Anarcho-capitalism is sometimes called market anarchism because it seeks to replace the state with a free market and a system of private property that is based on every person’s right to self-ownership. Whatever market services the State has usurped—the adjudication of disputes, for example—would be addressed by contracts and private agencies.

The origin of the term “Anarcho-capitalism” is usually attributed either to the libertarian anarchist Jarrett Wollstein or to the Austrian economist Murray Rothbard. Rothbard explained the core idea.

“We believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can’t really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism.”

He used the traditional Austrian economic definition of capitalism, which meant “the private ownership of the means of production”; this included the joint ownership of property—collective ownership—if all the relevant parties agreed. This system is often called laissez-faire capitalism, which is the antithesis of crony capitalism—a partnership between Big Business and the State. The two systems are diametrically opposed because the first expresses the free market and voluntary actions while the second is statist and enforces obedience through coercion.

To some, laissez-faire capitalism and Anarcho-capitalism are synonyms.

Agorism is the specific form of anarchism created by Samuel E. Konkin III (SEK3), which renders the State irrelevant through “counter-economics”—short form for “counter-establishment economics.” Counter-economics is broadly defined as the sum total of all non-state interaction, although the focus is generally upon economic interactions. In other words, Agorism is a non-violent revolution that occurs by participating in the broadly defined black and gray markets as a way to bypass the State; Agorism removes from the State the sources of its sustenance: money, consent, and obedience. The sustenance is transferred to individuals instead.

How are Agorism and Anarcho-capitalism connected?

Defining the Terms

Agorism is broader than Anarcho-capitalism since counter-economics embraces all non-state interactions, including non-economic matters such as romantic love and aesthetics. Otherwise stated, Agorism consists of all voluntary exchanges, and it does not specify a preferred economic system. Any voluntary arrangement qualifies, and human diversity guarantees that people will choose a wide variety of them. Voluntary socialism in communes would be Agorist, for example. Anarcho-capitalism focuses on the ownership and free exchange of property, with a specific preference for  the laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Rothbard. Competing systems are tolerated or welcomed, as long as they are voluntary, but capitalism is viewed as the superior choice for individual liberty and prosperity.

SEK3 was in full accord with the “anarchy” aspect of Anarcho-capitalism, but he stumbled over the “capitalism.” How and why he stumbled can be best understood by examining the distinctions he drew between it and Agorism.

In the interview “Smashing the State for Fun and Profit Since 1969,” SEK3 stated,  “Those calling themselves Anarcho-capitalists…do not differ drastically from agorists; both claim to want anarchy…But the moment we apply the ideology to the real world (as the Marxoids say, ‘Actually Existing Capitalism’) we diverge on several points immediately.” Once the theory of Anarcho-capitalism is translated into the real world, he believed, it ceases to be “anarcho” because statism is introduced.

To some real degree, the perceived divergence seems to be semantic—a subject discussed in the preceding essay of this 3-part series. For his part, SEK3 dismissed the possibility of capitalism existing without the state, believing laissez-faire capitalism in theory became crony capitalism in practice. In contrast, Anarcho-capitalists maintain that the economic arrangement they champion is voluntary and anti-statist.  A recent email exchange I had with left libertarian Thomas Knapp—a friend and fine thinker—explored this difference of definition. The email exchange is reprinted, with Tom’s permission. The topic merits this deeper examination because semantics is a huge stumbling block to Agorists, Left-Libertarians, and Anarcho-capitalists understanding each other. Tom’s comments are in italics.

Knapp, quoting a sentence from Part II of this series: “Rothbard never believed capitalism per se was deeply unjust to anyone, for example; he reserved this criticism for state-capitalism.”

The problem is, there’s _no other kind of capitalism_. Capitalism is a mixed, state-regulated industrial economy (Foldvary, Encyclopedia of Free-Market Economics). That’s how it was originally framed by e.g. Hodgskin, that’s how it was popularized by Marx, and that’s how most people, including most capitalists, view it today. “Anarcho-capitalism” is an oxymoron. To be an “Anarcho-capitalist” is to operate under continuous cognitive dissonance. You can be an anarchist or you can be a capitalist, but you can’t be both. You can have free markets or you can have capitalism, but you can’t have both. The “left-Rothbardians” agreed with Rothbard on many things, but rejected his “anarcho-capitalist” error as what it is: An impossibility, and a deviation from libertarianism.

McElroy: I think you and I may just disagree on whether there can be laissez-faire capitalism; I see no contradiction at all in the concept or in the past execution of it. I am willing–actually, I am interested—to read anything you suggest as to why the left-Rothbardians reject Anarcho-capitalism. As to whether people view capitalism in a particularly bad or mistaken way…I think you are correct. But a substantial number of libertarians use the word “capitalism” to mean either  laissez-faire or in a neutral manner. And if the vast majority of the public do not, then maybe education about the term is all the more necessary.

Knapp: It’s really pretty simple:
1) Capitalism, by definition, requires a state;
2) Anarchism, by definition, precludes a state.
QED, “Anarcho-capitalism” is an oxymoron.

McElroy: Why does private ownership of the means of production require a state
any more than private ownership of anything else?

Knapp: Capitalism is not “private ownership of the means of production.” Capitalism is “a mixed, state-regulated industrial economy.” That’s what it meant when Hodgskin described it. That’s what it meant when Thackeray coined it. That’s what it meant when Marx popularized it. And that’s what it still means to the 99.9x% of human beings who are not adherents of one specific sub-school of Austrian economics.

McElroy: This may be a prevalent and corrupt expression of what is called “capitalism”—just as the prevalent and corrupt form of socialism is statist—but Rothbard did not define it as such and I never assume that someone who calls themselves a socialist is also a statist. Capitalism per se is nothing more than an economic arrangement that can be voluntary or can be commandeered by the state. Just as socialism can be voluntary or statist. Anarcho or laissez faire capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production—a situation that results in profit through selling goods and services.

I think the foregoing definition is a great deal more popular than you do, clearly, because I think the impact of Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Friedman etc. has been more widespread than you do. Moreover, I don’t think the etymology of a word determines what it must mean today, otherwise “liberal” would still mean libertarian, as in “classical liberalism”. To be sure, “libertarianism” was once a left-wing designation but, like capitalism or liberalism, the word went through a radical redefinition. You may want to use “capitalism” in the same sense as Hodgskin did in the 18th-19th century…and that’s a valid choice. Just a confusing one that requires people’s definitions be clearly delineated before a  valuable exchange can occur.

Knapp: It’s interesting that you’d use the word “corrupt” to describe the original definition, the definition it was popularized under, and the definition that is still used by the vast majority of people today, rather than to describe the later (completely ahistorical but convenient to the political class) conflation of the term with free markets. To “corrupt” a word is to change or debase its meaning.

McElroy: Hmm. You have a point here. The current empirical expressions of capitalism are corruptions of the general definition now offered by dictionaries. They are also corruptions of what the term generally means within libertarianism and Austrian economics. But it is not a corruption of what Hodgskin meant, this is true. I guess I consider the current common expression of capitalism to be a corruption because I proceed on the dictionary, libertarian and Rothbardian meanings, rather than state or crony capitalism. The point I made about the drift in the meaning of “liberal” from its original usage was to illustrate how etymology is not a strong argument for what a word means now.

[Note: the referenced dictionary definition is, “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.”]

Knapp: The etymology is interesting, but the bigger point is that the word was intentionally corrupted by mid-19th-century capitalists for the express purpose of falsely identifying themselves with free markets, and that that corruption somehow managed to worm its way into (some) libertarian usage, to our disadvantage. Agorism, free markets, counter-economics, etc. are the opposites of both capitalism as originally defined AND capitalism as currently practiced. One bit of shorthand I generally use is that I’m not a capitalist because I’m not a Marxist.

McElroy: Let me ask you…If capitalism IS “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or
corporations, especially as contrasted to state-owned means of wealth”…do you have any objection to people participating in this system? I know you do not grant that this is the definition but…hypothetically, is there anything wrong for you with the system described above. I’m trying to figure out whether we disagree on the definition or on something more substantive.

Knapp: Of course not — with two caveats. #1: Corporations are state-created and state-privileged entities that could not exist in a free market system (joint stock companies could, of course). #2 “Private individuals” could of course include voluntary communes or whatever–but those communes would have to be based in the voluntarily committed private property rights of their members, not in a coercive claim that those rights didn’t exist.

Obviously, we are on the same side of everything here except terminology. The reason I think the terminology is important is that if I’m trying to convince Random Average Individual X of the virtues of free markets, using the word “capitalism” as a synonym for them is likely to be counter-productive.

The exchange ended in goodwill with an understanding of where we disagreed. I believe Tom is correct about corporations, if only because of limited liability law that legally exempts individuals of responsibility for their decisions. But other libertarians whom I respect believe corporations would exist without the state, however. My position has always been, “I do not believe corporations are libertarian, but let’s do away with the state and see what happens.” Tom is also correct that “private individuals” include any voluntary association, such as communes.

SEK3’s More Substantive Objections to Anarcho-capitalism

Not all of SEK3’s critiques of Anarcho-capitalism were grounded in etymology or semantics, however. In the previously mentioned interview, SEK3 claimed,

“A-caps generally…believe in involvement with existing political parties…and, in the extreme case, even support the Pentagon and U.S. Defense complex to fight communism…until we somehow get to abolishing the State.” [Italics added]

SEK3 was probably thinking of Rothbard and his followers within the Libertarian Party (LP) when he referred to “A-caps…[who] believe in involvement with existing political parties.” This proclivity is not a general one among Anarcho-capitalists, however, as SEK3 seemed to believe. In my experience, Anarcho-capitalists who aligned with the LP or any other political party are in the minority. Those who did usually tried to use the LP as an educational platform or to achieve limited political goals, such as repealing drug laws. Individual Anarcho-capitalists may be inconsistent and join a political party but this does not reflect upon the validity of the political theory itself or on how Anarcho-capitalism compares to Agorism.

It is difficult to know to whom SEK3 referred as “an extreme case.” One example would have been useful. What is clear, however, is that anyone who supports the Pentagon or the U.S. Defense complex cannot claim to be an anarchist of any sort just as anyone who approves of the IRS or war cannot call himself an agorist. Personally, I have not encountered anyone within Anarcho-capitalism who also supports “the Pentagon and U.S. Defense complex to fight communism.” By definition, anyone who supports “the Pentagon and U.S. Defense complex” is not an anarchist of any school. The concept of a Pentagon-friendly anarchist is a contradiction in terms, akin to the concept of a meat-eating vegetarian.

SEK3 qualified his claim by saying the “Anarcho-capitalist” would maintain this contradiction only until the State was abolished. Perhaps this was an oblique comment on the gradualist versus abolitionist debate that raged in 1970s libertarian circles. The gradualist position is that certain State actions—social security checks for the elderly and military protection, for example—are necessary until the State can be gradually phased out; to eliminate the State immediately would simply cause too much suffering, and it would court disaster.

For abolitionists, no practical or moral consideration overrides the right of an individual to the peaceful possession of his body and property; this means the violation of individual rights that is the State should cease as soon as humanly possible—immediately, if this is possible. Rothbard phrased this debate in the context of a red button that could make the State instantly disappear if pressed. After describing the button, he would laugh in a Brooklyn cackle and declare, “my finger would be numb from jabbing it.” The Anarcho-capitalist position expressed by Rothbard is abolitionist.

But, again, it is difficult to make sense of SEK3’s objection which is stated, rather than written, and stated in a sketchy manner; it may have been a poorly phrased comment in passing about which commentary is inappropriate.

“Smashing the State for Fun and Profit Since 1969” also reveals a more meaty difference between Agorism and Anarcho-capitalism. After stating “we diverge on several points immediately,” SEK3 presented what he perceived as the main theoretical divide; it lay in class analysis. First and foremost, “Agorists stress the Entrepreneur, [they] see non-statist Capitalists (in the sense of holders of capital, not necessary ideologically aware) as relatively neutral drone-like non-innovators, and pro-statist Capitalists as the main Evil in the political realm.” This is confusing, of course, because it explicitly acknowledges that at least some form of non-statist capitalism can exist, which seems to contradict statements made elsewhere.

More than anything else, the observation emphasizes the importance SEK3 placed upon the Entrepreneur or Innovator in the unfolding of Agorism. The introductory synopsis of chapters in the New Libertarian Manifesto (NLM) includes “V. Action: Our Tactics. Some tactics listed. Tactics must be discovered and applied in context. Activist=entrepreneur.” Chapter V expands this point. “It is all a risk; that is what activism is, a type of entrepreneurship, of guessing the market and supplying the demand.” Since Agorism was activism or lived liberty, entrepreneurship lay at the core of SEK3’s approach. By contrast, non-statist or passive capitalism was not activist and not even inherently ideological.

A key bone of SEK3’s objection to modern or state-capitalism was the wage system, which he viewed as an obstacle to human freedom and dignity; he much preferred independent contractors and entrepreneurs. A footnote in NLM contends  of an agorist economy,

“Whether or not ‘wage workers’ would exist instead of ‘independent contractors’ for all steps of production is arguable, but this author feels that the whole concept of ‘worker-boss’ is a holdover from feudalism and not, as Marx claims, fundamental to capitalism’.”

A few pages later, NLM explains,

“In an agorist society, division of labor and self-respect of each worker-capitalist-entrepreneur will probably eliminate the traditional business organization—especially the corporate hierarchy, an imitation of the State and not the Market. Most companies will be associations of independent contractors, consultants, and other companies. Many may be just one entrepreneur and all his services, computers, suppliers and customers.” [Emphasis added]

The word “probably” is important because it indicates SEK3’s willingness to accept wages as a possible expression of voluntary exchanges. Nevertheless, his commitment to decentralization made him highly critical of relational hierarchies.

SEK3 Versus Rothbard on Agorism

SEK3 and Rothbard had a published discussion that highlighted their differences on the wage system. Although SEK3 claimed Agorists were “strict Rothbardian,” he considered Agorists to be “even more Rothbardian than Rothbard” on their opposition to wage-slavery and work hierarchies because Rothbard had some “confusion in his thinking.” SEK3 ascribed at least part of what he called Rothbard’s “confusion” to a misinterpretation of Ludwig von Mises, who was a mentor to Rothbard and an intellectual role model to both men. SEK3 observed, “Mises made the original distinction between Innovators/Arbitrageurs and Capital-holders (i.e., mortgage-holders, coupon-clippers, financiers, worthless heirs, landlords, etc.).”

In fact, SEK3 was the one who misinterpreted Mises’ distinction, if the straight meaning of his parenthesis is to be assumed. The Misesean and Rothbardian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe commented in an article entitled “Defending Rothbard’s Response and an Analysis of Agorist Class Theory,”

“Konkin doesn’t understand what Mises was pointing out. Look at who Konkin attacks as non-entrepreneurs – landlords and financiers. Financiers as we saw in Economics in One Lesson are simply trading liquid capital for non-liquid capital. Landlords are providing housing to those who are not capable of fully financing the housing themselves.”

In Chapter 8 of Rothbard’s pivotal work, Man, Economy, and State, he explained that “capitalist-entrepreneurs” were economically the most important type of capitalist and entrepreneur. “These are the men who invest in “capital” (land and/or capital goods) used in the productive process….” Hoppe expanded on landlords and financiers:

“Both serve the purpose of entrepreneurialism in classical Austrian analysis—they bring products or services to market and sell them for a profit. That is all that is needed to be an entrepreneur under classical Austrian economics as that is key to the market finding correct prices through entrepreneurialism.”

It is useful to note that Mises was one the 20^th century’s staunchest supporters of “capitalism” and would have summarily dismissed SEK3’s use of the word and his position on wages.

Rothbard’s critique of SEK3 on wages and the hierarchy of the worker-capitalist relationship was part of his more general response to the publication of NLM: “Konkin on Libertarian Strategy.” The original response was dated November 10, 1980. The first of this four-part article addresses the wage system.

Part I. The Konkinian Alternative. [Note: Rothbard also called SEK3’s approach “Konkin Out,” although verbally and not in print.] Of the “agoric alternative,” Rothbard wrote,

“First, there is a fatal flaw…This is Konkin’s astonishing view that working for wages is somehow nonmarket or antilibertarian, and would disappear in a free society.”

(In fairness, SEK3 stated, “Whether or not ‘wage workers’ would exist instead of ‘independent contractors’ for all steps of production is arguable,” but he did seem convinced it would be phased out.)

“Konkin claims to be an Austrian free-market economist,” Rothbard continued, “how he can say that a voluntary sale of one’s labor for money is somehow illegitimate or unlibertarian passeth understanding.” Here Rothbard emphasized the purely voluntary—that is, free market—aspect of a person selling his labor to the most attractive bidder. It was pure libertarianism.

Rothbard also had practical objections.

SEK3 declares in NLM, “With the Market largely moving to the ‘net, it is becoming ever-more pure entrepreneurial, leaving the brick ‘n’ mortar ‘capitalist’ behind.”

Rothbard replied that it was “simply absurd” for SEK3 “to think that, in the free market of the future, wage labor will disappear” due to robots and the Internet. Both men had a point. The Internet has vastly decreased the economy’s reliance on “brick ‘n’ mortar” capitalism, but it has not come close to eliminating the so-called wage-slavery at tech firms or other internet-related industries. Even the advent of AI and robots has not eliminated wages or “brick ‘n’ mortar” since mechanisms need to be designed and manufactured, and centralization of workplace can be beneficial.

“Independent contracting, as lovable as some might see it,” Rothbard observed, “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.”

The closest the economy has come to erasing the need for factories may be 3D-printing, which still only reduces its presence.

Rothbard seemed to take most umbrage, however, to SEK3’s accusation that wages hinder human freedom and dignity. Rothbard counter-argued,

“Konkin is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that the emergence of wage labor was an enormous boon for many thousands of poor workers and saved them from starvation. If there is no wage labor…then each worker must have enough money to purchase his own capital and tools. One of the great things about the emergence of the factory system and wage labor is that poor workers did not have to purchase their own capital equipment; this could be left to the capitalists. (Thus, see F.A. Hayek’s brilliant introduction in his Capitalism and the Historians.)”

Another advantage of wage labor is that workers can accumulate their own capital over time, called savings, and become capitalists or entrepreneurs. Or, those who do not like the disadvantages of capitalism, like risk, can support themselves and their families on wages.

Rothbard accused SEK3 of reaping strategic benefits from rejecting wages and the centralized manufacturing. “It allows him to present a wildly optimistic view of the potential scope of the black market,” Rothbard wrote. While the black market was extremely important in places like Russia and Italy, it was “enormously dwarfed by the “white market.””

Black markets, Rothbard contended, “are concentrated either in service industries or in commodities which are both valuable and easily concealed: jewels, gold, drugs, candy bars, stockings, etc.” It is left to the white market to solve the problem of “who will make automobiles, steel, cement, etc.” How would these problems fare in the black market? “The answer is that they don’t fare at all, just as they don’t fare in the independent contracting agora.” This means that “the Konkinian vision of black-market institutions growing, defending themselves, and thus becoming the free-market anarchist society of the future collapses on this ground alone.”

Rothbard raised other more peripheral issues as well, such as tax rebellion, which “presumably serves as part of the agoric strategy.” This presumption is correct.

“Once again,” Rothbard argued, “it is far easier for someone who doesn’t earn a wage to escape the reporting of his income. It is almost impossible for wage earners….It is impossible to convert wage workers to the idea of nonpayment of taxes because they literally have no choice…I am afraid, indeed, that there is only one way to eliminate the monstrous withholding tax. Dare I speak its name? It is political action.”

To Rothbard, this meant  black marketeers “have no relevance to the ‘macro’ struggle for liberty and against the State.” Indeed, they might be counterproductive. He raised a disturbing possibility; What if the success of the black market in the Soviet Union had been integral to keeping the regime afloat for so long. Rothbard quickly distanced himself from criticizing black market activities; he merely criticized the black market as an effective vehicle with which to dissolve the State because the dominating presence of the white market doomed any black market revolution. All in all, Rothbard concluded that Agorism was a “total failure” in terms of its goal of eliminating the State.

SEK3 prefaced his response by observing that Rothbard’s core rebuttal of Agorism’s “fatal flaw” springboarded off an “en passant” footnote on page 21 of NLM. In short, SEK3 thought Rothbard had focused on a marginal issue, not a fundamental one. The word “wage” appears nowhere else in NLM. The footnote, previously quoted in part, reads in full:

“It probably should be noted explicitly that businesses could grow quite large in the counter-economy. Whether or not ‘wage workers’ would exist instead of ‘independent contractors’ for all steps of production is arguable, but this author feels that the whole concept of ‘worker-boss’ is a holdover from feudalism and not, as Marx claims, fundamental to ‘capitalism’. Of course, capital-statism is the opposite of what the libertarian advocates. Furthermore, even large businesses today could go partially counter-economic, leaving a portion in the ‘white market’ to satisfy government agents and pay some modicum of taxes and report a token number of workers. The rest of the business would (and already often does) expand off the books with independent contractors who supply, service, and distribute the finished product. Nobody, no business, no worker, and no entrepreneur need be white market.”

SEK3 acknowledged the importance of the footnoted claim.

“Let me point out,” he wrote, “that a real debate is justified here between Rothbard…and myself…on the validity of hiring oneself out. The necessity of it is in question (cybernetics and robotics increasingly replace drudgery—up to and including management activity); the psychology of it is in question (selling one’s personal activity under another’s direction and supervision encourages dependency and authoritarian relationships); and the profit in it is open to question (only the rarest skills—acting, art, superscience—command anywhere near the market reward of even low-level entrepreneurship).”

But such a debate would be “irrelevant” to “the validity of Agorism,” SEK3 insisted.

The relevancy of Rothbard’s critique depends on what is meant by “the validity of Agorism,” however. If the goal or purpose is to liberate the individual through counter-economics, then Agorism is validated by every individual who achieves personal freedom by pursuing it; moreover, Rothbard would have agreed with this objective. If the goal is to liberate society as a whole by rendering the State irrelevant through counter-economics—that is, if Agorism is a vehicle of social revolution—then Rothbard’s rebuttal should be taken seriously because the persistence of a huge white market would be a massive and, perhaps, insurmountable obstacle. SEK3’s presentations of Agorism often blended both the goals of personal and social liberation, which means questioning either of them is on point.

As improbable as it may seem, the issue of wages became pivotal to both. Rothbard’s most significant accusation against Agorism was that SEK3 unfairly dismissed the wage system as a vehicle of personal liberation and as an obstacle to social revolution.

Personal Liberation. Agorism claims to be the most effective way for individuals to achieve personal freedom. Key to this strategy is for people to become entrepreneurs and free themselves from hierarchal work arrangements—aka the wage system. SEK3 rejected the wage system because he viewed it as damaging to human freedom and dignity. By contrast, Rothbard believed that a person’s ability to sell his own labor was a foundation of personal freedom and prosperity; it was the opposite of slavery in which someone else owned a person’s labor. Rothbard attributed SEK3’s position on wages to an “ignorance of history,” and he pointed to historical precedent to demonstrate how liberty advanced whenever people could sell their labor. Whatever disadvantages accompanied the wage system may have, Rothbard maintained, were clearly outweighed by its advantages or else people would not willingly seek employment.

SEK3’s response to Rothbard’s argument seemed glib. The benefit of selling labor, he admitted, “may have been as great as the invention of the diaper—but surely toilet-training (in this case, entrepreneurialization) is even a more significant advance?” This is a jab, not a serious counter-argument.

Social Revolution. Agorism was also presented as a strategy by which to revolutionize society and eliminate the State. Here, too, the key was entrepreneurship and the growth of black or gray markets that bypassed state control. A massive obstacle to freedom, according to SEK3, was the hierarchal economic system epitomized by corporations and manufacturers which constituted the backbone of the white market—a legal, visible market monitored by the State. The white market used the wage system. Without rejecting alternate systems of payment, Rothbard believed both workers and employers benefited from the wage system. This was a telling difference between the two men. SEK3’s strategy of social revolution rested on replacing white market services and goods with black market ones. If this was not possible or desirable, then Agorism as revolution became questionable.

Rothbard’s argument drew on the assertion that “agoric” activities—his term for “agorist” activities—were confined to individual services and simple portable goods like “jewels, gold, drugs, candy bars, stockings, etc.”; agoric activities did not reflect the far larger white market of industry. SEK3 acknowledged that the only black market good mentioned in NLM were drugs, and this example fit Rothbard’s description. But SEK3 somewhat unfairly went on to use his upcoming book, which would be published under the title Counter-Economics, to refute Rothbard’s specific comments on NLM. This is unfair because Rothbard could not have based his critique of one book upon the unpublished material within another; basing his remarks on NLM alone is hardly an error or to his discredit.

Counter-Economics did provide counterweight to the meat of Rothbard’s assertion, however, by citing entire countries that were allegedly counter-economic. “Burma is almost a total black market,” SEK3 claimed, and Burma—now known as Myanmar—does include heavy industry. Such examples may create more problems for Agorism than they solve, however. If a nation is almost totally black market or agorist, then shouldn’t the people’s freedom be almost total as well? And, yet, Myanmar is heavily statist, as the recent military coup demonstrated. Does the example SEK3 provided prove that Agorism does not lead to freedom and the withering away of the State? If so, then Rothbard’s side of the argument may have scored a point.

The picture gets more confused when SEK3 praises “the heavy industry of India which is mostly black [market].” Again, if they are mostly black market, shouldn’t they be less oppressive, rather than the corporate and state-controlled sweat shops that so many appear to be?

At what point does the black market prevail over the State?

The picture gets even blurrier when SEK3 seemed to argue that large manufacturers not only could be agorist but currently were agorist. “Automobiles are made counter-economically,” he argued,

“Let me count the ways: shipping them across borders and evading taxes or controls—whether physically or on paper; illegal alien labor for assembly-line production; skimming of parts by management, labor, or even with knowledge of the owners, which then go to produce custom cars; auto plant executives hired as ‘independent consultants’; design, research, engineering, executive and computer ‘consultants’ all paid in partial or full counter-economic terms; union ‘corruption’ to make sweetheart deals to avoid labor (State) regulations; OSHA and other inspectors bought off or misdirected; ‘unsold’ product written off inventory and taxes and then sold; . . . forget it, I cannot possibly count all the ways.”

SEK3 was certainly correct in pointing to black or gray market aspects of manufacturing, although the inclusion of some activities—sweetheart deals with unions, for instance—have questionable black market credentials. Nevertheless, the ‘norm’ of auto manufacturing is white market with the agorist activities functioning in the background. Moreover, it is not clear that an independent contractor model by which everyone negotiates their own terms would work well on a production line, especially a unionized one. This is not merely due to an employer’s preferences. Many workers might prefer a cookie-cutter type of contract rather than take the entrepreneurial step of negotiating for themselves.

SEK3 admitted this possibility; “Big industry in the cartelized sense is no breeding ground for libertarian support but rather for the State’s vested interests. However, there is no need to confuse large scale of production with oligopolist characteristics.”

Rothbard clearly thought the transaction costs of negotiating separately with independent contractors would be too high for a large manufacturer, who benefited greatly from a more uniform arrangement.

“My own observations,” SEK3 countered, “are that independent contracting lowers transactions costs.” In citing the transaction costs of worker/boss relationships, however, SEK3 focused largely on those imposed by the State—“annoying paperwork and records to full-scale Krupp worker welfarism.”

But this conflates the manufacturer’s transaction costs of handling independent contractors with those of dealing with the state. It also sidesteps the question of whether a manufacturer in a free market would naturally favor a wage system, free-market unions, independent contractors, or some combination. In truth, no one knows because a free market system has not been allowed to function in the modern economy. SEK3 was content to concede his point. “As Mises would say,” SEK3 acknowledged, it was not a matter “for economists but [for] economic historians.” In other words, let the marketplace decide, then let history record the decision.

Most other disagreements between Rothbard (qua Anacho-capitalist) and SEK3 (qua agorist) were mini-disputes. This was natural. The two men used the same terms in completely different ways; they took personal jabs; they presented assertions rather than arguments. In short, the discussion was not always informative and was often confusing.

SEK3—Closer to Left Libertarian or Anarcho-capitalist?

SEK3’s words and actions offer some guidance. SEK3 identified as a Rothbardian; “more Rothbardian than Rothbard” was the claim. And Rothbard is accurately viewed as founding the integrated ideology of Anarcho-capitalism. With the possible exception of Ludwig von Mises, no other theorist influenced SEK3’s intellectual development as deeply. Rothbard also had a dramatic impact on SEK3’s approach to strategy. The periodical Left and Right (1965-1968), co-founded, edited and largely written by Rothbard, attempted to reach out to the New Left in order to combine its anti-authoritarian and antiwar approach with similar positions within  the Old Right. For most of his activist life, SEK3 aggressively emulated Rothbard’s outreach to the Left. His article History of the Libertarian Movement states, “In 1978, the Movement of the Libertarian Left was formed…to restore and continue the alliance Rothbard and Carl Oglesby had begun between the New Left and Libertarians against foreign intervention or imperialism.”

In a real sense, Rothbard defined SEK3’s thought and strategy in another manner; Rothbard’s zeal for electoral politics and his rejection of Agorism caused SEK3 to act as an ideological foil. Being oppositional, however, did not reduce SEK3’s respect for Rothbard. His delight in having his magnum opus New Libertarian Manifesto reviewed by his mentor—a review that was far from laudatory—was obvious in how he reprinted the piece and widely circulated it.

SEK3’s preference for the label “Left” came from factors other than an agreement with traditional left ideology or with Left Libertarianism itself. SEK3 advocated radical individualism, for example, not collectivism or Georgism. He remained an avid Misesean, which put him ideologically in league with Austrian economists. He respected individual ownership of property based on human nature and need, while accepting collective ownership of property when all relevant parties agreed upon it. Moreover, he was openly critical of communism.  In “Counter-Economics: Our Means” he declared communism and Agorism to be antagonist approaches.

“The anti-market commune defies the only enforceable law—the law of nature. The basic organizational structure of society (above the family) is not the commune (or tribe or extended tribe or State) but the agora. No matter how many wish communism to work and devote themselves to it, it will fail. They can hold back Agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, the ‘flow’ or ‘Invisible Hand’ or ‘tides of history’ or ‘profit incentive’ or ‘doing what comes naturally’ or ‘spontaneity’ will carry society inexorably closer to the pure agora.”

So why did SEK3 prefer the label “Libertarian Left” to “Right” or “Rothbardian” libertarianism? The various and complicated reasons include: a rejection of the word “capitalism”—albeit an inconsistent rejection because he also believed the term could be neutral; a desire to project as radical a persona as possible; a way to facilitate outreach to sympathetic leftists; and, a term to distinguish himself from libertarians who accepted electoral politics.

Another reason was undoubtedly cultural preference. SEK3 felt strongly allied with the Cultural Revolution of the late ‘60s which was left-wing in rhetoric, sentiment and goals. The free speech, free love, drug tolerant, freewheeling atmosphere of the ‘60s almost defined SEK3’s lifestyle, although his preferred drug was the tobacco in a pipe that was never far away. On the other hand, the more right-wing lifestyle of Libertarian Party members (LPers), who became SEK3’s arch enemies, must have cemented his belief that the left was a natural ally for Agorism. Whether his assessment of LPers is accurate can be questioned, however, as many came into the LP through their passion for civil liberties which made them call out to decriminalize drugs, sex work, and anything else peaceful.

Nevertheless, SEK3 conflated right-wing ideology with conservatism. This was odd because America has a deep and radical history of classical “liberalism”—a word that meant the opposite of what it currently does. Classical liberalism sparked the American Revolution and prospered well into the 20^th century via the Old Right with which Rothbard and many other Anarcho-capitalists identified. For this reason, American libertarians tend to look more favorably upon right-wing traditions than do other nations. In other words, whether an individual sees the left or the right as a more suitable partner in freedom depends on the person’s personality, circumstances, and goals. Indeed, many activists forge narrow alliances on one or two issues with which everyone agrees.

From my friendship with SEK3 during the days when Agorism was developing, I believe one other reason he identified with the left was his deep desire to be ultra-radical; the left is historically more closely linked to revolution than the right. By carving out  Agorism as left-wing libertarianism, SEK3 wanted to out-radical Rothbard and found an entirely separate freedom movement—an image that he cultivated tirelessly. Remember, SEK3 thought agorists were “more Rothbardian than Rothbard.” Claiming the crown of uber-Rothbardianism, however, required putting distance between Agorism and Anarcho-capitalism. Thus, the calculated use of Marxist language. Thus, the rejection of the word “capitalism.” Thus always dressing in black and answering the phone with the words “Smash the State.”

To put sunlight between the two movements, SEK3 made various claims that had little to do with Anarcho-capitalist theory; although they should not be dismissed because they did reflect the actions of prominent movement members, including Rothbard. In the interview, SEK3 stated, “It is dealing with current politics and current defence [sic] where Agorists most strongly differ from ‘Anarcho-capitalists’.”

What was his objection regarding current politics? “A-caps generally,” he asserted, “believe in involvement with existing political parties (libertarian, Republican, even Democrat and Socialist, such as the Canadian NDP).” SEK3 was alluding primarily to Rothbard and his immediate circle who dove into political parties, especially in the LP where they formed a Radical Caucus. They justified working within electoral politics on strategic grounds and several of them wrote articles in defense of their activities. Rothbard wrote “The Importance of the Caucus,” for example. Rothbard came to bitterly regret his participation in the LP, although his response may have been due to disillusionment rather than a rejection of electoral politics.

But SEK3 is incorrect to state that “A-caps generally” advocate involvement with political parties. Many if not most Anarcho-capitalists view (and viewed) these political infatuations as a violation of principles; indeed, the propriety of participation in the LP occasioned such intense debate within the broad libertarian movement that it caused the formation of the Voluntaryist organization, which was dedicated to non-violent, non-electoral anarchism. Electoral politics was considered to be a form of violence in and of itself. In this and similar responses to electoral politics, Anarcho-capitalists harked back to the 19^th century Lysander Spooner who vigorously argued that voting itself was immoral.

SEK3 has been aggressively claimed as a founder by the Left Libertarians, especially the subset that sometimes goes by the label “Rothbardian Left Libertarians.” They play up SEK3’s differences with Anarcho-capitalism, perhaps to lend weight to their claim by eliminating the competition. This analysis deserves to be addressed separately and on its own terms but is not relevant, as this article reflects SEK3’s positions in his own words and through his own actions.

The question remains: what is the relationship between Agorists and Anarcho-capitalists? And how does the relationship compare to that of Agorism and Left Libertarianism?

All three of them adopt the label of “anarchist.” Or, rather, Left Libertarianism contains a significant contingent of anarchists along with a large number of Georgists and left-wing civil libertarians who argue for a State-like mechanism in order to enforce a Single Tax or another “desirable” social arrangement, such as a universal wage. But only Agorists and Anarcho-capitalists consistently consider anarchism to  be so core to their philosophies that anyone who advocates a State in any form or a State-like mechanism loses all claim to be included under their aegis. This alone makes Anarcho-capitalism closer to Agorism than to the broad Left Libertarianism. Only if Left Libertarianism is narrowly defined as the “Rothbardian Left Libertarian” branch does anarchism could anarchism be considered as a qualification for membership.

All three movements also point to Rothbard as a forefather. Indeed, SEK3 considered himself to have taken Rothbard’s theory to the next level, avoiding his mentor’s ideological contradictions while preserving his vast merit. Anarcho-capitalists claim Rothbard as a founder, of course, and with solid justification; he also claimed Anarcho-capitalism as his own. But, again, with Left Libertarianism, only the minority faction has roots in Rothbard, and no one knows how large this faction is. Left Libertarianism proper dates back to figures like the 19^th century populist Henry George or later academic philosophers such as Hillel Steiner, with Rothbard being a Murray-come-lately.

Measured by this ruler as well, Agorism and Anarcho-capitalism are more compatible companions.

And, now, a parting observation. I have kept in touch with a dozen or so of the original occupants of Anarcho-Village and others in SEK3’s inner circle. As far as I know, none have adopted Left Libertarianism; some, like the late J. Neil Schulman, vehemently opposed the movement. On the other hand, quite a few seem to be comfortable identifying as Anarcho-capitalists. Of course, I am certain that no label is worn with greater pride than Agorist. This is an anecdotal observation and I may be overlooking or misinterpreting some of the old gang. But anecdotal information often provides human insight.

Now nothing is left to say on this topic except…“Smash the State!” whatever you call yourself while doing so.