I cheerfully affirm that the ideas expressed in your essay are your own. With one or two important exceptions that I think I’ve already specified, I wouldn’t want any part of them. Nor did I suspect you for a moment of “ripping off my rants.” You are perfectly entitled to use the concepts of “gift culture” and “agora” in your intellectual toolkit without bowing in my direction; I, after all, shamelessly appropriated the former from cultural anthropology and the latter from agorist libertarianism. I’ve never claimed a patent on either, and I’m not going to start now.
Nor am I going to defend myself against your wild and (at least to me) amusing flings about “Panglossian free-market fanaticism” etcetera, because, as I understand it, this conversation is supposed to be about your ideas rather than mine. My role, as I understand it, is to call you on factual errors, to prod you into thinking more sharply and expressing yourself more clearly.
Therefore, I charge you with writing in a sufficiently confusing and vague way that I had to guess at what you meant by an “antigora.” If you don’t want myself and others to use the term in ways other than you intend, you’d best be a lot clearer about what you actually do intend.
So tell us what “antigoras” and “semigoras” are, please. Try to do it without divagating all over the lot into biology and economics—your grasp on these fields seems to me sufficiently weak that the analogies you attempt don’t help you at all. Try to stick to the observable behaviors and communications patterns of “antigoras” and “semigoras.” What are people in these forms of social arganization actually doing? How does it differ from what people in agoras are doing?
I meant it quite seriously when I opined that the concepts may have considerable value. I’m challenging you to discard the muddle that surrounded them in your original essay. Be clear. Be crisp. Be concise.