Good questions. Agorists (and more broadly, anarchists) tend to not believe that their ideology needs to be widespread in order to work. Of course, it would be absolutely fantastic, but it is not yet realistic at this time in history (nor even going back to the days of early anarchists).
I think that we just busy ourselves with small-scale self employment/self-sufficiency, and voluntary activities/transactions with others who believe as we do,
while trying to minimize or avoid fiat transactions as much as possible, to the point that the greater economic picture is less important to our daily lives (though I don't speak for them all) and to keep moving forward the way we do, and only hope that future generations keep the tradition.
It is not for agorists to worry about or try to control the greater economy, but to keep up the tiny momentum of all the above in our own spaces and local communities. Nostr helps expand those into a larger community, but it's the same thing unless the world becomes orange-pilled and takes up a voluntary ideology/identity (which will hardly happen in our lifetime or even the next generations' lifetime).
It's like the amish or any other parralel society works.
Stay away from paying taxes as much as possible, be productive and that's it.
If you are productive, your comminty becomes wealthy.
There is no forced wealth concentration in a productive environment.
The state is already an armed gang and we are considered their taxslaves, this is already real today.
Your dystopia is already real.
How can we be sure there's no wealth concentration in a productive environment? Modern societies manage to stay productive, and they most certainly experience a concentration of wealth.
The only way I see to avoid it is to consciously avoid creating an excess. Produce only what the community needs, then rest. Humanity does not seem to be well wired to deal with excess. Many may do well, but it only takes a small handful of people who don't to start scheming.
I think a lack of extreme excess is a key component in how these parallel communities survive and thrive. The Amish, for example, swear off many modern tools and amenities that would allow them to produce much more. They simply can't generate the excess wealth that would allow them to land on the radar of today's truly wealthy.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
I don't think this really addresses my concern, though. My concern is not that economic circumstances will be damaging to these communities. My concern is that any one individual gaining excessive wealth also gains de facto power. Agorists can live in their communities unbothered just fine... Until that powerful individual decides they want more and have the means to get it. Once they have the wealth, maybe they use it to get an army, and we know at least some subset of the population is happy to enlist. Maybe they start using it to peacefully coerce people into agreeing to things they wouldn't normally because the rich guy has too much control over things they need like raw materials or critical tools.
Ultimately, it seems to me to fail to account for bad actors. Human nature and basic game theory practically guarantee that we'll always have to contend with them. Any system destined for success must acknowledge that and have some mechanism to keep them in check. As average individuals, their capacity for harm is minimal and maybe not too important to address, but as wealth concentrates and their power grows, their capacity to harm the community grows exponentially.
Thread collapsed
