Agorism is an anarchist political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III that holds the ultimate goal as bringing about a society in which all "relations between people are voluntary exchanges — a free market."[1] The term comes from the Greek word "agora," referring to an open place for assembly and market in ancient Greek city-states. Ideologically, it is a term representing a revolutionary type of free market anarchism,[2] with "revolutionary" not referring to violent revolution but emphasis on "counter-economics" - untaxed "black" market activity, which agorists believe has the ability to contribute to the elimination of the state.

-Wiki

What are your thoughts on this concept?

"relations between people are voluntary exchanges — a free market."
What are your thoughts on this concept?

You can't make all relations voluntary.

I'd rather not have any relations with teachers, principals, and over half the student body, but I am forced to.

Unfeasible.

You can't make all relations voluntary.

I'd rather not have any relations with teachers, principals, and over half the student body, but I am forced to.

Unfeasible.

Eliminate mandatory education. Problem solved.

Not really though; when people are born they don't know how to take care of themselves and so have to be restrained to some extent. You can't really let a baby wander around a busy road.

Other than that its the ideal situation.

Eliminate mandatory education. Problem solved.

Not really though; when people are born they don't know how to take care of themselves and so have to be restrained to some extent. You can't really let a baby wander around a busy road.

Other than that its the ideal situation.

This is always the problem when it comes to Anarchist Theories. They always look good on paper but can never happen in practice, there always has to be some form of order in society but i do think that there are some concepts of Agorism that can be put into practice in the market today. Such as using Grey and Black markets so government institutions have little to no say as to what happens from an economic stand point.

you can still be a hermit, it's hard but you can do it.

Yeah, like someone said above, a system like this looks good on paper but in practice it would still move towards a totalitarian/authoritarian state. People as a whole are just generally shit and if not kept in check by laws and a strong arm to enforce them, they will regress to savagery . Greedy power hungry individuals will always rise up to repress the weak and capitolize off of them. About the only way to have a true anarchist society that maintains anarchy would be to pass out shitloads of guns to everyone and have a nice big free for all, and perforate any individual that attempts to exert some form of control.

Now on a smaller scale, like a commune or small group something like this works fine, if not the best, but you have to very selective about the people involved, because it only takes one bad apple to bring whole thing down (ex: a scum sucking, rotten controlling power hungry type.)

and perforate any individual that attempts to exert some form of control.

Even the gun idea wouldn't work because the act of killing anyone who stands up can still be considered some sort of system therefore nullifying any anarchist beliefs.

In such a situation there would be private property based economic relations. Certain members of society would begin amassing wealth and property, more than the majority. Which would lead to a dominant social class forming and raising itself above the rest of society. Antagonisms would form between these classes and a state would arise out of this, an apparatus created to protect the property and privileges of the ruling minority of society. Then you'd eventually get back to where modern society is today.

So...you make everything voluntary...


What happens when you purchase something on credit and you don't feel like paying anymore?

...Agorism= People are going to get fucked over.

A society where everything is voluntary is doomed to failure; you can't voluntarily decide for yourself that the law does not apply, or there IS no law.

...Then again, how is our world not Agorism now? Everyone has free will and has a choice...is there a purer 'volunteerism' than free will?

Anarchism and all of its analogues (Voluntaryism, Agorism, etc.) are not possible in modern society. In a strictly business sense, a completely free market tends to give rise to monopolies which then create barriers to entry and prevent competition. Lack of competition lets monopolies set prices and availability of the good in question. This is not good for the rest of us. That is one reason why law's rule is necessary.

I think the gun idea is workable,if everyone was dealt a six gun and there was no more powerfull weapons. Eventually wealth would make one a target and it would create a reverse economic system.

On the surface, this sounds very similar to how an objectivist(in the Ayn Rand sense) society would operate, except objectivism never advocated the abolition of the state.

A society can only thrive through cooperation. It is as true today as it was when homo sapiens first started roaming the earth over 200,000 years ago, when 'society' consisted of one or two dozen nomadic hunter gatherers. The ultimate punishment was expulsion from the group, where it was very difficult/impossible to live on one's own. Any hardcore individualist should take a few minutes to reflect on how many people he/she depends on for all their basic needs. Our food, our clothes, our technology, our knowledge, our security, etc all depend on other people.

The best form of government/economics would be that which recognizes our interconnectedness and interdependence, rather than perpetuate the illusion that those who get anywhere do it all on their own.

I think the gun idea is workable,if everyone was dealt a six gun and there was no more powerfull weapons. Eventually wealth would make one a target and it would create a reverse economic system.

Yeah, and that would be awesome, right?

Example:

A community of 10 people. 5 of them are growing grains for their families. 2 work hard, and grow more than their families really need; 3 are slackers, and get hardly any grains.

Those 3 see the 2 being successful and having lots of grains, so they become a target and get shot. Their grain is then redistributed between the 3 wankers. Who then eat the grain, but can't grow any of their own because they're lazy wankers.

As a result the community starves.

Alternative: the 3 peasants don't shoot the 2, but just rob them time after time. Eventually the 2 peasants say "this is bullshit", and either enforce a law, or just say "fuck this shit" and start working less, because there's no point.

As a result, again, the community starves.

Perfect, innit?