In the Rising Tide expansion of the game Civilization 6 there’s a civic called Distributed Sovreignty which is basically a digital form of panarchism.

Enabling this civic, allows you to adopt the Digital Democracy government form.

Just unfortunate that it was “Digital Democracy” instead of panarchism.

Wanting an extremely weak central government but strong local and state governments enables competition, allows for people to live in communities which matches their personal preferences, etc. One state could be extremely conservative, another could be extremely progressive. A loose federation of countries essentially, only joined together through a mutual defence agreement. Bear in mind the anti-federalists were the classical liberals; the federalists like Hamilton and Madison were conservatives. It was a classical liberal theorist who founded panarchism.

In the current state of affairs, the District of Columbia stands with the issue of potential statehood being prominent and contentious. The commonly offered sides tend to be split between those who advocate for complete DC statehood as the 51st state and those who demand that DC remain in its current standing. There are those, mainly in the Centrist and Moderate mindset, who seek reconciliation such as an altered status or adoption by Maryland and/or Virginia, but their voices are often drowned out. I, however, have another alternative solution that regards the potential for Panarchy.

In a sense, DC should be established as a district of citizens of the states, acting as individual "ambassadors" without any direct influence, power, election, or appointment. Each resident of the district ought to be allocated their choice of state to establish citizenship in. By this, I mean that any and all of the 50 states may be game for DC residential citizens. For electoral districting purposes, the decision to determine for which district the DC residents fall under may be brought under the reasonable redistricting practices of their chosen states, pending restrictions that seek to fairly redistribute citizens of each district.

Though a Panarchist myself who wishes to see such a system brought to a more widespread appeal and practice, I am content to the reasonable and gradual establishment of such a system. Therefore, I find that DC, given its current status, may be ripe for the advocation of such a solution, and thus set forth a basis and example of Panarchy for the world.

What if we organized by recruiting members that agree with the principles of panarchism and when there are enough people involved we can negotiate on behalf of those people with their governments. This way we can gradually move to a more anarchist society. As a panarchist I disagree with the system of majority rule. To change the system by using it seems not only in contrast with my principles but also improductive because there I dont see a panarchist majority forming any time soon. By unionizing worldwide we could more easily reach an effective threshold. This could be done by simply making a website where people can sign up or even get a passport for the first non-territorial nation. I would love to hear your input on this. Thanks.

If a person belongs to a determined government which is a monarchy, and she wishes to pass to a government which is a social democracy, what prevents the king of the monarchy sending his militia to force people to say? The same way, what prevents it from going on conquering other governments?

For instance, what happens when two people ruled by different governments interact - what laws are in effect? Are criminals punished by their own government or that of the victim? How do panarchical societies handle physical infrastructure in cities etc.? What prevents them from devolving into systems of political parties or separate territorial states at war with one another? In short, how is it any better than a pie-in-the-sky utopian ideal?

Instead of waiting for some panarchist utopia, how can normal people use panarchy to create meaningful change in the present?

In an archived thread, a couple people described themselves as (p)anarchists.

They described themselves as being anarchist without the authoritarian streak.

I find myself in that category too and was wondering how many people found their way here through that path.

I think it is up to people to determine their government. I don't think any forced or violent uprising by a sub-group of a population should make that decision for everyone. While I consider myself anarchist, I'm pretty agnostic about it.

If I had to determine my particular politics, I'd say I'm anarcho-socialist with a strong focus on cooperative systems. I think systems are stronger within a diverse net.

But it has been hard for me to find communities of people that I can relate to in terms of their level of tolerance for other perspectives.

This is what attracts me to panarchism.

Any other people willing to share their stories of how they found this particular branch of political thought?

The easiest way to achieve panarchism, in my opinion, is for people to form communities of our own within the territories of existing states. Secession is note even necessary if enough people move into these new communities. The best way to accomplish this would most likely be to start a not for profit organization to fund various communities.