Panarchism is a political theory advocating a global society made up of voluntary trans-territorial states founded on explicit contracts signed between governments and prospective citizens. Throughout this paper, I first aim to clarify what panarchism entails from a theoretical and institutional standpoint. Thereafter, I examine the two most relevant arguments in support of panarchism: the intuitionist appeal to the value of consent and the consequentialist stress on the individual and/or social utility of a panarchist society. In this regard, I maintain that consequentialist arguments are better equipped to counter anti-panarchist objections. Finally, I purport to illustrate this point through a rebuttal of two different claims highlighting panarchism’s inability to safeguard rights other than the one to freedom of association and its unfeasibility due to the disregard for territorial contiguity. I suggest that moral and prudential reasons weaken both of these concerns.
Perché essere panarchici. Una difesa consequenzialista degli stati volontari trans-territoriali = Why We Should Be Panarchists: A Consequentialist Apology of VoluntaryTrans-Territorial States / D. Saracino. - In: NOTIZIE DI POLITEIA. - ISSN 1128-2401. - 39:149(2023), pp. 89-110.
Perché essere panarchici. Una difesa consequenzialista degli stati volontari trans-territoriali = Why We Should Be Panarchists: A Consequentialist Apology of VoluntaryTrans-Territorial States
D. Saracino
2023
Abstract
Panarchism is a political theory advocating a global society made up of voluntary trans-territorial states founded on explicit contracts signed between governments and prospective citizens. Throughout this paper, I first aim to clarify what panarchism entails from a theoretical and institutional standpoint. Thereafter, I examine the two most relevant arguments in support of panarchism: the intuitionist appeal to the value of consent and the consequentialist stress on the individual and/or social utility of a panarchist society. In this regard, I maintain that consequentialist arguments are better equipped to counter anti-panarchist objections. Finally, I purport to illustrate this point through a rebuttal of two different claims highlighting panarchism’s inability to safeguard rights other than the one to freedom of association and its unfeasibility due to the disregard for territorial contiguity. I suggest that moral and prudential reasons weaken both of these concerns.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Manuscript+-+Perché+essere+panarchici+-+definitivo.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Post-print, accepted manuscript ecc. (versione accettata dall'editore)
Dimensione
309.63 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
309.63 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.