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.
