wealth while withdrawing support for the state to the greatest degree possible and providing real and viable free alternatives to State-controlled institutions. Agorism provides a theory for how to set the world free through liberating yourself and thereby fully take advantage of the economic incentives naturally provided in a free society. So-called counter-economics is a cornerstone in agorist theory and practice, and arranging or joining a counter-economy is voluntary in a sense no choice made in the State sanctioned market ever is. This is perhaps what distinguishes agorists from anarcho-capitalists the most: that they define “voluntary” in a much more absolutist sense.
Cross posted as a comment to Klein’s blog post. For more information, see my articles Saving the World through Saving Yourself, A Strategy for Forcing the State Back, and my previous blog post The Savior Complex.
This is an excellent point. One of the things that I have seen libertarians of various stripes criticized for is the defense of, for example, sweatshop labor per se as a manifestation of the “free market”. To leftists, this stinks rotten of elitism at best and at worst of a willingness to develop authoritarian, exploitative institutions consistent with what they perceive libertarian theory to be and entail, continuing or even expanding the oppression of people by capital everywhere. The sweatshop might be preferable to all of the other artificially-constrained choices available to its workers, but that is no reason to defend or promote such practices as representative of an actually free market.
Per, you write:
“both Klein and Rothbard make unsupported general conclusions that they seem to base on some agorists’ personal preferences rather than agorist theory.”
It seems to me that left-libertarians elevate their (weird) personal preferences into policy views, which then become fair game for libertarian commentary.
“as good economists both Rothbard and Klein seem to assume too much: there is nothing wrong with making an informed decision to take a low-level position in a hierarchy ceteris paribus.”
But they don’t deny that there’s anything wrong with taking a low-level position. As Rothbard writes in the very piece at issue, “I suspect Mr. Konkin and his colleagues don’t like to join organizations. So be it.”
But Rothbard goes on, correctly: “But those of us who wish to accomplish various goals will continue to do so. And it seems to me we are at least entitled to the acknowledgement that there is nothing in the slightest unlibertarian about organization, hierarchy, leaders and followers, etc., so long as these are done voluntarily. If the Konkinians fail to acknowledge this primordial libertarian point, then their libertarian bona fides would come into serious question.”
Rothbard has another great point: “It is the same thing with tax rebellion, which presumably serves as part of the agoric strategy. For once again, it is far easier for someone who doesn’t earn a wage to escape the reporting of his income. It is almost impossible for wage earners, whose taxes are of course deducted off the top by the infamous withholding tax. Once again, it is impossible to convert wage workers to the idea of nonpayment of taxes because they literally have no choice. Konkin’s airy dismissal of taxation as being in some sense voluntary again ignores the plight of the wage earner.”
“It is true that agorists in general do not fancy “organization, hierarchy, leaders and followers, etc.”, which is a common preference among anarchists of all varieties.”
I disagree completely with this: it is not at all a common preference, nor should it be, among anarcho-libertarians, the only type of anarchist that counts (the rest are socialists or worse). Anarchists need not be hostile to genuine authority and hiearchies; indeed, most of the more perceptive ones, in “thick” fashion, point to the vital role of such natural authority and institutions in a working private order, and serving as a useful bulwark against state encroachment. In fact, (libertarian) anarchists commonly have only one preference: opposed to aggression; combined with one insight: the state necessarily commits aggression. Simple. (See my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html.)
Finally: “Agorists do just that: they realize that the limited options for a child, i.e. working in a sweat shop or becoming a prostitute, are not the result of the market but of political institutions. The choice in itself may be easy, but the context certainly isn’t. The person making the choice is subjected to political oppression through the unavailability of choices due to political regulation, rule, and coercive institutions.
This is not the same as making choices “subject to” alternatives made available in a free(d) market. The market measures costs to benefits and awards individuals with alternatives to the extent economically feasible. Political rule, however, causes imbalances in the marketplace which forcefully (directly or indirectly) removes alternatives that should have existed were it not for political oppressive rule. The choice between a sweat shop and prostitution is a choice only because of politics; it is not a “real” choice set, since it is forcefully limited.
The same is true with any choices we make today, and agorists, compared to other anarcho-capitalists, tend to put more weight on the choices that have been forcefully taken away from us. While many libertarians would compare a choice to status quo, an agorist would compare the choice situation with that which should obviously have been real in a free market. It is not an economic analysis, it is a political analysis based on a radical passion for justice.”
***
I disagree that this is any special bailiwick of agorism; this is common to libertarianism. Slapping the kooky and useless label “agorism” on this doesn’t add to the analysis.
Stephan,
I don’t know what motivates you, or what values you hold. Certainly, we swim in the same ocean, and face the same problems. It’s in that spirit that I write the following.
Yes, people do make choices that result in them taking lower level positions in voluntary hierarchies. And, where you rightly castigate “social” anarchists, there is nothing wrong with this, so long as the arrangements are truly voluntary.
The critique in play here is not that these choices are voluntary within systems resembling closely that which exists today, but rather questioning whether or not such choices would ever be taken given that truly free systems and markets existed. Given that the “subsidies of history” were recompensed. Given that the privileges which have attached to and enhanced the power of capital over time where abolished. Given that those who had amassed property throughout history even on statist-libertarian grounds had to have their claims subject to the (ultimately) communal judgment of a free people, and then, even, forcibly expropriated thereby in order to reach a consensual justice in holdings.
Labeling the tendency to dig deeper into the distinctions here is not “kooky”. It is, rather, the project of people who wish to approach this topic and all related to it with as few blinders as possible. Where the laws of logic do not support the conclusions of “kooky agorists” in respect of any given situation, those conclusions ought well be discarded. But they ought to be discarded on the basis of logic itself, rather than any predisposition toward the outcomes or paths thereto which might be realized.
Mike:
“Yes, people do make choices that result in them taking lower level positions in voluntary hierarchies. And, where you rightly castigate “social” anarchists, there is nothing wrong with this, so long as the arrangements are truly voluntary.”
I am not sure what you are talking about. Where have I criticized anyone for taking low-level positions “in a hierarchy”?
“The critique in play here is not that these choices are voluntary within systems resembling closely that which exists today, but rather questioning whether or not such choices would ever be taken given that truly free systems and markets existed.”
Yes. this is not a difficult point or one unique to “agorists.” I myself have argued before for example that many volunteer soldiers are not 100% voluntary b/c they are impoverished by state policies (minimum wage, etc.) so do this out of desperation. Etc. Yes.
“Labeling the tendency to dig deeper into the distinctions here is not “kooky”.”
That’s not what’s kooky. What’s kooky is the bizarre fetish for localism, “co-ops,” hostility to “hierarchies,” and so on. In my view. I think “Former Agorist” put it well on the Mises List http://blog.mises.org/archives/009744.asp#comment-525637 :
“The problem with mutualists is they apply an “unclean hands” to those they don’t like — capitalists, bankers, large corporations, Wal-Mart.
But they give a pass to those they like — unions, unskilled workers, etc.
The worker at Wal-Mart drives on a state-subsidized road to get to work. How is the worker any less guilty than Wal-Mart using its trucks to transport product?
“but certainly at least some of its assets ought to be surrendered to its workers as a result of the firm’s open advocacy of higher minimum wage laws.”
Why should it go to the workers? Perhaps some of these workers benefited from getting higher minimum wages at some point in their life.
If the mutualists want to apply the “unclean hands” fallacy to Wal-Mart, they must be consistent and apply it to others in society that they hold dear.”
Even if this were true (far too simplistic), so what? What does it matter who we, or you, “like”? This is not a fucking popularity contest. Are libertarian bona fides now to be measured in subjective personal preferences and lifestyle choices?
That, in a nutshell, is the heart of the conservatism underlying your arguments against left-gasp-libertarianism. It is not that we reject corporations, or that we embrace the working class. It’s that we don’t fall into line with the nice, orderly, coherent libertarian movement that LvMI wants to lead and the image they want to project.
There’s not a single un-libertarian thing about left libertarians, except that they have different predictions of what a free market would look like than you. But, again, so what? Predictions of human behavior are not principles.
But this isn’t about libertarian principles at all, is it?
Jeez, you participate in every discussion of left libertarianism, countering our every point – only to tell us we’re “kooky”? Come on. What are you really on about?
BTW, Mike, what a great comment you made. Well said.
Your cross-post at Mises Blog seems to have disappeared down the memory hole.
Jeremy: Thanks.
Stefan:
You shifted here. You made a connection between “kooky” and “agorist” first, but then supported it with a discussion of preferential tendencies within mutualism. Some but not all agorists are mutualists.
Why isn’t Kinsella willing to have an honest discussion about these issues?
Jeremy: “Even if this were true (far too simplistic), so what? What does it matter who we, or you, “like”? This is not a fucking popularity contest. Are libertarian bona fides now to be measured in subjective personal preferences and lifestyle choices?
That, in a nutshell, is the heart of the conservatism underlying your arguments against left-gasp-libertarianism.”
I have no idea what you are going on about. I’m not a conservative, and I don’t think the left-right spectrum makes sense. It’s not libertarian. There are libertarians, and non-libertarians, period.
“It is not that we reject corporations, or that we embrace the working class.”
No, it’s that you adopt fuzzy-wuzzy, liberal-arts type terms like “embrace” that have no clear meaning.
“It’s that we don’t fall into line with the nice, orderly, coherent libertarian movement that LvMI wants to lead and the image they want to project.”
I have no idea what you are jabbering about. I and the libertarians I respect are united by a simple thing: we oppose aggression, both private aggression (crime) and public or institutionalized aggression (the state). We favor peace, property rights, civility, prosperity (no offense), etc. The rest is details.
“There’s not a single un-libertarian thing about left libertarians, except that they have different predictions of what a free market would look like than you.”
And preferences and emphasis–and all these things lead them to make policy pronouncements different than mine. It is the latter I object to.
“Brainpolice” Says:
“Why isn’t Kinsella willing to have an honest discussion about these issues?”
Of course I am. It’s hard to do when your opponent doesn’t enunciate an any propositions coherent and clear enough to rationally discuss or criticize.
Agorists are capitalists too. They support private ownership of the means of production and a profit direct market economy. That’s capitalism. They support abolition of the state. That’s anarchism. Therefore they’re anarcho-capitalists. Agorists are just anarcho-capitalists who choose not to use the term “anarcho-capitalism,” in order to lure leftists to free market capitalism without them realizing it. It’s nothing more than clever marketing for anarcho-capitalism.
@Jono — The thing is, there are other definitions of capitalism. More popular opnes, even.
The one used by the general public and the radical left is “the economic status quo”. They also identify that with the term “free market” after decades of misleading Cold War propaganda stating that the U.S. economy was a free market. Since the status quo is demonstrably not a free market, though, it makes more sense to identify the status quo as a case of state-driven political monopolization of capital — i.e. “capitalism”. By that understanding, agorists — LIKE ALL OTHER LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS, I.E. ANARCHISTS — are “anti-capitalist”. And “anarcho-capitalism” is incorrectly named.
After all, we DO disagree with Marx’s notion that the monopolization of capital he pointed to was inherently a feature of a market economy. Well, the center-right and center-left both embrace Marx’s mistake and use it as their rationale for the flavors of social democratic agendas they push — even though they are loath to identify it with Marx.
So clarify your outlook and rhetoric. Market anarchism is the far, far left — further to the left than comparatively centrist Marxism.
Then why do libertarians disagree?
We make it a priority to appeal to people who work for a living.
Maybe the details are more important than you realize, since they seem to be enough to compel you to jump into discussions of left libertarianism and take snotty contrarian positions that you admit aren’t the heart of our shared approach to politics.
But on what GROUNDS? Aren’t these all details? Why is it so important to insert yourself into discussions among left libertarians to engage in a ceaseless analysis of left libertarianism that never bears fruit for anybody – especially if we agree on the important things? What error are you combatting that is so vital to keep up on?
You’re just not being honest if you mean everything you’re writing. Our ideas can’t be both trivial details you simply disagree with and simultaneously garner so much attention from you. Something else is going on here, and I wish you could just be up front about it so we could finally address your concerns.
Brad Spangler,
Nonsense. Capitalism is not state-driven monopolization of capital. Capitalism is private ownership and control of capital. Try picking up a dictionary. Capitalism is a PRIVATE system free of government control. Agorists are not socialists. You’re not fooling anyone by twisting words around. You’re a capitalist. You’re for private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism.
Brad Spangler,
From Wikipedia: “Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than state owned and controlled.[1][2] Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals either singly or jointly,[3][4] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.[5][6]”
If you think capitalism actually means state control of capital, rather than private control, then go to Wikipedia and try to change the definition. See how far you get.
You say “general public and the radical left is “the economic status quo”. They also identify that with the term “free market” after decades of misleading Cold War propaganda stating that the U.S. economy was a free market.” They’re RIGHT to identify the term with “free market.” That’s what capitalism means. If someone uses that standard definition of capitalism, that doesn’t mean that they think the U.S. is a free market economy. I’m a member of the general public, and I don’t think that. You’re making a leap there.
You’re a capitalist. Admit it. You’re just trying to twist the standard meaning of capitalism is order to be able to claim that you’re a socialist. It’s laughable.