General

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Panarchy — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:27:43 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

IRL means "in real life".

Ah!

That makes sense.

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:13:54 GMT

IRL means "in real life".

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Panarchy — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:41:26 GMT

I don't know what you mean by IRL, by I suppose you were talking ot me!

Hehehehehe... I guess I'm a little hyperactive

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:09:26 GMT

Just a question: are you hyperactive and/or do you talk really fast IRL? Just curious.

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Panarchy — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:45:20 GMT

LOL

Although I did know what Panarchy was, I just couldn't explain it.

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

a platonic charisma — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:39:00 GMT

Thedesolateone:

You didn't know what it was - but you knew you'd love it - so you named yourself "panarchy"?

My real-life signature looked remarkably like an anarchy symbol long before I discovered anarcho-capitalism. Sometimes the subconscious is a bit ahead of its time....

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Panarchy — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:01:01 GMT

^Nice article. Just skimmed it, but it seems that you have the general idea of what Panarchy is.

Thedesolateone:

You didn't know what it was - but you knew you'd love it - so you named yourself "panarchy"?

No, I knew what it was, I just didn't have a succinct way of telling or showing other people what it meant.

Now I do. So as soon as I memorise this line word for word, I'll be sweet!

The individual's right to choose any form of government without being forced to move from their current locale.

So yeah!

Panarchy

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

liberty student — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:03:47 GMT

Why I Am a Panarchist

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:17:12 GMT

Could be an impulsive personality?

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Thedesolateone — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:36:15 GMT

You didn't know what it was - but you knew you'd love it - so you named yourself "panarchy"?

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Nitroadict — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:08:42 GMT

Stranger:

Yet another ism for people to label themselves at parties.

Right then, Cheers

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Stranger — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:55:09 GMT

Yet another ism for people to label themselves at parties.

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Panarchy — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:48:26 GMT

Okay, I've updated it (forgot about it, now it's updated, see first definition)

QUOTE;

# The individual's right to choose any form of government without being forced to move from their current locale.
#* 1860 article by “Panarchy” de Puydt

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Panarchy

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Panarchy — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:52:24 GMT

Ah, very nice reply Jain.

You brought up some interesting points.

I'd ask of you to update the definition of Panarchy on Wikitionary.

Thanks in advance,

Panarchy

PS: Awarded your post 5 stars!

Re: Definition of Panarchy? Please post one!

Jain Daugh — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:27:50 GMT

I am interested in panarchy, in the original definition of that word - as a choice of government. [In his 1860 article “Panarchy” de Puydt, a firm supporter of laissez-faire economics, applied the concept to the individual's right to choose any form of government without being forced to move from their current locale. This is sometimes described as "extra-territorial" (or "exterritorial") since governments often would serve non-contiguous parcels of land. - wikipedia/#1]

I am not happy to see that that same word is now being 'updated' - [ In the twentieth century the term was re-coined separately by scholars in international relations to describe the notion of global governance and then by systems theorists to describe non-hierarchal organizing theories.- wikipedia/#2]

What makes me unhappy is that this term will become more referenced and referred to as a 'systems theory' rather than the valuable option for (individual) choice of government. Panarchy, as an open choice by individuals, to choose which government (and that choice includes NONE) that person prefers to live in accordance with. This seems to me to be even better than what libertarianism has to offer in its 'non-agression' basis. Not that I don't agree with that, but lets face it, it hasn't 'sold' either ;-) I think it would be far better, as well as just down right more respectful, to not attempt to create and enFORCE a single choice onto all people living in a (human defined) area. Afterall, such a 'single choice' is not required of religions, insurance, stores, communication media etc. etc. within A specific location. So why is government 'different'?!? Unless of course its really not a necessity, but rather an accepted 'tradition' of force parading as protection?

Jain