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.

Panarchy

For more information on Panarchy, please see the Panarchy Website. I recommend as a primer the article from Paul Emile De Puydt.

There comes a time in everyone's life that a new idea is interjected into one's life that changes it dramatically. I had one of these occur to me today.

Today while cruising the world wide web I found the idea called 'Panarchy'. The idea summerized, briefly, is a government for everyone by their own choosing. I can not live under the current government that I am forced to live under. There being no better form of 'cancer' to move to. The idea is that instead of tearing down existing governments, against the will of others, in order to create the world in our own images. We instead create our own governments that can exist side by side between each other. This is currently done at many different levels today. Municipalities coexist with each other, counties coexist with each other, States coexist with each other, Federal governments coexist with each other.

Most governments have more in common then they have different. Most of the governments that one might create for one's self would have common themes. In the land mass called the United States, you'd see governments that support the rights of life, liberty, and property. That believe that violating these rights is criminal, and those who violate these rights are punished. So we aren't talking about governments that would be dramatically different from each other.

There might be pockets of smaller governments that have at its core ideas that are dramatically different, however they would be subject to the same forces that all governments are, that being the force of economics. If the people of the Socialists Regime are unable to fund the government they like, then they would be for ever be insignificant and powerless against larger ones.

This sounds impossible to start, you say? Is it really? Don't we already have in place certain governmental functions that could see to such a system? Do you register to vote? Your 'voter registration card' could be your new ID card.

When a Enforcer of Laws contacts you, you show them your 'Political Membership Card' and he could instantly call up your political branch of Enforcer of Laws, and run your ID as he does today. Based on that he could issue his ticket or whatever to you and you'd take it to your local Enforcer of Laws to be processed in whatever way they handle such affairs.

I say to anyone that is a naysayer to such an idea is to view the idea in a similar context. Imagine for example the four existing political parties being governments on to themselves. I for one don't believe there to be much difference between the Democrats and Republicans, however imagine both parties getting everything they ever wanted, within reason, but doing so as to make both political followers happy, instead of constantly fighting against each others ideology. Then you have the Libertarian party who's founding had the same goals as the roots of the big two parties founding. however in the current light appear to be nothing more then 'Republican Lite'. The fourth party is the all the other smaller parties, the non-parties, and so called 'independents' who we could all agree currently have no voice, but should be allowed to.

So, reader, how do we get from here to there? Perhaps the biggest and best way is to remove the rules that stifle the creation of  parties. The big two parties have long since created roadblocks to stop the formation of new parties, to make people think there can only be two parties anymore, and a litany of other complaints, as well. Create rules that abolish the rules that de facto allow only two parties. As David toppled Goliath, if every smaller party made it a priority to get these rules removed, then we could see them removed.

Once this roadblock is removed then we have set the stage for the formation of political independence. It starts at the local level, as all things should. We could see a reformation of local governments that would create rules not to bound people, but to bind the governments. It would be up to the local political parties to create an environment that is conducive to everyone getting what they want via their own political power. Once local freedom has been created, then we can see similar changes to the regional power within a state via the same process of freeing people from one single government to multiple parties. From there it would be very simple to change the State government as well, and move on from there to a Federal level, however I think that thinking beyond the local level at this moment is premature. Like all experiments, we should try them at a local level first.

Step out of yourself for a moment and view your existing idea of government from this point of view. Instead of your local 'representatives' constantly infighting about which way to go, they would be able to go both ways utilizing their own parties funds as they see fit. Rather then your local 'representatives' representing you, they'd be representing the party. We'd see the reformation of local governments to a 'united nations' kind of concept, except here we would hope to see more freedom then we see tyranny, it is hoped. The number of seats on our councils would change from being territorial to one of political power, so that each party has equal representation, in a one party, one vote, kind of system.

It isn't a perfect idea, we don't have perfect human beings, and the world isn't perfect, but none the less shouldn't we try to obtain perfection for all, rather then the current system of one size fits all?

For more information on Panarchy, please see the Panarchy Website. I recommend as a primer the article from Paul Emile De Puydt.

Free Market Solution to Roads

7 - Aug - 2008 From The Alaskan Command Center

Often times when an objection to the free market is raised, it is raised about roads. The debate is usually fairly simple, the free market side says that roads can be handled by the free market, and the other side saying that only government can handle roads.

Roads are important for commerce, and as such shouldn't commerce be the one dicating where roads should exist, how they should be built, how they should be maintained, and so on and so forth? If government should create roads, maintain them, and the like, how does government know where, how, why, and what roads ought to be built and how they should be maintained if it recieves no input from anyone else about them? Since government builds roads like they build everything else, poorly, do you want your hard earned money not only stolen from you, but mis-spent?

So how to transition from government roads to private roads? As one who likes to experiment, if I had the power to make the decisions, I'd do it this way. First we take a secondary street of some 5 blocks, not a main street, and we say to the owners on this street, for a period of six months, you will be responsible for the maintaince and upkeep from your property to the middle of the road, including sidewalks. We will see what the road looks like six months from then. If it works, then we pick another secondary street, or another 5 blocks of our first street. Continuing forward till we reach about 25 percent of public roads then we move to phase two. If it fails, then we try it with a different 5 block section. If it fails again, then we can decide what to do from that point. This is the process that the free market does when figuring things out.

The idea here is to make sure we try it before we buy it. The point is not to dictate how each business will take care of the street, nor punish them for their lack of taking care of the street. If we treat them as if they own the street, they will better take care of the street. The punishment for failing to maintain the street will in how the customers feel about the owners, in a commerical zone, this would be their customers deciding that the buisness doesn't care about its own property, and not want to shop there.

For residental property, punishment would be in home values. 

What if the owner doesn't want to maintain their property? Then they can hire someone to do it for them, or they can allow their neighbors to take care of the property. Here in Anchorage, Alaska, some parts of the downtown are maintained mostly by a group of businesses together who pay for people to walk the streets every morning picking up garbage and also to have security personnel walk/bike the streets.

Phase two would be along the lines of moving from public ownership/private 'lease' to transfering the actual roads to the private owners. Again using the formula of a little bit at a time and reviewing the results and then adjusting the next step after seeing the effects of the first step, until all roads are privately owned.

What about new roads? First and foremost new roads could be created quickly, starting with basic roads and then moving toward higher capacity roads, such as highways and byways. Who is going to pay for them? Obviously that is left to the private owner, perhaps he will take out a loan to build his road. Perhaps he will charge a toll to use his road. Perhaps he will group with his neighbors and do one of the above or perhaps something not even expected. The point is, if there is a need for a road you can bet your dollar that you will get your road, just as you get your gallon of milk, your gallon of gas, your home built, your car built, all without government creating them, and then delivering them to you.

COMMENT

To Protect and Serve....whom?

From The Alaskan Command Center:

Often times when I am heard speaking about so-called Law Enforcement Officers(LEO), I get accused of being a 'cop hater'. While I disagree with the severity by which the accusation is tossed, the message of the accusation is true. I do not like LEOs, and with good reason.

While many of the LEOs I have dealt with over the years have been good natured people, their reason for interacting with me has been bad. Almost all of these men and women have figuratively pointed a gun at me and demanded money for some perceived crime.

I know many will not ask these so-called protectors very simple questions, not that it matters since they can not answer them at any rate. What is a crime? What is a law? What is statute? LEOs are not trained in the most basic arts of law.

So they can not tell you that a crime is when one party's rights are violated and damages have occurred due to that rights violation. They can't tell you that a law is a truth that has been upheld for so long that it has the effect of being binding to all. They can't tell you that a Statute is a rule that has the effect of law upon a society.

When asked the simple question, 'have I committed a crime' when pulled over for speeding they can not tell you properly why it is or even why it isn't a crime, but will write a ticket just the same. When you ask them is this a commercial instrument, they will look at you as a deer stares into the head lights of an on coming car.

When was the last time you asked someone for protection and they were the perpetrators of the crime against you? If you have ever been stopped by a LEO, you have been a victim of a crime. Of course you can't bring suit against these people for committing a crime against you, because they are an instrument of the State, just as the judge claims to be impartial and unbiased at the same time receiving a paycheck from the same entity that is prosecuting you for your 'crime'.

Who do LEO's protect? The United States Supreme Court has ruled that they have no duty, no obligation, no responsibility to protect you the individual citizen. If they don't protect you, then what is their job? What is their function? Obviously, you can find the answer to this when you go to the court room and try to ask questions, rather then just simply follow the judges orders. The will use force against you in whatever manner that the judge orders them to do. Ask them, who do they serve? The judge of course. So in the end a LEO protects the State. From whom? Well you and I of course!

Those who are 'government' know that they are out numbered 50 to 1, that's why they work so hard to keep you under control, to not rock the boat too much, so you don't raise an objection. This so-called republic wasn't even finished being created before the right to alter or reform the 'government' was made into a crime. Rebellion is a crime, after all.

Are we a nation of laws?

14 - June - 2007 From The Alaskan Command Center:

Time and time again we hear, 'we are a nation of laws', if this is true, which I have a major doubt, then it would seem to me that laws which are in violation of the law should be automatically struck down and should not have to wait for challenge by anyone.

I submit in to evidence the 2nd Amendment, which states in part, 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. If this is law, and the law itself proclaims itself to be 'the law of the land', then no law can be made that would violate this law. The word infringed and its root, were not chosen by chance or mouth feel, but by understanding the exactness and well understood meaning that the word represents. If we say, shall not be infringed, it means nothing may limit in any way, the said right. So to require a permit or license to own, or have a arm is in violation of the law. To limit the rank or type of arm, is a violation of the law.

While I do not disagree individuals who wield such arms as nuclear weapons, large scale bombs, or other arms of destruction are perhaps not what the founders have in mind, that the law does allow these weapons to be 'kept and bared'. If you have a problem with the law, you change the law, you do not pass a law that obviously is in violation of the law just because you don't agree with it.

I personally find that people are far more inclined to leave 'well armed individuals' to their own devices, and in turned peace is maintained. It is when these 'well armed individuals' violate the natural rights of others that they should be stood up to with defensive force.

So back to the statement, 'we are a nation of laws', in fact I can prove we are not. Men in suits create laws. Men in uniforms enforce those laws. Men in robes punish those who violate those laws. If we are a nation of laws, then the law itself would be followed by everyone because it is in their best interest to do so. In fact we are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of men. Men decide what is and isn't law. Men decide what laws are to be enforced and not enforced. Men punish others who violate those laws that were found sufficiently 'good' to be enforced, regardless if the law is just or not.

So I say on to you, we are NOT a nation of laws, but a nation of men. So long as we are a nation of men, ruling over other men, we will be slaves to these men. It is only when man is free from other men, and their passing of laws, that we will be free.

In freedom comes the ability to freely associate with whom you want to, without being forced by the point of violence to comply with a law, even when that law is immoral and/or illegal. Freedom means being able to own anything one wants to own without any regard to its purpose that one wishes to own. Freedom means being able to travel anywhere one wants to go without any regard to how one chooses to transport ones self. Freedom means being able to believe in the God or Gods you want to, or to not believe in those same God or Gods.

However with freedom comes equal responsibility. For you can not have an action without a equal and opposite re-action. If you have the freedom to own anything you want, you have the responsibility to maintain, hinder, or otherwise protect others from that thing. Having the freedom to associate with anyone you wish to, also means that you are judged by the actions of that other individual. The freedom to travel anywhere by any means also includes the responsibility of making sure you don't go where you are not welcome, nor that you damage others or their property in doing so. Your God or Gods, or lack thereof, are also your responsibility in that you have the freedom to spread the word of your ideology, others do not have to listen to you.

In short, or long as it is, we are not a nation of laws. We are nation of men. So long as we are a nation of men, we will not be free. We will continue to be their slaves until such time as we decide otherwise. While we may not agree in how this happens, we ought to support those that wish to cast of the yoke of servitude and help them in our own ways to achieve their goals. Normally I would say that 'man is at his best when he is thinking of himself first because in doing so, he will naturally help society as a whole'. With this in mind, I ask, is it not in your best interest to help those who desire that which all free men seek, that being the state of freedom? Grab this show Subscribe to the show COMMENTS