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 principal 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.
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 principal 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.