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 Practicality of Anti-Politics

The Zero Sum Game of Parliamentary Seats

The idea of democracy, and the idealistic sculpture its supporters have carved out of that idea is nothing short of a bootleg & a fraud. The propaganda surrounding the idea is so strongly rooted in the public DNA that it has become alien to question the institution of democracy itself. If you follow the norms and codes of the day, you might have permission to nibble on the corners of individual ideas from the institution, but don't you dare touch the structure, that one is built on sacred land!

It isn't hard to see why the idea is protected and nurtured by willing participants in the fraud. It's promoted, packaged and marketed neatly - but when there is no correlation between the product & it's description, you are just buying into the trailer's glamour and special effects, not the movie.

You get one vote. If your idea (vote) is part of the majority, you win, otherwise your side lose.[1]

The reality outside of parliament, however, isn't that binary or direct: You have several choices in almost anything. The parliament on the other hand removes choice. One can argue that it might not be the whole point, but for sure a great part of the point. If I decide on a purchase, or pick a different road to take home than I did yesterday, it doesn't mean the other options vanishes.[2]

I'm not particularly interested in removing choices for others that aren't directly opposing me. What if theirs was the best choice? Or the only one they could afford? What if the choice of others evolve to something I don't want to miss out on in the future?

It isn't in my best interest to restrict options, but rather to expand them, and that is strike one against participating in parliamentary politics. For me; voting and hoping to win is force. The system is set up in such a way that if my side wins an election we are restricting others for participating in something they believe in. Parliamentary seats are limited, there is a zero sum game being played. Something I take removes something from someone else under such conditions.

I'm not interested in doing that, I'm interested in building something completely different. Let those democratic worshipers go to their temple and do their business.

Print your own Permission Slip

"What is a more effective way of protecting your privacy rights: Giving your money to Bill Weld or downloading Tor?" - Sal The Agorist [3]

One common stance on the insistence on using politics is "If you don't partake in politics, you open yourself up to become a victim to the decisions of others". Which looks like a fair position to take, until you realize the vast amount of time and money you need to pool together to protect yourself.

In the last Swedish election the participation was a staggering 87%, last American had 61%. Granted, not everybody is going to vote against your particular idea, but to get your idea from your head and onto a government paper and getting it stamped and filed into the states ledger will still require an insane amount of money and energy. Elections are a billion dollar industry in America. It is a finely tuned and sophisticated business you need to elbow yourself into & good ideas alone aren't going to cut it. Even if you gather the resources to do it - you're still not guaranteed that it will work in an acceptable manner.

The power is far removed from the people, contrary to popular democratic propaganda. That single vote you have in your back pocket isn't going to buy you anything but a piece of a representative.

If you have millions of dollars to dedicate to a political cause, you can build an industry instead. If you have the ears of millions of people ready to listen to your ideas, you have a customer base. If you have neither, what do you think you will accomplish in politics except wasting your time?

"But the state will send its foot soldiers, tax you or shut you down!" - That might be, but that is nobody's fault but my own. The camouflage was weak, precautions weren't taken, I didn't trade with trusted parties, the trace could be followed straight back to me and so on.

Instead of spending time on a political vote that could get overturned come next election, it's more productive to work on solutions to the problem at hand. If there is no solution to a particular problem, hack the problem. Print your own permission slip. Build your network of like-minded people.

--- Alex Utopium
Editor for
Support my work via crypto here
Tweet with me, Gab with me

[1] The negative 'lose' part is hardly ever spelled out in the official programming.

[2] To be precise, the choices doesn't vanish when government bans something either, but make the opportunity costs higher, artificially, which is hardly ideal.

[3] From Sal's Article: Against the Partyarchy


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