JFB.anon
20th October 2011, 20:26
Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word "panarchy" was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgian political economist, Paul Émile de Puydt in an article called "Panarchy" published in 1860. The word "panarchy" has since taken on additional, separate meanings, with the word "panarchism" referring to the original definition by de Puydt.
De Puydt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics, wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members."
Wow, what a unique and new idea! It seems so cool, and it so easily fits into the Anarchist tradition, right?
No, it's a lolbertarian, right wing idea pushed by rich people who don't want to pay taxes. It's dishonest, narrow minded bolderdash pushed by idiots who don't even know what a "state" does.:cool:
While I do kind of like it (it's hard to not see its appeal), and would like a state that could do something like this, the idea itself is silly.
I'm also bored. So let's all make fun of it!
\They've obscured and abstracted what a government actually does to such a cartoonish extreme, they constantly get away with saying "more governments will lead to more efficient governments". More efficient in what? Are they saying that they want to copy the "externalizing machines" that are private businesses? Getting a government that will borrow its money from China to pay for health care?
De Puydt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics, wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members."
Wow, what a unique and new idea! It seems so cool, and it so easily fits into the Anarchist tradition, right?
No, it's a lolbertarian, right wing idea pushed by rich people who don't want to pay taxes. It's dishonest, narrow minded bolderdash pushed by idiots who don't even know what a "state" does.:cool:
While I do kind of like it (it's hard to not see its appeal), and would like a state that could do something like this, the idea itself is silly.
I'm also bored. So let's all make fun of it!
\They've obscured and abstracted what a government actually does to such a cartoonish extreme, they constantly get away with saying "more governments will lead to more efficient governments". More efficient in what? Are they saying that they want to copy the "externalizing machines" that are private businesses? Getting a government that will borrow its money from China to pay for health care?