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.