The Big Forgotten Idea

Historian Max Nettlau reflects on panarchy, Paul Émile de Puydt's forgotten idea. Will a generation that groks software forks and many apps forget again? Or is panarchy an idea whose time has come?

Kendall Ruth

Max Nettlau, 1909 (Source: Max Nettlau, Panarchie. Eine verschollene Idee von 1860)

Perhaps national divorce is not such a wild idea so long as it does not escalate, as some fear, as a proxy for a second civil war. The divide between the blue and the red, urban and rural, coastal and heartland, Whole Foods and Cracker Barrel is now so wide and so bitter that maybe, as in a spent marriage, it is time to just hang it up. —Clay Jenkinson

There are no half-truths. From this, he concludes that the law of free competition, laissez-faire, laissez-passer, applies not only to industrial and commercial relationships but should also be equally adopted in the political sphere. —Max Nettlau

Some say that there is too much freedom, others that there is not yet enough freedom. In reality, the basic freedom that is needed right now is missing: the freedom to be free or not free, according to one's own choice. Everyone decides this question for himself and since there are as many opinions, as there are human beings, the result is the confusion that is called politics. The freedom of some is the negation of the freedom of others. The best government never functions according to the will of all. There are victors and vanquished, oppressors in the name of the current law and insurgents in the name of freedom.

Do I want to propose my own system? Not at all! I am an advocate of all systems, that is of all forms of government that find adherents.

Every system is like a building in which the owners and the main tenants have the best flats and are comfortable. The others, for whom there is not sufficient space in it, are unhappy. I hate the destroyers as much as the tyrants. Let the discontented go their way, but without destroying the building. What they do not like may please their neighbours.

But should they emigrate, seek for themselves another government, somewhere in the world? Not at all. Nor should people be deported, here and there, in accordance with their opinions. "I wish people to continue to live together, where they are, or elsewhere if they wish, but without quarrelling, fraternally, each expressing his opinion freely and submitting only to the powers he has personally chosen or accepted.”

Let us come to the subject.

Nothing develops and lasts that is not based upon liberty. Nothing that exists sustains itself and functions successfully except through the free play of all its active components. Otherwise, there will be loss of energy through friction, rapid wear of the cogwheels, too many breakages and accidents. Therefore, I demand for each and every element of human society (individual) the liberty to associate with others, according to his choice and affinity and to function only in accordance with his capabilities. In other words, the absolute right to select the political society in which they wish to live and to depend only upon it.

Nowadays, the republican attempts to overthrow the existing form of the state in order to establish his ideal of the state. He is opposed as an enemy by all monarchists and others not interested in his ideal. Instead, according to the idea of the author, one could proceed in a way that corresponds to legal separation or divorce in family relationships. He proposes a similar divorce option for politics, one which would harm no one.

One wants to be politically separated? Nothing is easier than to go one's own way, but without infringing upon the rights and opinions of others, who, on their side, would just have to make some room and would have to leave the others free to realize their own system.

In practice, the machinery of the civil registry office would suffice. In each municipality, a new office would be opened for the Political Governmental Affiliation of individuals. The adults would register, according to their choice, in the lists of the monarchy, of the republic, etc.

From then on, they remain untouched by the governmental systems of others. Each system organizes itself, has its own representatives, laws, judges, taxes, regardless of whether there are two or ten such organizations side by side.

For the differences that might arise between these organisms, arbitration courts will suffice, as between befriended peoples.

There will, probably, be many matters common to all organisms, which can be settled by mutual agreements, as was, for instance, the relationship between the Swiss cantons and of the American States with their federations.

There may be people who do not want to fit into any of these organisms. These may propagate their ideas and attempt to increase the numbers of their followers until they have achieved budgetary independence, i.e. can pay themselves what they want in their own way. Up to then, they would have to belong to one of the existing organisms. That would be merely a financial question.

Freedom must go so far as to include the right not to be free. Consequently, clericalism and absolutism for those who do not want it any other way.

There will be free competition between systems of government. The governments will have to improve themselves to secure followers and customers.

Everyone will stay at home without having to give up anything they hold dear.

What is involved is merely a simple declaration at the local Office for Political Membership and without taking off one's dressing gown and slippers, one may pass from the republic to the monarchy, from parliamentarianism to autocracy, from oligarchy to democracy or even to the anarchy of Mr. Proudhon, as one pleases.

"You are dissatisfied with your government? Take another one for yourself" - without an insurrection or revolution and without any unrest – by simply going to the Office for Political Membership. The old governments may continue to exist until the freedom to experiment, here proposed, will lead to their decline and fall.

Only one thing is demanded: free choice. Free choice, competition—these will, one day, be the mottos of the political world.

My panacea, if you will allow this term, is simply free competition in the business of government. — Paul Émile de Puydt

Wouldn't that lead to an unbearable chaos? One should merely remember the times when people throttled each other in religious wars. What became of these deadly hatreds? The progress of the human spirit has swept it away like the wind does with the last leaves of autumn. The religions, in whose names the stakes and torture were operating, do nowadays live peacefully, side by side. Especially where several of them coexist, each one is more than usual concerned about its dignity and purity. Should what was possible in this sphere, despite all hindrances, not be likewise possible in the sphere of politics?

---

---

Nowadays, when governments exist only to the exclusion of any other power, when parties dominate after having defeated their opponents, where the majority oppresses the minority, it is inevitable that the minorities, the oppressed, will, in turn, grumble and intrigue and wait for the moment of revenge, for the power finally achieved. But when all coercion is eliminated, when every adult has, at all times, a completely free choice for himself, then every fruitless struggle will become impossible.

When governments are subjected to the principle of free experimentation, of free competition, they will in their turn improve and perfect themselves. No more aloofness, up in the clouds, which only hides their emptiness. Success for them will entirely depend only in doing things better and cheaper than the others.

The energies, presently lost in fruitless efforts, frictions and resistance, will unite to give an unforeseen, wonderful impulse to the progress and happiness of humanity.

Upon the objection that after all these experiments with governments of all kinds, one would, finally, return to a single one, the most perfect one, the author remarks that even if that were the case, this general agreement would have been achieved through the free play of all forces. But this could happen only in the distant future, "when the function of government, with general consent, will have been reduced to its simplest expression." In the meantime, people are of such different minds, and have so varied customs, that only this multiplicity of governments is possible.

One seeks excitement and struggles, another tranquillity; this one needs encouragement and assistance, that one, the genius, cannot stand any guidance. One wants the republic, submission, and renunciation—another the absolute monarchy with its pomp and splendour. The orator wants a parliament; the silent one condemns the chatterers. There are strong spirits and weak minds, ambitious ones and simple, contented people. There are as many characters as persons, there are as many needs as different natures. How could they all be satisfied by a single form of government? The contended ones will be in a minority; even the most accomplished government would find opposition.

In the proposed system, on the other hand, all disagreements would be merely domestic squabbles, with divorce as the ultimate remedy.

Governments would compete with each other and those who associated themselves to their government, would be especially loyal to it because it would correspond to their own ideas.

How would one sort all these different people out? - I believe in "the sovereign power of liberty to establish peace among mankind." I cannot foresee the day and the hour of this concord. My idea is like a seed scattered in the wind. Who thought of freedom of conscience in former times and who would question it today?

For its practical realization one might, for instance, set the minimum period for membership, in one form of government, at one year.

Each group would find its adherents whenever it needs them together, like a church does for its members and a joint-stock company its shareholders.

Would this coexistence of many governmental organisms lead to a flood of public servants and a corresponding waste of energies? This objection is important; however, once this is felt, it will be remedied. Only the truly viable organisms will continue to exist, the others will perish from enfeeblement.

Will the presently ruling dynasties and parties ever agree to such a proposal? It would be in their interest to do so. They would be better off with fewer members, but all of them submitting voluntarily and completely. No coercion would be necessary, no soldiers, no gendarmes, no policemen. There would be neither conspiracies nor usurpations. Each and no one would be legitimate.

A government might today go into liquidation and, later on, when it can find more supporters, it can re-establish itself, by a simple constitutional act, like a joint-stock company.

The small fees to be paid for the registration would finance the offices for political membership. It would be a simple mechanism, one that a child could run and that, nevertheless, would meet all needs.

All this is so simple and right that I am convinced that no one will want to know about it.

Man, being man . . .

---

An expanded version of this article appears at Panarchy.org.