Skip to main content

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

The Louisville Black Markets: A Case Study in the Ethics of Counter-Economics

It has long been a running joke that someone who pays $20.00 for a gram of marijuana is new to the market; but does an analysis of this phenomenon, as well as other observations about market forces at play indicate some conclusions about the illegitimacy of statist claims about the black market? Why is $20.00 for a gram such a laughable price for a substance that is federally—and often locally—prohibited? The short answer is that while this substance and its distribution exist in the black market, also known as under state prohibition, it does not exist in red market: the set of transactions that is both state-prohibited and immoral. The state would like to have people believe that these two markets are indistinct: they would like the populace to believe that anything they prohibit must also be immoral because it was prohibited by a legitimate entity (themselves). The market for marijuana—this article will focus on the Louisville market (where it is still locally banned)—exhibits characteristics that weaken this argument, though. For a substance that supposedly has no morally justified medical or recreational use, the underground market for weed sure does exhibit typical phenomenon associated with free market incentives.

Price Equilibrium

The most evident attribute of a stable market is an equilibrium price and quantity. If there is evidence of a long-term equilibrium, then there is strong reason to believe that predictable and normal supply and demand forces are present. Equilibrium quantity may be very difficult to asses in a black market, but an equilibrium price is not so hard to discover. In fact, when asked the question of “How much would you sell a normal gram for?”, two dealers* that I interviewed separately both said ten dollars, though both said they would charge more for someone new to the market. I also interviewed a consumer who said he would never pay more than $10.00 for an average quality gram. When asked if they would sell/buy for $5 more or less, all interviewed said only if there was a significant change in quality. The consumer I interviewed reported that, “If I’m getting weed for $5, it’s probably… shit weed.” This commonly agreed upon price is an example of price equilibrium. If the selling and usage of marijuana was as chaotic as the government believes it is, then this common price, agreed upon by producer and consumers outside of transition, would be incredibly unlikely.

Demand Elasticity

Not only is this price of $10.00 common place, but it is also apparently fixed, ceteris paribus. If a dealer wanted to sell a gram for more than $10.00 under normal supply and demand, then it would have to be “gas” (also known as above-average quality) as one producer puts it. This means that a gram of average weed has almost perfect demand elasticity. Assuming people are even a little naturally inclined for morality, the state’s argument that whatever it prohibits is also immoral is significantly weakened by this phenomenon. If a state-ban also imparted immorality, then people would only buy/sell/use marijuana in desperation or if they were the type of people to regularly disregard morality and ethics. However, desperate demand formulates itself as inelasticity, the exact opposite of what we see in the black market for pot.

Price Response to Changes in Supply

Note that the equilibrium price of $10.00 is demand elastic at ceteris paribus. However, Louisville has been experiencing what is known as a ‘drought.’ One dealer said it might be because of a lack of rain where cannabis is grown; another attributed it to more “bust.” But whatever the true reason is, the market responded. Both dealers reported being able to increase prices—one specified to $15.00—because of the decrease in supply. This response in price substantiates the equilibrium claim since prices can rise only if market forces call for it. If dealers could charge whatever they wish at any time, then why not charge $15.00 even when Louisville is not in a drought? Consumers are only willing to pay higher prices if supply or demand signals them to do so in predictable ways.

Peaceful interactions

In Louisville, the market for marijuana is relatively peaceful. All three persons interviewed reported having experienced no direct violence during transactions. One dealer reported hearing about others experiencing conflict but did not have any personal experience. Another claimed selling marijuana “is like selling candles.” The market in the city is so massive and complex that it often simply does not make sense to rob or harm producers or consumers. The state would have you believe that if an act is prohibited, then it will always lead to violent transactions. While it is true that prohibition often leads to an increase in violence, the Louisville market proves that avoiding state-bans does not mean one has to participate in violence or even have grave risk of encountering it. In short, black markets can arise under agoristic rules. These rules can incentivize peaceful and stable market and transactions.

Hayek’s Cosmos

Finally, the pot market exhibits the most basic free market principle: Cosmos. This is the concept of order from spontaneity. Obviously, there is no government agency regulating marijuana sales in Louisville. No occupational licensing allegedly protecting consumers. No government-enforced price floors or ceilings. No way for large marijuana corporations to lobby for special protections. The statist may ask, how can such a healthy market, a market that predictably responds to normal incentives and signals, exist and even thrive without the government overseeing it? The answer: counter-economics. Peaceful people can, and often will, operate a moral market not only without but even in defiance of the government. Weed may never be legal in Louisville, but the market will provide.

*Names have been removed to protect interviewees identity from prosecution

by Benjamin D. Myles, @benjamindmyles1 is a student at the University of Louisville.


  1. Great article! Im in the legal pot business in Oregon and the idea that the market needs to be overseen by a group of assholes sitting in a meeting room is asanine and disrespectful to the fact that folks have been buying and selling good weed under peaceful conditions for a very long time.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About Global Warming

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools. Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary. Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compound

The Counter-Economics of COVID

In March 2020 - some say earlier, but by March 2020 at latest - the banking had sector collapsed. In response, coronavirus was manufactured as a scapegoat to justify the liquidity injection necessary to keep the Federal Reserve’s ponzi scheme alive. The State’s narrative would henceforth be: ‘Since all businesses were shut down, an unprecedented amount of money must be printed and distributed to the public.’ Milton Friedman’s helicopter money had come to fruition. But like a junkie chasing his initial high, the Fed had become immune to the effects of monetary stimulus. Each injection requiring a stronger, more potent dose of cheap & easy money. Less than two years later, and the effects of that stimulus have now waned & the banksters are poised to pull off another heist. As the business cycle continues to ebb and flow until the day of final reckoning, the State can be expected to behave in an increasingly erratic fashion. Like a cornered cat, or a fish out of water, the State

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom