Panarchy

Political Theories of Non-Territorial States

Aviezer Tucker, Gian Piero de Bellis, Aviezer Tucker, Gian Piero de Bellis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780815370598
• eBook ISBN: 9781317505273
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political Philosophy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Panarchy is a normative 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, or a constitution, 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a state may use coercion against its citizens and the conditions under which the contract may be annulled, revised, rescinded, or otherwise exited from.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 the state or social justice, but intends to encourage political variety, innovation, experimentation, and choice. With its emphasis on explicit social contracts, Panarchy offers an interesting variation on traditional social contract theories.

Today, Panarchist political thought is particularly relevant and interesting in the context of globalization, increased international migration, the weakening of national sovereignty, the rise of the internet "cloud" as a non-territorial locus of political and protopolitical social networks that are not geographic, the invention of cryptocurrencies that may replace national currencies, and the rise of urban centers where people of many different political identities live and work together.

This is the first volume to bring together key philosophically and politically interesting yet often overlooked Panarchist texts. From the first published translation of de Puydt seminal 1860 article to contemporary Silicon Valley political theory, the volume includes Panarchist texts from different eras, cultures and geographical regions. The amassed wealth of theoretical insight enables readers to compare different texts in this tradition of political thought and distinguish different streams and varieties within this political tradition, in comparison with Cosmopolitanism, Contractarianism, and Anarchism.

Part I
Classical Foundations

1
Panarchy

Paul-Emile de Puydt
(1860)
Translated by John Zube and Aviezer Tucker

Editors’ Note

First published in French in the Revue Trimestrielle, Brussels (July 1860).

The term Panarchy (from Greek: Παν meaning Whole and αρχη meaning Authority) seems to have been used for the first time by the cosmopolitan philosopher Frane Petric (Franciscus Patricius) who was born in 1529 in the island of Cherso, or Cres, off the coast of Dalmatia, and died in Rome in 1597. He employed it in a non-political sense to show that the universe, nature, and knowledge, were an integrated whole.

The text is in the form of a dialogue between the author and an interlocutor to whom he presents his proposal for overcoming political strife that was common in Belgium and many other European countries at his time. De Puydt introduced Panarchy as a normative political meta-theory for the first time by applying to political relationships the idea of free competition (laissez-faire, laissez-passer) taken from economic life and theory.

The proposal, free individual choice of association with a non-territorial state, is partly indebted to the vision of another Belgian author, Gustave de Molinari, who, a few years earlier, had put forward the idea of competing providers of security services, voluntarily selected by the users, and operating in the same territory. De Puydt added the meta-theoretical aspect of Panarchy, its ability to contain all sorts of very different regimes from anarchist and libertarian to socialist and communist.

This idea remained practically ignored until it was re-discovered at the beginning of the next century by Max Nettlau and promoted later on by John Zube and others.

I

A Kind of Preface

A contemporary said: “If my hands were full of truths, I would be careful not to open them.”

This saying may be that of a wise person, surely, it is of an egotist.

Another wrote: “The truths which people least like to hear are the most important to say.”

These two thinkers are likely to speak past each other. I would agree with the second, although his outlook presents practical difficulties. Wise men of all nations advise that “it is not good to tell the whole truth.” But, how can we distinguish what to tell and what to conceal? Anyway, the Gospel says: “Hide not your light under a bushel.”

Thus I am now confronted with a dilemma: I have a new idea, at least I believe so, and I feel it is my duty to expound on it.

I hesitate to open my hands; for what innovator has not been persecuted a little? As for the innovation, once published, it takes its course on its own merits, for I release it. I am only concerned for its author. Will he be forgiven for having had a new idea?

An ancient who saved Athens and Greece, in an argument following a discussion, told a brute who lifted a stick against him: “Strike – but listen!”

Antiquity abounds with such great examples. Following Themistocles, I propose my idea, saying to the public: “Read it to the end. You may stone me afterwards if you please.”

However, I do not expect to be stoned. The brute I spoke of died in Sparta twenty-four centuries ago, and everybody knows the great progress of humanity in the last two thousand and four hundred years. These days, ideas may be freely expressed; and if, from time to time, an innovator is attacked, it is not for innovating, but as a supposed agitator or utopian thinker. Reassured by these thoughts I proceed resolutely to the point.

II

“Gentlemen, I am a friend of all the world.”

(Sosie, in Molière’s Amphitryon)

I love political economy and would like the whole world to hold it in great esteem like me. This science, of recent origin, yet already the most important, is far from having said its last word. Sooner or later, and I hope sooner, it will govern the world. I affirm this dictum because I derive the principle that I propose from the writings of the economists. I propose a new application for it, farther reaching, yet no less logical than all the others.

Let us first quote a few aphorisms whose train of thought will prepare the reader.

“Liberty and property are directly connected – one favors the distribution of wealth, the other is assigned with producing it.”

“The value of wealth depends on the uses to which it is put.”

“The price of services varies directly with demand and inversely with supply.”

“Division of labor multiplies wealth.”

“Liberty begets competition, which in turn gives birth to progress.”

(Charles de Brouckère, General Principles of Political Economy [Principes généraux d’économie politique]¹)

So, free competition, first between individuals, then between nations. Liberty to invent, work, exchange, sell, and buy. Liberty to price the fruits of one’s labor. With no intervention by the State outside its special sphere. Laissez-faire, laissez-passer.

There, in a few lines, is the basis of political economy, a summary of the science without which there can be nothing but faulty administration and deplorable government. One can go further still, and in most cases reduce this great science to one final formula: “Laissez-faire, laissez-passer.”

Accordingly, I say:

In science there are no half-truths. There are no truths that are true from one respect and cease to be true from another aspect. The system of the universe exhibits a wonderful simplicity, as wonderful as its infallible logic. A law is the same everywhere; only its applications are diverse. All beings, from the highest to the simplest, from human beings to plants, down to a mineral, display intimate similarities in structure, development and composition; and striking analogies link the moral and material worlds. Life is one, matter is one; only their manifestations vary, combinations are innumerable, singularities infinite; yet the general plan embraces all things.

The feebleness of our understanding, the fundamental vice of our education, are alone responsible for the confusion of systems and the inconsistency of ideas. Of two conflicting opinions there is one true and one false, unless both are false; but they cannot both be true. A scientifically demonstrated truth cannot be true here and false elsewhere; true, for example, for political economy and false for politics. This is what I want to prove.

Is the great law of political economy, the law of free competition, laissez-faire, laissez-passer, applicable only to regulate industrial and commercial affairs or, more scientifically, only to the production and exchange of wealth? It has illuminated the permanently cloudy economic night and pacified violent conflicts of interests. Does it not hold to the same degree in the political sphere, and does not the analogy imply a similar remedy in both cases? Laissez-faire, laissez-passer.

We realize though that there are, here and there, governments as free as human weakness actually allows, and yet everything could be better even in the best republics. Some say: “This is precisely because there is too much liberty”; others say: “This is because there is still not enough liberty.”

The truth is that there is not the right kind of liberty, the fundamental liberty to choose to be free or not. Every person is a judge, who decides according to individual tastes or needs. Since there are as many opinions as individuals, tot homines, tot sensus, you can see what mess is graced by the fine name of politics. The liberty of some denies the rights of others, and vice versa. Even the wisest and best governments never function with the full and free consent of all the governed. There are parties, victorious or defeated, and majorities and minorities in perpetual struggle; and the more confused their notion is, the more passionately they hold to their ideal.

Some oppress in the name of right, the others revolt in the name of liberty, to become oppressors themselves in their turn, if it comes.

I understand! – the reader would say.

You are one of those utopians who would construct out of many pieces a system wherein you want to enclose society, with its consent or by force. Nothing is good as it is, and only your panacea will save humanity. Your Magic Solution!

Wrong! I have no magic solution different from everybody else’s. I do not differ from all the others except on one point, namely, that I take part in all the political persuasions, that is to say in all the forms of government – at least all those that have some adherents.

I do not follow you at all.

Then, allow me to continue.

There is a general tendency to push theories too far; but does it follow that all the elements of such a theory must be wrong? It has been said that there is perversity or foolishness in the exercise of human intelligence; but would not declaring one does not like speculative science and detests theories mean a renunciation of our reasoning faculties?

These reflections are not my own; they were held by one of the greatest geniuses of our time, Jeremy Bentham.

Royer-Collard² said the same thing with great power of expression: “To hold that theory is good for nothing and that practice is the only sure guide, is to pretend to act without knowing what one does and to speak without knowing what is being said.”

Although nothing is perfect in human endeavors, humanity moves invariably at least towards an unattainable perfection: this is the law of progress. The laws of nature alone are immutable; all legislation must be based on them, for they alone have the strength to support the structure of society; but the structure itself is the work of mankind.

Each generation is like a new lodger who, before taking possession, moves things around, cleans up the facade, and adds or pulls down an annex, according to his own needs. From time to time a generation, more bold or improvident than its predecessors, pulls down the whole building, to sleep under the stars until it is reconstructed. When, after numerous privations and enormous efforts, they rebuild it according to a new plan, they are crestfallen to find it is not much more comfortable than the old one. It is true that those who drew up the plans set themselves up in good accommodations, well enclosed, warm in winter and cool in summer; but the others, who have no choice, are relegated to the garrets, the basements, or the lofts.

Otherwise, there are malcontents and troublemakers, who miss the old building, while the boldest already dream of another demolition. For the few who are satisfied there is an innumerable mass of malcontents.

Still, we should note that some are satisfied with the building. The new edifice is indeed not beyond reproach, still it has some qualities. Why pull it down tomorrow, later, or indeed ever, as long as it shelters enough tenants to pay for its maintenance?

For my part, I detest the wreckers as much as the tyrants. If your apartment is too crammed, narrow, or unhealthy, then change it – I ask for nothing better. Choose another place, move out quietly; but for heaven’s sake don’t blow up the house as you leave. What you do not find convenient anymore may make your neighbor happy. Do you understand my allegory?

Almost, but what are you aiming for? No more revolutions – marvelous! I am of the opinion that nine times out of ten their costs outweigh their returns. We then keep the old building, but where do you house those who move out?

Wherever they like, this is none of my business. I take it that in this respect there is complete freedom. This is the basis of my system: Laissez-faire, laissez-passer.

I think I understand: those who are not content with their government will go looking for another. Actually, there has been a choice, since the time of the Moroccan empire, without mentioning all the other empires, right up to the republic of San Marino; from the City of London to the American Pampas. Is that all your innovation amounts to? It is not new, I must tell you.

It is not about emigration. One does not carry one’s homeland on the soles of one’s shoes. Moreover, such colossal expatriation is and always will be impractical. All the wealth of humanity will not suffice to pay the costs of such mass movement. I have no intention of resettling the population according to its convictions, moving away, for example, the Catholics who currently live in the Protestant Flemish Provinces of Belgium, or marking a border leading from the Belgian town of Mons to the town of Liège to separate liberals from non-liberals. I desire that they go on living together wherever they are, or wherever they want, without discord, like good brothers, each freely expressing their opinions and submitting only to powers that they would personally choose and accept.

I am now totally lost.

I am not at all surprised. My plan, my utopia, is not the stale idea you first thought it to be; yet nothing in the world could be simpler or more natural. However, it is known that in government, as in mechanics, the simple ideas always come last.

We are coming to the point: Nothing lasts but on the foundation of liberty. Nothing that has been founded can maintain itself or operate with full efficiency without the free interplay of all its active parts. Otherwise energy is wasted, parts wear out rapidly, and there are breakdowns and serious accidents. I demand, therefore, for each and every member of human society, the freedom to associate according to their affinities and to act according to their aptitudes, in other words, the absolute right to choose the political society where they want to live, and not to come under any other rule. For example, you are a Republican …

Me? May heaven save me from it!

Let us suppose you were a Republican. Monarchy does not suit you – the air there is too stifling for your lungs and your body does not have the free play and action your constitution demands. According to your present frame of mind, you are inclined to tear down this edifice, you and your friends, and to build your own in its place. But to do that you would come up against all the monarchists who cling to their beliefs, and in general all those who do not share your convictions. Do better: assemble, declare your program, draw up your budget, open membership lists, take stock of yourself; and if numerous enough to bear the costs, found your republic.

Whereabouts? In the Pampas?

Certainly not; here, where you are, without moving. I agree that it was necessary, up till now, to have the monarchists’ consent for any government. For the sake of my argument, I suppose this matter of principle to be settled, I assume that they agree. Otherwise I am well aware of the difficulty of changing the state of affairs to the way it should be and must become. I simply express my idea, not wishing to impose it on anyone; but I see nothing which might set it aside but routine politics.

Don’t we know how ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART I Classical Foundations
• PART II Contemporary Political Philosophy and Theory
• PART III Historical Precedents
• PART IV Hybrid Non-Territorial and Territorial Models
• Index