Michael Rozeff
Translation: Egor Vasilchenko, edited by Ancap-tyan
Original publication: July 1, 2009
Panarchism is a new political philosophy based on and extending the concept of the consent of the governed, the roots of which trace back, primarily, to John Locke. The idea of government based on the consent of those governed permeated revolutionary America. Evidence of this can be found in Article 6 of the “Virginia Declaration of Rights” and in the “Essex Results,” in the words of Benjamin Franklin, who wrote: “In a free society, rulers are servants of the people, and the people are their master and sovereign,” and even the Declaration of Independence itself asserts that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Panarchism proposes a comprehensive expansion of freedom for the consensual choice of government in form and content. It proposes the creation of a government whose status will be agreed upon with all persons participating in its organization for themselves, and conversely, for all those who will not agree to be subject to such a government, it will not have power.
Panarchy is a form of human relations in which every person has the freedom to choose their own social and political governance without outside coercion. Panarchism means that people can freely enter into social and political relationships and freely exit them. And this means that government exists only with the consent and thanks to the consent of those whom it governs.
Panarchism gives a new understanding of who the governed are, what government represents, and what consent between the former and the latter means. This gives rise to a new concept of the non-territorial state and provides a new look at things such as power and sovereignty. By viewing government as non-territorial, panarchism shifts the emphasis of the movement for freedom from the destruction of the state, which some may prefer, to the creation and acquisition of such governments that could suit each of us.
Free people in a free society already practice, to some extent, the principles of panarchy. By personal consent, they interact with those they want to interact with (if the other person also wants to interact with them), and do not interact with those they do not want to. Their social ties change over time, by place, by duration, and in other aspects. They choose their friends, place of residence, work, hobby clubs, and church parishes based on individual wishes, doing so without social coercion. Free people form, on the basis of voluntary consent, various organizations, associations, and groups. They form sub-societies and “peoples,” representing groups of people voluntarily united by various characteristics and interests. In doing so, they at the same time create many coexisting forms of social organization and governance, the basis of which is not territorial (although, likely, it can be), but built on the interrelationships of people.
Panarchism proposes simply to extend the already existing and realized in life principles of panarchy to the state (or individual functions thereof), so that people are free to create peoples and choose their own forms of governance.
But why? Why can the desire for such changes be considered justified? Because today the possibility of consent of people is too limited to provide them with significant sovereignty. Because today the state and rulers have become the sovereigns, and the people — their servants. Because complex systems of elections and parties have reduced the role of human consent to zero. Because many potential new peoples are limited in the right to self-determination. Does freedom of choice mean — choosing when voting for one of two parties, which will govern a single monopolistic government? No, rather active consent regarding the very form, as well as the content of the governance relations, fits this definition.
Why panarchism? Because under today’s organization of governance, the state is far from our needs, and we have no right to choose its form. Because the whole planet is covered by states that too often bring injustice, threats to security, disorder, waste of resources, suffering, death, and destruction, as they have done throughout all the history of humanity. Because states and governments concentrate and increase power, using it for purposes that many of us do not share. And because today’s governments legitimize and support the contentious struggle for dominance, where the victory of one group means losses for another, a struggle that consumes more and more resources and diverts energy from productive to unproductive use.
The freedom provided by panarchy promises us hope for a better life, since it will provide the opportunity for each of us to participate in social and political relationships based on our own choice and in accordance with our own beliefs. When people stop putting up with governments that only worsen their situation, the free choice of governments will provide a kind of system of checks and balances in case of governmental failures and errors — it is precisely the absence of this that is the most critical missing part of the current political system.
Panarchy presupposes the existence of many societies and sub-societies in one country, region, or area. There should not be a single sovereign power extending the effect of the law everywhere, without the consent of those people whom it tries to govern. In panarchy, numerous and diverse sources of self-sufficient sovereignty exist side by side with each other, drawing their legitimacy from the consent of those who are ready to live by the set of governance relations they propose. At the same time, people will be able to voluntarily join diverse governance associations, different from those that on a geographical basis are prescribed to them by authority.
When the American revolutionaries called for the consent of the government and the governed, they were paving the way for a non-territorial state structure, but at the same time, they were veering off this path. Just as they avoided the question of slavery, they avoided the question of how a legitimate government and people are formed, how consent between them is determined, and the people’s right to secede. In its Article 14, the “Virginia Declaration of Rights” sought to “preserve the sovereignty of Virginia over its restless, extensive western counties.” It proclaimed that “the people have a right to a single government,” and that therefore “no separate or independent government can be created or established within the government of Virginia.” This particular territorial concept of the state was justified by a false appeal to the mystical “right to a single government,” the goal of which was to prevent the formation of West Virginia. About 85 years later, West Virginia, which for many decades had had plenty of reasons not to obey Richmond, was finally able to secede.
Since then, little has changed. Despite hundreds of separatist movements across the world, the idea of the territorial unity of the state has not changed. And indeed, most of such movements themselves perceive the state as attached to a specific territory. American federalism became nationalism. Modern governments sacrifice society, basing their claim to legitimate power not so much on the consent of the governed, as on territorial claims.
The idea of government must be separated from the idea of the territorial state and from the notion that the government of such a state is everything a government can be and what it is. Since the state is single, territorial, and uses violent methods, due to this idea, the opinion is formed that government must necessarily possess all the aforementioned characteristics. The territorial concept supports the power of current states over the territories they occupy. It devalues the opinion of the people and strips it of real significance, replacing it with manipulations with votes, party platforms, lobbying, gerrymandering, force, and the monetary flows of election campaigns. The idea of territorial rule without the consent of the people condemns humanity to life without one of the most important freedoms — the freedom to choose one’s government.
It is mistaken to equate government with the executive and administrative apparatuses of the monopolistic state. When this is done by supporters of the state, they leave no or almost no room for those who do not agree with them and want to live with their own structure of governance. When this is done by its opponents — they also act against government, from a position that does not allow those who want to have various forms of their own government, to realize their choice.
Government is social coordination of personal human relationships. Government is inevitable to the extent to which the interaction of people with each other is inevitable. Opponents of government, if they do not avoid all social interaction, will be able to do without government no more than statists. But the necessity of government does not mean that it must be coercive and territorial. We have an alternative to living in a single territorial state that constantly creates and imposes all kinds of rules for each of us. Panarchy is this alternative.
We ourselves govern vast areas of human activity — with the consent of people, without being tied to territory, and without a state. It has been so throughout all history — it is so now. People in society create systems of governance from the most diverse and numerous sources, which can be moral and ethical norms, customs, precedents, rules, principles, manners, religion, treaties, agreements, concepts, and contracts, and implement them with the help of various social mechanisms, institutions, and organizations, including the family, associations, churches, schools, corporations, and business firms. Society, in this sense being a multitude of separate interconnected and diverse societies, already reflects a high degree of panarchy. Societies everywhere already use panarchy as a beneficial principle of social organization and order.
Panarchism presupposes the extension of panarchy even further. It means a world in which people will be able to live, choosing for themselves governance relations at their own discretion, and allowing neighbors to do the same. A society with such freedom will hold together, maintaining order, just as it has always happened: through a complex network of common values, beliefs, lifestyle, language, and other similar traits, acting through the personal interests of each person, embodied in individual, joint, and collective efforts. It will be even more cohesive than today’s society, since the imposed government, which today creates the ground for political and economic confrontations, uprisings, and civil wars, will be eliminated.
Different people understand differently what independence and freedom are, and even when they agree with each other, they put different meanings into the concept of freedom. One woman might choose to work for another person for a salary, while another — perceive wage labor as slavery. One man might voluntarily join the army, another — consider the draft slavery. These different views on good and bad social organization and government can coexist in panarchy. Freedom and government are not at opposite poles. The abolition of government in itself will not bring freedom for all, the abolition of government and the replacement of it with one’s own, personal vision of freedom also will not be able to do this. Freedom for all presupposes the possibility for everyone to choose their own government, one whose structure does not contradict their views. In panarchy, men and women are free to be unfree (in the eyes of others) to any desired degree. They can enter into any governance relations they want. This separates panarchy from those political concepts that deny the right of a person to choose a government and a state. Panarchists do not seek to destroy governments that others want. They do not deny others the freedom to be unfree. However, they deny others (people, governments, or states) the freedom to make them unfree.
As soon as we reflect on the question of what government is, we will be able to leave behind the idea of “some” government and a “specific” government. Government consists of a set of functions that can be clearly defined. The choice is not between today’s government and none; there are many intermediate options.
National governments took from local communities such important functions as the protection of the elderly, aid to the needy, and medical care. They did this with the help of the convoluted rule of the majority and voting procedures designed to bypass the real consent of the governed. Governments throughout the world often suppress various minorities. The introduction of nationwide laws discriminates and suppresses all those who do not agree with them and do not want to trust their government with the decision of some critically important issues. A medical assistance program, for example, includes the seizure and redistribution of wealth. Such a program could well be non-territorial and consensual. Mr. K. may subscribe to such a program and relate to the government that will deduct contributions for it from his salary, while Mr. D. may not do all this. And they can at the same time live next door.
Many of today’s government functions can remain for those who are ready to use them, but become voluntary for those who do not want to. The main idea here is not to destroy government, but to make it voluntary. A huge number of regulations of labor relations, energy, education, healthcare, and social security are such that one neighbor can peacefully live without some of them, even if another, conversely, wants to follow them. Instead of trying to cancel a medical assistance program or convince voters to vote for it, accepting the rules of the game of a monopolistic and territorial government, panarchism approaches the problem of lack of consent and the unjust power of government from another side. Let those who want this program — receive it, and those who do not — be free from it. Panarchism stands on the ground of high morality. Why should those who do not want to participate in a program be involved in it by those who want it? How is this different from forcing everyone to belong to one church? What consent of the governed can there be when we are driven, whether we want it or not, into programs that affect our life?
Coordination problems related to human interaction will not disappear. Governance reform, even in those cases where it is not related to coordination, can be sufficiently difficult. Panarchism does not deny these difficulties. But it offers a fair and peaceful alternative, which can be achieved peacefully, and in which the state renounces its territorial claims. One can move toward it slowly, step by step, or through sharp leaps. Most likely, consensual and non-consensual governments will exist side by side with each other for some time. Changes, small and large, are unpredictable. People themselves must ensure their advancement and accomplishment. Every step, peaceful and non-aggressive, that people take toward a life with their own and voluntary government, will be a step on the path to a more complete panarchy and greater freedom.
I express my gratitude for the helpful comments of Adam Notte and John Zewb, and I take full responsibility for all errors that I may have made here.