This is a transcript of a discussion from my (now de-activated) Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)
Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Any other panarchists out there? So basically what I believe is that every political system should exist and people should be free to choose which they would prefer to live under. Its like a free market of governments, if that makes sense.
It makes a nice “olive branch” between anarchists and statists. The people who want government can have it, and the people who don’t can opt out.
𝔩𝔦𝔮𝔲𝔦𝔡𝔫𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱
we will enable that by splitting the regions, is that within your imagination ?
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Hiya. Our advocacy should represent an ideal within the realm of possibility, informed by our fullest current understanding.
Knowing that government is inherently immoral (i.e. fallacious), it is inconsistent to make any permissions for it; particularly since its very nature is to impose itself upon those who do not consent.
I appreciate your desire to extend an olive branch (and it speaks to your wisdom that you recognize such need), but extend that branch to the true Self of the statist, not the ego that holds him hostage.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > 𝔩𝔦𝔮𝔲𝔦𝔡𝔫𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱
I’d imagine there are any number of ways you could implement such a system (this is the free market after all) but most likely it would be regionalized. So you would have “ancapistan” next to “minarchistan” above “commie-land”, etc.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > bbblackwell
I would actually argue that panarchism is the most consistent form of libertarianism, because it is the logical conclusion that follows from free association. If anarchists have a right to disassociate with the state on the grounds of self ownership, then an implication of that is that statists have a right to associate with the state. (Freedom of association entails both the right to associate as well as the right not to.) If you were to deny statists the ability to voluntarily create and associate with a government (assuming of course they left anarchists alone in the process), that would be an imposition of one’s personal preferences onto others counter to their will. You would be guilty of the very evil you claim to be inherent in government, and therefore not logically consistent. Therefore, a consistent libertarian theory not only can, but must entertain the existence of government, at least insofar as those who prefer it to anarchy.
ⒶMP3083 > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
I’d like to hear an idea on how this government described under panarchism would function differently from how governments today function.
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
No one has a right to participate in slavery; not even the slavery of themselves. Rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be removed from the person by any means, not even their own consent.
This is a rather nuanced and tangential point, as it is not a critical to establishing the inconsistency of the anarchist abiding government in any form. Government is a claim to authority, which means it does not respect consent by definition, and this is sufficient to discredit the proposal.
It is impossible for there to be a society of consensual government, for if it was predicated upon consent, it would not be government. In addition, if at any point a person were to arise or appear within that society who did not consent, yet the organization imposed its demands upon that individual, it would no longer be a voluntary society, and the anarchist would be morally and logically obliged to oppose the arrangement.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > ⒶMP3083
The way governments currently function is that their authority is assumed legitimate by default. Under panarchism, governments have no inherent authority and only gain authority over others by consent. So for example, if I wanted to live in minarchistan, I would sign a contract with the government of mincarchistan that I would agree to pay their taxes and submit to their authority in return for whatever benefits I would receive. UNTIL I do so, they have no authority over me.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > bbblackwell
Authority by consent does exist, employers and landlords are examples of such, and I can point to examples of voluntary governments that can or have existed, such as cruise ships or company towns.
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
The examples you’ve cited are authority over property (i.e. ownership rights), not authority over the individual.
Government claims authority over the individual themselves; not just in cases like drugs and prostitution, but in every matter, since their property (“territory” or “area of jurisdiction”) claim is invalid.
If I am in your house, you may tell me that I can’t wear shoes while inside, but if you approach me in the woods and tell me I can’t wear shoes, you are making a de facto claim of ownership over me, since you have no valid claim over the woods or the shoes.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > bbblackwell
Ok, I think I see where the disagreement lies here. We seem to agree that all associations should be voluntary. Where we part consensus is on the definition or nature of government.
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Ah, excellent, that should be easy to sort out. To my mind, government is defined by a fallacious claim to rightful authority (meaning it’s essentially a moral claim). How do we differ on this point?
Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Here is my approach to the problem. Terms like “government” and “state” can be somewhat difficult to define. (This is why I feel a lot of “anarchist vs minarchist” debates tend to go nowhere, yet I digress) So I like to apply the “duck test” (if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a duck). Governments come in many different forms and do a wide variety of things (contributing to its difficulty to define) but all of them seem to perform certain key functions that (many would argue) make modern society possible. What these key functions are exactly may vary depending on perspective, but for me, I would consider an organization to be a state or government if it did the following. a.) maintain public order and safety b.) had finality on arbitration (not monopoly, there is a big difference) c.) manage public goods and natural monopolies. There may be others but those are the big three for me.
𝔩𝔦𝔮𝔲𝔦𝔡𝔫𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱 > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
“a.) Governments … seem to perform certain key functions that make modern society possible.”
The main function they perform is: putting human beings into slavery, that constitutes your “modern society”.
“b.) maintain public order and safety”
Violence (performed by believers-of-government) is not a means to reach neither order nor safety.
“c.) manage public goods and natural monopolies.”
Their word “public” is a problem for the humans, since team-violence takes away ALL resources from human beings. See the papal bull “unam sanctam”.
Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Yes, governments have enslaved people before, but not all governments must necessarily enslave people. Private sector entities have also participated in slavery. The non aggression principle does not entirely rule out violence. There are two conditions (self defense and consent) under which violence is considered justified. And while I will agree that violence is not always necessary to maintain order and safety it is sometimes needed as a last resort. Public goods are things from which are difficult or impossible to exclude non payers (roads, parks, military defense). I will concede you don’t “need” a government to provide these things, but having one makes it a bit easier.
ⒶMP3083 > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
“I will concede you don’t “need” a government to provide these things, but having one makes it a bit easier.”
I’d rather just send my own money to the businesses who provides me with goods and services. That sounds simple enough. So, how can a government make that easier for me?
𝔩𝔦𝔮𝔲𝔦𝔡𝔫𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱 > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
“Yes, governments have enslaved people before, but not all governments must necessarily enslave people.”
Can you tell me one government that does not enslave people ?
“The non aggression principle does not entirely rule out violence.”
The NAP rules out to initiate violence. Yourself adhering to it does not rule out someone else violating you. With this – isnt your sentence profane ?
“There are two conditions (self defense and consent) under which violence is considered justified.”
If it is self defense, we call it such. Then we don’t call it violence. If there is a consent, this might be sportive, but not violence.
“And while I will agree that violence is not always necessary to maintain order and safety it is sometimes needed as a last resort”
Can you tell a case that would justify violence ?
hootersforshooters
Violence: using force to cause a violation.
Self-defense: using force to protect from violence.
Violence is only brought about by violating natural law. It is not violence to use force against one who is violating you. Why? Because the violator has abrogated any moral position merely by initiating violence.
The_NFE > hootersforshooters
All you did was redefine violence
But, I agree: defensive violence (retaliatory exertion of force in defense of one’s self or property against an INITIATOR of force, or aggressor) is always justified. You can even extend this right and use defensive violence in defense of another individual’s well-being/property.
bbblackwell > The_NFE > hootersforshooters
Words are extremely important, as clear delineation between concepts protects us from the manipulations of those who would blur the lines.
Violence implies violation, as hooters noted. Self-defense is not violence at all; it is a fundamentally different action, in moral terms. I would add the following nuance to how we intellectually model this phenomenon: The reason why defense is not violence (i.e. violation of anyone’s rights) is not because the aggressor gave up or annulled his rights by his actions (rights are unalienable and cannot be relinquished by any means), but because defense is upholding innate rights to the fullest extent possible, given the unfortunate circumstances.
We must think in aggregate terms, as the Truth of our nature is that all are unified. The potential for maximum expression of rights was drastically limited by the aggressor’s actions, and so now the maximum alignment with Law and the natural order is a piss-poor pittance.
But harming the aggressor is still better than the victim being freely victimized, because it is a mitigating counter-action to a chaotic force, and this is supportive of the natural order.
This ordering influence is so meaningful (especially amongst a psychologically-adaptive species), that it even counter-balances a circumstance whereby more net harm is enacted (the aggressor getting killed for attempting a robbery, for example).
Rights are merely “not wrongs”. So when someone harms you, they are violating you. Violence. Which is wrong.
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
If an endeavor (such as building roads) does not permit for a passive opt-out (meaning an individual may refrain from participation without taking any action), then the endeavor is immoral. You can’t provide an unsolicited service, then say ”You must provide compensation for services rendered”, nor can you build something on unowned land, then say ”You are not permitted to travel there without our permission”.
So if you want to build a road, those who want it bad enough can pay for it willingly, and those who don’t pay can still travel on it (unless the road is built only on validly owned property; and remember, two or more people can never validly own property jointly). Much of the “freeloader” problem is rooted in the evil of economic trade, as roads should be built freely and used freely if we want to live in a society of higher consciousness (greater alignment with Truth).
So, does your “government” ever impose anything upon the individual (outside the scope of valid defense)? Does it claim any rights/privileges/authority for its agents in excess of those enjoyed by any other individual? If it claims no special rights, it is strange to call it “government”, since it is indistinguishable from any other group of people.
ⒶMP3083 > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Blackwell brings up an interesting point.
So, this “government” you’re describing under panarchy: you say those who want to opt out are allowed and will be left alone by said government. Alright, so what about the question of roads? Do the roads that this government provides you with end on a certain borderline that does not cross over outside within the rest of the society that is not bounded by said government? How does this work? Honest question.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > bbblackwell
I’ve actually had this discussion in before other circles, if it is possible to be both a voluntaryist and a statist. A very common argument is that governments are by definition involuntary and that an organization would cease to be government if it operated based on consent. I personally disagree with this, but in order to avoid spinning my tires in the semantic mud, I acquiesced on this point. To get around the “definition of government” problem, I’ve coined the term “pseudo state” to describe an organization that is functionally and socially equivalent to government, save for the power to coerce participation. I may decide to make a video discussing the concept in further detail.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > ⒶMP3083
It depends really, since panarchism is based on the free market, there is no one set way of doing everything. Presumably the government would only be responsible for roads within its territory, if anyone on the outside wanted to connect on at the border, that would be on them. If that particular government did a good job of supporting its economy, there is a good chance entities on the outside would be wanting a convenient connection. Suppose however that there was another government, or some entity out in the anarchy zone that a particular government did frequent business with. It would be within the realm of possibility to throw funding toward this road, even though it lies outside of its territory.
𝔩𝔦𝔮𝔲𝔦𝔡𝔫𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱 > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
“I’ve coined the term “pseudo state” to describe an organization that is functionally and socially equivalent to government, save for the power to coerce participation.”
If you omit initiating violence, it were service provider. Why not name it that way ? Did you consider the psychopath attraction level of such an organisation ?
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Could you provide an example of how this organization would “support the economy” or do anything else? Your preferred example will do fine. I’m just trying to get a sense for how it can function without claiming rights in excess of those held by any other individual.
ⒶMP3083 > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
I still can’t seem to get a clear picture of how it would look. All I’m seeing in my head is as if this government is like a military base. Of course, only those with valid ID cards are allowed in a military base. No one else is allowed in, you’re not even allowed to drive through it. Well, supposing I’m an outsider of the government you describe, and I want to drive through to take a shortcut. Since I’m an outsider, obviously I’m not taxpayer which means I don’t pay for the roads within that territory. Am I still allowed to drive through on those roads?
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > ⒶMP3083
Again, there is no “correct” way of doing things under the free market. It will depend on who is in charge of that particular government. Some may expect you to pay a toll, others may offer use of their roads to guests as a courtesy (although there would probably still be some sort of checkpoint at the border, to make sure you aren’t there to cause trouble). Also if there are any privately owned roads within that territory they may also have their own rules. One possibility, depending on the size of the territory, is a beltloop or bypass, that would create the kind of shortcut you have in mind, while alleviating local traffic, and possibly taking advantage of extra toll revenue.
The_NFE
It’s not a state what you’re proposing if it’s noncoercive.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > bbblackwell
Supporting the economy could mean any number of things, from providing essential infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, internet etc.) and services (security, banking, arbitration, etc), to creating a business friendly atmosphere (low inflation currency, start up loans and grants, etc). Now, for an example of how the state could fulfill its role of promoting the public good and general welfare without claiming any special powers or rights, consider the example of “positive regulations”. Under the current regulatory framework, the government threatens private businesses with violence if they do not operate a certain way. This is obviously illegitimate as it is a claim to the right to make decisions regarding the property of others. Suppose instead the government decided to reward businesses for following certain guidelines. This reward could take any number of forms, grants, favorable contact conditions, or a simple seal of approval. This would be legitimate because it is not based on coercion, the business owner still has the final decision, and it would not require a claim to any special rights or powers none the rest have.
The_NFE
Then they can’t by definition stop other arbitration/rights protection firms from competing with it. It wouldn’t be a state or government, it would just be another firm. There’s no way for a state/government to maintain a monopoly on violence if its noncoercive.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > The_NFE
1). Nobody said they had to, they just have to be able to step in when all others fail. Also, do you mean “stop” by coercion, or “stop” by providing a better quality service, because both methods can be used to curtail competition.
2.) Who said there was a difference?
3.) Why does the state need a monopoly on violence, most states acknowledge self defense. Also I said it can’t coerce participation, not that it can’t coerce period.
The_NFE
Right. I mean “stop” as in coercively. Also, if their income is coming in not by extortion but voluntarily, then there’s a possibility this “government” will fail as well. What happens if another rights protection agency tries to arbitrate cases in your panarchy? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
If the answer is your government will stop it from doing so, then it’s coercive, and hence becomes a state. If not, then it fails to be a state. It’s just another firm operating in the market.
Philosopossum(Panarchist)
I hear the argument that the state has a monopoly on arbitration. I don’t think that is accurate, because that implies that all disagreements between people must be vetted through the state. Not even the most heavy handed governments make this demand. I think it would be more accurate to say that the state has finality on arbitration, that is to say, it is the ultimate fallback should other means to resolve the dispute ultimately come to no avail.
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Ah, very good, thank you. I see what you’re saying. Of course, the objections raised about maintaining its foothold are valid, but you’re not saying it must do so, just that under ideal circumstances it would. Others may compete, but if this organization had the most voluntary support, and was effective at what it did, then it would stand supreme as the grand organizer of the society.
I hate the idea, but it checks out. I wouldn’t call this government, but I can see why one would, and labels are subjective anyway.
The reason I hate it is because it maintains the psychology of responsibility abdication and large-scale organizational systems. Mankind cannot progress into full evolutionary fruition under these circumstances. It’s a damn slippery slope to tread on a journey upward.
Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Even if I were to sidestep the semantics and agree this wouldn’t be a government, the point would still stand that it is possible to have something similar or functionally equivalent that is compatible with voluntarism.
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Would you call what results after removing the core element of the institution (coercion) functionally equivalent? I wouldn’t, but it’s a bit of a nitpick. I only cite it in the name of clarity. It’s important to me that we continually combat the deception that government (as it currently operates) is anything but outright and utter slavery.
If a bunch of people want to voluntarily support a broad-scale organization to manage social services, I don’t recommend it, but I’m not justified in using force to stop them.
Personally, I’d like to see you coin a new term that doesn’t include “government” or “state”, only because of the aforementioned crusade against a powerfully ingrained deception. The philosophically uninitiated are unlikely to recognize these nuanced distinctions without the overt cue of distinct terminology.
Have you ever seen the following video? It’s not going to tell you anything you don’t already know, but it’s good to have seen it at least once; as it’s important that we keep this foundational perspective in mind when presenting voluntary alternatives to government: https://youtu.be/z0HtWSlFCAQ
Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Panarchism is a political paradigm that stipulates one ought to be free to determine their preferred governance (or lack thereof in the case of anarchists). It is not a political system in and of itself but rather a framework within which political systems operate. It is essentially a form of voluntarism that is state compatible.
Basically, if the social contract was an actual contract.
The main criticism of panarchism is that the key underlying assumption it rests upon is that the state can be compatible with voluntarism, or that it is possible for a government to operate on a voluntary basis.
My response to this criticism is threefold.
1.) There are examples of things which operate on a voluntary basis in spite of being owned and managed by government (toll roads, post office, lottery, etc.)
2.) I hold a different conception of what government fundamentally is from other voluntarists. I believe that government is a role that exists in society and a firm that can fulfill this role or something functionally equivalent can be properly considered to be government.
3.) Even if I were to concede that government by definition cannot be voluntary, it would not change the underlying logic, you can have various political and social arrangements and the ability to choose from which according to preference, even if said arrangements cannot be considered “government” proper.
Abdul > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Do you want a centralised government or not?
Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Centralized is a frame of reference, everything is centralized to an extent.
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Please take my comments in the spirit they are offered—friendly banter between freedom-loving allies:
You’re a real ball-breaker, you know that? We have enough trouble trying to get people to understand and abandon their statism, and you come along offering them hope that “government”, in some form, can be maintained.
Don’t you know the desperate desire of every recovering addict is that they could be healthy and still have it? They’ll grasp at anything to not have to give it up. Why do you think vaping took-off like it did?
You’re muddying the waters with this nonsense. It’s all implied in anarchy anyway. Of course if it’s voluntary you can do it, since nobody is being ruled. You don’t have to convolute the message in an effort to seem more open-minded or permissive. Anarchy is as free as it gets.
quallnet > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
I’m sorry man, I’m really confused. I can understand the concept of a governing body in which everyone consents to theoretically. But that’s still anarchy, not government. The key difference between anarchy and government is that in government, the ruled need not give consent, so here is where I see your idea falling apart. What about after the first generation? What if my kids disagree with your rules? Are they as children forced to comply? Or are they to be exiled? What if someone changes their mind, are they too to be exiled? Even if they’ve lived within said community longer than anyone else? If it’s strictly voluntary and implies to rules can you even call it government? I’ve heard of people saying government is necessary to provide necessities such as water to the people and keep track of building plans an such, but let’s say I provide my own water and desire to keep my blueprints secret, am I to face punishment?
Toll roads or all roads are still funded by unconsented tax dollars, a few roads here and there might be an exception, but most use tolls simply to boost profit. Most are built ahead of time with unconsented stolen money even before tolls are added. That is still theft in my opinion especially seeing as the taxpayers aren’t even refunded.
The post office is the same problem. John stossel did an episode on post offices which were in the red because they simply did not have enough customers to meet their financial running needs, yet people are still forced to overpay for their exsistence.
The lottery is something (which I’m not going to lie) gets under my skin. It’s a perfect example of hypocrisy. Gambling is illegal except when the state does it… Assuming under your concept of government doesn’t disallow people to gamle, where does it come up with the funds to create it’s own lottery system?
I’m not really sure you understand the delicate situation of a contract. I’d like you to explain exactly how a governing body can be run completely voluntarily.
Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Speaking of state hypocrisy, a restaurant can’t refuse to serve alcohol to someone because of their gender, race, etc. but also must refuse to serve alcohol to people under 21. Discrimination is illegal, unless its discrimination the state approves of, then not only is it allowed, its mandatory. I know that’s a little off topic, but its something that always got on my nerves.
I like to use the analogy of renting versus owning property, to explain the difference between statism and anarchism under a panarchist framework. When you rent property, you owe the landlord a portion of your income in rent and must abide by any rules the landlord stipulates in the lease.
However, in return for this the landlord provides services and maintains the premises. When you own property, you don’t have to pay anybody or follow anybody’s rules. However you don’t have access to the same services as someone who rents, and are responsible for any maintenance yourself. Now compare this to panarchism. If you choose to live in a government, you must pay a portion of your income in taxes and obey its laws, but in return you are provided with services and have certain responsibilities handled for you. If you are an anarchist and prefer to live under no government, you don’t have to pay taxes or follow any laws, but you are responsible for your own protection and access to public services.
Abdul > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
“If you are an anarchist and prefer to live under no government, you don’t have to pay taxes or follow any laws, but you are responsible for your own protection and access to public services.”
^If only that were true, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the state, but the fact is, this simply isn’t true, because the state imposes its presence over you whether you like it or not.
I don’t know what country you live in, but when you “own” property, there are often property taxes to pay (mandatory). So it’s not true that “you don’t have to pay anybody or follow anybody’s rules” Everybody has to follow the rules of the state, otherwise you will be hunted down, fined and/or thrown in a cage… How nice.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > Abdul
I was describing things as they should be, rather than how they actually are.
Abdul > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
And yet you’re perfectly happy to have such a state around? As long as statists want it around?
bbblackwell > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Yeah, really. If you’re old enough to be in a restaurant without parental supervision, you’re being trusted to care for your own safety in many ways. Of course, bartenders should use discretion regarding the number of drinks they are willing to give people of any age, but it’s not a matter that requires violence to solve, so government’s interference is not necessary.
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > Abdul
Everybody wins under panarchism. Statists can have their government and anarchists don’t have to participate.
Anana Ita > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Under Panarchism, do the young ones get indoctrinated, in Statism? When do the Statist’s youth get to decide whether or not they want to be Statists?
quallnet > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Ok, I think I actually understand where you’re coming from but let’s clarify our grounding. So would these be individual communites like an anarchist one over there, two democratic ones over there and a democratic-republic-sovereign corporatocracy over there? Because I’ve thought this idea out before thinking maybe we can live in communites side by side respecting each others wishes, if so let me know because there’s more I’d like to say on that.
If not, is it the idea of all communites being this panarchism and each individual chooses their level or involvement with the government of panarchia? I’ve thought about such situations too and also have many things to say about that.
Abdul > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
And what if the government that statists want forcefully imposes itself onto the anarchists that do not wish to participate? (you know, kinda like how it is now?)
Philosopossum(Panarchist) > quallnet
Yeah that’s kind of what I have in mind. You would have ancapistan next to minarchistan, democracy land to the south and a socialist commune over there etc.
Another perk of panarchism is that you can experiment with new forms of government that don’t exist yet. I’m the entrepreneurial type, so this in particular interests me.
quallnet > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Oh trust me, I’ve had an evil idea or two of playing dictator and experimenting with types of government. I thought it would be to have anarchists in one location and a hardcore dictatorship right over the wall. Like how statists imagine east/west germany, but with real anarchism on one side. Then maybe just before the dictatorship falls, completely swap things up on them like in a game show where anarchia becomes a dictatorial monarch and the dictatorship in now a minimal republic run by pandas. The mind can have a lot of fun divulging in the potential horrors of different types of farms.
Now realistically, I think both the foundations I asked about earlier, with a little more thought given have a similar problem, because you have universal laws to take in to consideration. You cannot place a cold pot of water on a hot oven and except the water to not get hot. This is because you cannot not effect the world around you. Imagine all the molecules in your body not being on the same page.
So saying that one community cannot impress itself upon another community still implies some sort of higher dictatorship doesn’t it? At that point wouldn’t everyone either all try to claim anarchy to get out from it’s grasp or claim full statism to try to control it all?
As a student of natural law I cannot help but wonder if panarchism is what we already have. Anarchy is already the underlying theme of all natural interactions with little spots of multi-colored slavery here and there. What are your thoughts?
ⒶMP3083
What is it that panarchy has that an anarchist society doesn’t have, and vice versa? The goal is to have freedom. So, if people under panarchy looks over at an anarchist society, they will see it has more freedom than they do. I just see no point to panarchy.
Yeah, I get the point that both statists and anarchists get what they want. To me, that seems like if two siblings are fighting over a toy, the parent buys them both the same toy so they wouldn’t have to fight. I guess that would be easier, but that doesn’t teach them the importance of sharing.
Abdul > Philosopossum(Panarchist)
Do you believe in morals?
ⒶMP3083
One of the works that anarchists do is talk about morality, so good question and a perfect follow-up to my last statement about sharing.
Find me at:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3883/
https://www.youtube.com/c/amp3083official/
https://odysee.com/@AMP3083:4
AMP3083 