Panarchic cosmopolitanism – discussions

The introductory article on panarchic cosmopolitanism, on which the discussion is based - https://substack.com/@cosmassoc/note/p-153378286

And also the very first article in which the rudiments of panarchic cosmopolitanism first appeared - https://substack.com/@cosmassoc/note/p-153481983

To understand the context of the ideas being discussed, you need to read these two articles.

Context:

After I posted an article on panarchical cosmopolitanism, there was an instant criticism of the ideas I outlined. Therefore, I would like to answer each objection in detail, revealing many aspects that were not mentioned in previous articles. By doing so, this political theory will only improve through discussion.

Comment by Max Gael Martin (on the article “A Libertarian view of the cosmopolitan order”):

A parsing of the article and theory on the libertarian cosmopolitan order:

Errors and omissions:

1. Weak regulation of “world associations”

• The term “world association” is cool, but its structure and operating mechanisms are not elaborated. For example:

• How are conflicts within the association between different communes resolved?

• What sanctions are imposed for breach of obligations if violence is excluded?

These gaps make the proposed model difficult to implement.

To begin with, I would like to make an important remark that in the first article I used only the term “commune” (i.e. a territorial association of people with similar principles). However, now, since we will be considering these issues in the context of panarcho-cosmopolitanism, I will use the term “extraterritorial community” (EC) (and for “commune” - “territorial community” (TC)). When commenting on something about communes, I will mean both extraterritorial and territorial community.

My answer:

In the case that communities have some conflicts (whether within a world association (WA) or not), they can resort to a supra-jurisdictional world organization (SJWO). They can negotiate within that organization. If the conflict is so substantial that it cannot be resolved, then these communities may not be in a world association. That is, one of the communities will simply withdraw from the world association, depending on the situation.

Before joining a global association, a community must agree to all the organizational documents of the organization. These documents will spell out all the obligations and sanctions that will follow after a breach of these obligations. For example, a community does not comply with certain WA principles. In the organizational documents it is written that for non-compliance with these principles the community is excluded from WA. The community is excluded from it.

2. Ambiguity in the principle of NAP.

The ambiguity is that restricting the rights of violent actors implies intervention, which is technically a form of coercion. For example, if a commune violates the rights of children, then its “neutralization” contradicts a strict understanding of the NAP. This logical contradiction needs to be addressed. In general, the principles of non-violence are a separate topic that needs to be developed.

You have misunderstood this principle in this very context. If a person uses aggression against me or violates my rights, which are prescribed by an organization of humanity (the same SJWO) and which are universal, whether I am a child or an adult, I can justly defend my rights (by defending myself or complaining to the SJWO or other organizations defending human rights). And SJWO protects my interests and separately deals with the people who violated them. The NAP should not be taken as granting the right to commit obvious atrocities and the impossibility of neutralizing them under the guise of “non-interference in their personal affairs”. Perhaps this is my personal interpretation of this principle. I am not an “anarcho”-capitalist and I do not understand for sure how this principle can be interpreted. I am even ready to call this principle differently, if it implies absolute freedom for an individual or a group and absolute non-interference, even in cases of violation of universally recognized human rights.

3. idealization of humanity

People in the future will think more progressively, but history shows that social progress often faces resistance from conservative elements. Of course I want us all to be progressive too, but... first we need to achieve modernization of education and educational reforms.

This is the logic of panarchy, that it adjusts to historical processes. Historical processes show that people are very different, and they will always disagree with each other. There will always be progressives and conservatives. You can't change conservatives into progressives or progressives into conservatives. You just have to leave both alone and let them live their lives the way they wish, but on the condition that both camps don't impose their will on each other and that their lifestyles don't negatively affect each other in any way. As a progressive, I also wanted at least the majority of people to start thinking progressively. But during these thoughts, I put myself in the shoes of a conservative or nationalist who wants to live like his ancestors, follow their deeply held traditions and live in the same territory. And so, I wouldn't want progressive values imposed on me.

But I remind you that almost any society looks something like this: 10% are ardent progressives, 10% are ardent conservatives, and the other 80% don't give a damn about any of this. So whoever wants to can lure some people from that 80% to their side through education and other means, which sometimes succeeds. Just don't poach them if they don't want to, leave them alone. Therefore, to bring the ideas of panarchy or cosmopolitanism closer to realization, it is definitely necessary to educate the general public in these areas and first of all mention that this model will give both progressives and conservatives a chance to live peacefully.

4. Risks of fragmentation of scientific progress

A libertarian arrangement involving multiple autonomous communes poses the risk of isolating scientific and technological advances unless mechanisms for global cooperation are established. Historically, such fragmented systems, as in medieval Europe, have slowed development. Libertarianism as a whole is, at times, contradictory. We need to talk about it separately sometime.

For this purpose I propose such global institutions as SJWO and world parliament (WP). People from different parts of the world can discuss certain problems related to science and make decisions (for example, about launching some scientific projects, research). Next, SJWO can deal with the realization of these ideas. It can finance scientific research and organize congresses of scientists.

5. Ignoring inter-communal conflicts

The libertarian model assumes peaceful coexistence, but it does not answer questions about resources, borders, and interdependencies. Such conflicts are inevitable, especially under conditions of scarcity.

Again, the answer to such questions about resources, borders, and interdependencies will be global institutions. Global institutions can own and do things that cannot be attributed to individuals, communities, or governments (in general, anything that cannot be attributed to localism). If we are talking about extraterritoriality, it is out of the question that resources of public importance can be owned absolutely by a small group of individuals. Here we must strictly distinguish between the pros and cons of territoriality and extraterritoriality. For example, extraterritoriality is good in social organization, but it cannot be applied to what is essentially territorial (public zones, natural resources, etc.). And vice versa with territoriality.

Boundaries are drawn up in the most natural way. People who do not want to live with those who have chosen a different jurisdiction can band together (if they have similar or identical views on how to organize public life), rent an unpopulated piece of land, and settle there. They may even set up checkpoints around the area or prohibit any visit to the area by those who choose a jurisdiction based on principles contrary to their own. That would be their boundary. In communities where people who have chosen completely different jurisdictions live, the boundary can only be where private property begins. The rules for visiting this territory are set by the owner. Public areas (streets, buildings whose entrance is open to all, roads, etc.) can obviously be visited by all people, regardless of jurisdiction. And areas that belong to no one (or perhaps they could belong to SJWO) and where no one lives, i.e. forests, seas, oceans, lakes and rivers, can also be visited by everyone.

Rules in public areas where people from different jurisdictions interact should still be set according to the norms that have historically been established in the area (e.g. left- or right-hand traffic, no noise after a certain time, etc.).

What I disagree with:

1. The expectation that libertarianism will automatically solve the problem of rights violations is wrong. Without a single global regulatory body, serious conflicts are possible. Or as it is now, some form and manifestation of neo-feudalism.

I don't think I ever claimed that libertarianism would solve the problem of rights violations. As stated above, a person whose rights are violated can go to organizations (global or not) that deal with these issues. I always emphasize these global bodies in such cases, because that is the solution to the problem.

2. The statement that “violence is absent” is incorrect. Deprivation of authority or exclusion of a commune from an association can be perceived as aggression. The topic of violence is a cornerstone. Somehow it has to be retreated from all sides.

Exclusion from the association is not violence in any way. You may be confusing violence and aggression. It is possible to be aggressive without violence. Excluding a community from an association is neither an act of violence nor an act of aggression, provided that such a sanction was spelled out in advance in the documents and the community itself agreed to these conditions before joining. It would only be an act of aggression if the expulsion was unlawful (i.e. either no such sanction was pre-determined or the community did not do anything to warrant such a sanction).

Recommendations:

1. Revise the conflict resolution and sanctions mechanism to avoid violating the principles of libertarianism or bluntly just the principles of non-violence

2. A global scientific body that coordinates research but does not interfere with the autonomy of communes will probably be needed.

3. Develop models of extraterritorial jurisdiction, taking into account migration and cosmopolitan futures.

4. draw on the experience of international organizations to create universal conventions that do not violate minority rights.

Since these comments were only added to the very first article, which is not quite finalized, these recommendations were applied to some extent in the next article on panarchic cosmopolitanism as well as in these responses. The only thing to which, among other things, one can heed is the reliance on the experience of international organizations (I would say in general, not only in the field of creating universal conventions).

Thank you very much for the recommendations and criticism of the first article, it is of great importance to improve the theories I proposed. Now we come to the criticism of the article “Panarchic cosmopolitanism”.

Contradictions and weaknesses:

1. Practical implementation:

• How to make people globally aware of different jurisdictions?

People will already be aware of the different jurisdictions because they have been living in such a social order since birth. It's about the same as asking now, “How do we ensure that people are aware of the existence of different countries?”. Well, schools usually have geography and social studies classes for this purpose, where they talk about countries, their characteristics, how they are organized. It's the same here. Conditionally, schools will talk about the peculiarities of different jurisdictions. In addition, it is possible that a unified register of jurisdictions with their full descriptions will be created, where people will be able to find the most suitable options for themselves.

• Who and how will control the objectivity of inter-jurisdictional courts?

There should also be a decentralized and accountable structure. I can give an example of how the objectivity of courts will be ensured in practice. In addition to the regular court, there could be an additional organization or commission that monitors the objectivity of the decisions, to which the defendant can also appeal if he or she does not consider the decision to be objective. For greater objectivity, such an organization would be composed of legal professionals who have chosen a variety of jurisdictions/communities. Each community could select its own legal professional to participate in this organization. These legal professionals are primarily guided, in identifying the objectivity or bias of the judgment, by those universal principles and rules that have been established in advance. As far as the judge is concerned, he or she should be as neutral as possible towards both the perpetrator and the victim of the crime. For example, the criminal is from a social democratic jurisdiction and the victim of the crime from a liberal one. The judge should not have one of these jurisdictions selected (let's say he has a “communist” jurisdiction). But he should be guided by the same principles and rules as the organization/commission of legal professionals in making his decision.

2. Economics: It is unclear how economic systems interact under extraterritoriality. For example, how taxation or labor protection would work. The economics here, HyperObject, is not the first time I've said this.

When a person is hired, the employer has to know what jurisdiction they are in anyway in order to know how much to tax on their paycheck (and whether to tax them at all). These taxes are then sent to the government that has custody of that employee.

Another important aspect of the economy is the purchase of goods. Depending on what jurisdiction a person is under, they can buy goods from certain stores. For example, one store is exclusively for a “libertarian” jurisdiction, another for a “socialist” jurisdiction. Obviously, these two stores will have different products and payment methods (e.g., in the “libertarian store” one can pay the usual way - with money, and in the “socialist” one can pay with cards where the hours worked are written, or something like that).

Labor protection will change little. Everyone will be free to choose where they work and stay where conditions are best for them. But there will be some jobs that are restricted to people in certain jurisdictions. Depending on the type of job and the managers of the company, the opportunities to advocate for workers' rights and to form unions may vary.

3. Utopianism: The assumption that conflicts will disappear by changing jurisdictions ignores the complexity of human psychology and historical factors. I don't think I see conflicts disappearing at this stage of development yet, although I am thinking in that direction too. This is also a HyperObject for now. The paradigm of struggle.

Yes, I can agree that I may have greatly exaggerated that conflicts would come to naught. But such a system would in any case greatly reduce tensions between the “rulers” and the people. But as if the impossibility of eradicating all conflict makes this system flawed? On the contrary, it is better that the rebellious people have the opportunity to realize their interests. It is better to minimize, though not eliminate altogether, conflicts than to leave things as they are. We should not expect a miracle from panarchism, but I suggest that the current system based on the monopoly of states and the unleashing of conflicts between our own and other peoples should not be supported.

4. Risk of fragmentation: Multiple jurisdictions can lead to complex and protracted negotiations instead of effective governance. This is true because consensus requires more energy. But this is an advantage of collective intelligence. The only thing that slows things down is perhaps that consensus may have some different and complex bureaucratic and legal points that will also slow down processes.

I have suggested both consensus and compromise because I realize that consensus is a process-dragging decision-making tool that is also better suited to small groups than global bodies of a thousand people. Compromise can be a supportive tool in cases where consensus simply cannot solve something. However, I might ask the following. Which is worse, making decisions democratically (or by a more authoritarian method where votes can be manipulated or “bought”) or by consensus/compromise? Yes, consensus/compromise takes much longer to make decisions, but it is still better than democratic elections, because the global issues that these institutions will deal with must be discussed thoroughly and at length because they are of great importance. The decision-making process itself cannot be irresponsible and be based only on the “quickness and ease” of the democratic process. This “quickness and ease” of a decision may come back to bite after some time.

5. Global Responsibility: It is unclear how extraterritorial communities will deal with global disasters (climate, pandemics, etc.) that require quick solutions. Here, what is meant is that emergency HyperObjects need to be responded to urgently and in a global and unified manner common to all.

I think that the most adequate action in such cases would be to find out what the people propose to overcome such difficulties and only after that to make decisions perhaps even with authoritarian tools (in the same democratic way). But this is only if any delay or inaction proves to be more dangerous than just not good enough precautions. And as soon as a decision is made, its implementation should be started by all communities that are members of the SJWO.

Vevtheduck now comments (to the article “Panarchic cosmopolitanism”):

Unfortunately, the American system really challenges the potential of any system built on *laissez-faire* as Panarchy is. It's a really good consideration in concept, however people control resources whether that is established through liberal modernism means of capital manipulation or feudal means with might. When people control needed and limited resources, the ability to opt-in to a government gets challenged. This problem with Panarchy continues with the belief in "freedom of association." No anarchy systems have dealt appropriately with the generational nature of human existence. People are born in places and are part of systems without the ability to choose. We establish some understanding of when a person has the right to choose. But, it is entirely possible that someone freely associates with some organization, such as KKK like one that harms trans children while having trans children. The notion of the freedom to harm runs into this freedom of association. And thus we need more authoritarian structure that prevents freedom of harm.

Indeed, the American system in general challenges much more than panarchy and cosmopolitanism. The system we are talking about is obviously looking to the future. So I would not argue that this theory is impossible to realize, because times change, political regimes change, and people's thinking changes just as much. What may seem utopian today will be everyday life in 100 years. We can't say for sure what will be the same 100 years from now, but what we are discussing today will clearly be perceived very differently than in our time.

I don't see a problem with who owns the resources now. It's all changing very quickly, especially now. If the people want to correct their situation and not remain slaves and not hear all these lies about living in the most legal and democratic state, they will act. Then there will be no trace of the influence that used to be held by those in power. This requires alternative and autonomous from the state interactions from people who do not want to live in the modern slave system of nation-states. I.e. autonomous-alternative economy, education, institutions, organizations, ignoring unreasonable state prohibitions and coercions. This is the only way to change something. And we can start doing it now. Such autonomous-alternative interactions will be effective in our unstable times.

And I remind you again that freedom of association and laissez-faire does not mean absolute freedom to commit crimes and violate the rights of others. Obvious crimes will still be repressed in every possible way. In general, I can agree that in order to prevent such crimes from being committed, there needs to be some structure in place to stop them from being committed. That is why I propose the SJWO, which could include police squads operating around the world. The main task of civil society is to prevent these police squads and global institutions from “statizing” and becoming repressive.

I don't think cosmopolitanism can exist in a system that is so easily manipulated by aristocracy and oligarchy. Cosmopolitanism confronts the notions of sexism, racism, homophobia, and so forth that often divide and get abused in social systems. *Some* authority is necessary in order to protect the people a group chooses to abuse. This proposed system is incredibly contradictory to the point it will be inoperable. Navigating the legalities of a murder in a system of extraterritoriality with nominal standardized principles that people can freely opt in and out of? Only someone who could expertly navigate the legal system could swim through that. And that means, those with means would hire such legal experts.

I don't understand at all how, under panarcho-cosmopolitanism, aristocracy and oligarchy can manipulate the social order. You have a misconception of what I was writing about. One of the main principles of panarchism is not imposing one's will on another individual or group. Coexistence does not mean monopolizing political space or imposing. Such attempts will be resisted. It will not be possible to “buy” institutions because the system itself is built on the principle of decentralization.

Of course, cosmopolitanism is opposed to sexism, racism and other phenomena. However, it will always exist, and it is impossible to reeducate absolutely all people into peace-loving and tolerant people. Prohibition will breed counteraction. I.e. sexism and racism will still remain, but now it will exist underground. It should simply be prohibited to impose such and other destructive prejudices or even more so to commit hate crimes, and people who believe in it should be left alone. I believe that certain people will become sexist and racist anyway, whether there are bans or not.

Yes, the topic of extraterritorial jurisdictions in law is very complex in nature. But I think this complexity is a plus, because any complex and deeply thought out system can cope with the most complex challenges. Simplicity and ease are attractive to the human mind, but all this collapses in the face of the challenge of truly fair and objective sentencing.

In particular, this passage reveals the problems here:

"A nationalist uprising cannot begin under panarcho-cosmopolitanism because conflicts of interest will be reduced to either zero or a minimum."

I'll hold my breath. We have yet to see any organization, let alone society, that is totally free of conflicts of interest.

"Here, we can follow simple logic. Why do uprisings, revolutions, and popular discontent begin? Because the interests of the authorities and the discontented do not coincide."

Is this really the only reason conflicts arise? Conflicts arise between feel discontents, and it certainly arises between fellow authorities. The "simple logic" has reduced a complicated aspect of human civilization into meaninglessness.

Here I am primarily speaking in the “dissatisfied with power” paradigm. As I answered above, conflicts will not be reduced to zero, most likely, but they are greatly minimized.

But I would also point out that panarchism works not only in this paradigm, but also in the “dissatisfied among the dissatisfied” and “dissatisfied among the authorities” paradigms. For example, the dissatisfied among the disaffected can just as easily separate from them. And the dissatisfied among the authorities appear due to the fact that there is a single monopoly state. If it does not exist, these dissatisfied among the authorities can create a new community or government and thus realize their interests.

In my understanding, conflict appears only when interacting people have different understanding of the final result, ideal or process. If this end result/process is possible only in “one instance” (i.e. the possibility of their realization), then this conflict cannot be solved. If there can be several or as many such “instances” as you like, then these outcomes or processes can coexist. This logic can be applied universally, i.e. not only in politics, but also in some everyday situations.

"If interests do not coincide, what can each person dissatisfied with the government do?"

Or, they lobby to change that with other persons of similar persuasions. Are these micro-governments immutable? Presumably not in a system developed on principles of anarchy as it would require a hellishly strong state to ensure they could not be changed.

You have the logic of a typical democrat. “Let's all vote and the government will definitely change”. For some people it will change in a good way, for others it will become even more unbearable to live in such a state. Consequently, nothing much will change, just certain groups will “switch places”, if I may say so.

"Leave the jurisdiction of that state and join another (or not join at all). This is the most logical and simple panarchic answer, completely destroying the meaning of cosmopolitan statism without losing its cosmopolitan nature."

What gives one the *means* to leave the jurisdiction of a state and join another? Now, the proposal here is that these states are not *territorial* but much more *theoretical* so people won't be confronted with bounds of materialism (i.e. can't afford to move) but undoubtedly after a generation or two, parents teach children. Ideas spread. Your neighbor that decides to believe in a very loud religious tradition and is up late singing and dancing while you're trying to sleep in the morning would create a conflict of interest, no? And so people would want a quieter zone and some people will want a louder zone and so forth and they'll try to organize themselves along these *regional* considerations, even if not national territories. The meaning of cosmopolitan "statism" isn't completely destroyed at all. The proposed system not only lacks the imagination of reality, it lacks the logical reason of historical study.

Tell me, who prevents you from moving to another city where people who have chosen the same jurisdiction as you (and therefore the same way of life) live there? Then you won't have to hear any loud noises at night, simply because there are hardly any fans of religious traditions there. Also, I don't understand why you think that with the existence of extraterritorial communities, the most ordinary social customs (such as not making noise after a set time) will disappear? The system we are talking about does not imply total permissiveness.

Of course, this system doesn't have any historical examples because it's just a proposed idea. But now I'd like to provide a historical background for panarchical cosmopolitanism:

Diogenes of Sinope, who called himself a citizen of the world, did not want to associate himself with his polis, Sinope. We can make the assumption that he did not like the laws that were established there. I could interpret this as an act of individual secessionism (i.e., not accepting the laws of the society where he lived and ignoring them, living by his own laws). We can see such a rudiment of the synthesis of cosmopolitanism and panarchism in Diogenes, back in ancient Greece.

And we can also observe a great example of extraterritoriality in our time - the Order of Malta. It does not have any territory of its own, although it is recognized by most states and has the status of an observer organization at the UN.

Another example: in medieval Europe there were cities where different religious communities (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc.) could manage their internal affairs according to their own laws.

These real examples of panarcho-cosmopolitanism or extraterritoriality can illustrate that such ideas have already been realized, and something is present in our time.

Natural resources are not dispersed evenly. This is *part* of how and why certain societies and states form. Resources are important to control because economics determine so much of life. Anarchist systems (and this panarchic one) is completely powerless.

As I wrote above, natural resources should be owned by a global organization (SJWO). In this respect, there would be no problem with who should own it.

Let alone the inherent contradiction of standardized systems that unite judiciary systems means they will be compelled to adhere to the standardized system over the inherently subjective panarchic one. Guess what? *That is a state.*

This is, unfortunately, just the United States but in more steps.

It's not a contradiction at all. I am simply drawing a clear line between localism and globalism. Territorial and extraterritorial communities are given such freedom where it is necessary. And where collective action and ownership is necessary, that is where their freedom ends. It seems to me very foolish to apply the principles of localism to something that has global significance, or where those principles fail obviously. This is what separates panarcho-cosmopolitanism from ordinary panarchism, which only talks about localism.

Yes, of course, it is a kind of state, but very decentralized and minimal in essence. All because these communities eventually form a confederation.

I am also very grateful for criticism and detailed consideration of the ideas I have proposed. All this helps to develop a new and unique theory.