panarchy TCMT Panarchy is a conceptual term first coined by the Belgian philosopher, economist, and botanist Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, referring to a specific form of governance (-archy) that would encompass (pan-) all others. Could such a thing be possible? 131113 ... TCMT if it could be, what would it look like? 131113 ... TCMT Here are some of my thoughts: If we were to consider a system, any system, as an animal, an ideological animal if you want to go there, then you could look at the whole human-made world as an ecosystem of systems. Some systems exist within others. Some are in harmony. Some are in disharmony. Some are in various stages of decay. But if you consider that each one of these systems exist ALONG with many others, you begin to realize, I think, that physical space isn’t required for a system to exist. Okay, this sounds like a fucking text book. What I am saying simply is that whether we like to think of it this way, systems aren’t solid things. There are spaces within them to let all sorts of crazy shit get in. We tend to think that if a system fails at a thing, we should add something to the system, or add more rules or laws, or elect new people, or bolster the economic markets, or have a bail out or whatever other ridiculous thing we can think of. But doesn’t all of that assume that a system needs to be singular, when the reality shows that no system is? I mean, come on, isn’t that just boxed thinking at its finest? All systems have cracks, lacks or flaws or inadequacies that allow for the happiness of all that are a part of said system. So why not abandon the idea altogether that a system should be singular? What if you can create an infinite number systems outside dominant systems to create new alternatives for existing? I’m not just talking about starting a new business that fills a need in the economic market. I am talking about starting a new ISM that can have its own economic market. You don’t need to ask for permission for that. You just need to find enough people to agree on the system, and build the system. What if you can have a society where people can voluntary join a system, combine systems, explore systems, by choice, not by force, not because you were born under one. A voluntary system choosing process. Kinda like joining a club. You get up in the morning and you go to your socialist club where you work along with other socialists towards your collective welfare. There are hundreds of groups like yours that function similarly but have different “house rules.” Want the experience of a competitive free market? Then you have thousands of such clubs to choose from. They all offer different perks. Many of them collaborate with each other. Nations (if you want to call yourself a nation) aren’t restricted to a space. They are an idea that people carry around with them. Your nation is everywhere, and nowhere. Every need, every crack, can be filled by a club, whose purpose is to fill that specific role. You can spend your days moving among the clubs that matter to you. The clubs (or nations) (or states) have to compete for your affection. You don’t like them, you leave them. If they put a clause in their bylaws that requires you to stick around, well, you better demand that their bylaws be easy to read. No small print! There are thousands of organizations that function this way right now. People make an agreement with each other. They follow through. There is a democratic process to settle disputes. Of course this is all very general. How would it specifically work? The “how” is important because anything can sound good, but without genuine creative thoughts about specific problems offering specific solutions, this idea is nothing more than an idea. How would it work? What would be the problems? What could be some specific solutions? Consider it an elaborate thought exercise, a collaborative world-building exercise. Who’s in? 131114 ... TCMT okay. I will begin myself and continue until there is nothing left of me. book_of_panarch 131115 ... Yuni In the novel Too Much Like Lightning, society is organized by hives, groups of people that share ideological and aspirational goals. In this sense it is closer to panarchy than our current model; people are free to choose their hive,their way of governing, and free to leave it if they are dissatisfied. The peace between powers is unstable, but the general good is unparalleled in history. The radical idea at the heart of it is this: no system saves us completely. All systems have weaknesses, even a system comprised of cooperating systems. The powerful idea behind panarchy isn't just the idea that people should be able to choose their government (more than one if they desire); it is in the questioning of government, the doubting of it, the move of government away from the metaphysical (blind trust) into the real (flawed human constructs). 170525 what's it to you? who go blather from