You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Panarchy The Answer?
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.
Passing a law against Authoritarianism would require a 51% vote against authoritarianism, are we sure we have those numbers? Would a 51% vote be recognized as legitimate by authoritarians.
Governments don't even abide by really clear written text, such as: 'Shall not be Infringed', there is no real honesty of any social construct confining itself.
I like the concept and all, but there is this problem.
the amendment just gives non-territorial Governance Service Providers the legal right to compete for customers within the borders of an existing territorial nation-state.
Another method would be for a Governance Service Provider to become recognized as a Nation itself, in which case it would gain sovereignty and legal protections against aggression.
An existing Nation-State could still claim final jurisdiction within its borders unless a loophole could be found in the Constitution that actually does not prohibit citizens' right to voluntarily use and pay for the services of an alternative Governance Service Provider, as long as the citizen still follows the laws and pays taxes while within the Nation-State's borders.
This method is probably the most realistic, because as people begin to voluntarily use the services of alternative Governance Service Providers, they will begin to resent the fact that they are force to pay for the services of the Nation-State which they do not want.
Essentially the Governance Service Providers will outcompete Nation-States in the free market by producing better services at lower prices, and this coupled with education about Non-Aggression, non-territorial governments, etc. will eventually lead to an amendment or otherwise form of disbanding the monopoly that nation states currently enjoy.
If people are really interested in self governance, they could simply declare the nation a individualist republic, with the only authority residing in individual sovereignty. No authority in social constructs would be recognized.
This would disband not only nation states, but potential any social construct that would use aggression through collective means.
In your model, the Service Providers could just as easily form aggressive conflicting factions, up to nation state levels(or even larger, Communism being one example).
Coercive force would be required to prevent peaceful people from voluntarily entering into contracts with the form of government of their choice.
I don't see anyway you could get around allowing people the freedom even to choose not to be free by signing a contract that allows a government to coerce them according to the rules of the contract.
If we all agree via consensus that aggressing against other is wrong (whereas using coercion only against those who have explicitly agreed to be coerced is not aggression) then Service Providers aggressing against each other would be no different than individuals aggressing against each other in your model. In both cases it would be recognized as illegal, and addressed accordingly.
Note above I didn't say force, or coercion. I simply stated that if people are interested in self governance they could do certain things. It is a choice, but it would be a choice to deny lending their authority to any social construct.
If government or government contract initiates force upon formation then should it even exist?
I am not asking to use force against the formations of government, I'm asking for people to use logic against the formation/support of it.
Unfortunately, my model would suffer the same failure mode as Panarchy, (this i do not deny at all) people would have to see the logic and choose a consensus of no coercion, if even unto themselves.
For Panarchy to thrive it would have to limit the authority of Providers/governments to only in act force within the social construct, which is something that hasn't really happened. Once a large enough social construct is formed it rarely abides by the limitations originally constraining it.