...But that wouldn't make anyone even slightly more free than they are now.
I hate this corrupted police state as much as the next man. 99.999% of what the state accomplishes is summed up by the following picture:
But "anarchism" doesn't engage minarchist "network nodes" (mainstream people). Why not? Anarchism doesn't map to what most scientific thinkers know about society: it doesn't change suddenly. Society changes through increments, sudden shifts in narrow subject areas. Revolutions favored by a lack of technology(the American Revolution) tend to not repeat themselves, as technological capacity (of all kinds) increases.
In contrast, the first post I made on Steemit.com actually contains a winning general strategy toward liberty, and actually thereby contributes value to the community. However, this strategy doesn't map onto this "anarchist" ("principled nonvoting" AKA "political relinquishment") network, so that value is mostly unrecognized, and will likely remain so.
Konkin (who coined the term "agorism") was a successful "programmer of people." Most people who buy into Konkin's ideas don't read counter-arguments to Konkin, or don't favorably interpret them. It's contrary to their "all-or-nothing" world-view.
Anarchy is not immune to "identity politics." ...But fighting over "identity politics" solves no real world problem. It doesn't set a single prisoner of the police state free.
So, I prefer to be a "set-free-the-prisoners"-ist rather than an "anarchist." Perhaps this is best called "voluntaryist" or "libertarian." Perhaps it's best called being a "jury rights activist."
Perhaps not. Time will tell.
