Davide Saracino

In The Profession and Vocation of Politics, Weber argues that Machiavelli’s Prince is «harmless» in comparison to Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. Some contemporary comparative political theorists similarly argue that the Arthaśāstra is a fully realistic speculum principis free from moralistic considerations, while The Prince’s supposed realism is in fact moderated by Machiavelli’s republicanism. An opposite viewpoint suggests that Kauṭilya’s extremism, unlike Machiavelli’s republican realism, would breed the sovereign’s ruin in our age. In this article, I take a via media, arguing for the contextual and non-substantive nature of the difference between these authors and their main works.

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.