Close, But No Cigar

There is a libertarian movement called “agorism,” of which you may or may not have heard. Within libertarian circles it is taken very seriously, both positively and negatively. The concept of agorism was originally explicated by Samuel Edward Konkin, III.

Sam Konkin rejected political action, and instead thought large numbers of individuals should engage in production of products and services outside the province of the state, on the black market (for products and services forbidden by the state) or grey market (for products and services just hidden from the state).

“Konkin called transactions on these markets, as well as other activities that bypassed the State, ‘counter-economics.’ Peaceful transactions take place in a free market, or agora: hence his term ‘agorism’ for the society he sought to achieve.”

How close he was to the truth, and if he had pressed for individuals to engage in his “agorism” as the means of establishing their own individual freedom, it would have been exactly what the Independent Individualist advocates; but, sadly, his was another “social” solution, not a method for achieving individual freedom, but establishing, “the society he sought to achieve.”

Nevertheless, if one avoids that “social solution,” aspect of Konkin’s agorism, there are many good ideas for the individual seeking his on freedom in this world.

Konkin’s Manifesto

Sam Konkin laid out the principles of his “agorism” in the “New Libertarian Manifesto,”[Also here](http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/mll/nlm/)]. Konkin’s anti- political views of libertarianism were in sharp contrast to the views of such libertarians as Murray N. Rothbard who supported the political methods of the Libertarian Party, though both, like all other, “movements,” embraced the same fundamental error of seeking a social means to the establishment of freedom.

Much of what is right about Konkin’s thinking is actually well illustrated by Murry Rothbard’s criticism, “Konkin on Libertarian Strategy.” Ironically, Rothbard’s criticism demonstrates what is wrong with political Libertarianism:

“… Konkin is trying to cope with the challenge I laid down years ago to the antiparty libertarians: OK, what is your strategy for the victory of liberty? I believe Konkin’s agorism to be a total failure,” he says, though better than others, “none of which even begins to answer the problem of State power, and what to do about it.”

It is obvious that Rothbard believes, the “victory of liberty,” whatever that means exactly, is the equivalent of, or at least dependent on, solving the problem of “State power.”

Nevertheless, it is true Konkin thought his agorism and ‘counter-economics,‘were a solution to the problem of, “State power.” Though they could never be that, Rothbard’s criticism of the method is based on much worse mistakes.

Konkin opposed the idea of, “wage labor,” as a form of slavery, a mild form of indentured servitude, perhaps. In contrast to wage labor Konkin proposed that all individuals work as independent contractors. Rothbard’s opposition to these views was wholly mistaken: “it is simply absurd for him to think that, in the free market of the future, wage labor will disappear. Independent contracting, as lovable as some might see it, is simply grossly uneconomic for manufacturing activity. The transaction costs would be far too high. It is absurd, for example, to think of automobile manufacturing conducted by self- employed, independent contractors.”

Both Konkin and Rothbard take their personal way of looking at work as a some kind of fact or principle, but in reality, everyone is an independent contractor, even those who work for automobile manufacturers. It is entirely a matter of attitude, as I wrote in the permanent Free Individual article, “Money:”

“The independent individualist should never think of the relationship between himself and whoever is paying for his services as an employer/employee relationship. The independent individualist should always regard the “employer” as a customer to whom he is selling his service. It is unlikely most employers will see the relationship that way, (though they would be much better off if they did) and there is no reason for the independent individualist to enlighten the employer.

“This attitude is very important for the independent individualist, who should never think of himself as “belonging” to someone or something else, like a company, but always a free agent dealing with others as free agents. A customer certainly has a right to specify what he wants and is willing to pay for, and the individual always has the right to agree with the customer’s desires, or go elsewhere. This attitude is not only necessary for maintaining the individual’s independence, but is important to his personal integrity, because the independent individualist will honor his agreements.”

So both Konkin and Rothbard are wrong on this point. There is no reason why a free individual may not sell his services to anyone willing to pay for it; it does not make the individual a, “wage slave,” and there is no limit on the how many others sell their services to the same individual, such as a manufacturer of cement, or houses, or computers, or software.

Freedom, Not Society, Is The Objective

Both Konkin and Rothbard are mistaken, but Rothbard’s mistake is worse because it comes from a distinctly social, actually a “collectivist” view.

“The great bulk of the people are full-time wage workers; they are people with steady jobs,” he wrote. “Konkinism has nothing whatsoever to say to these people. To adopt Konkin’s strategy, then, would on this ground alone, serve up a dead end for the libertarian movement. We cannot win if there is no possibility of speaking to the concerns of the great bulk of wage earners in this and other countries.”

Those branches of Libertarianism that are most heavily influenced by Mises are utilitarian in nature. The ultimate objective of utilitarian libertarianism is a society which is prosperous; individual freedom and a free market are only the means to that ultimate objective.

For the independent individualist the ultimate objective is individual freedom, and that is the only moral objective. The kind of society that results from individuals being free will, no doubt, be a prosperous one, but individual freedom would still be the objective even if it resulted in a society that was totally impoverished.

Individual freedom will never be established by any social means, political or otherwise, because the nature of any society is determined by the kind of people of which a society consists.

The goal is freedom, and every individual must pursue that goal himself. It is the only realistic goal, because it is the only one every individual may actually pursue and achieve. When all men seek their own individual freedom, the society comprised of such men will necessarily be a free one.