I am liking this idea of "panarchy" which means that there is no monopoly on the legitimate services that people need and think must be provided by a government. You mentioned competing churches serving the same areas, this also makes me think of insurance companies which serve the same areas competing for customers. No reason these agencies couldn't easily also be including other needed or wanted services that presently are a monopoly of so-called governments.
Right! Chapter 12 of Hoppe’s “Democracy…” is all about that. He lays out exactly how “aggression insurers” could work, and why they would work. It’s paradigm-shifting stuff.
I admire the devotion you have put into researching this whole vital field of thought and alternatives Christopher. It is an important work you are doing.
I was already a Ron Paul libertarian vet when I read https://mises.org/library/book/what-has-government-done-our-money. Years of subsequent torments and betrayals had washed me ever further out into the sea of reason when I first watched that Hoppe Private Law stuff. When I finished it I stood up and turned toward my then live-in, staring slack jawed and stupified into space before looking her in the eys and exclaiming, "Oh God! I'm a fucking ANARCHIST!"
What more terrible a realization is there for a true blue yankee doodle dumbass than that? :)
Subduing perhaps, or subverting. So far they have been much more active and successful in subverting freedom of speech, I think, coming at it from oblique angles incrementally, rather than more obvious frontal assaults.
Imagine how much complication there won't be when We get free energy tech out and free Us all to Our rightful wealth by eliminating the need for money, thereby needing only the three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
Choosing a government is a sickening thought. I guess most of us choose the US government without a second thought since we were tricked into believing it promoted freedom and liberty. Cults and collectives are the destroyers of free thoughts and they are all around us. A panarchy could at least be a start.
Another excellent article/chapter, thank you Christopher!
Regarding this: "Peaceful and negotiated secession are far less common, but they do happen (e.g., Iceland’s separation from Denmark a century ago)." I am thinking that many of the less violent instances of former colonies becoming independent might fit this category as well.
I see a problem: "Freely exit therefrom (so long as contractual obligations have been satisfied)." Parents have authority over their children (at least up to a point). Can parents bind their children to contractual obligations that persist after the parents are deceased? It seems that this phenomenon is what built government in the first place. What stops it from happening again? Would there need to be some sort of meta-rule that no contract lasts more than, say, 50 years, a la the Jubilee year in the Mosaic Law?
"Can parents bind their children to contractual obligations that persist after the parents are deceased?"
—I don't think they can, or should be able to.
I mean, even now under the current system in the U.S., if my parents die and leave a debt, their creditors may take from the estate, and may have a claim against that portion of my inheritance before me. But I am not obligated by their debts or any contracts they signed. (At least as far as i know! 😳
If I am following the argument, there would be nothing to stop you from opting into a different "church," as it were, once you reach a degree of autonomy as an individual. Also (this is a shallow reading at the moment) if the guiding principle is lack of nonconsensual interaction, every party should be able to demonstrate consent; which implies a renegotiation of contractual obligations in a case like you describe.
I went to try to find a summary of what panocracy is. I did not find one single piece, but I glanced at a few of the early pieces to see if I could get the gist. Direct, participatory democracy—is that it?
My view in general is that if people want to try a system like that—great! Prove that it works in your own little corner. And then invite me to participate in yours, or try my own. Super!
The problem lies in the presumption that we need a single system for a single "country." That everyone must live a particular way. "Okay, now we're all doing it this way. What do you mean, you don't want to do it this way? This is how we're all doing it now."
You see what I am saying? It is an understandable presumption, since forcing single solutions on whole populations is all we've ever known, all we've ever done. But it's a problem we need to get past, because it is wrong to force people to live under a system they don't want. Needing to force everyone to live a certain way is a recipe for endless strife.
Right, sure—though I have preferred the term "polity" for the really small countries, intentional communities, etc. If nothing else, just to get away from the baggage of old language and old preconceptions.
Good point. Language = power. I am still reading through the parts, looking forward to seeing how you resolve some of the Libertarian ethical pitfalls.
It is possible that some of them cannot be, and will never be, fully resolved. That's just life. We cannot build utopia-—we can only make things better or worse.
A common law process will be helpful on some marginal questions.
I am liking this idea of "panarchy" which means that there is no monopoly on the legitimate services that people need and think must be provided by a government. You mentioned competing churches serving the same areas, this also makes me think of insurance companies which serve the same areas competing for customers. No reason these agencies couldn't easily also be including other needed or wanted services that presently are a monopoly of so-called governments.
Right! Chapter 12 of Hoppe’s “Democracy…” is all about that. He lays out exactly how “aggression insurers” could work, and why they would work. It’s paradigm-shifting stuff.
I admire the devotion you have put into researching this whole vital field of thought and alternatives Christopher. It is an important work you are doing.
🩷🔥🙏
Hoppe radicalized me!
https://hanshoppe.com/2021/09/the-idea-of-a-private-law-society-the-case-of-karl-ludwig-von-haller-pfs-2021/
HAHAHA
Spontaneous order applies, too. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.3.4.85#:~:text=Whoever%20was%20first%20onto%20a,above%20the%20high%2Dtide%20line.
Yeah, Hoppe was the final piece in the puzzle for me too! Listening now—thanks!
I was already a Ron Paul libertarian vet when I read https://mises.org/library/book/what-has-government-done-our-money. Years of subsequent torments and betrayals had washed me ever further out into the sea of reason when I first watched that Hoppe Private Law stuff. When I finished it I stood up and turned toward my then live-in, staring slack jawed and stupified into space before looking her in the eys and exclaiming, "Oh God! I'm a fucking ANARCHIST!"
What more terrible a realization is there for a true blue yankee doodle dumbass than that? :)
LOL so totally right there with you! https://christophercook.substack.com/p/exact-moment-i-became-anarchist
😂👏
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech.”—Benjamin Franklin
Bill of Rights First Amendment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyfUwfM6XP0&list=PLUADp0cgZCOFMk4JB8NH-fuO51_DddwzG&index=4
Liberty & Prosperity Not War !!!
Subduing perhaps, or subverting. So far they have been much more active and successful in subverting freedom of speech, I think, coming at it from oblique angles incrementally, rather than more obvious frontal assaults.
So True! And they are trying to do just that.
Imagine how much complication there won't be when We get free energy tech out and free Us all to Our rightful wealth by eliminating the need for money, thereby needing only the three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
Quantifying Wealth (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/quantifying-wealth
Choosing a government is a sickening thought. I guess most of us choose the US government without a second thought since we were tricked into believing it promoted freedom and liberty. Cults and collectives are the destroyers of free thoughts and they are all around us. A panarchy could at least be a start.
Yes. You should be free to choose something, or nothing at all.
(Though in an ancap world, I think it would make sense to at least have aggression insurance.)
Another excellent article/chapter, thank you Christopher!
Regarding this: "Peaceful and negotiated secession are far less common, but they do happen (e.g., Iceland’s separation from Denmark a century ago)." I am thinking that many of the less violent instances of former colonies becoming independent might fit this category as well.
You mean when England finally realized it was too broke and tired to keep acting as colonial overlord everywhere? 😁
I see a problem: "Freely exit therefrom (so long as contractual obligations have been satisfied)." Parents have authority over their children (at least up to a point). Can parents bind their children to contractual obligations that persist after the parents are deceased? It seems that this phenomenon is what built government in the first place. What stops it from happening again? Would there need to be some sort of meta-rule that no contract lasts more than, say, 50 years, a la the Jubilee year in the Mosaic Law?
"Can parents bind their children to contractual obligations that persist after the parents are deceased?"
—I don't think they can, or should be able to.
I mean, even now under the current system in the U.S., if my parents die and leave a debt, their creditors may take from the estate, and may have a claim against that portion of my inheritance before me. But I am not obligated by their debts or any contracts they signed. (At least as far as i know! 😳
If I am following the argument, there would be nothing to stop you from opting into a different "church," as it were, once you reach a degree of autonomy as an individual. Also (this is a shallow reading at the moment) if the guiding principle is lack of nonconsensual interaction, every party should be able to demonstrate consent; which implies a renegotiation of contractual obligations in a case like you describe.
You explain it all so clearly.
I have been reading articles by another Substacker about Panocracy by Jim Peden: https://panocracy.substack.com/?utm_source=global-search
Thanks!
I went to try to find a summary of what panocracy is. I did not find one single piece, but I glanced at a few of the early pieces to see if I could get the gist. Direct, participatory democracy—is that it?
My view in general is that if people want to try a system like that—great! Prove that it works in your own little corner. And then invite me to participate in yours, or try my own. Super!
The problem lies in the presumption that we need a single system for a single "country." That everyone must live a particular way. "Okay, now we're all doing it this way. What do you mean, you don't want to do it this way? This is how we're all doing it now."
You see what I am saying? It is an understandable presumption, since forcing single solutions on whole populations is all we've ever known, all we've ever done. But it's a problem we need to get past, because it is wrong to force people to live under a system they don't want. Needing to force everyone to live a certain way is a recipe for endless strife.
"The problem lies in the presumption that we need a single system for a single "country.""
Or the presumption that we need a single country of this size and degree of variegation.
Right, sure—though I have preferred the term "polity" for the really small countries, intentional communities, etc. If nothing else, just to get away from the baggage of old language and old preconceptions.
Good point. Language = power. I am still reading through the parts, looking forward to seeing how you resolve some of the Libertarian ethical pitfalls.
It is possible that some of them cannot be, and will never be, fully resolved. That's just life. We cannot build utopia-—we can only make things better or worse.
A common law process will be helpful on some marginal questions.
Very interesting Christopher!