Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: What we need is Panarchy.

  1. #1

    What we need is Panarchy.

    For many, "anarchy" is a four-letter word. One of my closest and most respected friends - more family to me - a brilliant PhD chemist, endlessly pro-liberty individualist, and one of the most well-rounded and vast intellects I have ever had the privilege of knowing, uses "anarchy" in that way. It surprises me endlessly, I admit, but more to my point it underscores just how filthy a word it has become.

    This is why I have avoided its use in most circles and have come to conclude that it is hopelessly ruined in the minds of most people. To suggest anything positive about anarchy often earns one the sorts of looks and stares and glares that portend the same result as transactions regarding religious opinion.

    I have, therefore, coined a new term... at least I think it is new. New in my case at any rate, and the word is "panarchy".

    Where "anarchy" has failed, perhaps panarchy shall succeed. One cannot know until something is attempted, whether it will work out as desired.

    Anarchy is the absence of a ruler. While the thinking man may delve more deeply and find that this does not mean a necessary absence of rules, the average man immediately jumps to that conclusion, inferring therefrom that "anarchy" is congruent with "chaos" and all that it implies. To expect the average man, the "meaner", to dope his way through in the fashion of the thinking man is not reasonable, given the current state of human affairs across the planet.

    Therefore, I assert that a new approach is needed because not only is "anarchy" hopelessly corrupted in the mind of the meaner, so are many other similar terms such as "libertarian[ism]". Theye have been ever so successful in co-opting the language of freedom and using it as a weapon to better secure their tyrannies by tacitly redefining such terms through massive incorrect usage over the course of decades.

    So why, then, come up with yet another term for what is essentially the same thing? Good question, and I am sure I have not all the answers, but perhaps there is at least one or two. Mainly, I see the time as ripe for an injection of something new. People all over the planet know that there is something terribly wrong with the world. They appear unable to put their fingers on the precise problem, but are generally able to articulate some of the symptoms such as endless war, corporate misbehavior, a lack of respect for life, and so forth. More and more are becoming fed up with the status quo and find themselves casting about for answers. It is in this environment that I suggest we introduce to the world the concept of Panarchy.

    Panarchy, then, is the logical obversion of anarchy. Where anarchy asserts there are no rulers, panarchy asserts that everyone is a ruler. This is a superior conceptual construct to anarchy because it imputes a positive and equal authority to rule unto each man. This, of course, is not the whole of it. There are limitations to the authority, which is constrained in the main to positive authority over one's own life, which is very similar to the notion espoused by the Shire Society where they assert that each man is the proprietor of his own life.

    This authority, however, goes s little further in that it also imputes positive authority over one's fellows when they fail to properly regulate their own behaviors in respect and deference to the rights of others. For example, a man decides to rape a woman on the street but is discovered by a third party. That party stands centrally within his right to intercede against the rapist on behalf of the apparent victim. This is especially so where the victim makes clear a desire for assistance. As to whether there is an obligation to intercede, while I do not think so, I will leave that discussion for later - please feel free to pitch in with your views on this.

    When examined even casually, is this not the actual basis of the American Republic? Is this not what government of the people, by the people, and for the people is supposed to mean? I assert that America was intended to be a panarchy. The Framers pooched it with all the extras. The specification of the Congress, the judiciary, and the executive were all profound errors in their assessment of what was needed. I believe a Bill of Rights may have been all we needed in order to have given rise to a strong, prosperous, and pre panarchic land. Things such as courts would have naturally arisen as need dictated and their structures could have been standardized across the states in time. But we rushed the design and it has proven disastrous.

    In a panarchy, each individual makes his own bones in life as his abilities permit and with the single constraint that he respect the equal right of his fellows to do the same. This is nothing more or less than the Golden Rule itself.

    This forwarding of panarchy, while a bit of a semantic trick (albeit innocent, well thought out, and well intended), holds at least the potential root of a paradigm-shift in the ways people think, as well as their attitudes toward just about everything, given the basic nature of this idea.

    What are your thoughts? Do you feel the notion is meritorious, or is this just another waste of time?

    ETA: As I suspected, the term is far too attractive and obvious to have not been used previously. To wit:
    Last edited by osan; 02-24-2015 at 09:26 AM.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We

    Pray for reset.

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Shall we use a word that already has a definition...

    Quote Originally Posted by someone at the Wiki link provided
    Panarchy is a conceptual term first coined by the Belgian philosopher, economist, and botanist Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, referring to a specific form of governance (-archy) that would encompass (pan-) all others.
    ...that smacks of what the New World Order wants?
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post

    ETA: As I suspected, the term is far too attractive and obvious to have not been used previously. To wit:
    And noted on this very forum by a poster whose voice I sadly miss. H/T Truth Warrior.

    Why I Am a Panarchist

    by Michael S. Rozeff
    A correspondent recently informed me about the Global Poverty Act of 2007. This bill did not pass Congress. It can be re-introduced in the current Congress. Obama favors this bill.

    I have a negative opinion of this bill. I could explain why my opinion is negative. I’ve done that before with other laws that have been passed by the federal government. Instead, I will go to the root of the political matter.

    Dozens of these bills are introduced into Congress and many get passed. Along the way, there are hundreds of groups that favor and oppose these bills. One can be fighting these fights 24 hours a day. This is not my idea of living. In my remaining years, I’d like to do a few other things. Still, I have to protect myself and my life from the impositions of others. One course is to fight with the pen. This has certain non-monetary benefits that I shall not go into. Either that or I find a way to go underground, insulate myself from all this nonsense, and become invisible. That too has benefits. At some point, I may do that. I may become a dropout. Then I’ll take up painting. I’ll have a machine shop and make myself a grease gun and fire it off out of anyone’s hearing. I’ll raise a few chickens or pheasants and ducks as my father once did as a pastime. I will not raise geese, however. They seemed to like to attack at will.

    I find that I have no need for the federal government or the other governments for that matter. What do they do for me? They do negative for me. They take from me. They impose on me. They impose on my neighbors and prevent me from dealing with them as I might and they from dealing with me. Who needs the grief that governments bring? Every so often I must get my car inspected. I must kowtow to the state’s insurance regulations. I must get it registered every two years. God forbid I should ever have to get involved with a case in court and have to deal with the state’s justice system. I’ve never used marijuana, but maybe I’d like to try it sometime for medicinal purposes. I’m not about to hit the mean streets looking for sources who supply me with a product of unknown quality. I’d like to have my dad’s old Mauser pistol. In Maine, I could shoot it. In New York, I am a felon if I have it in the house. Who needs this grief? I spurn countless products in the supermarket because they contain high-fructose corn syrup. I don’t like it. I’d rather have sugar. If it were not for the government, they might have sugar. I will have to pay extra at some point for the privilege of having something with sugar in it. I will bake my own cookies.

    If you want your government to ban marijuana, make you go through a lot of rigamarole to carry a pistol, tax sugar, and subsidize corn or ethanol, be my guest. But I get nothing out of it. I don’t see why I have to be made to do what you (I speak of the nameless others here, not you, my sympathetic reader) want. What claim do these governments have over me? Why am I their toady?

    Why must I persuade everyone else not to pass a law that harms me? Why is the burden of stopping this placed on me? I am fighting off additional chains. Obviously I am unable to do so. My success rate at this is zero. Why am I a slave? Why are we all fish enclosed in the same barrel? I didn’t ask to be inside this barrel.

    So, let others pass the laws that they want for themselves and their own clique. Count me out. I am not your slave. You go your way and I will go mine. Tax yourselves all you want to. That is your right. My right is to bow out of your impositions on me. Let me out of the barrel. Let everyone out of the barrel. Let them find other barrels to be in if they wish, or no barrel at all. Let those who want to stay in this barrel stay. I won’t stop them. Just let me out.

    I believe that others are deluding themselves to want a government such as we have today that has the power to pass so many laws. They are making themselves into slaves. It’s their choice. I also know that others have been making the case for liberty for decades without measurable success. Some people want to be imposed on for whatever reasons at certain times in history and at other times they do not. Some people want to be in the barrel.

    My problem is not so much that they are self-chosen slaves but that they have made me into their slave. They have no guilty conscience about this. They seem to think it is perfectly all right to confine me to their barrel. They regard this as the natural state of affairs. I am expected (by them) to kowtow to various governments.

    Why? Why am I expected to bow down before others? Why should anyone bow down who does not want to? Why should I be ruled by others? Why should anyone be ruled by others who does not want to be so ruled?

    If you ever hear a good answer, let me know. I have not yet heard a good answer. The force and power to make me bow down is not an answer.

    The proposal that we each go our own ways and choose our own methods of being governed while living in America and other states of this world is the novel proposal of panarchy. It is really the proposal that we each have complete liberty. And if some of you wish to dispose of that liberty and choose a group of others to govern you, that is your business. It is your right. But it is not your right to include me unwillingly into your group. I am fighting you now and forever on that score. I am fighting you the best way I know how, which, at the moment, is with the pen. This is not an antagonistic variety of fighting, however, not at this time. I urge you to give up your urge to dominate me and others. Let us be. Let us go. Wherever my message is heard, if any government officials should happen to read it, I urge you only to let us go. Stop imposing on us. Impose on those who want to be imposed on, not on me. The end game if you do not accede is something I cannot foresee or imagine. Perhaps there will be multiple declarations of independence. Perhaps the number of dropouts will rise. Perhaps you will bring about your own demise. Perhaps we will band together and ignore you. We will stop paying taxes. We will hunt for your weak spot. We will embarrass you perhaps, jeer at you, and make fun of you. A political joke book may bring you down. Maybe we will parade you around naked. Maybe we will run you out of town or tar and feather you. I do not know.

    I have no idea how to get from here to there. Such a social and political change is beyond my ken. People ask me how to get to panarchy. I don’t know. Turn your creativity loose. You will devise the ways and means. These things are works-in-progress. The loss of liberty under monopoly governments has been a work-in-progress occupying decades. Liberty might return in a flash, or it might be something that is built up step by step over time as we learn and as attitudes change and experience accumulates. I do not know. I have no game plan. I am not that smart or wise. I don’t know enough to say. I rely on many others who will carry this forward in the future and have carried it forward in the past before I ever heard of anarchy or panarchy.

    Why expect someone to give you a plan anyway? Think for yourselves. Plan for yourselves as best you can. All I know is that fighting the government, bill by bill, is exhausting and does not get at the heart of the matter. It is not a matter of individual bills in Congress, bad as each one may be. It is a matter of there existing a government that has the power to pass these bills in the first place and to impose them on all of us, willy-nilly. That is why I am a panarchist (and anarchist). I personally do not want to live under such a power and such impositions, which is why I am anarchist. But I also recognize that others of you might wish to do so, which is one reason why I am panarchist. I do not want to abolish your government that you may want for yourselves, but I want to have my own means of governance for myself. This too is why I am panarchist.

    I have no greater purpose than these expressions today. They are crude. They are personalistic. That is how I feel today. I speak from my stomach as much as from my brain.

    Yet a thoughtful person has asked me about how defense will work or can work if there is panarchy; and I have an extended (but still incomplete) response because defense is always a major issue whenever the question of altering our political system comes up. His e-mail read:
    "If I actually am able to opt out of government protection (thereby paying no taxes) and yet can stay in my place described in your ‘thought experiment’ below, am I myself not ‘looting’? What I mean by this is simply that I will be enjoying the protection of the army (provided by my taxed neighbors who opt-in for state protection) which goes to battle (say a defensive war against a foreign entity) and emerges victorious from this war. My liberty, freedom, and property remain intact, yet I foot no part of the war bill. Thus I still envision coercion for tax payments by my neighbors regardless of any previous understandings we might have had previously. Am I missing something here?"
    This is the argument that defense is a public good, or that there is a positive externality in the provision of defense that necessitates joint action imposed by force on all.

    Defense is not a uniform good. It is not a pack of Camel cigarettes. Even to say that defense is a public good is a meaningless statement. What someone in Harlingen wants for defense may be vastly different than what someone in Boise wants.

    Nothing in the idea of several governments on the same territory prevents people in their own panarchies from associating and federating to produce joint defense. That is what the colonies did in pre-Revolutionary days. They did not have a national government but they constructed a common defense. History provides other examples.

    If your neighbors defend themselves and you happen to benefit, does that give them a right to force you to pay? If your neighbors benefit you by any number of their actions, does that give them a right to force you to pay them? If so, they control your agenda and you. How do they justify that? If they cannot build a tank without your contributions, does that justify their forcing you to contribute? They will then have to know that they are helping you and by how much. They will have to know that better than you do. Can they ever know that? What if the shoe is on the other foot and you demand that they pay for building your Maginot line? That preference reflects your idea of knowledge of defense, and it differs from that of your neighbors. When you and your neighbors disagree over the worth of your respective defense products, they have no argument that can persuade you and vice versa.

    Either you agree to buy your own defenses, or else you will fight until one of you wins and enslaves the other. That basic choice is the issue here. If we choose no force in such matters, it creates a certain set of societal incentives. If we choose force, it creates a very different set of incentives.

    The state forces its method of defense on many of us and makes us pay for it. We are the conquered. It makes our property less secure and defenseless because it can force us to pay for its product that we may not want. How can the state be defending us when it is attacking us? Suppose I refuse the state’s defense.

    Suppose I tell the state that its evaluation of the defense benefit it claims to be providing me is not worth the price I have to pay. The state does not listen to me. It claims its judgment is superior to my own. That is propaganda to keep the conquered docile.

    Does the state know better than I do what is good for me? If we allow that conclusion for defense, then will we allow it for my education, my health affairs, my management of my wealth, my entertainment, my speech, my choice of mate, my guns, and my consumption of marijuana and alcohol and tobacco? These controls are already here. The slippery slope to a totalitarian society is already evident. The state talks people into their own slavery.

    I value liberty for its own sake, because I am human and I conceive of being human as making one’s own decisions over one’s life while conceding the right of others to make theirs. Those who do not value liberty take other stances on what to be human means. In one case, they view the human being as a creature like a dog that they (in the state) train and keep in its place, that can do a number of things on its own, but that is actually contained and kept within the bounds that they, the superior beings in the state, set for it. They are dividing human beings into the superior rulers and those ruled. In another case, there are those who view the human being as a creature that is nothing without the state. Others view the state as inherently superior to the human being. There are many philosophies that support statism as against liberty.

    Shall we protect ourselves by forcing others to pay tribute for what we conceive of as protecting them? Then we must logically accord others the same right of action. This means that we decide to rule them, and they decide to rule us by force of arms. We cannot make someone pay without force. We cannot take their property without force. If we choose that route, we will increase the costs of protection of our property because we will have to defend against everyone else who has a right of action against us for any reason that comes into their heads. If they purify their air and we breathe some of it, they will force us to pay. Which scenario do you prefer, uncertain and perpetual war in which property is insecure because everyone can trench on everyone else's property at their own evaluation of external benefit and harm? Or a measure of peace in which we define property boundaries and use a criterion of not using force to extract resources from others?

    The nations achieve uneasy peace, often broken by warfare, in which on an inter-national basis, there are defined territorial boundaries. The gains from war on an inter-nation basis often give way to the prospect of even greater losses, in which case peace occurs. Quite often, for a variety of reasons, wars break out. One reason is that states under-estimate war costs and rulers gain by wars even if the people ruled do not. On an intra-nation basis, within each nation, the predation and looting go on unabated within the nation’s political system. There is scarcely ever peace within a nation. Among nations there is anarchy, and there are periods of peace. Peace may even be the norm among nations. Within nations, where there is no anarchy but centralized rule, there is not peace. There is constant economic warfare and looting of property, one group by another. Quite often civil war breaks out to end intra-nation oppression. Anarchy and panarchy within the boundaries of existing nations look to reduce the problem of civil war and reduce the problem of internal economic looting, which gains the greater part of its strength from the existence of that nation’s monopoly government.

    Panarchy envisions non-territorial governance. Society would discard government as we know it today in its territorial form for many and maybe all of its functions. Defense might be retained along the same lines as today, if that is what people in different panarchies want. It can be done through confederations. But defense as it looks today in the U.S. is highly unlikely if Americans were free to choose their own defenses.

    The U.S. went beyond federation to amalgamation under the Constitution. The idea that was propagated was that a central government was needed to defend against European powers. This political solution had a big downside that was overlooked by the framers: The central power (the U.S.A.) could make bigger and more expensive wars by taxing the entire people under its territorial jurisdiction. All it needed was a majority in Congress. The Union lowered the cost of one or two regions combining to impose the costs of war on all the other regions. The result was an expensive military and more wars. This could never have happened under the Articles of Confederation. (The same process happens for all our political programs. Defense is just another program.)

    With panarchy, if there happened to be regions (who knows?), each region might have its own defense and combine in a common defense only when it really paid to combine. Defense would become much more competitively supplied as a good, so it would become cheaper and more effective. The kinds of defenses used would be far different than the armed forces we now have. Offense would diminish because a given region would have to bear all the costs.

    In the year 2008, we are living with an arrangement (the Constitution) that may have been a good idea for 1787 for defense, but has become very costly and downright bad for our times. The proof is the constant U.S. involvement in wars all over the world. Ever since U.S. government got big, starting at the outset of the twentieth century with roots going back to earlier days, the country has faced one large difficulty after another. If it hasn’t been wars, it has been economic and financial problems. If it hasn’t been those, it has been social and family decay. The problems are getting worse. The roots of them are political. We are not governing ourselves properly, and this is why we keep having these problems. We badly need to get out from under the monopoly federal government. This is another powerful reason why I am a panarchist.
    January 22, 2009

    Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

    Copyright © 2009

    Michael S. Rozeff Archives

    Find this article at:
    Last edited by phill4paul; 02-24-2015 at 09:44 AM.

  5. #4
    The rulership by cooking containers?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    The rulership by cooking containers?

    Well, arm everyone with good and heavy frying pans might actually work.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We

    Pray for reset.

  7. #6
    While I think the application of the word is very very good, the word itself brings up confusing ideas, first resulting from the part that is most easily understood, "anarchy". However, your thoghts are exactly in line with the thoughts of the Founding Fathers. "Soverign Citizens" was the term they used, but not everyone understands what Soverign means any more.
    Full Definition of SOVEREIGN - 1
    a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
    b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
    c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter
    : any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom
    The second definition of the word is not applicable to people, so we will end up going with the first. The way I always understood it was "Divine Right of Rulers", thus only "Rulers" had such Rights, while Plebs and Peasants did not have the same Rights. Unequal distribution of Rights. Break the word up into its components. "Sove - Reign". Probably some latin in there. Couldnt tell you about what Sove really is, but probably religious in nature. The "Reign" part of Sovereign is pretty self explanitory, to Rule. The history of the word I find to be quite fascinating. Soverign used to have a much different definition in application than it does today. Hundreds of years ago, Soverignty could only be used to describe Kings or entire Nations. The Founding Fathers wanted the Power of Nations to be held in the hands of the People and coined their own term "Soverign Citizen", where the power of Nations and Kings belonged to each Man. Mostly this was applied to Land Owners. "Each man (land owner) was King of his own Castle (his land or house)". The term isnt every useful any more because the common tongue no longer includes Soverign in the application of its definition. Panarchy seems to be intended to be similar to this.

    Perhaps it would be better to flat out use the definition of the word in place of the words themselves? So lets say what we mean and mean what we say. "Ultimate Self Authority" or from a Property Rights perspective "Total Self Ownership". Maybe place focus on the People and not use the term "Citizen" as that definition has also been blurred. Immigrants are not considered "Citizens" although they are still human beings. Distancing the application of the term "Citizen" to Immigrants is a form of Dehumanization, so I think "Citizen" will be a poor choice of words during the course of carefully crafting each specific word. Thus, perhaps replacing "Citizen" with "People" to result in "People of Ultimate Self Authority". This idea of a phrase or term could be refined even further to ensure no misunderstanding of the definition, so it isnt totally perfect. However, comparing "Panarchy", which to me sounds good, it isnt great because the defintion is not clearly understood by those who are not educated as well as we are. "People of Ultimate Self Authority" is too long for everyone to remember, and will most likly devolve into "People of Authority" through abbreviation. "Self Authority" is what it could be shortened to, but this also fails because it does not apply to everyone equally, even if the defintion is almost exactly the same as "Anarchy".

    The reason that Im not using words like "Rights" or "Law" are because the definitions have been replaced in their application of terms. People simply do not understand what a Right is and what a Right is not. Equal Rights means that one persons Rights end where another persons begins. A "person", not land owner or men due to gender bias, is less of a troublesome word because everyone can identify with this. Unfortunately, this also includes Corporations by their legal definition of the word Person. This is why I didnt use the word "Law" as the Law has also been reshaped to transfer power from Plebs to Corporations, Rulers, and Governments. So screw the Law, we apply words that every individual can understand. People will associate themselves with the word "Person" and begin to recognize themselves as a "Person of Self Authority". The negative form of understanding of this term also seems to apply quite well, through what is not said in the term. It specifically excludes anyone else from being subject to their own authority.

    The reason I didnt use "Rights" is because people now understand the word itself to be something it is not. "Rights" as far as the thoughts of a common man (person) are replaced with the definition of Permission. No one can Grant A Right. The problem there is that people simply do not understand this and it takes far too much time to explain. You ALWAYS have your Rights, and they are NOT granted by any other person or any other entity. Thus, I avoided using it. "Right" has been distorted in its perspective through the use of the word "Permission" in its place. Such as "Digital Rights Management", then in the Legaleze somewhere, "we grant you the Right", and by doing so, distorts the understanding of the word Right with Permission, when they are Polar Opposites. An appropriate term would be "Digital Permissions Management". The result of this confusion of the word "Right" is to blur the appropriate application of the word. Just as "I dont have a Right to your stuff", and a person does "not have a right to public education", or "free lunch" or "welfare", or anythign that infringes on the equal rights of others. A person does have a "Right" to claim ownership over their own bodies and all property. But lets listen to the wise words of TJ for a moment...

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us
    by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is
    often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    -Thomas Jefferson
    Thus, I think perhaps either "People of Ultimate Self Authority" or "People of Self Authority" may be better, just in the clarification of defintion, but are also more easily misunderstood. Other problems arise where the word "People" does not equally define ALL people. It could easily be hijacked when someone else claims the "Authority to Deny Authority", as goofy as that may sound. "You are NOT a person of Ultimate Self Authority". Or "We do not grant you the Right to have Ultimate Self Authoirty".

    Perhaps the best course of action is to stick with the idea of "Soverign Citizen"?
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  8. #7
    I think Autarchy (self-rule) is better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I think Autarchy (self-rule) is better.
    Been there - already taken.

    This brings me to another term I coined, this one apparently being unique to myself: autodiathism, from the Greek for "self determination".

    I suppose we could further coin from this "autodiathy".

    This is what I wrote on the matter, a couple of years back:


    It has been a while now that I have been in search of a term, a word, to symbolize the concept of self-rule. Without the option to rule oneself there can be no freedom. "Anarchy" is perhaps the original term, but because it has taken on such universally bad connotations thanks to the adroit and tireless work of bottomlessly misguided and in some cases stupid or just plainly ignorant people, I have come up with a new word for the self rule of the individual: autodiathism, from the Greek, "αυτοδιάθεση" (transliterates to, "aftodiŠthesi"), literally "self determination". Diathism for short. One who practices self-rule, an autodiathist or diathist for short.

    I believe a new term would be helpful at this time to provide for the world with a clean psychological and semantic break from the past. As the world plunges headlong into a new Dark Age , many of us are simultaneously digging and climbing our way toward the eternal light of proper, living freedom. I cannot say how things will turn out in the end and acknowledge that the prospects for the future of human liberty are not looking very good at the moment, but we can do only one of two things: keep clawing our ways toward that which we know to be the good or lay down in defeat. I see no virtue in the latter even though in the end we are all inevitably defeated by old age. Though we may have no choice in our ultimate dispositions, we always have in our hands the power to choose how we shall meet them. We can go out with a bang, heads held high or we can go out wheezing and whimpering. That choice can neithert be taken from us nor can it be made for us.

    That said, for those brave and worthy souls who choose to press on, come what may, I believe our only hope lies in educating as many as possible to the virtues of freedom and all that it implies and requires of us. We cannot educate if we cannot get people to listen and we cannot get them to listen if they reject out of hand the words we use. It is therefore convenient, both conceptually and conversationally, to have concise terms that embody ideas. We use such terms every day. "Anarchy", however good a word it may be in terms of its true semantics, has been polluted by the corrupt, the ignorant, and the stupid such that it now connotes chaos and doom to far more people than it does anything else. One can spend inordinate resources correcting this misapprehension in but a single individual and still not break them of the bad habit of false connotation.

    I therefore submit to the world these new terms for use in describing self-rule, autodiathism (diathism) and Autodiathist (Diathist).

    Research reveals about 48 unique references to "autodiathesis" and it appears every use constitutes jargon specific to political issues related to Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and that general region of the world. Autodiathism derives directly from autodiathesis.

    I will, therefore, assume the privilege of declaring myself the first Autodiathist.

    Being a Diathist, I bid one and all welcome to the fold.

    Until next time, please accept my fondest regards.

    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We

    Pray for reset.

  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.

Similar Threads

  1. Do you support Panarchy?
    By LibertiORDeth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 12:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts