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

Limits to self-defense?

Where do we draw the line for what is acceptable self-defense? When can we start acting in self-defense? That, plus recollections of an interesting conversation at a local pub over the subject of a brightly yellow book and some ponderings on physical removal-memes is on today's menu. Bon Appetit! | Alex Utopium

One of my dearest hobbies is reading books and one of my preferred spots to read them is in a local pub- There is something very special with the ambient noises of the pub, to me: The clinking glasses, bar stool scraping, low-volume conversation. Its harmonious to me. The atmosphere can turn a trashy book to at least a readable experience by the virtue of the surroundings.

This one time a guy sat down next to me and started asking questions about the book I was writing down notes from, in the company of a huge cup of coffee. It was the color of the book (extremely yellow, screaming for attention) that drew his eyes in the first place, but it was the title of the book that got him interested. "Homemade guns and homemade ammo? Isn't that illegal?"

"It's not illegal to read about, no", was my distracted reply, maybe with more annoyance in my voice than intended. I was, after all, trying to write notes and he was distracting from that.

Putting my pen away, signaling I was open for a discussion. We had a talk for about fifteen minutes, give or take, that I tried to steer in the direction of self-defense: We should be able to defend ourselves, right?

He took my bait, responding: "Well, that's true, but only the police should have guns!". Noting, of course, the irony in that here in Norway, not even that is solidified - Police officers need to ask for permission to get their handguns out of a safety deposit box in the police cruiser to prevent a crime in progress, unless given permission beforehand (as protection against a specific threat, known prior to being dispatched out on the streets).

The obvious follow-up question is of course "Why?", followed by some more talk, mainly about how dangerous guns are in the wrong hands and so forth. The usual stuff. The conversation was eventually ended when he had to go back to his buddies at a table further in the pub, but he left me with a sinking realisation. The whole conversation, he didn't include himself at all as a potential weapon owner (he could outsource protection, I assume) - What appeared to be the most important thing for this guy was that nobody else was armed.

That realization made it crystal clear to me that you can bring forth the moral argument all you want, it won't affect this kind of person. We agreed that everyone should be able to defend themselves, but using a force multiplier  (a gun) equalize the terms between aggressor and victim? No way, man. Arguably, you can't be for self-defense in that case since not everybody is physically equipped to fend off others, so to restrict access to defensive tools, you are fine with restricting a portion of the population from defending themselves.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

 To most Libertarians, this is nothing new, but it is important to underline that last part - Because the result of your action is more important than your words, so it's healthy to put a spotlight on hypocrisy whenever you can.

For us Libertarians, there is something in the borderland, the gray zone of self-defense aspects, that might pose a greater disagreement amongst us. It is digitally manifested in the Physical Removal and Helicopter Ride memes, but those are merely a comedic version of something more serious.

But, its a fairly wide range of ideas that get crammed under the same umbrella. From Liberty Machine's interview with Curt Doolittle where he stated he wanted to "murder socialists on an industrial scale", to Hans-Herman Hoppe's arguments that to keep a libertarian society intact you need to 'physically remove' anyone threatening private property as a concept (examples given is communists and democrats).

A much vaguer Murray Rothbard suggests in his essay Program for Right-wing populism that bums get kicked out from the streets - But its hard to tell if he means the public or private property, a future society or the society of lunchtime tomorrow?

How wide can you cast out the concept of self-defense? When is it right to apply it? Is a credible threat to you and your property enough? Can you only stop aggression when it is right at your doorstep? It is a sticky subject.

Perhaps I'm looking too hard through the lens of today, where I'd be properly screwed if a band of Antifa-likes would gain parliamentary power and ushered me into some nightmarish Marxist state of being.  Maybe this is a trivial issue in a free Ancapistan? The skeptic in me is a skeptic, though.

Scandinavian anti-establishment blogger, editor for the Utopium Blog. Counter-economics, agorist-separatism and Free Market advocate.


  1. This is my problem with Libertarians - the NAP is nonsensical and meaningless. one man's self defence is another man's murder.
    My take is: no body or group of people has any more right to prosecute violence than any other. I am entitled but not obliged to to counter evil with as much force as I deem necessary. If you can't recognise evil then you are part of the problem and deserve no quarter given.

    1. The NAP is, funnily enough, sort of a social contract theory which many libertarians I know despise - Except in the case of NAP. I am more leaning on the (David) Friedmanian school of thought, ie that we give each other sovereignty and accept laws in clusters in a Free World and the market will decide which of those are the most successful (have most subscribers).

      That leads to bargaining with people outside your cluster and, as a last resort, violence if someone else wants to (in your view) use force upon your cluster.

  2. IMO in a free society the right to defend property would always be retained by the individual but in all likelihood be delegated voluntarily to PDAs or insurance companies, as Bob Murphy outlines in Chaos Theory.


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