Did you read the original presentation of panarchy ? http://web.archive.org/web/20071111152004/http://www.panarchy.org/depuydt/1860.eng.html
Well, do you think that panarchy assumes a common/universal understanding of property rights ? Or else panarchy means that different ‘governments’ provide their own definitions ?
In the first case you have libertarianism and on top of it a second layer of ‘voluntary government’ which seems to be a pretty odd construction.
In the second case you have what we have now. A system where individuals are at the mercy of the ‘majority’ or at the mercy of the better organized criminal associations.
No.
It does.
Voluntary adherence to any society is a respect of the liberty of any one person, so, there again the root issue comes up again. But I answered “No” to the first question so this therefore differs from what you said here.
yes
yes or it could go the other way, a system at the mercy of liberty-lovers. The world is dynamic.
Thus why I don’t like the term panarchy. It’s an attempt to make a static definition of the world without an acknowledgement of what an individual may desire ala liberty.
BUT if panarchy is defined simply in what I see it to mean, ie. pan-theory, then it does accomplish defining the world in terms of anarchy but not in terms of liberty and the pursuit of justice. Panarchy is void in quarreling with injustice. It is void of an individuals motive. It simply says, here’s justice, here’s injustice and panarchy takes note of both of these existing. But it’s void of motive of the act of justice. It’s a positivist, sterile theory in my opinion. Because there are various theories based on property and communism is one of them. But if somebody wants to live under communism in anarchy so be it, but obviously their application of a flawed theory on property/scarcity will cause unnecessary problems for such a society.
I don’t understand this. If someone allows you to opt out of their welfare state, how are they a non-libertarian?
And on the “tolerance” issue, the heart of the matter seems to be this: Would your panarchist legal system tolerate the existence of non-panarchist legal systems?
I tried to read it, but it is written in a torturous manner. Is there a shorter version that isn’t based in this annoying and needlessly verbose style?
Also, I think you know what people here mean by panarchy. If you do not, I think we can reference this,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff300.html
which I am sure you have read before.
So, if we understand what I mean by panarchy, can you;
- verify we are talking about the same thing
and
- explain your issues with my conception (if you have any)
Thanks.
LS,
Taken from that link:
“Panarchy is a condition of human relations in which each person is at liberty to choose his own social and political governance without being coerced. Panarchy means that persons may enter into and exit from social and political relations freely. It means that government exists only with the consent and by the consent of the governed.”
If that’s what in essence panarchy means, then that’s what I mean by the natural right of liberty.
The only quarrel I have with this concept is some people, and I haven’t seen you do it but others here in this forum that advocate panarchy, take it as a theory void of motive. What I mean by that is it does boil down to consent or voluntarism, etc…, but some people thereby don’t want to uphold that position because in panarchy there can be people that are criminally minded so if that’s how they want to live, ie. criminally minded, then that’s fine because it is panarchy of course. It’s a theory of panarchy void of passion (motive). AJ will say that he desires, but then will argue against somebody that desires natural rights. How is that panarchy? AJ, in my opinion, has never been a good spokesman for what panarchy means. He usually slides into some quibble about ‘words are not thoughts’ and usually doesn’t comes back to a discussion.
So if the above is essentially panarchy (that which I quoted) then I have no quarrel with it.
well, thats simply a libertarian anarchy with a letter P in front of the anarchy.
I know.
And I don’t get it either. It is a name change like those previously named Austrians economists who changed their website name.
edit: Also notice in the first sentence the definition begins with “which each person is at liberty to choose”… ala natural rights. shrugs
Not void of motive. We know that man acts, and thus man has motives. The folks I think you are referring to, as far as I know, do agree with the action axiom.
I believe that this isn’t correct and has lead to a lot of arguments that were unnecessary. Some people may want to live criminally minded, and I do not. And I do not wish to live victim minded either, so we will have conflict (as Rozeff says, utopia is not possible) and will have to resolve it.
I would strongly disagree. I consider myself a panarchist by this standard, and I am not void of passion. I am incredibly passionate (sometimes to my detriment).
I think AJ can do a poor job of explaining himself some times, but to think he could be the spokesman for something polycentric doesn’t seem quite right to me.
I know. [:)]
i don’t think I explained this very well. What I meant by the void of motive has more to do with your next response so I’ll address that there.
The motive aspect is referring to the act of resolution, ie. “resolve it”. As you say so do I: I do not wish to live victim minded. The act of justice is motivated by the individual who is in the act of bringing resolution. I don’t see justice working any other way, other than individuals either supporting or directly involved in the acting out of justice. And without justice, ie. bringing resolution, then moral agents will be spinning wheels forever. And to bring justice doesn’t mean ‘go after the bastards’. It can mean going quietly along staying focused on ones family and finding ways to keep the ones individual niche in the market humming along. It doesn’t have to be that exciting like going off to find the holy grail full of adventures slaying the dragon and rescuing damsels in distress. I think sometimes people think there has to be all this excitement and making change today kinda thing. I think it’s being patient and sustaining what good I already have and possibly more good may come along and I will be thankful.
Ok. In what I wrote in the previous response may entail why I wrote void of passion. But you like justice, or want to find ways to make resolutions so you’re not void of passion.
true. ‘spokesman for any group’ that is anarchic is like a tribe having somebody step forward saying they are the chief. there really were no chiefs.
I think I understand this. And I agree with the following caveat (if it is not implict). Justice is not a universal notion. What you think is just may differ from what I think is just. The way we resolve issues of justice where definitions differ are through negotiation, compromise, compensation and finally through violent conflict.
The lesson from people like Hoppe is that by forcing people with different views under a universal system, conflict is created. Natural order is niche based (perhaps below the feudal level, to the individual level). Panarchy. It is not a singular notion of what is law, property, justice etc. And it is utopian to think that we can achieve such an absolute understanding, because even if we could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, people still have free will to believe otherwise. That is why Christians, Atheists and Buddhists can all think they have it figured out simultaneously. And they could all be wrong and the Hindus might know what they do not.
The trick here being, in a utopian panarchy, people would not think the same thing, they would not act in a manner which causes conflict. And I feel that is the aim of libertarianism. Maybe it is splitting hairs, but the distinction is important to me.
My transformation really occurred between D. Friedman and Nassim Taleb. I stopped seeing morality exclusively as an intellectual argument and began to appreciate that my morals are limited by my capacity to perceive reality. Just as people thought slavery was natural order for 1000s of years, our perception of what is natural order cannot account for unknown unknowns, and so the idea of absolutes, while comforting and somewhat reliable, might not withstand the test of time.
Yep. No disrespect to AJ. I think he knows I think a lot of him and his ability to reason.
Tell us more about your journey. Like what kind of anarchy were you imagining when you were an anarchist but not a libertarian?
I added/subtracted one or two words to show my interpretation, but this was good stuff, LS. Should be posted (& elaborated?) @ NT, honestly.
Would make for a perfect swan song before a long period of inactivity 
yes. And to me, ‘motive’ entails motivation to uphold what one believes. Liberty is less of an active force than justice, I mean, when I am simply refraining, ie. negative liberty, it’s more passive than say justice which involves resolution. Resolution isn’t refraining. While I refrain, ie. negative liberty, I may not argue at all (and if one puts the burden of proof on me it would be a negative proof fallacy). But justice, though not as necessarily as passive as negative liberty, it does not mean that justice only involves violence. As you say here justice involves: “negotiation, compromise (not of principles I add as a caveat), compensation…” and yes if need be self-defense. Cause it would not be considered just if the violence was initiated.
true, but if property is violated, then there is good cause to seek out the violaters as criminals. This all is natural rights and the result called anarchy given another name called panarchy.
that’s the result of liberty, ie. natural rights.
that’s a personal episteme change in your perspective. Knowledge will always change how principles are used. This really is how I’ve always thought about this. I’ve thought liberty results in free-thinkers. That’s the whole idea behind not being aggressed against. The path to discovery is thereby kept open and not hindered by unnecessary violence. The discussion on natural rights for me has always been the bulwark to maintain all the lively, creativity in the human spirit if let unturnished by violence can reach a potential yet unknown. Talking about protecting natural rights for me has always been the activity meant for the front lines, close to conflict and how to resolve the conflict in a moral way. But it’s what’s happening back home, away from the front lines, that’s what all this protection of natural rights is about. The real meat and potatoes of what is worth protecting is all the various paths each individual will walk in life doing all kinds of things that are creative and unique.
I think focusing on the absoluteness of natural rights as life’s path, is, to forget that there is way more to life than constantly needing to protect it. Protecting life is a little detail. The bigger picture is what is being protected. And that’s considerably unique for each person, tree, house, and so much else in this world. The worldviews and paths in life (the what is being protected) is the much larger picture. Natural rights for me are the fringe activity taken up, hopefully in time, less and less, because I don’t want to have to constantly need to protect life - but - rather live the life that is being protected.
Some economists I think also get too narrow on this point too. To be value-free becomes a life’s path. It becomes only what life is about for them. But I think dressing up life and applying/labeling all sort of values on different aspects of life, non-violently, can be fun and creative.
it’s a good perspective to have and I’m glad you have that.
I know what panarchy means, and I provided the original source. If you don’t want to read it fine. I wonder though, how you can talk about panarchy despite not having read the pertinent material.
lol. ultra-cheap moral relativism.
Exactly [:D] I think the reason for the theory of panarchy in the first place, as somehow different from anarchy or AnCap, is that so far there has been this underlying sense that, for example, all private courts would be dispensing some basic law template, and that the competition would only be between providers of this service, not between legal systems.
A panarchist legal system is not an entity so it can’t “tolerate” anything, only individuals can. That’s essentially asking if each individual would allow themselves to be drafted into a legal system without their consent, and I think the answer is no, people would probably not accept that once the precedent for voluntary association was firmly in place.
The same way someone can understand the action axiom without reading Human Action and the study guide.
I can read it, but it will be painful, and I asked you for something more accommodating. My time is relatively short.
Not really. It’s about an appreciation for epistemology. There was a time before you knew about libertarianism, that you may have believed something which was not libertarian. Well, maybe not you because you seem to see everything in absolutes, but for many of us, this is a process of learning, understanding and contributing new ideas. I was not born a radical anarchist. YMMV.
Thanks for the reply. I want to give it its due, so I may not reply until later today or tomorrow, but I will endeavour to reply in good time.
@Nitro, thank you very much. We’ve been kindred spirits for some time now. But time to blog? Ha!