Replying to TheOneWithAReallyLongName

I've seen a few usernames lately that reference #agorism, so I looked it up and find it interesting.. I'm curious how #agorists feel about wealth concentration and the power imbalance that creates. How do they deal with that? Do they believe in doing anything that would curtail their power? The wealthy clearly aren't going to voluntarily agree to limit their ability to become even more wealthy, and history has shown that the extremely wealthy will almost certainly disregard human life and consent in pursuit of more wealth. How does #agorist #philosophy guarantee things remain fully consensual despite the imbalanced power dynamic? Do they still see it as fully consensual when that power dynamic coerces the poorer individual into agreeing to something they wouldn't otherwise agree to?
Avatar
The Beave 8mo ago

I have guns and enough know-how to make it extremely painful for anyone to try to take mine or hurt mine. I don't care about most power concentrations other than my own. I prefer to build a willing coalition of locals that can handle most anything that comes along. The amusing thing about most anarchists of all stripes is that they actively build more and better relationships than people who try to outsource everything to "da gubment."

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

4a
TheOneWithAReallyLongName 8mo ago

I worry that a sufficiently wealthy individual can muster more force than any one community can resist. Your guns as an individual are no match for a thousand soldiers. Any local community can be outmatched. You may be able to handle most anything, but that's not all of everything, and it only takes one able conqueror.

For example, right now, today, if Jeff Bezos's wealth was all or mostly liquid funds and he fancied himself the next Alexander the Great, he could EASILY muster enough force to conquer individual communities. It'd be trivial. Bezos made a hell of a lot of money through mostly consensual agreements.