What is panarchy?
Submitted by atrickpay on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 15:37
Michael Rozeff explains in his new article, The Essentials of Panarchism:
"Panarchism is a new political philosophy that builds upon and extends the core concept of consent of the governed, which goes back primarily to John Locke."
Click here to continue reading.
»
Someone is trying to bring panarchy to New Jersey
Not much here, but it bears watching: www.panarchy-sj.com
Bump
Rozeff is dependable and accurate. One of my favorites at Lew Rockwell.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff-arch.html
Good stuff! Its not flawed,
Good stuff!
Its not flawed, what's flawed is one group assuming authority over another, or assuming they have the right to take the property or fruits of labor of others because of some majority vote, color of law etc.
It all amounts to theft and tyranny. What this article describes is the only true form of government there ought to be. Will it happen? Doubtful since most people are stupid, selfish, and willing to employ others to enforce thier tyranny.
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
i'm waiting for the day when
i'm waiting for the day when corporations finally declare sovereignty.
The point of panarchy is the ability to choose...
ones own government without having to move.
Unfortunately that 'system' (I use that word loosely) is flawed. It presumes two things:
Obviously these two things-- that I remind you, are essential for Panarchy to function properly-- are not universally true, and therefore, unfortunately, render 'Panarchy' an unusable (though enticing) theoretical system of governance.
If one wishes to see Panarchy work properly, these two essential elements of Panarchy must be forced upon all of the 'sub-governments' coexisting under the umbrella of panarchy-- this in turn implies the need for a central authority to force these basic laws upon the 'sub-governments' operating over the geographic area that decides to have a 'Panarchistic Society.'
In short-- A central authority, endowed with ability to use force upon its sub-governments, and their citizens must exist in order to create a 'Panarchistic Society'; the only feasible way to create a 'Panarchy' friendly environment is to endow a Minarchy with the responsibility to oversee and enforce the basic principles essential to having a 'Panarchistic Society' and then organizing the various 'Sub-Governments' (read States) underneath it in a federation.
For a modern day (and horribly eroded) example of 'Panarchy,' see the United States of America-- for a decent example of what sort of charter should Govern the 'Minarchist' government that must preside over such a setup of 'equal states' please see the United States Constitution (Remember please read it literally and do not interpret the General Welfare and Commerce clauses to give carte blanc to the Federal Government).
*Note* Yes, even if we made the minimalist interpretive assumptions about the aforementioned clauses the Constitution would require some reworking to be the ideal 'Panarchy friendly' minarchy, but its a good start.
*Note* I'm by and large simply regurgitating a post I made the last time you broached the subject of Panarchy. You failed to comment last time and, given our previous arguments over Minarchy and Panarchy, I suspect you simply didn't see it.
reply
If you believe in the theory of private property, then individuals do own their own land free and clear. The allodial title just means that a group of thugs (ie. politicians) are coming in and violating your ownership.
I don't think that follows. Under panarchy, socialists would be free to bind themselves in a socialist State (that doesn't allow for individual property ownership).
I completely disagree. The big-government Federalists' Constitution usurped the notion of government by consent.
I must not have seen it. Thx for posting.
reply to ye olde reply
Owning an Allodial title means that you own your property in full-- anything less than an allodial title constitutes partial ownership or renting. Most people don't have allodial titles, hence they don't own their land: the state does. The so called 'property owners' simply purchased the right to do specific things with some land owned by the state-- in return they promise to pay taxes, not pollute, and generally abide by the will of the true property owner, the state.
Examine the case where individuals buy the rights to a book for the purpose of making a movie, or a video game. They don't own the intellectual property that constitutes the novel, they simply own the right to use part of the intellectual property.
Belief in, and a clear understanding of, private property rights does not preclude the belief that individuals can purchase rights rather than an object outright. In fact, if one truly believes in Property Rights, and the sanctity of contract then scenarios involving 'partial' ownership are a very real possibility.
(I use the term 'partial ownership' loosely to imply the ownership of certain rights as opposed to outright ownership of an object.)
Of course it does. If I stupidly join a system of government that dictates that I can't own my land, then I would no longer 'own' my land as far as my government is concerned. At that point how do I take my land with me if (read when) I decide that I dislike the state I've bound myself to? I can't, the land is no longer mine. In essence the Panarchistic society has been ruined because the rules of one of its sub governments preclude the outright ownership of property-- Which is the fundamental legal basis for right of self determination under the Panarchistic system.
Once I join a government that does not allow for property ownership I'm trapped in a 'love it or leave it' situation. How is that any different from the sort of choice I'm forced to make in a non-panarchistic society?
No government ever actively promotes 'government by consent' as that is the definition of anarchy. Governments promote 'government by general consent' and Panarchy is not any different. In fact, it is a great deal worse than most western forms of government (I pick on the western ones because I don't know much about the 'non-western' ones). Panarchy, by its very definition allows individuals to declare themselves despots, I mean the Constitution has problems, but it respects certain basic rights and there is something to be said for that. (I'm talking about in language, not in implementation).
reply
Sure I can agree with that.
Agree.
Yup, that's sure a dilemma for the meatheads that take that path! They'll have to fight the State to get their property back.
In one respect--you chose at the outset to join that government.
That is much different that the current society where you cannot make that initial choice.
Interesting concept, think
Interesting concept, think Amercans have to courage to take necessary steps to acheive this or are they too well trained by the government?
I think many Americans are trained like elephants. When an elephant is young they bind the young elephant's leg with rope, which it tugs at until it realizes it cannot be broken. As it grows the elephant continues to believe it cannot break the rope, eventhough it has grown much stronger and could easily do so. Americans are trained the same way with the public education system, then grow up believing that it is useless to try to break free from the system eventhough they really don't need it.
grant
panarchy is...
a cook who has usurped the position of head chef. Among other things that they do is substitute margarine for butter and powdered milk for fresh milk. In the end, the kitchen is left to cooking meals on aluminum foil over an open fire while the utensils, pots, pans, and kitchen equipment is removed and reinstalled in the cooks own personal home.
Sorry, just a little dizzy over here!
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
Lol
I'm not sure I follow that.
Hes saying...
All Panarchy does is allow second rate punks to have a crack at running an oppressive state and transfers the 'tools' of oppression into the 'home' (IE each smaller sub governments).
At least that's what I get out of it ;)
Man I'm smart and didn't even...
know it. Of course even a idiot can get it right once in a while. dlind you can see through all the bull I threw out there and make it worth while. Are you perhaps looking for a job as a translator? I, as you can see, am in need of some brains. However I do love it when a joke comes together! (A-team reference for any of those who care to know)
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
You aren't supposed to...
just don't eat at that restaurant.
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority