now this is something I may consider joining.

It's an interesting question but it depends what kind of protection you mean. You can already employ a private firm to protect your house from burglaries and in places like south africa they have already taken over from government. they don't seem to be geographically restricted in that they work nationwide but more than one can exist in the same area. If you're talking about protection from something more serious invasion or whatever that's more difficult but you could have a firm with a bunch of smart bombs and icbms who operate on the MAD principle you invade one of our clients anywhere in the "country" and we'll **** you up.

If a government is unable to protect you and you are unable to protect yourself, you probably shouldn't be joining that government.

Luckily, there will be hundreds or more of others to choose from.

No it doesn't but it changes people's ability to think about an idea. I say AC and some people's minds shut off. I say panarchism and some people will be more willing to engage me.

If I call a black guy the N word, I get a different response than if I call him an african american.

Words and labels do matter even if they are referring to the same thing.

Prediction: This will vanish down valenzuela's memory hole, as if it had never been written, because it doesn't jibe with his preconceived notions. Should he acknowledge it, he will never be able to apply the general principle contained therein to things like safer workplaces, shorter work weeks, etc.

I have not studied american economic history in depth to discuss this I just sayed that the wikipedia article seems to support my view that labor laws helped. To be honest I havent deeply studied labor laws, Im just trusting the 2 or 3 authorities that have writen the books Ive read. Do you have any non mises evidence that what rubiskies say is true?
Im not such a supporter of labor laws, Im probably mainstream right as far as labor laws go.

On a different note it seems to me panarchism does not require the same mentality as AC. In AC you have to also be strongly for capitalism and individualism. Panarchism seems like a middle ground between left-wing anarchy and right-wing anarchy.

I imagine you've seen Louis Thoereuzxx asfggg's video about the south african way of protecting its clients? Can't possibly think that's a good thing?

hundreds of others all with the same problem, though, amirite? To protect their citizens they'd have to violate airspace and borders.

What are you even talking about. This doesn't even make sense. What borders? What airspace?

Does it seem impossible to you that "countries" could make defensive alliances with other "countries" to use each others airspace for defense (exactly like many many friendly countries do today) and that it would be beneficial for many many countries within the panarchism area to do this in order to defend themselves?

Like the current US government

What do you mean?

that's exactly what the US is, its a collection of various governments that have agreed to join together to make things like defense and security easier.

Except if I want to be apart of the Cali government without moving from my home in new york, I can't do that.

And more importantly, if I don't want to belong to any of them or start my own without moving, I can't do that either.

And this cluster**** of a thread is exactly why we use the word "government" to mean "a territorial monopolist of justice and taxation" rather than "a provider of security" or some such.

South africa is a pretty deadly place in a lot of places. Due to a number of factors that USpanarchy won't have. Certainly in the UK you can subscribe to a company and they put a little sign on your house that says "protected by X". They have quick response units and so on and are nationwide but not geographically exclusive.

For the 1 billionth time, this isnt "kinda like feudalism" its "kinda like every system."

I agree with this however OP was saying that panarchy was an exception. Im basically saying its not an exception.

Here I admit that democracy has the same flaws I said feudalism had.

Not owning property only means that you can't create your own government. But it does not stop you from picking your own government among a wide variety of choices, including renting from an ACer (i.e. picking no government).

Seems VERY different to me. What am I missing?

If it works the way you think it will work it then of course its very different, I think the lack of centralized power will lead to violence greatly reducing the options of picking your own goverment and even then with the increase of violence people wont be able to take advantage the competion between goverments will give to them.

Why do you think there will be lots of violence?

Because there will be no monopoly of violence

...and violence is a desirable preference. Thats the other piece you need in order to come to your conclusion. And its the one that I disagree with.

Im agaisnt violence and I think the best way of reducing it is if there is a monopoly of legitimate violence by a democratic & constitutional state.

Sigh.... Please try harder. We can't talk about this unless you'll elaborate a little me.

As I see it...

With a government monopoly on violence, violence is allowed and you aren't allowed to openly defend against it. Just because it's government violence doesn't mean there isn't violence.

With panarchism, you're allowed to openly defend yourself against such violence.

And yes there might be some fighting between "countries" and individuals, but I'd really like to see some reasons why you think there will be more violence (taking into account the violence perpetrated by governments upon their citizens, on other citizens, and all of the black market created violence [drugs/guns]).