Agorist -v- Anarcho-Capitalist -v- Voluntaryist

What is a voluntaryist?  What is an agorist and what is an anarcho-capitalist?  What are the subtleties and distinguishing factors of each?  I asked this of leaders in the movement to respond in 150 words or less.  These are their responses:


Anarcho-Capitalism is the belief that no individual ought to be ruled by another person or organization without the voluntary agreement of all parties.  Voluntaryism adds the concept of the NAP with part of the NAP including abstaining from any political action, including voting.  Agorism?  I dunno.

Carl Watner

(Carl responded with several links to works he has already published covering these topics.  All are well worth following! – Ryngeaux)

Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

Page 4 of “I Must Speak Out

Issue 29, Page 2 of “The Voluntaryist

Dave Scotese

In a nutshell, voluntaryism is simple to me: if you don’t feel threatened by violence, then everything you do is voluntary. If you leave everyone else in that same state (don’t create any threats of violence), then you are practicing voluntaryism. Even if you do feel threatened by violence and your behavior reflects it, you are still practicing voluntaryism by virtue of your avoidance of the threat-of-violence strategy.

Anarcho = no ruler. This means that an anarcho-capitalist does not behave as if any other person (or himself or herself) is subject to any rules except those that are self-imposed. Such a person will have order in his or her dealings with others only because he or she follows a set of rules he or she freely chose. The -capitalist part means a respect for the ownership of the means of production. This means that any scarce thing can be owned if the owner defines its boundaries, thereby creating a theoretical concept to represent a chunk of reality. Obviously, if parts of that defined concept intersect with parts of something someone else has already claimed as their property, a conflict will ensue, which is why anarcho-capitalists are necessarily reasonable. Their reasoning powers allow them to solve such conflicts and thereby remain at peace with each other. Were they to resort to violence, they would no longer be “anarcho-,” but rather more at “krony-” capitalists – those who employ violence to maintain their control over stuff.

Agorist = believer in the market (Agora is the Greek word for “marketplace”). An agorist tends to rely on the market to enforce whatever rules happen to be good for society. For example, a custom might develop that people travel on the right side of a road. Those who choose to go against this custom clog up roads and cause accidents and other problems. The results of all that mayhem tend to convert any such contrarian into someone who follows the “common law” or the rules that develop naturally in a free market. The agorist relies on this effect to create and maintain the best possible set of rules for market participants. The agorist, therefore, is also an anarchist (“no rulers”). An agorist may choose to create rules and then pay someone to enforce them using violence, but, when pressed, would admit that such behavior is immoral. As with immoral behavior generally, the parties violated by such enforcement may use self-defense (or hire their own enforcers), and this would tend to cause a lot of suffering. Therefore, it is difficult for agorists to maintain the strategy of inventing and enforcing rules, and most would reject the idea in the first place.


We must understand the concept of titles.  One can be a “man” while also being a “husband” and at the same time deserve the title “fat guy” and “Christian” and “moron.”  Titles are of great use in communication, but are not the property of anyone.  This causes some confusion.

One can say that she is properly titled a “peace advocate” while killing a non-violent person.  I might argue that a “peace advocate” would never initiate violence against another.  Which of us is correct?  Which of us ought to have the other jailed for using the “incorrect title?”

Beware that those that describe themselves by a title might have different understanding of the characteristics of that title than others.  As with the acquisition of milk, the acquisition of ideas or reputations requires the buyer to beware and think.  Beware & think.

Read and learn more HERE.