I appreciate the effort to get people to understand each other. I really do. But sometimes I wonder if we aren't better off just doing our own thing -- peacefully. Such doesn't invalidate what people like Michael Ostrolenk are doing. Indeed, writ large, transpartisan thinking creates a space for precisely the form of social order I would propose: panarchy.
It's simple really. Panarchy is a form of libertarianism that maximizes group pluralism. Sounds weird, I know. But what if you could have members of kibbutzim, social democracies, conservative strongholds and libertopias living together in toleration? All you would have to do to get this state of affairs is reject the idea of a territorial monopoly on power -- at least as far as practicable.
Political parties as means to power would mostly go away -- except, perhaps, a few goods and services at the local level. Parties would evolve into communities, or civil associations that people joined. No civil association would have the power to impose it's conception of the good onto any other civil association. So political tug-o-war would disappear. Competition for members would be the status quo.
Panarchy will be a disappointing idea to those who're simply committed to imposing their worldview onto others. But if you're interested in genuine peace and pluralism -- leaving space for toleration, experimentation and competition -- panarchy may be the idea for you.
So how would it work? I have tried to sketch a pragmatic version here. (I hope you'll read it.)
What's interesting about panarchy and statism is that they are asymmetrical with respect to pluralism. Because liberty leaves room for all forms of civil association, panarchy can encompass all sorts of institutional forms -- including communism. But statism, with its territorial monopolies, cannot. I think this asymmetry points to a deep problem for statists of all stripes. It demonstrates that statism is a form of order that allows some group to impose its conception of the good on everyone else -- by varying degrees (yes, even democracy).
Ironically, that makes panarchy a form of radical communitarianism. It also makes it the most transpartisan form of government ever conceived. Who woulda thunk it?
Note: this is not the same as the panarchy referred to by people interested in ecology, though there may be interesting overlaps worth exploring.
Comments