The idea is essentially that governments are made non-territorial, and you choose whatever government you want to live under without having to move. The various governments have contracts between each other to resolve disputes between themselves and their citizens, and by signing the social contract you agree to the terms provided by the government.
I find that this is the only solution to the problems of social objectivity, because instead of trying to reconcile all differences under one government that has a monopoly over a geographical area, it does not try to resolve the social differences, and simply allows each individual the freedom to choose they government they want.
Maybe you are seeing something here that I am not. The only solution I have found in solving the social objectivity problem is to not form a social construct and not lend/give authority to it. This leaves each individual to the maximum liberty and preferences in subjective values, and unbinds everyones governance from everyone else.
So I would say the solution is to recognize Individual Sovereignty, that holds no subservience to any social construct, but recognizes individual self ownership as the dominate construct, an individual construct.
In this way the truth component of social objectivity is uncoupled, and negotiated person to person.
There is the other problem when state construction occurs, that there is no limiting factor that the social construct will ever maintain recognition of individual constructs. This leads repeatedly to escalation into various factions weaponizing whatever state constructs there are, to a preferred factional social objectivity.
When you build a state, you build the problem of social objectivity.
"When you build a state, you build the problem of social objectivity."
Only if people have no choice as to whether to accept the state or not. Individual sovereignty includes the freedom choose to accept a government or not.
"Under the present conditions a government exists only by the exclusion of all the others, and one party can rule only after smashing its opponents; a majority is always harassed by a minority which is impatient to govern. Under such conditions it is quite inevitable that the parties hate each other and live, if not at war, at least in a state of armed peace. Who is surprised to see that minorities intrigue and agitate, and that governments put down by force any aspiration to a different political form which would be similarly exclusive? So society ends up composed of ambitious resentful men, waiting for vengeance, and ambitious power-sated men, sitting complacently on the edge of a precipice. Erroneous principles never bring about just consequences, and coercion never leads to right or truth.
Then imagine that all compulsion ceases; that every adult citizen is, and remains, free to select from among the possible offered governments the one which conforms to his will and satisfies his personal needs; free not only on the day following some bloody revolution, but always, everywhere, free to select, but not to force his choice on others. At that point all disorder comes to an end, all fruitless struggle becomes impossible." - Paul-Emile De Puydt
I really am not trying to be problematic here, but how do you choose to live outside of a state/government by first producing a global state/government?
There is that big chunk of logic I am not seeing.
There is no global state/government, there is a meta political theory which allows individuals to freely choose among the various non-territorial states/governments that are competing for "customers" by offering better services at lower prices.
The meta-theory simply suggests that we agree that governments should be non-territorial, and individuals should be able to enter and exit them by negotiating and agreeing to the terms and conditions of explicit social contracts that are actually signed and agreed to.
This is different than the traditional social contract theory that says that people "tacitly consent" to the social contract of the single government by choosing to remain in the geographical territory that it has the exclusive monopoly over.
Ah, so no initial state/government formations. In pre 1770s they were calling this condition a 'free state' as is seen in the second amendment.
Even if the territory boundaries are dissolved, how do you avoid the eventual First Realm domination (@shaneradliff)?
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@shaneradliff/the-second-realm-is-the-answer
Second Realm is a free state condition, but it is always in conflict with First Realm.
In simpler terms, how do you make statist authoritarian a statist non-authoritarian?
https://steemit.com/secondrealm/@joesal/second-realm-mapping
@Joesal : Do you have a link to what this is in response to? DTube provides better notifications, but I can't the original post, probably because it's on Steemit. Thanks!
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@kierkeguardian/yavvpulb#@shaneradliff/epfmmsezg
it was about a theory of Panarchy, I didn't see how it solved the division of First Realm and Second Realm