Panarchists

Adam Knott brought to my attention a fascinating article that echoes the idea of non-territorial governments. The article is especially interesting in that it seems to have come about entirely independently of any contact with the idea or arguments of panarchy. I added a comment to the article, introducing the author to some of the ideas and sites relating to panarchy.

I recently received a comment at Panarchy South Jersey.

Panarchy sounds great, but there are certain areas that I don’t really understand how it would work… How would real estate be controlled if there is not overarching government to mediate property claims? Whats to prevent a single government from turning its weapons against it’s non-territorial neighbors and becoming a territorial monopoly again? What system is there to ensure that each of the non-territorial states actually allows people to freely enter and leave it? In other words… who watches the watchmen? I can easily imagine this system acting simply to enable thugs to form their own little feudal states. Or are citizens going to have to huddle for protection being that there is no overarching Law and Order away from the courts of their chosen government? Don’t misunderstand, I am a big fan of the idea of Panarchy. These are simply questions that I can imagine others would ask me as well if I were to pitch the idea. If I can’t answer them, then there is no way I’ll be able to advance the cause of Panarchy… Thanks.  Aneiren

To which I gladly respond:

Aneiren,

Thank you for your intelligent questions about panarchy. I’ll do my best to respond to them. All the questions you raised are the questions of a timid person, someone who is afraid of the world, looking for an overarching government to take care of them and keep them safe. On the contrary, your description of thugs and feudal states is more in line with how I see our current condition. Government today is a monopoly of force, not for the protection of the individual, but for their exploitation. I do not see government as being on my side, protecting me, looking out for my interests. I see it as a group of thugs, exercising power over me, for their sole advantage. We pride ourselves as having a government of, by, and for the people, but this is the rhetoric of the elite. Instead, we are a people with governments of, by, and for the elites who manage to get themselves elected into that elite. Once in power, they do with us what they want. For the ‘gift’ of our right to vote, all they ask of us is complete obedience and every dollar of taxes they can extract from us. Panarchy is not for the timid, which is why there are so few of us. It will take strength to stand up, without violence, to all the vested interests that work hand in hand with government to keep their monopoly power alive.

If you had carefully read the articles on this site you would have seen that my proposal is not that radical. I am talking about non-territorial governments that largely *cooperate* with one another. My vision for Government A and Government B, for example, is one where only the schools are handled separately by the two governments. All other government services, including the municipal courts and police, are funded and operated jointly. Others might choose to create governments that prefer to do more things on their own, but that is not what I am proposing with Government B. My vision of panarchy involves a great deal of cooperation as well as radical freedom to choose for oneself. I do not believe these two things are necessarily at odds.

Benedict XVI recently published an encyclical (a teaching document) specifically about social issues. In it he reaffirms the teachings of previous popes over more that one hundred years. One of the foundations of Catholic social teaching is

… the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state.

[Caritas in Veritate, Section 57, all emphasis mine]

A litte further on he makes a most remarkable and, as far as I can tell, an entirely novel (for the popes) suggestion:

A more devolved and organic system of social solidarity, less bureaucratic but no less coordinated, would make it possible to harness much dormant energy, for the benefit of solidarity between peoples. One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well.

[Section 60, emphasis mine]

Panarchy is about voting with your taxes, about deciding, as a free human being, how to allocate all of your taxes so that the government will do with them the good that you intend, and not the evil that you despise. I, for one, am very happy to see the Pope encouraging the very core idea of panarchy.

I added an article to Panarchy South Jersey entitled “The Limits of Freedom of Religion in a World of Monopoly Governments“. Here is a taste of it:

If you are a truly free person, a person of integrity, how can you abide the fact that the government, in your name and with the resources you provide it, does things that you find reprehensible and repugnant? If a government can do this to you, do you really have freedom of religion?

An email from Christian Butterbach reminded me of this fantastic article on Non-Territorial Governance (aka, Panarchy) by Richard C. B. Johnsson.

In Sunday’s LewRockwell.com blog, Lew had an entry entitled “A Love Letter to LRC”. In it, a writer identified only as “Emily”, lauded a long list of eminent LRC authors, including Mike Rozeff, about whom she had this to say: “Mike Rozeff, who introduced me to the concept of panarchy — which very much appeals to me.” To Emily we say, “we couldn’t agree more”!

On Tuesday, June 30, 2009, the lead article on LewRockwell.com was a review of Rockwell’s latest book, “The Left, the Right, & the State”. The review by William H. Peterson was entitled “The Case Against Involuntary Government“, which has an especially nice ring to it for us panarchists, since we are ALL (pan) about voluntary government.

Stephen Kinsella published an article on Mises.org entitled “Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day!”. Today, on the LRC blog he highlights a comment by one Bob Kaercher, including the following wonderful quote:

Why [did the Founding Fathers of the US] not declare secession from the King as free and sovereign individuals with each person being free to secede (or maybe even not to secede for those colonists who didn’t mind staying under the King’s rule) by their own lights, entering into various associations by purely voluntary choice? Why did they have to secede as “United States”? Because that was the only way that the political elites who spearheaded that “American Revolution” could maintain any power.

Adam told me of a blog called A Thousand Nations. Last week their theme was Secession. On Friday they had a sub-theme, if you will, of Non-territorial Secession, to which Adam posted a comment. The main blogger there, who goes by the name patrissimo, posted another article called An Introduction to Non-Territorial Secession. Panarchy, the right of personal secession, would certainly be a non-territorial form of secession. Richard Johnsson and, I believe, Michael Rozeff have both advanced the moral arguments for personal rather than territorial secession.