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.