How would you characterize the distinction between market anarchism/anarchocapitalism and panarchy?
Both are non-territorial. Both involve competing, jurisdictionally coterminous entities.
The distinction I have been working with is simply this:
In market anarchism, the entities are firms/agencies providing services we normally associate with governance (security, law codes/justice, infrastructure, etc.).
In panarchy, the entities are more one-stop-shopping—a government-esque body in which one has membership/citizenship, and with which one identifies in a more holistic way, etc.
So, in market anarchism, I say, "Yeah, Acme Protection Corp. provides my security, and they contract with Pinnacle Law for our legal and court system. I also pay for aggression insurance."
Whereas, in panarchy, I say, "Yeah, I am a member of the First Panarchic Republic. My next-door neighbor calls himself a citizen of the Northern Panarchic Alliance. I am not sure exactly what their deal is, but my neighbor seems happy with them."
Do you get the distinction I am drawing? Do you think it's reasonable to forge this distinction?
Yo Christopher! The disctinction you are drawing maps perfectly in my book. I think there is also a communicative distinction, though. A lot of times when people hear anarcho-capitalists speak of their postion, I think a lot of folks take it at face value that everyone would have to accept some form of capitalism. (However, we both know that is fallacious).
The notion of panarchy makes explicit the fact that people could theoretically live under any kind of governance system or government they believe fits their worldview or shares in their values. This system could be autocratic, monarchical, oligarchical, anarchical, etc. And of course, the idea that they can live right next to someone who shares a different perspecrive is endemic to the idea.
A low key truth is the fact that anarcho-capitalism technically supports a similar perspective, although the communications from anarcho-capitalists does not always shine through.
One reason why I love Panarchy, is because it tends to negate the "political divisions" often seen in the constant bickering between ancaps and ancoms. Panarchy effectively abolishes politicking to some degree in its implementation.
How would you characterize the distinction between market anarchism/anarchocapitalism and panarchy?
Both are non-territorial. Both involve competing, jurisdictionally coterminous entities.
The distinction I have been working with is simply this:
In market anarchism, the entities are firms/agencies providing services we normally associate with governance (security, law codes/justice, infrastructure, etc.).
In panarchy, the entities are more one-stop-shopping—a government-esque body in which one has membership/citizenship, and with which one identifies in a more holistic way, etc.
So, in market anarchism, I say, "Yeah, Acme Protection Corp. provides my security, and they contract with Pinnacle Law for our legal and court system. I also pay for aggression insurance."
Whereas, in panarchy, I say, "Yeah, I am a member of the First Panarchic Republic. My next-door neighbor calls himself a citizen of the Northern Panarchic Alliance. I am not sure exactly what their deal is, but my neighbor seems happy with them."
Do you get the distinction I am drawing? Do you think it's reasonable to forge this distinction?
Yo Christopher! The disctinction you are drawing maps perfectly in my book. I think there is also a communicative distinction, though. A lot of times when people hear anarcho-capitalists speak of their postion, I think a lot of folks take it at face value that everyone would have to accept some form of capitalism. (However, we both know that is fallacious).
The notion of panarchy makes explicit the fact that people could theoretically live under any kind of governance system or government they believe fits their worldview or shares in their values. This system could be autocratic, monarchical, oligarchical, anarchical, etc. And of course, the idea that they can live right next to someone who shares a different perspecrive is endemic to the idea.
A low key truth is the fact that anarcho-capitalism technically supports a similar perspective, although the communications from anarcho-capitalists does not always shine through.
One reason why I love Panarchy, is because it tends to negate the "political divisions" often seen in the constant bickering between ancaps and ancoms. Panarchy effectively abolishes politicking to some degree in its implementation.
I am going to reply to you in a note, so I can add an image…