RE: Is Panarchy The Answer?
"When you build a state, you build the problem of social objectivity."
Only if people have no choice as to whether to accept the state or not. Individual sovereignty includes the freedom choose to accept a government or not.
"Under the present conditions a government exists only by the exclusion of all the others, and one party can rule only after smashing its opponents; a majority is always harassed by a minority which is impatient to govern. Under such conditions it is quite inevitable that the parties hate each other and live, if not at war, at least in a state of armed peace. Who is surprised to see that minorities intrigue and agitate, and that governments put down by force any aspiration to a different political form which would be similarly exclusive? So society ends up composed of ambitious resentful men, waiting for vengeance, and ambitious power-sated men, sitting complacently on the edge of a precipice. Erroneous principles never bring about just consequences, and coercion never leads to right or truth.
Then imagine that all compulsion ceases; that every adult citizen is, and remains, free to select from among the possible offered governments the one which conforms to his will and satisfies his personal needs; free not only on the day following some bloody revolution, but always, everywhere, free to select, but not to force his choice on others. At that point all disorder comes to an end, all fruitless struggle becomes impossible." - Paul-Emile De Puydt
I really am not trying to be problematic here, but how do you choose to live outside of a state/government by first producing a global state/government?
There is that big chunk of logic I am not seeing.
There is no global state/government, there is a meta political theory which allows individuals to freely choose among the various non-territorial states/governments that are competing for "customers" by offering better services at lower prices.
The meta-theory simply suggests that we agree that governments should be non-territorial, and individuals should be able to enter and exit them by negotiating and agreeing to the terms and conditions of explicit social contracts that are actually signed and agreed to.
This is different than the traditional social contract theory that says that people "tacitly consent" to the social contract of the single government by choosing to remain in the geographical territory that it has the exclusive monopoly over.
Ah, so no initial state/government formations. In pre 1770s they were calling this condition a 'free state' as is seen in the second amendment.
Even if the territory boundaries are dissolved, how do you avoid the eventual First Realm domination (@shaneradliff)?
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@shaneradliff/the-second-realm-is-the-answer
Second Realm is a free state condition, but it is always in conflict with First Realm.
In simpler terms, how do you make statist authoritarian a statist non-authoritarian?
https://steemit.com/secondrealm/@joesal/second-realm-mapping
@Joesal : Do you have a link to what this is in response to? DTube provides better notifications, but I can't the original post, probably because it's on Steemit. Thanks!
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@kierkeguardian/yavvpulb#@shaneradliff/epfmmsezg
it was about a theory of Panarchy, I didn't see how it solved the division of First Realm and Second Realm
@joesal @shaneradliff Here is my proposal for how the First Realm Problem could be resolved: https://steemit.com/politics/@kierkeguardian/a-28th-amendment-the-exit-option
I don't have a problem with the idea or theory on paper. The idea has a problem of implementation. Nearly half of populations are above the mid-line threshold and grouped near centrist:
https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/poli-compare-parties.html
It could work for libertarian types, but not for authoritarians. So the question remains, how do you make authoritarians, not be authoritarians?
At least the Second Realm attempts to set itself apart from the authoritarian people. Authoritarian systems have a really poor history of leaving anti-authoritarian people alone.
Can you see the issue there, what are your thoughts on it?
"So the question remains, how do you make authoritarians, not be authoritarians?"
Authoritarians think they derive their Authority from a Social Contract, the case of the US, that is the US Constitution.
You make Authoritarians not be Authoritarians by putting it in the contract that they can't override other people's voluntarily entered agreements with their own.
An amendment to the constitution that simply says no US Law will interfere with an arbitration clause in any voluntarily entered contract is all you need to make Authoritarians no longer Authoritarian.
It is essentially equivalent to passing a law against Authoritarianism. But the Authoritarians don't need to know this, because they can still voluntarily enter into a social contract with an Authoritarian Government of their choosing and grant that government powers to coerce them as much as they desire, so they can still have their Authoritarian preference, they just can't force it onto other people who don't want it.