Queen Ilana Mercer is well known for being anti-immigration. We, more left leaning libertarians and above all panarchists, may be less known (thanks to people like Her!), but are clearly pro-immigration and do not build our arguments in a restricted manner on top of an artificial monopolist territorial base. We look further. Let me show you how this intellectual escrime (fencing, swordsmanship — or rather bayonet exercise) works.

These days, as I mentioned in my latest post in my other blog, the subject of immigration has again become very topical. So, Ilana wrote a new column, "The Work Open-Border Libertarians Won’t Do", in which she addressed Tibor Machan and a discussion followed ["We thank Tibor for the response" — what did I say about Ilana being a queen?!]. You can read it all in her fief "Barely A Blog".

After the "Machan/Mercer Exchange", when Robert Rector entered the scene with Her "Robert Rector Of the Heritage Foundation On the ‘Transfer State’", I left the following comment (the very first one, by the way, to show up for this particular blog post):

May I reply to Robert Rector’s statement “When you confer citizenship on a low-skill immigrant, you are granting them the right to use the electoral process to access your income.” that this starts much earlier [and as he rightly remarks, doesn’t apply only to welfare (CB: and “illegal”) recipients, but fundamentally], namely at the moment when you establish a monopolist territorial state with its borders and monopolist constitution and all the accessories… The solution for propertarians and ALL the others is to be found in exterritorialism and panarchism, concepts that only slowly and only very recently have started to get any attention in libertarian and not so libertarian circles, though they are quite old already. They are even maybe boycotted, as seems to prove for example the little attention Adam Knott’s brilliant essay “The Present State of Liberty” has gained so far. If a statement is right, but doesn’t take into account another important and fundamental truth or reality, it may still be flawed or flatly wrong.

By Christian Butterbach on 06.16.07 10:00 pm

[Provide an explanation. Otherwise, no one knows what you are talking about.–IM]

Well, Ilana, I had assumed or hoped that if someone is intrigued by something completely new to him or her in my comment, s/he would either click my name and get to my websites’ portal or do a web search for “The Present State of Liberty” (first item showing up on Google) or maybe look up the word panarchism in Wikipedia. I suggest to those intrigued that they go to “The Exterritorial Imperative: Info on Panarchism/Exterritoriality” (http://www.panarchism.info/contents.htm) which page starts with the slogan “Enter the world of thought of Post-Territorialism and Post-Statism!”, and in addition go to “Panarchy - Panarchie - Panarchia - Panarquia” (http://www.panarchy.org/), where they will find more than they might be willing or have time to read and study, but I am sure that they will be fascinated by some jewels they will discover there. The space here is too limited to try to explain this all-encompassing political philosophy well enough, but I will give your readers a definition that goes beyond a slogan in my next comment.

By Christian Butterbach on 06.17.07 8:32 am

The definition announced in my second (censored) comment above was contained in my third one, which was published, though making the start of it sound a bit silly and revealing at the same time to Her audience that something has been suppressed:

Here comes the promised definition, which is by John Zube from “THE GOSPEL OF PANARCHY according to sinner John” (1986, rev. 1998):

PANARCHY : The realization of as many different and autonomous communities as are wanted by volunteers for themselves, all non-territorially coexisting, side by side and intermingled, as their members are, in the same territory or even world-wide and yet separated from each other by personal laws, administrations and jurisdiction, as different churches are or ought to be.

PANARCHISM : The body of knowledge and thought regarding the theories and practices of such voluntaristic non-territorial and autonomous communities (panarchies), considered as the rightful, peace-, freedom-, property- and reform-promoting alternatives to any attempt to set up or continue coercive, exclusive, uniform, territorial, more or less centralized and supposedly ideal or best possible communities for all, whether their subjects agree or disagree.

Panarchism teaches that panarchies form the ideal societies for as diverse beings as human beings are, that they would speed up the development and progress of man and his institutions to the utmost, in a peaceful and peace-promoting way, that panarchies, while permitting and institutionalizing one-man revolutions, would reduce the incidence of violent revolutions and wars to a minimum while retaining and even increasing the capacity of peace-loving people to resist and defeat violent aggressors.

By Christian Butterbach on 06.17.07 8:45 am

As I had alerted the inner circle of our panarchist gang to my comment on BAB, Adam Knott jumped on the occasion to further educate Ilana's audience. Unfamiliar with court audiences though, not having been raised in a monarchy like I have been, he had been more optimistic than I that his more scholarly comments would be welcomed by Her Serene Highness. One did, but the second found no mercy with Ms. Mercer. Mercyful just is not the same as Mercerful. Full of whatever.

The first (published) comment by Adam Knott reads as follows and carries a royal remark:

“If libertarians are intellectually serious”

I agree with Mr. Rector that Cato is on the wrong path from a libertarian perspective. In the essay Mr. Butterbach refers to, the point I tried to make was, this is because Cato is a democratic, not a libertarian organization. The fundamental political principles they espouse are those of democracy, and this is not and cannot be the same as the principles of libertarianism.

The contemporary political philosophy that most closely mirrors a libertarian approach is indeed the philosophy of “Panarchy” (see www.panarchy.org)as this philosophy is being gradually developed, apparently mainly by European libertarians.

Panarchy as I understand it, and as I have come to realize in my own libertarian social thought, is the realization of a non-geographical based conception of government. In this view, it would not be entirely accurate to hold with Mr. Rector that the transfer state needs to be eliminated (since ostensibly there are people who adhere to the social philosophy of welfare state democracy). Rather, those who do not agree with this philosophy and who want to organize themselves according to different legal principles, need to gain exemption from the transfer state. And this, understood non-geographically.

Simply put, the next step in libertarianism is the realization that libertarianism must be conceived as a non-geographical concept, and two people who live in the same apartment complex can live according to separate legal arrangements. (of course, this already happens, since the welfare state already makes legal distinctions based on race, ethnicity, physical ability, etc…)

Libertarianism and panarchism are the extension of this same principle (legal exemptions from the welfare state), but applied to libertarians, not only to “disadvantaged” groups.

[Sounds like anarcho-capitalism to me. More in “Restitution and Punishment: A Reply to David J. Heinrich,” as to why it’s a bad idea. http://www.ilanamercer.com/Archivedcomments.htm#DJHeinrich]

By Adam Knott on 06.17.07 10:18 am

But lackeys are sometimes smarter than Those Who hire them. A copy of the censored comment was saved before it could be deleted:

I don’t believe any Rothbard/Randian strain of “propertarianism” (private property ethic) captures what is unique about the concept of panarchy. There is no value predispostion to “capitalism” (the accumulation or other attitude towards capital, capitalists, business interests, etc..)in panarchy. As far as I know, Mr. Heinrich subscribes to a Hoppean-Rothbardian private property philosophy that attempts to “justify” a particular property arrangement, as being that arrangement that man’s nature requires. This is essentially a monopolistic and geographically based political conception that is exclusionary towards (replaces) all other arrangements, and views all other forms of social arrangement as unjust and unethical. (This is Rothbard’s private property theory, that Hoppe attempts to justify with his Argumentation Ethics, of which in turn Heinrich is a follower).
The idea of panarchy by contrast, strives for a different ideal; one of geographical co-existence of an unlimited number of societies. It is explicitly non-monopolistic and explicitly non-geographical. I haven’t heard anyone associated with Mr. Heinrich expounding such a political philosophy, and would be very surprised if Mr. Heinrich has himself. The Rothbard-derived social philosophies are mostly visions of “the one true system”, and have not yet come to consider the ideas of those proposing the concept of “panarchy”.

One may try to say that this idea is present is some limited form in the writings of the followers of Rothbard. But those who are trying to outline a panarchistic view of society, are arguing for this as an explicit ideal, and not only mentioning it in passing, or in obscure passages or Internet blog posts.

In this sense, the concept of panarchy (co-existence of non-geographical, non-monopolistic societies) is definitely not identical to “anarcho-capitalism”, the essentially monopolistic conception of government ultimately derived from Rothbardian and Randian social thought.

AK

By Adam Knott on 06.17.07 5:04 pm

I know it hurts, when you have made a special effort, and then you are unjustly rejected. Ilana's legitimate rules ["Barely A Blog is private property. Posts are published at the discretion of the proprietor. The forum is moderated and missives edited for style and taste. Please keep comments concise (200 words, at most), run a spell check, and try as best as possible to be grammatical."] have been stuck to. We have not been off topic. It would have been much more acceptable to flatly refuse any comments from us than to cut out their best parts, making us look shallower than we are, sort of handicapped cripples. This is totally unfair. And no sign of the freedom-loving and liberal attitude one should be able to expect here. We have made an effort to contribute our modest knowledge or our two pennies' worth, if you like, to Her blog, participating in making it lively, adding to its attractiveness and quality, providing some additional enlightenment to those who read it. And it certainly was no dull run-of-the-mill contribution, should She feel to have enough of those already.

On my own websites I have never refused or will ever refuse to publish any comment that I may not agree with or dislike, provided it is not anonymous nor of the sort that could get me illico (pronto) behind bars. If I do not agree I can explain why and when I am attacked I can defend myself. I would not simply make a good comment disappear. Silence and silencing are the deadliest of weapons. I hope I do not need to remind Ilana of an infamous poem by Rudyard Kipling, an author who, I presume, is not too left-wing for Her taste. [When his death had been incorrectly announced in a magazine (it was "TIME" magazine, not then and not now too much on the left either), he wrote to it "I've just read that I am dead. Don't forget to delete me from your list of subscribers."] She may have deleted me now from the list of Her blog readers...

We all have our egos and also our agendas. But some egos and agendas are more open and open-minded than others. I am happy to be much more independent than so many, not financially, mind you, but in my outlook, so that the pursuit of truth, an endeavour which should be common to all libertarians, I think, and in all fields, will not require of me to mitigate too much anything that needs to be said about Rothbard and Rand and all the others, living or dead. While I admire those great people, like you do, none of them can claim to be God. They form a community of the greatest. And working together is a win-win situation for all of us libertarians, and thanks to us, in the long run, for all of humanity. Ilana is too much into politics, and so are too many in the movement. When the simplest courtesy is not valid anymore [even a Queen lacks it nowadays! ;-)], as in all probability my little cooperation could not be rewarded by leaving my useful second comment which contained links that would have promoted a little also my own sites and those of my friends (and for good reasons) and thus might have stepped on the toes of the one or the other éminence grise (the power behind the throne), I can only say Ade! (bye)...

I may be wrong. Maybe, in this case, it is just a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

CB