Ambiarchy is the superideology that favors a governance structure characterized by political ambiguity with regard to the status of rulership. Ambi- is short for “ambiguous,” and -archy for “rulership.” Ambiarchy, that is, refers to “ambiguous rulership,” particularly an ambiguity with regard to whether there is a ruler or not. Ambiarchy, that is, is the peculiar place that exists between state and anarchy. That is, it is characterized by being simultaneously anarchist and statist. How is such a thing possible?
Ambiarchy is built upon the metaphysical premises of ambitheism, which upholds a particular approach to neutral monist metaphysics, or metaphysics that holds that existence is ultimately characterized by two attributes, which we may call the “real” and “ideal,” but that might likewise be known as the material, physical, or bodily and the imaginary, psychical, or mental, and that these can ultimately be resolved or reduced to a singular substance. As such, ambitheism contains value for both realist and idealist interpretations of existence.
This being the case, ambiarchists are capable of weilding definitions that may otherwise seem to contradict. This is done by acknowledging both orientations as perspectives in the way that different scientific fields might seem to contradict while being correct within their own domains. Importantly, ambiarchists understand that-- even while metaphysically or ontologically they can be reduced to a singular Substance-- idealist and realist claims must be treated as occuring within different domains, and that these claims must not be made outside of the bounds of those domains, or else be considered illegitimate. As such, physical claims cannot be made for spiritual essences, and spiritual claims should not be made for those that are physical.
Applied to social philosophy, this allows for conflicting definitions from each domain to be held simultaneously, such that anarchist definitions of the state can coexist with those held by proponents of good government. The key is that anarchists provide a realist definition of the state, while proponents of good government provide realist definitions. These definitions, in existing in the different domains of reality and ideality, coexist by the fact that they are oriented in different locations in time. The anarchist defines the state as it has existed in material reality, and with logical induction. The proponent of good government defines it as it ought to exist as a future ideal, with emotional ambition. Ambiarchists accept that these notions, while certainly at odds from most perspectives, can be reconciled by meeting the conditions set forth by each. For the anarchist, this is the lack of a ruling class, and for the proponent of good government it is the protection of society from criminal (mala in se) elements. Notice that the definition of anarchism does not preclude protection from crime, nor does good government necessitate the existence of a ruling class, if the definitions are applied charitably (using those of the proponent with good faith). This is key to understanding ambiarchism.
Indeed, the anarchists define the state as a monopoly on violence or imposition of external rule, but they have also suggested that the matter at-hand is not the existence of the institution itself, but its status as a state, which is dependent upon that monopoly imposition. As such, the Boston and Denver mutualists, such as Tucker and Tandy, and later followers such as Swartz, make quite clear that if the state were reduced to a voluntary, mutual protection firm that it would no longer constitute a state. They admit that their definitions are not the standard, but hold to their anarchist definition whereby the essence of the state is in its encroachments and not its existence as a large association providing protection. The mutualists-- the only real anarchists--, that is, held that a state could be pushed back against and continue to exist as a non-state if sufficiently stopped from its encroachments. Crime, then, could be dealt with by voluntary associations.
The proponents of good government tend to dismiss this definition of the state. Instead, they see the republican state as that entity that must necessarily exist to protect against crime and, by extension, monarchy. In other words, to the proponents of good government, also known as civil government-- however incorrectly and oxymoronically from the realist standpoint--, see the republican state, or commonwealth, as the civil association of the public against crime and government. As such, proponents of civil government see it as the duty of the state to stop mala in se crimes and to keep conflicts of a tort nature (existing outside of contract, between members of the public) from disturbing the peace of civil society, as well as to legislate with constitutional limits and fiduciary duties in place.
The anarchist position is primarily focused on keeping the state from encroaching from the top, while the good government position is primarily focused on keeping crime from occuring from the bottom, with some overlaps from each.
The ambiarchist position is deductive, requiring a sound definition from which to draw its conclusions. For this, it looks to both the anarchist and the statist, concluding that the definition, muddled with paradox between the domains, must be treated dialectically and with reconciliation. This is what has led to the conclusion that ambiarchy is the best approach. As with anarchy, ambiarchy aims to abolish external control, but, as with statism, it does not fall short on providing a firm hand against crime. The result is a philosophy which cannot be polarized, because neutral by definition, and so which places the focus instead on the content, asking the controversial question, “Does it succeed or not in reconciling the opposing philosophies of anarchism and good government?” Such a question demands answers that address the actual functions, the facts and aspirations, behind the philosophy, and which cannot easily engage in sophistries such as framing and achoring of the concept, as may be done with such magnetically-polarizable words as state and anarchy.
The definitions utilized are not mere figments of fancy. They most certainly exist. The definition of state offered by the sociologist Max Weber is a materialist, scientific one, and one that is compatible with the anarchist conception of state as an external ruler. This is the definition of the state as a monopoly on violence. The definition of state offered by international law, however, is an idealist, religious one, known as the declarative theory of the state, originated in the Montevideo Convention, which basically holds that a state merely need to act under the color of its own law, without recognition from others, and declare itself a state. These definitions seem to contradict, but they do not actually preclude one another in fact, and neither do they make the anarchist and statist definitions incompatible. Rather, they provide a means by which anarchist confederations may present themselves as states with philosophical and legal legitimacy. In other words, a material anarchy can declare itself, on ideal grounds, to be a state. And, so long as an ambiarchist conception of state is understood, it is not dishonest to do so, but based in a comparative and syncretic wielding of terms. There is nothing dishonest about using words in their multiple senses, particularly if one can differentiate clearly the capacity by which the definition applies. Well, an ambiarchy is both a state and a government, because by one definition of state it is an anarchy and by another it is a government. And because it is either both or neither, simultaneously, it is probably best to consider it something with an identity of its own.
On the realist side, ambiarchy can reasonably be considered an anarchist proto-state, while on the idealist side it may be considered a non-hierarchical good government. Both sides can likely agree that it is a confederation, but that does not resolve the issue at-hand. Rather, ambiarchy may better be characterized by such notions as equilibrium and harmony, which have found favor with both anarchists and statists. There you have it. Ambiarchy is neither and both anarchy and state, being better referred to as an equilibrium, balance, or harmony, perhaps without reference to either state or anarchy at all, which have become not much more than polarizing notions that have limited mutualism from becoming fruitful.