In the realm of libertarian thought, two influential philosophies stand out: Agorism and Anarcho-Capitalism. Both advocate for a stateless society built on voluntary exchange and individual freedom, yet they diverge sharply in their strategies and values. While Anarcho-Capitalism often emphasizes legal theory and economic frameworks, Agorism champions grassroots resistance and counter-economic tactics. This article explores Agorism vs Anarcho Capitalism, comparing their shared goals and highlighting their key differences. Understanding these philosophies not only deepens our grasp of libertarian theory but also sheds light on broader debates about freedom, market ethics, and how to dismantle state power in real-world practice.
Definitions
Agorism
Agorism is a political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III, rooted in the idea that true freedom can only be achieved through counter-economics—engaging in voluntary, non-violent black and grey market activities outside of state control. Agorists believe that participating in the state’s legal and economic systems legitimizes coercion, so they advocate for civil disobedience through peaceful market exchanges that avoid taxes, licenses, and regulations. Agorism views the state as inherently coercive and seeks to undermine it through decentralized, underground economic action.
It sees social and political transformation as something that happens incrementally through everyday resistance, not waiting for future reforms or revolutions. The agorist envisions a future where the state fades away as more people shift their lives into the counter-economy, making the black and grey markets the primary arena for ethical commerce and interaction.
Anarcho Capitalism
Anarcho-Capitalism is a libertarian philosophy that merges free-market capitalism with anarchism, advocating for a stateless society where all services—including defense, law, and infrastructure—are provided by competing private entities. Popularized by thinkers like Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, anarcho-capitalism asserts that property rights, voluntary contracts, and the non-aggression principle (NAP) form the moral foundation of a free society.
Unlike agorists, anarcho-capitalists typically focus more on theoretical consistency and legal structure, imagining a world where markets and private arbitration replace all government functions. While rejecting the state entirely, they do not necessarily reject working within its boundaries to bring about change. Anarcho-capitalism does not inherently oppose legal market participation, provided such activity aligns with voluntary principles.
Agorism vs Anarcho Capitalism: Core Similarities
#1. Emphasis on Voluntary Exchange
Both agorism and anarcho-capitalism uphold voluntary exchange as the cornerstone of ethical economic interaction. They reject any form of trade based on coercion, fraud, or state mandate. In both systems, individuals freely negotiate value, prices, and terms without external interference. Agorists apply this principle within counter-economic frameworks, deliberately avoiding state-sanctioned transactions, while anarcho-capitalists promote free trade in both legal and theoretical stateless markets.
Each view voluntary exchange as the practical expression of individual liberty and mutual benefit. Unlike centrally planned or regulated economies, both philosophies believe people create the most just and efficient outcomes through unrestricted market activity. Voluntary exchange, in their eyes, isn’t just economically efficient—it’s morally essential.
#2. Rejection of State Authority
Agorists and anarcho-capitalists both fundamentally reject the legitimacy of the state. They argue that all government power rests on coercion, taxation, and the threat of violence. Instead of trusting reform or democratic participation, they call for the complete abolition of the state and its monopoly on force. Agorists achieve this through direct withdrawal and counter-economic participation, actively undermining state systems by building parallel markets. Anarcho-capitalists take a more theoretical route, envisioning a stateless order where private law and defense replace state authority.
Despite tactical differences, they agree that the state cannot be ethically justified. From licensing and taxation to centralized law enforcement, both see state authority as inherently illegitimate. Their rejection is not simply political but deeply moral. They view any form of involuntary governance as a violation of individual sovereignty, which must be replaced by consensual relationships and market-based alternatives that do not rely on force.
#3. Advocacy for Stateless Societies
Both agorism and anarcho-capitalism aim to build a world without centralized governments. They envision a stateless society where individuals freely associate, trade, and organize their lives without coercion. Agorists promote this vision through incremental disengagement, encouraging individuals to shift their economic activity into grey and black markets as a revolutionary act.
Anarcho-capitalists, meanwhile, use theory and policy critique to show how private entities could assume all traditional state functions more efficiently. Each believes that statelessness is not chaos, but rather an opportunity for order to arise from voluntary cooperation. They reject the idea that society needs rulers or monopolistic systems to function. Their shared goal is to replace imposed hierarchy with a decentralized system based on self-ownership, contract, and mutual respect. Statelessness, in their view, is not a vacuum but a fertile ground for genuine freedom and prosperity.
#4. Support for Free Market Principles
Free market advocacy is central to both agorism and anarcho-capitalism. They champion markets unbound by government intervention, regulation, or monopoly. Agorists practice this by engaging in counter-economics—buying, selling, and trading goods or services outside the legal framework. This direct action represents a living form of free-market resistance. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, argue for theoretical and structural market solutions to replace all state services. They believe competition among private actors will yield more efficient, ethical outcomes than centralized governance.
Neither sees the market as perfect, but both view it as the best mechanism for coordinating human action without coercion. Importantly, both reject corporate-state collusion and believe that genuine capitalism has never been fully realized under state power. Their support for free markets is rooted in a desire for voluntary interaction, price discovery, and decentralized problem-solving, making markets not just practical tools, but philosophical pillars.
#5. Belief in Individual Sovereignty
Individual sovereignty is non-negotiable for both agorists and anarcho-capitalists. They hold that each person owns themselves and has the exclusive right to control their body, time, and property. This belief forms the ethical bedrock of both philosophies. Agorists demonstrate this through civil disobedience, acting on their autonomy even when it violates state law. Anarcho-capitalists defend it through legal theory, asserting that no one has a right to initiate force against another’s life or property.
Sovereignty, to both, means living without subordination to external authority. It demands that social interaction be based on mutual consent, not imposed rules. They oppose any ideology—socialist, fascist, or democratic—that subordinates individuals to collective goals. For both, personal freedom is not just a preference but a natural right. Individual sovereignty drives their rejection of the state, their support for markets, and their demand for a society rooted in voluntary association.
#6. Opposition to Coercive Systems
Both philosophies view coercion as morally unacceptable, whether it comes from the state, corporations in collusion with government, or even social pressure backed by force. Agorists actively avoid systems they consider coercive by shifting to black and grey market transactions. They argue that paying taxes, complying with permits, or accepting licenses perpetuates violence. Anarcho-capitalists share this moral stance but emphasize the creation of legal alternatives—like private courts and defense agencies—that adhere to the non-aggression principle. They define coercion as any initiation of force or threat against person or property.
Both camps argue that a just society cannot tolerate systems built on involuntary compliance. Their opposition to coercion explains their rejection of mainstream politics, central banking, compulsory schooling, and militarized policing. For them, ethical systems must rest entirely on consent. Coercion, in any form, breaks that standard, making resistance a moral imperative.
#7. Promotion of Decentralization
Decentralization is a practical and philosophical goal for both agorists and anarcho-capitalists. They believe that concentrated power leads to abuse, inefficiency, and loss of freedom. Agorists decentralize by opting out of centralized economic systems and building peer-to-peer alternatives—like local trade, crypto transactions, or community defense groups. Anarcho-capitalists push for market decentralization where multiple providers offer competing services like security, arbitration, and infrastructure. Both see decentralization as essential to individual empowerment.
By breaking down monopolies, especially state monopolies, they aim to foster environments where no single entity can dominate others. This dispersal of power enhances accountability and choice, letting individuals freely navigate their lives. It also makes systems more resilient, as no central failure can bring down the whole. Whether through direct action or theoretical design, decentralization serves their shared mission to replace authoritarian control with voluntary, diverse alternatives.
#8. Alignment with Libertarian Philosophy
Both agorism and anarcho-capitalism emerge from the broader libertarian tradition, particularly the radical wing that rejects minarchism (the belief in minimal government). They share libertarianism’s foundational principles: non-aggression, self-ownership, voluntaryism, and free markets. Agorists lean toward left-libertarianism, emphasizing grassroots resistance, class analysis, and ethical consistency through counter-economic action.
Anarcho-capitalists often align with right-libertarianism, emphasizing property rights, contract enforcement, and capitalist organization within a stateless framework. Despite these leanings, they agree on the core idea that government is inherently immoral and unnecessary. Their libertarian alignment shapes their views on personal liberty, economic freedom, and political decentralization. They oppose state control over education, healthcare, defense, and trade, insisting that individuals and communities manage these through peaceful cooperation. By rejecting both authoritarianism and collectivism, they keep libertarian ethics at the heart of their political and economic visions.
#9. Criticism of Government Regulation
Government regulation, in both agorist and anarcho-capitalist frameworks, represents illegitimate interference in voluntary exchange. Agorists see regulation as a tool for corporate-state collusion, used to crush competition from informal or small-scale actors. They defy such rules by deliberately ignoring licensing requirements, tax codes, and trade restrictions.
Anarcho-capitalists criticize regulation on economic and legal grounds, arguing that it distorts prices, creates inefficiency, and violates the non-aggression principle. They propose private regulatory mechanisms, such as reputation systems, voluntary standards, and market-based arbitration. Both believe that regulations protect established interests at the expense of innovation and individual choice. From occupational licensing to environmental mandates, they argue the state imposes one-size-fits-all policies that limit freedom. Instead, they trust that voluntary, decentralized alternatives can meet safety and quality needs better than coercive oversight ever could.
#10. Defense of Private Property Rights
Private property is a central tenet in both agorist and anarcho-capitalist ideology. They argue that individuals have the right to acquire, use, and trade property freely, as long as it does not involve aggression or fraud. Anarcho-capitalists often emphasize homesteading theory and contractual exchange to justify ownership, seeing property rights as the foundation of all liberty.
Agorists agree on property ownership but place stronger emphasis on the ethical implications of how property is acquired—especially in resisting state-sanctioned monopolies and exploitation. They support ownership earned through labor and mutual exchange but criticize corporations that benefit from government privilege. Both oppose eminent domain, taxation, and state redistribution as violations of property rights. They see true property rights as protective tools that shield individuals from coercion, allowing them to control their lives and resources without external interference. For both, defending property is inseparable from defending freedom itself.
Major Differences Between Agorism vs Anarcho Capitalism
#1. Strategy Toward Change
Agorism and anarcho-capitalism differ sharply in their approach to social and political change. Agorists advocate for direct action through counter-economics—conducting trade and enterprise outside the state’s legal framework to gradually erode its power. They believe that systemic transformation starts with personal economic disobedience, not policy reform or waiting for collapse. This strategy is practical and subversive, aimed at immediate decentralization.
Anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, often focus on theoretical modeling and long-term vision. They support intellectual activism, private alternatives, and market-based proofs of concept as vehicles for change. While both reject the state, agorists seek to bypass it now, while anarcho-capitalists are more willing to use or tolerate existing systems temporarily. This creates a tension between revolutionary immediacy and idealistic gradualism. Agorists act outside the law to provoke change; anarcho-capitalists aim to convince society that freedom is better than control by demonstrating the efficiency of voluntary institutions over time.
#2. Participation in Legal Markets
Agorists deliberately avoid participating in state-sanctioned legal markets, viewing them as mechanisms of coercion and control. They argue that operating within taxed, licensed, and regulated frameworks legitimizes the state’s authority. Agorists instead encourage entrepreneurs to engage in grey and black markets—such as unlicensed food sales, crypto transactions, or untaxed labor—as acts of peaceful rebellion. This approach treats illegal commerce as a tool for freedom.
In contrast, anarcho-capitalists do not inherently oppose legal market participation, as long as the exchange remains voluntary and respects property rights. They may run businesses, pay taxes, and comply with legal systems temporarily while advocating for their abolition. Anarcho-capitalists see value in leveraging legal tools, such as contracts or corporate entities, to demonstrate how market systems can work without state interference. While agorists view legal markets as compromised by force, anarcho-capitalists may use them as transitional platforms toward a stateless future.
#3. Approach to State Legality
Agorists see legality as irrelevant to morality. They reject the idea that laws confer legitimacy or define right and wrong. If a law contradicts voluntary interaction or non-aggression, they consider it unjust. This leads them to openly violate laws they deem coercive, including licensing requirements, tax codes, and zoning regulations. For agorists, obeying such rules enables the state’s violent framework. Anarcho-capitalists, while also rejecting the moral authority of the state, often place more emphasis on legal contracts and arbitration. They support a private legal order governed by consent and market enforcement rather than legislation. Though they oppose current state laws, they generally avoid illegal activity and work through advocacy or entrepreneurship to create change.
Agorists rely on unlawful resistance as a moral and strategic imperative. Anarcho-capitalists tolerate legal structures as tools to demonstrate that voluntary law can function better than imposed authority.
#4. Philosophical Foundations
Agorism grounds its philosophy in radical libertarianism and class theory influenced by Samuel Konkin’s critique of statist capitalism. It identifies a natural conflict between state-affiliated elites (the “political class”) and entrepreneurs in the counter-economy (“the productive class”). Agorists aim to empower the latter through underground markets. Their strategy is both ethical and strategic, combining individual morality with subversive economic tactics. Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, is built on Austrian economics, natural rights theory, and the non-aggression principle. It often avoids class-based analysis and focuses more on legal consistency and property-based ethics.
While agorism treats market resistance as revolutionary activism, anarcho-capitalism treats the free market as a naturally emergent, optimal solution to human needs. These philosophical roots shape how each ideology views progress, legitimacy, and the path to liberty. Agorism emphasizes praxis and resistance; anarcho-capitalism emphasizes theory and systemic design.
#5. Tactics for Revolution
Agorists believe that revolution comes through daily acts of economic disobedience. They promote tactics like unregulated trade, tax resistance, off-grid living, and cryptocurrency to erode state control. Their method relies on building resilient, self-sufficient networks that gradually make the state obsolete. This approach sees revolution as bottom-up, driven by individual actions that form a collective counter-economy. Anarcho-capitalists prefer educational outreach, policy critique, and the creation of voluntary institutions to replace state functions. They rarely advocate civil disobedience and often reject law-breaking as counterproductive or risky. Instead, they focus on long-term cultural and intellectual change.
Agorism uses subversion; anarcho-capitalism uses persuasion. The agorist disrupts and circumvents the state now. The anarcho-capitalist builds alternatives to render the state unnecessary in the future. These contrasting tactics reflect deep differences in risk tolerance, urgency, and how each philosophy interprets resistance and revolution.
#6. Views on Corporate Capitalism
Agorists strongly criticize corporate capitalism, especially when corporations gain power through state privilege, subsidies, or regulatory protection. They see large firms as extensions of state coercion rather than examples of free-market success. Agorists argue that genuine market competition would favor decentralized, local businesses over centralized megacorporations. They often reject the legitimacy of multinational corporations that rely on government contracts or lobbying.
Anarcho-capitalists, however, make a distinction between corporatism and capitalism. They defend corporations that operate voluntarily and argue that size alone does not indicate coercion. As long as a business respects property rights and does not use state power to eliminate competition, anarcho-capitalists consider it legitimate. This leads to diverging attitudes toward global markets, business models, and economic scale. Agorists are suspicious of corporate structures, while anarcho-capitalists see them as potentially valid within a truly free market. Their disagreement reflects deeper views on ethics, power, and economic centralization.
#7. Relationship with the Law
Agorists treat state law as a tool of domination, not as a legitimate system to be reformed or obeyed. They advocate for natural law based on voluntary interaction and refuse to comply with unjust statutes. Their relationship with the law is confrontational and defiant. Agorists accept the risks of legal consequences because they view state enforcement as illegitimate.
Anarcho-capitalists approach the law from a systems-design perspective. They support replacing the state’s legal monopoly with competing private legal systems rooted in property rights and arbitration. While they criticize current laws, they focus on showing how private legal orders can maintain order and resolve disputes fairly. Their goal is not to break laws, but to outcompete them. Where agorists challenge law through disobedience, anarcho-capitalists challenge it through demonstration. The former sees law as an enemy to resist; the latter sees law as a framework to reengineer.
#8. Economic Priorities
Agorists prioritize ethical disengagement from state systems over economic efficiency or profit. They are willing to operate in riskier, less profitable, or less scalable ventures if it means maintaining moral consistency. Their priority is subversion, not maximization. For instance, an agorist may sell homemade food without a permit rather than open a licensed restaurant.
Anarcho-capitalists emphasize profit, scalability, and economic optimization within a voluntary framework. They view entrepreneurship and market innovation as the best ways to undermine the state by outperforming its services. Their economic model focuses on efficiency, investment, and legal protection to build large-scale alternatives to state systems. These differing priorities influence the types of ventures each group supports and the kind of market structures they envision. Agorists sacrifice efficiency for ethics; anarcho-capitalists believe that efficiency within voluntary systems ultimately proves the superiority of freedom over coercion.
#9. Attitude Toward Risk and Civil Disobedience
Agorists embrace risk as a necessary part of resistance. They accept the legal dangers associated with counter-economic activity because they view such actions as both morally justified and strategically necessary. Whether selling unlicensed goods or refusing to pay taxes, agorists see civil disobedience as a daily opportunity to weaken the state. They often operate quietly, but intentionally in defiance of legal norms. Anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, tend to avoid direct confrontation with state authority. They focus on education, voluntaryism, and creating proof-of-concept businesses that demonstrate libertarian principles without breaking the law. Risk, in their view, should be minimized to ensure long-term credibility and growth.
While both value personal liberty, agorists treat civil disobedience as activism, whereas anarcho-capitalists often treat it as a distraction from institution-building. These divergent attitudes shape their strategies, outreach, and how they interact with broader social and legal systems.
#10. Community Orientation and Culture
Agorism fosters a tight-knit, underground culture of mutual aid and solidarity among counter-economists. It values localism, trust-based trade, and peer-to-peer networks. Agorists often emphasize ethical relationships, sustainability, and resilience. Their communities operate in semi-secrecy, bound more by shared action than shared ideology. Agorism encourages a lifestyle, not just a belief system.
Anarcho-capitalism, meanwhile, builds culture around intellectual discourse, entrepreneurship, and economic modeling. Its communities tend to form around media, think tanks, conferences, and decentralized finance platforms. Anarcho-capitalists emphasize theory, debate, and investment as cultural tools. These cultural differences affect how each philosophy grows and connects people.
Closing Thoughts
While agorism and anarcho-capitalism share a strong commitment to liberty, voluntary exchange, and the rejection of state power, their strategies, values, and priorities reveal deep philosophical divides. Agorism emphasizes direct resistance through counter-economics and civil disobedience, while anarcho-capitalism promotes structural alternatives and theoretical rigor. Understanding these differences allows for a richer appreciation of how diverse libertarian thought can be. Both paths challenge the status quo, but they do so in markedly different ways—one from outside the system, the other by modeling its ideal replacement. In the end, both aim for the same goal: a freer, more voluntary world.