• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Panarchy is the only good form of government

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chairman Yang

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy

My argument is simple. Whatever government you choose to live under, you're going to have to live under the tyranny of those you disagree with. Even in a democracy, you may agree on most issues with the majority, but there are always going to be some issues where you won't. Despite that, you have no choice but to abide by the decisions of the majority (subject to constitutional constraints, of course). Everyone's a minority on some issues, and therefore everyone would be subject to many small tyrannies.

The solution is clear. There should be a "free market" of governments and countries. People should have the right to live under the system of government they want. The panarchy described in the wikipedia link is one way to do that. Of course there would be massive (perhaps insurmountable) practical barriers, but theoretically at least, panarchy (or similar systems, like simply having lots of jurisdictions in different places with the ability to easily move) strike me as the only form of organization that gives people a chance for true freedom.

So, what do you think?
 
From a purely theoretical standpoint I'm not sure how that wouldn't swiftly devolve into outright anarchy or evolve into a classic libertarian state. The Pan-Gov appears to manifest itself from the ether, and seems to have some sort of authority (aka tyranny by your definition) which can't be eliminated. What exactly does the Pan-Gov do?
Citystates
Click to expand...
Not even close.
 
No6 said:
From a purely theoretical standpoint I'm not sure how that wouldn't swiftly devolve into outright anarchy or evolve into a classic libertarian state. The Pan-Gov appears to manifest itself from the ether, and seems to have some sort of authority (aka tyranny by your definition) which can't be eliminated. What exactly does the Pan-Gov do?
Click to expand...

Ensure that people can create new ministates and preserve them. And make sure that people have the choice to freely move between ministates. That's about it, I think. Everything else would be part of local jurisdiction.
 
Chairman Yang said:
Ensure that people can create new ministates and preserve them. And make sure that people have the choice to freely move between ministates. That's about it, I think. Everything else would be part of local jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
But this would require an immense military and intelligence gathering force (members subserviating themselves to the Pan-Gov) in order to maintain both the rapidly shifting borders and to ensure that members of more totalitarian governments were capable of leaving at will.
 
FGEPeterbusUnum.png
 
No6 said:
But this would require an immense military and intelligence gathering force (members subserviating themselves to the Pan-Gov) in order to maintain both the rapidly shifting borders and to ensure that members of more totalitarian governments were capable of leaving at will.
Click to expand...

The initial cost would be huge, yeah, but eventually the borders would probably be pretty much stable. Obviously there would have to be enforcement mechanisms and some limitations to prevent states from, say, nuking everyone else or disallowing their citizens to leave, but that doesn't seem insurmountable.

The concept also isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. You can have degrees of panarchy. Like start out by devolving more power to sub-governments (eg. state or provincial governments) and have each of these sub-governments take on different roles.
 
sounds dumb. "my form of government says I can rape and pillage anywhere I want because I'm Ryan" what do you say to that

edit: isn't this what the EU and AU are, pretty much?
 
ElectricBlue187 said:
sounds dumb. "my form of government says I can rape and pillage anywhere I want because I'm Ryan" what do you say to that
Click to expand...

other forms of government obviously can't impose themselves on others. and it's peoples choice to follow ryan. and they probably wouldn't. unless they're rapists.
 
JodyAnthony said:
if i ever start a pizza restaurant, i am going to serve a pan pizza called the panarchy.
Click to expand...

it should be the name for the pizza that is subdivided into toppings of each individual at the table's choosing; as the first statute on the formal decrees of ryantown, all pizza portions must be topped with onions, regardless of auxiliary choices
 
ElectricBlue187 said:
sounds dumb. "my form of government says I can rape and pillage anywhere I want because I'm Ryan" what do you say to that
Click to expand...

Go ahead. I doubt many people would want to live in your ministate, and you wouldn't be allowed to attack other ministates (as I already mentioned earlier), but to each his own.

EDIT: Beaten by TemplaerDude
 
beelzebozo said:
it should be the name for the pizza that is subdivided into toppings of each individual at the table's choosing; as the first statute on the formal decrees of ryantown, all pizza portions must be topped with onions, regardless of auxiliary choices
Click to expand...

Is a man not entitled to the toppings of his pizza?
 
Mr. Banana Grabber said:
Is a man not entitled to the toppings of his pizza?
Click to expand...

no, says the man from pizza hut, they belong on the pan pizza.

no, says the man from dominoes, we only use pepperoni.

no, says the man from panago, we'd rather use goat cheese and artichoke hearts!
 
Chairman Yang said:
Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy

My argument is simple. Whatever government you choose to live under, you're going to have to live under the tyranny of those you disagree with. Even in a democracy, you may agree on most issues with the majority, but there are always going to be some issues where you won't. Despite that, you have no choice but to abide by the decisions of the majority (subject to constitutional constraints, of course). Everyone's a minority on some issues, and therefore everyone would be subject to many small tyrannies.

The solution is clear. There should be a "free market" of governments and countries. People should have the right to live under the system of government they want. The panarchy described in the wikipedia link is one way to do that. Of course there would be massive (perhaps insurmountable) practical barriers, but theoretically at least, panarchy (or similar systems, like simply having lots of jurisdictions in different places with the ability to easily move) strike me as the only form of organization that gives people a chance for true freedom.

So, what do you think?
Click to expand...


You should check out freedomainradio.com. The guy that runs the site (Stefan Molyneux) does a podcast and writes articles that often have to do with this type of "government" configuration, especially his early stuff.
 
TemplaerDude said:
no, says the man from pizza hut, they belong on the pan pizza.

no, says the man from dominoes, we only use pepperoni.

no, says the man from panago, we'd rather use goat cheese and artichoke hearts!
Click to expand...

so tell me, friend: which one of the bitches sent you? the little caesar man or the domino yo-noid?
 
I don't even want to live in a state. I want to do whatever I want, constricted only by one rule: I am allowed to do everything except the actions or consequences of those actions harm other people.


My perfect "government".
 
Reiterated from my edit, isn't Panarchy the same thing as the European, African, or Asian unions assuming they allow you to move freely from state to state?
 
ElectricBlue187 said:
Reiterated from my edit, isn't Panarchy the same thing as the European, African, or Asian unions assuming they allow you to move freely from state to state?
Click to expand...

In Panarchy, you wouldn't have to move at all. You can change your government right from the comfort of your own living room!
 
purvispisgah said:
You should check out freedomainradio.com. The guy that runs the site (Stefan Molyneux) does a podcast and writes articles that often have to do with this type of "government" configuration, especially his early stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I'll definitely check it out.

Joe Molotov said:
That would be awesome if it could happen!

Protip: It won't.
Click to expand...

It could. We've seen plenty of self-determination movements around the world, usually based around ethnicity, religion, or language. Why not these sorts of movements based on ideologies, or positions on various issues?
 
ElectricBlue187 said:
Reiterated from my edit, isn't Panarchy the same thing as the European, African, or Asian unions assuming they allow you to move freely from state to state?
Click to expand...

No, because you don't really have the option to form your own state with its own rules (subject to the constraints I discussed earlier). And Joe Molotov brought up how you wouldn't have to physically move around in a panarchy, although I think the physical location issue is secondary to the whole concept of a free market of states.
 
TemplaerDude said:
no, says the man from pizza hut, they belong on the pan pizza.

no, says the man from dominoes, we only use pepperoni.

no, says the man from panago, we'd rather use goat cheese and artichoke hearts!
Click to expand...

Papa John = Andrew Ryan?
 
i will admit that i fall under the category of people in this country who are largely indifferent to political happenings, and look upon whatever is happening in that realm as something for someone else to think about while i read books about the human condition and (i suppose you would say) more metaphysical things. those things have always seemed intrinsically more useful and germane to my day-to-day thought.

but you seem to be a smart guy, and i generally respect your opinions and think you have good ideas, so i'm certainly glad to see that someone out there cares about this sort of thing. caring about government dealings (even broad structural concerns) is nearly impossible for me, for one reason or another.

i'm sure you got nearly nothing from this comment, but yeah. . . good work. it seems interesting, and your vigilance is appreciated
 
Chairman Yang said:
The initial cost would be huge, yeah, but eventually the borders would probably be pretty much stable. Obviously there would have to be enforcement mechanisms and some limitations to prevent states from, say, nuking everyone else or disallowing their citizens to leave, but that doesn't seem insurmountable.
Click to expand...
Why would borders be stable? This also gets into the problem of personal property, since I could destabilize an existing state by acquiring a large chunk of property in the middle of a state and then declare a new state.

The concept also isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. You can have degrees of panarchy. Like start out by devolving more power to sub-governments (eg. state or provincial governments) and have each of these sub-governments take on different roles.
Click to expand...
You mean a federalist government?
 
Even on a theoretical level it's pretty stupid, but if it were actually accomplished, it wouldn't last a week.

Religious/Nazi/extreme left/extreme right/Communist/Autoritarian/... nutjob starts country. All other nutjobs follow suit. Nutjob gets expansion drift. WOIII.

Apart from that, the cultural relativism would be fucking horrible "hey, I don't approve of rape, but who am I to judge the people from country x" (I can't believe some people in this thread actually think this way), the economy wouldn't work cause you would just attract 1 type of person while economies need all sorts of people/sectors/..., it would be devastating for the environment cause there are bound to be some countries who don't give a shit about it and ruin it for all of us, ...


No, not good at all.
 
Mr. Banana Grabber said:
Captain Morgan's Maritime Ideals.
Click to expand...
SIGN ME UP

beelzebozo said:
i will admit that i fall under the category of people in this country who are largely indifferent to political happenings, and look upon whatever is happening in that realm as something for someone else to think about while i read books about the human condition and (i suppose you would say) more metaphysical things. those things have always seemed intrinsically more useful and germane to my day-to-day thought.

but you seem to be a smart guy, and i generally respect your opinions and think you have good ideas, so i'm certainly glad to see that someone out there cares about this sort of thing. caring about government dealings (even broad structural concerns) is nearly impossible for me, for one reason or another.

i'm sure you got nearly nothing from this comment, but yeah. . . good work. it seems interesting, and your vigilance is appreciated
Click to expand...

i'm kind of the same way, only while not thinking about politics, i am focusing on music, cooking, my wife, and video games. those are the things that matter to me on a personal level. but when i say i dont really care about political happenings, i am just called ignorant or whatever. ignorant by choice, bitches!
 
beelzebozo said:
i will admit that i fall under the category of people in this country who are largely indifferent to political happenings, and look upon whatever is happening in that realm as something for someone else to think about while i read books about the human condition and (i suppose you would say) more metaphysical things. those things have always seemed intrinsically more useful and germane to my day-to-day thought.

but you seem to be a smart guy, and i generally respect your opinions and think you have good ideas, so i'm certainly glad to see that someone out there cares about this sort of thing. caring about government dealings (even broad structural concerns) is nearly impossible for me, for one reason or another.

i'm sure you got nearly nothing from this comment, but yeah. . . good work. it seems interesting, and your vigilance is appreciated
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm actually not too interested in politics, and I'm certainly not very politically active--I just find it interesting to talk about this sort of stuff from time to time.

No6 said:
Why would borders be stable? This also gets into the problem of personal property, since I could destabilize an existing state by acquiring a large chunk of property in the middle of a state and then declare a new state.
Click to expand...

Borders would be stable because in practice, there would only be a relatively small number of governments people would actually want to live under, and once those had been established (after, say, 20 years or so), I doubt people would continually come up with new forms of government.

The central overarching pan-government would be in charge of overseeing the formation of new governments. The size and natural wealth of new territories would be established based on population, and could change based on the same criterion. But yeah, I'm sure there would still be issues sorting that out.

No6 said:
You mean a federalist government?
Click to expand...

Basically yes, except with more decentralization/devolution. Also, the absolutely critical ability to form new governments.
 
Souldriver said:
Even on a theoretical level it's pretty stupid, but if it were actually accomplished, it wouldn't last a week.

Religious/Nazi/extreme left/extreme right/Communist/Autoritarian/... nutjob starts country. All other nutjobs follow suit. Nutjob gets expansion drift. WOIII.
Click to expand...

No6 already addressed that. Remember, the subgovernments aren't free to take over other subgovernments. The central Pan-government would enforce that.

Souldriver said:
Apart from that, the cultural relativism would be fucking horrible "hey, I don't approve of rape, but who am I to judge the people from country x" (I can't believe some people in this thread actually think this way),
Click to expand...

If someone doesn't want to get raped, they could simply choose to not live in Rapeland. If someone does want to get raped (isn't that an oxymoron?) who are you to stop them? Cultural relativism has nothing to do with it.

Souldriver said:
the economy wouldn't work cause you would just attract 1 type of person while economies need all sorts of people/sectors/...,
Click to expand...

A lot of economies would collapse, sure. People would likely leave those ministates and move to ones that function properly. The problem would solve itself.

Souldriver said:
it would be devastating for the environment cause there are bound to be some countries who don't give a shit about it and ruin it for all of us, ...

No, not good at all.
Click to expand...

Remember, no ministate is allowed to harm another. If they're destroying the environment outside their borders then that's precisely what they're doing.
 
We've had "Panarchy" already - though you'd call it Tribalism. Why did it die out? Because the current system works better.
 
Chairman Yang said:
People should have the right to live under the system of government they want.
Click to expand...

This implies there would need to be as many ministates as there are people. Even assuming you discounted individual minor differences, the population would be too splintered to be practical.
 
Chairman Yang said:
No6 already addressed that. Remember, the subgovernments aren't free to take over other subgovernments. The central Pan-government would enforce that.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't know that was the assumption. So it's basically federalism then. A federal government, and lots of regional little governments.

Chairman Yang said:
If someone doesn't want to get raped, they could simply choose to not live in Rapeland. If someone does want to get raped (isn't that an oxymoron?) who are you to stop them? Cultural relativism has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Well, I was going from the idea there was no supranational autority. And if that was the case, you'd bet your ass the rape country would have it's underground rape victim traffic organized. ;)

Chairman Yang said:
Remember, no ministate is allowed to harm another. If they're destroying the environment outside their borders then that's precisely what they're doing.
Click to expand...
Again, I went out from the "no authority" idea, but still. I know a lot of people in this world, not in the least Americans or it's government, give a shit about environment. So in the end they'd still polute the world for all of us. Environmental problems are to be dealth with on a global scale. Air polution doesn't stop at the borders, river polution doesn't stop once it has reached the ocean, cutting down the rainforest is not something people of that region should have the right to, since they basically are the lungs of the earth, ... It's bad enough as it is now, I can't imagine it being any better in the so called panarchy.

But again, if you answer this with the idea that the supranational government would set some restrictions and rules when it comes to polution and such, well....then it isn't a Panarchy anymore, and you practically have what is called the European Union. But on a world scale. I wouldn't mind that, but if I catch your drift, there wouldn't be any rules for the little states, and the supranational government would only act as a police and have the military as it's only organ. That wouldn't be sufficient if you don't want the world to go down the shitter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Is this a good laptop?
4
202
SoloCamo replied
UK Government to take control of Youtube algorithm as they move forward with social media ban
News  2
97
396
Signalis replied
The Ending to the "Long Good Friday" is a classic
13
632
Queso de Grande replied
  • Poll
Winget is one of the few good things Microsoft has made in the past decade
Opinion 
5
411
ShadowNate replied
  • Poll
Flock of Seagulls, good band? Or no?
12
368
Wildebeest replied
Top Bottom