Let us begin with a working definition of anarchy as
A condition in which no one is subjected to any form of governance to which (s)he does not explicitly consent.
Obviously that is a working definition of intentional anarchy as libertarians understand it, not the Hobbesian chaos of the average person’s nightmares. We are positing a scenario in which, for some combination of reasons, decision-making has been devolved to individuals and those with whom they voluntarily contract for security, justice, and other desirable goods and services.
We can set aside, for the time being, the reasons why such a world is morally desirable (a subject that I have covered extensively elsewhere). We can also set aside, temporarily, any discussion of how we might get there. Let us focus solely on what such a world might look like.
Note: this taxonomy is a work in progress, and I invite discussion in hopes of improving its accuracy. However, in the spirit of wabi-sabi (or at least Instagram’s definition thereof), I am going to get the ball rolling…
In a world in which governance is not forcibly imposed upon anyone—in which people choose their providers of law and order—I posit three main categories will emerge:
Market anarchism
This is the species of anarchism most commonly called anarchocapitalism. In a world in which consent is required for governance, some people will choose to contract with various private agencies providing security and justice services in a free and open market. How this might work is described extensively by David Friedman, Linda and Morris Tannehill, and others.
Polity-based anarchism
In a condition of intentional anarchism, various polities will arise. In contrast to market anarchism, a polity is a discrete, organized society.
Like a government, a polity will usually have some form of distinct territory (though that territory might be virtual or distributed, as we will discuss). Like a government, a polity may provide security, a set of laws, and various forms of infrastructure, and may even claim a monopoly on the provision of these services. Polities might even arise that classical liberals would deem rather illiberal.
However—and this is essential—participation in any such polity would be purely consensual and contractual. People would opt in to any such arrangement, and could choose to opt-out and exit (provided that all previous voluntary contractual obligations were satisfied).
Collective self-governance
Law is unavoidable in human life. The laws of physics are imposed by reality. Laws are imposed by governments. Market agencies and polities provide a choice of law codes. In the absence of constructed law codes, we still have the moral implications of natural law, and if we choose to ignore those, we end up with the ‘law of the jungle.’
In the typical polity, law is applied in order to produce order. But in religious groups, and in certain types of fraternal societies and intentional communities, law and order are a byproduct of something deeper—an ideological or spiritual system that is central to their nature as a community. Such communities will likely have some sort of hierarchy and set of rules or norms, but these are a part of a much larger system.
We can think of the distinction this way: In market anarchism or the typical polity, individuals are clients of legal codes. In these internally governing polities, individuals are participants in the ongoing maintenance of a holistic system that includes legal or hierarchical aspects. I believe this distinction is significantly great as to warrant this separate treatment.
Such polities will have a high degree of group consciousness—the sense of being intimately interconnected with others as part of a larger phenomenon.
###
Let us now make a list of possible polities and conditions for each category.
Needless to say, the lines between these categories will blur—and will ultimately benefit from some sort of Venn-diagram depiction.
We should also examine the question of territory: whether each polity exists in a discrete physical space or is a part of some distributed or networked phenomenon (be it physical or virtual). And we must note the degree of group consciousness for each.
Also needless to say, we are a long way off from such a world. Thus, we can posit a transitional condition for each type of polity: what it might look while involuntary governments also still exist.
1. Market anarchism
anarchocapitalism
A condition in which security, justice, and similar services are provided by jurisdictionally coterminous private agencies.
Territory: none (individual private property only)
Group consciousness: low
Transitional condition: Use of private options whenever possible (e.g. private arbitration vs. government courts); agorism; negotiating with governments to devolve authority and for private agencies to assume certain functions.
diasporas
A people with a cohesive identity, dispersed from some original homeland or source.
Territory: none (individual private property only)
Group consciousness: low to high
Transitional condition: Living within existing states, abiding by existing laws, but operating to some extent according to a set of shared values and customs, and using community-based economic networks when possible.
Diasporas can have any degree of cohesion and group consciousness. These will be higher among those who cleave to a powerful unifying factor, such as religion. In the absence of involuntary governance, diasporas have greater potential to cohere into polities or self-governing communities.
2. Polity-based anarchism
private-law jurisdictions
Any polity that is a monopoly provider of law, security, justice, and infrastructure, participation in which is voluntary and contractual
Examples: Hoppean anarcho-monarchist polities, Moldbugian sovereign joint-stock countries, or any other fully seceded, private monopolist of law and order
Territory: discrete physical territory
Group consciousness: moderate to high
Transitional condition: Declared independence/negotiating for secession
Involuntary governments are jealous masters, and there are few options for a purely private-law jurisdiction to operate. However, it is possible to begin developing a coherent identity based on a shared ethos, or upon the common goal of secession. It is also possible to begin acting—to whatever degree possible—as a discrete unit, and to build progressively from there.
panarchy
A condition in which security, justice, and similar services are provided by jurisdictionally coterminous governing entities.
Territory: none (individual private property only)
Group consciousness: low to moderate
Transitional condition: Declared independence/negotiation for secession; experimenting
In the 19th century, Paul Émile de Puydt posited a system whereby individuals could select from a variety of jurisdictionally coterminous governing entities. This is the conceptual space between polity-based anarchism and anarchocapitalism: you get to remain in your current locale, but instead of choosing from a variety of agencies competing to provide security and justice services in a free economic market, you are choosing from a menu of governance providers competing in a free governance market.
(NB: This conceptual overlap might fit the situation described by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, in which he posited that private agencies providing private security and justice might end up, over time, becoming “state-like entities.”)
Pioneer polities
Any polity created in unoccupied, unclaimed territory, or in any territory fraudulently claimed by any existing government or power.
Examples: Ocean settlements (seasteads, platforms, underwater settlements, etc.), exocolonies (O’Neill cylinders, other planets, etc.), etc.
Territory: discrete physical territory
Group consciousness: high
Transitional condition: Theoretical; planning; early experiments (some especially vulnerable to harassment by government)
Ultimately, such polities may take on any character. However, any large-scale settlement of space, the ocean, or other frontiers will require tremendous resources. Thus we may posit that early endeavors will be undertaken by well-capitalized entities who will likely be monopolist providers, at least in the short term.
3. Collective self-governance
Ideological/religious orders
Any group, operating in a variety of locations, united by a coherent ideological, religious, or social system
Examples: religious orders, fraternal societies, etc.
Territory: distributed physical territory + virtual cohesion
Group consciousness: high
Transitional condition: Internally self-governing, but subject to the laws of the existing state in which they operate.
Intentional communities
Any group, operating in a discrete physical location, united by a coherent ideological, religious, or social system
Territory: discrete physical territory (+ virtual cohesion in the case of networked intentional communities)
Group consciousness: high
Transitional condition: Internally self-governing and semi-autonomous.
Though technically subject to the laws of the land in which they exist, many intentional communities enjoy a significant amount of de facto autonomy. In some cases, they have a special legal status. In others, officials simply take a hands-off approach, and only act when circumstances rise to a level that cannot be ignored. (In some cases, such judgments are arguably warranted; in others, they are very much not.) These factors largely apply to ideological and religious orders as well.
4. Market + polity
Hybrid: centralized/monopolist governance mixed with market provision of some services
free nations
Any fully seceded polity operating as a discrete political entity and offering genuinely consensual opt-in/out governance to members
Examples: city states, micronations, etc.
Territory: discrete physical territory
Group consciousness: low to moderate
Transitional condition: Declared independence/negotiating for secession; sub-jurisdictional status
These are similar to private-law jurisdictions, with the salient difference that they will not claim a monopoly over as many aspects of governance. So, for example, a free nation might provide external defense and a government with which other polities may negotiate, but leave all other provision of security, justice, and infrastructure to private agencies operating in an anarchocapitalist-style market.
A transitional version of these polities may operate under a special sub-jurisdictional legal status granted by existing governments: Special Economic Zones (SEZs); Zones for Employment and Economic Development (ZEDEs); charter cities; etc. (Prospéra and Cuidad Morazan in Honduras are ZEDEs.)
property associations
Any body creating and applying a set of rules applicable to a discrete set of properties
Examples: HOAs, COAs, etc.
Territory: discrete physical territory
Group consciousness: low to moderate
Transitional condition: sub-jurisdictional entity applying simple rules
Here, people who buy a piece of property subject to a property-association agreement are bound to the rules and procedures of that agreement. Property associations are sub-jurisdictional vis-a-vis the state, but they are capable of taking on a larger role in an anarchic condition.
5. Collective self-governing + polity
Hybrid: Collective self-governance mixed with some centralized features
Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs)
A decentralized organization whose membership share in ownership and control, and participate in decision-making through digital peer-to-peer technologies
Territory: none/digital
Group consciousness: high
Transitional condition: operating freely within certain parameters, but not yet serving as a primary governing entity.
DAOs are a new phenomenon and it is difficult to say how they might evolve, and the extent to which they have the capacity to serve as governing bodies in future. With human ingenuity, anything is possible.
Since DAOs are completely decentralized, one might argue that they belong solely in the collective self-governance category. However, given the fact that someone must start the DAO and write its rules, and the capacity for some individuals to collect larger amounts of tokens and thus assume a larger share of ‘control,’ I am provisionally placing DAOs in this hybrid category. I am open to thoughts about this.
6. Collective self-governing + market
Hybrid: Collective self-governance mixed with market features
stateless peoples
A people with a cohesive identity, denied (equal) citizenship by an existing state
Territory: none (individual private property only)
Group consciousness: moderate to high
Transitional condition: living within one or more states, but persecuted by or denied the protection of these states.
Stateless peoples are similar to diasporas in that the cohesive feature is membership in an identity group. Stateless peoples, however, are not as integrated into—and may indeed be harassed by—the states they occupy. As such, they may be forced to become nomadic.
This shared plight, plus membership in an identity group, produces a higher degree of group consciousness. The result may be a greater reliance on self-governing and market mechanisms to produce internal order. In the absence of external governance, these mechanisms have the capacity to allow such groups to cohere into discrete polities or fully self-governing communities.
7. Collective self-governing + market + polity
network states
“A highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states.”
Territory: virtual/pre-territorial followed by distributed physical territory
Group consciousness: high
Transitional condition: capable of fully autonomous action as a virtual entity; working toward accumulation of land, resources, a verifiable population, and eventual diplomatic recognition as a state; accepting existing governments’ provision of security and justice until such time as these services can be provided by the network state or market entities
Balaji Srinivasan’s innovative network state concept is brilliantly complex and yet inspiring simple. Srinivasan posits a pathway from a fully online organization all the way to a distributed state with territory and a population across the globe.
The network state occupies the overlap of all three of our top-level categories. It has a recognized leader, a shared mission, a high degree of group consciousness, and a capacity for self-governance. And yet, because of its distributed nature, its members would likely have to rely on market agencies for the provision of certain services.
distributed nations
A network of individuals who deem themselves (and, in some cases, their property) to be a part of a single distributed polity, cohering around a set of principles, a shared identity, a form of governance, or any other unifying standard
Territory: distributed physical territory
Group consciousness: high
Transitional condition: Declared independence; negotiating for allodium, recognition, and secession; accepting existing governments’ provision of security and justice until such time as these services can be provided by the distributed nation or market entities
In the near term, existing governments are unlikely to recognize or approbate this or any other anarchic manifestation. Nonetheless, a distributed nation can form at any time, and individuals may agree to be a part of said nation by mutual consent. Like the network state, the game then becomes a matter of progressive realization of the distributed nation’s objectives: an accrescent population (and their associated property) producing strength and coherence over time.
The distributed nation includes aspects of several other anarchic manifestations:
It is similar to panarchy, in that individuals do not have to move to a discrete physical place—they can choose to be a part of a distributed nation from wherever they are.
Given its distributed nature, it will likely require the use of some market agencies for security and justice, especially in the short term.
Like diasporas, a distributed nation involves a shared identity or allegiance, but because of its dispersed nature, some measure of local self-governance will likely be required.
It also shares some characteristics in common with network states. (All of this will be clarified in future posts.)
Note: I reserve the right to edit this piece at any time hereafter, as I glean new information.