Ok, I've been trying to understand Agorism for the benefit of some people who advocate self-ownership, and because some agorists are even loose in the forum. Sorry, I'm not seeing how this is even remotely leftist.

I'd rather live in a democratic-socialist society or utilitarian society than this mess:

What a mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

Originally, some of the "debates" they've had with ancaps sounded interesting, but now that I read over it it seems more implausible. Take a look at this:

"Agorists are propertarian market anarchists who consider property rights to be natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership. Thus, Agorism can be considered a type of anarcho-capitalism, though it has adopted a distinctive leftist revolutionary streak."

I don't know what's worse: agorism being a subset of anarcho-capitalism, or claiming natural rights are natural, "propietarian" rights that everybody has.

As I understand it, if something is an element of a set, these all have something in common, such as being a solution set - that is, they exist to the exlusion of all others. So, if something was a member of a set that was diametrically opposed to traditional-anarchist anti-property, it would be anti-leftist?

The only thing they have in common with the left is that they advocate violence against those who oppose capitalism.

They are also contradictory:

First of all, black markets are some of the most anti-market markets in existence. They use coercion, force, exploitation, and so on, all the time. They have no concern about the state in many cases, but will have no problem with the state if it helps them to their advantage. For example, many in the black market are glad that the Colombian government is attacking the rebels, or that drugs are illegal. They want to keep it that way.

Second, why would you name an anarchist-theory after something that existed in Ancient Greece, under the city-states. These markets were constructed by Ancient Greece, in the same way capitalists markets are constructed by US federal law and judicial decisions/interpretations.

The City-States were the beginnings of the modern state in history if you have a larger, more general viewpoint:

City-States -> Feudalism -> Modern nation-state (that's why they have so much in common).

It's like anarcho-capitalists claiming to be capitalist-proprietarian-anarchists all at once, disregarding the fact that private property is a creature of the state, as is the theory of "capitalism" (see Marx), but even worse than that claim.

Ayn Rand is also mentioned a lot around them for some reason, so there must be some connection there.