NEW LIBERTARIAN MANIFESTO by Samuel Edward Konkin III KOPUBCO Dedication To Chris R. Tame who told me “Don’t get it right, get it written!” Acknowledgments above all to Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Robert LeFevre, and their sources. Table of Contents PREFACES .................................. 11 I. STATISM: Our Condition ................. 14 Libertarianism vs. coercion. The nature of the State. Constituents of libertari- anism and diversity of the Movement. The State strikes back: anti-principles. Ways and non-ways to Liberty. Betrayal and response; action over all. II. AGORISM: Our Goal ..................... 23 Consistency of ends, of means, of ends and means. Portrayal of agorist soc- iety. Restoration theory: restitution, time loss, and apprehension cost; inherent advantages. Agorism defined. Objections countered. III. COUNTER-ECONOMICS: Our Means ......... 37 Micro activity and macro consequences. Agorists: counter-economists with libertarian consciousness. The purpose of “Establishment” economics. Step by step backward from agorism to statism (for theoretical purposes). Black and grey markets: the unconscious agora. “Third,” “Second,” and “First” World Counter-Economic status and grossest examples. Counter-Economics in all fields of commerce even in North America, some exclusively counter-eco- nomic. Universality of Counter-Economics and reason for it. Limitation of counter-economics and reasons. The role of the intelligentsia and Establish- ment media. Failure of counter-cultures and the key to success. Steps from statism to agorism and the risk of market protection. The fundamental prin- ciple of counter-economics. The reason for inevitable growth of agorist counter- economic sub-society. IV. REVOLUTION: Our Strategy .............. 54 Self-aware counter-economics enough but some burn to do more—fight or support struggle. Combativity inadequate without strategy. Phases of agorist growth decide appropriate strategy. Tactics that are always appropriate. New Libertarian Alliance as association for entrepreneuring Liberty. Libertarian creed is constraint of New Libertarian tactics. Phase 0: Zero-Density Agorist Soci- ety. Raise consciousness. Phase 1: Low-Density Agorist Society. Radical caucuses and Libertarian Left. Combat anti-principles. Anticipate crises of statism. Phase 2: Mid-Density, Small-Condensation Agorist Society. The State to strike back but restrained by agorist contamination. Phase 3: High- Density, Large-Condensation Agorist Society. Permanent crisis of statism. Need to crush counter-economy grows as ability wanes. Anti-principles great- est threat. The State’s final strike: Revolution. Strategy includes delaying tac- tics and counter-intelligence. Correct definition of (violent) Revolution. Phase 4: Agorist Society with Statist Impurities. Collapse of the State and simul- taneous dissolution of NLA. Home! V. ACTION!: Our Tactics ................... 68 Some tactics listed. Tactics must be discovered and applied in context. Ac- tivist=entrepreneur. Where we are now (then). Opportunity from collapse of statist Left. Opportunity from premature party sell-out. The concluding chal- lenge. New Libertarian pledge and fousing finish: Agora, Anarchy, Action! New Libertarian Manifesto 11 Preface to the First Edition The basic form of New Libertarianism arose during my struggle with the Libertarian Party during its formation in 1973, and Counter-Eco- nomics was first put forward to the public at the Free Enterprise Forum in Los Angeles in February 1974. New Libertarianism has been propagated within and without the libertar- ian movement and its journals, most notably New Libertarian magazine, since then. More importantly, the activism prescribed herein (especially Counter-Economics) has been practiced by the author and his closest allies since 1976. Several “anarchovillages” of New Libertarians have formed and reformed. Just once, wouldn’t you like to read a mani- festo that’s been practiced before it’s preached? I wanted to. And I did it. —Samuel Edward Konkin III October 1980 12 Samuel Edward Konkin III Preface to the Second Edition An agorist publication ought to be judged most severely in the free marketplace. Sure enough, the first edition of New Libertarian Manifesto (NLM) has been sold out and a second edi- tion, taken up by a fresh entrepreneur looking for profit with his ideology, is with you, the reader. The market’s judgement, to my pleas- ant surprise, is that NLM is the most success- ful of my many publications. In the realm of ideas, two years is a fairly short time. Nevertheless, attacks on NLM have begun in Left-Centre Libertarian publications and one such student network newsletter be- rated errant chapters for switching allegiance to “that flake, Konkin” only last month. Es- says and articles on Counter-Economics and agorism appear in more and more non-Left (or non-agorist—yet) libertarian publications. A truly encouraging sign is the emergence of many Counter-Economic entrepreneurs in the Southern California area (and a few scat- tered around North America and even Europe) who embrace and distribute NLM. An agorist “industrial park” has been condensing quietly in Orange County between these two editions. This gratification is not idly enjoyed. It has inspired the author to continue the dialogue in two issues of a theoretical journal based on NLM, the writing of Counter-Economics (see footnote 26), and the planning of a theoretical magnum opus, as Das Capital was to the Com- munist Manifesto, undoubtedly to be titled Agorism. New Libertarian Manifesto 13 As for continuing to practice what I preach and expanding on the practice, I may add to the end of the First Preface… And I’m still doing it. —Samuel Edward Konkin III February, 1983 Preface to the Fourth Edition Samuel Edward Konkin III had suggested that—instead of updating the Manifesto with new notes—we simply publish it as is, as an historical piece of living theory that continues to grow to this day. The only changes have been the correction of some persistent typos and mi- nor changes for the sake of clarity made by the editor. Mr. Konkin joined that great anar- chist hoard in the sky on February 23, 2004, after a too-short lifespan of theoretical and practical experiments, traveling the world to bring the concept of agorism and New Liber- tarianism to eager listeners. Twenty-five years after its publication, the Manifesto is still a brisk seller. This on-demand edition—available worldwide—should con- tinue the trend. With the collapse of collectivism sweeping the world—a collapse brought about by the economic and moral consequences of such sys- tems—Mr. Konkin’s analyses are all the more impressive for their accuracy. If anything, New Libertarian Manifesto is more current now than ever. Statism choked and died in the USSR. The UN as proto-World State is collaps- ing into toothless, impotent irrelevance. Will inhabitants of the world continue the trend, 14 Samuel Edward Konkin III or do we need the frontier of Space to achieve the next evolutionary step in human action? The Movement of the Libertarian Left can be contacted at agorism.info and all back is- sues of New Libertarian publications are avail- able from KoPubCo at kopubco.com. —Victor Koman Publisher March, 2006 New Libertarian Manifesto 15 I. STATISM: OUR CONDITION We are coerced by our fellow human beings. Since they have the ability to choose to do oth- erwise, our condition need not be thus. Coer- cion is immoral, inefficient, and unnecessary for human life and fulfillment. Those who wish to be supine as their neighbors prey on them are free to so choose; this manifesto is for those who choose otherwise: to fight back. To combat coercion, one must understand it. More important, one must understand what one is fighting for as much as what one is fight- ing against. Blind reaction goes in all direc- tions negative to the source of oppression and disperses opportunity; pursuit of a common goal focuses the opponents and allows forma- tion of coherent strategy and tactics. Diffuse coercion is optimally handled by lo- cal, immediate self-defense. Though the mar- ket may develop larger-scale businesses for protection and restoration, random threats of violence can only be dealt with on the spot ad hoc.1 Organized coercion requires organized op- position. (An excellent case has been made many times by many thinkers that such orga- nization should remain skeletal at best, flesh- ing out only for actual confrontation, in order to prevent perversion of the defenders into an _____________________________________________ 1 I am indebted to Robert LeFevre for this insight, though we draw differing conclusions. 16 Samuel Edward Konkin III agency of aggression.) Institutional coercion, developed over the millennia with roots of mysticism and delusion planted deep in the victims’ thinking, requires a grand strategy and a cataclysmic point of historical singular- ity: Revolution. Such an institution of coercion—centralizing immorality, directing theft and murder, and coordinating oppression on a scale inconceiv- able by random criminality—exists. It is the Mob of mobs, Gang of gangs, Conspiracy of con- spiracies. It has murdered more people in a few recent years than all the deaths in history before that time; it has stolen in a few recent years more than all the wealth produced in history to that time; it has deluded—for its survival—more minds in a few recent years than all the irrationality of history to that time; Our Enemy, The State.2 In the 20th Century alone, war has mur- dered more than all previous deaths; taxes and inflation have stolen more than all wealth pre- viously produced; and the political lies, propa- ganda, and above all, “Education,” have twisted more minds than all the superstition prior: yet through all the deliberate confusion and obfuscation, the thread of reason has devel- oped fibers of resistance to be woven into the rope of execution for the State: Libertarian- ism. Where the State divides and conquers its opposition, Libertarianism unites and lib- erates. Where the State beclouds, Libertar- ianism clarifies; where the State conceals, Lib- _____________________________________________ 2 Thank you, Albert J. Nock, for that phrase. New Libertarian Manifesto 17 ertarianism uncovers; where the State par- dons, Libertarianism accuses. Libertarianism elaborates an entire phi- losophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (im- moral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, etc.) and is forbidden; nothing else is.3 Libertarianism, as developed to this point, discovered the problem and defined the solution: the State vs. the Market. The Market is the sum of all voluntary human action.4 If one acts non- coercively, one is part of the Market. Thus did Economics become a part of Libertarianism. Libertarianism investigated the nature of man to explain his rights deriving from non-co- ercion. It immediately followed that man (woman, child, Martian, etc.) had an absolute right to this life and other property—and no right to the life or property of others. Thus did Objec- tive philosophy become part of Libertarianism. Libertarianism asked why society was not libertarian now and found the State, its rul- ing class, its camouflage, and the heroic histo- rians striving to reveal the truth. Thus did Revisionist History become part of Libertari- anism. Psychology, especially as developed by Tho- mas Szasz as counter-psychology, was em- braced by libertarians seeking to free them- _____________________________________________ 3 Modern Libertarianism is best described by Murray Rothbard in For a New Liberty, which, regardless how recent the edition, is always a year or more out of date. Recommending even the best writing on libertarian- ism is like recommending one song to explain music in all its forms. 4 Thank you, Ludwig von Mises. 18 Samuel Edward Konkin III selves from both State restraint and self-im- prisonment. Seeking an art form to express the horror potential of the State and extrapolate the many possibilities of liberty, Libertarian- ism found Science Fiction already in that field. From political, economic, philosophical, psychological, historical, and artistic realms the partisans of liberty saw a whole, integrating their resistance with others elsewhere, and they came together as their consciousness became aware. Thus did Libertarians become a Movement. The Libertarian Movement looked around and saw the challenge: everywhere, Our En- emy, The State; from the ocean’s depth past arid desert outposts to the distant lunar sur- face; in every land, people, tribe, nation— and in the individual mind. Some sought immediate alliance with other opponents of the power elite to overthrow the State’s present rulers.5 Some sought immedi- ate confrontation with the State’s agents.6 Some pursued collaboration with those in power who offered less oppression in exchange for votes.7 And some dug in for long-term en- lightenment of the populace to build and de- velop the Movement.8 Everywhere, a Libertar- _____________________________________________ 5 Radical Libertarian Alliance, 1968–71. 6 Student Libertarian Action Movement, 1968–72, later revived briefly as a proto-MLL. 7 Citizens for a Restructured Republic, 1972, made up of RLA members disillusioned with revolution. 8 Society for Individual Liberty, 1969–89 (now merged with Libertarian International to the International So- ciety for Individual Liberty). Also Rampart College (now defunct) and the Foundation for Economic Education and Free Enterprise Institute, all of whom were around be- fore the libertarian population explosion of 1969. New Libertarian Manifesto 19 ian Alliance of activists sprang up.9 The State’s Higher Circles were not about to yield their plunder and restore property to their victims at the first sign of opposition. The first counterattack came from anti-principles already planted by the corrupt Intellectual Caste: Defeatism, Retreatism, Minarchism, Collaborationism, Gradualism, Monocentrism, and Reformism—including accepting State of- fice to “improve” Statism! All of these anti-prin- ciples (deviations, heresies, self-destructive contradictory tenets, etc.) will be dealt with later. Worst of all is Partyarchy, the anti-con- cept of pursuing libertarian ends through stat- ist means, especially political parties. A “Libertarian” Party was the second coun- terattack of the State unleased on the fledg- ling Libertarians, first as a ludicrous oxymo- ron,10 then as an invading army.11 _____________________________________________ 9 Most important, the California Libertarian Alliance, 1969–73. The name is still kept alive for sponsorship of conferences, and is also used in the United Kingdom. 10 The first “Libertarian” Party was set up by Gabriel Aguilar and Ed Butler in California in 1970 as a hollow shell to gain media access. (Aguilar, a Galambosian, was staunchly anti-political.) Even Nolan’s “L”P was mocked and scorned by such as Murray Rothbard in the first year of its existence. 11 The “Libertarian” Party that eventually organized nationally and ran John Hospers and Toni Nathan for President and Vice-President in 1972 was first orga- nized by David and Susan Nolan in December 1971 in Colorado. Dave Nolan was a Massachusetts YAFer who had broken with YAF back in 1967 and missed the 1969 climax at St. Louis. He remained conservative and minarchist right up to this first edition. Although the Nolans were rather innocent, and other early organization and candidates often so, the debate 20 Samuel Edward Konkin III The third counterattack was an attempt by one of the ten richest capitalists in the United States to buy the major Libertarian institu- tions—not just the Party—and run the move- ment as other plutocrats run all the other politi- cal parties in capitalist states.12 The degree of success those statist counter- attacks had in corrupting libertarianism led to a splintering of the Movement’s “Left” and _____________________________________________ on “the Party Question” began immediately. New Lib- ertarian Notes attacked the “L”P concept in Spring 1972 and ran a debate between Nolan and Konkin just be- fore the election (NLN 15). By the 1980 presidential campaign, the Nolans had broken with the “L”P leadership of Ed Crane and his candidate Ed Clark, who ran a high-powered, high-fi- nanced, traditional vote-chasing and platform-trimming campaign. 12 Charles G. Koch—Wichita oil billionaire—through his relatives, foundations, institutes, and centers, had set up, bought up, or “bought out” the following from 1976–79: Murray Rothbard and his Libertarian Forum; Libertarian Review (from Robert Kephart), edited by Roy A. Childs; Students for a Libertarian Society (SLS), run by Milton Mueller; Center for Libertarian Studies (Rothbard-leaning) and Joe Peden; Inquiry, edited by Williamson Evers; Cato Institute; and various Koch Funds, Foundations, and Institutes. Named the “Kochtopus” in New Libertarian 1 (February 1978), it was first attacked in print by Edith Efron in the con- servative-libertarian publication Reason, along with allegations of an “anarchist” conspiracy. The Movement of the Libertarian Left cut away from Efron’s anti-anarchist ravings and rushed to support her on her key revelat- ion of the growth of monocentrism in the Movement. In 1979, the Kochtopus took control of the national Libertarian party at the Los Angeles convention. David Koch, Charles’ brother, openly bought the VP nomina- tion for $500,000. New Libertarian Manifesto 21 the despairing paralyzation of others. As dis- illusionment grew with “Libertarianism,” the disillusioned sought answers to this new prob- lem: the State within as well as the State with- out. How do we avoid being used by the State and its power elite? That is, they asked, how can we avoid deviations from the path of lib- erty when we know there are more than one? The market has many paths to production and consumption of a product and none are per- fectly predictable. So even if one tells us how to get from here (statism) to there (liberty), how do we know that is the best way? Already some are dredging up the old strat- egies of movements long dead, movements with other goals. New paths are indeed being of- fered—back to the State.13 Betrayal, inadvertent or planned, continues. It need not. While no one can predict the sequence of steps that will unerringly achieve a free soci- ety for free-willed individuals, one can elimi- nate in one slash all those that will not ad- vance Liberty, and applying the principles of _____________________________________________ 13 Murray Rothbard broke with the Kochtopus soon after the ’79 LP Convention and most of his close allies were purged, such as Williamson Evers of Inquiry. CLS was cut off from Koch funding. The Libertarian Forum began attaching Koch. Rothbard and young Justin Rai- mondo set up a new “radical” caucus of the LP (the first one, 1972–74, was run by progenitors of NLA as a re- cruiting tactic and a way to destroy the Party from within). Although Rothbard was moved to ask “Is Sam Konkin Right?” in his July 1980 speech to an RC din- ner in Orange County, the RC strategy is to reform the LP using New Left and neo-Marxist tactics. 22 Samuel Edward Konkin III the Market unwaveringly will map out a terrain to travel. There is no One Way, one straight line graph to Liberty, to be sure. But there is a fam- ily of graphs, a Space filled with lines, that will take the libertarian to his goal of the free society, and that Space can be described. Once the goal is fixed and the paths dis- covered, only the Action of the individual to go from here to there remains. Above all, this manifesto calls for that Action.14 _____________________________________________ 14 I hope subsequent editions may omit this note, but in the present historical context it is vital to point out that Libertarianism is not specifically for the most “advanced” or enlightened elements of North America, perhaps typified by the young, white, highly read com- puter consultant, equally feminist mate (and 0.5 chil- dren). Only the freest market can raise the “Second” and “Third World” from grinding poverty and self-de- structive superstition. Compulsory attempts critically to raise production standards and associated cultural understanding have caused backlash and regression: e.g. Iran and Afghanistan. Mostly, the State has en- gaged in deliberate repression of self-improvement. Quasi-free markets, such as the freeports of Hong Kong, Singapore, and (earlier) Shanghai, attracted floods of upwardly mobile, highly motivated entrepreneurs. The incredibly well-developed black market of Burma already runs the entire economy and needs only a libertarian awareness to oust Ne Win and the Army, accelerating trade and annihilating poverty overnight. Similar observations are possible about developed black markets and tolerated semi-free markets in the “Second World” of Soviet occupation, such as Armenia, Georgia, and the Russian counter-economy (nalevo). Note to the Second Edition: The above note is still, sadly enough, needed. Note to the Third Edition: With the collapse of Commu- nism, maybe the need is declining, but the note’s still here! New Libertarian Manifesto 23 II. AGORISM: OUR GOAL The basic principle which leads a libertarian from statism to a free society is the same that the founders of libertarianism used to discover the theory itself. That principle is consistency. Thus, the consistent application of the theory of libertarianism to every action the individual libertarian takes creates the libertarian society. Many thinkers have expressed the need for consistency between means and ends and not all were libertarians. Ironically, many statists have claimed inconsistency between laudable ends and contemptible means; yet when their true ends of greater power and oppression were understood, their means are found to be quite consistent. It is part of the statist mystique to confuse the necessity of ends–means consis- tency; it is thus the most crucial activity of the libertarian theorist to expose inconsistencies. Many theorists have done so admirably; but few have attempted and most failed to describe the consistent means and ends combination of libertarianism.15 _____________________________________________ 15 To cite the most spectacular so far: • Murray Rothbard will use any past political strat- egy to further libertarianism, falling back on ever more radical ones when the previous ones fail. • Robert LeFevre advocates a purity of thought and deed in each individual that this author and many oth- ers find inspiring. But he holds back from describing a 24 Samuel Edward Konkin III Whether or not this manifesto is itself cor- rect can be determined by the same principle. If consistency fails, then all within is mean- ingless; in fact, language is then gibberish and existence a fraud. This cannot be overempha- sized. Should an inconsistency be discovered in these pages, then the consistent reformula- tion is New Libertarianism, not what has been found in error. New Libertarianism (agorism) cannot be discredited without Liberty or Real- _____________________________________________ complete strategy resulting from these personal tactics, partially due to a fear of being charged with prescrib- ing as well as describing. This author has no such fear. LeFevre’s pacifism also dilutes the attraction of his lib- ertarian tactics, probably far more than deserved. • Andrew J. Galambos advocates a fairly counter- economic position (see the next chapter) but positively drives away recruits by his anti-movement stance and his “secret society” organization tactic. His “primary property” deviationism, like LeFevre’s pacifism, prob- ably also detracts from the rest of his theory more than is warranted. • Harry Browne’s How I Found Freedom in an Un- free World is an immensely popular guide to personal liberation. Having been influenced by Rothbard, LeFevre, and Galambos, Browne fairly correctly—if su- perficially—maps out valid tactics for the individual to survive and prosper in a statist society. He offers no overall strategy, and his techniques would break down in an advanced counter-economic system as it nears the free society. • A deviation with no particular spokesperson but associated largely with the Libertarian Connection is the idea of achieving freedom by outflanking the State with technology. This seems to have plausible validity in the recent case of the U.S. State deciding not to regu- late the explosive-growth information industry. But if fails to take into account the ingenuity of those who will keep statism around as long as people demand it. New Libertarian Manifesto 25 ity (or both) being discredited, only an incor- rect formulation. Let us begin by sighting our goal. What does a free society look like, or at least a society as free as we can hope to achieve with our present understanding?16 Undoubtedly the freest society yet envi- sioned is that of Robert LeFevre. All relations between people are voluntary exchanges—a free market. No one will injure another or tres- pass in any way. Of course, a lot more than statism would have to be eliminated from individual consciousness for his society to exist. Most damaging of all to this perfectly free society is its lack of a mecha- nism of correction.17 All it takes is a handful of practitioners of coercion to enjoy their ill-gotten plunder in enough company to sustain them— and freedom is dead. Even if all are living free, one “bite of the apple,” one throwback, reading old history or rediscovering evil on his own, will “unfree” the perfect society. The next-best-thing to a free society is the Libertarian society. Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty (Thomas Jefferson) and it may be pos- sible to have a small number of individuals in _____________________________________________ 16 When our understanding increases, one assumes we can achieve a freer society. 17 In The Great Explosion, SF writer Eric Frank Russell posits a society close to that envisioned by LeFevre. The pacifist Gands did have a correction mechanism for occasionally aberrant individuals—the “Idle Jack” cases. Unfortunately, shunning would fail the moment the coercers reached a “critical number” to form a supportive, self-sustaining sub-society. That they could is obvious—they have! 26 Samuel Edward Konkin III the marketplace ready to defend against sporadic aggression. Or large numbers may retain suffi- cient knowledge and ability to use that knowl- edge of basic self-defense to deter random attacks (the coercer never knowing who might be well- versed in defense) and eliminate the profitabil- ity of systematic violence initiation. Even so, there remain two problems inordi- nately difficult for this system of “Anarchy with spontaneous defense.” First is the problem of defending those who are noticeably defense- less. This can be reduced by advanced tech- nology to people who are quadriplegic morons (assuming that won’t be solved by sufficient technology) and very young children who re- quire constant attention anyway. Then there are those who for a brief time go defenseless and the even rarer cases of those who are over- whelmed by violence initiators wishing to test their skills against a probably weaker foe. (The last is most rare simply because of the high risk and low material return on investment.) Those who need not—and should not—be de- fended are those who consciously choose not to be: pacifists. LeFevre and his disciples need never fear some Libertarian will use methods they find repugnant to defend them. (Perhaps they can wear a “dove” button for quick recognitions?) Far more important is what to do with the violence initiator after defense. The case in which one’s property is violated successfully and one is not there to protect it comes readily to mind. And finally, though actually a special case of the above, is the possibility of fraud New Libertarian Manifesto 27 and other forms of contract violation.18 These cases may be settled by the primitive “shoot-out” or socially—that is, through the intervention of a third party who has no vested interest in either of the two parties to the dis- pute. This case is the fundamental problem of society.19 Any attempts to force a solution against the wishes to both parties violates Libertarian principle. So a “shoot-out” involving no risk to third parties is acceptable—but hardly profit- able or efficient or even civilized (æsthetically pleasing) save to a few cultists. The solution, then, requires a judge, “Fair Witness” or arbitrator. Once an arbitrator to a dispute or judge of an aggression has per- formed judgment and communicated the deci- sion, enforcement may be required. (Pacifists may choose arbitration without enforcement, by the way.) The following market system has been pro- posed by Rothbard, Linda and Morris Tannehill, and others; it need not be defini- _____________________________________________ 18 The Mises–Rothbard position is that fraud and fail- ure to fulfill contract (the latter may be taken care of by clauses in the contract, of course) is itself theft: of future goods. The basis of contract is the transfer of present goods (consideration here and now) for future goods (consideration there and then). All theft is violence initiation; force is used to take property away involuntarily or to prevent receipt of goods or payments for goods freely transferred by agree- ment. 19 Society, as Mises points out, exists because of the advantages of division of labor. By specializing in dif- ferent steps of production, individuals find total wealth produced greater than by their individual efforts. 28 Samuel Edward Konkin III tive and may be improved by advances in theory and technology (as this author has al- ready done). At this stage of history, it seems optimal and is presented here as the begin- ning working model. First, always leaving out those who choose not to participate, one insures oneself against aggression or theft. One can even assign a value to one’s life in case of murder (or inad- vertent manslaughter) which may range from the taking of the violence-initiator’s life, tak- ing replaceable organs (technology willing) to restore the victim’s life, to paying to a founda- tion to continue one’s life’s work. What is cru- cial here is that the victim assigns the value to his life, body, and property before the mishap. (Exchangeable goods may simply be replaced at market rate. See below.) A finds property missing and reports it to the insurance company IA. IA investigates (either through another division or through a sepa- rate detective agency D). IA promptly replaces the object to A so that loss of use of the good is minimized.20 D now may fail to discover the missing property. In that case, the loss to IA is covered by the premiums paid for the insur- _____________________________________________ 20 At this point we must introduce Mises’s concept of time-preference. Future goods are always discounted relative to present goods because of the use-time fore- gone. While individual valuations of time-preference vary, those with high time-preference can borrow from those with lower time-preference since the high-pref- errers will pay more to the low-preferrers than the they have foregone. The point where all these transac- tions of time-preference clear on the free market de- fines the basic or originary rate of interest for all loans and capital investment. New Libertarian Manifesto 29 ance. Note well that in order to keep premi- ums low and competitive, IA has a strong in- centive to maximize retrieval of stolen or lost goods. (One could wax eloquent for volumes on the lack of such incentive for monopoly de- tection systems such as State police forces, and their horrendous social cost.) If D does discover the goods, say in B’s pos- session, and B freely returns them (perhaps induced by reward), the case is closed. Only if B claims property right in the object also claimed by A does conflict arise. B retains insurance company IB, which may perform its own independent investigation and convince IA that D erred. Failing that, IA and IB are now in conflict. At this point, the stan- dard objections to market anarchy have been brought up that the “war” between A and B has been enlarged to include large insurance companies that may have sizeable protection divisions or contracts with protection compa- nies (PA and PB). But wherein lies the in- centive for IA and IB to use violence and de- stroy not only its competitor’s assets but surely at least some of its own? They have even less incentive in a market society long established; the companies have specialists and capital tied up in defense. Any company investing in of- fense would become highly suspect and surely lose customers in a predominantly Libertar- ian society (which is what is under discussion). Very cheaply and profitably, IA and IB can simply pay an arbitration company to settle the dispute, presenting their respective claims and evidence. If B has rightful claim, IA drops the case, taking its small lose (compared to 30 Samuel Edward Konkin III war!) and has excellent incentive to improve its investigation. If A has rightful claim, the reverse is now true for IB. Only at this point, when the matter has been fully contested, investigated, and judged, and still B refuses to relinquish the stolen prop- erty, would violence occur. (B may have only been bothered so far as being notified of IB’s defense on B’s behalf, and B may have chosen to ignore it; no subpœnæ could be issued until after conviction.) But PB and IB step aside and B must now face a competent, efficient team of specialists in recovery of stolen property. Even if B is near-mad in his resistance at this point, he would probably be neutralized with mini- mum fuss by a market agency eager for a good public image and more customers—including B himself some day. Above all, PA must act so as not to invade anyone else or harm the prop- erty of others. B or IB is now liable for restoration. This can be divided into three parts: restitution, time preference, and apprehension. Restitution is the return of the original good or its market equivalent. This could be applied even to parts of the human body or the value set on one’s life. Time-preference is the restitution of the time-use lost and is easily determined by the market rate of interest which IA had to pay immediately to restore A’s property. Apprehension is the sum of the cost of in- vestigation, detection, arbitration, and enforce- ment. Note how well the market works to give B a high incentive to restore the loot quickly to minimize apprehension cost (exactly the op- posite to most statist systems) and to minimize interest accrued. New Libertarian Manifesto 31 Finally, note all the built-in incentives for swift, efficient justice and restoration with a minimum of fuss and violence. Contrast this with all other systems in operation; note as well that in parts all this system has been tried suc- cessfully throughout history. Only the whole is new and exclusive to Libertarian theory. This model of restoration has been spelled out so specifically, even though it may be im- proved and developed, because it solves the only social problem involving any violence whatsoever. The rest of this Libertarian soci- ety can be best pictured by imaginative science- fiction authors with a good grounding in praxe- ology (Mises’ term for the study of human ac- tion, especially, but not only, economics). Some hallmarks of this society—libertarian in theory and free-market in practice, called agorist, from the Greek agora, meaning “open marketplace”—are rapid innovations in science, technology, communication, transportation, production, and distribution. A complementary case can be made for rapid innovation and de- velopment in the arts and humanities to keep up with the more material progress; also, such non-material progress would be likely because of total liberty in all forms of nonviolent artis- tic expression and ever more rapid and com- plete communication of it to willing recipients. The libertarian literature extolling these ben- efits of freedom is already a large body and growing rapidly. One must conclude this description of res- toration theory by dealing with some of the arcane objections to it. Most of these reduce to challenges to ascribe value to violated goods 32 Samuel Edward Konkin III or persons. Letting the impersonal market and the victim decide seems most fair to both vic- tim and aggressor. The latter point offends some who feel pun- ishment is required for evil in thought; reversibility of deed is not enough for them.21 Though none of them has come up with a moral basis for punishment, Rothbard and _____________________________________________ 21 Murray Rothbard takes the most moderate posi- tion here: he advocates double restoration; that is, not only must the aggressor restore the victim to prior un- harmed condition (as much as possible), but must be- come himself a victim for an equivalent amount! Not only does this doubling seem arbitrary, nowhere does Rothbard provide a moral basis for punishment, let alone a “moral calculus” (a la Bentham). Others are far worse in demanding ever-greater plunder of the apprehended aggressor, making it prob- able that only the grossest fool who happened to err momentarily would ever turn himself in, and would, rather, attempt to cost his pursuers dearly. Many neo- Randists would shoot a child for purloining a candy (Gary Greenberg, for instance); others have chained teenagers to their beds to work off trivial trespasses. This is yet brushing the tip of horror. Far greater a travesty of justice is proposed by those who do not wish to restitute or even mildly punish but to rehabilitate the violence-initiator. While some of the more en- lightened among the rehabilitators would accept con- current working off of restitution debt, they would seize upon the victim’s delegation of right of self-defense (the basis of all legal action) to incarcerate and brainwash the now-helpless apprehended aggressor. Not content with punishing the person, scourging the body, and perhaps even inflicting the relative mercy of cruel physical torture, rehabilitators seek the destruc- tion of values and motivation; that is, the annihilation of the Ego. In more florid but well-deserved language, they wish to devour the soul of the apprehended ag- gressor! New Libertarian Manifesto 33 David Friedman in particular argue for the economic necessity of deterrence. They argue that any percentage of apprehension less than 100% allows a small probability of success; hence, a “rational criminal” may choose to take the risk for his gain. Thus, additional deter- rence must be added in the form of punish- ment. That this also will decrease the incen- tive for the aggressor to turn himself in and thus lower further the rate of apprehension is not considered, or perhaps the punishment is to be escalated at ever-faster rates to beat the accelerating rate of evasion. As this is written, the lowest rate of evasion from state-defined crimes is 80%; most criminals have better than 90% chance of not being caught. This is within a punishment-rehabilitation system wherein no restoration occurs (the victim being further plundered by taxation to support the penal system) and the market is banished. Small wonder there is a thriving “red market” in non- State violence initiation! Even so, this criticism of agorist restoration fails to note that there is an “entropy” factor. The potential aggressor must put the gain of the object of theft against the loss of the object plus interest plus apprehension cost. It is true that if he turns himself in immediately, the latter two are minimal—but so are the costs to the victim and insurer. Not only is agorist restoration happily de- terrent in a reciprocal relation with com- pliance, but the market cost of the appre- hension factor allows a precise quantifiable measurement of the social cost of coercion in society. No other proposed system known to 34 Samuel Edward Konkin III this time does that. As most libertarians have been saying, freedom works. Nowhere in agorist restoration theory do the thoughts of the aggressor enter into the pic- ture. The aggressor is assumed only to be a human actor and responsible for his actions. Furthermore, what business is it of anyone else what anyone thinks? What is relevant is what the aggressor does. Thought is not action; in thought, at least, anarchy remains absolute.22 If you sit up in shock to find that I have crashed through your picture window, you don’t particularly care if I tripped and fell through while walking by or if I engaged in some act of irrational anger jumping through or even whether it was a premeditated plan to distract protectors across the street from noticing a bank heist. What you want is your window back pronto (and the mess cleared). What I think is irrelevant to your restoration. In fact, it can be easily demonstrated that even the smallest ex- penditure of energy on this subject is pure waste. Motivation—or suspected motivation, which is all we can know22—may be relevant to detection and even to prove plausibility of the aggressor’s action to an arbitrator if there may be two equally probably suspects, but all that matters for jus- tice—as a libertarian sees it—is that the victim has been restored to a condition as identical as _____________________________________________ 22 Should telepathy be discovered and practically achievable, it may at least then be possible to investi- gate motive and intent; still, the only use in an agorist system would be for mercy pleas—mercy at the further expense of the victim. This footnote is also relevant to the following paragraph which is why it is twice de- noted. New Libertarian Manifesto 35 possible to pre-harm. Let God or conscience pun- ish “guilty thoughts.”23 Another objection raised concerns what will be done about violence initiators who have paid their debt (to the individual, not “society”), and are “free” to try again—with greater experi- ence. What about recidivism, so prevalent in statist society? Of course, once one is marked as an ag- gressor, one will probably be watched more closely and thought of first when a similar crime is committed. And while work camps may be used to repay restitution in a few extreme cases, most aggressors will be allowed to work in relative freedom on bond. Thus no “institu- tions of criminal higher learning” like pris- ons will be around to educate and encourage aggression. The distinguishing characteristic of a highly efficient and accurate system of judgment and protection will be that it will occupy a negli- gible fraction of an individual’s time, thought, or money. One can then argue that we have not portrayed 99% of the agorist society at all. _____________________________________________ 23 A good question is: where did “punishment” ever get started? The concept is applicable only to slaves who have nothing else to lose but lack of pain; to the ut- terly worthless if any exist; and to very young children who are incapable of paying for restoration and are con- sidered inadequately responsible to incur debt. Of course, a primitive economy generally had far too many prob- lems with rationality and technology to provide much trustworthy detection and measurement of value. Still, some primitive societies such as the Irish, Ice- landic, and Ibo introduced systems of repayment to meliorate vengeance—and promptly evolved into quasi- anarchies. 36 Samuel Edward Konkin III What about elimination of self-destruction (which Libertarianism does not deal with), space exploration and colonization, life exten- sion, intelligence increase, interpersonal rela- tions, and æsthetic variations? All that really can and need be said is that where present man must spend half or more of his time and en- ergy serving or resisting the State, that time- energy (physicist definition of action) will be usable for all other aspects of self-improvement and harnessing of nature. It takes a cynical view of humanity indeed to imagine anything but a richer, happier society. This then is a sketch of our goal and a de- tailed picture or enlarged focus on the aspect of justice and protection. We have the “here” and the “there.” Now for the path—Counter- Economics. MORE TO BE UPLOADED AS TIME PERMITS...