At evolutionofconsent.com, I developed the precursor to Ambiarchy, geo-mutualist panarchism. Here are seven of the reasons I made the switch.
1. Simplicity. I have been promoting my philosophy under “geo-mutualist panarchism,” which is quite a mouthful. Ambiarchy is much simpler.
2. Non-polarizing. Ambiarchy is not a widely used word, and so it misses the repeated assumptions behind a word like “anarchy” or “panarchy.”
3. Mysterious. Its meaning is not readily apparent, and so must be looked into firsthand. Because of its obscurity, it is more difficult to establish false assumptions upon.
4. Open. When I started calling my project “geo-mutualist panarchism” I was choosing between what I considered to be the three main players of my model, but there are actually many more influences than Georgism, mutualism, and panarchy. Ambiarchy allows in its ambiguity to draw from many sources.
5. Definite. As I am the originator, I can define the project, leaving nothing arbitrary, only ambiguous in description. Ambiarchy is intended to resolve the complications of intersocial interaction through well-defined and clearly-understood infrastructure.
6. Authoritive. Not to be confused with authoritarian. An ambiarchy is as authoritive as a good government, but as non-authoritarian as an anarchy. Authoritive, in this case, stresses discipline, while authoritarian stresses punishment. Because an ambiarchy is strict, it may appear to be govermental, but because the rules are voluntarily consented to and co-created, it may just as well appear to be anarchic.
7. Meta. Ambiarchy is based in a particular metaphysic, called “dualist pantheism” or, more recently and in theme, “ambitheism,” which poses that both good government and social anarchism occur within a greater trajectory toward social order, which results inevitably from the singular nature of the telos. By using a more original moniker, I can more readily ingrain the metaphysic into the social project.
