Le Grand E. Day

Writings on Panarchy




Towards the end of 1960's Le Grand E.Day started presenting his Theory of Multigovernments that has quite a few points of contact with the idea of Panarchy. In January 1986 John Zube sent him a letter to which he replied years later telling him about his new effort, the editing of a newsletter on Panarchy. The texts here presented are some of those contained in the third issue of Day's newsletter.

At the end of Le Grand E. Day writings is here appended a letter sent to him by John Zube on March 1989 in which some aspects dealt in the newsletter are analysed and better defined.

These writings of Le Grand E. Day and the letter of John Zube are now part of the history of Panarchy and of the debate surrounding that idea. It is in view of documenting that debate that they are now here presented.



Panarchy Dialectic
Le Grand E. Day



- Explore the principles of Panarchy using the dialectic method.
- Answer criticisms and correct misunderstanding concerning Panarchy and
- Build a network of Panarchists


IN A NUTSHELL Panarchy gives the individual their natural developmental right to choose their own government by creating competitive, autonomous,  non-coercive, co-existing organizations called Panarchies to perform the different types of government services.
People can choose from among the Panarchies what suits them best.
Supporting this system is a necessary minimum sovereign for people/land relationship  called the “geographical Democracy” and a Law-justice umbrella the “Judicial Republic”.




Le Grand E. Day


I would like to handle the history of Panarchy in America by recording the writings of "The Can Government Concept". (See glossary) Referred to now as "The Concept" - it is the background for the theory of Panarchy.
I will begin with what I would like to believe is the first literature (J.Z.: writing?) in this century on "The Concept".
(J.Z.: Many discovered it independently. Others merely described the long historical experience with it, which is still widely unknown. – J.Z., 11.12.04.)

1957. A letter to my father concerning the idea of co-existing governments (part of the concept).
I was always fascinated by political theory and interested in a system where the individual can choose his/her own government.

1963 Why can’t governments co-exist?  An article written for the Los Angeles Free Press.
The Response from this piece became the basis for a small study group in California.

1969 Outline of the theory of Multi-government. The first time  the name Multi-government was used in lieu of the "concept." This pamphlet was widely distributed and study groups were formed in Los Angeles, San Diego, California and Salt Lake City, Utah. The Multi-government Publications and Lecture Bureau was established. We had 23 "card-carrying" members (active) and a mailing list of over 350 people who seemed interested.

1972 The Northridge Incident. A fictional Account in which a UFO came down to give me information on "The Concept".  This was a time of paradoxes. We had problems in the study groups; on the other hand the popularity of the Northridge Incident was tremendous.

1977 A New Dimension of Freedom. Some of the above writings combined with some new material. The book sold well in the Libertarian community. It had two printings and ten thousand copies were published and the interest is still growing.

1982 An article PANARCHY written in 1860 by P.E. de Puydt was brought to my attention by John Zube of Australia. Panarchy was translated from French by Adrian Falk. The piece had two tenants, the basic "Can concept" and "The Bureau of Political Membership" (to keep track of what government you belong to). 

(J.Z.: That is the oddest description of this brilliant and clear libertarian essay that I have ever seen. It is far from doing it justice. Reading it is a must - from my point of view. On www.panarchy.org it is now available in French, German, English, Italian and Spanish.  – J.Z., 11.12.04.)

Our system is more sophisticated. We believe if de Puydt had the advantage of the last 100 years of history, he would agree with our position. Panarchy describes “The Concept” better than "Multi-government" does, so in de Puydt's honor we adapted the name Panarchy.

1986 PANARCHY DIALECTIC: A newsletter launched to be a Missionary for PANARCHY, by offering a forum for Panarchists to discuss issues and interested persons to ask questions concerning PANARCHY. Judging from the response, PANARCHY, offering the Ultimate Freedom, is a Political Stance whose time has come.

(I have tried to eliminate some of Le Grand E. Day’s spelling, typing, punctuation and expression mistakes, without always indicating this editing, to make his texts more legible. Undoubtedly, I have overlooked others. Anyhow, the ideas are the essential thing. – He had certainly more success in spreading his ideas than I had. - J.Z., 11.12.04.)

"How can a man or a people seize an immense territory and keep it from the rest of the world except by a punishable usurpation, since all others are being robbed by such an act of the place of habitation and the means of subsistence which nature gave them in common?"






It became apparent in the early writings of Panarchy that a glossary was needed. 
These terms are used when discussing and describing Panarchy. They do not necessarily conform to any dictionary definition or any other criteria.

ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT: A government district created, controlled, and periodically reviewed by the Judicial Republic to perform functions of government that cannot be handled by Panarchies, Geographical Democracies or Individuals. The district is dissolved when the need for it ends.
(Here he assumes too much. – J.Z.)

CHOICE GOVERNMENTS: A name used when "the concept" was called Multigovernment.
We now refer to them as Panarchies.

(THE) CONCEPT, originally: "The CAN government concept", CAN meant:
C = co-existing,
A = autonomous
N = non-territorial.
We began to expand the CAN part and the word government gave us a problem so we settled on "THE CONCEPT" as a word for the overall movement (shades of Panarchy, multi-goverment etc.)

DAYISM was used by the press to describe "the concept". We prefer Panarchy.

DOCTRINE (of Panarchy): Permanent ideas and concepts of Panarchy (i.e. Geographical Democracy,
Judicial Republic, etc. In contrast to relative doctrine (see glossary).

FREEDOMIZATION: A term used in "A Letter from the Future", meaning that part of the world accepting  Panarchy.

ACUF: a person who elects to be free and not join any Panarchy. It means:
A = absolute
C = complete
U = uncompromising
F = freedom

GEOGRAPHICAL DEMOCRACY: Along with the Judicial Republic the only compulsory government. There are three conditions for a Geographical Democracy:
1. One geographical Democracy covers each area.
2. Geographical Democracies are pure democracies.
3. Services are kept down to only protective functions (See geographical necessary).
We have now developed seven principles for a Geographical Democracy (GD).

GEOGRAPHICAL NECESSARY functions of government than can be only performed by the G.D.

GD: Geographical Democracy

INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT THEORY: In contrast to the social contract theory Panarchy suggests each person makes his own contract with the Panarchy of his choice.

INTEGRATED FORCE: The enforcement agency of the Judicial Republic.
They (its members?  - J.Z.) are temporary and usually recruited from the geographical democracy's police force. They are used for peace-keeping missions. When the crisis or reason for their existence is over, they are dismissed.

J.D.: Judicial Republic.

MILLENNIUM: A historical period of Panarchy when the entire world comes under this system.

OPERATIONAL DECISIONS:  Decisions made by the geographical democracies that are related to operative procedures .These decisions do not have the magnitude (importance? – J.Z.) to be voted on by the people.

PANARCHIES: (Formally called choice governments) are the backbone of the concept of Panarchy.
They are designed to handle the desired services the people want when we eliminate the five layers of governments we now have.
(J.Z.: I recognize only 3: Federal, State and Local Governments. – J.Z., 11.12.04.)
One then can pick and choose the services he/she wants and pay only for what he/she gets.

PERSUASIAN PERIOD: A Political period starting in 1963 and ending when the first country accepts Panarchy. (from “A Letter from the Future”.)

POLICY: Policy is issues and operating procedures that change with the times, places and the moods of the people. It is in contrast to doctrine that is inflexible and stays the same.

PURE DEMOCRACY: Where all policies and issues are voted on by the people. Only minor operational decisions are not voted on.

RELATIVE DOCTRINE: Relative doctrine means such concepts, issues and ideas not directly related to Panarchy.
Panarchy as a political theory can not take a stand on non-Panarchy issues, such as gun control, abortion etc.  However the individual Panarchists can believe as he chooses.



Dialogue in the Desert
Le Grand E. Day


"Can you give me a definition of the word "Panarchy”?
"Yes - it comes from two words - Panacea and Anarchy."  

(J.Z.: Rather, from “pan” in the meaning of “all embracing” or “everywhere” and archy: government.
Thus it has been interpreted, by some as world-wide totalitarian government, omnipresent and all-powerful, and by others as governments everywhere, vested in every individual, his associates, his and their free choices of governments or other communities or societies. No one to be confined to just one government, imposed upon him. De Puydt meant the latter, the freedom option.
“Pan” has lots of other meanings, too, but not in this sphere. – I do admit that his interpretation is, rather, ingenious but that does not make it true. De Puydt has given no hint that he meant it in this way. He rather meant and described all kinds of archies or governments as options for individuals. The anarchist option he mentioned only by the way. The panarchies do not have to be panaceas. It is enough that some people believe in them and thus choose them for themselves, while leaving others to their choices. -  J.Z., 11.12.04.)

"What does the word Panacea mean to you?"
"I like short precise definitions. Panacea means to me a solution to all problems."
"That's a big order, what does the word Anarchy mean to you?"
"Anarchy means absence of government or State control."
"Panarchy then is a solution to all problems by eliminating the State. Doesn't that create chaos, having no governmental services, no protection, no laws?"
"Let's take your three No's one at a time."

"Alright, no governmental services."
"Panarchies are volunteer organizations designed to take up the vacuum of services left by the diminishing State."
"Are Panarchies what you called 'Choice Governments’ in your Multigovernment system?"
"Yes, but the word Panarchy best describes the organization's structure. 
For instance, Panarchies are usually non-territorial, non-violent, competitive, autonomous and co-existing on the same land mass with other Panarchies."

"I have many questions about Panarchies."
"That is why we use this dialogue-dialectic as a method to understand the political system of Panarchy.  We will examine Panarchies in detail later in the dialogue.  Now, let's get back to the overview."

"O.K.  The second No - no protection."
"I assume by protection you mean police and fire protection. Under Panarchy the individual chooses his own style of protection, be it collective, private, cooperation, or a simple neighborhood watch. This is done by a direct election through the geographical democracy."

"What is a geographical democracy?"
"Let me summarize the already summarized seven aspects of a G.D.:
1) Name - Geographical Democracy;
2) Link between land and people;
3) No governmental services unless absolutely necessary;
4) If necessary, accepted by vote by overwhelming will (number? – J.Z.) of the people;
5) Direct Democracy;
6) One G.D. to each land area;
7) Decentralization."

"Of course, I have many questions concerning the geographical democracy, but now to the no law, the third No."
"The minimal laws are administered by the Judicial Republic." (J.R.)  The Judicial Republic does not govern but is an organization that insures the integrity, structure and philosophy of Panarchy on one hand and guarantees the rights of individuals on the other. 
Again, a small quotation from my previous writing: "The Judicial Republic arbitrates when possible, judges when it can, and enforces whenever it is really necessary."

"Then, would you call that a quick overview of Panarchy?"
"Yes, let's recap a brief overview of the structure of Panarchy."

The backbone of Panarchy is Panarchies. 
They are organizations performing the services of former governments. 
Panarchies compete for these services by giving the people the choice of quantity and/or quality. 
The Geographical Democracy is the tie-in between the people the land, and the Judicial Republic balancing the law and the freedom."

"Is that a synopsis of Panarchy?"
"There are two more important concepts that make Panarchy famous."

"What are these?"
"Only under Panarchy can one choose to be free, belong to no government at all. 
We call those who make this choice ACUF's – meaning: “Absolute, Complete and Uncompromising Freedom.”

"What is the last concept of Panarchy you wish to present at this time?"
"Panarchy does not advocate the overthrow of any government by force or violence."




(J.Z.: This third issue of Day’s newsletter.)


All of my life I wanted to do a newsletter on Panarchy.
Now the dream has come true. It's not the "piece of cake" I thought it would be.
I begin with the philosophy that Panarchists and those interested would want thoughts and ideas on Panarchy presented in a point & counter-point dialectic, and would not desire expensive paper with charts and pretty pictures. So I concentrated on content, not style. I changed my mind. I am learning how to put a newsletter together with both content and style.

The response to the ads for the Dialectic was tremendous. There are a lot of people out there interested in "the concept". I will adjust the dialectic to meet their needs, like a good panarchist.

In the meantime, I would appreciate all the help and advice I can get.


Q.: You always end the Dialectic and your correspondence with P.I.O.T. What exactly does that mean?
I plagiarized that complimentary close from my friend from Australia, John Zube.
He used to close with F.I.O.T., meaning FREEDOM IN OUR TIME. (Which was widely used among libertarians). (I finally changed it to PIOT. – J.Z.).
Thanks John.

P I O T   Le Grand.





John Zube
A Letter to Le Grand E. Day
(31 March 1989)


Dear Le Grand,
thanks for your letter, undated, mailed 22 March 89, the subscription to 2 sets of 4 Monetary Freedom Newsletters, i.e., Nos. 1-8 and the sample No. 3 of your PANARCHY, DIALECTIC, which I have just read. I enclose Nos. 1-4 MFN or send them under separate cover, by air mail. But in future, let us rather exchange our newsletters. I hope to have established some credit with you by the ca. 40 panarchist microfiche that I have sent.
Have you got access to a reading machine or to a shop which sells some cheaply, occasionally, second-hand?

If at this stage in your newsletter career, your could persuade your few subscribers to each acquire, separately or by a group purchase, a microfiche reading machine, you could offer them almost unlimited pages for panarchistic discussions in this format. Storage costs, reproduction costs and postage would be minimized after that initial outlay for a reading machine und thus, at least financially, the continuance of your newsletter or magazine would be assured.
You could, then, easily, reproduce whole books for your readers, upon demand. At least think about it as a publishing and reading alternative. Those who are incurable paper addicts could be referred to micrographic agencies which would run them photocopies off the microfiche. Or one associate could do this for the subscribers, upon demand and payment, with the labour involved largely out of your hands.
Admittedly, you might find is easier to sign up converts for panarchism than for micrographics.
But one can try to do both at the same time, particularly as long as most panarchist writings are only easily, cheaply and permanently accessible on microfiche.

It appears that we have both much to learn about newsletter production and to apply more care in order to avoid more typos, punctuation and spelling mistakes.
They are not very important but perceived as an unnecessary nuisance by many readers. Since our different ideas create already friction enough with our readers, why increase such friction unnecessarily?

Anyhow, very different from my own results, you have already achieved a limited success with your newsletter, in spite of its at first very simple and cheap format.
Especially for me: Never mind the original format, please do send me the first two issues. By the time I receive them, I hope to have a better enlarger-photocopier.

Otherwise, before including them in the next ON PANARCHY edition, I would even be prepared to transcribe the text. At this stage, any contribution on this subject, in any format, is welcome to me, if it goes beyond the often almost thoughtless one or two line "objections" one can find in “THE CONNECTION.”

There is nothing shameful about having to avoid high postal monopoly charges. Only that monopoly and its continuance are shameful.
As newsletters go, one can almost never have too much money for them. Relatively few do pay their way. When I started mine on monetary freedom, I was resolved not to let it exceed 6 pages each issue and to never produce more than I could comfortably photocopy, which would mean ca. 100 at most. Afterwards, the additional production and distribution work becomes too much of a chore and the whole rather too expensive. I would then either pass the newsletter on to someone else, who might be interested or continue it only micrographically. In the meantime, it serves somewhat as a propaganda sheet for the micrographic option.

I have made as yet no firm travel plans for my US visit. I do intend to look you up. Presently, I am still waiting for a business deal to be settled, in which I dispose of my last capital asset (apart from my microfiche collection, book collection and quarters and some office machines) and am waiting, for 6 weeks already, for a minor operation. Once optional operations will come to be postponed here for up to 5 years, as happened once in England, one will have to go overseas to get them done faster.

Congratulations and best wishes to your upcoming marriage. I feel certain that the second time around you will have made a wiser decision.
Few such contracts are made for punishment (e.g. a sado-masochist marriage), most are for pleasure or at least for convenience. And their saving grace is always the divorce option. If divorce becomes necessary or advisable, then the earlier it is taken up, the better, ideally when both can still be friends and collaborators in the education of any offspring.

In some ways marriages are mini-panarchies, characterized by a degree of personal law rule, exterritoriality, voluntary membership, individual secessionism and some autonomy. It may either be a matriarchic or a patriarchic regime, or a democratic one, requiring either unanimous consent between the two main partners, or, if there are some children involved, who are still young but already somewhat rational, perhaps a majority-democratic regime or a somewhat representative democracy. The resemblance would come closer if e.g. children may be freely adopted or ask to be adopted and if they may also divorce themselves from their parents. It would come closer still, if the State permitted all kinds of marriage agreements to take place and to be binding upon the participants until they are dissolved: Polygamy, polyandry etc. etc. Numerous deviations should be possible from the family law imposed by states. I would like to see e.g. a publication that listed details of 50-500 different models of marriage contracts and freedom for all participants to select any of them for themselves. It is absurd to assume that only one form of contract, that prescribed by the state one lives in, would suit all kinds of couples and this not only temporarily but for the rest of their lives. Such a book, even though it would presently list no more than theoretical options, that could only be internally enforced, by mutual consent, might become a bestseller. Perhaps someone has already produced such a work and I have simply never come across it. An extract from all the marriage forms observed by anthropologists might also be helpful.

If we had this kind of freedom and also freedom in the job or profession sphere, away from imposed and regulated few legal business forms and organizations, towards a multitude of more or less autonomous organization developments and industrial experiments, that would liberate man at the work place, in accordance with his own ideals and those of his workmates, then, in combination with religious liberty and, perhaps, a comparable freedom of choice in the sphere of education and combined with the already extensive panarchistic options regarding lifestyles, entertainment, sports involvement, reading choices, fashions, music and arts choices, choice of hobbies and crafts, most people would be much more inclined to seriously consider panarchistic choices regarding economic and political systems, too.

You still seem to hold that a minimum of local and geographical organization would be required. I am inclined to deny the need for any governmental form for this.
The closest, that I would come to this would be some neighbourhood associations of local volunteers, who would lay down some rules for themselves, i.e. only for their voluntary members, not for dissenters. I have started but not yet finished a discussion with Jim Stumm on this alternative but got somewhat turned off by some of his standard prejudicial objections. The average prejudiced and ignorant man of today would, naturally, not be an ideal member for an ideal citizen force of militia. But such an institution could also be made to grow from small beginnings and would have a role to play in the introduction of panarchism in totalitarian countries, in turning revolutions from mutual slaughters into peaceful panarchistic settlements.

In a developed form, their international federations could take the desirable functions of a world federation without the organizational handicaps of a world government organization. Locally, they would largely operate democratically and would at the same time constitute a representative elite. Members of all kinds of panarchies would also be in many instances voluntary members of such panarchies - to realize the common aim of protecting those different sets of individual rights which are recognized and claimed by the members of different panarchies. Obviously, there would be many panarchies that would not claim certain rights. To that extent they would not need militia protection.

In PEACE PLANS 61-63 I have supplied some details on the functions of such militias in war and peace, in revolutions and insurrections.
To the extent that I advocate a militia, one even better than the Swiss and the original Anglo-Saxon and American revolutionary models, I do advocate the overthrow by force, not violence, of many dictatorial and especially totalitarian regimes.
I do not advocate the overthrow of any democratic or republican regime, since they allow most of the necessary changes to take place via propaganda. But, even here, sometimes some disobedience and resistance actions would be justified, which would only resist certain unjust actions of such governments, not their right to exist for all those who do like them.

To the extent, naturally, that panarchists do advocate individual secessionism from any government - armed force or trade union with compulsory membership - it does advocate the destruction of the coercive features of these organizations - without aiming to destroy these organizations themselves. They could continue to exist and to supply satisfactory service - for their voluntary members. The stroke of a pen could liberate them from all their present difficulties with revolutionaries, resistance fighters, terrorists, dissidents and opposition parties.

Panarchists do appreciate that at least in some of States now existing the panarchistic options can be freely discussed and would, in most cases, be prepared to defend the remaining liberties against those who would attack them. With their panarchist program they could help a democratic government against e.g. a totalitarian regime much more than they merely could with their own lives and property. E.g. : war and peace aim in any clash with the Soviet Union: Full exterritorial autonomy for all voluntary members of the already known ca. 135 minority groups in the present territory of the Soviet Union - and for all other minorities, too, including the minorities of incurable communists and socialists. Such a program made public and uttered in a trustworthy form, as a promise to be relied upon, could have great political and military effects. It would tend to dissolve the domineering and aggressive powers of a totalitarian regime while strengthening the own liberating and defensive powers.

Nuclear power is merely territorial power driven to extremes and applied destructively to whole foreign nations, while being unable to protect the own against a similar fate. That it is still perceived as a power and strength, instead of as a liability and weakness, clearly indicates how much people are in the power of customary terms and ideas.

With regard to protective police functions, I need only point out the competition already existing between State police forces and hundreds of private security, night-watch and patrol forces. I do hold that the latter private police forces would become even better if they were not supervised and controlled by the State and limited in their functions. And they would have much less chances to hush up any remaining internal scandals or "abuses of police power" against the public.

Alternatives to State police forces have often been proposed and discussed and we should remember how short the life span of State police forces has been historically.
Much has also been written on alternative judiciary arrangements. One of the shortest and most recent articles of this kind and a rather accessible one is: Daniel J. Popeo, Privatizing the Judiciary, The Freeman, August 1988.

A historical and panarchistic precedent is also the consular jurisdiction - for which there exists an extensive literature. Admittedly, it did not offer an unlimited choice among private judiciary services but merely gave nationals of nations A,B,C, the chance of having their cases heard before their own consuls, while they were living in a foreign country, rather than having them submitted to the ordinary courts of that foreign country.

Such alternative jurisdiction and "capitulations" establishing it in details, go back, in at least some primitive forms, not only hundreds but thousands of years and coincided, probably, to a large extent with the opening up of foreign trade and with the occupation of foreign countries, that were, to a large extent, left whatever benefits they could derive, or they believed to be able to obtain, by their customary laws and institutions - as long as they paid their "dues" in human lives and tributes to the conqueror.

What you described as "A Short Outline of Panarchistic History" in America, would more accurately be described as an outline of the panarchistic thoughts and activities of one, namely Le Grand E. Day.
Many panarchistic thoughts can be found in the writings of Tucker and Spooner and their predecessors, usually when discussing the usurpations of the State, their type of anarchism or voluntaryism and "individual sovereignty". Spencer's SOCIAL STATICS was probably better known in the U.S. than in the U.K. Fichte's panarchist pages may have remained unknown in the US until I translated and reproduced them in my series. De Puydt's article on Panarchy, in PP 4, ca. 1964/5, was reproduced in LeFevre's Rampart Journal. Ayn Rand discussed and attacked the concept of "competing governments" in: The Virtue of Selfishness etc. etc.

Personal laws and consular jurisdiction and capitulations were never quite unknown to American jurists and politicians. In other words, panarchy has many different roots and has actually persisted for much longer than the territorial nation state has, which came up in its present form only during the last 300-400 years.

A close examination why the personal law model did not prevail against the national territorial law model would be worthwhile, I believe. It should be approached, as far as possible, without any preconceived notions.

In my ON PANARCHY series, I do try to bring together all previous writings on this option and precedents for it.

That you have gone as far as you did on your own steam is, indeed, admirable. But good ideas usually occur at different times in several good heads - and are all too often and for too long forgotten by the many, until they become rediscovered again and again.

Jewish predecessors, after World War I in Europe, quite inaptly called themselves "territorialists" because they wanted to realize personal law and voluntary autonomy for themselves within the territory of the old czarist empire, rather than migrating to a foreign country like Palestine. Due to a very inapt defence of their case, the Zionists won the debate for their genuinely territorialist case.
What turn might history have taken otherwise?

Adrian Falk was the main translator of the Panarchy article. My former wife and myself were able to supply only the draft of a rough translation to him, which Adrian and his sister polished up.
I am not convinced that de Puydt would have agreed with your qualifications for the exterritorial autonomy of panarchies. He might merely have argued that those who would not want to opt out of all geographical organizations should be at liberty to do so, too and to establish a partly-territorial and partly exterritorial form of panarchy - for themselves. But he would have defended the right of others to go the whole way, to exterritorial autonomy, especially if he had had the experience of the wars since 1860.

Any government's declaration of war (rather than, believably, of a genuine liberation or defence effort), is to be considered as an invitation to rational individuals to secede from such a government.
You quoted me on 2 pages but did not say when and where I had written these 2 pages. It must have been so long ago that the text appeared unfamiliar to me. For instance, by now I do no longer consider government paper money issues, even excessive ones, as "forgery". How can one "forge" one's own currency? Fraud and coercion are, indeed, involved, through legal tender and the issue monopoly but they are distinct form fraud. It would be more accurate to describe such paper money as "requisitioning certificates". (Here Day had assumed that a short paper on panarchy, that was really written by David Taylor, had been written by me and ascribed it to me. – J.Z., 12.12.04.)

Moreover, the panarchist principle DOES "impose" a particular ideology or regime upon SOME, namely the voluntary members of a particular panarchy, as long as they can stand it. Then they may secede from it.
Furthermore, lately I have more and more stressed one aspect which de Puydt mentioned only all too shortly, namely, that each should also be free to choose the non-government of his dreams for himself. Even my anarchist father, in his short panarchist slogan, speaks only of "To each the GOVERNMENT of his dreams", as if anarchists were not to be given their panarchist choice.
(Although he was an advocate of panarchism, it is quite typical for many of these few, that they do not apply it consistently. He, in his short formula, did not apply it to anarchists and regarding land-reform he did not want to apply it at all. – J.Z., 12.12.04.)

In these two pages the connection between panarchism and peace and panarchism and its self-realization via the existence of the numerous existing minorities, was stated all too shortly. I also doubt that many saw clearly enough the connection between the nuclear war threat and territorial rule through these short hints.
If these pages were merely quoted from one of my letters, please mention this next time you quote me. Everybody understands that letters are usually written with less care than articles are. I have often written them when I was already excessively tired, late at night or early in the morning.
To attempt a panarchistic glossary is a good idea but it seems to me that we have a considerable way to go before we even achieve agreement between the two of us on its contents.
In my article or letter, on page 3, I explained panarchy all too shortly as "pan-archy: many chiefs, multi-government".

The word Panarchy, not the libertarian concept of Panarchy, has been explained differently by some dictionaries and writers (like Ralph Borsodi), in an opposite sense: Totalitarian government, government everywhere, World government, All-powerful government, united governments, Domination over all.
As opposed to this interpretation, I, with Beckerath, followed de Puydt's interpretation: governments everywhere, with the silent addition: fully in accordance with individual choice, even several governments within the same house or family, all only exterritorially autonomous, in accordance with individual choices.
Others have simply and literally transcribed the two verbal roots: "pan" and "archy", from the Greek.
Pan means there: "all",  "everywhere" or "universal",  apart from its other and irrelevant meanings in English.
Archy means there "rule", "government" or "domination".

For de Puydt "panarchism" or “panarchy” would exist when there are many different panarchies, all in the same territory and all chosen by volunteers and only for themselves and like-minded people.

Introducing the plural "panarchies" is the only way how somehow the possibility of many different governments, everywhere in the same territory, can be hinted at.
For such panarchies can certainly not be omnipresent (wherever there are individuals that have chosen them) unless they are exterritorially organized and on a voluntary basis. The singular form, "panarchy", does not clearly enough express this alternative and has led and will lead to misunderstandings.

What Ayn Rand called and attacked, very much misunderstanding it, as a straw-man, and referred to as "competing governments" (I still do not know what writings or talks had suggested this concept to her – for she does not state this detail. – J.Z., 12.12.04.) is somewhat clearer in the expression but, since most people can conceive governments so far only as territorial and warlike organizations, her misunderstandings and aversions followed quite naturally. (Alas, she could not even conceive the possibility of private and competing police forces – although they are all around us, in form of private security, patrol and night-watchmen service companies. – J.Z., 12.12.04.)

If one called them merely pluralistic organizations, then all the many and all too established notions of pluralism would be introduced, most still based on uniform and territorial states made-up merely out of diverse groupings with very limited autonomy or authority and still subordinated to the all-over territorial State. Your Multi-Government concept comes close to some of these pluralist ideas.
If one tries to characterize them as "voluntaryist" organizations, then neither is their exterritorial nature clearly enough characterized, nor is the possibility clearly enough indicated that even aristocratic, monarchist and despotic forms of States might, exterritorially, be continued by volunteers.
Multi-government was also open to some misinterpretations.

“Panarchy” had at least the advantage that the word was not widely known and used and thus not widely misunderstood already. Consequently, there was the chance that one could GIVE it the meaning one wanted to give it, somewhat apart from the meaning of the two words thus combined.
In Germany we used the term, at least since the early thirties, in Werner Ackermann's Cosmopolitan Union, of "Exterritoriale und autonome Rechtsschutzgemeinschaften von Freiwilligen", a real mouthful, meaning: “Exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers that protect their rights."
"Coexisting governments over volunteers in the same area" is also a mouthful but would come close to the intended meaning.
“Choice government” is again too short a term to describe the panarchistic potential clearly.
Diverse exterritorial governments, by individual choice, would be more clear but again too long a term for easy use.

Perhaps an abbreviation of one or the other of the long terms would be attractive enough?
I have lately no longer bothered to respond to references to panarchy in THE CONNECTION, since the response to my responses was all too poor and since I could not say as much as I wanted to say in the few free pages offered with the THE CONNECTION subscription and additional pages, although cheap if considered as advertisements, where expensive when related to the low quality responses received.
Perhaps you should consider reproducing some of the classical panarchistic writings in installments in your newsletter, even with pages reduced in size. Most of your present and future readers will still not be familiar with these text and so far, most certainly, most of them have not yet become readers of my libertarian microfiche on this subject.

To reduce the risk and save the space in the newsletter for your kind of dialectic or other discussion, you might also consider simply keeping a good paper copy handy, for photocopying upon demand and offering these photocopies for sale in your newsletter.
Furthermore, since at least at this stage only very few are prepared to make the change-over to supplementary microfiche reading, it would not do the circulation of your newsletter any harm if you mentioned all or at least some of the panarchistic titles offered by me. A newsletter on its own is never enough to supply sufficient enlightenment. Its readers must be encouraged to do some independent reading of their own. Only then is a full and free discussion of the issues likely to occur.
In my kind of panarchism there would not be "administrative districts" - except for those panarchists who had not yet quite liberated themselves from territorial thinking and practices.

ACUF: Absolute, Complete, Uncompromising Freedom. Since so many are prepared to claim it for themselves but not to grant it to others, licence rather than liberty might be involved in the eyes of many. Think of the Stirnerian egoists who still hold that might is right and then ask yourself whether you would want many of this kind of individualist in your neighbourhood or whether, after a few "anarchistic" crimes committed by them against you and your peaceful neighbours, you would not rather associate to drive them out or imprison them and extort indemnification from them. There can be no peace with people who suffer from delusions of grandeur and behave like absolute monarchs towards others. A religious hermit or a green revolution retreatist or other peaceful loner would be another matter. But I do hold that even of these one could rightfully demand a public declaration of their attitude towards the rights and liberties of their neighbours. And their declarations must be backed by their actions. They need not belong. But they must not interfere, either.

Geographic democracy: It should be an option for those local volunteers who like it. And they majority decisions should only bind them, not others. And their dissenters must still be free to opt out from under them.

Geographically necessary functions of government? I do not know of any. Please, try to convince me and others that there are such animals.

Individual contract theory: each "person" makes his own contract with the panarchy of his choice." - In practice, he would probably just subscribe to the uniform model contract of the panarchy of his choice. And one should make clear that babies, senile and other mentally defective persons are not free, adult and rational "persons" in this sense, nor are criminals on the run. One could also elaborate the "social contract" theory to include individual and volunteer group and minority autonomy contracts.

Integrated Force: There would be no such thing in my kind of panarchies. But there would be diverse protection companies and voluntary local militias for the protection of individual rights, to the extent that these are already widely recognized and in particular cases actually claimed rather than renounced.

J.D. Here you had probably Judicial Democracy in mind rather than J.R. Judicial Republic.

Millennium: Should we in any way hint at it or promise it? Too many have already done so and disappointed their followers with their utopias. Many human problems will remain, even after panarchism has been generally introduced and maintained. Rich and powerful people are not always known for their happy disposition. They, too, have personal problems. The aim is merely to see to it that imposed economic, political and ideological systems are not added to the natural and personal problems of living - unless individuals really do ask for them.

Operational decisions: Via "mere" operational and seemingly insignificant decisions, real power can gradually be accumulated, as the development of many organizations has shown. I would only join a panarchy with an easy veto, initiative and referendum option and minimal discretionary powers for any temporarily elected functionaries.

Policy: I doubt that panarchist policy should change with the times, places and moods of people. But the internal policies of panarchies would change in these and other ways. But their basic panarchistic structure and organization: exterritorialism, voluntary membership, full autonomy, individual right to secede, personal laws for them, and external policies based upon the recognition of individual rights, to the extent that these are claimed, should remain inflexibly principled and unchanged.

Pure Democracy: It's a rather pure myth: When 2/3 are entitled to vote, 2/3 do make use of the right to vote, the elected combined 2/3 or the cast votes upon themselves and their decisions are made with a 2/3 majority then actually a minority of 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 16/81 = ca. l/5th of the population does make the rule on an issue. Democrats usually call such votes "landslide" or "vast majority" victories.
And outvoted minorities cannot always be simply presumed to be ready to subordinate themselves. Some would do so willingly, others only if forced like a conquered enemy.

Relative Doctrine: Are gun control and abortion really non-panarchy issues? I can well imagine panarchies in which guns are prohibited for their members and others in which they are obligatory. Likewise, I can imagine panarchies that prosecute abortions as murders and others that reward them.

Your definition of panarchy: It could not be derived from "panacea" and "anarchy". These terms are each by themselves derived from at least two roots. The two root words are "pan" and "archy".
Panarchy does not only offer each different group of anarchist his kind of panacea of anarchy but also each different group of archist his type of panacea government.
Panarchy would not "eliminate the State" but merely eliminate its coercive and monopolistic features.
Government services could continue for those wanting them and who str willing to pay for them.
Moreover, panarchies need not be confined to the same land mass. Some of them might have members in several or in all continents. For a while even some different world government or world federation panarchies might be popular.
"The overwhelming will of the people" should still be applied only in their own affairs, not in the peaceful affairs of dissenters.

Decentralization: Exterritorial autonomy and voluntarism for economic and political organization make not only decentralization but also centralization possible - on a voluntary, autonomous and exterritorial basis, i.e. very different from the geographical decentralization and centralization that most people have in mind most of the time when they use these terms in connection with governmental activities.
You ought to read at least Fichte with his statements on the connection between individual secession from the State and revolution.
Each revolution is at least initially and for a short while one such individualist secessionist event. It deteriorates into bloodshed, despotism and military and financial adventures and "social policies" only by ending the initial individual secessionism and the individual sovereignty upon which it rests, i.e. by territorially introducing the political process and collectivist decision-making.

Individual secessionism, continuously practised by individuals, as they change their minds and interests, amounts to a permanent revolution for all institution. It is a radical revolution for the individuals involved but a gradual revolution for the institutions involved, which thus lose or gain members one by one and will, in consequence, change some of their rules to reduce secessions or to attract more new members – or to achieve both.

Introducing panarchistic ideas and practices into existing revolutions and civil wars can have very significant peace, justice and liberty-promoting effects.

Panarchy will come and stay via the "one-man-revolution", which provides its beauty - and its limits.

FIOT (Freedom In Our Time): I copied this from some U.S. libertarians and used it long after they discontinued it. At one stage or the other, upon your example or that of someone else, I changed over to PIOT (Panarchy In Our Tme). I do not know when this happened and do not consider the issue important enough to want to bother looking for the change in my files of correspondence.

If you should get excess responses, which you cannot fit into your newsletter, please do submit them to me for filming in my ON PANARCHY series. And let your readers know that, in the format that I use and that they may also freely use, they can be as long-winded as they want to be, as long as they make some sort of sense. If not, in my eyes, then they can sponsor the costs involved or become independent microfichers themselves.

Please date and paginate your newsletter. You still do not have to promise regular appearance but merely a certain number of copies or pages for a subscription.
You could also do worse than continuously point out to your readers that panarchy would mean nothing more than the extension of the autonomy of the numerous peaceful voluntary associations that are now existing in the U.S., into political, economic and social spheres that are now monopolized and all too mismanaged by the government, precisely because of the absence of competition and individual choice or consumer sovereignty towards government services.

Where these voluntary associations still do clash to some extent, it is usually about the contents of legislation about which they do disagree. Each does not want for itself the kind of legislation the other favors for all and none of them has so far seriously considered the personal law alternatives – simply out of sheer ignorance of it.
To discuss most panarchist questions sufficiently, we would need almost a daily publication or, at least quarterly, the equivalent in page numbers and that is affordable only on microfiche, for people like you and me and for many of our potential readers.
(J.Z.: To this must now at least be added the floppy disk, the online and the CD-ROM options. – J.Z., 12.12.04.)

I am looking forward to meeting you in person and hope to be able to give you sufficient advance notice.

PIOT, John

P.S.: The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary describes "pan" as of Greek origin, a combination form and formative element, representing "all". It gives examples like : Pan-African, Pan-American, Pan-Britannic, Pan-denomi-national (of or embracing all religious denominations), Pan-German, Pan-Islam, Pan-Slavic, Pan-theology (a synthetic theology comprehending all deities and religions).
Arch is there given as the Greek prefix for "chief". Archy isn't mentioned separately.
One of my old German dictionaries gives the meaning of Panarchy as "All-Herrschaft"   or  universal rule.
By all means, we should attempt to offer and popularize our own definitions but should not do so without being aware of or mentioning   other   and  different   definitions.
My father's concept of panarchy is qualified by him wanting to eliminate land tenure systems from panarchic alternatives. Instead, he wants to impose his kind of land-reform system upon the world "because it is right and logical and everybody ought to see   this   and  ought to subscribe to it!" Oh sancta simplicitas!
I would like to microfilm all letters discussing panarchy, whether pro or con. One of the other might finally contain the happy expression that will "conquer" the world's minds in favor of panarchism.  

John Zube


[Home] [Top]