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

Nothing Personal...Except Your Freedom




What is freedom? How do we protect it? As a libertarian, anarchist, agorist, minarchist, collapsatarian, or whatever liberty-minded label your strut from this radical spectrum, it's easy to get bogged down attempting to differentiate between human rights (civil rights/personal freedom), and property rights (economic freedom). Many seem to make the mistake of conflating the two, and how each rely on the other. This is a fundamental principle of the liberty movement that I believe anyone who is passionate about liberty and educating it to the masses should be 100% comfortable with articulating. The truth is, you can't have one freedom without the other. It's a part of our creed of self-ownership, and property rights.


It is undeniable that the basis of the libertarian creed stems from the Non-Aggression Axiom/Principle, and property rights. To exert aggression on someone is a violation of their right of property: be it their car, laptop, or punching them square in the nose. In layman’s terms, “don’t hurt people, don’t take their stuff.” The NAP implies the universal understanding and self evident recognition of the inalienable rights of personal and economic liberty. How so? Let’s break this down real quick:


“Don’t hurt people”, naturally implies that inflicting harm on an individual is violating them on a personal level; their personal liberty. If I were to break your leg, I have therefore neglected the legitimacy of your civil/personal freedom through the use of coercive force.

“Don’t take their stuff”, naturally implies theft, which is infringing on one’s property rights. We all know that taxation is theft, but let’s remember that theft is still theft. Your property is yours alone. For me to steal your car, is straight up theft. I have therefore neglected the legitimacy of your economic freedom through the use of coercive force.


As libertarians, we should all understand that the number one threat and enemy of our individual liberty is the state. Any act of force imposed by the state upon an individual ultimately is a violation of said individual’s property right. It may start as a hit against civil liberty, but state coercion is always a property rights infringement, or invasion. Your body, your property. This implies that the state neglects you have self ownership, and, therefore, the state owns you. You’re nothing but a slave to the state.


Therefore, to infringe on my personal liberty, or decision rather, to consume cocaine, is also violating the property that is my body. It’s my body, and I should be able to put whatever substance I want into, beneficial or harmful, so long as I’m not infringing anyone else’s property rights around me. Plus, making it illegal to buy cocaine then infringes on my economic freedom of purchasing power and automatically makes me a criminal. Crime, in the eyes of a libertarian, is defined as violent invasion on someone’s person or property. All liberties are vulnerable to state violence, and therefore subject of an attack on one’s person/property. Therefore, if my personal and property rights are vulnerable to danger by the state, that’s an attack on all of my liberties, and the difference between personal and economic liberty is then irrelevant.

Any decision made by an individual, be it personal or economical, is done so under the assumption, and legitimacy of self ownership of the decider. Ergo, any/all aggression/coercion against the individual’s decision is an attack on one’s property. Self-ownership is having full responsibility of all actions performed by an individual.

Using force to prevent you from making a personal decision is to dismiss one’s free will. Coercion deprives people the freedom to choose the “correct” option, which the state thinks is for “their own good”. Therefore people are forced to doing something, whether they like it or not.

To quote the great Murray N. Rothbard in For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto:
“Coercion deprives man the freedom to choose, and therefore, is deprived to choose morally.”

No matter how much it tries to intervene, the state can't foresee, nor dictate an economy. That would be neglecting the personal liberties and subjective value of individuals (which are supposedly protected by a piece of paper...at least in America). Peace and prosperity is achieved by the private sector. Not the public sector.


The public sector/the state only survives by stealing from the productive private sector. The state is a parasite, and we're its host. Only voluntary interaction based on individual self-interest and subjective value, will provide a fruitful and self-sufficient society to supply all needed demands. Not government.

The inseparability of Personal and Economic Liberty is how a peaceful society works: respecting the personal liberty of one another allows us to create the resources needed to survive, and then some; capital gains, and enjoying the fruits of our labor. Economic freedom is also having the personal liberty to choose what goods/services provide the most value to YOUR subjective needs/standards. That personal demand of quality forces businesses to innovate and increase the standards of their operation. This is achieved through true free-market, economic freedom, and therefore a better quality of life for everyone.

Economic liberty allows for free-market economics as the natural law and order of man. It’s moral, and the natural law of man’s needs. Any intervention of this natural order is a violation and coercive aggressive violence of one’s self ownership and absolute right to be a human. Supply and demand. The only way this is achieved is by, as a certain someone told me, our obligation to not aggress against anyone. This should be "self evident". This beautiful equilibrium of Leonard Reed's "Invisible Hand" in I, Pencil, or simply the free market being left untouched by state intervention, is what makes self-governance a reality. Without both personal, and economic liberty, this paradise is only a dream.

As Libertarians, if we’re to follow our creed of the NAP, then both personal and economic liberty must be recognized. Liberty is preserved by accepting the legitimacy of these natural rights that we claim to be self-evident. Otherwise, we can’t claim to be the “most consistent” out of the political vending machine. A violation of any one of your liberties is a violation on all of them. Period. Nothing Personal...except your freedom of course.


To hear more from the author, Mr. Pseu, subscribe to his podcast, A Boy Named Pseu!























Comments

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