This is a term coined in 1860 by Belgian economist Paul Emile de Puydt. Basically what it means is that citizens get to choose what government they will live under and that all the various possible types of government have to compete for citizens. This would require the end of territorially based governments and usher in an era of extra-territorial ones. Instead of having a geographically based country, your government of choice would be more like a club that you join. You'd sign up for whatever type of government you want and would then be bound by that particular set of rules. If you no longer liked that particular government, you could drop out and choose another one without being required to change your physical location.
It seems to me that the most basic democratic right that a person could have would be to directly choose for himself what type of government he is to live under. In a Panarchy there would be no disgruntled election losers, or smoldering revolutionary sentiment, because everyone would have free and continual access to whatever type of government they desired most.
Sounds good to me.
moderators: could you move this to debates? I put it in the wrong forum.
It sounds like being able to sign up for a form of government that you like would be a right that you would have under this system. Forms of government that do not recognise individual rights would therefore seem to be incompatible with it. Totalitarianism would be an example of such a form of government, as would various forms of despotism. And what would prevent any of these governments from forcibly conscripting constituents? Would there be some kind of uber-government to make sure this doesn't happen? And what exactly would a non-territorial government govern? What if the different competing governments couldn't agree on economic issues or what side of the road to drive on etc.? I hope this guy you mentioned has thought all these issues out, buton the face of it, this doesn't seem like a practical proposal.
Are people and their cars somehow labeled? If my government doesn't believe in speed limits and yours does, how will the police know whether or not they have a right to pull me over and give me a speeding ticket? If the people in a jurisdiction -- even as small as a neighborhood -- are living under seventeen different political systems and sets of laws, how can laws be enforced? Personally, I like knowing that I can go to the store and not witness a bunch of men beating a woman because part of her hair is showing.
Originally posted by rwingettWhich government would enforce the panarchy voting system?
This is a term coined in 1860 by Belgian economist Paul Emile de Puydt. Basically what it means is that citizens get to choose what government they will live under and that all the various possible types of government have to compete for citizens. This would require the end of territorially based governments and usher in an era of extra-territorial ones. In ...[text shortened]...
Sounds good to me.
moderators: could you move this to debates? I put it in the wrong forum.
Originally posted by rwingettIt sounds great, but I agree with the other posters that it sounds rather utopian and impracticable. I would like to hear more about how it was supposed to be put into practice.
This is a term coined in 1860 by Belgian economist Paul Emile de Puydt. Basically what it means is that citizens get to choose what government they will live under and that all the various possible types of government have to compete for citizens. This would require the end of territorially based governments and usher in an era of extra-territorial ones. In ...[text shortened]...
Sounds good to me.
moderators: could you move this to debates? I put it in the wrong forum.
Originally posted by rwingettThat's basically what's happening now. Why do you think the western nations of europe/north america have so many people swarming into them?
This is a term coined in 1860 by Belgian economist Paul Emile de Puydt. Basically what it means is that citizens get to choose what government they will live under and that all the various possible types of government have to compete for citizens.
It seems to me that the most basic democratic right that a person could have would be to directly choose fo ...[text shortened]...
Sounds good to me.
moderators: could you move this to debates? I put it in the wrong forum.
Only they're not competing to get them.
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyIf people want to live under totalitarianism then that is their right. It would be their free choice not to be free. For things that tied to a specific locale that affect everyone, like speed limits, there would obviously have to be a mechanism for arriving at a universal set of laws. There would have to be a way to determine which laws would be universal and which would apply only to your group. So, yes, there may be a strictly limited central government that builds roads, prevents crime, and prevents competing government systems from abducting each other's members. But the maximum practical degree of autonomy would be granted to each competing system. They would have the right to choose items than could be applied only to their group, such as their own economic policies, health care policies, education policies, etc.
It sounds like being able to sign up for a form of government that you like would be a right that you would have under this system. Forms of government that do not recognise individual rights would therefore seem to be incompatible with it. Totalitarianism would be an example of such a form of government, as would various forms of despotism. And what wou ught all these issues out, buton the face of it, this doesn't seem like a practical proposal.
Originally posted by rwingettThen the most popular and aggressive government will knock out the rest and take over. And you're back to where we are now.
If people want to live under totalitarianism then that is their right. It would be their free choice not to be free. For things that tied to a specific locale that affect everyone, like speed limits, there would obviously have to be a mechanism for arriving at a universal set of laws. There would have to be a way to determine which laws would be universal a ...[text shortened]... heir group, such as their own economic policies, health care policies, education policies, etc.
puydt should have just stuck to gardening...
Paul Émile de Puydt (Born in Mons, Belgium, 1810 - Died in Mons, 1891) was a many-talented character. He published a lot as a botanist, as an economist and as a writer.
As a botanist, he notably wrote on orchids. The standard botanical author abbreviation De Puydt is applied to species he described.
As a political economist, he is known as the inventor of the term panarchy, the concept of people in the same jurisdiction having the freedom to choose which government to join, and governments having to compete for citizens.[1] (last three paragraphs from wikipedia)
..i just used the word as put in the title of the thread and i am just an old man who is making a comment on a forum site...i am not teaching a class or defending a thesis...panarhism is the word the thread starter used and i am just loosely making a generalized but not untrue translation...