Do you support Panarchy?

[LibertiORDeth]

I was just reading this article, and what I thought pretty much everyone on the forum believes, however after actually discussing it with those on here and reading more on the forums I realized that a lot of those on here don't agree, and actually support coercive government.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff300.html

Discuss?

[__27__]

Yeah, there's a lot of GOP-lite slinking around the forums here. They use catchy lingual aids to try and trick you into believing they are about individual liberty and free markets. Like "Double Flat Tariff's", etc.

[LibertiORDeth]

Yeah, there's a lot of GOP-lite slinking around the forums here. They use catchy lingual aids to try and trick you into believing they are about individual liberty and free markets. Like "Double Flat Tariff's", etc.

I hear a lot about people arguing that "people can't just leave the government then enter it in a time of war and leave afterward" and that sort of thing, which is essentially saying they are for coercive government.

[heavenlyboy34]

I always thought it was a lovely sounding theory-and makes some interesting points, but doesn't resolve the fundamental flaws of the State (especially the monopoly on the use of force)

[LibertiORDeth]

I always thought it was a lovely sounding theory-and makes some interesting points, but doesn't resolve the fundamental flaws of the State (especially the monopoly on the use of force)

But... if a monopoly on the "use of force" wasn't a good idea, in this society it probably wouldn't exist. Or, if it was necessary, than whichever had the best form and use of force would be the one that everyone would choose.

[heavenlyboy34]

But... if a monopoly on the "use of force" wasn't a good idea, in this society it probably wouldn't exist. Or, if it was necessary, than whichever had the best form and use of force would be the one that everyone would choose.

This is not true. Society existed long before the State did.

"Social scientists such as V. Gordon Childe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Gordon_Childe) have named a number of traits that distinguish a civilization from other kinds of society.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#cite_note-6) Civilizations have been distinguished by their means of subsistence, types of livelihood, settlement patterns, forms of government, social stratification, economic systems, literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy), and other cultural traits."

[South Park Fan]

I don't understand what the difference is between panarchy and anarcho-capitalism.

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't understand what the difference is between panarchy and anarcho-capitalism.

That is probably because there isn't any difference, its just semantics and interpretations on how society would groove along without the plain old definition of government as territorial coercive monopolist.

[LibertiORDeth]

This is not true. Society existed long before the State did.

"Social scientists such as V. Gordon Childe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Gordon_Childe) have named a number of traits that distinguish a civilization from other kinds of society.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#cite_note-6) Civilizations have been distinguished by their means of subsistence, types of livelihood, settlement patterns, forms of government, social stratification, economic systems, literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy), and other cultural traits."

Not exactly sure how that disputes anything I just said. Let me rephrase it: In a society in which you could freely choose how you were governed, the governmental form which did the best to protect it's citizens to their satisfaction would most likely win over the population.

[Kludge]

Ramble ramble ramble.

[LibertiORDeth]

[Insert random ramblings here]


That's what I was talking about.

[Theocrat]

Panarchy is malarky. It assumes that humans can be perfectly autonomous in civil affairs without their sinful natures getting the best of them and society if left unchecked and unrestrained by a universal standard of morality/law. Such an assumption about human nature is false and dangerous.

[LibertiORDeth]

Panarchy is malarky. It assumes that humans can be perfectly autonomous in civil affairs without their sinful natures getting the best of them and society if left unchecked and unrestrained by a universal standard of morality/law. Such an assumption about human nature is false and dangerous.

And who decides on this "universal standard of morality/law"?