Meta-Agorism?

Reading back through various blogs and such, I think I'd have to say that Adem Kupi's definitions of liberty and anarchy are really on the money:

"Liberty, in my opinion, is merely the absence of Crime. Crime, not as defined by legislature, which is another form of fraud, but the normal, everyday intuitive sense of crime. Murder, assault, theft, rape, swindles, that sort of thing.
A perfect Liberty is a situation where such things do not exist at all. This is probably not an achievable situation, but it constitutes an asymptote, a limit towards which true libertarians wish to carry society above all else. And I reserve the right to use the phrase "true libertarians" because I mean people who are libertarian by the definition of the word, not people who identify as libertarians. This is not a "no true scotsman" argument.

Anarchy on the other hand is a situation where no one is given the authority to commit crimes. They might still get away with it, but by and large people don't believe they are entitled to."

This points the way toward a possible meta-agorism:
People pursuing their own interest, regardless of "the state" or any other organization. Treating it the way they would any other mafia.
This meta-agorism would include agorist counter-economics of course, but also more than that, a realignment toward spontaneous culture and social interaction. Because it implies the idea of following your own conscience without regard to ideas of "rank" or "authority". If you think techno music is awesome, well fine, then it is. If you prefer Beethoven, ok that's fine too.
It would include a severe sort of moralism, but one in which the primary precept would be to develop a moral sense of your own. Or to keep it focused inward pointing outward, it would mean not to accept anyone else's moral sense as any better than your own. Let your conscience be your guide.

In this way, meta-agorism of this sort is more "realistic" and practical than any sort of particular political agitation or movement. The main way of spreading it is just to encourage people to question all authority, and to come to their own conclusions. Criticize everything that exists ruthlessly.
If people ask what your positive program is, tell them "I'm not a revolutionary, I'm a destroyer". This is the connection by the way to buddhist anarchism as mentioned by William Gillis. Buddha was considered a destroyer of illusion.
I'm a Daoist, not a Buddhist, but I respect that idea, that the path to liberation is to destroy that which holds you back from reality.
It's also a connection to the sort of super anarchism of Allan Thornton, who was a big influence on Adem Kupi. Thornton said "What will happen under Anarchy? EVERYTHING."