I’ve posted threads about my political theory, Divarchy, at least once already. It’s a system where each political party holds their own governmental powers, like infrastructure, defense, congress, etc.
What if this system was suddenly put into action in a country abundant with natural resources and fresh water, but with NO infrastructure in place, along with a population that fully complied with the system? I suggest a possible outcome:
1: The parties are formed and established areas of civilizations, or “starter towns.” This includes party-funded houses, roads, etc.
2: Each party can decide to either expand the starter town by themselves, in an authoritarian fashion, or by private enterprise, depending on their policies.
From there, the people can decide to live on either public or private enterprise. The anarchists are happy with a lack of government, if they so choose, and the governmental fat cats are satisfied too.
Yes, but they are rather similar. While a panarchy consists of several governments, a divarchy is more specific than a panarchy, because each system is run by 1 coherent party. How each party is organized affects how their governments are run.
Very true. However, even though it wouldn’t be a monopoly over ALL the citizens, it would be a monopoly over all party members. Not as good as the first situation for monopolists, but the latter would still have substantial power.
Divarchies limit the governments to be 1 party systems, instead of mixed organizations. Therefore, all divarchies are panarchies, but not vice versa.
I believe a self-reliant free market is the best, but it’s not like everyone agrees with me; some believe in collectivism, be it libertarian or fascist. My proposed system is supposed to satisfy both statists, anarchists, and all in between.
A panarchy has several different governments, right? These governments could be run by different parties working together, as if some Democrats and Republicans could work together to form The Texas Defense Agency (just as an example). A divarchy doesn’t let the parties work together under the same government, but rather compete for the most members, or possibly work together against a third party. That would mean there would be a Democrat Defense Agency of Texas and a Republican counterpart.
The more I read and the more you explain, the more it sounds like lipstick on a pig. I don’t think you understand what a government is. It’s a monopoly. If you have people competing, and the government doesn’t have monopoly over anything, then it’s just a market. Divarchy sounds like some of the zany monetary ideas which get posted here by people bound and determined to find a better way for fiat to work, instead of acknowledging that fiat is the problem.
So either your system is a free market or it isn’t. And if it itsn’t, then it’s just a matter of semantics how much better it is than what we have. Like whether monarchy is better than democracy or communism better than fascism.
You’re right, the way this works is more like a market than a government because it’s like hiring a private defense agency, only it covers more than defense. And just like in a free market, you can choose not to support a PDA either, you can leave it whenever you wish.
Sure, you can make a theoretical divide between the two. What matters, however, is that in reality all markets are only free to a certain extent. What matters is finding that arrangement that works best.
With that wording, you seem to imply the possibility of socialism, and you also sound as an utilitarian (don’t know if you’re, though). I’d rather say:
“What matters, however, is that in reality all markets are only free to a certain extent. What matters is the arrangement that is the freest.”
