# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  What we need is Panarchy.

## osan

For many, "anarchy" is a four-letter word.  One of my closest and most respected friends - more family to me - a brilliant PhD chemist, endlessly pro-liberty individualist, and one of the most well-rounded and vast intellects I have ever had the privilege of knowing, uses "anarchy" in that way.  It surprises me endlessly, I admit, but more to my point it underscores just how filthy a word it has become.

This is why I have avoided its use in most circles and have come to conclude that it is hopelessly ruined in the minds of most people.  To suggest anything positive about anarchy often earns one the sorts of looks and stares and glares that portend the same result as transactions regarding religious opinion.

I have, therefore, coined a new term... at least I think it is new.  New in my case at any rate, and the word is "panarchy".

Where "anarchy" has failed, perhaps panarchy shall succeed.  One cannot know until something is attempted, whether it will work out as desired.  

Anarchy is the absence of a ruler.  While the thinking man may delve more deeply and find that this does not mean a necessary absence of rules, the average man immediately jumps to that conclusion, inferring therefrom that "anarchy" is congruent with "chaos" and all that it implies.  To expect the average man, the "meaner", to dope his way through in the fashion of the thinking man is not reasonable, given the current state of human affairs across the planet. 

Therefore, I assert that a new approach is needed because not only is "anarchy" hopelessly corrupted in the mind of the meaner, so are many other similar terms such as "libertarian[ism]".  Theye have been ever so successful in co-opting the language of freedom and using it as a weapon to better secure their tyrannies by tacitly redefining such terms through massive incorrect usage over the course of decades.

So why, then, come up with yet another term for what is essentially the same thing?  Good question, and I am sure I have not all the answers, but perhaps there is at least one or two.  Mainly, I see the time as ripe for an injection of something new.  People all over the planet know that there is something terribly wrong with the world.  They appear unable to put their fingers on the precise problem, but are generally able to articulate some of the symptoms such as endless war, corporate misbehavior, a lack of respect for life, and so forth.  More and more are becoming fed up with the status quo and find themselves casting about for answers.  It is in this environment that I suggest we introduce to the world the concept of Panarchy.

Panarchy, then, is the logical obversion of anarchy.  Where anarchy asserts there are no rulers, panarchy asserts that everyone is a ruler.  This is a superior conceptual construct to anarchy because it imputes a positive and equal authority to rule unto each man.  This, of course, is not the whole of it.  There are limitations to the authority, which is constrained in the main to positive authority over one's own life, which is very similar to the notion espoused by the Shire Society where they assert that each man is the proprietor of his own life.

This authority, however, goes s little further in that it also imputes positive authority over one's fellows when they fail to properly regulate their own behaviors in respect and deference to the rights of others.  For example, a man decides to rape a woman on the street but is discovered by a third party.  That party stands centrally within his right to intercede against the rapist on behalf of the apparent victim.  This is especially so where the victim makes clear a desire for assistance.  As to whether there is an obligation to intercede, while I do not think so, I will leave that discussion for later - please feel free to pitch in with your views on this.

When examined even casually, is this not the actual basis of the American Republic?  Is this not what government of the people, by the people, and for the people is supposed to mean?  I assert that America was intended to be a panarchy.  The Framers pooched it with all the extras.  The specification of the Congress, the judiciary, and the executive were all profound errors in their assessment of what was needed.  I believe a Bill of Rights may have been all we needed in order to have given rise to a strong, prosperous, and pre panarchic land.  Things such as courts would have naturally arisen as need dictated and their structures could have been standardized across the states in time.  But we rushed the design and it has proven disastrous.

In a panarchy, each individual makes his own bones in life as his abilities permit and with the single constraint that he respect the equal right of his fellows to do the same.  This is nothing more or less than the Golden Rule itself.

This forwarding of panarchy, while a bit of a semantic trick (albeit innocent, well thought out, and well intended), holds at least the potential root of a paradigm-shift in the ways people think, as well as their attitudes toward just about everything, given the basic nature of this idea.

What are your thoughts?  Do you feel the notion is meritorious, or is this just another waste of time?

*ETA*: As I suspected, the term is far too attractive and obvious to have not been used previously.  To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy

----------


## acptulsa

Shall we use a word that already has a definition...




> Panarchy is a conceptual term first coined by the Belgian philosopher, economist, and botanist Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, referring to a specific form of governance (-archy) that would encompass (pan-) all others.


...that smacks of what the New World Order wants?

----------


## phill4paul

> *ETA*: As I suspected, the term is far too attractive and obvious to have not been used previously.  To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy


  And noted on this very forum by a poster whose voice I sadly miss.  H/T Truth Warrior.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...m-a-Panarchist




> Why I Am a Panarchist
> 
> by Michael S. Rozeff
> A correspondent recently informed me about the Global Poverty Act of 2007. This bill did not pass Congress. It can be re-introduced in the current Congress. Obama favors this bill.
> 
> I have a negative opinion of this bill. I could explain why my opinion is negative. I’ve done that before with other laws that have been passed by the federal government. Instead, I will go to the root of the political matter.
> 
> Dozens of these bills are introduced into Congress and many get passed. Along the way, there are hundreds of groups that favor and oppose these bills. One can be fighting these fights 24 hours a day. This is not my idea of living. In my remaining years, I’d like to do a few other things. Still, I have to protect myself and my life from the impositions of others. One course is to fight with the pen. This has certain non-monetary benefits that I shall not go into. Either that or I find a way to go underground, insulate myself from all this nonsense, and become invisible. That too has benefits. At some point, I may do that. I may become a dropout. Then I’ll take up painting. I’ll have a machine shop and make myself a grease gun and fire it off out of anyone’s hearing. I’ll raise a few chickens or pheasants and ducks as my father once did as a pastime. I will not raise geese, however. They seemed to like to attack at will.
> 
> ...

----------


## Ronin Truth

The rulership by cooking containers?

----------


## osan

> The rulership by cooking containers?



Well, arm everyone with good and heavy frying pans might actually work.

----------


## DamianTV

While I think the application of the word is very very good, the word itself brings up confusing ideas, first resulting from the part that is most easily understood, "anarchy".  However, your thoghts are exactly in line with the thoughts of the Founding Fathers.  "Soverign Citizens" was the term they used, but not everyone understands what Soverign means any more.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign



> Full Definition of SOVEREIGN - 1
> a :  one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
> b :  one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
> c :  an acknowledged leader :  arbiter
> 2
> :  any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom


The second definition of the word is not applicable to people, so we will end up going with the first.  The way I always understood it was "Divine Right of Rulers", thus only "Rulers" had such Rights, while Plebs and Peasants did not have the same Rights.  Unequal distribution of Rights.  Break the word up into its components.  "Sove - Reign".  Probably some latin in there.  Couldnt tell you about what Sove really is, but probably religious in nature.  The "Reign" part of Sove_reign_ is pretty self explanitory, to Rule.  The history of the word I find to be quite fascinating.  Soverign used to have a much different definition in application than it does today.  Hundreds of years ago, Soverignty could only be used to describe Kings or entire Nations.  The Founding Fathers wanted the Power of Nations to be held in the hands of the People and coined their own term "Soverign Citizen", where the power of Nations and Kings belonged to each Man.  Mostly this was applied to Land Owners.  "Each man (land owner) was King of his own Castle (his land or house)".  The term isnt every useful any more because the common tongue no longer includes Soverign in the application of its definition.  Panarchy seems to be intended to be similar to this.

Perhaps it would be better to flat out use the definition of the word in place of the words themselves?  So lets say what we mean and mean what we say.  "Ultimate Self Authority" or from a Property Rights perspective "Total Self Ownership".  Maybe place focus on the People and not use the term "Citizen" as that definition has also been blurred.  Immigrants are not considered "Citizens" although they are still human beings.  Distancing the application of the term "Citizen" to Immigrants is a form of Dehumanization, so I think "Citizen" will be a poor choice of words during the course of carefully crafting each specific word.  Thus, perhaps replacing "Citizen" with "People" to result in "People of Ultimate Self Authority".  This idea of a phrase or term could be refined even further to ensure no misunderstanding of the definition, so it isnt totally perfect.  However, comparing "Panarchy", which to me sounds good, it isnt great because the defintion is not clearly understood by those who are not educated as well as we are.  "People of Ultimate Self Authority" is too long for everyone to remember, and will most likly devolve into "People of Authority" through abbreviation.  "Self Authority" is what it could be shortened to, but this also fails because it does not apply to everyone equally, even if the defintion is almost exactly the same as "Anarchy".

The reason that Im not using words like "Rights" or "Law" are because the definitions have been replaced in their application of terms.  People simply do not understand what a Right is and what a Right is not.  Equal Rights means that one persons Rights end where another persons begins.  A "person", not land owner or men due to gender bias, is less of a troublesome word because everyone can identify with this.  Unfortunately, this also includes Corporations by their legal definition of the word Person.  This is why I didnt use the word "Law" as the Law has also been reshaped to transfer power from Plebs to Corporations, Rulers, and Governments.  So screw the Law, we apply words that every individual can understand.  People will associate themselves with the word "Person" and begin to recognize themselves as a "Person of Self Authority".  The negative form of understanding of this term also seems to apply quite well, through what is not said in the term.  It specifically excludes anyone else from being subject to their own authority.

The reason I didnt use "Rights" is because people now understand the word itself to be something it is not.  "Rights" as far as the thoughts of a common man (person) are replaced with the definition of Permission.  No one can Grant A Right.  The problem there is that people simply do not understand this and it takes far too much time to explain.  You ALWAYS have your Rights, and they are NOT granted by any other person or any other entity.  Thus, I avoided using it.  "Right" has been distorted in its perspective through the use of the word "Permission" in its place.  Such as "Digital Rights Management", then in the Legaleze somewhere, "we grant you the Right", and by doing so, distorts the understanding of the word Right with Permission, when they are Polar Opposites.  An appropriate term would be "Digital Permissions Management".  The result of this confusion of the word "Right" is to blur the appropriate application of the word.  Just as "I dont have a Right to your stuff", and a person does "not have a right to public education", or "free lunch" or "welfare", or anythign that infringes on the equal rights of others.  A person does have a "Right" to claim ownership over their own bodies and all property.  But lets listen to the wise words of TJ for a moment...




> Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us 
> by the equal rights of others.  I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is 
> often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."  
> 
> -Thomas Jefferson


Thus, I think perhaps either "People of Ultimate Self Authority" or "People of Self Authority" may be better, just in the clarification of defintion, but are also more easily misunderstood.  Other problems arise where the word "People" does not equally define ALL people.  It could easily be hijacked when someone else claims the "Authority to Deny Authority", as goofy as that may sound.  "You are NOT a person of Ultimate Self Authority".  Or "We do not grant you the Right to have Ultimate Self Authoirty".

Perhaps the best course of action is to stick with the idea of "Soverign Citizen"?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I think Autarchy (self-rule) is better.

----------


## osan

> I think Autarchy (self-rule) is better.


Been there - already taken.

This brings me to another term I coined, this one apparently being unique to myself: autodiathism, from the Greek for "self determination".

I suppose we could further coin from this "autodiathy".

This is what I wrote on the matter, a couple of years back:

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...odiathism.html



*Autodiathism* 

It has been a while now that I have been in search of a term, a word, to symbolize the concept of self-rule.  Without the option to rule oneself there can be no freedom.  "Anarchy" is perhaps the original term, but because it has taken on such universally bad connotations thanks to the adroit and tireless work of bottomlessly misguided and in some cases stupid or just plainly ignorant people, I have come up with a new word for the self rule of the individual: autodiathism, from the Greek, "αυτοδιάθεση" (transliterates to, "aftodiáthesi"), literally "self determination". Diathism for short. One who practices self-rule, an autodiathist or diathist for short.

I believe a new term would be helpful at this time to provide for the world with a clean psychological and semantic break from the past. As the world plunges headlong into a new Dark Age , many of us are simultaneously digging and climbing our way toward the eternal light of proper, living freedom. I cannot say how things will turn out in the end and acknowledge that the prospects for the future of human liberty are not looking very good at the moment, but we can do only one of two things: keep clawing our ways toward that which we know to be the good or lay down in defeat. I see no virtue in the latter even though in the end we are all inevitably defeated by old age. Though we may have no choice in our ultimate dispositions, we always have in our hands the power to choose how we shall meet them. We can go out with a bang, heads held high or we can go out wheezing and whimpering. That choice can neithert be taken from us nor can it be made for us.

That said, for those brave and worthy souls who choose to press on, come what may, I believe our only hope lies in educating as many as possible to the virtues of freedom and all that it implies and requires of us. We cannot educate if we cannot get people to listen and we cannot get them to listen if they reject out of hand the words we use. It is therefore convenient, both conceptually and conversationally, to have concise terms that embody ideas. We use such terms every day. "Anarchy", however good a word it may be in terms of its true semantics, has been polluted by the corrupt, the ignorant, and the stupid such that it now connotes chaos and doom to far more people than it does anything else. One can spend inordinate resources correcting this misapprehension in but a single individual and still not break them of the bad habit of false connotation.

I therefore submit to the world these new terms for use in describing self-rule, autodiathism (diathism) and Autodiathist (Diathist).

Research reveals about 48 unique references to "autodiathesis" and it appears every use constitutes jargon specific to political issues related to Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and that general region of the world. Autodiathism derives directly from autodiathesis.

I will, therefore, assume the privilege of declaring myself the first Autodiathist.

Being a Diathist, I bid one and all welcome to the fold.


Until next time, please accept my fondest regards.

----------

