Originally posted by reinfeldYou added an "an". It's either the rule (-archy) of all (pan-), or it's the anarchy of p.
..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...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy would the most popular government be the most aggressive one? If everyone wanted to join the same government, then what would be the problem? But experience has shown that's not likely to happen.
Then the most popular and aggressive government will knock out the rest and take over. And you're back to where we are now.
Originally posted by rwingettPeople get the type of government they want all the time: they vote with their feet.
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 rwingettSo you could vote to be king? 🙂
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.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettFirst, panarchism is an idea that will only ever recommend itself to enlightened, articulate, imaginative, and abstractly-minded people who do not strongly identify with historical clans, countries, nations, territories, or religions. That's only a fraction of the population nearly everywhere, except perhaps somewhere like Sweden.
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.
Second, there is no incentive for any current incumbent government to implement panarchism, as it would be too big a political risk.
Third, and relatedly, panarchy requires some "archy" to enforce it, which is inherently vulnerable to some less permissive "archy" the panarchy might give rise to.
So, for all these reasons, despite the genuine ethical and esthetic attractions of panarchy, it's a non-starter in reality.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole"We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams"
First, panarchism is an idea that will only ever recommend itself to enlightened, articulate, imaginative, and abstractly-minded people who do not strongly identify with historical clans, countries, nations, territories, or religions. That's only a fraction of the population nearly everywhere, except perhaps somewhere like Sweden.
Second, there is no ...[text shortened]... e the genuine ethical and esthetic attractions of panarchy, it's a non-starter in reality.
-Arthur O'Shaughnessy
So join the long line of people who can only see problems instead of possibilities. Instead of giving us an endless litany of reasons why it would never work, why don't you give us a little input as to what might make it work better? Perhaps you need to exercise your idealism a little more and your cynicism a little less.
Originally posted by MissOleumAnarchism literally means to be without rulers. From the Greek archos=ruler. Anarchos=having no ruler.
I have difficulty seeing a difference between panarchy and anarchy, but I grew up in an era when "anarchist" equated with "terrorist" and "bogeyman".
Can anyone define anarchy for me in layman's terms?
My dictionary defines anarchism as: a political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.