0 votes

What do you think of the political theory of panarchy?

This is an interesting theory of government that I came across from reading some of Michael Rozeff's articles on LRC.
Its basic tenet is that people should be free to choose their own type of government.

So, liberals would be free to choose a welfare state;
conservatives would be free to have their police state;
constitutionalists would be free to have a limited government;
libertarians would be free to have self-government, etc.

This has some very interesting implications for us in the freedom movement...

For example, constitutionalists shouldn't force their own ideal of limited government over everybody in the geographical area currently known as the USA.

They should work towards secession from the US government. They should establish constitutional government on the territory(ies) that they themselves possess.

What do you think?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Forgive me, maybe I misunderstand...

...but how could interactions between governments even possibly always work out. What if fascopolis felt that their neighbors in libertania were too unruly and dangerous. I don't know how well the nations could relate. I also see issues with land and other natural resources (especially something like emission regulations).

"Freedom is popular"
-Ron Paul

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

"Freedom is popular"
-Ron Paul

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

I agree

I agree.

Government should be by consent.

new website on panarchy

Take a look here. www.panarchy-sj.com

I like my panarchies with maple syrup.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Live like you mean it ..... Your life is your own !

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Stop the NWO....It's just illumi..Naughty !

Simply put

If you choose a government you will not be free.

Thats a close analysis, but

Thats a close analysis, but panarchy, actually doesn't seperate land. You would have the obama followers as next door neighbors. You just wouldn't pay taxes to their ruler of choice. A closer description would be freedom of political leader in the same way that we are free to choose our church or cell phone service.

Basically it would just mean figure out what you would need a government to do, and get a group of friends together, and start doing it. Those who have a different view than you on what government needs to do can organize and do their own thing.

Federalism would basically

Federalism would basically be this concept in action.

Ventura 2012

We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Wasn't panarchy what the founding father's laid out in our countries first constitution called the Articles of Confederation? Basically each State was to have the right to government themselves without a coersive Federal government. Of course the Articles were replaced by the Constitution which also had a panarchic flare.
This year we will be celebrating 222 years for a document that no longer is recognized by our government as having any real purpose, and it doesn't look like the 111th congress is going to do anything to change things. Where is the change!

nothing new here

This has already been hashed out at the first Continental Congress years ago ..READ WILL YOU ?

Discribes today's political environment

I live in a county in CA that has legalized marijuana. NV has counties with legalized propstitution, states have casions is some counties and not in others...

Not quite

If there was true panarchy, you'd be able to secede from the rule of the CA government.

Panarchy's Achilles Heel: Land

Gustave de Molinari, "On the Production of Security" (1849):

Let us imagine a new-born society: the men who compose it are busy working and exchanging the fruits of their labour. A natural instinct reveals to these men that their persons, the land they occupy and cultivate, the fruits of their labour, are their property, and that no one, except themselves, has the right to dispose of or touch this property. This instinct is not hypothetical; it exists. But man being an imperfect creature, this awareness of the right of everyone to his person and his goods will not be found to the same degree in every soul, and certain individuals will make criminal attempts, by violence or by fraud, against the persons or the property of others.

Any society that neglects the process by which a young man acquires "land they occupy and cultivate" and then classifies as "criminal" those young men who do whatever it takes for their biological survival is doomed to violence.

Land is a natural right.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

panarchy is anarchy in disguise

The non-aggression axiom states - no one may initiate (or threaten) force on another person or their property.

The only way that this can be followed is through anarchy (absence of coercive government).

I define coercive government as one which maintains a monopoly on domestic defense and court services and enforces coercive taxation.

In anarchy, some people may choose to consent to taxes or to socialism or to rule of the majority (democracy) -- therefore it's not coercive. It's only coercive when you force it on others.

Panarchy limits itself to personal secession as a means

I guess the difference, then, lies in how each would be achieved. Panarchy leaves the current government in place, but arises beside it, within the territory formally governed exclusively by the original government. Anarchy could come about by the destruction of the current government as well as by other means. Panarchists never seek the destruction of any government, but only that they let us go. The distinction comes back to the insistence by panarchists that the only proper means to bring about anarchy is through personal secession.

my mistake

Thanks for pointing that out. You're right. What I should have said was that both anarchy and panarchy follow the non-aggression axiom.

anarchy not necessarily non-aggressive

I would have to disagree with your last statement. There is nothing inherently non-agressive in anarchy. Panarchy is, by definition, non-agressive. Historically, anarchists have often used violence to achieve their aim of removing government from society, hence the somewhat negative impression most people have with the term. Libertarians generally understand it in its most technical and literal sense: a lack of government structure within society, where it does not carry the same negative baggage.

You're wrong about anarchy.

There is nothing inherently aggressive about anarchy. You are repeating what you've been told about people and organizations that were labeled 'anarchist' by the 'established mainstream' press and government.

you misunderstood

I did not say anarchists are "inherently aggressive". I said they are not inherently non-aggressive. These are two quite different things. Panarchy is inherently non-aggressive. Most today who call themselves anarchists are non-aggressive as well, though non-aggression cannot be said to be a quality of anarchy per se.

I agree...

Being an anarchist basically means not submitting yourself to the authority of another man.
I have always thought hierarchism to be a strange system, men who willingly take orders from other men, saluting, bowing down, getting down on one's knees. To be submissive to another man's will sounds a little weird to me. Perhaps it is a homosexual trait? That's fine, everyone has the right to choose their own lifestyle, as long as I don't have to participate.
NWO = Neo-Woman Order


I have always thought hierarchism to be a strange system, men who willingly take orders from other men, saluting, bowing down, getting down on one's knees. To be submissive to another man's will sounds a little weird to me. Perhaps it is a homosexual trait?


What is different about panarchy?

Panarchy is about the right of every individual to decide for themselves which governments will represent them, and which will not. It is, in essence, about personal secession. It starts with the individual human being, and recognizes a human right that governments today, universally, do not recognize: the right to "exit in place", to renounce ones membership in any organization in human society, including government at every level, and not have to relocate to do it.

By extension, it also recognizes the right of every human being to choose to live under any form of government known to man. No person can dictate to another what form of government (including no form of government) they may be a part of, or where they can belong to it. As a result, governments become non-territorial, in the sense that, while identifying for themselves a geographical scope within which they wish to work, they do not claim in any way a monopoly of government over that territory, but share it with others. An easy way to envision this is to compare it to the situation with churches today. While a particular Presbyterian church may service the Presbyterians within a certain geographical area, the Baptists in that same area are served by the local Baptist church, and so on. No church claims to serve (and demand income from) all the residents of a particular geographical area. Yet this is exactly how governments now operate.

Other than the argument for panarchy that arises from the consideration of human rights, there is also a practical argument. Governments today operate in certain ways, but not all people are satisfied with the results. (Do I have a gift for understatement, or what?) The logical correction to this situation would be to allow experimentation, utilizing the genius of people to discover and create new and better ways. The claim of monopoly by governments everywhere stifles this natural gift of creativity. So long as that creativity does not include the use of coercion on others, it can be very useful. Imagine trying to cure cancer by repeating the same experiment over and over, hoping for a different and useful outcome. Clearly, to find the cure for cancer, scientists need the ability to try new things. The same goes for finding better ways for human beings to live together in peace.

Eventually All

The chickens come home to roost in the warmest henhouse.

..Or the one with no fox in front.

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...


good one.......i think my grandpa used to say something like that....but it was a weasel instead of a fox!

This is actually somewhat

This is actually somewhat how the United States was designed, in my opinion.

The founders were very free market oriented and that extended to government. The central / federal government was only supposed to protect the States militarily + some other stuff, but most everything else was a States right.

The States are supposed to be in competition with each other. As well all know, competition results in more benefits to the consumer - in this case, the citizens. Lower cost and a better product. If you don't like or agree with your state, you can easily move to another.

The best states would have the most citizen support, therefore the most resources, etc, etc.

In addition to that, people would gravitate towards the States that they agree with from a political point of view. States could not interfere with your travel, so you would be free to leave and go to where the grass is greener.

With the majority of our government being centralized, there is less and less differentiating between the states. Less state competition means lower quality and higher costs, because there is no need to compete. Too bad that this version is closer to our reality in the U.S.


There might have been panarchy...

at one point in the history of the geography now known as the US. Possibly pre-Articles and pre-Constitution...

But the problem with the US Constitution, as Rozeff points out, is that newborns are coercively bound into it. They are not permitted to secede when they become of age to start "making their own decisions."

So, even if the parents (say some time back in the 1700's) voluntary chose to live under the US Constitution (+ the respective state constitution), their child might not. That child (when it "grows up") does not have the freedom to set up a different form of government on his/her property. Panarchy is denied.

What exactly would be the purpose of setting up your

own form of government on your own property?

I'm a little confused by this one. in fact, humor me: watch this video, slide to 13:00 and watch up to the customs scene. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3381690932443008214&...


Humans generally want to control their own lives. Thus, it should follow that they want to be able to live under the type of government that they find best.

That is the aim of panarchy.
ps. thx for the video link. It was kinda funny.

So my house is minarchist and my neighbor is fascist and the

guy across the street is pro-democracy.

Yep, that will work.


"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."
- G. W. Bush

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

Would it play out like that in practice?

It is of course possible. But I don't think it's at all likely. Why?

Well, it probably wouldn't be economically feasible to have a collective government (ie, republic, democracy, monarchy, etc) at the household level. For economic reasons, they would probably need to be spread out on larger territories.

Furthermore, what benefit does a liberal (who wants a welfare state) get from having just a government of their own household? Remember, they want to be able to redistribute wealth within a sizable population.