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?
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.
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?
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.