04 December 2010

The Road Block Toward Panarchy

In my previous post I talked about how to get to Panarchy from our current anarchy. I glossed over some details in such a way as to leave you perhaps not understanding well how to get there from here.

Often times we hear those who are against the idea of self-governance(be it voluntary governace or actual self-governance), is you need to work within the system. In the past the idea has been to change territorial government from one kind to a different kind of territorial government. The amount of time and effort to do so, in my opinion, has been wasted. No real change has been made in actually changing forms of government. Perhaps it is because you are trying to change someone's government to something different and you will find that most human beings object to change.

So instead of changing someone's government to something they don't desire and are likely to rebuke it, let us take their existing government and instead of changing its form, make only minor changes to it. The changes of course are so small that they don't effect someone's 'choice' of government, in so much as it just changes how their government exists. By this, as I explored before we take the concept of the 'political party' and change it to a 'political government'. Such a change is so small to be imperceptible.

As we know there exists in the territory of the United States a so-called two party system. This system states you are either in group A or group B, and there exists no other party then them. While it's not true, many "states" have several smaller parties within their "borders", these smaller parties are road blocked from gaining any real 'political power' by the big two. Both parties have made any possibility of any party of any national size, difficult at best, impossible at worse. Each "state" has different rules about how a new party is to be created, and only a handful of people within that "state" to move the idea forward and often times no party can meet the requirements that the big boys have setup to protect their de facto monoplay.

It would appear to me that this is the first big road block to panarchy, since I envision that any real change will be at the local level, where there might be more boots to kick it ahead. No matter the size, a 'political party' wants its voice to be heard. Often times you'll hear that people don't change parties because party X doesn't have a chance, again because of the formation of rules that favor the major parties. So all 'political parties' are not treated equal, that is the first thing that needs to be changed. This change comes in either two ways, one would be just changing the existing rules, the other would be moving courts to strike down the rules.

The first path would seem more improbable due to the fact that those who make the rules are representatives of the big boys and like anyone with a coercive market monopoly, are unlikely interested  in changing the rules that would force them to compete. The second path would require either money or time to bring cases against the current existing rules into so called 'courts of law'. Either path would require individuals to form together into a group.

It would appear that several different such entities exist already. Coalition For Free and Open Elections  principals match the goals of such a one issue group. It would be by all appearances however that this group is failing in its principals due to any real activity, as can be witnessed by their various minutes reports. It is good to see that the majority of the main parties are represented in this group, it is sad to see that they aren't working together much to move forward toward the goal.

Free and Equal(F&E) is another group that appears to be doing the same job as the Coalition is doing and by appearances is really active. Another aspect to F&E is that they have a commercial operation for consulting for candidates. This might make F&E, the one group to support for changing the rules.

I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel so using either group as a starting point to cooperation between individuals would seem to me to be a way to go. Having a large organization as a partner in attempting to allow for 'party governments' is a step in the right direction. However, if our goal is local 'party governments' we need to keep our focus locally. 

Most of the existing 'political parties' are just that, parties not governments. One could co-op a party to turn it into a government, but this is unlikely to be successful, again the fear of change. Some 'government' leads the charge by creating a 'political government'. One founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom would appeal to most people, and allow the most members to join it. I think that most governments would want to keep a list of  its members, specifically names, mailing addresses at the minimum. In this day and age perhaps e-mail addresses as well, however being a private person myself, I might not want to give that information out. Asking for it isn't a crime.

The 'government' ought to be friendly toward 'parties' and 'governments'. A local coalition might be a good way to get things moving toward removing the road block of being a 'full party'.

In summary, the road block that we hit first is the 'political party' block by the big guys. To solve that block current rules that restrict equal access to being parties would need to be removed. This could be done by having current representatives work towards it, which is unlikely. The other path would be the courts, which would require groups of groups working together across the "state" to challenge these rules. If you can't find  people who of the same mindset the first step is to create your own 'political government' and start opening roads to other 'political' groups with the idea of free and open party systems.

No comments: