Introduction

Whoever decided to click on this link and start to read this, please hear me out.

To entice people to read through this, I’ll later talk about private agorist companies paying off jurors to nullify victimless crime laws. I hope that this article may save someone in at least some small way one day. Although it may be ambitious, we must all try to help each other in any way possible, however small that might be.

The person who started reading this may not know of agorism, so let me be brief. To put it very plainly, agorism is pretty much all voluntary interaction (peaceful) outside of the state. As an example, a child selling lemonade and not filing taxes on the profits would be an agorist or counter-economic action.

What is counter-economics? Counter-economics is an economic theory and method consisting of direct peaceful action facilitated through the black or the gray markets, depriving the state of taxes.

Gray markets would be any legal type of business activity that avoided state extortion, also known as taxes or regulations, i.e. your child’s lemonade stand.

Black markets are peaceful illegal business activities that avoid state extortion and have to because of illegality.

Red markets are any violent business activities such as human trafficking, assassinations, etc. Let me be absolutely clear, red markets are not agorist, and in fact, agorists condemn all red market activity.

Pink Markets are violent business activities that are legalized by the state. An example of this was in ancient Rome; it was legal and common for parents to sell their children into slavery.

Remember, legality does not equal morality, or in other words, just because something is illegal does not make it wrong; a great example of this is the use of cannabis or marijuana. Just because marijuana might be unlawful where you are, does not mean that it is immoral or wrong. The cannabis user is deciding to put something into their own body. How can anyone tell them what to do or what they need or don’t need? It’d be like someone telling you that you shouldn’t eat carrots, or you can’t have that slice of cake. The opposite is also true in telling someone they must do it. We not only can’t tell them they can’t have an apple, for example, but also can’t tell everyone that they must eat peanuts. It is impossible to know the needs and circumstances of the individual or everyone.

We do not own other people; therefore, we cannot dictate what they ingest.

Victimless crimes

What is a victimless crime?

Victimless crimes are peaceful activities that are deemed illegal by the state; this includes going over the speed limit seven miles per hour, growing, selling, or smoking cannabis in places where it is illegal, and giving food to the homeless, where certain states or local bureaucracies have laws against feeding those in need.

In other words, a victimless crime is any “crime” where no one was harmed or property damaged: no victim, no crime. As long as no one is harmed, anyone should freely do what they wish. There is no such thing as pre-crime, and we should not want to live in a society based on the movie Minority Report. If this logic is carried out consistently and thoroughly, they will take away all cars because anyone can kill someone with one.

We must not be robots. We must think for ourselves. Lawmakers can write something on paper, but that does not mean the masses should blindly follow it, and we need not obey it.

What if this group of politicians said you couldn’t feed your family for the good of the collective? For whatever reason. Does that mean that you and your family’s lives should be forfeited because a politician wrote on a piece of paper that you shall not eat? And does a single piece of paper give them the right to tell you not to eat? I think not, but this is the reality we live in today.

Are there laws you’ve disagreed with in the past? The sane individual would say yes. Knowing that there are bad laws that shouldn’t be enforced or tried upon the population, jury nullification is a solution.

Jury Nullification

Jury nullification is when members of a criminal trial’s jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. The very reason they do this is that they disagree with the law.

The United States’ founding fathers guaranteed trial by a jury three times in the constitution, more than any other right. This was put into place as the last line of defense against immoral and oppressive laws.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

-Thomas Jefferson

The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Founding Father John Jay, said

“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

An excellent example of jury nullification was when a Jury acquitted a marijuana patient who admitted to breaking Georgia law. The jury knew he broke the law, and the defendant admitted to doing it, but the jury disagreed with the law, resulting in a not guilty verdict. The defendant of this case was a peaceful person, not harming anyone who just cultivated plants.

Jury nullification is not an agorist action, but it’s also not anti-agorist because it counters bad laws, while simultaneously undermining the government. Jury duty is also forced upon the population, so the person selected is forced to participate, not legitimizing the system. Black market jury nullification would be considered agorist.

 Black market jury nullification

I envision an agorist future, where agorists design and set up a system of companies or DAO’s to fund jurors and educate them. DAO is short for decentralized autonomous organization. To put it simply, DAO’s are organizations represented by rules or code written and followed on a blockchain. I think of them as companies with no central authority. These DAO’s could create wealth through crypto tokens and focus on networking and wealthier peaceful defendants at first.

They could also set up an insurance fund so that if the clients paying insurance got caught, the company could focus on the clients paying into the DAO. They could also search for wealthier clients and, once they’ve rescued them, these clients could and probably would help the DAO that came to their aid in return. These DAO’s focus on education as a priority and later financially incentivize jurors. DAO’s paying jurors will focus on the poorer jurors to convince them to say not guilty to any crime where no victim was created.

The poorer jurors would be easier to incentivize and select during jury selection, collaborating with lawyers. To nullify bad laws, only one of the twelve jurors needs to say not guilty, and the peaceful person on trial is instantly vindicated. The beautiful thing about this is that it would encourage more black and grey market activity since more people would be freed from the cruel, condemning gavel of the state. If any of the participants in the DAO got caught, the entire trial would be about jury nullification, educating that jury about nullifying bad laws. Hopefully, convincing at least one of the twelve jurors to nullify and say not guilty when it comes down to determining the verdict—or having multiple DAO’s or companies coming to the rescue of other agorist DAOs and companies that have agorists on trial.

Conclusion

In a world where the land of the free has the highest recorded incarceration rates, more tyrannical mandates and laws will inevitably be coming down the toxic pipeline in this post-covid world. It is time to develop creative solutions to the problems governments have created in this unknown and terrifying world.

Black market jury nullification will not only create new opportunities for agorists, but to help peaceful people and fight against the domineering overseer that is the state.