Fiducism

Chapter 1: The Drive – The Three Principles of Low-Friction Connection

The driving force of Fiducism lies in the immediate fulfillment that arises from cooperation and building sustainable relationships. This attitude is guided by three principles:

• Building trust through compatible goals
• Minimizing friction in all interactions
• Pragmatism in implementation with clear ideals

Building Trust Through Compatible Goals

One acts only when the activity itself brings joy or gives personal meaning. This protects against disappointment if no return occurs, and ensures that every contribution happens from intrinsic motivation – not from duty or expectation.
This way one builds trust with one's counterpart and a general reputation without suffering a disadvantage if nothing comes back.
This corresponds to the Taoist principle of Wu Wei (action through non-action).

Minimizing Friction in Personal Interactions

Friction – in the form of bureaucracy and distrust – is a sign of already failed trust. Fiducism therefore aims preventively at building relationships that make such 'protective mechanisms' unnecessary from the outset.
Conflicts, bureaucracy, distrust, and unnecessary effort are considered obstacles to effective action. The goal is to design interactions so that energy remains free for the essential: creating value and deepening relationships. This includes clear communication, reliability, and if necessary the choice of tools (like contracts or money) that reduce conflicts.

Pragmatism With Clear Ideals

Unlike utopian systems that want to enforce perfect equality or common ownership of goods, Fiducism acknowledges human nature. It relies on the attractive power of the success model, not the coercion of an ideology.
No one is forced to follow the pure doctrine. But there are clear ideals, and every approach to the ideals is an improvement:
- Gradual approach to ideal conditions, not utopian perfectionism.
- Exceptions are allowed if they bring advantages or reduce friction (like using state infrastructure as long as no better alternative exists).
- The focus is on the result – more prosperity, security and freedom – not on dogmatic purity.

One helps others because the activity itself is enjoyable, deepens the relationship and thus strengthens one's own network of connectedness. These principles do not work separately but are interwoven: voluntary connectedness minimizes friction, and low-friction interactions in turn promote deeper trust and stronger connections.

Together, these principles form a basis for relationships that are both fulfilling and realistically implementable.

Chapter 2: The Three Levels of Society – A Hierarchy of Friction

This model divides all social interactions into three clear levels, ordered according to the degree of friction they generate. The goal of Fiducism is the transition from the most friction-intensive to the least friction-intensive level.

• Level 1: The etatist system -> extreme friction, to be rejected
• Level 2: Anarcho-capitalism -> low friction, acceptable, ideal framework system
• Level 3: Anarcho-reciprocism -> almost no friction, fiducist ideal system within a framework system

Level 1: The Etatist System – The Institutionalization of Friction

• Characteristics: This level is defined by coercion, bureaucracy, fiat money, high taxes, and centralized planning.
• Friction level: Extreme. The state systematically generates friction. Every interaction – whether economic or social – is made more difficult by regulations, permits, and taxation. It promotes parasitic behavior, as rewards are often achieved through political manipulation rather than value creation. Wars are the ultimate form of state friction, massively destroying prosperity and life.
• Goal: This level should be completely dismantled and replaced by Levels 2 and 3. It is dysfunctional and stands in the way of human prosperity.

Level 2: Anarcho-Capitalism – The Safety Net With Low Friction

• Characteristics: This level is based on private property, voluntary contracts, real money (like gold or Bitcoin), and private legal services. It provides a legal and economic framework for interactions between people who do not belong to a common trust network.
• Friction level: Low. Compared to the state, friction is significantly reduced. Nevertheless, it exists: contracts must be negotiated, money must be transferred, and disputes may require private arbitration. This level is transactional and often anonymous.
• Role: It serves as an essential safety net and a fallback solution. It ensures that cooperation is possible and safe even with strangers. It provides the "rules of the game" and neutral measurement instruments (prices, contract clauses) for low-friction basic exchange. It is the necessary infrastructure that replaces Level 1 and enables the development of Level 3 in the first place.

Level 3: Anarcho-Reciprocism – The Friction-Free Zone

• Characteristics: This is the sphere of trust networks. It is driven by devotion, connection, shared values, and long-term voluntary reciprocity. Here interact family, friends, value-based communities, online communities, clubs, project groups, and ideally also enterprise-like associations.
• Friction level: Almost none. In this space, cooperation is seamless. Help is given without demanding immediate return, because trust in the long-term relationship reduces transaction costs to zero. Common goals are pursued efficiently and joyfully. Money and contracts are largely superfluous here.
• Role: This is the ideal state and the actual goal of Fiducism. It is the space of greatest prosperity, greatest security, and deepest satisfaction.

The Dynamic Relationship of the Levels

As an individual, one does not act on only one level, but switches between them depending on context. A fiducistically thinking person interacts with their family on Level 3, uses the contract law of Level 2 for business with a new partner, and simultaneously resists the encroachments of Level 1. The art is to steadily expand the radius of Level 3 and continuously reduce dependence on Level 2 and especially on Level 1.

Progress therefore does not consist in completely destroying Level 2 to reach Level 3, although this scenario cannot be completely ruled out.
Instead, the goal is to continuously expand the scope of Level 3 at the expense of Levels 1 and 2, where it makes sense.

In a healthy society, the following would ideally prevail:

• Level 1 becomes obsolete and disappears
• Level 2 is recognized as a stable foundation for interactions with those outside one's own circle
• Relationships are repeatedly elevated from the transactional Level 2 to the trusting Level 3: A business partner of today (Level 2) can become the trusted ally of tomorrow (Level 3) through reliable action

This three-level model makes the fiducist path concrete, measurable, and strategically comprehensible. It transforms a philosophical idea into a clear roadmap for individual and societal action.

Chapter 3: The Core System – The Architecture of the Trust Network

The trust network is the lowest-friction and most efficient system of human cooperation. It consists of voluntary, overlapping networks of individuals based on reciprocity, reliability, and shared values. Unlike centralized systems, it arises organically from below and grows through consistent application of fiducist principles.

The Seeds of Trust

Every trust network begins small. The most natural and stable seeds are found in:

• Family associations: Kinship and natural loyalty
• Friendships: Mutual appreciation and shared experiences
• Local communities: Basic trust through recurring interactions, for example in the neighborhood
• Value-based groups: Shared ethical or ideological principles
• Interest-based groups: Shared interests, for example in clubs
• Goal-oriented groups: A common goal, often temporary, for example founding teams or for art projects

These core units form the foundation on which larger networks can build.
Many of these communities can also emerge online nowadays.

Informal Hierarchies: The Role of Natural Authority

A trust network is not a flat, uniform mass. Even in the most voluntary cooperation, informal hierarchies form based on abilities and reputation.
Thus, authority figures can emerge in various networks, locally and online.

• The King: This is not a person with commanding power, but an individual who, through consistently reliable action, wise counsel, and the ability to create value for the network, accumulates so much trust and reputation that their voice carries strong, though non-binding, weight. Not always a ruler over everything. Can also be very local, or relate to a specific subject area.
• Voluntarily granted influence: Their power is not conferred and can be withdrawn by the community at any time if this trust is abused. It is a dynamic, fluid phenomenon, not a fixed office.
• Protection against infiltration: Precisely this concept protects the network from hostile takeovers. A true king cannot simply be appointed or elected. They must earn their position through years of proven dedication to the network. An external agent would not have this reputation.

These natural leaders are the living nodes of the network, the moderators of cooperation, and the guardians of its culture. They are proof that a society without a state does not have to be leaderless.

The Mechanics of Trust Building

Trust does not arise from strategic calculation, but from genuine engagement fueled by intrinsic motivation. The driving forces are:

• The joy of connection and cooperation: The desire to create something together and experience the deepened relationship as an immediate reward
• Meaning-making and competence: The drive to prove one's own ability, contribute something valuable, and develop further
• Shared passion and values: The fulfillment that arises when pursuing a personal interest and supporting like-minded people or shared goals

Only this intrinsic motivation – acting for the sake of the matter and the connection – enables a genuine advance of trust without the risk of exploitation.
One is like an intern working out of passion for the field: Even if the concrete return fails to materialize, the activity itself was rewarding. This attitude protects against disappointment and makes the trust resilient.

Thereby, one builds reputation generally and trust among each other:
- every action in this spirit builds the personal trust account
- a good reputation based on genuine engagement becomes the most valuable currency within the network

Practical Implementation and Scaling

Individual level:

• Start with small, reliable actions in your own environment
• Be predictable in your behavior
• Communicate clearly and transparently

Network expansion:

• Become part of multiple independent communities for resilience, ideally both personal and online
• Use technology for cross-regional connections, but prioritize personal contacts
• Engage in different community types (like neighborhood, online project and club) to build a resilient, diverse network.
• Make connections between people from different areas of life (work, hobby, neighborhood)

Ideal framework conditions:

• Shared goals and values replace explicit agreements
• Focus on shared progress – every step in the right direction counts more than dogmatic perfection
• Every contribution counts - do not condemn insufficient participation
• Offer help instead of condemnation for delays

Interaction with External Systems

Interaction with etatism (Level 1):

• minimize harmful interactions with the system, even with apparent personal advantage
• fulfill state mandates only minimally, if necessary
• build parallel trust network structures as an alternative
• avoid state money where possible, use Bitcoin/Monero instead
• consider corruption in interactions only with trusted persons within the system, to reduce conflicts with the system

Interaction with libertarian structures (Level 2):

• use contracts and legal systems as a bridge to strangers
• use formal mechanisms for initial interactions
• strive for trust building, and integrate as many people as possible into your trust network
• maintain healthy distrust towards strangers; trust must be earned

The Transformation to a Trust-Based Society

The transition does not happen through revolution, but through gradual displacement:

1. Trust networks prove their superiority through concrete results
2. People voluntarily migrate to these more efficient structures
3. State systems lose relevance and legitimacy
4. A parallel society emerges organically from below

The biggest challenge remains preserving decentralization - the network must remain resilient against the temptation of centralization, which would destroy its essential strength.

Through consistent application of these principles, the trust network grows from an alternative to the dominant organizational principle of a free, prosperous, and humane society.

Chapter 4: The Pragmatic Tools – The Role of Money and Contracts

For interactions outside the closest trust network – with strangers or for undesirable, transactional tasks – money and formal contracts are practically indispensable. From a fiducist perspective, however, they are not desirable ideals, but pragmatic tools to bridge trust deficits. They ensure cooperation where no deeper connection yet exists, and are appreciated as such, not romanticized.

Money as a Low-Friction Medium of Exchange

• Function: Money is the most efficient medium for transactions with strangers when (still) not enough trust is present. It minimizes the friction of barter. Bitcoin in particular is recommended as money, as it creates no friction through inflation and only minimal friction through transaction fees.
• Fiducist evaluation: Money is an excellent tool for its purpose, serving as a bridge or solvent for specific problems. Within trust networks, it loses much of its importance, as favors and mutual aid replace monetary accounting.
• Goal: The use of money should be gradually reduced in favor of trust relationships, wherever this is sensible and desired by all involved. It is not about its abolition, but about creating conditions where its use is less frequently necessary.

Contracts as Crystallized Distrust

• Function: Formal contracts define rights, obligations, and consequences in case of conflicts. They create a legal security where personal trust is (still) lacking or where the complexity of the task requires it.
• Fiducist evaluation: A contract is the institutionalization of distrust. It is friction-intensive (drafting, negotiation, potential enforcement), but in many situations indispensable and a sign of responsibility, not hostility.
• Goal: A successful, long-grown trust relationship can often make complex contracts obsolete. The contract serves as a stable basis and protection that enables the building of a trust relationship in the first place.

The Fiducist Use of These Tools

Fiducism does not reject money and contracts, but classifies them strategically and always retains control over their use:

1. Initial contact: Interactions with strangers often start with contract/money.
2. Trust building: Repeated, reliable fulfillment of contract terms builds reputation and trust.
3. Integration into the trust network: Once a sufficient level of trust is reached, future interactions can be handled without formal contracts and with reduced or no monetary flows.

Through this understanding, money and contracts transform from necessities into consciously chosen tools. They are the stable infrastructure that enables and secures the unfolding of the friction-free trust networks in the first place.

This process transforms transactional relationships into trust-based connections – making them more efficient, more pleasant, and lower in friction. Money and contracts are thus the bridge, not the goal.

Chapter 5: Etatism – How the State Destroys Trust and Creates Friction

The state is not a neutral actor. From a fiducist perspective, it represents the greatest systematic obstacle to building a low-friction, trust-based society. Its essential function is not coordination, but the institutionalization of friction through coercion.

The Mechanics of State Friction Generation

Bureaucracy as a Cooperation Brake

Every act of bureaucracy – from permits and registration forms to complicated tax returns – represents friction. It consumes time, energy, and resources that could not be invested in building productive trust relationships. A community garden project fails not for lack of initiative, but because of denied permits and regulations.

Taxation as Taxation of Trust

Taxes punish productive activity and trade. They deprive trust networks of the capital necessary for investments, mutual aid, and building alternative structures. Every euro paid to the state is a euro that cannot be invested in sustainable structures.

The Money Monopoly and Inflation

Through its monopoly on money and the associated inflation (currency devaluation), the state punishes savers and long-term thinking. It thereby sabotages the foundation of all trust-based planning, which relies on reliability and value stability. Bitcoin appears here as an obvious alternative: A low-friction, non-state money.

Legal Monopoly and Conflict Resolution

By making itself the sole arbiter, the state stifles the development of private, decentralized, and thus lower-friction conflict resolution mechanisms. Disputes must be channeled through its sluggish, expensive, and often unfair system, instead of being resolved quickly and efficiently within the affected community.
Moreover, the state is both party and arbitrator in conflicts with the citizen. This creates the motivation to even create conflicts in which it can then present itself as a problem solver, thereby further expanding its power. It gains false trust through fraud.

The Promotion of Parasitic Behaviors

The state fundamentally distorts the incentive structure of a society.

Creation of Inequality Through Redistribution

Resources are increasingly obtained through political influence (lobbying) rather than through actual value creation and building trust. Those who are close to the state are always favored, often already large and influential companies, which further widens the gap between rich and poor.
The new money then flows mostly into stocks and real estate to counteract currency devaluation. This makes housing more expensive, as it is now used primarily for speculation rather than for use, which particularly harms the poor.

Destruction of Community Through Dependence

Social redistribution programs replace the natural, voluntary mutual aid in families and neighborhoods.
They create dependence on the apparatus and undermine the motivation to build one's own trust networks.
Children are no longer seen as necessary to secure one's own pension, and society becomes increasingly fragile.

Stabilization of Power Relations Through Regulation

Complex regulations often serve as a barrier for new competitors and agile, trust-based alternatives that could threaten the established, state-protected structures.
Small businesses are often more efficient because everyone pulls together, but they often lack the network and money to deal with the required bureaucracy.
Hygiene regulations, intended to protect against impersonal industrial practices, now harm the small farmer who knows all his customers personally and therefore naturally pays more attention to sensible hygiene.

The Fiducist Alternative: Cooperation Instead of Coercion

The fundamental difference between state and fiducist action lies in the method:

• The state solves problems by redistributing resources and ordering behavior through coercion (taxes, laws, regulations). This process generates immense resistance (friction) and undermines voluntariness and trust. And often this creates further problems that only give the state even more power.
• Fiducism solves problems through voluntary cooperation. People come together based on shared values and goals to create value together. This process minimizes friction, deepens trust, and increases prosperity for all involved parties.

The goal is not the reform of the state, but its gradual displacement by superior alternatives. Every time a need is satisfied by a trust network (Level 3) or a contractual, voluntary arrangement (Level 2), the state's coercive solution (Level 1) loses a piece of its legitimacy and necessity. The state is not abolished, it becomes obsolete.

Chapter 6: The Cultural Anchoring – From Subsystem to Societal Norm

Fiducism is not a utopian fiction. Its cultural anchoring does not start from scratch, but is already found in the vital niches and subsystems that already support the crumbling framework of late-etatist society. This chapter examines these living seeds and outlines the strategy to elevate their principles from the exception to the new societal norm.

The Proof of Practice: Fiducist Subsystems in the Here and Now

Before we design the future, we must understand the present. In various areas, systems have already been established that function according to strict fiducist principles – not out of theoretical conviction, but from pragmatic necessity and superior efficiency.

These subsystems are the living proof for the thesis of Fiducism. They work not despite the lack of state authority, but because of its absence. They were forced to develop superior, lower-friction systems based on trust and commitment.

Besides the obvious fiducist relationships (family, friendship), the following communities are:

• The Village: Local, informal
• Political Groupings: Global, informal/principle-based
• Industrial Standardization Committees: Global, formalized
• Specific Online Communities: Global, digital

The Village – Local Communities and Grassroots Initiatives

Beyond political structures, communities flourish that replace state functions:
- Neighborhood help and exchange rings: They form a shadow economy of reciprocity based on personal commitment rather than taxes and bureaucracy. People from the village help each other out. Payment is often a specific service in return (like gardening in exchange for house repairs), or simply a gift in kind (like a bottle of wine).
- Private security networks: In regions with high crime, neighbors organize their own guard services and communication networks that are more effective than any police apparatus.
- Community gardens and food-sharing: They place food supply on a transparent, local basis independent of large corporations.

These core units form the foundation on which larger networks can build. The strongest among them even manage to scale this principle to an entire nation – consider the role of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg as a kind of king of a large village: A symbolic, trust-based integrating figure whose authority is based not primarily on coercion, but on acceptance and connectedness, and who thus becomes a crystallization point of national identity.

This shows that Fiducism does not want the abolition of authority per se, but its transformation. It replaces the model of the ruler with that of the king, who acts through personal authority and trust.
This is the crucial fiducist difference: Authority emerges from below through voluntary recognition, rather than being imposed from above through coercion. The Grand Duke is a living example that this is possible even on a large scale.

Political Groupings

In environments where trust in institutional authorities (media, state) has eroded, personal trust becomes the only remaining currency of legitimacy. Here Fiducism shows itself in its pure form. Access and influence to the inner circle are granted not to those who present the "right" papers, titles, or the best rhetoric, but to those who are trusted based on recommendations, transparent action, and proven reliability.

• Value in the community: While rhetorical skills are valuable for conveying ideas externally and gaining new sympathetic contacts, they alone do not grant access or influence within the trust network. Inside, integrity and reputation backed by deeds count.
• Reputation through deeds: The internal reputation is primarily built through concrete contributions: Sharing valuable information, organizing resources, or practical support for other network members.
• Principle-based loyalty protects against infiltration: The strictest form of punishment for breach of trust is loss of social significance. Groups that focus on common principles (not on dazzling rhetoric or personality cults) are more resistant to infiltration. An actor who acts in contradiction to the principles automatically loses internal credibility – regardless of their public eloquence.
• Open criticism as a cleansing mechanism: A culture of open discussion and principle-based debate filters words by their deeds. Those with nothing to hide engage in internal discussion. Those who evade or suppress criticism eventually reveal themselves, even if they were respected in the group. This process is a more effective filter than formal hierarchies.
• The ecosystem of counter-elites: This often leads to decentralized networks (like online bubbles), where independent actors are connected through loose, principle-based cooperation. Internal power and attributed value are distributed dynamically based on trust and proven reliability, not on rhetorical persuasiveness or subscriber counts. Anyone who advances the cause is considered valuable, even with the smallest contribution.

Industrial Standardization Committees

Even in the fiercely competitive world of global corporations, fiducist principles prevail where state regulation is too slow, too inflexible, or too incompetent. Industry-wide standardization committees are a prime example of voluntary, trust-based cooperation at the highest level.

• Purpose: Development of common, open standards (like USB, HTML5, graphics interfaces like Vulkan) that benefit all members and the entire industry, particularly the members themselves.
• Function: Companies like Nvidia, Apple, Google, and Samsung work together, even though they are bitter competitors in the market.
• Fiducist mechanics:
• Trust as a business basis: Participation is based on the often contractually intangible agreement that all participants will act in the interest of common progress and will not attempt to sabotage the process or dominate it unilaterally.
• Performance as currency: Influence within the committee is gained less through market power and more through the quality of technical contributions and proposals.
• Why it works: The common benefit (a unified standard promotes the growth of the entire market segment for everyone) is so great that it outweighs short-term competitive advantages. It is voluntary cooperation in self-interest. The entire committee gives an egoistic advance of trust here, an important basic principle of Fiducism.

Specific Online Communities

The digital sphere produces some of the purest fiducist cultures:
- Open-source projects: Here, only the contribution (code, design, documentation) counts. Status, title, or origin are irrelevant. Reputation is built through demonstrable competence and reliability.
- Specialized forums (Investment, Technology, Craft): In these ecosystems, bad advice or fraudulent behavior is quickly identified and punished by social ostracism (ban, loss of reputation). Good advice is rewarded with trust and reputation.

The Strategy: From Organic Growth to Cultural Hegemony

The existence of these seeds is the first step. The next is their conscious cultivation and expansion to elevate fiducist principles to the new cultural norm.

The Cultural Shift: The Change in Expectations

The goal is a society where trustworthy, reliable action is seen not as naive, but as a sign of competence and maturity. Only through an understanding of Fiducism's ideas do the successes of the already fiducist systems become visible.

People who understand this will focus more on building relationships and less on reshaping systems.
More individuals and groups will achieve extraordinary results through trust and cooperation, and more people will understand this dynamic.

The Cultural Tools: The Organic Emergence of New Forms of Expression

A culture does not change by decree, but by new, successful behaviors giving rise to their own symbols, narratives, and linguistic expressions. With the spread of fiducist practice, the following developments will naturally occur:

• The emergence of new narratives: To the extent that fiducist models demonstrate success, the narratives in our culture will adapt. Cooperative heroes, trust-based entrepreneurs, and self-helping communities, already a basis for many stories, will gain even more importance as they reflect the lived reality of a growing number of people. It is less about constructing horror scenarios and false utopias, but rather authentically portraying real trust relationships and the difficulties that can arise.
• The evolution of symbols: New forms of commitment – whether a digitally verifiable reputation score or a modern, serious form of pledge – will prevail where they facilitate low-friction interaction. They arise from practical need, not from theoretical design and coercion.
• A shift in language: An active vocabulary that emphasizes reliability, reputation, and reciprocity will not displace the language of distrust ("liability", "lawsuit"), but will complement it and appear as a superior alternative in many contexts.

The Natural Approach to Resistance: Exclusion and Calm Delimitation

The established culture of distrust loses not through confrontation, but through gradual irrelevance. The fiducist response to resistance is not combat, but calm delimitation and the building of superior alternatives.

• The power of delimitation: Instead of impossible fights in corrupted systems (large corporations, bureaucratic apparatuses), energy is focused on building functioning fiducist islands. Their visible success is more contagious than any polemical criticism.
• Organic isolation: The protection of these communities from destructive influences results less from strict rules, and more from natural selection through shared values and the high cost that a breach of trust entails for the individual. Clear boundaries are not fought for; they establish themselves through the quality of internal interactions.

Chapter 7: Synthesis through Fiducism – From the Ideological to the Pragmatic

Unification of Ideological Concepts – How do I want to live?

Fiducism is not an academic exercise, but the answer to the longings of very different people for a better, more humane form of living together.

Perhaps you recognize yourself in one of these descriptions:

• For the Libertarian who wants a free, but not cold society, Fiducism describes the already implicitly assumed core within libertarianism
• For the Conservative who wants real community without state micromanagement, Fiducism describes society based on the fundamental values in families
• For the Agorist who wants to develop the counter-economy in depth, Fiducism describes an extension of his conception to interpersonal relationships
• For the Leftist who wants to live communist values of reciprocity himself, Fiducism describes a pragmatic implementation of this without coercion
• For the Dreamer who seeks genuine community, Fiducism describes the lived philosophy of the Straw Hat Pirates

From Anarcho-Communism to Reciprocism: The Replacement of Coercion with Trust

• Idea of Anarcho-Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." A noble goal of unconditional reciprocity.
• Fiducist analysis: The problem is the implicit or explicit coercion. If needs are defined and enforced by a collective, maximum friction arises – control, surveillance, envy, and unfreedom. The system destroys natural trust. In families, a similar understanding is already implicitly practiced.
• Transformation to Reciprocism: The fiducist approach preserves the goal of reciprocity but makes it voluntary and relationship-based. In a close trust network (family, community) this principle works naturally and with low friction. One helps without expecting immediate return, trusting in the long-term connection. Even businesses can be replaced by such communities, so that the workers are also the owners, as in a startup. Fiducism scales this familial principle without the collective coercion of communism.

From Agorism to Reciprocism: The Extension of the Market to Include Social Relationships

• Idea of Agorism: Creation of a counter-economy through non-state market exchange (black market, barter) as a path to dissolving the state.
• Fiducist analysis: Agorism is a practical tool, but remains stuck at the transactional level of money and exchange deals. This is valuable, but still more friction-intensive than a real trust network.
• Transformation to Reciprocism: Fiducism recognizes agorism as the perfect tool for interactions outside one's own trust network. At the same time, it goes beyond: The actual goal is not just exchange, but the transformation of business relationships into trust relationships. An agorist partner of today can become a trusted ally of tomorrow through repeated, reliable interaction. Agorism is the bridge, Reciprocism is the goal.

From Conservatism and Communitarianism to Reciprocism: From Preservation to Active Cultivation

• Idea of Conservatism/Communitarianism: Appreciation for traditional institutions like family, faith, and local community as the foundation of a healthy society.
• Fiducist analysis: These currents correctly recognize that these seeds are the most natural and lowest-friction forms of living together. Their mistake is often a defensive, backward-looking impulse and the often-advocated use of the state to protect these values, which often undermines the very local community they want to preserve.
• Transformation to Reciprocism: Fiducism adopts the appreciation for natural communities but makes it an active, expansive, and state-free program. It is not just about preserving the family, but consciously extending its principles to the neighborhood, professional cooperations, and digital spaces. It transforms mere preservation into a progressive, grassroots strategy of societal building from below. It is an adaptation of the principles to modern life reality, which modern technology has only now made feasible.

From Anarcho-Capitalism to Reciprocism: The Supplementation of Contracts with Commitment

• Idea of Anarcho-Capitalism: Abolition of the state in favor of a society based entirely on private property, free markets, and private legal systems.
• Fiducist analysis: Anarcho-capitalism is a powerful model for minimizing the institutional friction of the state. Its weakness is a possible overemphasis on formal contracts and anonymity. A society based only on contracts between strangers remains a cold and potentially conflict-ridden environment. Although a fiducist societal form is often implicitly assumed in anarcho-capitalism, its construction is not the focus. But its emergence is favored by the removal of the state.
• Transformation to Reciprocism: Fiducism sees in anarcho-capitalism the ideal overarching legal framework that creates the freedom for the development of trust networks. Reciprocism then fills this freedom with life. It adds the dimension of personal commitment and trust to the contract mentality. The goal is not a society of anonymous contracting parties, but a society in which most relationships are so trusting that formal contracts are scarcely needed.

Conclusion: No Compromise, but an Evolution

Anarcho-Reciprocism is not a mixture of ideologies. It is an evolution. By applying the fiducist principle of friction minimization through trust, it filters out the utopian and cold elements of the other philosophies and unites their practical strengths into a coherent, human-friendly, and libertarian model for a post-state society. It is the pragmatic Next Step.

Chapter 8: The Spiritual Anchoring – From Philosophy through Religion to Pop Culture

Fiducism does not exist in a vacuum but is the pragmatic synthesis of insights from philosophy, religion, and cultural values.

The Philosophical Predecessors: Ethics Without Metaphysics

Fiducism draws from a rich philosophical heritage but discards its often metaphysical or abstract foundations in favor of a strictly worldly and pragmatic approach.

The Categorical Imperative by Kant

Kant demands that we act only according to those maxims that we can at the same time will to become universal laws.

Its strength is the uncompromising generalizability, without declaring specific things as moral.
But therein also lies its weakness for practice: It views people as equal rational beings and ignores their personal differences, abilities, and the diversity of their relationships. If taken absolutely literally, it would even be impossible to ethically justify specialization and division of labor – for one cannot truly will that every person becomes a baker if I myself want to be one.

Fiducism asks the more practical, context-aware question: "How do I act so that I strengthen the trust in my specific network and minimize friction?"

The answer is not abstract and fixed for all time, but dynamic and relationship-dependent. It considers the individual strengths of the participants and allows the baker to be a baker while the doctor is a doctor – because this specialization maximizes trust and prosperity in the specific network of the village, even if it cannot be generalized as a law for all humanity. Fiducism translates Kant's rigorous universality into a flexible, context-sensitive ethics for everyday life.

The Golden Rule

The traditional rule ("Treat others as you wish to be treated") is well-intentioned but, strictly applied, leads to everyone forgoing things they themselves want for the sake of the other, even though the other has different desires. And so in the end, everyone is worse off than if everyone looked after themselves. At best, it can be a useful basic rule as long as one does not know the other well enough.

The fiducist approach refines it to "Treat others as the quality of your specific relationship requires for a low-friction and trusting interaction." This considers different relationship levels (family, business partner) and replaces subjective desires with the objective criterion of friction minimization.

Epicurus and the Kepos

In Epicurus' garden, friendship and freedom from suffering and disturbance were considered the highest goods of a successful life. This is a direct anticipation of the fiducist basic motivation.

Fiducism offers practical instructions for action to actively build and nurture these friendship networks to achieve the desired state.

Stoicism

Like the Stoics, Fiducism emphasizes the absolute personal responsibility of the individual and the focus on the area one can control – one's own actions and the cultivation of one's own relationships. The crucial difference lies in the addressee of the duty: Not to an abstract world logos or cosmic reason, but to the concrete people in one's own trust network.

Utilitarianism

This philosophy shares with Fiducism the central criterion of utility as a measure for evaluating actions.

Fiducism solves the central problem of utilitarianism (the tendency towards collectivist logic of coercion) by strictly binding utility to voluntary interactions and bilateral exchange. An action is only useful if it increases the utility of all directly involved parties in a voluntary transaction. Thus, Fiducism is a defused, more individualistic, and more practical form of the utilitarian idea.

The Religious Parallels: Wisdom Without Dogma

The great world religions have condensed cultural knowledge about human coexistence over millennia. Fiducism preserves this practical wisdom but discards the dogmatic and transcendent justifications that surround it.

Christianity

The radical ethics of love for one's neighbor and forgiveness represent an extreme form of trusting goodness.

Fiducism transforms this ideal into a worldly practice of empathy and restoration of relationships. The motivation is no longer divine command or otherworldly reward, but practical utility: Understanding the reasons for misconduct often enables conflict resolution and the recovery of a valuable member for the trust network, instead of losing them through condemnation.

Buddhism/Hinduism

Concepts like karma and compassionate action are freed from their esoteric component of reincarnation in Fiducism and reinterpreted as a principle of social feedback. A good deed is not a coin for the next life, but an investment in the social capital of the present life. It immediately strengthens the trust account within the network and creates real commitment.

Confucianism

According to this traditional teaching, society should function through a system of mutual duties and respectful relationships.

Fiducism preserves the valuable core of emphasizing reliability and commitment in relationships but frees it from rigid hierarchical prescriptions. In Fiducism, duties do not arise from a predefined role, but organically from the voluntarily entered and nurtured relationship.

Taoism

The Taoist ideal of Wu Wei – acting through non-action or non-forcing action – finds its fiducist equivalent in the effortless cooperation of a perfectly coordinated trust network. One acts from an impulse of ease – be it rest, work on one's own project, or help from strangers. That is a basic principle of Fiducism.

The Taoist sage rules so harmoniously that the people believe everything happens by itself. In Fiducism, there is no single ruler in that sense, but whoever builds trust through reliability and value creation gains informal authority that is not commanded but naturally recognized.

The Fiducist Core: The Break with Tradition – Worldly Utility as Ethical Foundation

The analysis shows a striking agreement: The core values of Fiducism – truthfulness, reliability, reciprocity, care – are not new inventions. They form the ethical backbone of countless philosophical and religious traditions.

But here the commonality ends. The decisive break with tradition lies in the source of moral obligation.

In the previous systems, these values received their authority and normative weight from an external, often transcendent instance: A divine command, a cosmic principle, an abstract law of reason, or the authority of tradition and sages. One acted rightly to satisfy these external demands.

Fiducism severs this connection. For it, the only source of obligation is the immediately experienceable, worldly utility. An action is not good because it corresponds to a divine law, but exclusively because it leads, in the empirically observable reality, to more prosperity, greater security, deeper satisfaction, and less friction for all involved parties.

This radically pragmatic approach has a profound consequence: It transforms ethics from a belief into an experiential science. The truth of a fiducist action is measured not by its agreement with a doctrine, but by its results. It is falsifiable. If an action considered trusting leads to harm and friction every time, the strategy must be adjusted – without having to carry the dogmatic burden of eternal truths.

The result is a purely immanent, empirical, and pragmatic ethics. It offers a stable moral compass for a pluralistic world, as it can unite people of the most diverse ideological backgrounds on the basis of common desires (prosperity, security) without them having to give up their convictions. The question is not whether one believes in it, but whether it works.

The Cultural Longing: Narratives of Connection and Its Failure

The most fascinating confirmation for fiducist principles is found not in academic treatises, but in the narratives that dominate our collective imagination. These stories reveal a deep cultural longing for the values of Fiducism – and an equally deep fear of their opposite.

One Piece and the Straw Hat Pirates: The Fiducist Ideal in Pure Form

The crew of Monkey D. Luffy is the narrative incarnation of the fiducist trust network. Their relationship is based not on contracts or coercion, but on absolute trust, voluntary commitment, and the unconditional support of each member's individual dreams within a common framework.
They embody a community where cooperation is effortless and friction is minimized because every action grows from a fundamental trust and shared values.
Luffy in particular embodies Wu Wei.

Attack on Titan: The Apocalyptic Warning

This work is the cruel and brilliant depiction of the antithesis to Fiducism: The endless, self-reinforcing cycle of violence that arises when every foundation of trust is destroyed and replaced by absolute distrust, ethnic nationalism, and the belief that security can only be achieved through the total annihilation of the other.
It is the darkest possible warning of a world that Fiducism wants to prevent – a world where friction is so extreme that it can only end in complete destruction.
Fiducism can be a solution to prevent such situations, especially through global online contacts.

Conclusion: Fiducism as a Worldly Synthesis

Fiducism is the modern, pragmatic extract from millennia of human reflection on ethics and community. It preserves the wisest insights of philosophy and religion, throws overboard their metaphysical mortgage, and puts them in the service of a single, verifiable goal: Building a better life for all involved – in this world.

It is the blueprint for a society that builds not on utopian dreams, but on the already proven, most natural forms of human cooperation and finally makes the cultural longing for connection attainable.

Final Chapter: The Emergent Order – A Vision of Anarcho-Reciprocism

As should already be known, the long-term goal of Fiducism is not the reform of the state, but its complete replacement by the organically grown societal form of Anarcho-Reciprocism – a rule-free order based exclusively on the principles of voluntary reciprocity.

The Path of Gradual Displacement

The emergence of this new order follows no revolutionary master plan, but the pragmatic principle of gradual displacement by superior alternatives.
Every time a human need – whether security, dispute resolution, retirement provision, education, or healthcare – is satisfied faster, cheaper, and more humanely by a voluntary trust network (Level 3), the state monopoly (Level 1) loses another piece of its legitimacy and reason for existence. The state is not overthrown. Its functions are taken over from below until it withers away, obsolete and meaningless.
This can be promoted by Bitcoin (Level 2). The state loses power as soon as it no longer has a money monopoly. It has no sustainable way to protect itself from long-term irrelevance if it does not integrate into the global trust network.

The Fabric of the Anarcho-Reciprocal Society

The anarcho-reciprocal society is not a homogeneous entity, but a dynamic, ever-changing fabric of overlapping trust networks. Ideally, not just a new apparatus of private courts and agencies replaces the old state, but the necessity for such formal institutions is massively reduced by the prevailing social reality of trust networks.

• Conflict resolution takes place primarily not in courts, but is regulated within the affected communities through the social pressure of reputation, mediation by trusted third parties, and the common interest in a peaceful solution. Formal arbitration bodies are the rare exception for fundamentally broken relationships, not the rule.
• Security is less the task of paid agencies, but a collective good ensured through vigilance, neighborhood assistance, and the principle of mutual defense within the network. The threat is not a punishment, but the irrevocable loss of reputation and access to the network.
• Social security emerges not from insurance contracts, but is the lived practice of mutual aid in family, circle of friends, and community. The motivation is not a contractual obligation, but genuine care for one another and the knowledge that one will be supported oneself in case of need.

The anarcho-capitalist infrastructure (Level 2) forms merely the minimal, last-resort safety net for the few interactions that must take place outside the omnipresent trust networks. The goal of Anarcho-Reciprocism is to continuously minimize the scope of this Level 2 through the expansive growth of Level 3. Society is not governed by providers, but by the culture of trust.

Handling Dissent and Diversity

This society is characterized by maximum freedom to associate and dissociate. The primary response to dissent or unwanted behavior is exclusion or exit, not rebellion. Those who do not share or violate the norms of a particular trust network lose its advantages and must turn to other networks corresponding to their preferences or use the more transactional Level 2 (markets, formal contracts). This constant filtering and sorting process ensures stability through homogeneity in the micro-communities while maintaining diversity and freedom in the overall system.

The Legacy of Ideological Synthesis

Anarcho-Reciprocism is not a utopian new beginning, but the logical culmination of the synthesis developed in this book:
- it preserves the communist ideal of reciprocity without its coercive apparatus
- it uses the libertarian/agorist tools of the market and private property without ending in a cold, anonymous society
- it fulfills the conservative need for reliable community without having to fall back on traditionalism or nationalism
- it anchors itself in a pragmatic, worldly ethics that can unite people of all worldviews on the basis of common interests

The vision of Anarcho-Reciprocism is thus the practical realization of a free, prosperous, and deeply humane society, whose order is not commanded from above, but emerges organically from below – from the sum of countless voluntary, trusting actions.