There can be subjective values that are objective. The problem is when objectivity is brought into the realm of politics, then the truth component of objectivity turns into social truth, and extending from there turns into a supposed social objectivity.
The problem with government systems is they depend on social objectivity to be universally agreed upon by those within the system. There to my knowledge, has never been social objectivity that was agreed upon by everyone all the time. So the idea of governmental systems may have a significant flaw, and to even construct one may be the first fundamental flaw.
Given that what you say is true, do you think Panarchism is a viable solution to the problem of constructing a single governmental system for all?
Well, let me answer a question with a question, is there ever a legitimate government system if there can not be a agreed upon social objectivity?
I am not aware of the encompassing definition of panarchy.
I have thought of the problem of government in several ways, but the one that always tends to arise (outside of centrist view) is that government will be the total dominate social construct, or that that there should be no social construct.
Should people be bound to each other or should people be unbound from each other? If answers vary, you have a problem.
I think panarchy addresses this concern. have a look and let me know what you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy
Other links are in the description of the video above.
Panarchy
Panarchy (from pan and archy), coined by Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, is a form of governance that would encompass all others. The Oxford English Dictionary lists the noun as "chiefly poetic" with the meaning "a universal realm," citing an 1848 attestation by Philip James Bailey, "the starry panarchy of space". The adjective panarchic "all-ruling" has earlier attestations. In the twentieth century the term was re-coined separately by scholars in international relations to describe the notion of global governance and then by systems theorists to describe non-hierarchical organizing theories.
Still not seeing clarity there.
Questions:
Is there a social construct?
Do individuals lend/give authority to the social construct?
If the answer is yes to both questions then the problems in social objectivity remain.
Panarchy is a political meta-theory that advocates non-territorial states founded on actual social contracts that are explicitly negotiated and signed between states and their prospective citizens. The explicit social contract sets the terms under which a state may use coercion against its citizens and the conditions under which the contract may be annulled, revised, rescinded, or otherwise exited from. Panarchy does not advocate any particular model of government, but intends to encourage political variety, innovation, experimentation, and choice. With its emphasis on explicit social contracts rather than a single implicit social contract based on geographical territory, Panarchy offers an interesting variation on traditional social contract theory.
That is much clearer, many thanks.
The intent of the theory is to produce a type of non-territorial state (per definition). Assuming follow-through of advocating a creation of state, is in the end, the creation of a social construct, then the answer of the first question is yes.
Additional social constructs:
-Social contracts
-citizenship
-state coercion against its citizens
This answers the second question of:
Do individuals lend/give authority to the social construct?
The answer is yes, accordingly the problems of social objectivity remain in the theory or in the ends of the theory.