Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Panarchy

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:04:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would like to get your opinion on Panarchy and if you support it, what does your version of Panarchy entail.

I myself identify as a Panarchist, though I don't go by the accepted definition which is a system of government where all individuals have equal governing power. I take it a step further and apply it universally. My version entails that in all aspects of life, no individual exerts power or authority over another.

I noticed that some users (like wjm) subscribe to Market Panarchy, so if you can, explain what this means.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:11:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:04:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I would like to get your opinion on Panarchy and if you support it, what does your version of Panarchy entail.

I myself identify as a Panarchist, though I don't go by the accepted definition which is a system of government where all individuals have equal governing power. I take it a step further and apply it universally. My version entails that in all aspects of life, no individual exerts power or authority over another.

I noticed that some users (like wjm) subscribe to Market Panarchy, so if you can, explain what this means.

Sounds like a pure form of communism? please enhance my understanding as I am unfortunatly unknowledgeable on this subject.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:12:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
my personally opinion is that panarchy (originally) is nothing more then an minarchy/anarchy wet dream. It is actually a form of anarchy, but it under the delusion, that you are free to choose the form of government you want on a personal level. Needless to say, I don't support it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:14:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:04:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I would like to get your opinion on Panarchy and if you support it, what does your version of Panarchy entail.

I myself identify as a Panarchist, though I don't go by the accepted definition which is a system of government where all individuals have equal governing power. I take it a step further and apply it universally. My version entails that in all aspects of life, no individual exerts power or authority over another.


How is your version different from total absence of law, or even human interaction?
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:17:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:12:21 PM, OreEle wrote:
my personally opinion is that panarchy (originally) is nothing more then an minarchy/anarchy wet dream. It is actually a form of anarchy, but it under the delusion, that you are free to choose the form of government you want on a personal level. Needless to say, I don't support it.

That's what I've always thought as well, and it applies even more generally to Geo's "universal" application of it. Any human will be influenced in some way, whether wanted or not, indirect or direct, by the actions of another human. This takes "freedom" to a whole new level, whereby you'll essentially have to kill off every other human in order to ever truly be "free" from another's possible control over you.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:23:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Paul Emile de Puydt wrote in his article Panarchy (the birth of the idea), "the fundamental freedom to choose to be free or not to be free, according to one's preference" "the absolute right to choose the political surroundings in which to live, and to ask for nothing else."

The thing is, you can't have political surrounding on a personal level. You can't be a socialist by yourself, since socialism requires a society to go with it for it to work. This means that you can't really choose your political surroundings unless you choose anarchy/minarchy (you can choose others, but you'll still be living in anarchy so it is meaningless).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:28:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:14:52 PM, Marauder wrote:

How is your version different from total absence of law, or even human interaction?

Well, I interpret the accepted definition of Panarchy as if for example, our Federal Government grants every citizen the power of the President/Congress and create laws and engage in national politics. However, this seems to bring about a contradiction because there can't be laws written by others that govern your life because it defies the definition of Panarchy.

My version is different because I am opposed to all forms of government (which literally translates as "mind control"; govern=control, menta=mind).

I support an infrastructure-oriented government, but not one that actually governs. And in this system, all people are free from any and all authority.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:33:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I support an infrastructure-oriented government, but not one that actually governs. And in this system, all people are free from any and all authority.

So in other words you support a private toll road company and private schools?

Why call it a government?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:37:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:33:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I support an infrastructure-oriented government, but not one that actually governs. And in this system, all people are free from any and all authority.

So in other words you support a private toll road company and private schools?

Why call it a government?

Perhaps I should have put the word "government" in quotes. I don't literally mean a government, hence why I said it doesn't govern. I am suggesting an official public organization that manages infrastructure, just like local governments but without the laws and authority.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:39:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:37:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/17/2010 12:33:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I support an infrastructure-oriented government, but not one that actually governs. And in this system, all people are free from any and all authority.

So in other words you support a private toll road company and private schools?

Why call it a government?

Perhaps I should have put the word "government" in quotes. I don't literally mean a government, hence why I said it doesn't govern. I am suggesting an official public organization that manages infrastructure
What makes it official and public?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:40:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:28:18 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
My version is different because I am opposed to all forms of government (which literally translates as "mind control"; govern=control, menta=mind).

Fail.

in case you didn't notice, it is government, not governmenta. -ment = "The suffix -meant is a final word element derived through Middle English and French from the Latin suffix -ment(um), originally used to form agent and action nouns from verbs"

http://www.wordinfo.info...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 12:59:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In Latin and old French, "ment" means "mind."

So yes, government literally means "mind control."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:03:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:59:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
In Latin and old French, "ment" means "mind."

So yes, government literally means "mind control."

Geo, you're only seeing what you want. The suffix -ment is different from the word "ment." It isn't a compound word. Learn English.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:05:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:17:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/17/2010 12:12:21 PM, OreEle wrote:
my personally opinion is that panarchy (originally) is nothing more then an minarchy/anarchy wet dream. It is actually a form of anarchy, but it under the delusion, that you are free to choose the form of government you want on a personal level. Needless to say, I don't support it.

That's what I've always thought as well, and it applies even more generally to Geo's "universal" application of it. Any human will be influenced in some way, whether wanted or not, indirect or direct, by the actions of another human. This takes "freedom" to a whole new level, whereby you'll essentially have to kill off every other human in order to ever truly be "free" from another's possible control over you.

Volkov, this is absurd and you know it. You confuse "the exchange of ideas" with "authority." I am not under someone elses control simply because they influence me or exchange ideas with me. Authority is forced and compulsory.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:08:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:05:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Volkov, this is absurd and you know it. You confuse "the exchange of ideas" with "authority." I am not under someone elses control simply because they influence me or exchange ideas with me. Authority is forced and compulsory.

Alright then, lets set up a little situation.

I have a piece of property. You also have a piece of property, right next to mine. You want to expand your property in my direction. I don't want you to, and I have the ability to stop such a take over. What has just happened?

I've controlled you. I've set my authority down, staked my claim, and stopped you from trying to stake yours. That's forced and that certainly is compulsory.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:08:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:59:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
In Latin and old French, "ment" means "mind."

So yes, government literally means "mind control."

http://www.dummies.com...
http://www.wordinfo.info...
http://www.uefap.com...
https://www.msu.edu...

Apparently not.

We also have the history of the word "government"

http://www.etymonline.com...

and the actual definitions of the word.

http://www.google.com...=
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:15:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:08:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:05:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Volkov, this is absurd and you know it. You confuse "the exchange of ideas" with "authority." I am not under someone elses control simply because they influence me or exchange ideas with me. Authority is forced and compulsory.

Alright then, lets set up a little situation.

I have a piece of property. You also have a piece of property, right next to mine. You want to expand your property in my direction. I don't want you to, and I have the ability to stop such a take over. What has just happened?

I've controlled you. I've set my authority down, staked my claim, and stopped you from trying to stake yours. That's forced and that certainly is compulsory.

Red Herring.

In any case, protecting what's yours isn't controlling others.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:17:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:15:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:08:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:05:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Volkov, this is absurd and you know it. You confuse "the exchange of ideas" with "authority." I am not under someone elses control simply because they influence me or exchange ideas with me. Authority is forced and compulsory.

Alright then, lets set up a little situation.

I have a piece of property. You also have a piece of property, right next to mine. You want to expand your property in my direction. I don't want you to, and I have the ability to stop such a take over. What has just happened?

I've controlled you. I've set my authority down, staked my claim, and stopped you from trying to stake yours. That's forced and that certainly is compulsory.

Red Herring.

In any case, protecting what's yours isn't controlling others.

it's limiting others, which is a form of control.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:18:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:17:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:15:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:08:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:05:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Volkov, this is absurd and you know it. You confuse "the exchange of ideas" with "authority." I am not under someone elses control simply because they influence me or exchange ideas with me. Authority is forced and compulsory.

Alright then, lets set up a little situation.

I have a piece of property. You also have a piece of property, right next to mine. You want to expand your property in my direction. I don't want you to, and I have the ability to stop such a take over. What has just happened?

I've controlled you. I've set my authority down, staked my claim, and stopped you from trying to stake yours. That's forced and that certainly is compulsory.

Red Herring.

In any case, protecting what's yours isn't controlling others.

it's limiting others, which is a form of control.

Exactly. I'm placing limits upon you by asserting my authority. That's control.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:22:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To have a free society requires that both, people can exercise free will, but also must not infringe others freedom. That's the paradox that maintains a free society. You are free to do everything but take freedom from another.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:25:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:22:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To have a free society requires that both, people can exercise free will, but also must not infringe others freedom. That's the paradox that maintains a free society. You are free to do everything but take freedom from another.

That is still a limit/form of control, it just happens to be a limit/control that you agree with and find acceptable.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:28:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:25:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:22:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To have a free society requires that both, people can exercise free will, but also must not infringe others freedom. That's the paradox that maintains a free society. You are free to do everything but take freedom from another.

That is still a limit/form of control, it just happens to be a limit/control that you agree with and find acceptable.

Again - exactly. Its still a limits, its still an assertion of authority that requires compulsory adherence... its just one you agree with, Geo.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:33:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What I have stated is a paradoxical axiom. There's nothing you can do to change that fact.

As soon as someone takes freedom from another, it is against the notion of freedom. In order to maintain a free society, anything that threatens it must be prohibited.

Paradoxes. They exist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:35:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Panarchy is when there is no monopoly on force by one sole entity; instead, there are multiple governments that one can subscribe to. If you want to be part of a socialist government, go ahead; just hope that enough people are also willing to be socialist with you. For example, see the Amish, who are exempt from numerous American laws, such as Social Security, as they have their own church welfare system.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:41:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:33:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
What I have stated is a paradoxical axiom. There's nothing you can do to change that fact.

As soon as someone takes freedom from another, it is against the notion of freedom. In order to maintain a free society, anything that threatens it must be prohibited.

No it doesn't. Since absolute freedom, 100% total freedom, is on an individual basis. Which is the freedom to do what I want to do. While what you have suggested would maintain maximum freedom on society's level, not an individual level. And it also doesn't work with Panarchy, since I can choose to be personally in a total anarchy and believe in no rights, and so just take things from others.

That is the issue with true panarchy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:43:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:35:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
Panarchy is when there is no monopoly on force by one sole entity; instead, there are multiple governments that one can subscribe to. If you want to be part of a socialist government, go ahead; just hope that enough people are also willing to be socialist with you. For example, see the Amish, who are exempt from numerous American laws, such as Social Security, as they have their own church welfare system.

And native american land reserves.

however, panarchy subscribes to do this on a personal level. One cannot simply say "I'm Amish, so you can't tax me."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:53:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:41:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:33:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
What I have stated is a paradoxical axiom. There's nothing you can do to change that fact.

As soon as someone takes freedom from another, it is against the notion of freedom. In order to maintain a free society, anything that threatens it must be prohibited.

No it doesn't. Since absolute freedom, 100% total freedom, is on an individual basis. Which is the freedom to do what I want to do.

And what you want shouldn't involve exerting control over others. As soon as you do that, you are rejecting freedom and inserting a new system of control. You aren't respecting the guidelines put in place to maintain freedom.

While what you have suggested would maintain maximum freedom on society's level, not an individual level. And it also doesn't work with Panarchy, since I can choose to be personally in a total anarchy and believe in no rights, and so just take things from others.

That is the issue with true panarchy.

You're basically telling me freedom doesn't exist. Exerting authority over others is violating freedom, it is not a form of individual freedom.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 1:58:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:53:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:41:46 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/17/2010 1:33:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
What I have stated is a paradoxical axiom. There's nothing you can do to change that fact.

As soon as someone takes freedom from another, it is against the notion of freedom. In order to maintain a free society, anything that threatens it must be prohibited.

No it doesn't. Since absolute freedom, 100% total freedom, is on an individual basis. Which is the freedom to do what I want to do.

And what you want shouldn't involve exerting control over others. As soon as you do that, you are rejecting freedom and inserting a new system of control. You aren't respecting the guidelines put in place to maintain freedom.

who are you to say what I should or shouldn't want? That's even more control over my desires.

While what you have suggested would maintain maximum freedom on society's level, not an individual level. And it also doesn't work with Panarchy, since I can choose to be personally in a total anarchy and believe in no rights, and so just take things from others.

That is the issue with true panarchy.

You're basically telling me freedom doesn't exist. Exerting authority over others is violating freedom, it is not a form of individual freedom.

First, freedom doesn't physically exist. It is a concept and so only "exists" in our imaginations, and only exists so long as government is willing to recognize it and protect it. When one can choose the political control over them, they can choose one that doesn't protect freedoms and so doesn't have freedoms.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 2:10:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 12:39:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/17/2010 12:37:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/17/2010 12:33:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I support an infrastructure-oriented government, but not one that actually governs. And in this system, all people are free from any and all authority.

So in other words you support a private toll road company and private schools?

Why call it a government?

Perhaps I should have put the word "government" in quotes. I don't literally mean a government, hence why I said it doesn't govern. I am suggesting an official public organization that manages infrastructure
What makes it official and public?

Still waitin
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 2:11:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 1:58:21 PM, OreEle wrote:

who are you to say what I should or shouldn't want? That's even more control over my desires.

This is not the case. I can say "go ahead, do what you want" and you can go and make a slave put of somebody, fine. But don't turn around and say you are just exercising your freedom. It's a contradiction for someone to exert control over others in a free society. It's not a matter of controlling you desires, it's a matter of you violating the definition of freedom.

In other words, in order to even call something a free society, no one can exert authority over others.

First, freedom doesn't physically exist. It is a concept and so only "exists" in our imaginations, and only exists so long as government is willing to recognize it and protect it. When one can choose the political control over them, they can choose one that doesn't protect freedoms and so doesn't have freedoms.

Would you tell a slave that? "Freedom is only a concept that you can imagine. Just think about freedom and you'll be free."

(Despite my criticism of the above, I actually agree that freedom is a mentality, but also that it has physical manifestations/implications as well.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat