Amazing strides have been made in just the past 150 years towards progressive social acceptance and the embracing of multiple religions in civilized societies together. From the colonial imperialism of the British Empire, slavery of human beings, segregation by race in public settings, and lack of rights for women; the world has no doubt seen great advancement in such a short span of history. Despite these moves toward progressive thinking, we have not pushed forth onto a different forefront; which is one of accepting a type of political or civic diversity based on one’s desires or beliefs. Specifically, this relates to the areas of how a person or groups of people wish for their government to serve them. And more specifically, how these citizens will contribute to the assigned role they have given their governing powers as well. Panarchy, or Polyarchy of jurisdictions – without territorial boundaries – would be an ideal habitat for the fluctuating needs and desires of the intellectual progression of mankind; and therefore, would allow for the last battleground of innovation versus dogma to be fairly set once and for all.
Though the concept of people choosing the best governing style for them sounds somewhat like representative democracy or a even a constitutional republic, these ideas have not been implemented the more intimate level of individual liberty in choosing aterritorial jurisdictions. As the role of government and our ideas about tax reform, foreign policy, healthcare, and social programs continue to divide us, it is apparent that the last frontier of tolerance is political and intellectual. This frontier of progressive thinking and how we can go about coexisting with such a variety of ideas on how things “should” be is the ultimate call of mankind to evolve or continue a world of perpetual insanity and stagnation.
The basic elements of a Personarchy or Panarchy (as it has varying focuses and names) offers big-picture and detail-oriented individuals alike an environment to freely associate or disassociate with groups and systems that are beneficial to their beliefs, customs and political philosophies. After all, what is good for rural Texans is not always good for urban New Yorkers. Like letting states decide, perhaps we should let people decided what policies to enact in their lives and be held accountable for supporting…
The ideas found in Panarchy allow for any intellectual or political jurisdictions to exist without the dogmas of the past dictating what is considered possible. This would only be possible, though, as long as each system lets the other exist simultaneously because of its identical right to do so. Tolerance of tolerance, but no tolerance for intolerance may be another route to take. Consequently, each system would be accountable only to the citizens who choose to participate within it. With that, you are essentially bringing the concepts of free market capitalism to varying jurisdictions. People would vote for the system that they prefer by contributing their time, material contribution, and activism in order to keep the system that they admire in existence.
What is so frustrating is trying to get the idea of multi-governmental and non-territorial systems existing within the same place and time across to people that have been indoctrinated to think that jurisdiction must consist of a rigid place or come from an exclusive history. Perhaps it is my own pessimism, but it is amazing and sad at the same time that history keeps repeating itself once a new intellectual frontier is presented. From the earth being round, man creating flying machines, multicultural and racial coexistence, and a government by the people and for the people – why can we not yet jump these hurdles so readily from dogma to radical thinking for the purpose critical problem solving? Why is it that technological advancements over the last 20 years have excelled exponentially and continue to do so everyday; yet we cannot make a fraction of these leaps in the areas of intellect and creative solutions?
With the continuous influence of the internet in turning our society into a more hands off, paperless, and information-based existence, the ideas presented in Panarchy would logically (it would seem) become more attractive as an alternative to divisive and centralized governments that are inefficient and corrupt. What greater personal liberty can one offer than to allow another to choose the socio-political habitat they wish to live under, or perhaps not live under? Why must we even choose to associate ourselves with a jurisdiction because of the arbitrary territorial connection it presently has? Perhaps a better way to understand Panarchy and its many synonyms is to examine the mantra:
“Thoughts are actually things.”
Source by Richard Konieczko