Misconception: agorism is solely a word for black market
Patri Friedman had a critique of agorism as revolutionary strategy that he shared recently. As Patri’s a super-sharp guy, this seems to demand I make it a priority to address the misconception his objection is based on.
Despite my broad agreement with much of the underlying philosophy, I find this chain of events ludicrous – and I am not using the word lightly. Let us consider one of the largest black markets in the world, the market for illegal drugs, which has been thriving for decades. Has this resulted in market demand for protection agencies to replace the government? Um, no. It has resulted in exactly the opposite – a strengthening of the monopoly provider of security and law. It has given us the militarization of policy, legalized theft via civil asset forfeiture, and a well-funded DEA.
I agree that the direct effect of the black market for recreational drugs is to increase freedom – it provides something the government is trying to ban, thus ameliorating the effect of that ban. As an occasional user of illegal drugs, I think that’s fabulous. But to see black markets as the route to indirectly weakening and eventually toppling governments just doesn’t match up to the evidence. Coercive geographic monopolies on violence work, folks, much though we may hate it.
Yet Konkin, to the best of my knowledge, never said the black market alone is enough. My reading of his thought is slightly different than that, else I would be out running a heroin ring or something instead of blogging. Over and over again he stresses throughout New Libertarian Manifesto and elsewhere the importance of libertarian education and activism.
The real problem is statist “false consciousness” — the sanction of the victims, as Rand would have put it. The perceived moral legitimacy of the state does two things. First, it makes the states prohibitions and other edicts more effective than they would be if people generally looked at them in terms of actual risk from an always finite degree of “law” enforcement. Second and much more importantly, that perceived legitimacy limits the capability of defending one’s self against the state. In short, state power is based on the falsehood of its moral legitimacy.
Markets provide what people want, as best that is economically feasible in a given context. The matter of WHAT IT IS that people might want (i.e. demand) is outside the field of economics. More specifically, if overall demand is not sufficient to bring the capital and labor to bear required to provide the particular product, that product will not get provided at all or supplies will be temporary, hard to find, limited and intermittent at best. That is exactly what we see in the field of anti-state defense services. Statist false consciousness suppresses demand for the service of defense against the state.
Thus, the role of the libertarian activist is to delegitimize the state (and statism generally) in the minds of the public. Konkin called this “pseudo-political” activism, but it’s really market development work in the field of revolutionary defense services. And it’s a necessary role.
In short, Friedman confuses the means of meeting market demand (black markets) with the reason that demand will arise (people coming to value Liberty).
Share This
I’ve always considered Seasteading as an example of Agorist action, or something that will lead to Agorist action.
Seasteading is certainly agorist.
Great article!