Catching Up

As for anarcho-capitalism and panarchism:

Only a kind of anarcho-capitalism or Laissez-Faire for Free Market advocacy that would be:

1. quite tolerant towards all tolerant people,
2. voluntaristic and
3. exterritorial

would be panarchistic in the sense of aiming to realize one particular panarchy, the anarcho-capitalist one, at first only as one among very many other ones, all of them likewise tolerant, voluntaristic and exterritorial, but also ambitious.
It would do so like a good businessman, who wants to become the best supplier and thus the one with the most customers, continuously satisfying the largest number of people, until he becomes a multinational and as such even the largest one among all the multinationals.

One has to distinguish between the initial aim, namely to popularize experimental freedom in the economic, social and political sphere for all, so that even the minority of anarcho-capitalists can freely practise it among themselves and set an attractive example to all others, from the likely consequences of this approach and the final result, in which anarcho-capitalism would not just be another one among many but would already have become the by far most popular model, except e.g. for some nuns, monks, remaining primitive tribalists or religious sects of fanatics, who e.g. might flagellate, castrate or sterilize themselves, or wish to spend their lives on top of a pillar etc.

Ultimately, anarcho-capitalism is to become not only as popular as but more popular than e.g. globalism, consumerism, sports, amusements, bestsellers and representative democracy are now, i.e. almost every individual would sign up for it and would take its above-mentioned 3 foundations for granted, just like they do now already, in most countries, take experimental freedom in technology and the natural sciences and religious freedom for granted and private life-styles as well, free choice in jobs and professions and in leisure activities, travel options, hair styles, food and drink choices etc.

Naturally, other kinds of panarchists would have similar ambitions. However, what would be their chances, in the long run, in free competition with consistent anarcho-capitalists?

Panarchism, for the present small minority of anarcho-capitalists, whether they are as yet aware of this or not, does not mean a rejection of anarcho-capitalism as their ideal but, rather, a chance, their best chance, to realize it as soon as possible for themselves and, thereby, also get their best chance to realize it, as soon as possible, for the vast majority of all people, all being constantly invited to that on-going and very successful "party" - as soon as they are ready to accept its enjoyments and its self-responsibilities.

The attractiveness of anarcho-capitalism is now only the greatest for those who are already NOW anarcho-capitalists. The majority of people still fear freedom in one or even several spheres. Thus, like natural sciences and technology once did, it rather stagnates, like they did, while they did not enjoy experimental freedom.

However, once the above minimal 3 points become realized, the progress of anarcho-capitalism, its membership, the number of its subscribers, will tend to grow fast, until finally it will be almost as universally accepted and utilized as are e.g. soap, towels, clean drinking water, pencils, ball point pens, paper and watches and others of millions of consumer products, which it also competitively produces.

Without a clear stand for all justified tolerance (but not too much tolerance e.g. for intolerant people), voluntarism (experimental freedom) and exterritorial autonomy for all groups in every sphere, the popular image, which most people have of anarcho-capitalists - is hardly any better than the popular image of "anarchists" has been for centuries, namely:
A number of prejudiced, ignorant, and dogmatic fanatics, from whom any kind of unwarranted violence may be expected at any time, so that it would be best to keep them suppressed, as much as possible.

The territorial State, not Laissez Faire and a truly FREE MARKET, is still "God Almighty" in the eyes and "minds" of most of the territorial statists and thus the anarcho-capitalists are mostly considered, EXCEPT BY THEMSELVES, to be merely deluded sectarians or mere "exploiters" and "profiteers" or "monopolists" or as powerful "capitalists" at best and at worst as dangerous fanatics and terrorists.

In short, try to consider panarchism as the most rightful and efficient MARKETING SCHEME for Anarcho-Capitalism - and you will understand most of the still all too few conscious and consistent present panarchists, in the meaning of De Puydt's initial essay on it, much better than you did before.

So far anarcho-capitalism for the whole world is only a present dream of a few people on Earth, just like State Socialism was once a mere dream of a few territorial State Socialists. However, State socialism had to be introduced and maintained by force, until, finally, it had weakened itself so much that it collapsed - in most cases - in its totalitarian forms.
In its democratic and republican, constitutional and legalized territorial forms it is, unfortunately, still alive and even spreading, seeing the growing number of interventionist laws and regulations in almost every sphere.

The most contrary form to territorial statism and, ultimately, most attractive alternative for individuals, amounts to individual and group choice for all forms of societies and communities that are offered to voluntary subscribers.
Then, at least in the long run, the most attractive model would be bound to win over most people.

All would already offer voluntary taxation for their voluntary members - a great step forward. Then, in free competition between all of the diverse new panarchies, all freely chosen by their members, which one would be most competitive, have the least taxation, if any at all, and would have most to offer their members at very attractive market or subscription prices?

It was once widely believed that territorial "free" voting would bring about the best territorial society or State.

Instead, it has lead to increased taxation and increased legislation.
It did not sufficiently realize individual consumer sovereignty in the public sphere, that of political, economic and social systems.

Territorial systems and institutions were and are not offered as individual options to consumers, as free market choices for individual consumers, from "shelving" offering all such systems, to individual shoppers, filling their shopping carts with them and then paying for their selections at a cashier's desk. That can only be done exterritorially, under personal laws, for diverse groups of like-minded individuals.

Thus wide-spread disappointments were likely and did and do occur all too often. They led to fruitless party strife and party rule, to resistance, even to groups of "freedom-fighters" and terrorists, violent revolutions, military insurrections, civil wars, wars and despotism, even totalitarianism and to large statist utopias, only somewhat diverse, with all relying on territorialism and its kind of unjustified violence towards peaceful dissenters, instead of to exterritorialism, voluntarism and tolerance, with the latter three features still not being generally considered as rights, opportunities and liberties.

Territorialism, with its intolerance, coercion, lack of choice and degree of stagnation, e.g. through the arms race, now with WMDs, has become a dead-end road, one that is likely to lead to the ultimate and quite general holocaust for mankind.

So far not even the "right" of a few to have the fate of mankind monopolistically in their hands (territorialism with its decision-making monopolies) and to use even anti-peoples "weapons", upon the "principle" of collective responsibility (of the victims of territorial governments for the actions of their rulers), is sufficiently questioned by the ruling "intellectuals", politicians, bureaucrats - and anarchists and libertarians.

A genuine and lasting peace, based upon freedom and justice, voluntarism and tolerance (as far as it can and should go), is only offered along the panarchist road for all kinds of panarchies - in the long run. If that road is chosen or opened for individual and group choices, then, in the long run, the anarcho-capitalist method will prove to be the most competitive and thus most successful one. However, that success is not likely to happen at all or fast enough if it remains merely dogmatically offered as the supposedly only road to salvation, as the only game in town, the only bet, the only choice, the only option, the only workable utopia.
Men love to contradict, even when their "arguments" are without foundation and logic.
They are a bit more careful when it comes to spending their own money, current cash and savings, time and efforts - in individual choices.

Panarchism tries to open up everything that is rightful and tolerant, everything that is self-responsible, to all individuals, even when it comes to whole political, economic and social systems.

It will be evolution in action, in relatively short-term action, not over geological periods.

To each his own choice will work best for all, in the long run. It is even the fastest road to individual and minority groups progress and progress for the majority.
But so far only the panarchistic anarcho-capitalists are sufficiently aware of that.

Has this short attempt cleared up some of the remaining doubts and objections in your mind?
Unfortunately, words, terms and diverse definitions of them do all too often block communication and understanding and lead to and uphold misunderstandings.

As an aside and regarding our friend Nev's coming-up trip to Hong Kong: When the long-term lease of Hong Kong ran out, someone from the Northern Territory wrote a letter to the editor, saying that Australia should offer some space to people of Hong Kong, they would retreat to. He added that he himself and some of his contacts, in the Northern Territory, would have enough land to offer for one or even several new Hong Kongs on the continent of Australia. The Australian government should make up its mind to permit their establishment.

Alas, he still thought only of the territorial option and there encountered the mind-blocks of the territorialists.
He should, rather, have thought along the lines of fully duty-free and tax free shops and enterprises and industrial development zones, not regulated by any territorial governments at all but, instead, setting their own personal law rules for all their voluntary members, wherever they live and work.

I do admit that my worst fears for Hong Kong were not realized.

Compare how the Nazis and the Soviets or Mao would have treated that kind of reunification.

"Clubbing" of like-minded people, all in their own kinds of "clubs" and without clubs as weapons but mere words and images used as weapons against the members of other clubs, - amounts to the rightful and essential solution.
A free society for all kinds of clubs, societies and communities of volunteers, even for those of voluntary victims, as long as they are prepared to put up with such treatment. (Even sado-masochism for sado-masochist adults. They do each other no wrong.)

Not only, as in fair sports: "May the best one win!"
But: The best utopia, method, system, institutions, personal laws will win, as soon as possible and as widely as possible.
Losers will have lost only as a result of their own free choices and actions.
Those whose "cooking" is flawed will have spoiled only their own meals. No one will be forced to eat them. Anarcho-capitalists, winning over all other systems in free and voluntary exterritorial competition, will win much more than a mere gold medal.

Panarchism is not just another ism but an ism for all kinds of isms.