Panarchism

[weenie]

When debating with statists, I often find it useful to explain how a free society could work through panarchism. I think it's a way of implementing the principles of anarcho-capitalism, without the need to invent new words, like DROs. You can simply tell people, you think individuals should be able to switch governments without needing to move away, and how this would let everyone live under the laws they find just and under the government that adequately enforces them. From then on you can explain how this would lead to less social tension, less possibility of armed conflicts and to a system, that would be able to keep governments economically accountable.

Do you ever approach any debates with this idea? Does anyone think there are some inconsistencies between panarchism and anarcho-capitalism?

I also made a short presentation of panarchism, feel free to tell me what you think about it:

[NotDarkYet]

Interesting.

 

Who would determine the size of these states?

 

And if we could convince these huge countries to break into small parts...why not just go the whole way and call each person sovereign?

 

How would the shrinking work? far as I can tell, states tend to get bigger, not smaller.  Shrinking goes against their economic logic.

[weenie]

Well first of all, they wouldn't really be states, since people could join and leave them voluntarily and create their own, basically seceding on an individual level. The size would be determined by people joining up with governments contractually. As I can see it, this is an implementation of personal sovereignty. The shrinking would also work based on people switching their governments. Was the video unclear on this questions?

[luxfelix]

Thanks for posting, I didn't know this kind of thing had a name yet.

 

I can see how there could be businesses or individual/family estates conducted in this manner. I posted the following in another thread:

 

http://image.cdn.ispot.tv/ad/72hX/verizon-lg-g2-reality-check-large-9.jpg

 

Would you say this matches Panarchism?

 

The other threads:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42560-conquering-anarchist-countries/

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42672-new-hampshires-free-state-project/

 

Elements of Panarchism remind me of feudalism (mainly the border-goring of the map); and the private ownership of everything would be preferable, no?

 

As for what government would allow this to happen within their borders... can they stop it from happening? Or, how many bankrupt countries would be willing to sell land (releasing control/sovereignty/title over it completely) to maintain some of their power; this has happened before, no?

[dsayers]

You have to define terms. Words like "government" and "citizen" inherently mean involuntary.

 

Also, people would disagree as to what all falls under the jurisdiction of a government; some might just say transportation, others might say transportation and healthcare, some might say healthcare and food supply, but not transportation. The amount of differing possible combinations (keep in mind that we're still talking about the mythical deciding of what all it's okay to initiate the use of force for) could be as numerous as the amount of people alive today. We'll call that undefined number Y.

 

Assuming that each of these issues were binary (having only 2 possible solutions), people among the set agreeing on what all things a government should do would come to 2^X conclusions on how their shared government should do things. In other words, the total number of possible panarchist nations JUST OF PEOPLE ALIVE TODAY would be Y^(2^X). This number is surely larger than the total number of humans that have ever existed.

 

All this and to even consider that equation, we have to accept the idea that morality is subjective, which it's not. So rather than going through all of that, it is much simpler to just observe that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they are internally inconsistent in that they simultaneously accept and reject property rights. That's not a matter of opinion and anybody with enough capacity for reason to understand what it means is bound by it.

[weenie]

Thanks for posting, I didn't know this kind of thing had a name yet.

 

I can see how there could be businesses or individual/family estates conducted in this manner. I posted the following in another thread:

 

http://image.cdn.ispot.tv/ad/72hX/verizon-lg-g2-reality-check-large-9.jpg

 

Would you say this matches Panarchism?

 

The other threads:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42560-conquering-anarchist-countries/

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42672-new-hampshires-free-state-project/

 

Elements of Panarchism remind me of feudalism (mainly the border-goring of the map); and the private ownership of everything would be preferable, no?

 

As for what government would allow this to happen within their borders... can they stop it from happening? Or, how many bankrupt countries would be willing to sell land (releasing control/sovereignty/title over it completely) to maintain some of their power; this has happened before, no?

Yes, that might be how it comes about. I'm not sure what you mean by businesses and families being conducted in this way. Was that meant internally?

 

You have to define terms. Words like "government" and "citizen" inherently mean involuntary.

 

Also, people would disagree as to what all falls under the jurisdiction of a government; some might just say transportation, others might say transportation and healthcare, some might say healthcare and food supply, but not transportation. The amount of differing possible combinations (keep in mind that we're still talking about the mythical deciding of what all it's okay to initiate the use of force for) could be as numerous as the amount of people alive today. We'll call that undefined number Y.

 

Assuming that each of these issues were binary (having only 2 possible solutions), people among the set agreeing on what all things a government should do would come to 2^X conclusions on how their shared government should do things. In other words, the total number of possible panarchist nations JUST OF PEOPLE ALIVE TODAY would be Y^(2^X). This number is surely larger than the total number of humans that have ever existed.

 

All this and to even consider that equation, we have to accept the idea that morality is subjective, which it's not. So rather than going through all of that, it is much simpler to just observe that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they are internally inconsistent in that they simultaneously accept and reject property rights. That's not a matter of opinion and anybody with enough capacity for reason to understand what it means is bound by it.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. If people think that government should do X, they can switch to a government that does X or create own, where's the problem. How do theoretical possibilities factor into this at all?

 

As for theft, if somebody takes an apple from you and eats it, he never declared he has the exclusive right to control that apple, he merely ate it. You can't deduce he's accepted property rights just from that.

[dsayers]

If people think that government should do X, they can switch to a government that does X or create own, where's the problem.

 

The first problem is that if it's voluntary, it's not government. The second problem is that "think that a government should do X" is a work of fiction and encouraging people to pursue that is anti-rational. The third problem is that the amount of permutations between what a government should do and how it should do those things outnumbers the amount of people that have ever lived. Meaning that the people alive today could theoretically hold unique positions. Meaning that the expectation that there would be two people with identical ideas of EVERY issue and EXACTLY how those issues should be handled AANNDD that those two people would find one another is nigh on impossible.

 

The fourth problem is that this is a lot of work to make something fit that doesn't fit. Meanwhile, "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" is simple, objective, and binding.

 

I just got done going couch shopping. In my travels, I met a lot of people, entered a lot of places of business, made use of a lot of roads, etc. None of my fellow slaves initiated the use of force against each other, yet we were all meeting our goals. What "teams" we "represent" had no bearing on this. For that matter, I would argue there's only one way to meaningfully divide people: Those willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not.

 

As for theft, if somebody takes an apple from you and eats it, he never declared he has the exclusive right to control that apple, he merely ate it. You can't deduce he's accepted property rights just from that.

 

You tried this once before. My response was:

 

"The behavior of eating an apple IS the acceptance of private property. The person doing the eating is exercising ownership over their body and in turn, the food they are consuming. This is important to understand because like you've done here, I frequently see people talking about property rights/morality as if they're optional or can be avoided.

 

Eating an apple isn't the best example. Since apples occur naturally, the existence of an apple isn't necessarily proof that it belongs to somebody. Your attempt at counterpoint would've been better served using an item that doesn't occur naturally."

 

You even agreed that apple wasn't the best example, yet you're doing it again here. Did you anticipate my response would be different?

[luxfelix]

Yes, that might be how it comes about. I'm not sure what you mean by businesses and families being conducted in this way. Was that meant internally?

 

From the demesnes/estates held by individuals and families (such as winter cabins, beach houses, and family farms) as well as the collective property of companies (factories, retail outlets, etc.) which form enclaves/exclaves for all their holdings, I imagine a map so segmented as to resemble a complicated rendering of multicolored stippling representing private ownership of every part of the world; then, layered atop this map, a projection indicating DRO/community/company coverage (insurance, utilities, dispute resolution, etc.). To complicate things further, a map showing who owned what would likely change frequently (not a bad thing per se).

 

(Border-gore example: http://hillfighter.deviantart.com/art/Holy-Roman-Empire-156783662)

 

As to how they work internally, the possibilities are near-infinite! 

[J. D. Stembal]

Can you compare and contrast Panarchism with the idea of self governance? It sounds like you are promoting voluntary and free association between individuals, to which Government (capital G) is directly opposed.

[weenie]

 

 

The first problem is that if it's voluntary, it's not government. The second problem is that "think that a government should do X" is a work of fiction and encouraging people to pursue that is anti-rational. The third problem is that the amount of permutations between what a government should do and how it should do those things outnumbers the amount of people that have ever lived. Meaning that the people alive today could theoretically hold unique positions. Meaning that the expectation that there would be two people with identical ideas of EVERY issue and EXACTLY how those issues should be handled AANNDD that those two people would find one another is nigh on impossible.

 

The fourth problem is that this is a lot of work to make something fit that doesn't fit. Meanwhile, "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" is simple, objective, and binding.

 

I just got done going couch shopping. In my travels, I met a lot of people, entered a lot of places of business, made use of a lot of roads, etc. None of my fellow slaves initiated the use of force against each other, yet we were all meeting our goals. What "teams" we "represent" had no bearing on this. For that matter, I would argue there's only one way to meaningfully divide people: Those willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not.

 

 

1) "government" can refer to an administrative body for any sort of community as far as I know, it doesn't need to be monopolistic. I'll gladly use another word if it suits the role better, but I'm purposefully trying to use a vocabulary that resembles what people are already used to.

2) Not if you can actually pick and choose a government that actually does what you want it to.

3) The same is true for ISPs or mobile communication service providers, yet somehow we manage. I'm not promising people they'll get exactly what they want, but providing a system they can easily understand that gives them actual choices. Like with anything else, those choices will be limited, but so what?

4) What I'm putting forward is not an ethical model, but an implementation of governance, that should fit what you described.

 

You tried this once before. My response was:

 

"The behavior of eating an apple IS the acceptance of private property. The person doing the eating is exercising ownership over their body and in turn, the food they are consuming. This is important to understand because like you've done here, I frequently see people talking about property rights/morality as if they're optional or can be avoided.

 

Eating an apple isn't the best example. Since apples occur naturally, the existence of an apple isn't necessarily proof that it belongs to somebody. Your attempt at counterpoint would've been better served using an item that doesn't occur naturally."

 

You even agreed that apple wasn't the best example, yet you're doing it again here. Did you anticipate my response would be different?

 

 

Right, I knew what I was writing sounded similar to something in the past. Anyway, just stating that use equals the exercise of ownership, doesn't prove it. There is no contradiction in me creating something and not believing I have the exclusive right of ownership over it.

 

Can you compare and contrast Panarchism with the idea of self governance? It sounds like you are promoting voluntary and free association between individuals, to which Government (capital G) is directly opposed.

I am promoting free association. Panarchism is merely a way to word it so that statists can follow what you're saying. It's a way to help them to start thinking out of the box, because once you mention anarchy, they usually stop trying to understand. I'm not sure government is necessarily a monopolistic entity, I thought it could be used to describe an administrative body in general. If I'm wrong, I'll need to change my vocabulary.

[dsayers]

I'm purposefully trying to use a vocabulary that resembles what people are already used to.

 

I'm purposefully trying to use a vocabulary that is accurate. "What color is this apple?" "Four." Hey, people are used to four, right? Using a word that's involuntary to describe something that is voluntary and vice versa, how accustomed to specific language somebody is isn't relevant.

 

Not if you can actually pick and choose a government that actually does what you want it to.

 

I pick and choose the restaurants, stores, services, etc that do what I want them to do. We wouldn't call Wal Mart a government just because it can satisfy your grocery AND vision AND automotive, etc. Because Wal Mart isn't inflicted upon anybody. Nobody has to formally declare Wal Mart. People who patronize Wal Mart can patronize its competitors also. None of this describes a government, which doesn't do anything that cannot be done without violence except for the violence part. You think governments should build roads? Too bad. You don't even get that today. They hire private contractors that would build the roads even if they were privately owned.

 

What I'm putting forward is not an ethical model

 

I know. What you're putting forth is an unethical model. While calling it the opposite of what it is.

 

There is no contradiction in me creating something and not believing I have the exclusive right of ownership over it.

 

I'm not sure what the point of this is. If I build a chair, I can give it away if I choose because it's my chair to give away. How could giving it away be considered contradictory to the act of creating it, that one would need to point out that it's not contradictory? I don't get to say that because I would have given a chair away if I made it that other people that make chairs are not free to not give them away.

[J. D. Stembal]

I am promoting free association. Panarchism is merely a way to word it so that statists can follow what you're saying. It's a way to help them to start thinking out of the box, because once you mention anarchy, they usually stop trying to understand. I'm not sure government is necessarily a monopolistic entity, I thought it could be used to describe an administrative body in general. If I'm wrong, I'll need to change my vocabulary.

 

While we probably need to reclaim the word anarchy, at some point, it's probably not going to be possible in the near term. I listen regularly to Alex Jones as his show covers a lot of the current events material discussed here and in liberty circles. It seems like every other guest or segment takes a crack at anarchists, with the implication that we are unstable, radical, and dangerous. All anarchism really means is that individuals should be able to pursue voluntary self governance. If I want to set up my own community and life free of arbitrary laws, or set up my own system of law, that should be my right as a free citizen.

 

Libertarians are mostly stuck in this mindset that if only we could decrease the power of the federal government, we could live free. This will never be the case. Government needs to exist at the smallest level only, the individual and voluntary group. When governments/communities start growing bigger than 150 people (Dunbar's number), people start losing sight of the individual and replace them with the identity of the group. It is easier to start compelling people with coercive force when you are not thinking about them as individual people.

[dsayers]

It is easier to start compelling people with coercive force when you are not thinking about them as individual people.

 

To that end, I wanted to point out that "free citizen" is also a contradiction of terms. The word citizen refers to somebody based solely on the claim of ownership an external source has placed on that individual. Sorry if that seems nitpicky. A lot of slaves are enslaved first in their own mind by the way so many words have been bastardized and co-opted.

[weenie]

I'm purposefully trying to use a vocabulary that is accurate. "What color is this apple?" "Four." Hey, people are used to four, right? Using a word that's involuntary to describe something that is voluntary and vice versa, how accustomed to specific language somebody is isn't relevant.

 

Dude, I get that governments are monopolists, and that they violate private property. What I'm trying to do is find a way to approach people with the idea of "what would it look like if they didn't?". I know that would make them not-governments, but it's a good way to present a new concept to somebody without freaking them out.

 

I know. What you're putting forth is an unethical model. While calling it the opposite of what it is.

 

 

What?

 

I'm not sure what the point of this is. If I build a chair, I can give it away if I choose because it's my chair to give away. How could giving it away be considered contradictory to the act of creating it, that one would need to point out that it's not contradictory? I don't get to say that because I would have given a chair away if I made it that other people that make chairs are not free to not give them away.

You're right, that argument was pointless. Me not exercising ownership over something I created doesn't demonstrate anything. I still have to encounter a valid proof for private property rights being objectively valid. I must say i completely agree with them, it's only that I think my acceptance of them is subjective. They can't be proven in the same way as a painting can't be proven to be pretty.

[dsayers]

Dude, I get that governments are monopolists, and that they violate private property. What I'm trying to do is find a way to approach people with the idea of "what would it look like if they didn't?". I know that would make them not-governments, but it's a good way to present a new concept to somebody without freaking them out.

 

What it would look like if they didn't wouldn't be something that you'd call by the same name, so it wouldn't be what you're describing as panarchism. If you approached somebody and tried to talk to them about what if rape didn't violate property rights, I think they'd be freaked out. I realize it's different with the State since most people believe it to be benevolent. How would it help to trick them out of that conclusion by selling them another mythical model?

 

I still have to encounter a valid proof for private property rights being objectively valid. I must say i completely agree with them, it's only that I think my acceptance of them is subjective. They can't be proven in the same way as a painting can't be proven to be pretty.

 

Well I think that you posting this is a performative contradiction. Nevertheless, I accept that saying it again won't be helpful. Instead, I offer you

. In particular, the part where he considers other possible models for property and how they're provably false.

[luxfelix]

About what I described above:

 

I think I found something called anarcho-monarchism which seems to match those effects (demesnes/estates/border-gore/etc.), and possibly that of Panarchism as well?

 

From what I understand, the oxymoronic term follows the idea that anarcho-capitalism more closely resembles the universalizing of sovereignty within, thereby resulting in anarchy without. The opposite, then, is another way to describe all current states: anarchy within (cognitive dissonance/disregard of truth/etc.) and sovereignty without (foreign rulers/masters of slaves/etc.).

 

It suggests that the wealth generated by free markets will be inherited by successive generations, and that social cohesion will most likely follow a peerage (Downton Abbey) style of social checks/ostracism (and we all get fancy hats and chairs!  ).

 

TomAto/Tomato? 

[fractional slacker]

Anarchistic capitalism; panarchism; disneyland archism; the words don't matter. It is the principles they represent that do matter: no rulers and property rights.

 

When weenie, in above examples, uses the word government,  by definition you are accepting the initiation of the use of force by some, but not by others. If the organization you are proposing can't initiate force, it is not government and you would be wise to not use that word.

 

As for no proof of property rights being objective, but rather subjective. Is that an objective statement, or a subjective statement?

[weenie]

As for no proof of property rights being objective, but rather subjective. Is that an objective statement, or a subjective statement?

That is an objective statement. Another example of an objective statement would be "Value is subjective."