Brainpolice:It seems to me that to take the attitude of relativism is to cut the ground from underneath the anti-state position. And a culture of anti-authoritarianism *is* the ground underneath the anti-state position, which is to say that anti-statism is just a conclusion and consequence of something else rather than an end in and of itself. Political conditions arise out of culture, not vice versa.
Not as I conceive it. My position is fairly subtle. Although it's an old post from when I first discovered libertarianism, I think the gist of the argument is laid out fairly well in the link in my sig. I didn't mentioned anti-authoritarianism as one of the I.D.E.A. factors (the factors determining whether a spontaneous order will develop into a state or not) because I think that sentiment comes and goes through the ages, but the other factors are steadily increasing and have virtually exploded in relatively recent history.
Why anarchy fails
Brainpolice:Normativity itself isn't necessarily imposition. This is a fallacy that I see popping up over and over again - the conflation of the idea of normative preconditions for the realizability of a goal and top-down imposition or central planning. If I say that you won't achieve X without Y, that X emerges out of Y, and proceed to advocate Y, it doesn't follow that I'm proposing a top-down plan. The whole point is that the end in question can only be realized as a bottom-up consequence of normative preconditions. Freedom doesn't occur in a normative and cultural vacuum. A completely ungrounded anti-statism, with no larger context and sprinkled with normative relativism, is not "the best we can do", let alone a realistic concept of freedom.
Well, you're obviously not for forcing people to accept your system, but rather for winning them over to a normative viewpoint through argumentation. Yes, normativity isn't necessarily imposition, and it would be fallacious to assert otherwise. The reason I think Clayton wrote this post, and why I make the arguments that I do, is that there is a kind of undercurrent in the past few decades in libertarianism that seems to underemphasize the fact that in the end there can be no imposition of any concrete order. The argument is fleshed out powerfully by Adam Knott here.
As far as I can tell, the kind of normativity you are advocating is not meant to be taken to task by of any of these kinds of posts.
However, if all that is now cleared up, I would like to nudge that perhaps the most efficient use of resources (whatever those may be for each person involved) might be toward breaking the monopoly on law, as Clayton mentions. I think he's basically saying, and I agree, that everything else pales in comparison to issue of the monopoly on law. Moreover, once you eliminate the monopoly on law I bet just about everything you want to improve in a thicker libertarian program will come as an automatic bonus. And finally, I suggest that whatever changes wouldn't come as a bonus (if any) wouldn't be automatically forthcoming precisely because those aspects are firmly ingrained in human nature or in the culture of present society, so would be very hard to change. That said, the other benefits of lack of statism would surely facilitate you achieving those extra thick-libertarian goals far more easily. All in all, my position is one of fairly thoroughgoing optimism if we even once reach a state of statelessness.
AJ: Here's another way to think about about: The State developed when human beings were in worse conditions, less educated, less economically interconnected, less informationally interconnected (the Internet), less technologically advanced (personal firearms!), and everything I mention in the article linked in my sig. My main point is that States did develop spontaneously in the past, but we could be living in a society where a spontaneous anarchic order could now be feasible for exactly those reasons. It might be merely the inertia of Statism that is keeping us in this condition. And if not, minarchy would be the best solution - a possibility that I concede but give a less than 1% probability. The big three things that changed back in the heyday of state formation might be guns, the marginal revolution, and the Internet. (Someone with more historical knowledge can probably make the case better than I can.)
Here's another way to think about about: The State developed when human beings were in worse conditions, less educated, less economically interconnected, less informationally interconnected (the Internet), less technologically advanced (personal firearms!), and everything I mention in the article linked in my sig.
My main point is that States did develop spontaneously in the past, but we could be living in a society where a spontaneous anarchic order could now be feasible for exactly those reasons. It might be merely the inertia of Statism that is keeping us in this condition. And if not, minarchy would be the best solution - a possibility that I concede but give a less than 1% probability. The big three things that changed back in the heyday of state formation might be guns, the marginal revolution, and the Internet. (Someone with more historical knowledge can probably make the case better than I can.)
Good point AJ, but even with the technological advances in today's society, I think people would naturally cluster together for any number of reasons (conducting trade, starting business, common defense, etc.). These initially voluntary groups might monopolize a geographic territory, and "set up shop"; establish a community. Of course, one might still be able to secede, but I find it hard to imagine that the rest of the folks would let him say "I secede, but I'm staying right here". I can't imagine why they wouldn't boot his buns out of the walls and into the "wilderness" (as the bible puts it).
At what point does this become a state, rather than a voluntary cooperative village? Would this still be considered an anarchy, or a panarchy?
AJ:I would like to nudge that perhaps the most efficient use of resources (whatever those may be for each person involved) might be toward breaking the monopoly on law, as Clayton mentions. I think he's basically saying, and I agree, that everything else pales in comparison to issue of the monopoly on law. Moreover, once you eliminate the monopoly on law I bet just about everything you want to improve in a thicker libertarian program will come as an automatic bonus.
Interesting point. This makes a lot of sense when viewed from an incrementalist standpoint. Take voting for instance. Voting may ultimately be a dictatorship of the majority imposed upon the minority, but if you are the majority, you can impose your will upon the area of jurisdiction. You can break the monopoly on law, by hijacking the state apparatus to repeal laws from the state, which are of themselves monopolistic. The state monopoly disappears from every facet of society you remove a law from.
AJ:To assume that "seeing what happens in anarchy" is not enough, or that it will result in Statism, is to cut the ground from underneath the anti-state position.
But that's exactly my point: "just seeing what happens" is not enough to maintain anarchy.
AJ:You cannot impose your preferred system without some kind of minarchy.
No. I can impose a system based on the NAP without leading to minarchy, since a system based on the NAP by definition rules out the possibility of minarchy.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage: Brainpolice:Since any notion of cultural preconditions for freedom has been scrapped, it is forced into an attitude of tolerance towards any non-libertarian social order that "emerges", which logically includes any form of state. This is panarchism. Yeah, I can't make any sense out of panarchism. For example, John Zube writes: Anarchists want the State ABOLISHED, either by revolutions or by reforms or non-violent actions. Panarchists want to abolish only 2 of its most important and coercive features: Territorialism and compulsory membership. They would leave the rest up to individual choice. Okay, but territorialism and compulsory membership just are the defining features of the state. If you abolish those, then you've thereby abolished the state, and are actually an anarchist.
Brainpolice:Since any notion of cultural preconditions for freedom has been scrapped, it is forced into an attitude of tolerance towards any non-libertarian social order that "emerges", which logically includes any form of state. This is panarchism.
This is panarchism.
Yeah, I can't make any sense out of panarchism. For example, John Zube writes:
Anarchists want the State ABOLISHED, either by revolutions or by reforms or non-violent actions. Panarchists want to abolish only 2 of its most important and coercive features: Territorialism and compulsory membership. They would leave the rest up to individual choice.
Okay, but territorialism and compulsory membership just are the defining features of the state. If you abolish those, then you've thereby abolished the state, and are actually an anarchist.
Sage:
Very good point.
Though I consider myself a panarchist, and though I agree with John Zube regarding tolerance and on panarchism as the idea of multiple societies coexisting on a nonterritorial basis, I disagree that panarchism includes any direct attempt to abolish or alter the political forms of others.
This is a point I've made, I believe, in all of my short essays on panarchism.
Right now, it is technically possible for libertarians (anarchists, panarchists, whatever...) to form voluntary communities on the Internet. The example I used recently, was one where we could each attach an invoice to the e-mails we send one another, billing one another a penny per hour for "intellectual services." This would constitute:
A voluntary wage and trade agreement, on a non-territorial basis, coexisting with the wage and trade agreement of the existing state.
This would be, in essence, the emergence of a panarchist society or community, since it would be a coexisting agreement amongst a group of like-minded people, on a nonterritorial basis.
And this kind of community need not entail any actions towards statists or their institutions whatsoever. It also does not entail any attempt to change the political convictions or convictions of conscience of another person or group.
Thus, in my opinion, a weak point in the traditional panarchist position is the very issue you are discussing above. If an attempt is made to abolish someone else's political association, then an attempt is obviously made, not to "co-exist" with that political form, but rather to eradicate it.
As you point out, and I believe rightly so, territorialism and compulsory membership constitute statism. This is exactly correct.
Thus, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, as I see it, our political striving is directed, not at altering or abolishing the political forms of others (as John Zube might write, no matter how "objectively" wrong or bad they may appear from our point of view). Instead, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, the goal is to construct or erect our own political forms side-by-side or coexisting with existing political forms.
As I mentioned, I've been making this point quietly in the short essays I've written about panarchism, believing that the point you raise is the weak point in the panarchist program.
But in the current state of technology, it simply is not necessary to alter or abolish other people's political forms in order for the beginnings of panarchist (libertarian, anarchist, etc....) society to emerge.
Adam
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
Adam Knott:Thus, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, as I see it, our political striving is directed, not at altering or abolishing the political forms of others ... Instead, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, the goal is to construct or erect our own political forms side-by-side or coexisting with existing political forms.
The problem with panarchism is that it runs into the paradox of tolerance. Like relativism, universal tolerance is self-refuting. Constructing political forms that coexist with present political forms is not possible if those political forms are incompatible. For example, anarchism and statism cannot coexist, because whereas anarchism involves everyone choosing their own legal system, statism involves imposing a legal system on everyone. Hence for anarchism to exist, statism must be eradicated, and vice versa.
So I can't see how panarchism is a coherent position.
Sage:For example, anarchism and statism cannot coexist, because whereas anarchism involves everyone choosing their own legal system, statism involves imposing a legal system on everyone.
Why is it necessary to only choose between absolute anarchism and absolute statism? Either option seems unlikely to happen.
Sage: So I can't see how panarchism is a coherent position.
This is an abstract argument referring to further abstract arguments.
But I provided a concrete example.
Sage:The problem with panarchism is that it runs into the paradox of tolerance. Like relativism, universal tolerance is self-refuting.
I didn't know panarchists advocated universal tolerance, I thought it was mutual tolerance.
Angurse: Sage:The problem with panarchism is that it runs into the paradox of tolerance. Like relativism, universal tolerance is self-refuting. I didn't know panarchists advocated universal tolerance, I thought it was mutual tolerance.
Good point Angurse.
Personally, I would even narrow the scope further, though of course each social thinker has their own take.
I don't see it as "demanding" tolerance from those who don't want to show any. I see it as "walking the walk" for panarchists. Panarchists, in order to achieve their goals, must be tolerant. Intolerance may be, and in fact is, a part of other political philosophies.
The most persuasive panarchist aguments I know counsel tolerance by panarchists (and libertarians and anarchists who are open to panarchism) as a means to their ends.
Some panarchists may think in terms of demanding universal tolerance. I don't.
I assume it as a given that there are absolutists and statists who do not want multiple coexisting societies on a nonterritorial basis. Instead, they want the world to be made over in their vision, and for all others to conform to their moral, ethical, and legal ideals.
The panarchist argument as I understand it and advocate it, is that panarchists, to be self-consistent, do not have this luxury.
A demand for universal tolerance is in my opinion inconsistent with panarchist philosophy.
Jackson LaRose:Either option seems unlikely to happen.
What does likeliness of occurring have do with anything?
Adam Knott:This is an abstract argument referring to further abstract arguments. But I provided a concrete example.
Do you have a response to the actual argument I gave?
Angurse:I didn't know panarchists advocated universal tolerance, I thought it was mutual tolerance.
If panarchism does advocate mutual tolerance, then how is that anything different from libertarianism?
Sage:If panarchism does advocate mutual tolerance, then how is that anything different from libertarianism?
If anything its consistent libertarianism, but there are multiple definitions at play here.
Merlin:Or, to go further, do “gangs” spring up in low-security prisons? Schools? Kindergartens? Sports teams? Tourist groups? Extended families? The fact that gangs do spring up in maximum security prisons is to be attributed, perhaps, to the fact that such gangs have an economic purpose outside of prison: continue trafficking.
Collectives (vertical hierarchies) seem to spring up in most groups of human beings at every level. They're called 'gangs' in prison, and different names elsewhere, including in all the examples you listed above, and finally, in 'states'. A horizontal "live and let live" structure seems to be more of an exception than the rule. Or so I have observed.
Z.
AJ: I completely agree, in the sense that the attributes of the units of a spontaneous order necessarily bound the conditions of the order that develops. If you live in a society chock to the brim with thieves, murderers and rapists, the spontaneous order will not be as nice as the one that develops from a society of mostly nice folks. This suggests that states may be inevitable once the average character of each person in the society is below a certain threshold. See the post in my sig for a full explanation of this position.
I completely agree, in the sense that the attributes of the units of a spontaneous order necessarily bound the conditions of the order that develops. If you live in a society chock to the brim with thieves, murderers and rapists, the spontaneous order will not be as nice as the one that develops from a society of mostly nice folks.
This suggests that states may be inevitable once the average character of each person in the society is below a certain threshold. See the post in my sig for a full explanation of this position.
Agreed.
AJ:Here's another way to think about about: The State developed when human beings were in worse conditions, less educated, less economically interconnected, less informationally interconnected (the Internet), less technologically advanced (personal firearms!), and everything I mention in the article linked in my sig.
I agree. But I may be too wary of the "This time it's different!" trap into which many better men have fallen before me. That, and my opinion that the collectivist gene in humans (that has repeatedly over-run and smothered the individualist alternative through history) may take centuries to weaken enough and allow individualism to flourish.
We both agree that the feasibility of anarchy depends on the human agent's model. You're just a bit more optimistic as to what that model is now, and how easily it can be nudged in the "right" direction in the near future.
Sage: Adam Knott:Thus, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, as I see it, our political striving is directed, not at altering or abolishing the political forms of others ... Instead, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, the goal is to construct or erect our own political forms side-by-side or coexisting with existing political forms. The problem with panarchism is that it runs into the paradox of tolerance. Like relativism, universal tolerance is self-refuting. Constructing political forms that coexist with present political forms is not possible if those political forms are incompatible. For example, anarchism and statism cannot coexist, because whereas anarchism involves everyone choosing their own legal system, statism involves imposing a legal system on everyone. Hence for anarchism to exist, statism must be eradicated, and vice versa. So I can't see how panarchism is a coherent position.
I would propose a further paradox of tolerance as it relates to panarchism: namely, that its own ground rules force it to be tolerant of literally any form of statism. And, furthermore, there's the fact that (at least some) of the legal systems that it is tolerant towards are internally intolerant, in that they preclude the possibility of the mutual consent of all of those that live within their domains. So it seems like what one ends up with is tolerance between states which are themselves internally monopolistic.
Panarchism is an incoherant position if it reduces to an attempt to absorb things that are inherently incompatible with anarchism (such as monarchies and representative democracies) into anarchism. The very nature of these political systems are internally non-anarchistic, and panarchism seems to simply insist on having anarchism between states - and yet that's exactly what we already have in terms of the relations between nation-states in the absence of a global state. At best, panarchism minaturizes/localizes and diversifies this.
Brainpolice: Sage: Adam Knott:Thus, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, as I see it, our political striving is directed, not at altering or abolishing the political forms of others ... Instead, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, the goal is to construct or erect our own political forms side-by-side or coexisting with existing political forms. The problem with panarchism is that it runs into the paradox of tolerance. Like relativism, universal tolerance is self-refuting. Constructing political forms that coexist with present political forms is not possible if those political forms are incompatible. For example, anarchism and statism cannot coexist, because whereas anarchism involves everyone choosing their own legal system, statism involves imposing a legal system on everyone. Hence for anarchism to exist, statism must be eradicated, and vice versa. So I can't see how panarchism is a coherent position. I would propose a further paradox of tolerance as it relates to panarchism: namely, that its own ground rules force it to be tolerant of literally any form of statism. And, furthermore, there's the fact that (at least some) of the legal systems that it is tolerant towards are internally intolerant, in that they preclude the possibility of the mutual consent of all of those that live within their domains. So it seems like what one ends up with is tolerance between states which are themselves internally monopolistic. Panarchism is an incoherant position if it reduces to an attempt to absorb things that are inherently incompatible with anarchism (such as monarchies and representative democracies) into anarchism. The very nature of these political systems are internally non-anarchistic, and panarchism seems to simply insist on having anarchism between states - and yet that's exactly what we already have in terms of the relations between nation-states in the absence of a global state. At best, panarchism minaturizes/localizes and diversifies this.
Why not apply the critique you just wrote to the concrete example I provided ?
Brainpolice:I would propose a further paradox of tolerance as it relates to panarchism: namely, that its own ground rules force it to be tolerant of literally any form of statism.
What are its ground rules?
Sage: AJ:To assume that "seeing what happens in anarchy" is not enough, or that it will result in Statism, is to cut the ground from underneath the anti-state position. But that's exactly my point: "just seeing what happens" is not enough to maintain anarchy.
You seem to be saying that anarchy is unstable, that it (seemingly paradoxically) needs a guiding hand. Who do you imagine is the agent(s) that will "maintain" anarchy, and by what kinds of actions?
Sage:I can impose a system based on the NAP without leading to minarchy, since a system based on the NAP by definition rules out the possibility of minarchy.
Yet imposition of a system by definition rules out the NAP, not to mention that everyone defines aggression differently. Again, who will be doing what in order to impose a system based on the NAP? The only way for single person or group to impose a system on everyone is via a state.
Jackson LaRose:Good point AJ, but even with the technological advances in today's society, I think people would naturally cluster together for any number of reasons (conducting trade, starting business, common defense, etc.). These initially voluntary groups might monopolize a geographic territory, and "set up shop"; establish a community. Of course, one might still be able to secede, but I find it hard to imagine that the rest of the folks would let him say "I secede, but I'm staying right here". I can't imagine why they wouldn't boot his buns out of the walls and into the "wilderness" (as the bible puts it).
It could happen, but I think that's basically what I present the case against in the link in my sig. I could certainly imagine something like that happening in a highly population-dense location with highly uncivilized or intolerant people.
Sage:Okay, but territorialism and compulsory membership just are the defining features of the state. If you abolish those, then you've thereby abolished the state, and are actually an anarchist.
Right, I consider panarchism to be just another way of looking at anarchism, or a way of emphasizing certain aspects that tend to get de-emphasized in the prevailing anarchist writings. There are several starting points that all lead to essentially the same endpoint.
For instance, Rothbardian AnCap with 100% freedom of contract (if consistently conceived) apparently would allow for "opt-in" statism, so is essentially panarchism. However, the emphasis feels different because Rothbard was prone to use words like "rogue" and "outlaw" to describe people who deviated from his conception.
There's also been a tendency to more or less imagine the machinery of AnCap applying for everyone over a given territory whether they like it or not, even though this seems to run counter to the whole program. If pressed on this point, one can certainly point to places where Rothbard explicitly admitted that, for instance communist enclaves would be fine as long as they were voluntary, but at other times his writing seems equivocal on the issue. For such reasons I think many have come away from the AnCap conception with the negative impression that it is trying to lay out a certain concrete "objective" vision of how society ought to be, which may be why there has been a surge in panarchist sentiment: it makes the reference to tolerance for all types of voluntary association explicit and unequivocal.
z1235: We both agree that the feasibility of anarchy depends on the human agent's model. You're just a bit more optimistic as to what that model is now, and how easily it can be nudged in the "right" direction in the near future.
That about sums it up. Things are changing so fast now that it's hard for anyone to predict. However, an additional reason for optimism is that this fast rate of change may force people to think more carefully about such things, as well as making it hard for states to maintain control.
AJ:It could happen, but I think that's basically what I present the case against in the link in my sig. I could certainly imagine something like that happening in a highly population-dense location with highly uncivilized or intolerant people.
I'll give it a read, thanks bud.
Tolerance is attainable. Consider the example of multiple religions coexisting within a territory. This used to be considered impossible as well. Cujus regio, ejus religio. But now freedom of religion in the western hemisphere is considered normative. The same is possible for the human right to choose one's government.
It is true that panarchism sounds like minarchism, but it is not. It is a free market in government, using the old terms people are used to, but redefining them. Therefore, a panarchist talks about "choosing a government", but when he uses the term "government" he has really redefined it from its current meaning of a "territorial monopoly of coercion" by removing the aspect of monopoly.
http://www.panarchy-sj.com
Sage:What does likeliness of occurring have do with anything?
I just don't see how it proves that anarchy and statism couldn't coexist. Do you mean in the same geographic area, or anywhere on the planet?
AJ:For such reasons I think many have come away from the AnCap conception with the negative impression
yet again, very poor wording, and a blame game about something you don't like, whereas some people don't like panarcharism as Sage, Brainpolice, and Adam are arguing against it with some very excellent points.
I for one will always point out the criminals and side with justice. Without law and order anarchy is what most people today think of it - chaos. I could easily make the argument that some people prefer the state because of the lack of agreement on law and order; and something to the effect of Sage's signature. It looks like a bunch of kids in a toy room dreaming up something when such elements as rogue or criminals are thought to become non-existent in some libertarian-land. It really sounds that way, like a fairytale or utopia - in the real sense of the words. But I'm sure law and order to some might seem so brutish, but when dealing with brutish criminals the hands get dirty.
kritarchist:Tolerance is attainable. Consider the example of multiple religions coexisting within a territory. This used to be considered impossible as well. Cujus regio, ejus religio. But now freedom of religion in the western hemisphere is considered normative.
I understand that, but within the same geographic area, I don't see how completely different methods of societal organization could be employed side by side without running into each other. Take roads for instance:
Who pays for their construction? Who gets to use them? What if a non-payer is caught on them?
I can only envision civil war, or some such destruction resulting from this intermingling of societal structures.
kritarchist:Therefore, a panarchist talks about "choosing a government", but when he uses the term "government" he has really redefined it from its current meaning of a "territorial monopoly of coercion" by removing the aspect of monopoly.
It would seem to me that the coercion could be removed, ala voluntaryism, but I don't see how you could remove a territorial monopoly. even a "government of one" still has to monopolize some amount of space.
Speaking of which, are there differences between volutaryism and panarchism?
kritarchist:http://www.panarchy-sj.com
LOL, hey I used to live in the Wildwood area! Where are you located?
Gave the post a read, some good stuff. I don't really see how it addressed the practical problems of an panarchy, though.
Say I lived in a panarchic society. I was more of an Libertarian type, but I don't mind other hold different opinions. After a day of work, I'm walking up to my front door. I notice it has been kicked in. Entering cautiously, I find a guy rooting through my CD collection.
"Hey, what the hell are you doing in my house?" I ask.
"What do you mean you're house? I'm from the anarcho-communist collective next door. This is everyone's property equally."
How does a situation like that resolve itself? For the collectivist to respect the property rights of the individualist would be in direct contradiction of his espoused principles. Likewise if the individualist let the collectivist express his ideology fully. How could a court possibly adjudicate using two totally different ethical guidelines? The seemingly unavoidable result would be some sort of persecuted minority population, under the coercive whim of the majority, which would just be another state, or war, or migration resulting in geographic monopolies. I don't how it could be resolved any other way.
wilderness: some people don't like panarcharism as Sage, Brainpolice, and Adam are arguing against it with some very excellent points.
some people don't like panarcharism as Sage, Brainpolice, and Adam are arguing against it with some very excellent points.
Hi Wilderness
You may have misunderstood my argument(s). I'm arguing for what I believe to be a more consistent panarchism.
I believe panarchism to be a more consistent form of libertarianism than territorial anarchism and territorial libertarianism.
Jackson LaRose: kritarchist:Tolerance is attainable. Consider the example of multiple religions coexisting within a territory. This used to be considered impossible as well. Cujus regio, ejus religio. But now freedom of religion in the western hemisphere is considered normative. I understand that, but within the same geographic area, I don't see how completely different methods of societal organization could be employed side by side without running into each other. Take roads for instance:
We have a perfect pattern for this today. It's called federalism. Federalism is a group of organizations working together in a coordinated fashion within a larger territory. Just because currently all the cantons in Switzerland are also territories does not mean that a federal organization would not work just as well if all the subordinate organizations were non-territorial, such as political parties. So, it works this way: what you agree upon you do by cooperation; what you disagree on, you go your own way.
Jackson LaRose: I understand that, but within the same geographic area, I don't see how completely different methods of societal organization could be employed side by side without running into each other. Take roads for instance: Who pays for their construction? Who gets to use them? What if a non-payer is caught on them?
Hi Jackson
Why would one have to begin with the most difficult issues first ?
If there are ten thousand conceivable norms that are enforced by compulsion, and one of them is government owned roads, and the other is that it is illegal for libertarians to work for one another for a penny an hour, why can't libertarians begin with working for one another for a penny an hour, and leave the more difficult "territorial" issues for later, after things have shifted and evolved due to the first small changes ?
Have you read Max Borders' short two-part article?
http://athousandnations.com/2009/10/20/towards-youtopia-are-all-public-good-providers-earthbound/
If any conceivable type of libertarian society is not going to be put in place in one day, then there is going to have to be some kind of transition period.
If there is going to be a transition period, why would one begin with the issues that seem to have no easy or immediate solution? Why not begin with things that could be done? Once those things are done, the situation in society changes. Everything shifts. From that new vantage point, now things become possible that weren't considered possible before. Then one could move on again to the next thing that could be done...
Why focus on the things that likely can't be done?
Why not start with issue number 10,000 (the easiest ones) and work backwards, rather than starting with roads, military, tax exemption (i.e., the most difficult ones)?
That seems counter-productive and self-defeating to me.
kritarchist:We have a perfect pattern for this today. It's called federalism. Federalism is a group of organizations working together in a coordinated fashion within a larger territory. Just because currently all the cantons in Switzerland are also territories does not mean that a federal organization would not work just as well if all the subordinate organizations were non-territorial, such as political parties. So, it works this way: what you agree upon you do by cooperation; what you disagree on, you go your own way.
I understand the concept of a confederation, and I find it much more preferable than say the current system in the US, but panarchism seems to be a redctio ad absurdum of that principle, and I don't see how it could be tenable.
Adam Knott: Why not start with issue number 10,000 (the easiest ones) and work backwards, rather than starting with roads, military, tax exemption (i.e., the most difficult ones)? That seems counter-productive and self-defeating to me.
I totally agree with incremental steps, and I have no problem with a pragmatic method of attaining liberty.
However, if the discussion is about the ultimate end of these changes, it just seems that panarchism is a bit too utopian for me. If we are talking big picture goals, I feel we need to address big picture problems. If we are talking small picture goals, than I agree that big picture problems don't really need to enter into the discussion.
Adam Knott: Have you read Max Borders' short two-part article? http://athousandnations.com/2009/10/20/towards-youtopia-are-all-public-good-providers-earthbound/
No, I haven't. I'll be sure to give a look.
Adam Knott: wilderness: some people don't like panarcharism as Sage, Brainpolice, and Adam are arguing against it with some very excellent points. Hi Wilderness You may have misunderstood my argument(s). I'm arguing for what I believe to be a more consistent panarchism.
I understand. You are coming across somewhere in the middle between what AJ is saying and what Sage is saying. For instance what you said here is what I was thinking about when I wrote what I wrote above which I found to be an excellent point:
Adam Knott:Thus, in my opinion, a weak point in the traditional panarchist position is the very issue you are discussing above. If an attempt is made to abolish someone else's political association, then an attempt is obviously made, not to "co-exist" with that political form, but rather to eradicate it. As you point out, and I believe rightly so, territorialism and compulsory membership constitute statism. This is exactly correct. Thus, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, as I see it, our political striving is directed, not at altering or abolishing the political forms of others (as John Zube might write, no matter how "objectively" wrong or bad they may appear from our point of view). Instead, in a consistent panarchist philosophy, the goal is to construct or erect our own political forms side-by-side or coexisting with existing political forms. As I mentioned, I've been making this point quietly in the short essays I've written about panarchism, believing that the point you raise is the weak point in the panarchist program.
Maybe you could expand on this "weak point" of panarchism more.
Adam Knott:I believe panarchism to be a more consistent form of libertarianism than territorial anarchism and territorial libertarianism.
ok. My only quibble is that the 'wait and see' approach doesn't explain anything other than 'wait and see', but that is void of human action, meaning, people make deliberate choices in order to achieve an end and I, for one, choose that an increase in property rights is all that is necessary to achieve anarchy. To wait and see doesn't even involve talking or persuasion. It's an indifferent approach which is impossible for humans to actually take, ie. human action.
For instance Sage brought up earlier how anarchy needs to be sustained and why? because in order to keep whatever it is we want there is an effort involved. To not explain in terms of human action, people having goals and using means to achieve them, sounds too much like sitting and watching the world go by without breathing (no action). I believe, I might be wrong, but this is what Brainpolice has also been arguing too in this thread and Sage. There is a spectrum of voices on this issue. But it's interesting watching this conversation develop.
And exactly at what point is this proposition absurd?
kritarchist:And exactly at what point is this proposition absurd?
To me, it is reducing away the concept of at least some territorial monopoly away to nothing.
Adam,
Gave the article a read, it's good, and I agree with it. I also found worth noting that it only dissovles the hypothetical state down to minarchy, which avoids the issue I had with the concept of panarchy.
Jackson LaRose: I totally agree with incremental steps,
I totally agree with incremental steps,
I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying exactly.
I'm talking more about actually establishing the very beginning of a co-existing community, as opposed to talking or writing about it.
Here, it's not the "size" that is important. I'm not really referring to the volume, magnitude, or extension of liberty.
What I'm trying to get across is actually establishing a coexisting community. It's the principle I'm trying to get at, not the "size".
My point is that in doing that which is do-able, and doing it nonterritorially and voluntarily, that an actual community could be established in the not too distant future.
You are talking about something else. You are talking about the entire abstract conception of a future libertarian society. What you are discussing is an idea where libertarians try to abstractly conceive all the details of all their relationships at some future point in time, essentially separate from any choices that people make. In other words, and entire abstract construction of a libertarian society where all we have to do is plug in the individuals, and they can start moving around in the society we have all designed here on the forum.
I'm not talking about the conception of libertarianism as an academic movement seeking to construct an abstract libertarian legal structure, that once we all agree on it, we are then permitted to move forward, and each occupy the positions we have previously created through argument.
I'm not talking about a grand plan that one can implement incrementally.
I'm talking about something that if it were done, there would be two communities. At that very instant, the beginnings of a panarchist world will have begun. That will be an entirely different world. When that happens, the world will have changed, irreversibly, forever.
You are talking about something else entirely.