Panarchy: Fascinating or just plain stupid?

[9sublime]

I stumbled accross panarchism the other day, and it really is an interesting idea.

Basically, it is loosely some kind of mix between anarchist and libertarian, and can be very basically described as the belief that more than one form of government can exist within one area, and each man can choose which government he chooses to follow.

http://www.panarchy.org/day/multigovernment.1977.html

The link above is just one mans personal idea of panarchism in practice, although working on the idea of more than one government in a locale, its got a lot of potential.

As I find myself loosing all faith in political systems, I find this somewhat attractive ideology on paper, although I think in practice the beauracracy and human nature would absoloutley cock it up.

But then again, if democracy came in for thie first time tomorrow, would it suffer all the problems of a new system? Would panarchy work if it had been implimented for long enough for the early problems to dissapear?

[Truth-Bringer]

I stumbled accross panarchism the other day, and it really is an interesting idea.

Basically, it is loosely some kind of mix between anarchist and libertarian, and can be very basically described as the belief that more than one form of government can exist within one area, and each man can choose which government he chooses to follow.

http://www.panarchy.org/day/multigovernment.1977.html

The link above is just one mans personal idea of panarchism in practice, although working on the idea of more than one government in a locale, its got a lot of potential.

As I find myself loosing all faith in political systems, I find this somewhat attractive ideology on paper, although I think in practice the beauracracy and human nature would absoloutley cock it up.

But then again, if democracy came in for thie first time tomorrow, would it suffer all the problems of a new system? Would panarchy work if it had been implimented for long enough for the early problems to dissapear?


Hmmm... It's an interesting theory, but there really wouldn't be such a need in a purely Libertarian system because everyone will have to freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that they choose, so what more could one want in regards to legitimate choices? Obviously, one could say "I want the freedom to use force, fraud and coercion against others" - but that is irrational as they have the same rights you do and could only lead to chaos.

[9sublime]

This is my problem with libertarianism. I'm so close to loving it, but then... human nature.

The world is absoloutley rammed full of difficult, violent, mean and decietful people, and I don't understand how libertarianism would do anything but make their actions even worse for everyone else.

Care to explain?

[Truth-Bringer]

This is my problem with libertarianism. I'm so close to loving it, but then... human nature.

The world is absoloutley rammed full of difficult, violent, mean and decietful people, and I don't understand how libertarianism would do anything but make their actions even worse for everyone else.

Care to explain?

You actually just partially explained it. Under a Libertarian form of government, violent, deceitful and coercive actions would be illegal. The government would be totally focused to stop those types of crimes. If people are behaving peacefully, honestly and voluntarily, their actions will not be deemed crimes.

[vyo476]

You actually just partially explained it. Under a Libertarian form of government, violent, deceitful and coercive actions would be illegal. The government would be totally focused to stop those types of crimes. If people are behaving peacefully, honestly and voluntarily, their actions will not be deemed crimes.

You've never fully answered how the government will go about doing this.

You've been close to selling me on this before too, but that one problem remains. How does the government work in your Libertarian state?

[Truth-Bringer]

You've never fully answered how the government will go about doing this.

You've been close to selling me on this before too, but that one problem remains. How does the government work in your Libertarian state?

You're going to need to be a little more specific other than how does the government work. What exactly do you mean?

[9sublime]

People who are committing terrorist acts for example. Lets say that some religion or cult out there decides libertarianism is the worst system in the world and it goes against all their moral and has to be destroyed for whatever whackjob reason.

How is the government going to stop these attacks? Wouldn't it need a whole department, at least some kind of surveillance, and lots of personnel if the risk was high?

[vyo476]

You're going to need to be a little more specific other than how does the government work. What exactly do you mean?

How does the government collect revenue?

How does the government police activities that aren't peaceful, voluntary, and honest?

Who defines the terms "peaceful," "voluntary," and "honest," and must an activity fit into all three categories to be considered lawful?

What does the government do when/if it catches someone doing something that violates the laws of peaceful, honest, voluntary activity?

How does this government fend off corruption? (And yes, before you say it, I know our present government does little to fend off corruption.)

I have some other, more broadly societal questions too. Some would require a bit of hypothesizing.

How does the Libertarian system affect the physically disabled? This is perhaps the most important question to me. My mother is extremely physically disabled (she has Multiple Sclerosis), and the medications that keep her from going completely over the edge aren't cheap - we probably wouldn't be able to afford them without SSDI. Of paramount importance to me in embracing any ideology is knowing that my mother isn't going to wind up without access to the medications she needs as a result.

Does the Libertarian philosophy have anything to say about foreign policy or is it purely domestic?

What do Libertarians think of the present status of past indiscretions? For example, tons of land in the United States were stolen from Native Americans as defined by legal treaties our government signed - should we expect this land to be given back?

What is the role of war in a Libertarian society? As in, when is it acceptable (if at all), what guidelines (Geneva Convention, etc.) must apply, etc.

[Bunz]

This similar in an abstract way to the Alaska system of boroughs. Although it falls under two larger much more powerful governments. The large cities the equivalent of city states, and boroughs of out lying area based largely on geographic sections.

A few points I will raise. How would the smaller governments settle disputes among themselves? Ultimately it would be war I would imagine.

I notice several other problems with actually putting it into practice anywhere in the near future.

Hypothetically, it would probably be an interesting experiment in humanity, if one were to take volunteers and be allowed a place completely devoid of outside influence. With enough space and population to make for a reasonable chance.

[Truth-Bringer]

You've never fully answered how the government will go about doing this.

You've been close to selling me on this before too, but that one problem remains. How does the government work in your Libertarian state?

As it worked under the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm) minus the evil of slavery of course.

[Truth-Bringer]

How does the government collect revenue?

First stage would be to repeal the income tax and rely on indirect (excise) taxes. If everything proceeds in a positive manner, second stage would be to repeal those and rely on tariff revenue. Again, a return to the original intent of the Constitution - remember, there were no internal taxes in this country from 1802 to 1860.

As far as rating the evils of theft, tariffs are the least evil because they aren't imposed on any citizen directly or indirectly via threat of force. There is a consequence of slightly higher prices for imported goods, but that can be more easily avoided than consumption taxes by simply buying American made products.

There would still be funds left over from the flat tariff revenue after the government operation, courts, military (scaled down/neutral foreign policy/national militia), and federal law enforcement are funded. But, the prisons should be self-sustaining, and the FPI (UNICOR) shows that they could be. Right now, UNICOR is the only profitable aspect of government. Interesting that the reforms being called for is more privitization in regards to the removal of UNICOR's monopoly for providing to government:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0404/041204nj1.htm

We could also expect to see more funds such as this one brought into existence and paid for by inmates being contracted by the private sector:

http://www.crimevictimsfund.org/funding.html

And the chances for abuse (prison owners trying to convict innocent people for cheap labor) will be greatly minimized since drug use will be decriminalized, as well as all victimless crimes, and since judges will not have immunity and any politician convicted of any crime will face a mandatory life sentence with no parole. We can also extend these harsh criminal sentences to prison owners as well. And there'll be no direct taxes as well - meaning the less people have stolen from them, the less likely they are to steal from others.

Privatized police forces can be experimented with, but they won't be necessary at the federal level. Tariff revenue would provide the funding at that level. In the beginning we can have a division that polices the private police. Put in harsh criminal penalties - automatic life imprisonment for any private police officer who breaks the law - and that will lessen the incidence of corruption.


How does the government police activities that aren't peaceful, voluntary, and honest?

As it polices them now. Through statutes, court system and law enforcement.


Who defines the terms "peaceful," "voluntary," and "honest," and must an activity fit into all three categories to be considered lawful?

It would obviously have to be the Libertarians who are at some point elected to government, since no one else seems concerned with allowing other people these freedoms.


What does the government do when/if it catches someone doing something that violates the laws of peaceful, honest, voluntary activity?

It arrrests, tries them in court, and convicts them if they are found guilty by a jury of their peers.


How does this government fend off corruption? (And yes, before you say it, I know our present government does little to fend off corruption.)

This is obviously a CRITICAL issue, and the primary problem in our system. As I've written before, we would need a Constitutional amendment enforcing a mandatory life sentence against any politician who breaks his or her oath of office in any way, or commits any crime other than a minor traffic violation.

I would also like to see a National Referendum - but not to pass laws, ONLY to veto them. Also make the votes totals in Congress higher to pass laws and require a 9/10's majority to override a Presidential veto.


I have some other, more broadly societal questions too. Some would require a bit of hypothesizing.

Honestly, it would turn into an extremely long discussion. I really don't have time to discuss every single nuance.


How does the Libertarian system affect the physically disabled? This is perhaps the most important question to me. My mother is extremely physically disabled (she has Multiple Sclerosis), and the medications that keep her from going completely over the edge aren't cheap - we probably wouldn't be able to afford them without SSDI. Of paramount importance to me in embracing any ideology is knowing that my mother isn't going to wind up without access to the medications she needs as a result.

No government program affecting the disabled would be repealed without first having a successful private program(s) in place. Charities will grow more rapidly once the income tax is repealed, as a first step. But all corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc. would be cut before any disability programs were even thought about. Ron Paul has stated this principle in several interviews.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem continuing those programs indefinitely, as long as the government was reigned in on all other levels.


Does the Libertarian philosophy have anything to say about foreign policy or is it purely domestic?

The Libertarian philosophy has a lot to say about foreign policy. Just check out Ron Paul's new book. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/ron-paul-pf.html)

[9sublime]

And the chances for abuse (prison owners trying to convict innocent people for cheap labor) will be greatly minimized since drug use will be decriminalized, as well as all victimless crimes, and since judges will not have immunity and any politician convicted of any crime will face a mandatory life sentence with no parole. We can also extend these harsh criminal sentences to prison owners as well. And there'll be no direct taxes as well - meaning the less people have stolen from them, the less likely they are to steal from others.


This is a joke isnt it?

[Truth-Bringer]

This is a joke isnt it?

That would be an Appeal to Ridicule. But, no, it's not a joke, it's a call for experimentation. You know...the scientific method? You have to try different things in order to find a conclusive truth.

My positions are logical. If you can't disprove it via logical syllogism, and you refuse to experiment, then you have an irrational position.

[icono1]

As it worked under the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm) minus the evil of slavery of course.

True.

[9sublime]

Sorry I quoted the wrong bit. What I was really calling a joke was life imprisonment for any politican committing any crime.

Politican gets in a fight, should he be imprisoned for life?

[Truth-Bringer]

Sorry I quoted the wrong bit. What I was really calling a joke was life imprisonment for any politican committing any crime.

Politican gets in a fight, should he be imprisoned for life?

They have to be convicted. "Getting into a fight" isn't sufficient, but if a politician is convicted and found guilty of assault and battery, then yes, they committed a criminal act WHEN THEY WERE ELECTED TO NOT ONLY UPHOLD THE LAW BUT TO CREATE THE LAW and they should suffer life imprisonment. They have to be held to an incredibly high standard - or we will continue to have a corrupt system.

If someone fears those terms, then they shouldn't run for office in such a scenario.

[Bunz]

They have to be convicted. "Getting into a fight" isn't sufficient, but if a politician is convicted and found guilty of assault and battery, then yes, they committed a criminal act WHEN THEY WERE ELECTED TO NOT ONLY UPHOLD THE LAW BUT TO CREATE THE LAW and they should suffer life imprisonment. They have to be held to an incredibly high standard - or we will continue to have a corrupt system.

If someone fears those terms, then they shouldn't run for office in such a scenario.

All other things aside...it is not the job of the legislature to uphold the law as that falls to the judiciary. The legislature creates laws.
While I think there should be signifigant and swift punishment for breaking any laws concerning thier actions as a legislature, such as bribery, corruption, extortion, etc.
Having a politician face life imprisonment for assault or something similar that otherwise wouldnt call for a life prison term is ridiculous.
This creates a different class of citizens in this country, while those who govern are still considered citizens.
What benefit would it bring the citizens when they have to pay for a politician to sit in prison for 50 years over say a DUI?
I am one who thinks we need to have our best and brightest elected to office. This would severly limit those who would otherwise seek office.

[9sublime]

OK, a man throws an egg at a politician in a pathetic attack on him. The politician, in the heat of the moment, turns around and sparks the bloke in the face.

Its a crime. This actually happened in the UK. Should they be killed?

[Truth-Bringer]

OK, a man throws an egg at a politician in a pathetic attack on him. The politician, in the heat of the moment, turns around and sparks the bloke in the face.

Its a crime. This actually happened in the UK. Should they be killed?

Well the egg is technically the first assault - and therefore the man that threw it is the guilty party. No, I don't think someone acting in self-defense or acting on impulse to an attack is guilty of assault and battery.

[Truth-Bringer]

All other things aside...it is not the job of the legislature to uphold the law as that falls to the judiciary. The legislature creates laws.

Technically, yes, that is correct. But creating the laws is still obviously a huge responsibility.


While I think there should be signifigant and swift punishment for breaking any laws concerning thier actions as a legislature, such as bribery, corruption, extortion, etc.
Having a politician face life imprisonment for assault or something similar that otherwise wouldnt call for a life prison term is ridiculous.
This creates a different class of citizens in this country, while those who govern are still considered citizens.

They are already a different class of citizen. They can authorize the legal use of force against other citizens.

However, if I were seriously trying to get this law made, I would compromise and just have the crimes deal with their duties in office if that's what it took to get the thing passed.


What benefit would it bring the citizens when they have to pay for a politician to sit in prison for 50 years over say a DUI?


Have you seen their retirement plans? It would be far cheaper than paying one of those plans off. Those come from taxpayer money as well.

[9sublime]

Well the egg is technically the first assault - and therefore the man that threw it is the guilty party. No, I don't think someone acting in self-defense or acting on impulse to an attack is guilty of assault and battery.

Ok then, adultery. A man finds out his wife has been cheating on him, and waits until the bloke is coming into his house and gets in a fight with him. Punishable by life?

[Truth-Bringer]

Ok then, adultery. A man finds out his wife has been cheating on him, and waits until the bloke is coming into his house and gets in a fight with him. Punishable by life?

I would say "no" because it's a crime of passion - as long as it happens immediately after he finds out about it and it's not premeditated in any way. Most cheaters who've just been confronted wouldn't press charges, as most juries are relunctant to convict in such situations.

[Bunz]

They are already a different class of citizen. They can authorize the legal use of force against other citizens.
I dont disagree, but they are there at the consent of the people.
I just dont agree with a life sentence. In my home state there has been an ongoing corruption scandal. 3 state lawmakers have been convicted on multi-felony accounts. One has been sentenced to 5 years or so. I think that fair. Life sentences are generally uncalled for.

[9sublime]

Okay truth bringer, a politican is caught going 33 in a 30 zone.

[Truth-Bringer]

I dont disagree, but they are there at the consent of the people.

No, they are there by the power of the majority, not necessarily the consent of the majority - if they should do anything the majority doesn't agree with - and certainly not at the consent of the minority that votes against them.


I just dont agree with a life sentence. In my home state there has been an ongoing corruption scandal. 3 state lawmakers have been convicted on multi-felony accounts. One has been sentenced to 5 years or so. I think that fair. Life sentences are generally uncalled for.

I just think since they have greater power, that they should suffer greater punishment. They should at least be prevented from ever serving in office again once convicted. Can you say "Marion Berry"?

[Truth-Bringer]

Okay truth bringer, a politican is caught going 33 in a 30 zone.

Sorry, I should have clarified - any crime other than a minor traffic violation.

[Bunz]

No, they are there by the power of the majority, not necessarily the consent of the majority - if they should do anything the majority doesn't agree with - and certainly not at the consent of the minority that votes against them.
I think we are getting into semantics. Most often when a politician is elected, most would agree that it is at the consent of the majority of the people who voted.
I just think since they have greater power, that they should suffer greater punishment. They should at least be prevented from ever serving in office again once convicted. Can you say "Marion Berry"?
I would agree that after a felony conviction nobody should be allowed to even run for office. I would assume thier inability to vote considering the felony conviction would usually preclude that.
I think it is shameful that Berry has come back to public life. It gets tricky, because he was rightfully elected by the consent of the majority of his district voters.

[Bunz]

Truth,
I enjoy your debates, but let me ask you about your very libertarian small government ideals.
I dont disagree with your ideals, it is a matter of actually putting them into practice.
To go back to the days before the income tax and government as small as you propose simply isnt practical. America has grown to large since those days. The technology of the world and the true expense it would take, to run even the smallest of a federal government feasible. The tax structure simply couldnt support it.

I think it might be wiser to have congress set its budget and adjust a flat income tax that it justifies annually just as most city government operates with property tax. It would make congress much more accountable.

[Truth-Bringer]

most would agree that it is at the consent of the majority of the people who voted.

Bunz, that is an Appeal to the Majority fallacy.

The fact is that a voting majority does not grant the state any power over the individual, as pointed out by Lysander Spooner: (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm)

1. The act of voting can bind only those who vote, and who win the vote.
2. Most people do not vote in any given election; many people never vote. Therefore, they have not consented.
3. To be binding, a vote must be “perfectly voluntary” yet a “very large number” vote in self-defense.
4. Taxation is compulsory and many vote only to prevent their money from being used against them.
5. Votes for unsuccessful candidates cannot be binding.
6. A secret vote provides no legal evidence by which to bind any particular voter to the alleged "social contract" or Constitution.

[Truth-Bringer]

Truth,
I enjoy your debates, but let me ask you about your very libertarian small government ideals.
I dont disagree with your ideals, it is a matter of actually putting them into practice.

Right - so what must one do? One must experiment to discern the truth of th matter. Except that those in power will not allow us to experiment... So who is being scientifically rational, and who is not?


To go back to the days before the income tax and government as small as you propose simply isnt practical. America has grown to large since those days. The technology of the world and the true expense it would take, to run even the smallest of a federal government feasible. The tax structure simply couldnt support it.

Bunz, this is the inverse of Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
Life is perceived as better these days, not because of government involvement, but because of TECHNOLOGY. Take away modern transportion like planes and automobiles, central heat and air conditioning, refrigeration, and, well, anything powered by electricity for that matter, and you'd see how quickly people would perceive things as getting worse all of a sudden.

Now the typical statist's next line of argument of course is that government made all of these industries better. Not so. With electricity for example, the electrical industry sold its soul and submitted to government control because profits were slow in coming and investors were difficult to attract in the beginning. Growing pains are growing pains. They should have never made this decision. Public demand would have eventually taken over as more and more people saw the benefit of having electrical power.

The innovations they could have made with the tax money and inflation interest stolen from them in the last 100 years would have probably led to worldwide wireless power by now. (http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tws8c.htm)

Statists then usually reply with "But government grants made all these things possible." B.S. Government intervention in electricity was unnecessary for the reasons stated earlier. And I don't see any evidence for government grants or such being responsible for refrigeration (http://www.rogersrefrig.com/history.html) or automobiles (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsgasa.htm) or air conditioning. (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa081797.htm)


I think it might be wiser to have congress set its budget and adjust a flat income tax that it justifies annually just as most city government operates with property tax. It would make congress much more accountable.

You're not taking into account several factors. Such as, #1, we now spend over 100 billion per year just on COMPLIANCE with the income tax (http://www.forbes.com/2003/11/12/cz_jn_1112beltway.html) - that's a complete and total waste of money. #2, federal highways are paid for by the gasoline excise tax, the military budget is roughly equal to Corporate Tax revenue, and the entitlement programs are paid for by their own taxes, like FICA. We don't need an income tax to run the government.
And #3, if the incomet tax were repealed and the Federal Reserve abolished, the United States would instantly become the largest tax haven in the world. Foreign investment here would skyrocket.

[Truth-Bringer]

your very libertarian small government ideals.


One other thing here - it's not just smaller - it's more efficient and more focused. Again, when peaceful behavior, like smoking marijuana in your house, is decriminalized - that will leave many resources, currently being used to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate over 700,000 non-violent pot smokers per year, available for law enforcement to go after murderers, rapists and thieves.

[Bunz]

Bunz, this is the inverse of Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
The same argumen could be made against your system under the argument you make.

You're not taking into account several factors. Such as, #1
I would agree we need to minimize our wasteful spending in all areas. Especially when it comes to enforcement of laws that are outdated or unenforcable. The bottom line for me when it comes to having laws on the books, that they are clear, reasonable, enforceable, and punishable in an effective way.
#2, federal highways are paid for by the gasoline excise tax, the military budget is roughly equal to Corporate Tax revenue, and the entitlement programs are paid for by their own taxes, like FICA. We don't need an income tax to run the government.
gasoline excise tax income versus federal highway spending I would bet doesnt come within %10 of covering costs. Nor do I doubt it could. Taxing through user fees a substance we have no choice in using in modern society is a potentially dangerous policy with some unintended consequences.

And #3, if the incomet tax were repealed and the Federal Reserve abolished, the United States would instantly become the largest tax haven in the world. Foreign investment here would skyrocket.
I am not one who thinks it very wise to have a huge influx of foreign investment into our economy like you suggest. It opens the gates to having that investment dry up just as quick and leave the US holding the nearly empty bag.
I am a capitalist, but I think we need a somewhat regulated market to provide some assurances to critical components of it, and a steady reliable source of raw materials at the very least.

[Bunz]

One other thing here - it's not just smaller - it's more efficient and more focused. Again, when peaceful behavior, like smoking marijuana in your house, is decriminalized - that will leave many resources, currently being used to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate over 700,000 non-violent pot smokers per year, available for law enforcement to go after murderers, rapists and thieves.
I agree with the far majority of what you say here. We need reform on the illegal drug issue.