Ah, so stealing is not in fact stealing if you really really need it, gotcha.
You still seem to still be conflating Agorism with Anarcho-Capitalism. In an agorist society, theft like stealing bread would be rare because the conditions that lead to such desperation would not exist. State-enforced scarcity and capitalist exploitation would be replaced by mutual aid networks and decentralized cooperation, ensuring basic needs are accessible. If theft occurred, it would be addressed through restorative justice by understanding the cause, providing aid if necessary, and seeking restitution if harm was done. Social accountability, such as loss of reputation within networks, discourages repeated misconduct. The focus is on resolving issues and preventing recurrence rather than punishment.
Agorism is a man-made idea… In the realm of the physical, the results are often messy and imperfect, but in the realm of the mind, everything can always work out perfectly for everyone.
Agorism isn’t about idealism. It is grounded in pragmatism. Centralized systems cause large-scale instability and exploitation, while decentralized ones adapt to the complexities of human interactions. Perfection isn’t the goal. It is about minimizing harm and creating structures that empower individuals while avoiding systemic coercion and exploitation. Agorism acknowledges the messiness of reality and provides a framework for minimizing coercion, not eliminating it entirely. The NAP is a guiding principle, not a guarantee of utopia. Philosophical frameworks aim to reduce harm and improve conditions. They are not invalidated by challenging scenarios.
“Systems” cannot be held accountable… what if the culprit is external and beyond our reach?
Systems are made up of individuals whose actions perpetuate power dynamics. Decentralized networks empower individuals and communities to resist coercive systems directly. In cases of external blockades or sanctions, decentralized economies are more resilient. They rely on mutual aid, local production, and underground trade to bypass monopolistic control. Accountability in decentralized systems is direct and immediate, unlike the diffuse harm caused by centralised hierarchies.
It seems to me that this absolute moral law… doesn’t actually survive contact with the physical world.
The non-aggression principle isn’t dogma. It is a guideline to reduce coercion and exploitation. It recognizes that existing systems are deeply coercive and seeks to replace them with voluntary, equitable alternatives. While exceptions and complexities exist, decentralized systems avoid the systemic violence and hierarchies that dominate centralised frameworks.
Decentralisation is often synonymous with warlordism, blood feuds, lynch mobs, and witch burnings.
These are symptoms of collapsing centralized systems, not decentralized organization. True decentralization builds networks of accountability, trust, and voluntary cooperation that reduce the likelihood of such chaos. These systems ensure power isn’t monopolized, preventing the unchecked abuses often seen in collapsing hierarchies.
Black and grey markets are not going to magically make you rich if you’re broke… the state can SWAT you the moment you become a credible threat.
Black and grey markets aren’t about wealth. They are about independence. They allow individuals to operate outside of coercive systems and build resilience over time. Decentralized networks avoid single points of failure, making them harder for the state to suppress. Resistance economies in authoritarian regimes and informal networks in marginalized communities demonstrate their success in resisting oppression.
What is you evidence for decentralization working so much better? How do we know it’s that and not some other factor?
Decentralization is the obvious choice because it fundamentally disperses power, eliminating the systemic vulnerabilities inherent in centralised systems which we’ve seen fail time and time again. Decentralization is not just theoretically preferable but practically effective. It aligns with human-scale organization, minimizes systemic failures, and fosters innovation and resilience by allowing communities to adapt independently to challenges. In every system where decentralization has been implemented, it has consistently avoided the catastrophic failures seen in centralized models while empowering individuals to take ownership of their lives and their economies. It was the Agorists who joined the war on drugs on the side of drugs and won. Very quickly. Now there’s a global network that can’t be stopped and in common use around the world. Working on V2
The non-aggression principle isn’t dogma. It is a guideline to reduce coercion and exploitation.
Philosophical frameworks aim to reduce harm and improve conditions. They are not invalidated by challenging scenarios.
Excuse me?
Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (immoral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, etc.) and is forbidden; nothing else is.
While no one can predict the sequence of steps that will unerringly achieve a free society for free-willed individuals, one can eliminate in one slash all those that will not advance Liberty, and applying the principles of the Market unwaveringly will map out a terrain to travel.
Whether or not this manifesto is itself correct can be determined by the same principle. If consistency fails, then all within is meaningless; in fact, language is then gibberish and existence a fraud. This cannot be overemphasized. Should an inconsistency be discovered in these pages, then the consistent reformulation is New Libertarianism, not what has been found in error. New Libertarianism (agorism) cannot be discredited without Liberty or Reality (or both) being discredited, only an incorrect formulation.
It really does not sound to me that the author is proposing this principle as some sort of flexible guideline or polite suggestion. It sounds as though he considers the principle quite absolute. The reason that forming a political party to influence the state towards your vision of the world is a complete betrayal of the movement because it contradicts this ironclad principle, which can never be contradicted because it is the foundation of the ideology. It seems that your views differ from the author’s.
It seems to me that if your principle can be violated in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of condemning a starving man, it ought to be fine to violate it in order to acquire the political power you would need to implement it, since otherwise it’s nothing but talk. But then, we come back to the point that it isn’t meant to succeed, it’s just meant to occupy a space in your brain where it looks pretty and feels nice.
Even if it is merely a guideline, it’s a shitty one. Reality makes no distinction between initiation and retaliation, these are purely human concepts. It is only important to navigate such concepts insofar as it’s important to avoid offending people’s proclivities. It is no more an inherent moral principle than “You shouldn’t go outside naked.”
These are symptoms of collapsing centralized systems not decentralized organization. True decentralization builds networks of accountability, trust, and voluntary cooperation that reduce the likelihood of such chaos.
Mhm, and you’re out to collapse centralized systems.
But also, many of the things I mentioned were not symptoms of a collapsing system. Blood feuds lasted generations with no societal collapse in sight. Ditto for lynch mobs and witch burnings.
All you’ve done here it point to something, centralization, that is very widespread because of it’s effectiveness and necessity, and randomly assigned every bad thing that ever happens to it, while completely ignoring the bad things that happen when it is not present. It is, again, because the idea is meant to only exist in your mind. There is no reason to really apply harsh, critical thought to it, because if it turns out to have glaring flaws, it doesn’t actually matter because it’s all a thought experiment.
Konkin’s absolutist framing of the NAP ensures a clear philosophical foundation for Agorism, yet consistency in principle doesn’t preclude adaptability in practice.
A starving individual stealing bread may technically violate the NAP, but this act must be seen in the broader context of systemic coercion. Agorism doesn’t excuse or celebrate such acts but seeks to eliminate the root causes that compel them. Rather than contradicting the NAP, this flexibility aligns with its ultimate goal of reducing coercion over time. Far from being arbitrary, this resonates with universal truths about cooperation, as illustrated by game theory and evolutionary models.
Konkin believed “a lot more than statism would need to be eliminated from individual consciousness” for a free society to flourish and called for a “thick” libertarianism that addressed class struggle, social justice, and other factors beyond mere opposition to the state.
“Among important figures in the development of the modern libertarian movement, Konkin stands out in his insistence that libertarianism rightly conceived belongs on the radical left wing of the political spectrum,” writes David S. D’Amato for Libertarianism.org “His Movement of the Libertarian Left, founded as a coalition of leftist free marketers, resisted the association of libertarianism with conservatism. Further positioning it on the left, agorism embraces the notion of class war and entails a distinctly libertarian analysis of class struggle and stratification.”
Mhm, and you’re out to collapse centralized systems.
Yes, but the collapse of centralized systems through decentralized alternatives does not imply chaos or the perpetuation of the abuses associated with centralized structures. The aim is not to cause disorder but to replace coercive systems with voluntary, accountable, and distributed ones.
But also, many of the things I mentioned were not symptoms of a collapsing system. Blood feuds lasted generations with no societal collapse in sight. Ditto for lynch mobs and witch burnings.
These occurrences are not intrinsic to decentralisation. They arise when mechanisms of trust and accountability fail, whether power is centralized or distributed. True decentralisation requires voluntary structures that prevent abuses by fostering local responsibility and direct accountability.
All you’ve done here it point to something, centralization, that is very widespread because of it’s effectiveness and necessity, and randomly assigned every bad thing that ever happens to it, while completely ignoring the bad things that happen when it is not present. It is, again, because the idea is meant to only exist in your mind. There is no reason to really apply harsh, critical thought to it, because if it turns out to have glaring flaws, it doesn’t actually matter because it’s all a thought experiment.
Centralisation persists mainly because it suppresses alternatives through monopolised power rather than due to inherent efficiency. However, technology is shifting this balance, allowing individuals and communities to construct voluntary, resilient alternatives. Agorism and decentralization are not mere thought experiments but practical frameworks for distributing power, fostering accountability, and minimising systemic harm. Far from avoiding criticism, decentralisation is continually tested in real-world applications, proving its viability and effectiveness beyond mere theory. Steadily progressing toward a more autonomous, voluntary society.
Yes, but the collapse of centralized systems through decentralized alternatives does not imply chaos or the perpetuation of the abuses associated with centralized structures. The aim is not to cause disorder but to replace coercive systems with voluntary, accountable, and distributed ones.
Yes yes, you don’t support when bad things happen, you only support good things happening. The problem is that you don’t get to control exactly what things are going to look like, the best you can hope for is to set things in motion and influence the direction in a very broad sense. This is true even in cases with a centralized authority directing things, but it is doubly true in decentralized systems.
G.K. Chesterton once quipped, “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.” Meaning, when we look at what kind of changes are needed in society, we must envision their worst form or implementation, because nothing ever works out as perfectly in reality as it does in our heads, and if we can still say that changing society in that direction is a good thing even when it is done messily and imperfectly, only then should we really try to push for that change. You do not get to control whether decentralization will look like communities banding together in support or roving bands of mercenaries seizing anything that’s not nailed down with no one to stop them, unless you have an actual means of ensuring that one happens and not the other. All you get to do is open the can of worm of decentralization (although, frankly, you don’t get to do that since you’re allergic to seizing the necessary power to do it) and what happens next is outside of your control.
Of course, so long as you’re content to keep your ideas in the realm of fantasy, you don’t have to worry about any of that. You can just imagine that things would work out perfectly and be satisfied with the thought of it. No need to confront any difficult practical questions. Everyone will simply choose to do good things so you never have to worry about it.
Centralisation persists mainly because it suppresses alternatives through monopolised power rather than due to inherent efficiency.
And how, exactly, is an inferior system able to suppress a superior one?
You still seem to still be conflating Agorism with Anarcho-Capitalism. In an agorist society, theft like stealing bread would be rare because the conditions that lead to such desperation would not exist. State-enforced scarcity and capitalist exploitation would be replaced by mutual aid networks and decentralized cooperation, ensuring basic needs are accessible. If theft occurred, it would be addressed through restorative justice by understanding the cause, providing aid if necessary, and seeking restitution if harm was done. Social accountability, such as loss of reputation within networks, discourages repeated misconduct. The focus is on resolving issues and preventing recurrence rather than punishment.
Agorism isn’t about idealism. It is grounded in pragmatism. Centralized systems cause large-scale instability and exploitation, while decentralized ones adapt to the complexities of human interactions. Perfection isn’t the goal. It is about minimizing harm and creating structures that empower individuals while avoiding systemic coercion and exploitation. Agorism acknowledges the messiness of reality and provides a framework for minimizing coercion, not eliminating it entirely. The NAP is a guiding principle, not a guarantee of utopia. Philosophical frameworks aim to reduce harm and improve conditions. They are not invalidated by challenging scenarios.
Systems are made up of individuals whose actions perpetuate power dynamics. Decentralized networks empower individuals and communities to resist coercive systems directly. In cases of external blockades or sanctions, decentralized economies are more resilient. They rely on mutual aid, local production, and underground trade to bypass monopolistic control. Accountability in decentralized systems is direct and immediate, unlike the diffuse harm caused by centralised hierarchies.
The non-aggression principle isn’t dogma. It is a guideline to reduce coercion and exploitation. It recognizes that existing systems are deeply coercive and seeks to replace them with voluntary, equitable alternatives. While exceptions and complexities exist, decentralized systems avoid the systemic violence and hierarchies that dominate centralised frameworks.
These are symptoms of collapsing centralized systems, not decentralized organization. True decentralization builds networks of accountability, trust, and voluntary cooperation that reduce the likelihood of such chaos. These systems ensure power isn’t monopolized, preventing the unchecked abuses often seen in collapsing hierarchies.
Black and grey markets aren’t about wealth. They are about independence. They allow individuals to operate outside of coercive systems and build resilience over time. Decentralized networks avoid single points of failure, making them harder for the state to suppress. Resistance economies in authoritarian regimes and informal networks in marginalized communities demonstrate their success in resisting oppression.
Decentralization is the obvious choice because it fundamentally disperses power, eliminating the systemic vulnerabilities inherent in centralised systems which we’ve seen fail time and time again. Decentralization is not just theoretically preferable but practically effective. It aligns with human-scale organization, minimizes systemic failures, and fosters innovation and resilience by allowing communities to adapt independently to challenges. In every system where decentralization has been implemented, it has consistently avoided the catastrophic failures seen in centralized models while empowering individuals to take ownership of their lives and their economies. It was the Agorists who joined the war on drugs on the side of drugs and won. Very quickly. Now there’s a global network that can’t be stopped and in common use around the world. Working on V2
Excuse me?
It really does not sound to me that the author is proposing this principle as some sort of flexible guideline or polite suggestion. It sounds as though he considers the principle quite absolute. The reason that forming a political party to influence the state towards your vision of the world is a complete betrayal of the movement because it contradicts this ironclad principle, which can never be contradicted because it is the foundation of the ideology. It seems that your views differ from the author’s.
It seems to me that if your principle can be violated in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of condemning a starving man, it ought to be fine to violate it in order to acquire the political power you would need to implement it, since otherwise it’s nothing but talk. But then, we come back to the point that it isn’t meant to succeed, it’s just meant to occupy a space in your brain where it looks pretty and feels nice.
Even if it is merely a guideline, it’s a shitty one. Reality makes no distinction between initiation and retaliation, these are purely human concepts. It is only important to navigate such concepts insofar as it’s important to avoid offending people’s proclivities. It is no more an inherent moral principle than “You shouldn’t go outside naked.”
Mhm, and you’re out to collapse centralized systems.
But also, many of the things I mentioned were not symptoms of a collapsing system. Blood feuds lasted generations with no societal collapse in sight. Ditto for lynch mobs and witch burnings.
All you’ve done here it point to something, centralization, that is very widespread because of it’s effectiveness and necessity, and randomly assigned every bad thing that ever happens to it, while completely ignoring the bad things that happen when it is not present. It is, again, because the idea is meant to only exist in your mind. There is no reason to really apply harsh, critical thought to it, because if it turns out to have glaring flaws, it doesn’t actually matter because it’s all a thought experiment.
Konkin’s absolutist framing of the NAP ensures a clear philosophical foundation for Agorism, yet consistency in principle doesn’t preclude adaptability in practice.
A starving individual stealing bread may technically violate the NAP, but this act must be seen in the broader context of systemic coercion. Agorism doesn’t excuse or celebrate such acts but seeks to eliminate the root causes that compel them. Rather than contradicting the NAP, this flexibility aligns with its ultimate goal of reducing coercion over time. Far from being arbitrary, this resonates with universal truths about cooperation, as illustrated by game theory and evolutionary models.
Konkin believed “a lot more than statism would need to be eliminated from individual consciousness” for a free society to flourish and called for a “thick” libertarianism that addressed class struggle, social justice, and other factors beyond mere opposition to the state.
Yes, but the collapse of centralized systems through decentralized alternatives does not imply chaos or the perpetuation of the abuses associated with centralized structures. The aim is not to cause disorder but to replace coercive systems with voluntary, accountable, and distributed ones.
These occurrences are not intrinsic to decentralisation. They arise when mechanisms of trust and accountability fail, whether power is centralized or distributed. True decentralisation requires voluntary structures that prevent abuses by fostering local responsibility and direct accountability.
Centralisation persists mainly because it suppresses alternatives through monopolised power rather than due to inherent efficiency. However, technology is shifting this balance, allowing individuals and communities to construct voluntary, resilient alternatives. Agorism and decentralization are not mere thought experiments but practical frameworks for distributing power, fostering accountability, and minimising systemic harm. Far from avoiding criticism, decentralisation is continually tested in real-world applications, proving its viability and effectiveness beyond mere theory. Steadily progressing toward a more autonomous, voluntary society.
Yes yes, you don’t support when bad things happen, you only support good things happening. The problem is that you don’t get to control exactly what things are going to look like, the best you can hope for is to set things in motion and influence the direction in a very broad sense. This is true even in cases with a centralized authority directing things, but it is doubly true in decentralized systems.
G.K. Chesterton once quipped, “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.” Meaning, when we look at what kind of changes are needed in society, we must envision their worst form or implementation, because nothing ever works out as perfectly in reality as it does in our heads, and if we can still say that changing society in that direction is a good thing even when it is done messily and imperfectly, only then should we really try to push for that change. You do not get to control whether decentralization will look like communities banding together in support or roving bands of mercenaries seizing anything that’s not nailed down with no one to stop them, unless you have an actual means of ensuring that one happens and not the other. All you get to do is open the can of worm of decentralization (although, frankly, you don’t get to do that since you’re allergic to seizing the necessary power to do it) and what happens next is outside of your control.
Of course, so long as you’re content to keep your ideas in the realm of fantasy, you don’t have to worry about any of that. You can just imagine that things would work out perfectly and be satisfied with the thought of it. No need to confront any difficult practical questions. Everyone will simply choose to do good things so you never have to worry about it.
And how, exactly, is an inferior system able to suppress a superior one?