>Liberating the world of oppression, by inviting the oppressors under your umbrella.
I can take into example the Libertarians of the US. Libertarians seek to do just that as a whole, but therein lies a paradox: they seek to expand on the liberties of the populace by 'playing the game' of the oppressor, as in, forming a party and garnering votes by so-called democracy. What is there to guarantee that the Statist apparatus within the US will actually fall in line with the partyarchist Libertarians there, given that they do indeed secure a presidency? Let's take into account a handful of things: >Lobbyism, or corporatocratic/plutocratic 'bribery' of the government. The strain of Libertarianism in the US has been bought off by one such plutocratic elite already; >the executive in the US doesn't have much power; there are also the legislative and judicial brances, and that's not taking into account such things as, say, the president holding a meeting with George Soros; >alliances of the parasites, such as between leftists and globalists
This is where Agorism comes into play. Agorist thought combines the principles of counter-economics and libertarianism with the end-goal of anarchy. Counter-economics is basically the practice of engaging in economics that doesn't support the State. Libertarianism is such things as freedom of association, 'negative' liberty (freedom to do as you like). And the end goal is, supposedly, anarchy.
There are myriad strains of anarchy; they all differ in how to get there, and how the anarchy functions. But they all assume that the State is bad.
But is it? Well, perhaps it is, because in my humble view, Statism looks a lot like organised crime, as it is in some cases. An alliance of unseen forces might be reached, and I know BO is working very hard to purge the evil rampant on this world, so perhaps this is the next step.
