You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Panarchy The Answer?
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a state may use coercion against its citizens and the conditions under which the contract may be annulled, revised, rescinded, or otherwise exited from.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