I think it is best to pursue liberty on multiple fronts. For example a local Libertarian here in Dallas in running for Senate. That isn’t his only pursuit, he also has had a t-shirt silk screening business for about 8 years and just hit the 1 year anniversary of a restaurant/bar/live music locale that he opened up. So he is working on the political front, but also pursuing businesses as well.

On the other hand you can also look at it another way. You can use politics against them like Ron Paul has done. Has he “accomplished” much in the classic definition of going to congress and doing something.

Paul did a good job at getting the word out and brining liberty-minded folks together but he’s also be stopped from enacting any real political change at every turn. His Audit the Fed bill has frozen because Harry Reid, who once opposed the Fed, refuses to allow the bill to be heard. The GOP went as far as outright rigging the presidential nomination to ensure Paul couldn’t be nominated (whether he would have been nominated without GOP interference is up in the air, but he would have at least stood a chance).

He’s an excellent advocate for liberty and a great rallying point but even he was unable to stop the constantly increasing tyranny, or even slow it down. With that said now that there is a liberty movement we need to make our move before everybody becomes disinterested after November. There isn’t another candidate like Paul to keep the troops rallied. His son, who everybody expected to be Ron’s successor, has demonstrated himself to be less than principled and isn’t likely to bring the liberty movement together. If we want to achieve liberty we must be flexible and I think it’s time to make our next move.

Also, I am curious how you would handle the situation where an individual lacks capital – building a business requires it, and building one that you KNOW will butt against the state (intentionally) requires even more.

The advantage of not seeking the state’s permission is the fact that you can start a business with far less capital. Starting a new business under the state’s decrees usually requires countless licenses, permits, inspections, fees, taxes, etc. A person who wants to do freelance programming only needs a computer and the skill, a person wanting to sell food to hungry individuals only needs a food card and the food, a plumber only needs the required tools and skill set, and growing marijuana requires so little capital that college students throughout the country start doing it. Many people already do a lot of work “under the table” for cash and there is no reason they can’t do more. Furthermore we don’t each have to start our own businesses, we can pool resources and start businesses together.

One thing I do think that will need to happen some day is some form of agorist investment bank. Such an entity could loan required capital to individuals wanting to start businesses without going through the state first. That’s looking pretty far a head though and I think it’s a good idea to start simple.

That action must be peaceful and voluntary if it is to not undo the work done previously. Something like starting a business.

With direct regard to the article, however, I will say that starting a business is not enough, even if it is not required to be state-sanctioned. One must start a business that explicitly ignores the state for it to matter. If you start a business, but abide by regulations and withhold/pay taxes, etc. you have actually helped to support the State.

Also, I am curious how you would handle the situation where an individual lacks capital – building a business requires it, and building one that you KNOW will butt against the state (intentionally) requires even more.