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?
Decentralization does not promise a flawless outcome or the ability to micromanage every detail, yet it remains a powerful strategy for dispersing power and reducing coercion. Even if the transition to a voluntary, distributed system unfolds in an imperfect way, it still limits large-scale harm far better than centralized authority. It is puzzling why there is reluctance to engage with present-day, bottom-up solutions that people are already creating, such as community-based networks, alternative currencies, and mutual aid initiatives. Agorists are not simply dreaming; they actively put their principles into practice by constructing parallel structures that reduce reliance on the state here and now.
It is not us who stand in the way of any genuine transformation, whether proletarian or otherwise. If you truly believe in a revolution of the proletariat, you will find no direct opposition from agorists, as the shift away from centralised, coercive structures is inevitable anyway.
The anti-market commune defies the only enforceable law – the law of nature. The basic organizational structure of society (above the family) is not the commune (or tribe or extended tribe or State) but the agora. No matter how many wish communism to work and devote themselves to it, it will fail. They can hold back agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, the ‘flow’ or ‘Invisible Hand’ or ‘tides of history’ or ‘profit incentive’ or ‘doing what comes naturally’ or ‘spontaneity’ will carry society inexorably closer to the pure agora.
And how, exactly, is an inferior system able to suppress a superior one?
Over time, as these parallel systems become more efficient and trustworthy, people naturally migrate toward them and the state’s influence begins to erode. It is not about confronting the state’s monopoly on force in a single decisive battle, but rather outmaneuvering it day by day, demonstrating in tangible ways that voluntary alternatives are more durable and harder to suppress than top-down structures. This shift has accelerated with recent technological breakthroughs which empower individuals and communities to coordinate on their own terms, further loosening the state’s grip.
They can hold back agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, the ‘flow’ or ‘Invisible Hand’ or ‘tides of history’ or ‘profit incentive’ or ‘doing what comes naturally’ or ‘spontaneity’ will carry society inexorably closer to the pure agora.
The profit incentive creates all sorts of collective action problems that cannot be addressed without a centralized authority. This is already a major problem and your approach would only make it worse.
The problem is externalities. Externalities are an economic term for when a particular action causes indirect effects, whether positive or negative. When a train station is built, businesses in the surrounding area become more profitable, yet the profit from this cannot be captured by the train itself, if the fares were that high, fewer people would use it and the benefits would be lost. When a factory emits pollution, the property values in the surrounding area plummet, and these costs are not borne by the factory owner.
Only though a centralized system can externalities be effectively managed. The pollution can be regulated or taxed, while public transit can be funded and run at a loss. This is particularly important in combating climate change, which has no profit incentive and therefore cannot be addressed through capitalism in any form.
Over time, as these parallel systems become more efficient and trustworthy, people naturally migrate toward them and the state’s influence begins to erode. It is not about confronting the state’s monopoly on force in a single decisive battle, but rather outmaneuvering it day by day, demonstrating in tangible ways that voluntary alternatives are more durable and harder to suppress than top-down structures. This shift has accelerated with recent technological breakthroughs which empower individuals and communities to coordinate on their own terms, further loosening the state’s grip.
I think you misunderstood my question. How is it that the supposedly inferior system of centralization won out over decentralization in the first place? If decentralization is so much more efficient and resilient, then why don’t we have it already?
Communities will inevitably exhibit some degree of local centralization to coordinate efforts of course, individuals and groups can still seek restitution from polluters who contaminate or damage their land or resources. They can also organize boycotts, leverage grassroots reputation networks, employ social pressure, and engage in direct negotiations to compel cleaner production methods.
Modern technological breakthroughs greatly expand how communities can address externalities and finance large projects. These developments weaken the state’s monopoly on authority and create avenues for voluntary collaboration on a scale that was previously impractical. Decentralization remains embryonic today not because it is inherently less capable, but because coercive structures have historically worked to stifle or outlaw alternatives. During humanity’s transition from tribal living to centralized states, there was little foresight to protect decentralized methods of organization, allowing emerging authorities to entrench their power.
individuals and groups can still seek restitution from polluters who contaminate or damage their land or resources.
Ridiculous. So what, every time a company releases C02, there’s a class-action lawsuit by every single human on earth?
They can also organize boycotts, leverage grassroots reputation networks, employ social pressure, and engage in direct negotiations to compel cleaner production methods.
Libertarians love boycotts as this magical solution for keeping companies in line. In reality, they very rarely work. And of course, to the extent that the do work, boycotts are just as effective at enforcing bad things as they are at good things. Before the Civil Rights act, decentralization allowed racist communities in the US South to withhold service based on race. If a business owner chose to tolerate black customers, they risked losing racist white ones. If you released certain areas from centralization, they would return to such practices, as well as discrimination along other factors such as sexual orientation.
But you don’t support that, so it wouldn’t happen. All the prejudices of these rural communities would simply disappear, because you don’t like confronting their existence, and again, the idea is confined to your mind where you can simply choose not to think about them.
What it comes back to is that boycotts are simply another form of power, and power can be leveraged to do both good or bad things. Because it is a less effective form of power, you’re able to romanticize it as harmless, but to the degree that it’s harmless, it doesn’t work to do good things either. Any power capable of doing good things like punishing polluting companies is also just as capable of punishing people for being queer. It comes back to what I said at the beginning, there is one physical reality and what happens in it is simply a question of who holds what power and what they do with it.
All you’re doing is romanticizing decentralization without actually examining the world and how it works.
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?
Decentralization does not promise a flawless outcome or the ability to micromanage every detail, yet it remains a powerful strategy for dispersing power and reducing coercion. Even if the transition to a voluntary, distributed system unfolds in an imperfect way, it still limits large-scale harm far better than centralized authority. It is puzzling why there is reluctance to engage with present-day, bottom-up solutions that people are already creating, such as community-based networks, alternative currencies, and mutual aid initiatives. Agorists are not simply dreaming; they actively put their principles into practice by constructing parallel structures that reduce reliance on the state here and now.
It is not us who stand in the way of any genuine transformation, whether proletarian or otherwise. If you truly believe in a revolution of the proletariat, you will find no direct opposition from agorists, as the shift away from centralised, coercive structures is inevitable anyway.
Over time, as these parallel systems become more efficient and trustworthy, people naturally migrate toward them and the state’s influence begins to erode. It is not about confronting the state’s monopoly on force in a single decisive battle, but rather outmaneuvering it day by day, demonstrating in tangible ways that voluntary alternatives are more durable and harder to suppress than top-down structures. This shift has accelerated with recent technological breakthroughs which empower individuals and communities to coordinate on their own terms, further loosening the state’s grip.
The profit incentive creates all sorts of collective action problems that cannot be addressed without a centralized authority. This is already a major problem and your approach would only make it worse.
The problem is externalities. Externalities are an economic term for when a particular action causes indirect effects, whether positive or negative. When a train station is built, businesses in the surrounding area become more profitable, yet the profit from this cannot be captured by the train itself, if the fares were that high, fewer people would use it and the benefits would be lost. When a factory emits pollution, the property values in the surrounding area plummet, and these costs are not borne by the factory owner.
Only though a centralized system can externalities be effectively managed. The pollution can be regulated or taxed, while public transit can be funded and run at a loss. This is particularly important in combating climate change, which has no profit incentive and therefore cannot be addressed through capitalism in any form.
I think you misunderstood my question. How is it that the supposedly inferior system of centralization won out over decentralization in the first place? If decentralization is so much more efficient and resilient, then why don’t we have it already?
Communities will inevitably exhibit some degree of local centralization to coordinate efforts of course, individuals and groups can still seek restitution from polluters who contaminate or damage their land or resources. They can also organize boycotts, leverage grassroots reputation networks, employ social pressure, and engage in direct negotiations to compel cleaner production methods.
Modern technological breakthroughs greatly expand how communities can address externalities and finance large projects. These developments weaken the state’s monopoly on authority and create avenues for voluntary collaboration on a scale that was previously impractical. Decentralization remains embryonic today not because it is inherently less capable, but because coercive structures have historically worked to stifle or outlaw alternatives. During humanity’s transition from tribal living to centralized states, there was little foresight to protect decentralized methods of organization, allowing emerging authorities to entrench their power.
Ridiculous. So what, every time a company releases C02, there’s a class-action lawsuit by every single human on earth?
Libertarians love boycotts as this magical solution for keeping companies in line. In reality, they very rarely work. And of course, to the extent that the do work, boycotts are just as effective at enforcing bad things as they are at good things. Before the Civil Rights act, decentralization allowed racist communities in the US South to withhold service based on race. If a business owner chose to tolerate black customers, they risked losing racist white ones. If you released certain areas from centralization, they would return to such practices, as well as discrimination along other factors such as sexual orientation.
But you don’t support that, so it wouldn’t happen. All the prejudices of these rural communities would simply disappear, because you don’t like confronting their existence, and again, the idea is confined to your mind where you can simply choose not to think about them.
What it comes back to is that boycotts are simply another form of power, and power can be leveraged to do both good or bad things. Because it is a less effective form of power, you’re able to romanticize it as harmless, but to the degree that it’s harmless, it doesn’t work to do good things either. Any power capable of doing good things like punishing polluting companies is also just as capable of punishing people for being queer. It comes back to what I said at the beginning, there is one physical reality and what happens in it is simply a question of who holds what power and what they do with it.
All you’re doing is romanticizing decentralization without actually examining the world and how it works.