1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9121/panarchy/

Panarchy

December 17, 2008 by

Just posted by Adam Knott: Panarchy – Essays in the new political philosophy, with essays by Michael S. Rozeff, Gene Callahan, Adam Knott, and others.

{ 24 comments }

Alexander S. Peak December 18, 2008 at 12:33 am

I really wish people hadn’t started using the term “panarchy” to mean the same thing as anarchy. “Panarchy” would be the perfect term to descrive the ideology of those who, like Antiphon or the Joker, support a coercive hierarchy of each person over every other person, a Hobbesian war of all against all, a universalised statism where everybody is an archist.

But, alas, the term is already in semi-popular use strangely employing the same exact definition as anarchism, i.e. the ideology of opposition of any hierarchy of coercion, the ideology of universalised peace.

Because “panarchy” is a term the usage of which is already semi-popular, employing the opposite definition that it ought to hold, I opted to create a new word, omniarchy, to mean what “panarchy” ought to have meant. My main problem with using this term I coined is that it’s a rather ugly term. It has, after all, a Latin prefix where the Greek prefix would look much nicer.

But I digress.

Regards,
Alex Peak

P.M.Lawrence December 18, 2008 at 3:24 am

Try “pantarchy”. That way ignorant people can get just as confused as they do between autarchy and autarky, which might help highlight those who don’t know what they are talking about.

D. Frank Robinson December 18, 2008 at 7:42 am

How about nullarchy?

Patrick December 18, 2008 at 11:28 am

Alex Peak: I’m curious to what you say on the definition of panarchy.

Why do you say that it is the perfect term to describe universal statism?
How do you arrive at that? Is it because the term is broken down into pan + archy?

Patrick December 18, 2008 at 11:33 am

One more thing…If my analysis is correct, then shouldn’t the term be pananarchy (pan-anarchy)?

David Spellman December 18, 2008 at 1:27 pm

I like noahsarchy–where you get in your 40 foot schooner and sail off into the sunset.

Enjoy Every Sandwich December 18, 2008 at 2:03 pm

I don’t have time to read the essays right now. Is this like “Festivus–a holiday for the rest of us”?

Ken December 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm

I want to read it, I really do, but all that red is hard on the eyes. I can’t even go looking for a link without feeling like I’ve been blinded. Is that just me?

Adam, if you are following this thread, please pick a more suitable color for reading.

John December 18, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Ken: You can probably change the settings of your browser to force it to display the page with a black font and white background. With Firefox on a Mac, here’s how you do it:
1. Open the menu Firefox->Preferences.
2. Click on the “Content” section in the Preferences window.
3. Look for where it says “Fonts and Colors”. Click “Colors…”.
4. Make sure the Text square is black and the Background square is white. This should be the default.
5. Uncheck the “Allow pages to choose their own colors, instead of my selections above” option.

I imagine you can do something similar with a different browser, or with Windows Firefox. Hope this helps!

Alexander S. Peak December 19, 2008 at 12:58 am

Mr. Patrick,

After The Dark Knight came out, I wanted to dispell the myth that the Joker was an anarchist. Anarchists don’t want a coercive hierarchy of anyone over anyone. The Joker, on the other hand, has no problem with hierarchy, and wants everyone to be free to aggress against everyone else, imposing a coercive hierarchy of everyone over everybody.

If anarchism is a system “without rulers,” panarchism ought to be used to describe a system where everyone is a ruler over everyone else–the Joker’s ideal system.

If anarchism is a system in which it is unjust, e.g., for anyone to rape or murder or steal from anyone, panarchism ought to be used to describe a system where anyone is free to rape anyone else, to murder anyone else, and to do whatever one can get away with.

Unfortunately, the term panarchy was already taken, so I had to refer to the Joker as an omniarchist instead–which, as I say above, just sounds bad.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Will December 19, 2008 at 2:21 pm

statism = malarchy ?

Tomb Like Bomb December 19, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Alex,

Before looking to prefixes, it might be useful to make sure we haven’t conceived the root as opposite its literal meaning. The Greeks certainly didn’t conceive “archos” as a negative liberty. “Archos” is neither the freedom to “coerce” nor the freedom to “aggress” nor the freedom of anything the superset thereof. “Archos” is the asymmetric relationship itself, in which the power of x is greater than the power of y. A common right to coerce is symmetrical and therefore cannot be of any type of -archy but the negation anarchy.

“Panarchy” would seem to be either equivalent to “demarchy” or an expansion of demarchic power to some set larger than “humans”. Otherwise, if the prefix instead referenced the regarded object, “panarchy” would be equivalent to totalitarianism, with powerless people implied.

Prohibition of “murder”, “rape”, “theft”…all of these prohibitions are authoritative, implying authoritative relationships regarding actions authoritatively determined to have direct effect on life, orifice, and property, respectively. In each case, and in order of accelerating ambiguity, opinions about who is legitimate ruler over which object, differ and therefore must themselves be imposed authoritatively. Otherwise, this is all imposed by force. Otherwise, it is not imposed at all, but based only on spontaneous universal consent, in which scenario even the most obscene despotism becomes “anarchism”.

Stephan Kinsella December 19, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Sebastian Quick recommended the term “bonarchy” at the last ASC, on a panel I chaired.

RJ Moore II December 19, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Some might argue that a Hobbesian state-of-nature accurately describes the real world under any circumstances.

Justinian December 19, 2008 at 11:59 pm

How about “fantarchy” – to denote the protagonists’ view that it would be fantastic?

Pro-Secessionist December 21, 2008 at 9:50 pm

I came up with the term Co-Monarchism, meaning we should all be absolute rulers of our own lands, and co-rulers over public lands.
Nowadays, Prosecessionist describes me just as well, since that would result in the same state, when taken to it’s logical conclusion.

D. Frank Robinson December 22, 2008 at 5:22 am

Alex: “Archos” is the asymmetric relationship itself, in which the power of x is greater than the power of y.

What was the word for the Greek concept in which the power of x equal to the power of y?

Hence, if x equals y in power, then the ‘vector’ of power is null, zero, or ‘imperceptible’.

An-archy as “without” archy seems to convey the notion of a symmetry in power, or cancellation of a power asymmetry.

In nature, patterns of symmetry can be quite complex. Because ‘nullarchy’ is not euphonious, I amend my suggestion for a new synonymous term for anarchy as “social symmetry”.

Social Symmetry – Essays in the new political philosophy.

Christian Butterbach January 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm

I am angry. It is appalling how most everyone on this page is ranting against panarchy and panarchism and very obviously has not read these essays in Adam Knott’s anthology, thus cannot understand a single bit of the issues at hand. The connection and difference between anarchism and panarchism is quite clearly addressed in that book sitting on my desk here. It is also a disgrace in my eyes that Dr. Stephan Kinsella on as distinguished a site as this one names only Prof. Rozeff, Gene Callahan and Adam Knott (the editor) as authors, subsuming under “and others” John Zube (the main author, with four of the capital texts in this anthology, and the one dealing with the difference between anarchism and panarchism, whereas the other authors, while also capital ones, have each one only) and Dr. Richard C.B. Johnsson, who after all is not unknown on this site, be it only for having published major texts on LRC. All this is not scholarship, put political smearing. I am sorry to be so explicit, but I really didn’t want to let you get away with such a light approach of such an important subject of hope for our future. Thanks for listening! Discussions on my Yahoo! Group “Little Panarchy” are more serious than this.

Stephan Kinsella January 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Christian Butterbach: “It is also a disgrace in my eyes that Dr. Stephan Kinsella on as distinguished a site as this one names only Prof. Rozeff, Gene Callahan and Adam Knott (the editor) as authors, subsuming under “and others” John Zube (the main author, with four of the capital texts in this anthology, and the one dealing with the difference between anarchism and panarchism, whereas the other authors, while also capital ones, have each one only) and Dr. Richard C.B. Johnsson, who after all is not unknown on this site, be it only for having published major texts on LRC. All this is not scholarship, put political smearing.”

I assure you it was not a smear for me to … mention and promote the book. Your comment is ungrounded, offensive, and outrageous, snot-nosed, and petulant. Mind your manners,son.

Christian Butterbach January 27, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Stephan Kinsella: “I assure you it was not a smear for me to … mention and promote the book. Your comment is ungrounded, offensive, and outrageous, snot-nosed, and petulant. Mind your manners,son.”

I am sorry. And I do apologize, as it was by no means my intention to offend you. “All this” in my mind meant all that is on this page taken together, not in any way singling you out, though not completely excluding you. I would have imagined that reading that book would have inspired you to write more than one sentence, as the anthology is very inspiring. You may not have read it yet, wanting only to draw your readers’ attention to it, which is a commendable action. I also didn’t mean that the book was being smeared, just the idea of panarchy or panarchism by most comments on the page. Of course, in particular the texts by John Zube in that anthology are so radical that they can offend a lot of people; I think it is my right to be rather offended by those people and what they say here and elsewhere.

“ungrounded”: Those who will seriously read the book will agree that my anger was well grounded…

“offensive”: More defensive in my eyes. But I apologized… ;-)

“outrageous”: This must not necessarily be in all cases a totally negative epithet, as far as I am concerned. I am known for often being “outrageous” in my own writing and it is often appreciated. My frequent anger helps here and, since the time I was a child, it was too often justified… The world outside privileged and cozy studies is often harsh!

“snot-nosed”: Thanks for the compliment; I am over seventy… ;-)

“petulant”: As I said. I had started my comment with “I am angry”. For being so, reasons abound everywhere these days,as you know. And it so happened that my disappointment with this blog page triggered my reaction I am well trained in… ;-)

I apologize again. Be assured, should one of those rare occasions I post on this site show up again, your “son” will remember your fatherly advice.

stephan Kinsella January 27, 2009 at 7:30 pm

CB — apology accepted. But for the life of me I can’t understand why, if you are fan of the book, you’d be upset about me blogging about it and giving it exposure.

Christian Butterbach January 27, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Stephan Kinsella, thanks! I feel better now that you have accepted my apology. I am indeed a fan of the book and my enthusiasm about it led me astray. I was of course not upset by your good sense and generosity to give it that valuable exposure, but my appetite for what you might have further elaborated about it was such that that single line appeared too meager to me at that moment, and, instead of reflecting a bit longer about your good reasons to do it the way you did, I moved over to the comments which largely right away exasperated me. It is the usual thing I encounter, for instance, here at the university. You mention panarchism favorably and then you get the reaction from your interlocutor that s/he is not really keen on anarchism, but is, one example, a Hayekian. Well, Hayek’s monetary freedom stance is certainly closer to the idea of panarchy than what anarchists mostly advocate in this field…

kritarchist January 28, 2009 at 7:48 am

As for the meaning of the words: my understanding is that anarchists want a society without any forms of government, while panarchists merely want the right of personal secession, but that, if freely chosen, any and ALL (hence the name pan-archy) forms of government are acceptable. If this is not a significant difference, would someone please clarify. Thanks.

Hannah Lilith Migliavacca August 29, 2011 at 6:51 pm

Men of the world: Turn to PANTY archy and enjoy your short lives under the Government of the Panties. And this be our motto: In Panties we Trust!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: