Is Panarchy The Answer?

To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:

Most likely

There can be subjective values that are objective. The problem is when objectivity is brought into the realm of politics, then the truth component of objectivity turns into social truth, and extending from there turns into a supposed social objectivity.

The problem with government systems is they depend on social objectivity to be universally agreed upon by those within the system. There to my knowledge, has never been social objectivity that was agreed upon by everyone all the time. So the idea of governmental systems may have a significant flaw, and to even construct one may be the first fundamental flaw.

Given that what you say is true, do you think Panarchism is a viable solution to the problem of constructing a single governmental system for all?

Well, let me answer a question with a question, is there ever a legitimate government system if there can not be a agreed upon social objectivity?

I am not aware of the encompassing definition of panarchy.

I have thought of the problem of government in several ways, but the one that always tends to arise (outside of centrist view) is that government will be the total dominate social construct, or that that there should be no social construct.

Should people be bound to each other or should people be unbound from each other? If answers vary, you have a problem.

I think panarchy addresses this concern. have a look and let me know what you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy

Other links are in the description of the video above.

Panarchy
Panarchy (from pan and archy), coined by Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, is a form of governance that would encompass all others. The Oxford English Dictionary lists the noun as "chiefly poetic" with the meaning "a universal realm," citing an 1848 attestation by Philip James Bailey, "the starry panarchy of space". The adjective panarchic "all-ruling" has earlier attestations. In the twentieth century the term was re-coined separately by scholars in international relations to describe the notion of global governance and then by systems theorists to describe non-hierarchical organizing theories.

Still not seeing clarity there.

Questions:
Is there a social construct?

Do individuals lend/give authority to the social construct?

If the answer is yes to both questions then the problems in social objectivity remain.

Panarchy is a political meta-theory that advocates non-territorial states founded on actual social contracts that are explicitly negotiated and signed between states and their prospective citizens. The explicit social contract sets the terms under which a state may use coercion against its citizens and the conditions under which the contract may be annulled, revised, rescinded, or otherwise exited from. Panarchy does not advocate any particular model of government, but intends to encourage political variety, innovation, experimentation, and choice. With its emphasis on explicit social contracts rather than a single implicit social contract based on geographical territory, Panarchy offers an interesting variation on traditional social contract theory.

That is much clearer, many thanks.

The intent of the theory is to produce a type of non-territorial state (per definition). Assuming follow-through of advocating a creation of state, is in the end, the creation of a social construct, then the answer of the first question is yes.

Additional social constructs:
-Social contracts
-citizenship
-state coercion against its citizens

This answers the second question of:

Do individuals lend/give authority to the social construct?

The answer is yes, accordingly the problems of social objectivity remain in the theory or in the ends of the theory.

The idea is essentially that governments are made non-territorial, and you choose whatever government you want to live under without having to move. The various governments have contracts between each other to resolve disputes between themselves and their citizens, and by signing the social contract you agree to the terms provided by the government.

I find that this is the only solution to the problems of social objectivity, because instead of trying to reconcile all differences under one government that has a monopoly over a geographical area, it does not try to resolve the social differences, and simply allows each individual the freedom to choose they government they want.

Maybe you are seeing something here that I am not. The only solution I have found in solving the social objectivity problem is to not form a social construct and not lend/give authority to it. This leaves each individual to the maximum liberty and preferences in subjective values, and unbinds everyones governance from everyone else.

So I would say the solution is to recognize Individual Sovereignty, that holds no subservience to any social construct, but recognizes individual self ownership as the dominate construct, an individual construct.

In this way the truth component of social objectivity is uncoupled, and negotiated person to person.

There is the other problem when state construction occurs, that there is no limiting factor that the social construct will ever maintain recognition of individual constructs. This leads repeatedly to escalation into various factions weaponizing whatever state constructs there are, to a preferred factional social objectivity.

When you build a state, you build the problem of social objectivity.

"When you build a state, you build the problem of social objectivity."

Only if people have no choice as to whether to accept the state or not. Individual sovereignty includes the freedom choose to accept a government or not.

"Under the present conditions a government exists only by the exclusion of all the others, and one party can rule only after smashing its opponents; a majority is always harassed by a minority which is impatient to govern. Under such conditions it is quite inevitable that the parties hate each other and live, if not at war, at least in a state of armed peace. Who is surprised to see that minorities intrigue and agitate, and that governments put down by force any aspiration to a different political form which would be similarly exclusive? So society ends up composed of ambitious resentful men, waiting for vengeance, and ambitious power-sated men, sitting complacently on the edge of a precipice. Erroneous principles never bring about just consequences, and coercion never leads to right or truth.
Then imagine that all compulsion ceases; that every adult citizen is, and remains, free to select from among the possible offered governments the one which conforms to his will and satisfies his personal needs; free not only on the day following some bloody revolution, but always, everywhere, free to select, but not to force his choice on others. At that point all disorder comes to an end, all fruitless struggle becomes impossible." - Paul-Emile De Puydt

I really am not trying to be problematic here, but how do you choose to live outside of a state/government by first producing a global state/government?

There is that big chunk of logic I am not seeing.

There is no global state/government, there is a meta political theory which allows individuals to freely choose among the various non-territorial states/governments that are competing for "customers" by offering better services at lower prices.

The meta-theory simply suggests that we agree that governments should be non-territorial, and individuals should be able to enter and exit them by negotiating and agreeing to the terms and conditions of explicit social contracts that are actually signed and agreed to.

This is different than the traditional social contract theory that says that people "tacitly consent" to the social contract of the single government by choosing to remain in the geographical territory that it has the exclusive monopoly over.

Ah, so no initial state/government formations. In pre 1770s they were calling this condition a 'free state' as is seen in the second amendment.

Even if the territory boundaries are dissolved, how do you avoid the eventual First Realm domination (@shaneradliff)?

https://steemit.com/anarchism/@shaneradliff/the-second-realm-is-the-answer

Second Realm is a free state condition, but it is always in conflict with First Realm.

In simpler terms, how do you make statist authoritarian a statist non-authoritarian?

https://steemit.com/secondrealm/@joesal/second-realm-mapping

@Joesal : Do you have a link to what this is in response to? DTube provides better notifications, but I can't the original post, probably because it's on Steemit. Thanks!

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@kierkeguardian/yavvpulb#@shaneradliff/epfmmsezg

it was about a theory of Panarchy, I didn't see how it solved the division of First Realm and Second Realm

@joesal @shaneradliff Here is my proposal for how the First Realm Problem could be resolved: https://steemit.com/politics/@kierkeguardian/a-28th-amendment-the-exit-option

I don't have a problem with the idea or theory on paper. The idea has a problem of implementation. Nearly half of populations are above the mid-line threshold and grouped near centrist:

https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/poli-compare-parties.html

It could work for libertarian types, but not for authoritarians. So the question remains, how do you make authoritarians, not be authoritarians?

At least the Second Realm attempts to set itself apart from the authoritarian people. Authoritarian systems have a really poor history of leaving anti-authoritarian people alone.

Can you see the issue there, what are your thoughts on it?

"So the question remains, how do you make authoritarians, not be authoritarians?"

Authoritarians think they derive their Authority from a Social Contract, the case of the US, that is the US Constitution.

You make Authoritarians not be Authoritarians by putting it in the contract that they can't override other people's voluntarily entered agreements with their own.

An amendment to the constitution that simply says no US Law will interfere with an arbitration clause in any voluntarily entered contract is all you need to make Authoritarians no longer Authoritarian.

It is essentially equivalent to passing a law against Authoritarianism. But the Authoritarians don't need to know this, because they can still voluntarily enter into a social contract with an Authoritarian Government of their choosing and grant that government powers to coerce them as much as they desire, so they can still have their Authoritarian preference, they just can't force it onto other people who don't want it.

Passing a law against Authoritarianism would require a 51% vote against authoritarianism, are we sure we have those numbers? Would a 51% vote be recognized as legitimate by authoritarians.

Governments don't even abide by really clear written text, such as: 'Shall not be Infringed', there is no real honesty of any social construct confining itself.

I like the concept and all, but there is this problem.

the amendment just gives non-territorial Governance Service Providers the legal right to compete for customers within the borders of an existing territorial nation-state.

Another method would be for a Governance Service Provider to become recognized as a Nation itself, in which case it would gain sovereignty and legal protections against aggression.

An existing Nation-State could still claim final jurisdiction within its borders unless a loophole could be found in the Constitution that actually does not prohibit citizens' right to voluntarily use and pay for the services of an alternative Governance Service Provider, as long as the citizen still follows the laws and pays taxes while within the Nation-State's borders.

This method is probably the most realistic, because as people begin to voluntarily use the services of alternative Governance Service Providers, they will begin to resent the fact that they are force to pay for the services of the Nation-State which they do not want.

Essentially the Governance Service Providers will outcompete Nation-States in the free market by producing better services at lower prices, and this coupled with education about Non-Aggression, non-territorial governments, etc. will eventually lead to an amendment or otherwise form of disbanding the monopoly that nation states currently enjoy.

If people are really interested in self governance, they could simply declare the nation a individualist republic, with the only authority residing in individual sovereignty. No authority in social constructs would be recognized.

This would disband not only nation states, but potential any social construct that would use aggression through collective means.

In your model, the Service Providers could just as easily form aggressive conflicting factions, up to nation state levels(or even larger, Communism being one example).

Coercive force would be required to prevent peaceful people from voluntarily entering into contracts with the form of government of their choice.

I don't see anyway you could get around allowing people the freedom even to choose not to be free by signing a contract that allows a government to coerce them according to the rules of the contract.

If we all agree via consensus that aggressing against other is wrong (whereas using coercion only against those who have explicitly agreed to be coerced is not aggression) then Service Providers aggressing against each other would be no different than individuals aggressing against each other in your model. In both cases it would be recognized as illegal, and addressed accordingly.

Note above I didn't say force, or coercion. I simply stated that if people are interested in self governance they could do certain things. It is a choice, but it would be a choice to deny lending their authority to any social construct.

If government or government contract initiates force upon formation then should it even exist?

I am not asking to use force against the formations of government, I'm asking for people to use logic against the formation/support of it.

Unfortunately, my model would suffer the same failure mode as Panarchy, (this i do not deny at all) people would have to see the logic and choose a consensus of no coercion, if even unto themselves.

For Panarchy to thrive it would have to limit the authority of Providers/governments to only in act force within the social construct, which is something that hasn't really happened. Once a large enough social construct is formed it rarely abides by the limitations originally constraining it.