Panarchy: Fascinating or just plain stupid?

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

As it worked under the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, minus the evil of slavery of course.

 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The Libertarian philosophy has a lot to say about foreign policy. Just check out Ron Paul's new book.

 

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.

 

True.

 

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?