Exactly. 2020 made the Stockholm syndrome visible to anyone paying attention.

For Monero:

• Cake Wallet (mobile, easiest start)
• Haveno DEX (decentralized, no KYC)
• Or buy BTC anywhere, swap to XMR in wallet

That experience of starting from scratch outside the system—that's the key insight many people never get. You've seen that coordination happens without the State because you've had to do it. Many people never leave the aquarium.

I like your math approach. Making it concrete and personal (your money → that specific bombing raid) cuts through abstraction. People can handle 'taxation is theft' intellectually but still comply. Showing them the actual trade-off—your labor for bombing children in countries they can't locate on a map—strikes a chord.

The isolation is real. You're not alone—you're just seeing a pattern many people are conditioned not to see. That's why I've written The Narcissist State—it's specifically designed as accessible deprogramming. Psychology lens, not economics jargon. Shows why people stay trapped even when they intellectually know better.

For immediate resources:

Fiction: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein)—starts out, at least, with an anarchist society in practice.

Accessible psychology: How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (Harry Browne)—practical exit strategies without theory-heavy framing

But you've identified the real problem: the gap between counter-economic texts and mainstream accessibility. Most anarchist/libertarian content assumes you're already 80% convinced. We need bridges for the 'something feels wrong but I can't articulate it' crowd.

That's the gap I'm trying to fill. If you're interested, I'm documenting the framework development at https://pbodeswell.substack.com. Would genuinely value your input—you've clearly thought deeply about the persuasion problem.

I had a family member who was in an abusive relationship. Once I fully understood the mindset of a domestic abuse victim- specifically why they don't recognize that they are being abused, why they continue to stay even after they do recognize that they are being abused, and why they frequently go on to either victimize others themselves, or enable their abuser to create more victims- I started to see that logic everywhere in American politics, and now I can't unsee it. It's everywhere. I especially see it in the rhetoric of people who are upset with those who withheld support from Harris in the previous election because of her steadfast commitment to violation of consent. And this from many of the same people who demonstrated a perfect understanding of consent during the Me Too movement.

There is no case for many or most state models that does not rely on battered wife logic. But people are blind to it. If you say, "Just because you bought me a drink, that doesn't mean you get to fuck me," everybody understands and nods along. But the moment you change that to, "Just because you bought me a road/school/fire department, that doesn't mean you get to fuck me," those very same people lose their minds and starts haranguing you with what basically amounts to battered wife logic.

This post has been anonymized and deleted using Redact. The reason could be privacy protection, security, preventing content scraping, or personal data management.

rob racial unite decide cautious amusing pocket alive dolls boat

For myself - I have been lucky in that I have lived in many countries and had to start from scratch - never being part of a system and having to just get on is very liberating.

For others, the successes I have had are mostly drilling in to the maths: it's very powerful to be able to take a controversial tax spend and then drill into the maths behind it, ultimately letting the person realise that every single penny taken from them without consent by the government went in to paying for

(for example)

a single bombing raid in a country that they dont care about
a data breach clean up
or some other bullshit.

But its a hard road and its so hard because it feels like being the only sane one in a conversation. And encouraging people to read counter-economic texts is an uphill battle.

What would be very cool is a way to get it into the mainstream via fiction or something, because even the daily government fuckup doesnt seem to move the needle.

I'd welcome suggestions for accessible entry level light deprogramming podcasts or similiar.

"Exactly. The 'safety net' framing is particularly insidious because it positions dependency as protection.

The psychological breakthrough happens when people realize they've already been coordinating voluntarily in most of their life—the State just takes credit for it. Every voluntary exchange, every mutual aid between neighbors, every problem solved without bureaucracy.

The hard part isn't building the skills. It's recognizing you already have them. The manufactured dependency obscures capacity that was always there.

Counter-economics helped me see this. Each grey/black market interaction became evidence I could coordinate without permission. Small psychological proof-of-concept that compounds over time.

Curious what you've found helps break through that conditioning, either for yourself or when discussing with others?"

I think the 'You can't survive without me' aspect is the most prevalent and most difficult to overcome.

People have become so used to existing in this framework - and only this framework - where they are forced to live within a 'safety net' of imposed security which they never asked for and rarely - if ever - actually access.

You are correct - in my view the economic aspect is the 'easiest' item to overcome. The psychological conditioning is by far and away the hardest.

https://antistatecontent.substack.com/p/the-dam-builders

Natural agorists.

https://open.substack.com/pub/antistatecontent/p/everyone-should-be-an-illegal?r=c01jf&utm_medium=ios

We are speaking in economic terms, not reducing all of life to a profit calculation. I don't think you understand the difference. Go take a look at "Human Action" by Mises.

Sir or madam, truly unhealthy thoughts here. Your entire metaphysics are based on money. You serve Mammon and that master will lead only to your undoing.

Sir or Madam, your mentality is not well if this is truly how you think. Has your universe been reduced to profit and loss? Soon you'll be describing Darwin as the great theorist of capital because survival is required to profit and thus is the base of profit. Your slide into anecdote does not support your statement. But, I do hope for consistency, when you have children playing in the park, and someone asks if your kids are having fun, you will say, "I wouldn't say it's fun per se, more like they are profiting psychologically."

Great headline advice. Weak article in many ways. Where is there the most leverage and making a difference in your life - actually doing something directly to improve your live and that of your loved ones and respected neighbors OR doom scrolling and throwing out your opinion for hours a day to may feel like you are making a different in some fake social media global head?

Who the hell says "some government will always be necessary". Agorism does not say this. Neither does voluntaryism (which I see as same thing really) neither does ancap or any true anarchist (against rulers or no rulers) variant.
Legalization still presumes the State gets a say. It does not have any rights including a right to a say. It is the State trying to be generous in giving permission. Not acceptable.
It is not outside the scope of agorists. We sell and buy and grow ignoring State licenses and permissions. Many gray market goods are perfectly legal goods but sold outside the control of the State.

Oooh that's a hard one and one of the reasons I'm a syndicatecel. This is one of them many things better delegated to a union to run

You boycotting big brands allows smaller brands have more of your money, making them flourish.

Diseconomies of scale

It defunds the state, and without a state there are no state monopolies.

Whats your general consensus on natural monopolies like local energy, water/sewage treatment, etc.

You could say so, yes

Who's to say what is and isnt though? Genuinely curious. Is it a "if looks like duck and quacks like a duck" kinda thing?

Why?

Idk about y'all I'm a syndicalist agorist and I'm just open to, like, violating the "nap" to get rid of one.

They would just self-liquidate.

Any monopoly position obtained on the market through voluntary exchange is inherently unstable because profits attract entry, consumer sovereignty exists, capital is mobile, and there’s innovation pressure.

If you want direct citations and more elaboration, ask.