Is separation of church and state necessary for a free society? Not at all! If there is freedom to choose a non-territorial government, then the state loses its territoriality. This implies that it maintains its sovereignty over only those people who freely elect to be in and under it. This allows multiple states and associated governments to arise in what once was a territory ruled by a single territorial state and government. With non-territorial government, some people may associate and freely decide to have a government that conforms to a set of religious beliefs that they endorse. Panarchism does not entail the separation of church and state. It advocates the separation of the state from its territorial sway. This then allows the freedom to choose a non-territorial government. This allows for many governments intermingling on one previous state-ruled territory. This in turn allows for all sorts of governments with all sorts of religious connections.
Similarly, if there is freedom to choose a non-territorial government, then some people may associate and freely decide to have a government that takes a variety of actions upon the economic behavior of those who subscribe to that government. Panarchism does not entail the separation of economy and government.
Panarchism does not entail the separation of people from state, either. The territorial state disappears, however. This means that multiple groups, associations, minorities, companies, communes, peoples, communities, and churches can form, each having its own set of rules, laws and regulations, each having its own financing methods, and each having its own customs, policing, courts and institutions. It is to be expected that for certain purposes, these various groups will coordinate and form macro-organizations.9:17 am on June 4, 2013 Email Michael S. Rozeff