Frequently Asked Questions of the site
http://balder.prohosting.com/~xyst/index.html
Q. Can you tell in a few words of the concept?
A. Freedom of choice to associate self with a State you like (or to
create a new one). The same way as embassies of different States can
exist side by side, citizens of different States can live alongside.
For example, instead of positioning 11111122233333, this one
31121312313231 (at some moment) and 31451314313454 (at an other
moment).
Q. But what's the object of doing that?
A. "You went into a store seeking to buy X brand of beans and you were
informed that because more people [majority that won an election] only
liked YYYY brand, that would be the only kind of beans you could buy.
Further, you would be told that you could not solve the problem for
yourself simply by abstaining from buying beans. You must buy them.
And you must buy brand YYYY. Further, you must eat the beans. ...this
is what we have done in government in this country." Written by an
anonymous author. Full text is at
http://www.panarchy.org/anonymous/democracy.1962.html
With panarchy you can choose the State that you like (one from
several) without spatial movement to it. On the contrary the State
comes to you, i.e. it places the spot where you live under its
jurisdiction. The States will extremely desire to be chosen by you.
Q. I'd like to eat the YYYY beans chosen by majority. Why not?
A. It is your right. But why you wish to enforce to eat the beans
others who don't like them?
Q. I am an anarchist. A system without any State is better for all us.
A. If there are even two humans that think that it is better for them
to create a State, they have the right to create the State. Even if
all the others want to live without any State. The seemingly innocent
addition for all us means the same tyranny (i.e. democracy) that we
have now.
Q. What is relation between your theory and panarchy of P. E. De
Puydt?
A. It was 02/23/04 when I've first read his text from the site
http://www.panarchy.org
thus in the theory of Scattered States
panarchy was discovered anew.
Q. The primary assumption that is the basis of what you call
Coexistentialism is essentially Libertarianism. Libertarianism grants
all power to the market and market forces. Actually governments don't
mean a damn thing in a Libertarian system, a trait that Libertarianism
shares with Anarchism, since the market is the only true King.
A. Indeed I share the ideas of Libertarianism. And here and there in
the texts ones could see that. But the system is not based on money
relations; it based on freedom of choice of people. Any and even all
scattered states can be not capitalistic ones, if people choose them.
There are not any limitations for a scattered state that the system
dictates a priory.
The term Coexistentialism was introduced by Hector Archytas.
Independently about the same time I suggested the idea of scattered
states.
Q. The problem with that system is the same problem that aggressive
kinds of Capitalistic systems have acting for profit only.
A. (Un)fortunately big money is big power. (Un)fortunately people have
tendency to group near successful states i.e. to increase the level of
monopolization. We could compare it with a tree that become so high
that it suppresses the other trees. It will be matter of scatters
states how they will solve the problem. By a federal law or
automatically because people associating themselves with the high tree
will degrade more and more.
Q. Why did you place the $/gold graph of www.kitco.com on the front
page?
A. An im****tant result of existence of current states is their phantom
misleading money. It, as a rule, is not backed by real money - gold.
Thus the graph is graph of how much people understand their states and
own plight to become indigents after inevitable devaluation of the
hard currencies.
Q. In our system there are basically 4 different entities:
1) Individuals 2) Families 3) Governments 4) God(s) that are lacking
in yours.
A. A prior I am not in opposition to any of systems except those that
will be based on deprivation of freedom of choice. What system is
better can be stated practically as result of freedom of choice of
people. There are only two possibilities in what to do with people
that disagree with a system. To bend them to the system. Or to give
them a possibility to organize a new system. Now I am very skeptical
on that advantages of a system are proved theoretically. There are of
course hypnotizable people that can be brought over by words.
Tem****arily. The words is too little for people. The best for them are
real humans, things, associations.
Q. Your system may grant governments what look like rights, but these
governments do not respect each other, and their respective nationals,
but they actually compete with each other, just like the Capitalist
governments competed for half a century with the Communist
governments, and guess who lost BIG TIME while they were struggling
with each other?
A. I don't care what political views my neighbors have. I have not any
wish to struggle with them. The same, as I believe, a lot of people
think. Yet you are right - humanity must achieve certain level
development to be tolerant to others. Then main matter of people will
be to make right choice, not political straggle as now. I think that
the states, that will wish to struggle other than economically, will
attract only thin layer of population.
As to governments. A scattered state can choose to exist without any
government. Even to be a zero state. I.e. stateless persons are an
option. The people will be only under federal laws. Probably it is not
a time to think that the world will tolerate people that will do all
they wish - to murder, steal and so on.
As to BIG TIME. If a system make it in short time, and the feature be
enough to attract people, it all will be nice. But in the case that
the other people that disagree with the system will able to choose
another.
Q. Why are governments supposed to compete with each other if they
were created to protect the rights and customs and languages of their
people? I don't get it. The moment governments start competing - for
citizens in your system, it seems, but you conveniently disregard the
geopolitical aspects - they don't have inalienable rights anymore.
That means that they can actually go bankrupt like companies! We are
not talking about a company here going bankrupt; we are talking about
an entire society or nation! That makes absolutely no sense.
A. Any state can not compete at all. It is people who will decide to
be or no in the state. Yes the state abandoned by people is bankrupt
and makes absolutely no sense. Now a lot of states are potentially
abandoned. They exist due to their frontiers.
Scattered states give the way of abandoning - people able to refuse to
be citizen of the state and choose an other state, all these without
resettlement.
Geopolitical aspect. Some time old States will exist in their
frontiers. If they remain not scattered, they will decay more and
more. At the same time virtual states will grow. Then the old
frontiers become a matter of history.
There is not an imperative to states to exist only as scattered ones.
Territorially coherent states/federations based on freedom of choice
are also possible.
Copyright © 2004 Oleg M. Goryunov
|
