It could happen, but I think that’s basically what I present the case against in the link in my sig. I could certainly imagine something like that happening in a highly population-dense location with highly uncivilized or intolerant people.
Right, I consider panarchism to be just another way of looking at anarchism, or a way of emphasizing certain aspects that tend to get de-emphasized in the prevailing anarchist writings. There are several starting points that all lead to essentially the same endpoint.
For instance, Rothbardian AnCap with 100% freedom of contract (if consistently conceived) apparently would allow for “opt-in” statism, so is essentially panarchism. However, the emphasis feels different because Rothbard was prone to use words like “rogue” and “outlaw” to describe people who deviated from his conception.
There’s also been a tendency to more or less imagine the machinery of AnCap applying for everyone over a given territory whether they like it or not, even though this seems to run counter to the whole program. If pressed on this point, one can certainly point to places where Rothbard explicitly admitted that, for instance communist enclaves would be fine as long as they were voluntary, but at other times his writing seems equivocal on the issue. For such reasons I think many have come away from the AnCap conception with the negative impression that it is trying to lay out a certain concrete “objective” vision of how society ought to be, which may be why there has been a surge in panarchist sentiment: it makes the reference to tolerance for all types of voluntary association explicit and unequivocal.
That about sums it up. Things are changing so fast now that it’s hard for anyone to predict. However, an additional reason for optimism is that this fast rate of change may force people to think more carefully about such things, as well as making it hard for states to maintain control.
I’ll give it a read, thanks bud.
Tolerance is attainable. Consider the example of multiple religions coexisting within a territory. This used to be considered impossible as well. Cujus regio, ejus religio. But now freedom of religion in the western hemisphere is considered normative. The same is possible for the human right to choose one’s government.
It is true that panarchism sounds like minarchism, but it is not. It is a free market in government, using the old terms people are used to, but redefining them. Therefore, a panarchist talks about “choosing a government”, but when he uses the term “government” he has really redefined it from its current meaning of a “territorial monopoly of coercion” by removing the aspect of monopoly.
I just don’t see how it proves that anarchy and statism couldn’t coexist. Do you mean in the same geographic area, or anywhere on the planet?
yet again, very poor wording, and a blame game about something you don’t like, whereas some people don’t like panarcharism as Sage, Brainpolice, and Adam are arguing against it with some very excellent points.
I for one will always point out the criminals and side with justice. Without law and order anarchy is what most people today think of it - chaos. I could easily make the argument that some people prefer the state because of the lack of agreement on law and order; and something to the effect of Sage’s signature. It looks like a bunch of kids in a toy room dreaming up something when such elements as rogue or criminals are thought to become non-existent in some libertarian-land. It really sounds that way, like a fairytale or utopia - in the real sense of the words. But I’m sure law and order to some might seem so brutish, but when dealing with brutish criminals the hands get dirty.
I understand that, but within the same geographic area, I don’t see how completely different methods of societal organization could be employed side by side without running into each other. Take roads for instance:
Who pays for their construction? Who gets to use them? What if a non-payer is caught on them?
I can only envision civil war, or some such destruction resulting from this intermingling of societal structures.
It would seem to me that the coercion could be removed, ala voluntaryism, but I don’t see how you could remove a territorial monopoly. even a “government of one” still has to monopolize some amount of space.
Speaking of which, are there differences between volutaryism and panarchism?
LOL, hey I used to live in the Wildwood area! Where are you located?
Gave the post a read, some good stuff. I don’t really see how it addressed the practical problems of an panarchy, though.
Say I lived in a panarchic society. I was more of an Libertarian type, but I don’t mind other hold different opinions. After a day of work, I’m walking up to my front door. I notice it has been kicked in. Entering cautiously, I find a guy rooting through my CD collection.
“Hey, what the hell are you doing in my house?” I ask.
“What do you mean you’re house? I’m from the anarcho-communist collective next door. This is everyone’s property equally.”
How does a situation like that resolve itself? For the collectivist to respect the property rights of the individualist would be in direct contradiction of his espoused principles. Likewise if the individualist let the collectivist express his ideology fully. How could a court possibly adjudicate using two totally different ethical guidelines? The seemingly unavoidable result would be some sort of persecuted minority population, under the coercive whim of the majority, which would just be another state, or war, or migration resulting in geographic monopolies. I don’t how it could be resolved any other way.
Hi Wilderness
You may have misunderstood my argument(s). I’m arguing for what I believe to be a more consistent panarchism.
I believe panarchism to be a more consistent form of libertarianism than territorial anarchism and territorial libertarianism.
We have a perfect pattern for this today. It’s called federalism. Federalism is a group of organizations working together in a coordinated fashion within a larger territory. Just because currently all the cantons in Switzerland are also territories does not mean that a federal organization would not work just as well if all the subordinate organizations were non-territorial, such as political parties. So, it works this way: what you agree upon you do by cooperation; what you disagree on, you go your own way.
Hi Jackson
Why would one have to begin with the most difficult issues first ?
If there are ten thousand conceivable norms that are enforced by compulsion, and one of them is government owned roads, and the other is that it is illegal for libertarians to work for one another for a penny an hour, why can’t libertarians begin with working for one another for a penny an hour, and leave the more difficult “territorial” issues for later, after things have shifted and evolved due to the first small changes ?
Have you read Max Borders’ short two-part article?
If any conceivable type of libertarian society is not going to be put in place in one day, then there is going to have to be some kind of transition period.
If there is going to be a transition period, why would one begin with the issues that seem to have no easy or immediate solution? Why not begin with things that could be done? Once those things are done, the situation in society changes. Everything shifts. From that new vantage point, now things become possible that weren’t considered possible before. Then one could move on again to the next thing that could be done…
Why focus on the things that likely can’t be done?
Why not start with issue number 10,000 (the easiest ones) and work backwards, rather than starting with roads, military, tax exemption (i.e., the most difficult ones)?
That seems counter-productive and self-defeating to me.
I understand the concept of a confederation, and I find it much more preferable than say the current system in the US, but panarchism seems to be a redctio ad absurdum of that principle, and I don’t see how it could be tenable.
I totally agree with incremental steps, and I have no problem with a pragmatic method of attaining liberty.
However, if the discussion is about the ultimate end of these changes, it just seems that panarchism is a bit too utopian for me. If we are talking big picture goals, I feel we need to address big picture problems. If we are talking small picture goals, than I agree that big picture problems don’t really need to enter into the discussion.
No, I haven’t. I’ll be sure to give a look.
I understand. You are coming across somewhere in the middle between what AJ is saying and what Sage is saying. For instance what you said here is what I was thinking about when I wrote what I wrote above which I found to be an excellent point:
Maybe you could expand on this “weak point” of panarchism more.
ok. My only quibble is that the ‘wait and see’ approach doesn’t explain anything other than ‘wait and see’, but that is void of human action, meaning, people make deliberate choices in order to achieve an end and I, for one, choose that an increase in property rights is all that is necessary to achieve anarchy. To wait and see doesn’t even involve talking or persuasion. It’s an indifferent approach which is impossible for humans to actually take, ie. human action.
For instance Sage brought up earlier how anarchy needs to be sustained and why? because in order to keep whatever it is we want there is an effort involved. To not explain in terms of human action, people having goals and using means to achieve them, sounds too much like sitting and watching the world go by without breathing (no action). I believe, I might be wrong, but this is what Brainpolice has also been arguing too in this thread and Sage. There is a spectrum of voices on this issue. But it’s interesting watching this conversation develop.
And exactly at what point is this proposition absurd?
To me, it is reducing away the concept of at least some territorial monopoly away to nothing.
Adam,
Gave the article a read, it’s good, and I agree with it. I also found worth noting that it only dissovles the hypothetical state down to minarchy, which avoids the issue I had with the concept of panarchy.
Hi Jackson
I don’t think you’re seeing what I’m saying exactly.
I’m talking more about actually establishing the very beginning of a co-existing community, as opposed to talking or writing about it.
Here, it’s not the “size” that is important. I’m not really referring to the volume, magnitude, or extension of liberty.
What I’m trying to get across is actually establishing a coexisting community. It’s the principle I’m trying to get at, not the “size”.
My point is that in doing that which is do-able, and doing it nonterritorially and voluntarily, that an actual community could be established in the not too distant future.
You are talking about something else. You are talking about the entire abstract conception of a future libertarian society. What you are discussing is an idea where libertarians try to abstractly conceive all the details of all their relationships at some future point in time, essentially separate from any choices that people make. In other words, and entire abstract construction of a libertarian society where all we have to do is plug in the individuals, and they can start moving around in the society we have all designed here on the forum.
I’m not talking about the conception of libertarianism as an academic movement seeking to construct an abstract libertarian legal structure, that once we all agree on it, we are then permitted to move forward, and each occupy the positions we have previously created through argument.
I’m not talking about a grand plan that one can implement incrementally.
I’m talking about something that if it were done, there would be two communities. At that very instant, the beginnings of a panarchist world will have begun. That will be an entirely different world. When that happens, the world will have changed, irreversibly, forever.
You are talking about something else entirely.