The definitive Agorism thread

[MacFall]

Since so many people that I have encountered on this site (including, notably, Ian and Mark) seem to have at best a vague understanding of what Agorism is, I decided to sum it up here. It is essentially the tl;dr version of the first few chapters of the New Libertarian Manifesto (SEK3's treatise on the idea). If any fellow agorists disagree with my description, or believe it to be incomplete, understand that I meant herein only to describe the elements of the philosophy; those ideas which make it different from any other. Further details are not necessary to accomplish that, though I would be happy to discuss them below if any should be brought up.


___________________________________________________________________________



An agorist is a person of a libertarian mindset who participates in the black market with the deliberate goals of achieving immediate personal freedom by circumventing the state, and the eventual replacement of the state with market institutions consciously developed through counter-economic means. It is both a strategy and a philosophy. One must embrace both in order to be an agorist.

What an Agorist is NOT:
- One who believes in counter-economic revolution but is not a libertarian is simply a "counter-economist".
- One who participates in the black market with no revolutionary goal is only a "black-marketeer".
- A libertarian who does not embrace the counter-economy as a means of achieving liberty is not an agorist. Many who would fall into this category do so not because they denounce Agorism entirely, but because they believe that liberty lies down a path that is contradictory to the purposes of Agorism (namely, politics).
- A libertarian who does not believe that there is freedom to be found in the act of disobeying the state (and getting away with it) is not an agorist. In practice, Agorism is a form of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship implies the taking of risks: in this case, the risk of being penalized by the state, against the expected reward of untaxed profit and the expansion of the unregulated, untaxed counter-economy. Those who refuse to take such risks are not agorists.
- Lastly, though I can't imagine many of this sort exist, a person who believes in other forms of activism to the exclusion of the black market is not an agorist. For example, if a civil disobedience advocate says that surreptitious black market activity is invalid and only open defiance of the state ought to be pursued, he is not an agorist. As I said before, I've never encountered such a person but it is a theoretical example of a non-agorist.

Note, however, that one need not consider the counter-economy the ONLY means of achieving liberty; a person can be an agorist and still follow other avenues toward liberty, such as education, frontier building (e.g. seasteading) and civil disobedience. But insofar as Agorism is a strategy toward the fulfillment of its philosophy, one must consciously participate in the counter-economy in order to be agorist.

To put it another way, a person is an agorist IF he believes in and upholds the non-initiation of force; and TO THE EXTENT THAT he is willing to take risks as a counter-economic entrepreneur, and disposes of the profits gained thereby in a manner consciously directed toward the development of market alternatives to the state.

Right now, there are probably only a handful of people who are 100% agorists. But nobody is doing any measuring as far as I know; what is important is that one does as much as one can with the resources one has at this time. There is no rite of passage or requisite amount of "cred". One may be an agorist for a long time before he actually puts his beliefs into practice; but an agorist recognizes that the practice of his philosophy is a way to be free right now, to whatever small an extent.

[digitalfour]

I support anarchy, but I support using politics to achieve minarchy. I also support counter-economics and civil disobedience, though I think education is the most important element.

Would you consider me an agorist?

[MacFall]

Many agorists would say that any political action would disqualify you, but I think that the definition of Agorism is inclusive (if you embrace all the elements of the idea it doesn't matter what else you believe in addition to them). So I suppose the question is whether your support of minarchy signifies a belief in the legitimacy of the state, or a desire to reduce harm in the meantime until the state can be abolished. Because an agorist does not believe in the legitimacy of the state, by definition.

[ForumTroll]

WTB: Blowjob.

[digitalfour]

Many agorists would say that any political action would disqualify you

That's useless. Use idiocy against itself, don't run and hide in fear or because of dumb principles.

So I suppose the question is whether your support of minarchy signifies a belief in the legitimacy of the state, or a desire to reduce harm in the meantime until the state can be abolished.

I think it's simply a utilitarian perspective to achieve anarchy the fastest.

Also, why the term agorism? An agora is an open marketplace, not a hidden-away-in-a-dark-alley marketplace.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

[Mandatory links: NLM by SEK3 on WP, Web (full text), and BT (MP3).]


Agorist puritanism just by itself is impotent, because:

• (A) it would be too easy for the state to crack down via violence; and

• (B) in spite of being a freer economy, an agorist black market would still be at a competitive disadvantage compared with the rest of the society due to a transaction costs handicap and lower economy of scale.

For those reasons agorist activities should be complemented with:

• (A) some level of pragmatic political involvement, most notably to get rid of broad state-wide property taxes, facilitate municipal secession, allow cameras inside court-rooms, etc; and

• (B) an above-ground economy (ex. Sakal/CAI, my little Web-based enterprises, day jobs held by many activists, "licensed" media outlets like FTL, etc) to funnel money into the underground economy, starting with the fundamentals (land, local agriculture, home building, guns, nongovernmental telecommunications infrastructure, homeschooling resources, etc).

[MacFall]

I think it's simply a utilitarian perspective to achieve anarchy the fastest.

I think that's rather counterproductive - employing means that are opposed to the ends sought - but I don't think that it has jack-all to do with whether you're an agorist.

Also, why the term agorism? An agora is an open marketplace, not a hidden-away-in-a-dark-alley marketplace.

I don't know; it's not the name I would have chosen. But then, I can't think of a better one.

[DontTreadOnMike]

John Galt is super-agorist.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Yeah, but he and Ragnar Danneskjöld 'n friends had like 20% of the nation's GDP up in that gulch.  We've got squat!  OK, a squat and a half, but only thanks to Jason Osborne...

[digitalfour]

I think it's simply a utilitarian perspective to achieve anarchy the fastest.

I think that's rather counterproductive - employing means that are opposed to the ends sought - but I don't think that it has jack-all to do with whether you're an agorist.

I don't think using politics to end politics is opposed to the ends of ending legitimized aggression.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

If you disagree with Konkin's formulation of a dichotomy between producers/exploiters does that disqualify someone from the category of Agorism? (Dumb question, but I'm decidedly not 100% on board with Konkin's thesis)

[MacFall]

I don't think it would. Although I am interested to hear how you disagree with Agorist class analysis.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

I don't think it would. Although I am interested to hear how you disagree with Agorist class analysis.

I think it's too narrow in terms of what actually goes on in the real world. Some bureaucrats are actually wanting to be helpful, but their intentions are just off base in how to go about them. Or what about a person who is chronically stuck on welfare as the laws of his/her locality has strangled the economy? They can't be merely exploiters, but rather the exploited. That's how I see it. Maybe I'm being too literal minded about the theory.

[MacFall]

I think that Konkin would say that it doesn't matter what your bureaucrat's intentions are; the effect is still the same. Just as one who accidentally damages the property of another still owes the other compensation, a member of the political class is still an exploiter, no matter their reasons for joining up.

As for the chronic welfare cases, it doesn't matter what the reasons for their being on welfare are; it is still their choice to remain so. That's the whole point of Agorism: finding a way to overcome those circumstances which cause parasitism and exploitation to exist. A person who makes no such effort will be an exploiter, whether they wish to be or not.

Everyone has, to some extent, the ability to produce something and profit from it. If one lacks education, he can educate himself. If one lacks the capital to fulfill his potential, he can start small and save up. In the worst of cases he can seek start-up help from others on a voluntary basis. But those who get and stay on state welfare are either knowingly the exploiters of the productive, or they falsely believe that they are unable to be productive themselves. In either case, they are still exploiters, and Konkin's analysis still holds.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

That still doesn't solve the initial condition that you exist in X state without knowledge of states Y and Z. It's that momentary decision to do otherwise that cannot be fulfilled in the class analysis unless you introduce a mechanism that ties the current state of things to alternatives.