It sounds as if he really didn’t mean moral at all.
Not necessarily, it really depends on the individual, Gene Callahan, Stephen Kinsella, and Bob Murphy have been going back and fourth over this. You could hold that, while immoral, its still necessary. Others could hold that if its necessary its ipso facto not immoral.
Pan -archism means multiple states - panarchists are statists.
I don’t think so. It’s meant as governing without territory. That’s specifically not a state, and simply a free market in security and other things.
I don’t think so. Pan - archy it not the same thing as no - archy.
From what I just linked:
“The truth is that there is not enough of the right kind of freedom, the fundamental freedom to choose to be free or not to be free, according to one’s preference…Thus I demand, for each and every member of human society, freedom of association according to inclination and of activity according to aptitude. In other words, the absolute right to choose the political surroundings in which to live, and to ask for nothing else.”[1]
That’s what the person who coined the term means with it, and it is precisely capitalism grounded in anarchy, i.e. anarcho-capitalism.
Also:
Panarchy is a conceptual term first coined by the Belgian botanist and economist Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, referring to a specific form of governance (-archy) that would encompass (pan-) all others .[1]
So it is a form of governance that includes all other forms of governance, including self-governance.
I take it you didn’t read the original ?
Rambling and inconsistent - doesn’t have much to do with a free society of self-governing individuals.