Panarchism

[GRosado]

I just learned about an interesting political philosophy that was created by Paul Émile de Puydt & as you may have guessed it is called Panarchism.

 

"Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale." -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism

 

There is close suggestion to this that was created by a Swiss Economist called Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJ) but to me that conception sounds like pre-Thirty Years War Germany honestly.

 

I think this is viable & was wondering what everyone else thought?

 

BTW I will now call myself a Panarcho-Capitalist

Edit: It was a joke because they are contradictions of each other, like I have said many times my jokes aren't great.

 

 

Edit 2: Here are some articles I read on Panarchism that explain it better than the Wikipedia article, please if your going to comment with something regarding it please read a few of these before you do.

 

 

http://www.panarchy.org/zube/gospel.1986.html

 

http://www.panarchy.org/zube/aphthonius.2005.html

 

http://www.panarchy.org/rozeff/panarchism.html

 

http://www.panarchy.org/knott/principles.html

 

http://www.panarchy.org/debellis/onpanarchy.html

[dsayers]

I think the fundamentals have been bypassed. You cannot choose governments anymore than you can choose rape. The very terms indicate an involuntary relationship. "Panarcho-Capitalist" is internally inconsistent. Government is a contradiction to capitalism because it violates property rights.

[square4]

"Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale." -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism

 

In a panarchy, would someone have the option of joining no government at all? If it is required to join one, then there would be no freedom of association. If it is not required, could you explain how panarchy would be any different from anarchy with a free market and competing DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations)?

[GRosado]

Ok I'm not an actual Panarchist. My humor is very weak & dry. I guess there's always a tradeoff PPF style:

 

Study

|•<- My point

|

|_____

Comedy

 

@DSayers What fundamentals are you speaking of?

@square4 I mean it would be ridiculous not to have a region where there isn't a state within this theory.

 

I don't know much about this so please don't approach me as if I'm the disciple of this political philosophy cause I don't know hence why I asked for the thoughts from everyone.

 

Also this could sort of fit in where you have some areas with governments competing against each other & another area without government that people also have a choice to goto. That would keep them from having there choices limited if they really want a government.

[dsayers]

@DSayers What fundamentals are you speaking of?

 

You have to keep reading.

[GRosado]

You have to keep reading.

Well like I said I wasn't serious about the Panarcho-Capitalist thing, it was a highly clever joke that relied heavily on definitions & my joke sucks but you get the point.But I am wondering how you cannot choose government? You equated it to choosing rape.

[dsayers]

Does the rapist consult his victim before penetrating them? No, otherwise it wouldn't be called rape. Does a government secure the consent of each of the people it issues commands backed by threats of violence? No, otherwise it would be called something different. The only way they're incomparable is that rapists exist.

[GRosado]

Does the rapist consult his victim before penetrating them? No, otherwise it wouldn't be called rape. Does a government secure the consent of each of the people it issues commands backed by threats of violence? No, otherwise it would be called something different. The only way they're incomparable is that rapists exist.

No the rapist doesn't consult his victim & there is no choice but I don't think that can be applied to government because with rape you have no choice your being aggressed against but in a Panarchist society I assume there would be a choice to live in area without governance or in an area with governance & if you choose to live in an area with governance you would have a choice as to which government you choose.You apply the rape metaphor but that doesn't apply to a system where you have a choice coupled with free movement that only applies to the current system. Im just wondering why you use that metaphor even when it leads to a false conclusion for the current topic, is that not a false analogy fallacy?Edit: Also have you read at least one of the links I provided above besides Wikipedia cause if you haven't you'd be constructing a straw man & trying to disprove it.

[dsayers]

If it's voluntary, it's not government.

 

The only straw man here is saying it's a joke when it is refuted, but resuming "serious discussion" when claiming it's a joke doesn't get you off the hook.

[cab21]

whats the difference between panarchy capitalism and anarchy capitalism?

it seems one calls it a government while the other calls it a DRO?

 

http://www.panarchy.org/debellis/onpanarchy.html

this was a interesting article

[GRosado]

If it's voluntary, it's not government.The only straw man here is saying it's a joke when it is refuted, but resuming "serious discussion" when claiming it's a joke doesn't get you off the hook.

No I assure you it was a shitty joke from the start, the joke was the contradiction in terms because one is totally against government (Anarcho-Capitalism) & the other allows for government (Panarchism). My jokes are very weak(unfunny) unless you know about history, geography & economics. But you caught the contradiction in terms & I'm assuming by your passive aggressive tone you A) didn't find the joke clever or funny(which I don't blame you for) & B) are writing posts here to get at me for who knows what.As you have done in the past you are putting words in my mouth &/or setting a negative undertone for my posts when the intention wasn't as such, I never said anything about serious discussion nor did I write anything that would give off signals if me demanding a shift towards serious discussion. I simply responded to your statements & to the other poster on the topic. Also no straw man fallacy was committed by me.So if your not going to contribute to a discussion on this topic I would ask that you please stop posting, I don't see value in going tit for tat in a battle of words with you, nor will I continue to.

whats the difference between panarchy capitalism and anarchy capitalism?it seems one calls it a government while the other calls it a DRO?http://www.panarchy.org/debellis/onpanarchy.htmlthis was a interesting article

It's just Panarchism vs. Anarchism, capitalism isn't involved much.Well from my understanding DROs are a sort of insurance company to resolve disputes so I don't think they can classify as the same. I'm gonna post that article under the others

[cab21]

the question is about which government is in charge of law in criminal cases

 

in one neighborhood, if 5 people, with 5 different governments, break into a house, and steal from 5 different people, who each have 5 different governments, and sell the stolen goods to 5 people with 5 different governments, how is it sorted out who gets prosecuted where?

we have 15 people and 15 different governments, all in one neighborhood. is each person judge, jury, and executioner for his own government? i

[GRosado]

the question is about which government is in charge of law in criminal casesin one neighborhood, if 5 people, with 5 different governments, break into a house, and steal from 5 different people, who each have 5 different governments, and sell the stolen goods to 5 people with 5 different governments, how is it sorted out who gets prosecuted where?we have 15 people and 15 different governments, all in one neighborhood. is each person judge, jury, and executioner for his own government? i

I'm not super familiar with Panarchism so don't take what I say as canon on the subject.To solve that problem I think there would be organizations that have the various governments as members & they would establish certain parameters for dispute resolution & agree upon certain uniform laws throughout the member nations such as: murder is illegal unless in self defense, theft is illegal & so on. However the scenario you presented is highly unlikely that it would break that far.