An Anthology of
Wisdom & Common Sense
On the personal and social changes required to achieve
freedom, peace, justice, enlightenment, progress & prosperity in our time
Index - A
(1973 - 2012)
A-TERRITORIAL, AN-TERRITORIAL OR NON-TERRITORIAL? A-TERRITORIALISM, AN-TERRITORIALISM OR NON-TERRITORIALISM? A-TERRITORIALIST, AN-TERRITORIALIST OR NON-TERRITORIALIST? - The "a" version has the advantage of being the shortest. It is not necessarily the clearest, although used in terms like apolitical and asexual. In relation to panarchism and anarchism I prefer the "an" version as a construct with a different meaning of anarchism. It would allow archism but only on a voluntary and non-territorial basis. Non-geographical is also a misleading term, since it relates to the science of geography and cartography rather than to the organization of man - apart form different colors on charts, indicating territorial States. - J.Z., 9.10.04. See the list of NAMES.
A-TERRITORIALISM: Territorial powers can be overcome, relatively easily, once the potential for a-territorial self-government becomes recognized and realized. See, mainly, under: EXTERRITORIALISM.
ABANDON GOVERNMENT: abandoning the government sector to unrestricted market forces." – Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Goodbye to Nationalisation, 166. - In other words, abandoning the greatest monopolist in favour of consumer sovereignty, of the right of individuals to choose between and to be served by competing service agencies. Will we once look down upon such territorialist market restrictions as we do now upon restrictions of religious liberty? - J.Z. 20.1.93. - SECESSION BY INDIVIDUALS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, IGNORING THE STATE, PANARCHISM, PLURALISM, MARKET, COMPETITION, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM
ABANDON GOVERNMENT: Governments must not be abolished! They must be abandoned..." - Robert LeFevre, Autarchy. – Except for statists doing their own things to themselves, exterritorially! – J.Z., 3.11.08.
ABDICATION: Dr. Mises, we will agree with you that we are in troubled times but, Dr. Mises, let's assume that you are the dictator of the United States, and could impose any changes you think appropriate. What would you do?" Quick as a flash Mises said, "I would abdicate," and so would I.” - L. E. Read, The Miracle of the Market, p. 60 of Champions of Freedom. - However, did Mises ever advocate the right of individual citizen to abdicate or renounce their citizenship (a supposed mastery over politicians and public servants but, really, a subject relationship), without thereby losing a single individual right? Nay, as far as I know, he wanted to uphold the totalitarian nature of territorial exclusive rule for his kind of ideal limited government. He did not even advocate individual secession for limited government advocates. - J.Z. 20.1.93. - The abdication of individuals from their voting and citizen power within the present territorial States, their individual renunciations of territorial powers and participation in them, combined with their assumption of individual sovereignty and exterritorial autonomy within volunteer communities, promises us much more than the rare abdication of powerful individuals has ever achieved for us. Experimental freedom and freedom of action for all, in all spheres, naturally, only at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 23.9.01. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, MINORITY AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.
ABBEY, PHILIP R: Treaty Ports & Extraterritoriality in 1920's China, 11pp, online, 1998, firstname.lastname@example.org - Please send comments, additional information, and corrections to email@example.com -(This address is no longer valid now. - J.Z., 14.10.11.) First uploaded February 1, 1997 - Revised and uploaded December 14, 1998. - Copywrite 1997, 1998 by Philip R. Abbey - Permission to use for educational purposes granted provided credit is given and copywrite holder notified by email of intended use and user. - What would have happened in China and the world if the UNEQUAL treaties had been replaced by EQUAL ones, granting Chinese the same rights in other countries, the right to establish treaty ports or free ports and free industrial zones in other countries - under Chinese laws - of whatever variety the Chinese there themselves would have wanted for themselves? That was an opportunity for equal freedom and rights and the establishment of Cosmopolitan Republicanism or panarchism in the world. But in the absence, of e.g. monetary freedom, which could have assured full employment for immigrants, hatreds against "foreign devils" and the "yellow peril" remained and the world suffers the consequences still. - Naturally, the occupation of whole territories (apart from purchased real estate) and the maintenance of foreign military forces in China would have had to be ended. - Moreover, not only "protegee citizens" would have had to be tolerated in China. But Chinese in China should have been given the individual choice to establish or join various Chinese and exterritorially autonomous communities, under their own personal laws - and the nationals in all other countries should have been given the same freedom. Alas, neither side demanded such a just settlement. They were addicted to territorialist ideas - and still pay high and bloody prices for them. - J.Z., 23.1.99.
ABDICATION: In The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defines abdication as: "An act whereby a sovereign attests his sense of the high temperature of the throne." - Is it enough and sensible to merely try to make it hot for politicians? Would its temperature rise if individuals were free to secede from it? Perhaps no ruler is so bad that he would not at least find some subjects who are worse and are willing to remain with him. Let them. Any government is good for its supporters. It will teach them a lesson. But all governments ought to abdicate their rule over all dissenters, starting perhaps with governments-in-exile becoming competitive and aiming only at voluntary support and recognising each other to that extent. This approach could lead to the dissolution of all totalitarian and despotic powers over involuntary victims. A confederation for the liberation struggle of all exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities could eventually achieve the support of the majority of the world population. - I hope it will not take as long to recognize this liberty as it took and takes to recognize the analogous religious liberty and tolerance. Abdication for citizens! - J.Z. 20.1.93.
ABDICATION: once people can manage for themselves … what better can a king do for them than take off his crown? - Poul Anderson, Tau Zero, Coronet edition, 1978, 1980, p.190. - MONARCHY, RULERS, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS
ABDICATION: Who - except a freakish intellectual - has ever been argued into giving up political power when he doesn't have to; and to give it up, moreover, for the sake of an abstraction, a principle? The idea is ludicrous!” - Julian Barnes, OBSERVER, 6 May 1979. - This is one of the reasons why I rather advocate the right of individual subjects to abdicate or individually secede from the systems of the power holders and to become exterritorially autonomous with other volunteers in their own communities. - J.Z. 20.1.93. - OF POWER, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM VS, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM
ABOLITION OF GOVERNMENTS: Abolition by disuse only or by free competition with an inferior service or enforced disservice. "I would abolish nothing except by disuse,"... for "anything is good enough for the man who believes in it, and the first step forward is not abolition but disbelief." - Ernest Howard Crosby, quoted by Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.336. - COMPETITION, DESTRUCTION, REVOLUTION, REFORM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, DISBELIEF, DOUBT
ABOLITION OF GOVERNMENTS: the libertarian must be an 'abolitionist', i.e. he must wish to achieve the goal of liberty as rapidly as possible. (*) If he balks at abolitionism, then he is no longer holding liberty as the highest political end. (**) The libertarian, then, should be an abolitionist who would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty. (***) Following the classical liberal Leonard Read, who advocated immediate and total abolition of price and wage controls after World War II, we might refer to this as the 'button-pushing' criterion. Thus, Read declared that 'If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage and price controls instantaneously, I would put my finger on it and push!' The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push a button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty - not something, by the way, that any utilitarian would ever be likely to do." – Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p.254. - We are not in this world to make choices for others but, rather, to make our own choices. At most we should help those, who ask us, individually, to help them, to make their own choices. If they choose to be fools, that is their right. The only button each individual should be quite free to push, in the desired direction, is himself. If volunteers want to continue price controls among themselves, he should let them. It should never be forgotten that price controls are even now rather popular with all too many. One cannot convert others against their will. Even after decades of relatively free pricing, few do as yet understand it and given their choice, they have done away with it in many spheres, again, e.g. regarding medical services. They have not learnt their lesson yet. They are not yet ripe for full freedom. They need their regulations and it is their right to practice them. - Only all impositions upon others and oneself should be done away with, but not their different and free choices, however much we dislike them and however harmful they objectively are for those who choose them. Rothbard sails dangerously close to one of the main flawed maxims of the drug and alcohol prohibitionists. Price controls are objectively poison. But let them have their chosen poison. People do have the right to make their own mistakes. But let us get rid of territorially imposed systems, because they do not offer all individuals their choices. -– (*) Let individuals make their on choices and all of society will advance as fast as it can. – (**) Abolition of compulsory state membership, of territorial rule and law, of collective and absolutist sovereignty, would be enough. Then a political market could develop. – (***) Unless these are individually and voluntarily chosen, as Catholics choose some censorship for themselves, by staying in that ward relationship voluntarily. Freedom to be unfree, i.e. free choice even of voluntary slavery. - J.Z. 20.1.93. - ABOLITIONISM & BUTTON PUSHING
ABOLITION OF GOVERNMENTS OR ONLY ABOLITION OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS? "Abolition of all forms of government is the libertarian political proposal that binds together left and right wing anarchists as does the common social vision of totally free individuals integrated with small, autonomous, intentional communities." - ELF, 1972. - But there is still the vast difference between "abolition" by destruction and abolition, step by step, through competing better alternatives that are freely chosen by individuals - whenever they are ready for them. Moreover, there are all kinds of ideas on "smallness", degree of autonomy and type of community, as well as of "limited governments", with most people being able to envision only exclusive and territorial ones and unable to envision non-territorial ones. This happens in spite of the fact that much of their private lives is spent and enjoyed in non-territorial association with other but like-minded people. – J.Z., 1986, 2004.
ABOLITIONISM, GRADUALISM OR FREE CHOICE? Don't make the gradualist or abolitionist choice for others - but see to it, as far as you can, that you become free to make your choice for yourself and they for themselves. Panarchism does not demand any more and will not be satisfied with anything less. - J.Z. 21.4.89, 3.7.89.
ABOLITIONISM, THE NEW ABOLITIONISM: 1. Abolition of the “legal tender” coercion and fraud and of the monopoly of the central bank. No legal restriction upon competitively issued, optional and market rated exchange media and clearing certificates. - - 2.) Abolition of compulsory taxation but no restriction upon voluntary contributions to communities of volunteers that are exterritorially autonomous. - - 3.) Abolition of compulsory territorial State membership or subjugation, but no restriction upon individual and group secessionism and voluntary associationism, but no restrictions upon voluntary protection and defence organizations. - - 4.) Abolition of territorially imposed international & anti-economic “protectionism”, but no restriction upon voluntary communities practising “protectionism” or free trade at their own risk and expense only. 5.) Abolition of compulsory schooling, state financed and controlled, but no restriction upon self-financed, voluntary and competitive educational efforts. - - 6.) Abolition of the government’s monopoly to decide on war and peace, international treaties & alliances, armament and disarmament, but no restrictions upon voluntary communities or organizations making their own decisions on their own affairs, treaties and alliances and organizing, training and arming themselves with rightful and genuine weapons for the protection of their individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., n.d. & 23.10.07.
ABORIGINAL AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL & VOLUNTARY: I want Aboriginals to have a full vote and full self-responsibility in their own affairs and ourselves to have no vote in their affairs at all. But I would also like to see some "white" communities in which Aboriginals are excluded or have not vote at all, as well as various mixed ones, all on a voluntary basis. - J.Z., 30.7.82, 2.4.89. - Voluntary segregation and autonomy combined with voluntary integration and autonomy!
ABORIGINALS, TREATIES WITH THEM: Why only treaties for Aboriginals? Do we lack dissent within our coercively held together territorial institutions? Rather treaties for all minority and majority groups, on the basis of individual secessionism and associationism and individual sovereignty. All should be free to shop around for the kind of exterritorial, voluntaristic and competing free enterprises or cooperatives in the present sphere of government actions, constitutions, laws, administrations and jurisdiction, that would satisfy them, for their own affairs, even if they would not satisfy any of the non-members. The latter would be free to do their own things to and for themselves. More than that and rightful defensive actions against those outsiders, who physically attack one's personal preferences, tolerantly practised, they cannot rightly demand. - J.Z., 27.4.91, 12.1.93.
ABORIGINES, NATIVES, OTHER RACIAL MINORITIES & PANARCHISM: Opponents of racism should have the option of exterritorial autonomy for their own volunteer communities – but so should the racists. Who but racists would want to associate with racists? Compulsory segregation is obviously wrong, but so is compulsory integration. Let us have, instead, voluntary segregation and voluntary integration and no territorial monopoly for any group. Then each group would have to be on its best behaviour towards others but internally as free as it wants to be. Moreover, the monetary, financial and other economic liberties practised by some panarchies would lead to a degree of full employment and prosperity which would minimize the urge to blame “aliens” as scapegoats for the own suffering and thus racist beliefs and practices would tend to gradually shrink to almost insignificance, at least over a long period. - J.Z., n.d.
ABORIGINALS IN AUSTRALIA, THE OLDER JURIDICAL VIEW: Michael Perry, in “History in the dock”, The Sydney Morning Herald, smh.com.au, Jan. 31, 05, brings a review of the legal case diary of one of the first Australian Judges, Sir James Dowling, who arrived in Australia in 1828, conducted for 16 years, to his death in 1844, at the age of 57 It is now being published for the first time, edited by Prof. Bruce Kercher of Macquarie University and Sidney barrister Tim Castle, under the original title: “Selected Cases”: “The status of Aborigines also features in Select Cases. In two instances, the court would not allow the trial to proceed because there was no available interpreter. In one case, the court ruled an Aborigine dubbed Dirty Dick should not be tried under British law because he killed another Aborigine. He was discharged, but was sent to Van Diemen’s Land. Dowling recorded Forbes as saying it had been “the practice of the courts of this country – ever since the colony was settled – never to interfere with the quarrels that have taken place between the natives themselves.” - Modern Australian jurisdiction is far from as fully recognizing the binding force of Aborginal customs upon their own cases. Presumably it would even judge the cases of extraterrestrials among themselves – if some of them landed in Australia and settled here – if it would not try to imprison and deport them as “illegal immigrants”. – J.Z., 31.1.05.
ABORIGINALS: Full autonomy for Aboriginals. Not charity. - J.Z., 8.11.73, in PEACE PLANS 29. – Not subsidies or hand-outs at the expense of the tax-payers. Allow them e.g. to make their own contracts with foreign investors and treaties with Australian and foreign governments and to live under their own personal laws, exterritorially autonomous, not only in their set aside “reservations”. – J.Z., 8.11.08.
ABORIGINALS: Give this country back to the ABO, you convicts!" Inscription, with chalk on a tram station stop near the State Penitentiary, Maroubra, Sydney, seen: 21.5.60, - J.Z. - To recognize a monopoly claim of ca. 300,000 Aboriginals to a whole continent like Australia is even more ridiculous than recognising such an exclusive privilege for a mere 18 million white and other new settlers. - J.Z. 29.4.83, 20.1.93. - IMMIGRATION, TERRITORIALISM.
ABORTION QUESTION & PANARCHISM: The abortionists would tend to abort themselves, undisturbed. The anti-abortionists would cherish the lives of all their children. Only in the far future would the vast majority be likely to consider them as we consider now child sacrifices or child murders. The remaining minority of abortionists would THEN be treated like criminals with victims. Their unborn children would THEN no longer be considered as their "property". And transplantation options would exist for the unborn into willing and able mothers. - J.Z., n.d.
ABORTION: Abort territorial governments rather than babies! – Babies have an almost positive unlimited potential, while territorial governments have none, even in their “limited” stage. – J.Z., 9.11.97, 21.9.08.
ABORTION: Aborted children are the most innocent of all victims and, possibly, also the most numerous. They, certainly, cannot fight back against their enemies, in this case their parents, often allied with medical practitioners or even specialists. Their parents should be their guardians, not their terminators. Only the medical experts involved are complete strangers to these victims. As tax payers we are often forced to subsidize these mass murders. I assert that the unborn, are human beings from the day and hour of their conception and that they are entitled to be protected from any willful attacks against their survival. However , my view can hardly be sufficiently upheld and realized via laws and jurisdiction and penalties against such offenders. What can be done at this stage of lack of enlightenment & abundance of errors and prejudices in this respect? E.g. the exterritorialist political separation of anti-abortionists or pro-lifers from the abortionists. Further research into the transplant option for unborn children. Realization of all economic liberties, especially of full monetary and economic freedom and freedom for economically motivated migrants, to reduce the economic pressures, that induce parents or single mothers to consider abortion as a solution for themselves. A great liberalization of the laws on adoption, which have too often come between willing parents and unwanted babies. Education and upbringing loans. A more comprehensive declaration of all individual rights and liberties. More publication of all the facts of human development from conception to birth. An extension of the so far declared rights of children. – J.Z., 29.5.04, 29.10.07.
ABORTION: Abortions – yes, but only among those still believing in these sacrifices of their unborn children. (Hopefully, the number of these true believers in human sacrifices for their own convenience or because of their over-population or zero-growth spleens will thereby become diminished.) - J.Z., 04-11.
ABORTION: Abortionists are among the worst, the most intolerant "territorialists" in their actions towards the unwelcome arrival of "little strangers". And, naturally, they tend to ignore the biological information, the close relationship of a foetus not only to mother but also to its father and any father's obligation to keep his offspring alive and maintain them towards self-support. - J.Z., 22.12.92. – These unwanted “immigrants” are not deported but killed! – J.Z., 3.11.08. - Compare IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS.
ABORTION: I hold that abortion is murder and would never voluntarily join a community which recommended it or morally tolerated it. But I would not rely on the government to outlaw it for me. Governments have not been successful in this, either, if it is true that ca. 40 million children are killed every year, world wide, before they are born. At the same time, I would not object if - at this stage of all too limited enlightenment - the pro-abortionists seceded from my community or from the present State and did their "own" thing, i.e., did their own children in. In the long run, ruthless as this sounds, this would help to reduce the number of people who are immoral enough to commit infanticide on their own children before they are born. We cannot protect right now all innocent victims of violent actions by all people all over the world. At most we can do so within our own volunteer groups, and set an example to all others. - J.Z., n.d. & 20.1.93.
ABORTION: In my libertarian world-wide, but exterritorial, community any member involved in an abortion would be excommunicated at the least, if not highly fined or otherwise punished. In the possibly far future, when abortion has already become as unpopular as the murder of born children is now, the members of this community would sooner or later also claim the right to appoint themselves as guardians of an unborn child against its murderously inclined parents and would sue them for damages - for the benefit of other unborn children, through a trust-fund - in case they murdered their child. It could thus become quite "uneconomical" to murder an unborn child. Naturally, for the foreseeable future, this anti-abortion community would peacefully coexist with pro-abortion communities and with those communities that have no community policy on this question. By the nature of the procedure, pro-abortionists would, over many generations, tend to abort themselves. Or people with the kind of mentality allows them to rationalise themselves into such actions, would become rarer and rarer in the human stock. If my own anti-abortionist society ever became a pro-abortionist one, I would feel no loyalty towards the changed community but only to its older ideals. Thus I would secede from the new one, as much as I would from a Hitler, Stalin or Mao regime. - J.Z., n.d. & 20.1.93.
ABOVE THE LAW, BELOW THE LAW, OR SUBJECT ONLY TO THE SELF-CHOSEN LAWS? As a creative person, minding the own affairs, no one would be “above the laws” of others but simply beyond them. Nor would he be below their laws but, instead, only subject to his own “personal laws”. One would only subject oneself to the laws of others whenever one fraudulently or coercively interferes with their affairs, their rights and liberties or institutions. – J.Z., 20.3.91., 13.1.99.
ABRAMSON, S.: Centres and Peripheries in the Time of the Geonim, Jerusalem, 1965, in Hebrew, on self-government.
ABSOLUTISM: Absolutism has absolutely limited rightful powers. - J. & D.Z., 31.10.82. - Namely the power over its voluntary members only, which they have granted it. - J.Z. 21.1.93.
ABSOLUTISM: Territorialism, national sovereignty, compulsory state membership or subjugation and uniform constitutions, legislation, and jurisdiction for the whole territorial population are the worst absolutist and even totalitarian features of all States today, even the democratic and republican ones. - J.Z. 21.1.93.
ABSOLUTISM: the spirit of 'You will be free, like it or not!'" - Tibor Machan, Liberty & Culture, p.243. - Since most remain territorialists, even if territorial decentralists, they remain to that extent absolutistic, authoritarian, totalitarian and intolerant. - J.Z., 21.1.93. – Not libertarianism but confinement of their statism to their own volunteers, under exterritorial autonomy, could be rightly forced upon statists. – J.Z., 3.11.08 - INTOLERANCE AMONG ANARCHISTS & LIBERTARIANS
ABSTRACTIONS: Evil is the systematic substitution of the abstract for the concrete." - Jean Paul Satre. - I can think of some other evils. - J.Z., 6.4.89. - But forcing people to give their lives, liberty, property, earnings and other rights in the service of abstractions, imposed upon them as supposedly higher goals for all, that, indeed, is a great wrong and evil. - Aims and programmes, principles, dogmas and institutions, chosen by others and imposed upon peaceful dissenters, are wrong and evil. For this it does not matter whether they are more or less abstract or more or less concrete. Let each choose his own. - J.Z., 21.1.93.
ABSTRACTIONS: Herzen declares that any attempt to explain human conduct in terms of, or to dedicate human beings to the service of, any abstraction, be it never so noble - justice, progress, nationality - even if preached by impeccable altruists like Mazzini or Louis Blanc or Mill, always leads in the end to victimisation and human sacrifice. Men are not simple enough, human lives and relationships are too complex for standard formulas and neat solutions, and attempts to adapt individuals and fit them into a rational scheme, conceived in terms of a theoretical ideal, be the motives for doing it never so lofty, always lead in the end to a terrible maiming of human beings, to political vivisection on an ever increasing scale. The process culminates in the liberation of some , only at the price of enslavement of others, and the replacing of an old tyranny with a new and sometimes far more hideous one - by the imposition of the slavery of universal socialism, for example, as a remedy for the slavery of the universal Roman Church." - Isaiah Berlin, Russian Thinkers, 193. - Thus let them build or choose their own utopias for themselves, changing them whenever they like, as long as individuals remain free not only to join them but also to secede from them. Muslims, alas, I was told, do not recognize that degree of religious liberty as yet. - J.Z., 10.1.93.
ABUSES: Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?” – Martin Luther. - Nor are any affairs between consenting adults to be considered and treated like abuses by outsiders. Capitalism among consenting adults! That would prevent all "abuses" among such adults. The same applies to any form of socialism among consenting adults. - J.Z., 24. 11. 06. - ABOLITIONISM, PROHIBITIONS
ABUSES: It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon a supposition that he may abuse it." - Oliver Cromwell, 1599-1658. - - However, governments, with their unnatural powers and systems, have become so abusive towards their supposed subjects, that this kind of abuse could only be stopped or reduced to relative harmlessness, by reducing their powers to the minimum, i.e., to exterritorial autonomy by and over volunteers only. - J.Z. 21.1.93.
ABUSES: The essential problem is not that the system is abused - the real crime is that the system is able to be abused.” - Viv Forbes, Mine Your Own Business, 1977, p. 2. - I would rather say: "...the system can be abused." - All territorial and monopolistic and power systems can and should be reduced. Panarchism would reduce them to exterritorial, competitive ones, autonomous only over their own affairs, as determined by their voluntary members. - J.Z. 21.1.93.
ACADEMICS, ECONOMISTS & MONETARY FREEDOM, POLITICAL SCIENTISTS: The few modern academic writers who expressed panarchistic and monetary freedom ideas, all too belatedly, take note only of each other and not of the many prior writings of non-academics on these subjects. They and their teachings are also still ignored by most other academics. Most academic writers and lecturers still ignore these freedom options altogether or imagine them to be outdated. – J.Z., 15.1.05. - - Moreover, tax payers are forced to maintain these statist priests with their wrongful numerous wrongful and harmful dogmas, prejudices and false premises. And no one is allowed to opt out of the wrongful and coercive territorial systems and institutions that have been and still are constitutionally, legally and juridically established and also supported by the misleading academics, with their statist preachings. – J.Z., 24.10.07.
ACCUSATIONS: I accuse.” ("J'accuse". - Emile Zola, 1840-1902, title of open letter to French President about the Dreyfus Affair, 1898). - After all the hue and cry of this scandal - and of others - has died down, ready for the next, can we say that governments have become any better? They must loose the unnatural territorial powers “granted” to them, or, rather, so far tolerated in them, which made these scandals possible in the first place. First among these are compulsory state membership or subjugation, i.e. their territorial and sovereign status and the giant monopoly that results. - J.Z. 21.1.93. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, PUBLIC SCANDALS, CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM RATHER THAN MERE CRITICISM, PROTESTS, REVENGE, DESTRUCTION, MASS MURDERS, IDEAS ARCHIVE, ENLIGHTENMENT, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM.
ACHIEVEMENT: the sight of an achievement was the greatest gift a human being could offer to others." - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 226. - Perhaps the second greatest gift might be the experience offered by "competing governments" of volunteer communities, that tolerantly practised one or the other statist economic system within themselves, at their own risk and expense, thereby publicly disproving it. In free competition with various forms of free societies practised among their volunteers! The right to fail is almost as important as the right to succeed. Together they constitute the right to try or experiment - in every sphere. Ayn Rand would not grant it but insisted still upon a "limited" government with compulsory membership and an exclusive territorial monopoly. However, she did envision some form of voluntary taxation and made many panarchistic sounding remarks. - J.Z., 21.1.93. – Already the comprehensive registration of mere ideas, projects and proposals, would be an enormous achievement and could provide a market for the realization of all the good ideas among them, a great chance for their originators and promoters. – What passes now as “news” is, mostly, trivially insignificant with such a free market. – Enlightenment and progress could be immensely speeded up. - J.Z., 4.11.08. – IDEAS ARCHIVE, SUPER-COMPUTER PROJECT, PROJECTS LIST, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM
ACKERMANN, WERNER, Cosmopolitan Union". This short appeal, in at least 3 languages, can be found on www.butterbach.net, probably under www.exterritorial.net
ACKERMANN, WERNER: Werner Ackermann, The Cosmopolitan Union (1931) [English] - eZeittafel Werner Ackermann - (Pseudonym: u.a. Rico Gala, Robert Landmann, W. A. Fieldmann) - Zusammengestellt von Hans Mayer auf der Basis eines Interviews mit seiner Tochter Sonja Reissmann am 15/9/1991 und am 28/10/1991 in Mbabane/Swasiland und eigenen Recherchen: 28.12.1892: Geburt Emil Hermann Werner Ackermann (WA) in Antwerpen/Belgien als Sohn des deutschnationalen Buchhändlers Rudolf Ackermann und Elli, geb. Koeving; WA hat zwei Geschwister Hilde und Eduard; Rudolf Ackermann stammte aus einer Buchhändlerfamilie in Thüringen; Elli aus einer in die USA ausgewanderten deutschen Familie. Die Buchhandlung befand sich am Place verte in Antwerpen. - - ???: Erste Theaterstücke während der Schulzeit; wird von Max Reinhardt zum weiteren Schreiben ermuntert. - - Ca. 1909: WA optiert für deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft, Gründe sind unbekannt. - - ???: Student an der Universität Berlin, wahrscheinlich Literatur und Philosophie. - - 1913-14: Übersetzer in Genf/Schweiz, wahrscheinlich für Touringclub Suisse; Veröffentlichung erster Dramen (u.a. ‚Größe‘); Komödie ‚Der große Junge‘ - - 1914: Kriegsfreiwilliger auf deutscher Seite bei der Kavallerie; Einsatz an der belgischen Front. - - 1916 oder 1917: Kriegsverletzung. - - ???: Lazarettaufenthalt in Hannover. - - 1918: Entlassung aus dem Militärdienst im Dienstgrad eines Leutnants. - - 1919: Fam. Rudolf Ackermann erwirbt den Ahrenshooper Kunstkaten am Strandweg 1 und ein Haus in Sölden/Österreich aus den Entschädigungszahlungen für die Buchhandlung in Antwerpen. Kunstkaten wurde dann 1938 von der Familie (??) an die Gräfinnen von Dohna verkauft. (Kunstkarten? - J.Z.) - - 14.2.1920: Heirat in Berlin mit Hedwig Emma Ota Boehme (25/5/1892 – 19/11/86), die er in Hannover kennen gelernt hat; Ehepaar wohnt in Berlin-Schmargendorf, Hundekehlestr. 6. - - 1921/22: WA wird Teilhaber am Verlag Morawe & Scheffelt (seit 1923 ist Calandrellistr. Verlagssitz). - - 1921: Gründung der Buchhandlung und Verlagsbuchhandlung Ackermann (zusammen mit Fritz Pungs) in Berlin-Lankwitz (Calandrellistr 27-29); (wahrscheinlich Neugründung und keine Übernahme). - - 19.11.1921: Geburt der Tochter Sonja Ackermann. - - 1923: Verkauf der Buchhandlung an Fritz Pungs. Übernimmt zusammen mit dem Maler Hugo Wilkens, Max Bethke und William Werner (Schwager von Ackermann) die Künstlersiedlung Monte Verita in Ascona, Schweiz. Familie kommt nach. - - 26.10.1924: Geburt der zweiten Tochter Rita Ackermann, die nach 1 ½ Jahren bei einem Unfall in Ascona verstirbt. - - 1924: ‚Die Brücke‘ (Drama) - - 1924: Erst scheidet Bethke, dann scheiden WA und Wilkens aus der Eigentümergemeinschaft ‚Monte Verita‘ aus. WA bleibt mit Familie in Ascona. - - 1925: WA arbeitet an kosmopolitischen Grundsätzen; Streitigkeiten wegen Entschädigung für Monte Verita. - - 1928: Gründung des Provisorischen Sekretariats der Cosmopolitischen Union in Ascona; Mitgründer waren u.a. Ulrich von Beckerath und Kurt Zube. Die Union hat ca. 60 Mitglieder bevor sie 1933 (?) wieder aufgelöst wurde. (Es war, meines Wissens, der erste Versuch einer panarchistischen Organization, einer mit weltbuergerlicher Absicht. Ganz typisch, nannte Kurt H. Zube seinen neuen Verlag in Oestreich, nach dem 2. Weltkrieg: Weltweiter Verlag.) Beckerath, als ihr Sekretaer, verbrannte die Mitgliederliste in 1933, damit sie nicht in die Haende der Gestapo fallen konnte. - Nach Jahren waren wenigstens einige der Mitglieder sich immer noch nicht klar darueber, dass sie auch eine unabhaengige Rechtsprechung brauchen wuerden. - Der Etatismus war auch in ihren Koepfen so eingewurzelt! - J.Z., 27.8.11.) - - 1928/29 (??):Rückkehr nach Berlin, wohnhaft in Kurfürstenstr. 108 zur Untermiete im 3. Stock bei Frl. Lenz. - - 1928, wahrscheinl. 1929 (vgl Weltbühne 26.2.1930): Erstaufführung ‚Flucht nach Shanghai‘ in Königsberg; als MS in Literaturarchiv Akad.der Künste, Berlin; Beiträge u.a. in den Zeitschriften Weltbühne (1927, 1929, 1932 etc), Stachelschwein, Annalen/Schweiz und im Tagesanzeiger/Zürich sowie in der Basler Zeitung und in der Sonntagszeitung/Stuttgart. - - 1929: Hörspiele ‚Kleist sucht den Tod‘ und ‚Dr. Eisenbart‘ (zusammen mit Lönnerstädter/ Pseudonym von Alexander Weckerle???), in Literaturarchiv Akad. d. Künste. - - 1929: ‚Fünf Akte Lotterie‘ (Komödie) – als MS in Akad. D. Künste und in Nationalbibliothek Leipzig. - - 1929/1930: Schauspiel ‚Flucht nach Shanghai‘ wird von Jeßner am Staatlichen Schauspiel zu Berlin zunächst angenommen, dann aber doch nicht realisiert. - - 1930: Veröffentlichung der ‚Cosmopolitischen Grundsätze‘ ‚ in der Zeitschrift ‚Radikaler Geist‘, Heft 5, S.450. - - 1930: Sachbuch ‚Monte Verita – die Geschichte eines Berges‘ im Adalbert Schultz Verlag, Berlin; 3. Auflage im Pancaldi-Verlag, Ascona 1934; Neuauflage 1973 im Benziger Verlag; es folgen weitere Auflagen im Ullstein-Verlag und im Verlag Huber, Frauenfeld. - - 1931 (?):Umzug der Familie nach St. Tropez (ca. 6 Monate im Sommer); Wohnung bei M.Fayol. WA schreibt am Mussolini-Buch. - - 1931/32: Rueckkehr nach Berlin, wohnhaft in Künstlerkolonie am Breitenbachplatz, Barnayweg 7 (heute Steinrückweg). - - 1931/32: Matteotti-Drama ‚Staat ohne Volk.‘ (Der Titel koennte fuer Panarchisten interessant sein. - J.Z., 27.8.11.) - - 1932: Mussolini Buch ‚Wehe dem Sieger‘ Paul-Riechert-Verlag, Heide/Holstein, Auflage kurz nach Auslieferung vollständig vernichtet (wahrscheinlich von SA) ; Neuauflage1947 unter dem Titel ‚Matteotti besiegt Mussolini‘ im Schwerdtfeger Verlag, Karlsruhe; Auflage ‚Ein Toter besiegt Mussolini‘, Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle 1950 (in Nationalbibliothek Leipzig). - - 1932 (Herbst??): Über Sölden Umzug nach Ahrenshoop; Familie besitzt dort Haus direkt an der Ostseeküste aus Entschädigung für den Verlust der elterlichen Buchhandlung in Antwerpen nach dem 1. WK. - - März 1933: Türkeiaufenthalt bei jüngerer Schwester der Ehefrau; WA wollte dort mit Schwager etwas aufbauen; scheitert. (Es war, wahrscheinlich, damals selbst in der Tuerkei sicherer als in dem neuen Nazi-Deutschland. - J.Z., 27.8.11.). - - ???: Ehefrau und Tochter Sonja ziehen in die Schweiz zu älterer Schwester der Ehefrau. - - ???: Tochter Sonja zieht zu Onkel und Tante nach Istanbul und besucht dort bis 1938 die Schule. - - ???: Umzug WA nach Ibiza/Balearen, Projekt scheitert. - - ca. 1934: Umzug WA mit Ehefrau nach Antwerpen/Belgien. - - ???: Übersetzungen der Werke von Stijn Steuvels aus dem Flämischen; WA muss dafür Mitglied im deutschen Schriftstellerverband werden (Referenz von Nazi-Schriftsteller Eberhard Wolfgang Mueller, den er aus der Kosmopolitischen Union kennt); ‚Die Engel am feurigen Ofen‘ erscheint 1936 im Engelhornverlag, Stuttgart ; ‚Die zwölf Monde‘ erscheint 1945ebenfalls im Engelhornverlag, Stuttgart (beide in Nationalbibliothek Leipzig);‘Knecht Jahn‘. Übersetzung von Elisabeth Zernike ‚Brautleute‘; Tiefland, Amsterdam/Leipzig 1941 (Nationalbibliothek Leipzig). - - 1936: ‚Langusten für das Volk‘ (Roman, Hörspiel, Schauspiel); gesendet als Hörspiel im August 1947 (Landesarchiv Bad.-Württemberg) und 1949 in Halle/Saale; ‚Le duel américain‘ (Hörspiel). - - 1936/37 (?):Umzug nach Brüssel; WA stellt Antrag auf belgische Staatsbürgerschaft, scheitert aus finanziellen Gründen. - - 1938: ‚Dolores und Juan, Kinder aus Spanien‘ (Schauspiel), Uccle-Brüssel. - - 1939: Bei Kriegsbeginn von den Belgiern interniert. (Dr. Walter Zander, der nach England geflohen war, wurder dort auch als "Feind" interniert. Mein Vater, K. H. Zube, war erst nach Danzig, dann nach Oesterreich geflohen und in beiden Laendern wieder von den Nazis eingeholt. Er versuchte, vergeblich, nach anderen Laendern auszuwandern. Durch die Weltwirtschaftskrise wurde ueberall die Einwanderung sehr beschraenkt. - J.Z., 27.8.11.) - - 1940-41: Nach Besetzung Belgiens durch die Wehrmacht als Übersetzer für deutsche Wehrmacht (Vorgesetzter: Dr. Karl Krazer, Leiter I Ast Bruxelles) in Brüssel tätig. - - 1941: Wegen politischer Unzuverlässigkeit (Antrag auf belgische Staatsbürgerschaft wird bekannt) von Wehrmacht entlassen. - - 1942: Einberufung zur deutschen Wehrmacht im Rang eines Kapitänleutnants; später zum Hauptmann befördert. ("Einberufung" ist nur ein Deckungsname fuer Zwangsrekrutierung. - Der territoriale Untertan wird als Eigentum und blosses Werkzeug benutzt. - J.Z., 27.8.11.) - - 1945-46: Gerät bei Rückzug der deutschen Truppen auf deutschem Boden in Gefangenschaft der US-Amerikaner. - - 1946 ??: Wilhelm Fraenger offeriert WA Übersiedelung in die SBZ, rät ihm aber etwas später wegen stalinistischer Entwicklungen wieder ab. - - 1946 ??: Langusten für das Volk wird in der SBZ aufgeführt. - - 1946: WA zieht stattdessen nach Weinheim/Bergstr., wo er Kontakte zu Malern (Willie Baumeister, Rudolph Scharpf), zu Galeristen (Egon Günther in Mannheim) und zum Theater Mannheim (Aufführung von ‚Dolores und Juan, Kinder aus Spanien‘, Uccle-Brüssel 1938) hat. WA ist insgesamt auch von BRD enttäuscht. - - ???: WA schreibt drei Einakter (surrealistisch). - - ???: Tochter Sonja übersiedelt auf Einladung des Malers Hugo Wilkens (seit 1936/37 in RSA) nach Südafrika und heiratet dessen Sohn, wenig später Scheidung und Heirat von Erwin Reissmann. - - 1951: Sonja holt ihre Eltern nach Südafrika; WA wohnt in Johannesburg – zunächst Hillbrow, danach Orange Grove. - - ???: WA schreibt als freiberuflicher Journalist für deutschsprachige Zeitschriften; vereinzelt Theaterstücke, u.a. ‚Mord ohne Spuren‘, ‚Der Dicke von Lille‘. - - ???: Mitgliedschaft bei den Schlaraffen; befreundet u.a. mit Alfred Futran (1901-1970) und Egon Günther (Förderer des Malers Cecil Scotnes). - - Ca. 1973: Auf Einladung Reise nach Askona, Zürich und Deutschland. - - ???: Umzug zur Tochter Sonja nach Swasiland. - - Mai 1982: Schlaganfall und Tod in Mbabane/Swasiland. - - Weitere Werke: Das Loch in der Mauer (korrig. Bühnenmanuskript), Weinheim 1949. - - Der Apostel von Steisserbach, (korrig. Bühnenmanuskript), o.O., o.D. - - Visionen und letzte Spiele (Gedichtband), Johannesburg, o.D. - (alle in Literaturarchiv). - Urwald in der großen Stadt: kleiner afrikanischer Roman, Pohl, München 1956 - (Das einzige seiner Buecher, das ich besitze und gelesen habe. - J.Z., 27.8.11.) - - Schwarz-weiß gestreift: Südafrikanische Geschichten, Bechtle, Esslingen 1958, (vgl. Nationalbibliothek Leipzig). - - Das Zebra, Johannesburg 1961. - - Khirimpana, 1956. - - Der Apostel 1930. (vgl. www.lebensreform.ch) - - Übersetzungen: Siehe oben; sowie: Kathatso Ratau: Der Panther von Hololo, Erzählung aus Basutoland, Johannesburg, nach 1951. - - Mitarbeit in Zeitschriften: -Weltbühne. - -Radikaler Geist (Hsg. Kurt Zube.) - - Annalen , Redakteur Walter Muschg, Verlag der Münster-Presse; Zürich-Leipzig. - - -Das Stachelschwein, (Hans Reimann, Verlag Die Schmiede/Berlin). - - Die Sammlung (Exilzeitschrift von Klaus Mann in Amsterdam/Querido Verlag, 1933-35) – recherchieren!!!!! (Since his table could not be automatically sorted, I converted it to a single paragraph. - J.Z., 27.9.11.)
ACQUIESCENCE: The idea that all authority rests ultimately on the acquiescence of the individual and that his refusal to no longer obey unjust or outmoded authority would immediately transform the social relations of society, was a widely held precept among anarchists of all persuasions.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.434. - IGNORING THE STATE, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, OBEDIENCE, SUBORDINATION, SANCTION OF THE VICTIM
ACTION, FREEDOM FOR TOLERANT ACTIONS: Freedom of expression and information is not enough. Tolerant actions must also be tolerated. In case of differences of opinion everyone has the right to realize his own opinions at his own expense and risk. See under TOLERANCE.
ACTIVISM, GENUINE VS. PSEUDO-ACTIVISM. FULL FREEDOM OF ACTION & FOR EXPERIMENTATION IN ALL SPHERES IS TO BE OBTAINED FIRST: Do not demonstrate, march, agitate or vote to change the system preferred by others but, rather, struggle to gain the liberty of action and experimentation to competitively demonstrate, with like-minded volunteers, the rightfulness and benefits or your own system, reform or utopia, quite independent of the opinions of “experts”, legislators, judges and of all the popular prejudices that the others prefer to believe in. At the same time, let these others apply them their own ideas, opinions and systems – but only in their own spheres, among their own volunteers. You have no right to abolish or destroy their preferences – but merely the right to freely compete against them.
ACTON, LORD, Nationality, 1862. - www.panarchy.org/ - Note: This essay was first published in The Home and Foreign Review (July 1862). "It is a masterful analysis of the idea of nationality on the way to become the new political sacrificial monster, in whose name people would kill and oppress others as a way of affirming their own (sometimes invented) identity (i.e. cultural similarity). - It is worth noticing the passages where Lord Acton envisages a situation where different nationalities live side by side in the same federalist state, keeping their own laws and customs within a framework of general principles. … Lord Acton prefigures the existence of a plurality of laws on the same territory as a bulwark against the centralized monopolistic territorial state that is advocated by what he calls the “modern theory of nationality”. - GPdB in his introduction to this 66 KB essay.
ADDICTION TO TERRITORIAL POWERS: Territorial powers have become addictive, to victimizers and victims alike. Monasteries, nunneries, other retreats, and emigration into other territorial power spheres do not cure this addiction, its wrongs and evils even for these escapees. Nor do the political opposition and reform options that are left under territorialism offer much hope for significant and rapid improvements. It may take 20 years of unremitting efforts to get rid of just one territorial and wrongful law. In the meantime hundreds more may have been passed. Withdrawal from the power addiction should finally become a recognized individual option and possibility, one to become constitutionally, legally and juridically recognized and to be embodied in all declarations of individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 11.2.92. - Addiction to territorial powers produces possibly many more victims than all the drugs of the world combined, including alcohol & tobacco. But I have not yet seen a statistical comparison on this. Professor Rummel's statistics on States as aggressors should be supplemented by such figures. - J.Z., 4.9.04. See under TERRITORIALISM.
ADDRESSES: old and new, of some people who have shown some interest in panarchism. The year given shows last contact: Compare: Directory. (To be compiled still.) - See folder Addresses in My Documents.
ADLER, VICTOR: and OTTO BAUER, somewhere in 1920, are supposed to have written on exterritorial autonomy for minorities or competing governments and Lenin and Stalin wrote against them. Hint by L. Liggio. - I have not yet followed it up. Has anyone else or will anybody else? - J.Z., 3.2.1999. Perhaps a websearch on them might bring some info.
ADVICE: Not only good advice is needed but also intelligence, judgment, time, energy, funds, persistence and opportunity to apply it. – J.Z., 25.2.00. – In all too many spheres we do not as yet have the experimental freedom to turn good ideas into praxis. – J.Z., 21.9.08. – The advice to allow or to establish panarchies for all kinds of volunteers is still very widely ignored. – J.Z., 3.11.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES
AFGHANISTAN & PANARCHISM: AFGHANISTAN, 23, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. Also: PEACE PLANS 482, pages 119-122. (Most of the 24 volumes of the ON PANARCHY sub-series of PEACE PLANS have been digitized. The rest consisted merely of downloads from the Internet. – JZ., 19.4.12.)
AFRICA: Africa: No easy solutions? A letter to the editors by K. A. CLIFFE. - SIR, The news that a multiracial team would be playing cricket in front of a multiracial audience in the heart of South Africa would have been joyous news to all the world only a short time ago. Today it brings condemnation from many quarters and a life banning for the multiracial players. - This attitude can only play into the hands of those whose aim is the total collapse of South Africa in order to replace it by a totalitarian regime which will give no more freedom to the blacks but will deprive the West of the many natural resources which South Africa has. - The whole of Africa south of the Sahara is a complex problem which has no easy solution. - The colonies of Britain, Belgium and Portugal were made independent in the '60s and ‘70s and, with rare exceptions, have had "one man, one vote — ONCE." Countries which under colonial administration were prosperous and progressive are now impoverished and their people dependent on United Nations handouts to survive while their leaders line their pockets in banks in Switzerland, London and New York. - It would be possible to quote hundreds of examples, but I will bore you with only a few: The mineral-rich Belgian Congo, now Zaire, produced enormous wealth for both itself and its colonial power. Today it costs the average worker 25 per cent of his monthly salary to buy a bag of maize meal, his staple diet, while Mobutu Seseke, his President, becomes one of the world's richest men. - In Zambia, formerly Northern Rhodesia, Simon Kapepwe, an elder statesman released after many years in political detention, attempted to stand for President in the 1978 elections only to have Kenneth Kaunda, its President since independence in 1965, pass a law prohibiting anybody from opposing him for the presidency. - In Dar-es-Salaam, the capital of Tanzania, once a prosperous port and tourist centre, many shops are closed and boarded up, clearing goods through Customs can take up to six months, and hotels on some of the finest beaches in the world lie derelict and unattended. - In Kenya, the "model" black African country, it is still not possible to do business without consent of the "family." - Post-Amin Uganda is no better off than Amin's Uganda, and Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe are in the news enough for all to know what a mess those countries have got themselves into. - Is it any wonder that the whites and other races in South Africa look at the black independent countries and see chaos which results in the deterioration of living standards for black and white and resist any change that may bring about the same situation in their country? - It must be remembered that the whites in South Africa have been there since long before Australia was discovered and almost 100 years before the black tribes migrated south. Would those who argue that whites in South Africa have no right of tenure also then accept the premise that ALL whites should remove themselves from Australia in order to allow the Aborigines to regain full control? - Isolationism and petty sanctions will only harden attitudes in South Africa and could reverse many of the good changes which have been made in the apartheid laws. - It is high time that the Australian Government together with other free-thinking nations of the world cease their outright condemnation of the political system they do not entirely understand and instead direct their efforts in bringing about meaningful discussion between black and white countries of Southern Africa to reach a solution that is equitable to all peoples and ensures the continued prosperity of all races. - - K. A. CLIFFE, Melinda Court, Kallangur (Qld), January 28. - - - - In response, I wrote one of my rare letters to the editor: Sydney Morning Herald, Jones Street, Broadway. -[I don't think that it was published. - J.Z., 28.11.11.] - - Dear Sir, I was annoyed by the strongly stressed heading "AFRICA: NO EASY SOLUTIONS" to R.A. Cliffe's letter (Herald, Feb. 5th.). The fact that easy solutions are not widely enough known, to have come to your or Mr. Cliffe's attention, does not mean at all that they do not exist or are not possible. - If there were only three options for Africa: 1.) Territorial rule by a white minority, 2.) Territorial rule by a black majority, 3.) Apartheid, i.e. territorial rule for each of many smaller territories, separate for blacks and whites (an over-simplified & somewhat misleading colour scheme), then I would have to agree with your correspondent and would have to prefer the compromise of Apartheid, which offers at least the promise of some independence to most groups (however limited by the territorial concept), to any exclusive rule by a white or black group, minority or majority. - Neither of these three approaches offers an easy nor a true solution. At best we have lesser evils among them and not all people would agree on which of them is the lesser evil. - The real problem, from my point of view is, why practically nobody concerned looks seriously - in the media, the universities, among the people involved directly - at THE EASY SOLUTION: 4.) Exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups, be they local minorities or majorities, black, white, yellow, coloured or without any racial or other bias. - That approach has a very ancient although by now largely forgotten tradition, in Africa, also, was formalized for hundreds of years in relatively recent history by the “capitulations” and by consular jurisdiction, survived as such until the middle fifties in this century in Tunesia and Morocco and still shows traces e.g., in the remaining diplomatic immunities of embassy personnel. - This approach offers possibilities for peaceful coexistence in harmonious diversity, combined with fully independent self-government, that are missing from all territorial approaches. - It could dissolve not only major problems in Africa but also in the rest of the world. - It would even dissolve nuclear targets in the same way as religious tolerance dissolved motives for religious wars. - However, to the extent, that a danger of war would still remain, such groupings could very easily form defensive alliances with each other against all who would dare to threaten their complete and yet highly diverse autonomy, one lastly resting upon individual sovereignty and human communities based upon it; and it would greatly increase the defensive potential of those attacked. - But I must admit that this easy solution is contrary to the current religion of mindless territorial nationalism that is undoubted and unquestioned almost everywhere, and to the thoughtless and immoral application of primitive notions like "one man, one vote" and of unlimited "majority rule". - I expect that you will also refuse to let this EASY SOLUTION even be discussed in your pages, due to your bias in favour of unworkable schemes based on unworkable assumptions, which lead us now into the general holocaust. - You will thereby confirm my opinion that true freedom of expression and information is possible today for poor people or people with unpopular views only via micrographic publishing and reading, which, quite significantly, is treated with almost total silence by the mass media, too. - [Well, since then there are quite a few other affordable and efficient options - but they, too, have so far only been insufficiently utilised to spread sound ideas and defeat unsound ones. - J.Z., 2811.11.] - Much more could and should be said to this subject - but could hardly be expressed in a short letter to you. - Several books describe "The Exterritorial Imperative" in some detail. (See: www.exterritorial.info/) - FIOT (Freedom In Our Time!) - signed: John Zube.
AGGRESSION: the experience of all societies has confirmed that restraints upon aggressive conduct are necessary. No one can live and prosper if the things he needs for his life and work can be stolen or destroyed by his neighbor. Therefore, he must prevent such theft or destruction either by his own efforts or by the combined defensive strength of some group. Since a single man’s efforts will often be insufficient, it is inevitable that a number of men will come together to form a “protective association”. The function of this association is to protect its members from aggression. The protective association, in its simplest role as protector against aggression, is sometimes called the “minimal state” or the “nightwatchman state.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.193/94. – Alas, J.F.J. here jumps to a wrong conclusion. Since territorial “protective” associations, with their monopoly and power, have always been the biggest criminals, with the largest take, more or less victimizing all inhabitants, it is absurd to expecting them to limit themselves to the ideal size and function that J. F. J. ascribes to them. It is expecting simply too much from them, much more than they are able and willing to deliver. And who or what is to force them to so reform themselves? If such a power existed, then it could also be effectively used against the minor criminals. Even now the private security services, where allowed, are more numerous in manpower and more efficient in their protective function for their subscribers than are the official police forces. Thus their subscribers are prepared to pay their extra costs, on top of the taxes for the police force, whose protection they rarely ever get. Armed self-protection and militia protection of individual rights and liberties are largely outlawed by territorial States. Governments, with their various forces and authorities and powers hardly prevent crimes but commit crimes on the largest scale – usually quite “legally” and cause crimes on a vast scale, e.g. by their anti-drug laws and anti-drug wars. – J.Z., 2.10.07. - RESTRAINTS UPON IT, BY A TERRITORIAL STATE OR BY PEACEFULLY COMPETING PROTECTIVE SERVICES?
AGGRESSION: A just fear of an imminent danger, though there be no blow given, is a lawful cause of war." - Francis Bacon, Of Empire, Essays, 1625. - Territorial States are always such threats. Even when temporarily seeming inseparable friends and allies, they can rapidly turn into cold war or hot war enemies, regardless of the thoughts and feelings and wishes of many to most of their involuntary members. - J.Z., 22.1.93. - DECISION, STATE, WARFARE STATE, PANARCHISM
AGGRESSION: Any forceful attempt to make other people live by one's own standards instead of their own. - J.Z., 9.10.88.
AGGRESSION: Falkland Islands War: "Aggression, wherever it occurs, must be defeated." - Agreed, but if it is internally countered in time - against a despotic government, then one will usually not have to counter it in an international war. When it has been allowed to proceed to that stage then it is already largely out of hand. Overthrow the despots and warmongers BEFORE they can make war! - J.Z., 22.5.82. - And if it comes to war, e.g. now against Iraq, let it be one rather against its leader than against his victims, whether the latter are in uniform or out of them. - 22.1.93. - All those of the Falkland Islands people, who would have wanted to become citizens of Argentina or independents of one kind or the other, should have been given the chance to do so, exterritorially. That might have become the "the thin edge of the wedge" against territorialist despotism and aggression. - J.Z., 24.9.02.
AGGRESSION: He called this the Tar-Baby Principle ('You Are Attached To What You Attack').... his attacks on government kept him perpetually attached to it. It was his malign and insidious notion that government was even more attached to him; that his existence qua anarchist, qua smuggler, qua outlaw, aroused greater energetic streaming in government people than their existence aroused in him, that, in short, he was the Tar Baby on which they could not resist hurling themselves in anger and fear: an electro-chemical reaction in which he could bond them to himself just as the Tar Baby captured anyone who swung a fist at it." - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus, vol. II, p. 200. - He certainly makes a case for live and let live policies rather than mutual provocation and attacks, i.e. against the supposedly "anarchistic" bomb-throwing and against other acts of terrorism as supposed means to overthrow the State. Individual secessionism and exterritorially autonomous organization of all minorities and their federation for this purpose, may be very effective but hardly do constitute any attack upon those who remain and want a State for themselves. - J.Z., 23.1.93. - ENEMY, OPPONENTS, PANARCHISM, SECESSION, INDIVIDUAL, TERRORISM
AGGRESSION: How "aggressive" will man be if no longer forced to think and act as a member of a territorial warfare State? - J.Z., 21.7.92. Q.
AGGRESSION: On the other hand, even in our modern, violent society, many individuals are unaggressive and nonviolent, and a few rather remote tribes are still uncompetitive. Traditionally, the nomadic Eskimos of the American Arctic cooperatively shared food and shelter among the members of the clan and settled disputes without resorting to violence. The Tangu people of New Guinea shared food equally among tribal members and engaged in games in which the object was to end in a draw. The Semai farmers of Malaya avoid violence of every kind. Historically, many nomadic tribes that survived by hunting or gathering natural vegetation were not competitive with one another, nor were they defensive of territory. Although the world was eventually dominated by the more aggressive, competitive, and territorial peoples, the existence of tribes and individuals who were not and are not aggressive and competitive leads us to question the belief that these characteristics are a part of human nature. At least we cannot accept, on the evidence, that aggressiveness and competitiveness are universal or essential aspects of human nature.” - Dr. Laurence J. Peter, Why Things Go Wrong or The Peter Principle Revisited, George Allen & Unwin, p.103/104. - VIOLENCE, COMPETITION & MAN, HUMAN NATURE, TERRITORIALISM
AGGRESSION: Rule over other peoples and over our "own" dissenters living in he same area, amounts to aggression. - J.Z., 23.9.88. – TERRITORIALISM, PRESENT STATES, POLITICS AS USUAL, RULERS, WARFARE STATES
AGGRESSION: Submission to aggression was even worse than aggression itself." - Duke of Edinburgh, in Canberra, 31.3.71. - Offering the other cheek or passive resistance does not affect or resist those criminal psychopaths, in and out of office, who have no conscience and no concept of rights but a strong urge to dominate and even terrorize others. It can only work against those who do already largely agree or sympathize with oneself but who do not want to consider themselves as violent and aggressive people. - Alas, he did not clearly distinguish voluntary and individual submission to statism, on the basis of exterritorial autonomy only, while leaving the choices of others, for their statists or non-governmental societies, to them, as individuals, as long as they do not claim any territorial monopoly, either. - J.Z., 23.1.93, 4.11.08.
AGREEMENT & POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, PANARCHISM & POLYARCHISM: But it is certainly true that agreement provides a solid basis for political institutions if the agreement is genuine … - Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.178. – The voluntarism involved in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers is more genuine than the consent or vote in territorial communities. – J.Z., 2.10.07.
AGGRESSIVENESS OF MAN? Man's supposedly natural aggressiveness: How aggressive will man still be if he is no longer forced to think and act as a member of one or the other territorial warfare state? - J.Z., 21.7.92, 13.1.93.
AGGRESSIVENESS: Human beings never fight on an extensive scale under the direct influence of an aggressive impulse. They fight and organize for fighting because, through tribal tradition, through teachings of a religious system, or of an aggressive patriotism, they have been indoctrinated with certain cultural values which they are prepared to defend and with certain collective hatreds on which they are ready to assault and kill." … "[...] war cannot be regarded as a fiat of human destiny in that it could be related to biological needs or immutable psychological drives." (Bronislaw Malinowski, An Anthropological Analysis of War, 1941) - Quoted by Gian Piero de Bellis in his "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - MAN, HUMAN NATURE, WAR, PEACE
AGGROMAN: I think its interesting, and shouldn't be completely written off. After all, even in a true anarchist society, who is going to stop a group of people from going off and forming a capitalist community? I don't think its likely in a truly emancipated world that capitalism could actually exsist (you'd obviously have trouble keeping the oppressed around for very long), but I mean, if you could (dare I say this?) a capitalist-oriented system could be found that worked, then what's the problem? - Don't get me wrong, I hate capitalism and everything it currently stands for, but its vital that we remain open-minded as anarchists and consider everything. - I for one think panarchy is worth some serious consideration. - Aggroman (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 16, 2000.
AGING: It is as natural to die as to be born." - Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732. - It is as unnatural to die as it is natural to be born. - J.Z., 2.11.85. - Why should only an Amoeba live forever through its natural method of cell splitting? Rain being natural, should we use no umbrellas or raincoats or other shelters to stay out of it? Food not naturally growing in our mouths, should we make no effort to obtain it? In all too many ways man is his own worst enemy. Thus let individuals at least sort themselves out, voluntarily, so that the somewhat enlightened can do their somewhat advanced things for themselves, while the fools can happily continue to do their foolish things to themselves only. The combined resources of the pro-life extension people have still to be organized - and liberated from the legal restrictions of the others. - J.Z., 22.1.93. – PANARCHISM, DIS.
AGING: The worst and so far incurable disease. - But have we really made an all-out try to defeat it? - J.Z., ca. 1986 & 22.1.93. – Instead, we have made an all-out effort in conventional total wars and in constructing “modern & scientific” mass murder devices and keeping them in readiness for use! – All life and death matters should also be taken out of the hands of territorial governments. As usual, they made a mess of things. - J.Z., 4.11.08.
AGITATORS: Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either rods or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” - Frederick Douglass. ISIL LIBERTY QUOTE LIBRARY 03. – All will ultimately benefit when all kinds of reformers, revolutionaries, radicals, agitators etc. are finally freed to do their own things for or to themselves, under full exterritorial autonomy. So let them opt out and stop worrying about them. Experimental freedom ought to be finally introduced in the last spheres where it is still suppressed, that of political, economic and social systems. Progress will be much more rapid, less difficult and costly once this fundamental change is introduced. – Only the territorialists and believers in collective responsibility are to be feared and they will also tend to vanish once exterritorial autonomy is available to all tolerant enough people. - J.Z., 8.1.08. - RADICALS, EXTREMISTS, PANARCHISM
AGNEW, J.: The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory’, Review of International Political Economy, 1/1 (1994) pp.53-80.) - A reference given by Alan Hudson. - J.Z. Abstracts are wanted & review hints, as well as links to the full texts, if they are relevant to this collection. - Titles can be deceptive. - J.Z., 13.10.11. - TERRITORIALISM
AGOBARD, BISHOP AGOBARD:  For the record, Maitland (1898) cites Agobard in the following way: "In a famous, if exaggerated sentence, Bishop Agobard of Lyons has said that often five men would be walking or sitting together and each of them would own a different law". He refers to "Agobardi Opera, Migne, Patrol, vol. 104, col. 116: ‘Nam plerumque contingit ut simul eant aut sedeant quinque homines et nullus eorum communem legem cum altero habeat’." Gibbon (chapter 38, footnote 69) provides exactly the same quote, but with some extra words added: "Tanta diversitas legum quanta non solum in [singulis] regionibus, aut civitatibus, sed etiam in multis domibus habetur. Nam plerumque contingit ut simul eant aut sedeant quinque homines, et nullus eorum communem legem cum altero habeat (in tom. vi. p. 356)." - RCBJ.
AGREEMENT: Agreement on what not to do - not on what to do. General agreement on how to leave each other alone. Then specific agreements on voluntary cooperation." - Don Werkheiser, 18.12.90. - RIGHTS, COVENANTS, PANARCHISM, LEAVE ALONE, ALONE, SOCIAL CONTRACT, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM.
AGREEMENT: But it is certainly true that agreement provides a solid basis for political institutions if the agreement is genuine …” - Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.178. – The voluntarism involved in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers is more genuine than the consent or vote in territorial communities. – J.Z., 2.10.07. - POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, PANARCHISM & POLYARCHISM
AGREEMENT: Freedom and tolerance and justice are necessary, agreement is not. - J.Z., 23.1.93.
AGREEMENT: If we must all agree, all work together, we're no better than a machine." - Ursula Le Guin, The Dispossessed, p.296. - While a territorial agreement on all or sufficient points is, indeed, impossible to achieve or to maintain, a sufficient agreement within volunteer-groups is possible, even necessary for economic and social life and for the political relations we want. It must be based on full autonomy and this can be achieved, for individuals and minority groups, only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. In an extreme case all members of such a "panarchy" may have changed from one day to the other but between the new voluntary members the agreement would be maintained - or changed – in accordance with the wishes of the remaining or new voluntary members. The individual who changed his mind from day today, could join a different panarchy from day to day. But I suppose for such people the entrance and registration fee would have to be raised. - J.Z., 23.1.93, 11.4.08. - PANARCHISM, SECESSION, EXTERRITORIALITY, TERRITORIALISM, UNITY, UNIFORMITY, REPRESENTATION, DEMOCRACY, CONSENT, REFERENDUM. - All these and other terms and institutions and principles of social sciences have to be rethought from the point of view of panarchism and voluntarism and contracts. J.Z., 23.1.93.
AGREEMENT: We do not have to agree on anything except on being mutually tolerant. - J.Z., 13.1.81. - TOLERANCE, MUTUALISM, PANARCHISM
AGUS, I. A.: Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade Europe, vols. I-II, N.Y., 1965, on self-government.
AHAD HA'AM: Nationalism and the Jewish Ethic, H.Kohn, ed., N.Y., 1962.
AIM HIGH: People are always neglecting something they can do in trying to do something they can't do." - Edgar Watson Howe, COUNTRY TOWN SAYINGS, 1911. - Aim high but not so high that direct practical steps in the desired direction cannot be taken, while a direct jump to it is not possible. - J.Z., 15.11.85. - However, under individual secessionism and exterritorial associationism, each of us could, if he wanted to, jump or run relatively far. - Under individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, we could each proceed as fast as is possible for us in the direction we want to go. One might aim at immortality but cannot jump to it. One can only try to take small steps towards life-extension. And we are still far from having reached sufficient agreement on these - J.Z., 23.1.93. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, PROGRESS AT THE OWN SPEED
AIM: Let people be as free in their aim to pursue their own liberty, in all spheres, as they are with choosing the contents of their shopping cart in a well stocked and competitive super-market. The contents are almost always very different. If they are e.g. vegetarians or raw food addicts, let them make their kind of different choices for themselves, individually or via their food cooperatives. No monopoly, no forced consumption, no compulsory payment of the bills of others, no enforced equality. Consumer sovereignty for all in all spheres, combined with competitive free enterprise and associationism in all spheres. - J.Z., 23.1.93. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM.
AIM: Pick and choose your own aims and try to reach them with your own energy, time and means, together with like-minded volunteers. No one has the right to hinder you in that - as long as you leave others alone to peacefully pursue their own aims and happiness. We need neither sky pilots nor secular pilots to lay down our aims and the law for us. - J.Z., 23.1.93. – PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, SELF-HELP, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-RELIANCE, LEADERSHIP, RULE, LAW, CONSTITUTIONS
AIM: There are no national purposes but only those of individuals and like-minded groups of volunteers. - J.Z., 5.8.92, 23.1.93. - NATIONAL AIMS AND PURPOSES
AIM: We agree on the aims with all decent people. I hold that what is resisted is not our fight but our tactics." - Kurt Tucholsky, Politische Texte, p. 89. - Common aims are usually defined in all too general terms, which give no clear idea on how to achieve them: Peace on Earth, Prosperity for All, Justice, Harmony, Cooperation, Socialism, Liberalism, Liberty, Democracy, Americanism, Equality, Fraternity, etc. The definitions of them and of roads to them differ immensely, like in religion “the road to God" and the concept of “God” itself. Thus the only common aim should be an agreement upon: To each his own aim and his own method, system or organization, i.e. an agreement upon freedom of action and experimentation for all: To each the government or free society of his or her dreams. - No other common aim or agreement would be required. And the prerequisites are few and simple: Voluntarism, Exterritorial Autonomy, Individual Sovereignty, Individual Secessionism, Minority Autonomy on an exterritorial basis and Recognition of Individual Rights for their "international" relations. – J.Z., n.d. - PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, ACTION, PLURALISM
AIMS: The decisive point for peaceful, rightful and free relations is whether concrete or abstract aims are self-chosen or imposed. - J.Z., 21.1.93 – GENERALISATIONS, ABSTRACTIONS, PURPOSES, CHOICES, PEACE, FREEDOM.
AIR RAIDS, INDISCRIMINATE, on the principle of collective responsibility of territorial subjects for the actions of their rulers, an aspect of territorialism: See my articles in PEACE PLANS Nos. 1, 2 & especially 8. Also: See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON: On Panarchy.
AKZIN, BENJAMIN: State and Nation, Hutchinson University Library, London, 1964, indexed, 214pp, JZL. - Although the author himself favours only a limited pluralism and limited minority autonomy (99), misjudges anarchism (12) and does not distinguish pluralism on the basis of voluntary or involuntary inequality, voluntary or involuntary equality and voluntary or involuntary diversity, i.e. does not recognize full consumer sovereignty in this respect, he does inform on personal law and exterritorial autonomy. E.g., he mentions KARL RENNER & OTTO BAUER as advocates of personal or cultural autonomy (142), the personal law system on 141ff, the Millet system on 144, the territorial prejudice on 142, voluntarism on 15, Balkanization on 195, the newness of territorial nationalism on 46/47, cosmopolitan exterritorial autonomy on 79, capitulations on 137, secession on 68, 90, 135, 136, 162ff, and exterritorial autonomy on 41, 48, 51, 52, 55, 67, 85, 89, 90, 99, 141, 142. - Its one of the best academic studies of its kind. Akzin was or still is Herbert Samuel Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. - J.Z.
ALIEN CONTACT: The most difficult alien contact for human beings is still with other human beings, who have other beliefs, customs, law and institutions or want them for themselves, when both sides so far thought and acted only upon territorial, i.e. exclusive, coercive and intolerant models and have not or could not conceive or comprehend the alternative of exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups. - J.Z. 11.4.92, 13.1.93. - Belief in exterritorial possibilities is still much more scarce today than belief in the existence of extraterrestrials. - J.Z., 11.12.03. Are we becoming more tolerant in our attitudes towards extra-terrestrials, at least of the somewhat civilized kind, than we are towards human beings, who somewhat differ from us? - J.Z., 21. 11. 06.
ALIENATION & CONSENT: "Thus intellectuals from Rousseau to such recent figures in French and German thought as Foucault & Habermas, regard alienation as rampart in any system in which an order is 'imposed' on individuals without their conscious consent; ..." - Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, 64. – Alienation is just one aspect of territorially imposed State systems with involuntary membership. – J.Z., 1.1.05.
ALIENATION: Alienation exists when workers are unable to control their immediate work processes, to develop a sense of purpose and function which connects their jobs to the over-all organisation of production, to belong to integrated industrial communities, and when they fail to become involved in the activity of work as a mode of personal self-expression." - quoted by David Jenkins in Job Power, p.38. – Just one of many important causes of present alienation. Taxation, the flood of laws, the foreign policy monopoly, the decision on war and peace monopoly, monetary despotism, protectionism for a few at the expense of all consumers, conscription, are just a few of the others. – Territorialism is the worst factor – an over-all reduction of all important individual choices for all of the population of a territory. – J.Z., 4.11.08.
ALIENATION: Allow different groups of volunteers to alienate themselves as much as they like from others, on a non-territorial and autonomous basis. - J.Z. 2.7.85.
ALIENATION: Real political power alienates us much more than 'economic power' is supposed to do. - J.Z., 8.12.79. - The "them and us" division is much more felt in politics than in the market place. - J.Z., 23.1.93. – We can largely boycott any of competitive suppliers of consumer goods and services but not the territorial monopoly suppliers or public services or, rather, public disservices. – J.Z., 4.11.08.
ALIENATION: That individual sovereignty is being destroyed in this country by our current political trends, and it is scarcely astonishing that individuals now feel 'alienated' from their government. They are not just alienated from it; they have virtually been expelled from the governmental process, where only organized mobs prevail." - Simon, A Time for Truth, p. 221. - DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION, CONSENT, GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, AUTONOMY, LIBERTY, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
ALIENATION: The right to feel alienated must be added to the list of man's inherent rights. Out of alienation can come great fruition. As the saying goes: 'Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.'" - Robert J. Rubanowice, THE FREEMAN, 11/74. - But not: Better Socrates murdered than a pig satisfied! - The ultimate coercive alienation is alienation from one's own life through territorial rule and all that this implies. - J.Z., 25.1.93, 4.11.08.
ALIENATION: Thus intellectuals from Rousseau to such recent figures in French and German thought as Foucault and Habermas, regard alienation as rampant in any system in which an order is 'imposed' on individuals without their conscious consent; ..." – F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.64. - CONSENT, ORDER, IMPOSITIONS, COMPULSION, COERCION, UNITY, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM
ALIENATION: Voluntary alienation is expressed by some university students, to give just one example. The reasons for student discontent of this kind are obvious enough: the problem is not class or occupational exclusion, but the feeling that their views, desires, commitments, and very lives are not positive elements in the making of their nation's political decisions." - Silvert, Man's Power, 116. – Mere students should not have power over national decisions but merely power over the affairs of their own voluntary communities – and these should be exterritorially fully autonomous. They could run their own free universities, if they wanted to, financed through a credit union in which already working academics would be the main investors and promising students the main debtors. Their discontent with territorial political governments they should express by individual and group secessions and forming their own panarchies under personal laws. But to think that they should determine the policies of whole populations amounts to an elitist authoritarianism even before they have proven that they are part of a real rather than merely imagined elite. – J.Z., 4.11.08.
ALIENS ACTS: What manner of society was this, that needed a class to project hate upon? What kind of 'legislators' made laws that placed one man eternally inferior to another - not through ineptness, or stupidity, or laziness - but simply because he was not a member of the herd.? - Con Sellers, Mr. Tomorrow, X. - Aliens Acts make some sense only within and to the adherents of territorial monopoly states but none at all for panarchies, which are, internally, already as different as their voluntary members want them to be and disadvantaged members would remain free to secede and associate under full exterritorial autonomy, too. - J.Z., 23.1.93.
ALIENS & EXTERRESTRIALS: We would not expect exterrestrials to have to live under our terrestrial national and uniform laws. (Whose are these laws, anyhow. Did all of them get your consent? They did not get mine.) Then why should we expect "our" internal aliens and foreigners and dissenters to do so? This approach has only led to trouble in the sphere of religion. It still leads to trouble everywhere in the political, economic and social spheres. Why coercively continue what has already demonstrated its defects, its wrongfulness, its huge expenses and murderous tendencies so extensively and for so long? - J.Z., 14.5.92, 13.1.93, 10.12.03.
ALIENS: How shall we deal with strangers, except as brothers?" - Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness, 65. – Politeness is an alternative to familiarity. So are justice and tolerance, as well as neutrality, and free trade, voluntary segregation. Not even real brotherhood is a guaranty for peace or friendship between brothers. – J.Z., 4.11.08.
ALIENS: Only politicians, rulers and other criminals are 'aliens' and enemies in my eyes.” - J.Z., 6/72. – As long as they rule people territorially or try to. – If they confined themselves to their own kind of volunteers, they would be welcome to them, even if they obviously cannibalized them. – J.Z., 4.11.08.
ALIENS: People ready to murder millions of humans for relatively minor differences, would not hesitate to do it to aliens from space. In other words, as long as there are buttons for expressing nuclear madness and people with access to them, driven by various power illusions and spleens, we are not ready for contact with alien civilisations, nay, not even for contact with our own possible and desirable civilisation and culture in a quite free society, made up of many free societies, all only of volunteers and all confined to exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 12.9.92, 23.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ALIENS: The most difficult alien contact for humans is still that with other humans, who have other beliefs, customs, principles, aims or institutions or who do want others. - J.Z., 11.4.92, 23.1.93.
ALIENS: There were no such things as strangers. In whatever form, with whatever purpose, all of them were people." - Clifford D. Simak, Way Station, 31. - Although interest in SF aliens and in the peoples of other countries is now probably higher than ever before, it still expresses only a minority point of view and tolerant and sympathetic attitude rather than a general public opinion, which is still quite intolerant and often viciously so. However, after the introduction of exterritorial autonomy, at first claimed only by a few, this attitude and opinion would tend to disappear, fast. Most people opt already for foreign goods, even if they are still antagonistic to their producers coming over, too, to trade with us from nearby, instead of from a distance. - J.Z., 23.1.93. – At least when it comes to tourism, foreign meals, cars, sportsmen, restaurants, music, art and films - the antagonism against “foreigners’ and “foreign” things has already largely disappeared.
ALLEGIANCE & NUCLEAR THREATS: The very existence of nuclear "deterrents" and the immense threat to our security, which they do directly or indirectly pose to everyone, indicates that the old security and protection "contract", supposed to have been concluded between citizens and territorial governments, has been dissolved, through complete inability of governments to continue to offer sufficient protection. Instead, they and their "powers" have become the largest threat of all. - - All other ties, which might, by themselves, be rightful, are essentially trivial compared with that threat and cannot serve to restore the "social contract" that has been presumed to exist between governments and their subjects. - - That applies also to mere allies of nuclear powers who do not have any nuclear "weapons" themselves but would become involved in the nuclear holocaust as well or even as primary targets of the policy makers for "limited" nuclear "exchanges". There is no longer a government in the world that possesses any real mandate, for this reason alone, apart from numerous other criticisms that have been raised on their "constitutions of no authority", by people like Lysander Spooner. - - Likewise, there is little enough true love, affection, friendship and loyalty left in ordinary human associations, as long as they are continued under the pretence that the threat of the use of ABC weapons is non-existing or that nothing can be done against it, so that not even thought-games are played against it. - - Secede from all nuclear powers and alliances! Think about all aspects and requirements and consequences of such a secession. Only then can you still claim to be rational, moral and affectionate human beings and proud of it. But presently most people seem to think or emote and act under a death-wish for themselves & others, whether they are conscious of it or not. - - As some kind of evidence for this I offer the lack of sales of my handbook against nuclear war, which tackles ca. 500 mental barriers which turn most people into nuclear warriors or victims rather than into anti-nuclear thinkers and activists. Enlightenment on this subject is sorely needed, primarily among libertarians, because they are already familiar with most of the required medicines but have merely failed to apply them to this epidemic disease. - J.Z., 3.7.89.
ALLEGIANCE, LOYALTY & PANARCHISM: Allegiance and loyalty among voluntary members of panarchies, to their panarchies, will tend to be much stronger than to terrritorial States with their involuntary membership and more or less radical subjugation of dissenters. At the same time, offences like "treason", "espionage", terrorism and subversion will become rather rare among them, since the right to secede and associate in other panarchies will act as a safety valve. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06.
ALLEGIANCE, TREASON: Lawyers and judges in England assumed, since 1608, according to K. West, The New Meaning of Treason, that a man "owed to the King obedience ... as long as he was within the King's protection." - - Why we should owe obedience to such ancient legal interpretations of royal authority isn't stated. That the king's protection is an imposed monopoly and not a freely chosen and paid-for service and that it is already paid for by all too high taxes, is ignored. - Moreover, protection, actual physical protection, is extensively given only to people like Kings and his ministers but very rarely and only under extreme circumstances to his ordinary subjects. At best they are offered official revenge or penal action against the offenders and only very rarely a just indemnification and one at the offender's expense, rather than the general taxpayer's. - The treason options still need to be thoroughly re-thought. What loyalty is owed a Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? In my books there is only one kind of treason, that against reason, i.e., against properly formulated individual rights and liberties. - J.Z. 27.6.89, 3.7.89, 4.9.04.
ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance cannot be simple owed, e.g. by birth, but can be freely given or withheld, given by contracts and withheld by giving notice or by breach of promises. And when genuine protective services are not only promised or pretended but actually offered, then individualized deals must be achievable or refusable. Uniform package deals for all can never lead to full and individualized consents or be a basis for assuming full consent existed and created a "mandate" or "representation". Allegiance to political, economic, social & other systems, like marriage, or any business deal or job arrangement, ought to be based on a free contract. - J.Z., 27.6.89, 2.7.89. - Have you given your individual signature, quite freely, to any of the existing government contracts? - J.Z., 12.12.03. - To all of their laws, regulations and juridical decisions? - J.Z., 4.9.04.– PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIALISM
ALLEGIANCE: An allegiance that one has supposedly "inherited" or is born or married into or which one has formally signed for, without any other moral and rational and individual choice being open to oneself, is inherently nonsensical and imaginary, no matter with how much force, legalities or how many prejudices it is backed. However, I hold that limited as the remaining liberties are e.g. in Australia, they are still worth fighting for, without ABC devices, against totalitarian take-over attempts. But are libertarians aware that they and their ideas could be the best allies of rightful defensive efforts of present-day democratic governments against despotic and totalitarian ones and do they sufficiently publicize their relevant programmes? Are Peace Plans articles on this copied or discussed in the rest of the libertarian press??? Self-enlightenment is still the most important task for most libertarians. - J.Z. 27.6.89, 3.7.89.
ALLEGIANCE: Inherited or born-into allegiance, without any personal choice in the matter, is nonsense and cannot be justified. - J.Z., 27.6.89, 23.1.93. But it is one of the many unjust and nonsense notions which still rule and thus misrule the world. - J.Z., 23.1.93.
ALLEGIANCE: Lawyers and judges assumed since 1608 (case of Sherley, a Frenchman) that a man "owed to the King obedience" as long as he was within the king's protection. But the king's protection (to the extent that it is more than imagined) is an imposed monopoly service and not a freely chosen and competitive service and it is already involuntarily paid for by taxes. Moreover, an almost sufficient degree of protection is given to kings and prime ministers but rarely to any other subject. (I was told, in 1990, that a recent mayor of Detroit needed 20 bodyguards to protect him from his "grateful" subjects! ) At best the subjects are offered revenge via the law, and only rarely any or sufficient indemnification at the expense of their attackers. - Automatic allegiance is an invention of lawyers, politicians and rulers, who consider the State and all its people as their property, like Louis XIV did, when he said: "I am the State!" - J.Z., 27.6.89, 23.1.93. - PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, SELF-OWNERSHIP, SOVEREIGNTY AND INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, DISOBEDIENCE, OBEDIENCE.
ALLEGIANCE: My allegiance lies with me.” – From film: Robin Hood, Capital TV, June 23, 1995. – INDIVIDUALISM, SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP IN STATES & SOCIETIES
ALLEGIANCE: Our allegiance is to humanity first, to our country second, and to the army last... but above these is our allegiance to our individual consciences." - Grafitti. When? Where?
ALLEGIANCE: This thing Allegiance, as I suppose, // Is a ring fitted in the subject's nose, // whereby that organ is kept rightly pointed // To smell the sweetness of the Lord's anointed. G.J.” – Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary.
ALLEGIANCE: What hope is there for the world as long as we cling to the outmoded form of national allegiance? We owe allegiance to no one.” – Alistiar McLean, The Last Frontier, p.200.
ALLIANCE BETWEEN ALL KINDS OF ANARCHISTS & ALL KINDS OF LIBERTARIANS, TO ACHIEVE EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL OF THEM AS WELL AS FOR ALL STATISTS? So far most of them are not even ready as yet to concede full exterritorial autonomy to each other, far less to all governmentalists prepared to do their things only to and for themselves. But such an alliance could be a new beginning, just like Murray N. Rothbard tried to unite the Left and the Right as far as possible, for common objectives. - A crystalization point for panarchism has to be established somewhere. The rest could then follow almost like in a chain reaction or like the sudden icing-up of over-cooled water. - J.Z., 21. 11.06.
ALLIANCE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: Declaration of the First Principles of the Alliance for Individual Rights, plan 235, pages 65-66, in ON PANARCHY III, in PEACE PLANS 507, also on page 123, in PEACE PLANS 1398.
ALLIANCES, EXTERRITORIAL VS. TERRITORIAL: Alliance between subjects that have seceded from their feudal lords, the territorial governments, including separate peace treaties, vs. . alliances and treaties merely between territorial governments. The latter correspond to the very nature of territorial politicians and bureaucrats. The former would correspond the the very diverse nature of man. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06.
ALLIANCES: as Hitler had predicted in the Bunker, no military alliance survives the first round of spoils dividing. (He was an expert on that. Look what he did to the Russians after signing a non-aggression pact with them.) - Jim Downard, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION106, p.18. - Only Stalin and some of his top henchmen signed it. On Hitler's side it was the same. Any difference between the deals princes, kings and emperors made between themselves, at the expense of their subjects? The whole sphere is still so monopolised in practice and by the unchecked premises of theories that this monopoly is rarely ever questioned. - J.Z., 23.1.93. – DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM
ALLIANCES: Close alliances with despots are never safe for free states." - Demosthenes, Second Philippic, ca. 345 B.C. - Demosthenes, 385? - 322 B.C. - Alliances of anyone or any group with any territorial government are never safe. - J.Z., 9.6.92.
ALLIANCES: I would trust only alliances between competing and tolerant governments in exile and minority groups, provided that all of them aim at and practise merely exterritorial autonomy for their voluntary supporters - and for all other majority and minority groups.. All other alliances are like handshakes with a smile - under the threat of a gun. - J.Z., 1.7.92, 15.1.93.
ALLIANCES: Only alliances between volunteer communities can be quite rightful and sensible and peace rather than war-promoting. - J.Z., 25.9.02. - PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM.
ALLIANCES: Only voluntary alliances can be rightful, if they are for a rightful purpose, too. - J.Z., 23.1.93.
ALLIANCES: Rather only alliances between local volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights than any alliances between any territorial governments. - J.Z., 24.1.93.
ALLIES: Instead of enemies, we are looking for allies everywhere." - Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, 448. - - The only allies that I would like to deal with in the future, anywhere, would be a) other local militias for the protection of individual rights, b) governments in exile that claim right now and aim for the future: only exterritorial autonomy for their voluntary members, c) a federation of all minority groups which has as the only common platform: the support of exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities. - J.Z., 24.1.93. - Panarchists could and should do the same: - J.Z., 12.12.03. - They do have the best chance to achieve allies, as long as they stick to their principle: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her individual choice. That kind of demand, once it is properly understood, will provoke the least opposition and the most wide-spread agreement. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06, 28.11.11.
ALONE: "Because in a world like this you can't afford to be alone." - From a Prime News TV ad. - In a world like this you can't afford association with a territorial government power, which has nuclear weapons or nuclear armed allies, which turn you into a nuclear target, too. You are morally obliged and it is in your rational interest to secede from all such powers and to associate with other such secessionists. In a future world, of fully realised individual rights and liberties, you could either try to make it on your own, based only on case to case trading relationships, or you could start or join an exterritorial "country", "State" or society or personal law system of your own preference. The taxes, bureaucracies, economic crises, wars and revolutions, which the present territorial regimes involve you in, and cannot cope with, do also indicate that you can or should no longer go along with them, as their voluntary victim. - J.Z., 3.2.93, 5.2.93, 9.12.03. - Market relationships put individuals in touch with the whole world. Territorial governments confined market relationships to those which they approve of. - J.Z., 4.9.04.
ALTERNATIVE FUTURES: Alternative futures should depend only upon individual choice or consent.” – J.Z., 1.9.97. - CHOICE, CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: Everywhere, by and for everybody, in every field of human endeavour and for every peaceful and creative purpose. All according to the individual choices of their voluntary members. All to be fully exempted from all so far territorially imposed constitutions, laws, administrations, jurisdictions and other controls and taxes. - J.Z., 6.5.89, 4.7.89.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: How does a new society emerge out of the old society? Like a mushroom upon a rotting trunk. Out of the subculture of the existing order grows an alternative community. The underground community of mutinous youth emerges and is going to develop independently of the still existing authorities. The revolution is taking place now..." - Roel Van Dyn, Amsterdam, Elfincity, Feb. 5, 1970, ELF, One. Also ELF, No. 7. - Unless it is accompanied by a programme of the same autonomy for all the different alternative institutions desired by all the different dissenters for themselves, any particular deviation from the norm is likely to become suppressed again by the unity and uniformity dogmatists of territorialism or "national sovereignty". The merely national aspirations of all national minorities should thus be unleashed as well against the super-nation States. Likewise freed – into full exterritorial autonomy - should be all other kinds of dissenters. A wider horizon offers much wider chances for all but those who want to be oppressors. - J.Z., 25.1.93, 4.11.08. – See under Start-up options in my Panarchy A to Z. – J.Z., 4.11.08.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: In the 15th anniversary edition of QUADRANT, James McAuley wrote of the threat to representative government and the rule of law in Australia and claimed that 'today it is becoming doctrine with the left that "true" democracy requires the assertion of an alternative extra-parliamentary power, purporting to be the true voice and will of the people, entitled therefore to set at naught the authority of parliament and law'." - Gerard Henderson, in QUADRANT, Sep./Oct. 1972. - A single "popular front", as a pressure and action group, is as little representative and lawful as an alternative society as is any present territorial governmental establishment. True alternatives, fit not only for fluctuating and usually deceived majorities but for all minorities and individuals, could only be provided by freely competing alternative societies, made up only of volunteers, all confined to exterritorial autonomy, which is the only framework that could cater to the choices of sovereign individuals and their preferred personal laws and political, economic and social system, enterprises and institutions. - J.Z., 25.1.93. – PANARCHISM
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: pressure from the newly-enfranchised 'working-class' consumers of welfare will lead to the creation of new market institutions to meet their demands - fee-charging schools or tutors, private health insurance, private hospitals - and of new political alignments to create legal and institutional room for them. Whatever 'conservatives' in ALL parties may do to preserve the welfare state despite the unprecedented and unforeseen revolution in expectations of the last quarter-century, consumers will increasingly demand something different and better, and the market will find ways of providing it - unless it is, for a time, suppressed by legalised tyranny the British will not long tolerate. - The question for politicians - Conservative, Social Democrat and Liberal - is whether they think they can repress the new demands or help them to be expressed in ways that maintain the liberties, toleration and civilities of British life.” - Arthur Seldon, 1985, p. 52. - WELFARE STATE, PANARCHISM
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: Swinburne writing in 1862, "A Song in Time of Order", proposed a sea-borne refuge from governments: "Out to sea with her there, - Out with her over the sand, - Let the kings keep the earth for their share! - We have done with the sharers of land....- Will they tie the winds in a tether, - Put a bit in the jaws of the sea? - While three men hold together, - The kingdoms are less by three...." - One could confine one's thoughts and actions to the sea, as some libertarians have done, when developing the notion of "Ocean Freedom", or one could transfer the ethical arrangements of the law of the sea to land. The land could become the common heritage like the sea. All could have their own “ship of state” on the land, too, not confined to any particular location but confined to their own affairs, with no vote or powers over the affairs of others. Then each could “sail or steam”, with a self-selected crew, in a social arrangement of their choice, in any direction they like, for any purpose they have chosen. Only the law of the sea against collisions and similar self-evident rules for their mutual protection, would have to be abided by, internationally. - J.Z., 25.1.93. - PANARCHISM.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: The Italian solution is not just economic; it involves the creation of alternatives for the failed functions of the state – some formal and some highly informal. There are alternative postal services, alternative sanitation services, alternative police and fire services.” - Richard Cornuelle, Healing America, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1983, p. 148. - ITALIAN SOLUTION
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: The libertarian laissez-faire movement is, actually, if embarrassingly for some, a civil rights movement. But it is anti-political, in that it builds diversified power to be protected against government, even to dispense with government to a major degree, rather than seeking power to protect government or to perform any special social purposes." - Karl Hess, Death of Politics, p.7. - Not just diversified and pluralistic power should be aimed at but alternative and competing governments or free societies that, by combining the sovereignties of free individuals, would become exterritorially quite autonomous, comparable to competing churches and sects. Only territorial, coercive, uniform and monopolistic and imposed governments would be done away with. Their opposite associations would be left as ways-out, different ways-out according to the different choices of individuals and minorities and majorities. - J.Z.,25.1.93.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: The multitude is more interested in possibilities than in realities.” – „Die Menge interessiert sich mehr fuer Moeglichkeiten als fuer Wirklichkeiten." - E. Jonas, Nordische Diamanten, Nr. 141. (Henrik Hertz). - - Die Mehrheit interessiert sich weniger fuer alle Moeglichkeiten als fuer die wenigen Wirklichkeiten die sie taeglich sieht. - J.Z., 10.12.85. - (The Masses are less interested in all possibilities than in the few realities which it sees daily.) - However, a consistent interest of a few innovators could well suffice. - J.Z. 21.7.86. - Once they become free to go ahead, with their innovations among themselves, many of the masses of people would soon come to follow them, as they do follow e.g. technical innovations, fashions, dances, popular music innovations etc. - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: The State is a condition, a certain relationship among human beings. ... we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another... We are the State, and we shall continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that form a real community and society." - Gustav Landauer, 1910. - He should have said that: We are our own State, but from now on merely an exterritorially autonomous one, that leaves all others free to do exterritorially and autonomously their own things for or to themselves. - J.Z., 25.1.93. - PANARCHISM, CONSENT, EXTERRITORIALITY, AUTONOMY, SECESSION, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: There is, however, a real alternative society to the economic stagnation and moral decay of the last 25 years in Britain. This alternative would be a truly free enterprise economy, whose participants are aware of their own and society's long-term self-interest and responsibilities." – Dr, Rhodes Boyson, Goodbye to Nationalisation, V. - Most are unaware or unappreciative of the alternative societies wanted by other individuals and volunteer groups. Since none should be forced upon anybody, like formerly religious cults were, each should become free to choose his own for himself - to benefit or suffer from it only by himself and with like-minded people. - 25.1.93. - See: PANARCHISM.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: We need open classrooms as well as traditional schools. We need easy-come-easy-go organizations as well as rigid monastic orders (secular as well as religious.) - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.388. - J.Z. - VOLUNTARISM, COMPETITION, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, FREEDOM IN DIVERSITY, IN EVERY SPHERE
ALTERNATIVE, THE: The link between territorialism and war was already clear to those who, in the past, put forward proposals for the abolition of war. The most ingenious solutions presented in history are: - Cosmopolis. The end of national territorialism and the surrender of territorial sovereignty to some overarching organization in order to grant peaceful world governance/administration (Freud, Malinowski, Einstein, H. G. Wells). - Panarchy. The end of territorialism altogether and the re-appropriation by the individual of the power of association with and disassociation from any social or political entities, all equally devoid of territorial sovereignty (Paul-Emile De Puydt, John Zube). - - These two solutions are not antithetic, as might appear at first sight and could be amalgamated assuming that we go beyond conventional or misleading interpretations of either of them. - - Cosmopolis as world governance/administration should not be understood as centralization of all controlling power in one world super-state. This would be a totally unworkable proposition besides being a quite tyrannical one (as acknowledged already by Kant). Instead, it should be understood as a general framework of universal civic principles within which individuals and communities freely associate and interact. - In other words, Cosmopolis should mean a world federation (network) of independent communities and individuals (nodes) in which the soundness, robustness and richness of each node is given by the plurality and quality of its connections and not by the size or brute force of its components. - - Panarchy as free choice by every human being to associate with or secede from any social or political entity, is certainly not to be understood, on the whole, as personal egotism or communitarian isolationism (or, even worse, narrow sectarianism and endemic factionalism). This would be the very opposite of what Panarchy advocates (i.e. universal political tolerance) and in stark contrast with a good deal of current reality characterized by an incredible and growing number of links and exchanges that connect each person with so many others. Instead, Panarchy is to be seen as the actuation, at last, of personal choice and personal responsibility in any field. This would mark the real beginning of the history of humanity, i.e. of universal free human beings, after so much history made of states, rulers, armies and wars. - The two proposals are, then, not incompatible but can be integrated in a general proposition, a Cosmopolis of Panarchies promoting the broadest and deepest co-existentialism between autonomous individuals and independent communities throughout the world. - And if or when divergences arise, they can be settled through forums for clarification and mechanisms of arbitration (as already happens for disputes between companies); or, in cases of outbursts of heated passions, through the temporary use of neutral forces of interposition and pacification (as has always happened when the contenders need time and assistance in order to come back to their senses). - In short, as previously and repeatedly stressed, without the monopolistic and totalitarian control of a territory and of its inhabitants, no war (i.e. large scale - long term violence) is possible. - If territorialism, monopolism, totalitarianism are the requisites that make for a war mongering organization, it follows that those who are against war should promote the overcoming of these three aspects and should develop in their place alternative organizational structures and arrangements that neutralize and finally extinguish the drive to war and the capability for it. - The new social entities should display characteristics antithetic to territorialism, monopolism, totalitarianism, namely: Spatialism. Governance is dissociated from territorial sovereignty (aterritorialism) and is related only to performing specific circumscribed functions, affecting exclusively the people voluntarily concerned by those functions. This frees the individuals from being hostages of a certain power for no other reason than that of living in a certain territory, and eliminates the main drive to war (i.e. conquer/control new territories). - - Pluralism. There are no limits to the number of existing communities (voluntary and free from territorialism) as long as there are individuals ready to set them up. This will give rise to a wealth of social entities, most of them interconnected and open to external inputs and new members, and will eliminate the pervasive power of any large centralized organization. The consequence is the elimination of another prime condition favourable to engagement in mass slaughters, namely the existence of large groups of people subject to a central power. - Voluntarism. All the individuals are free to associate with the community of their choice, to set up new communities or to live apart, on their own, totally undisturbed. This personal universal right to social choice will implement the basic form of freedom (i.e. free will) and will definitively leave behind the remaining traces of modern feudalism, that is territorial nationalism, in so far as free contracts will replace compulsory ascription everywhere, even in the social and political sphere. - - "... originally no one had a greater right to any region of the earth than anyone else." - "... the right to the earth's surface ... belongs in common to the totality of human beings." - Immanuel Kant, To Perpetual Peace, 1795. - - These three conditions represent not only the most sensible way to promote and preserve peace, but also the most reasonable option for dealing with the most intractable problems (Iraq, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Northern-Ireland, multi-ethnic Europe, etc.) in a complex multicultural cosmopolitan world. The time of one ruling territorial government, one dominant political faith, one all encompassing nation, is finally over. We have only to fully realize it and act accordingly. We need then new ways of thinking and acting in order to master the art of living (expressing, exploring, exchanging) in all its complexity and variety. - Gian Piero de Bellis in his "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - VOLUNTARISM, PLURALISM, SPATIALISM, EXTERRITORIALITY, TOLERANCE, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, PERSONAL LAW SOCIETIES, LOCAL TO WORLD-WIDE, ALL ONLY DOING THEIR OWN THINGS, FOR OR TO THEMSELVES, UNDER FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY. POLYARCHIES, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS & PANARCHISM: See also Parallel Institutions, Self-help, Free Banking, Arbitration Courts, Education.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: Panarchies are fundamental and comprehensive alternative institutions. Compared with them all other alternative institutions are more or less trivial only or mere beginnings. - J.Z., 27.3.92, 13.1.93. - Panarchies are as complete - or incomplete - alternatives as individuals want for themselves. - J.Z., 4.9.04.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS, BY ALBANIANS, IN KOSOVA: Margaret Thatcher in "Statecraft, Strategies for a Changing World", Harper - CollinsPublishers (77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB, www.fireandwater.com, ISBN 0 00 710752 8), 2002 , page 310: "While the war was raging in Bosnia, Greater Serbianism was proceeding to the same goal by other means in Kosovo. In April 1995 - shortly before the Serb defeats that led to the Dayton Accords - I had the opportunity to learn from the self-styled President of Kosova, Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, about the systematic intimidation of the ethnic Albanians there. Deprived of employment, education and access to medical care by a policy of racial discrimination in favour of the Serb minority, the Albanians - who constitute 90 per cent of the population - had eschewed violence and instead set up a whole system of parallel institutions. They had even elected their own 'President". Dr. Rugova, a moderate, mild-mannered and highly civilised intellectual, had become the centre of this resistance movement...." Otherwise this book is mainly concerned with the "Statecraft" of territorialism. - J.Z.
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS: Political alternatives will not have been fully studied until all the alternatives, that are possible under exterritorial autonomy among volunteers, are studied as well. - J.Z., 25 July 89.
ALTERNATIVE MEDIA & PANARCHISM: See: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION & FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FROM - , TO FREEDOM OF ACTION & FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, IN EVERY SPHERE: Not even the humble floppy disk, far less CDs, are sufficiently utilized to record and spread the writings on panarchism. - They and the more powerful options, like DVDs and Blue Light Disks as well as external HDs would certainly be affordable media to spread panarchistic messages. Alas, neither for these media, used as text media, nor for panarchistic texts has a sufficient and ready market been built up so far. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06.
ALTERNATIVES, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS & THEIR EDUCATIONAL EFFECTS: The theoretical possibility of an alternative and its propaganda towards its realization for a whole territory as well as its practice in a foreign country are not convincing enough. When such proposals or examples succeed, then it has takes them often years to decades and then they are often adopted only in a compromised form and encounter considerable resistance. That is inevitable under territorial sovereignty and monopolism and coercion, i.e. when minority autonomy and freedom of action and experimentation are suppressed in what is considered to be the exclusive governmental sphere. Contrary to this, many different alternatives could and would be practised by volunteers in the same country under exterritorial autonomy. All of them would be close to each other, under the more or less interested or critical eyes of competing panarchies. Thus these practices and experiments would have a much higher educational value, not only for their participants but also for their outside observers. Few care about historical precedents or what happens now in other countries. And few have sufficient imagination to envision correctly the consequences of the application of their own theories or of the theories of others. But another system or theory practised nearby, in one's own neighbourhood, on the next block, next door, or even within one's close family or friendship circles, would promote close observation and thought. They are hard to ignore and yet easy to tolerate, because one does not have to abide by them or to pay for them. One can try to laugh them off but they will continue to haunt one's dreams and one's conscience and sub-conscience. They will thus be much more educational. One will want to keep up with the Jones next door. And one will learn much more from their failures, too, than in case the Jones had emigrated into another territorial system, i.e. a foreign country, whose experiments rarely get into the local news. Exterritorial experiments are likely to teach as much by their failures as by their successes. And no one has to share their failures, while anyone is free to copy or join their successful practice. What more could one rightfully ask for? - J.Z., 24.9.91, 13.1.93.
ALTERNATIVES, FALSE: Better anarchy than prison; there is nothing in between." - view ascribed to modern rebels by Isaiah Berlin: Russian Thinkers, 301. - Exterritorially, on the basis of voluntary autonomy and free experimentation, a wide spectrum of options would be open to us. We would no longer be under the numerous wrongful rules of any of the "terrible over-simplifiers". - J.Z., n.d. - At least the territorial Welfare State is somewhere in-between, although as a territorial regime it is also authoritarian and establishes something a like country-wide or nation-wide prison or internment camp system, which is not so bad that in its helplessness against unemployment, caused by its own legislation, it cannot manage without walls, border guards and "defences" against illegal humans, called illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, refugees from much worse systems or people seeking some economic improvements for themselves and their family. - J.Z., 28.11.11.
ALTERNATIVES, FREE CHOICE AMONG THEM: Die Freiheit, es anders zu machen, fuer sich selbst und Gleichgesinnte, auf eigene Kosten und eigenes Risiko. - J.Z. 11.10.90. (Freedom to act otherwise, alone or in association with like-minded people, at the own expense and risk.) This in all spheres where it is presently outlawed. - J.Z., 14.1.93.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE STATE: FREE MARKET ALTERNATIVES TO THE STATE: Free-Market Alternatives to the State. - [September 2001] http://libertariannation.org/b/BIBHOME.HTM - A list of topics (e.g. education, immigration, police and protection, taxes, etc.) leading to related articles. - Link at www.panarchy.org.
ALTERNATIVES: A direct alternative requires only a decision on your part; an indirect alternative requires that you get others to make decisions that would benefit you." - Harry Brown, How I Found Freedom, p.75. - Under Panarchism the first would mean that you could establish your own panarchy; the second would mean that others would have established a panarchy that is ready-made for you. You would merely have to join it. - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ALTERNATIVES: Allow alternatives! - J.Z., 10.11/72. Allow alternatives to function exterritorially, autonomously and among volunteer groups under personal laws. - J.Z., 25.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ALTERNATIVES: Allow private alternatives! - J.Z., 11/72.
ALTERNATIVES: Any single hypothesis, alternative to the prevailing world-view, may have debatable probability; but the alternatives COLLECTIVELY far outweigh the apparent reality." - R. C. W. Ettinger, Man Into Superman, p.225. – Many freely competing panarchies will tend to fast solve problems, between them, which territorial States have been unable to solved for centuries. – J.Z., 4.11.08.
ALTERNATIVES: Consider the alternatives! - J.Z., 11.3.73. – Especially the numerous diverse ones possible under the voluntarism of exterritorially autonomous communities or panarchies or polyarchies or manarchies. – J.Z., 4.11.08.
ALTERNATIVES: Economic analysis of free market vs. government institutions and services in such areas as schools, streets, courts, transportation, etc., shows why voluntary private alternatives are more efficient and more desirable than government. A defence of so-called 'anarcho-capitalism'.” - David Friedman, Laissez Faire Catalogue, 11/74. - Alas, he did not extend that idea to embrace that of competition for the kinds of package deals that governments offer. Naturally, that would be only possible on an exterritorial and autonomous basis for volunteer-communities. - J.Z. 25.1.93.
ALTERNATIVES: Even if you could make big changes in the world, the cost would be gigantic. It's always simpler and less costly to look for direct alternatives - as opposed to those that depend upon getting other people to act as you want them to act. That principle applies in ANY area of life." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom, 133. - When you are a conscript at the front and the other side neither takes prisoners nor accepts deserters or treats them very badly, then your options become rather limited, unless you start a military insurrection, preferably together with those on the other side, who are in a similar position. Likewise, if you are an inmate of an extermination camp, one of those forced to help in exterminating others (or getting rid of their bodies), immediately upon your arrival, then your individual options are rather limited. However, these "staff" of Sobibor, Bialistok, Treblinka and other death camps did, at last, successfully rise, i.e. some of them did manage to escape as a result of these uprisings. People like Brown are right in pointing out remaining official or underground opportunities but wrong in pretending that these would be sufficient for everyone in any position and towards any rightful aim. Insofar their statements are as absurd as the assertion: Full freedom does already exist now, for anyone, anywhere. He has only to practice it. - J.Z. 25.1.93, 25.9.02.
ALTERNATIVES: If there is no wind, row.” – Chinese Proverb - THERE IS ALMOST ALWAYS A RIGHTFUL ALTERNATIVE. – J.Z., n.d.
ALTERNATIVES: If you feel you're exploited, it's probably because you feel trapped in a situation to which there are no alternatives. But there are always alternatives." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom, p.270. - Under territorialism, which suppresses exterritorial alternatives, those alternatives, which Brown means, do often involve you in an endless race and search for mere loopholes, which is expensive, too and often rather risky. See the fate of many tax evaders and avoiders. - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ALTERNATIVES: If you have no alternative, you don't have freedom." - Don Werkheiser, 18.12.90. - I have his still unfinished magnum opus on hand, mostly hand-written and thus have still to keyboard it into a computerised text. I'm hopeful that he would finally acquire a PC and that this might lead to him to still finishing it. However, my day has only 24 hours, too. As an advocate of voluntary associationism and of "mutual convenience-relationships", as opposed to "single convenience relationships", he has re-thought political, economic and social relationships as much if not more so than most other "panarchistic" thinkers have done. - J.Z., 1/93. - Alas, he died in the meantime and his heir is only contemplating the publication of his magnum opus and, probably, not on an affordable alternative medium. - J.Z., 25.9.02.
ALTERNATIVES: Let every person have the alternatives he prefers - at his expense and risk. - J.Z., 4.10.74.
ALTERNATIVES: Maximise the alternative forms in which a user might receive a service, and the alternative sources of supply." - Don Chipp.
ALTERNATIVES: Rightness or justice demands that each human being be permitted to exercise his essential humanness by an unfettered decision between alternatives." - Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., THE FREEMAN, 4/74.
ALTERNATIVES: We don't have to run down governments. They do that themselves. But we do have to describe the alternatives - believably. - J.Z., 10/72.
ALTERNATIVES: Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible." - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p.929. – VALUES, CHOICE, FREEDOM
ALTRUISM, EGOISM, SELFISHNESS & PANARCHISM: The choice does not have to be either, or: Different panarchists will, within their volunteer communities, subscribe to different principles and practices, as is their right to do. - J.Z., 12.9.04.
ALTRUISM: Objectivism' ... maintains that altruism is the essential seed of tyranny and collectivism." - Libertarian Yearbook 1973. – Is every family and friendship group a tyranny? But if we assume that a whole territorial State can be conducted like a family or friendship group then, indeed, the seed for a territorial tyranny is laid. – J.Z., 4.11.08. – TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, PEOPLES
AMALFI: That the Amalfitan Tables provided for extraterritorial jurisdiction is evidenced by the fact that as early as 1190 the city of Amalfi was permitted to maintain consuls in the neighboring town of Naples to decide disputes between Amalfitan merchants. (4) Pardessus, op. cit., vol. i, p.144. - The text of the Diploma of 1190 is reproduced in Miltitz, op. cit., vol. ii, pt. i, p. 502. – LIU, Extraterritoriality, page 30.
AMBASSADORS: An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” – Henry Wotton, 1568-1639, written in the album of Christopher Fleckmore in 1602. – I suppose that territorial rulers, to stay in power, have to lie much more often than the leaders and representatives of communities of volunteers. They have to lie often to gain or maintain power in internal politics and in their external politics it is much the same. But what reasons would the representatives or leaders of panarchies have to lie about their politics and arrangements? They are part of publicly conducted experiments by volunteers, with all their details very well known to all the media of the world. – J.Z., 9.9.07. – DIPLOMACY, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, POLITICAL LIES VS. POLITICAL HONESTY, SECRECY VS. OPENNESS
AMERICAN CONSTITUTION: One of the peculiarities of the American Revolution was that its leaders pinned their hopes on the organization of decision-making units, the structuring of their incentives, and the counterbalancing of the units against one another, rather than on the more usual (and more exciting) principle of substituting “the good guys” for “the bad guys” - Thomas Sowell. – The attempt to elect better rulers by collectivist and territorial elections is still part of formal territorial constitutionalism. Both of his two alternatives are based on territorialism. Under individual sovereignty and individual secessionism, the good guys can separate themselves from the bad guys, the Voluntaryists from the coercers, the competitive people from the monopolists, the enlightened from the unenlightened, the informed from the ignorant, the wise from the fools etc. – J.Z., 23.1.08. - AMERICAN REVOLUTION, FOUNDING FATHERS, PANARCHISM, DECISION-MAKING, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, CONSTITUTIONALISM, USA, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, COMPULSORY COLLECTIVISM, CENTRALIZATION INSTEAD OF GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT
AMERICAN DREAM, THE: "We must stop talking about "the" American Dream and start listening to the dreams of Americans." - Reubin Askew. - Rather, allow individual Americans and their volunteer groups to not only speak freely but to practically realise, as far as possible and at their own expense their own dream. That is the most important general American Dream, although it was only rarely stated as such, quite clearly, so that no one could easily misunderstand it. - J.Z., 7.1.93. (Like e.g. Anatole France did, when he spoke of the equal right of the poor and the rich to go hungry and to sleep under bridges. - J.Z., 10.12.03.)
AMERICAN DREAM: A few men who did look into 'the law of liberty' bequeathed to present-day Americans a unique heritage. They were the authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. In what respect were these political documents unique? First, they unseated government as the endower of men's rights and placed the Creator in that role. Second, they more severely limited government than ever before - for the first time in history, hardly any organized coercion standing against the release of creative energy. Result? The greatest outburst of creative energy ever known, simply because the millions were free to act creatively as they pleased. Political power diminished and dispersed beyond the ready grasp of authoritarians who would run our lives. That was the American miracle!" – Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, 9/76. – Slavery, taxation, the postal monopoly, the decision-making monopoly on war and peace, protectionism and territorialism were retained, e.g. at the expense of Red Indian tribes and its Human Rights amendments were very incomplete and its juries not free enough and its militia not free & autonomous but subject to the State. Secession and panarchies remained outlawed. So it developed further into another all too authoritarian State. – The American Dream, as an ideal, has still to be fully developed and then realized. - J.Z., 5.11.08. - CONSTITUTION
AMERICAN DREAM: to every man his chance, to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining golden opportunity - to every man the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him - this, seeker, is the promise of America." - Thomas Wolfe: You can't Go Home Again, Harper & Bros., 1940. – However, no territorial constitution can fully realize that dream for all individuals and minorities. – J.Z., 3.11.10.
AMERICAN DREAM: We must stop talking about the American Dream and start listening to the dreams of Americans." - Reubin Askew. Rather allow individual Americans and their volunteer groups to realize, as far as possible, and at their own expense and risk, their own dream. That is the most important American Dream. – The hundreds of utopian colonies, intentional communities and alternative institutions and private self-help institutions that were tried out or established in the U.S.A. represent the American Dream much more than the various government levels of this republic do. - J.Z., 7.1.93. – INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM.
AMERICAN REVOLUTION: "The Second American Revolution would involve the transformation of the nation into smaller, autonomous and responsive units." - Richard Cummings, Proposition 14. - How responsive? Even to individual decisions, via individual secession and voluntary membership? A smaller wrong is still a wrong. Consistency would lead to exterritorially autonomous volunteer groups, not only to autonomous local governments. Panarchies would be still more responsive than geographically decentralized units, regardless of their size. Some of them may have millions of members, spread all over the world. I could well imagine a panarchy of free traders that has hundreds of millions of voluntary members. Their membership fees would be more than paid for by the free trade opportunities thus opened up for them. - J.Z., 15.6.92, 13.1.93.
AMERICAN & FRENCH REVOLUTION & PANARCHISM: Imagine that during the French and the American Revolution the option had been left to all, either to remain a loyal monarchist or become a republican, with different laws and institutions for both groups. The bloodshed that could have been avoided! The different course that history would have taken! – J.Z., 14.1.05 to Richard Johnsson.
AMERICANISM, NEW TYPE: The U.S. should recognize, sponsor and, as far as possible, organise the recognition and protection of all secessionists in the world, especially, to promote peace, freedom and wealth, the secession of individuals and minority groups and their freedom to re-organise voluntarily, under exterritorial autonomy, in every country (except on the private property of others) and world-wide. By recognising the right to secede from itself, and this being widely used by dissenters, it could lay all charges of a new imperialism to rest. Whatever would then persist of Americanism, would tend to be the best and anyhow, all of it would be adopted only by volunteers and at their risk and expense. No good and just government should fear such a competition but should consider it, like a continuous election or referendum, as a continuous proof for its mandate and the satisfactions it provides for its voluntary members. - J.Z., 27.10.83, 25.1.93. – IMPERIALISM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM
AMERICANISM: America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.” – John Quincy Adams (1821) - As a territorial State the USA, too, got involved with numerous wars, on the American continent as well as in the rest of the world. Under panarchism only some of its voluntary communities would have become so involved, and this only with the objective of spreading panarchism and thus largely abolishing despotisms and wars. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. - TERRITORIALISM
AMERICANISM: But this country, from the very beginning, established a (*) community upon a social faith... a belief in Liberty and Equality. In every crisis of our history, it has been that faith which has sustained us. (**) ... And this fact is the miracle of America. (***) For whereas all other great countries can recognize their citizens by language and physiognomy, we recognize an American by the way he thinks, and by the behaviour based upon that thought. (****) - Dorothy Thompson, The Pocket Book of America, VII. - - (*) Alas, only one territorial one - however subdivided by States and Local Governments. - - (**) The incompleteness or inconsistency of this faith has caused most crises in the first place. - - (***) The results of freedom are not miraculous. It is rather miraculous that they could be overlooked for such a long time. - - (****) There is far less unanimity in America than one could presume after that remark. I find Americanism rather characterised by quite different beliefs that are not only freely held and expressed but may also already, or still, be acted upon, among like-minded people. To each his own America and Americanism, with all the variations he desires - at his own expense and risk! Territorial governments, there as elsewhere, have only obstructed that ideal. See under Panarchism. - J.Z., 25.1.93. - In my first and only visit to the U.S. so far, in 90/91, I noticed 4 concrete liberties: Rustbucket cars were not legislated off the roads. Private postal boxes existed in many shops, supplementing those of the monopolistic P.O. and many photocopy shops were open 24 hours a day. Also: small and operating oil extracting pumps dotted the landscape within and around L.A., in tiny and neat enclosures, with green paddocks around them. Quite different from the disaster area images the anti-technology people like to spread. - J.Z.
AMERICANISM: Eight words summarize the American philosophy of life: Live and let live; Let’s make a deal. Eight words summarize American foreign policy: We’re better than you; Do it our way.” – Gary North - This wrongful and imperialistic external policy has also, to a large extent, been applied internally, by the Federal Government more and more expanding its power, supported by the federal tax and budget system and, naturally by all the territorial powers granted to it, including the authority to deny and suppress both, geographical and individual secessionism. Panarchists would apply the 8 words consistently, firstly to internal politics, which already allows thousands of voluntary self-help groups, to whole alternative political, social and economic systems, all for volunteers only and, secondly, to external policies as well, recognizing the right of all voluntary groups to rule themselves, exterritorially quite autonomously, in accordance with their own beliefs and convictions. If that were consistently applied, American foreign policy would become easy, cheap, quite clear and consistent and bloodshed & destruction around the world would be greatly reduced. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – INTERNAL & FOREIGN POLICY OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, CENTRALIZATION, TERRITORIALISM & PANARCHISM
AMERICANISM: I can now comprehend the fact that there is no possibility of freedom in this Country. It’s too late. Call me a bad American, but I am ashamed and hang my head low when I think of what America has become. … The experiment is over, freedom lost, tyranny won.” – Mike Wasdin, 9.7.04. - Only the American territorial State & federation model has failed and its governmental bill of rights and all too statist constitution. From an all-over view of all the possibilities of liberty and rights, the American Revolution has barely begun! Its revolutionaries haven't taken their revolution, their ideas, principles, opinions and institutions seriously enough - to quite critically examine them, and then change them or abolish or supplement them, as required. And in this there should have been no monopoly for anyone. All kinds of voluntary groups should have been free to complete the revolution as they saw fit, for themselves and should be free to do so now. That kind of revolution was never even attempted in the U.S. never even seriously and publicly discussed! - Worshipping, instead, the original constitution and its founding fathers is not a good enough substitute. Even that constitution is only good enough for volunteers! - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - AMERICAN REVOLUTION, AMERICAN LIBERTY
AMERICANISM: I care not who or where he is or about his creed, colour, race, nationality; he has as much right to be his creative self as any person who lives. Thomas Wolfe expressed this right-of-man concept in attractive prose: '... to every man his chance - to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity - to every man his right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him – this ... is the promise of America.'" – Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p 39/40. – To achieve this, its remaining territorialism ought to be ended. – J.Z., 3.11.10.
AMERICANISM: I sought for the greatness and genius of America in fertile fields and boundless forests; it was not there. I sought for it in her free schools and her institutions of learning; it was not there. I sought for it in her matchless Constitution and democratic congress; it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and found them aflame with righteousness, did I understand the greatness and genius of America. America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." - Read, The Coming Aristocracy, p.79, with a quote ascribed to A. Tocqueville, but which he could not place, either. - The Estonian constitution, before WW II, was supposedly the best in the world with regard to minority rights, according to a research done by friends of Ulrich von Beckerath. I have not seen a copy or translation of it, as yet. Perhaps it is forgotten even there, since by now the Russians who settled there, have become a disadvantaged minority, with no exterritorial autonomy being offered to them - as far as press reports go. - I found the "righteousness" among the faithful to be rather confused, confusing and all too incomplete. - Many liberties and rights, taken for granted, even before the U.S. were established, and their corresponding institutions and opportunities, which, in parts, persisted for a long time, have probably contributed more to what may be ascribed a pro-freedom and justice character of original Americans who had immigrated from Europe, as well as that of the earlier immigrants, than their various religious faiths and cults. Like the Reformation in Europe, religious liberty at best provided only a model for other liberties and freedom institutions. - I suspect also that there was an early and relative abundance of pro-freedom and pro-natural rights writings, most of them long out of print, but relatively wide-spread and read by the early Americans. The American literature to 1820 is supposed to be fully available in microprint and on microfilm. So far I have not seen a listing of these offers. This body of literature has as much formed "the American mind" in the best sense, as the statist literature of our times, in its abundance and spread, has formed what is now the all too mixed-up and contradictory "American Mind" or mindlessness, which has come all too far away from the better visions of the American Dream. - J.Z., 23.1.93.
AMERICANISM: Oscar and Mary Handlin thus define the 'free American' as the man who wants 'to expand his capacity for action by increasing the number of choices available to him.'" - B. R. Barber, Superman and Common Man, on page 74, quoting authors of The Dimensions of Liberty, p. 157. - Judging by the tiny number of orders for my On Panarchy fiche, there are hardly any such Americans left! - J.Z., 25.1.93.
AMERICANISM: Regardless of the beauty of its shape and design, an empty glass offers no consolation to a desperate thirsty man. In like manner, the American form of government, when emptied of its substantial element of personal rights and personal justice, is stripped of every logical excuse for its continued existence." - Clarence Manion, The Key to Peace, p.39. - Let it continue for its remaining voluntary members, no matter how ignorant, prejudiced and foolish they may be. But let all others opt out to realize their ideals of Americanism - or other isms, among themselves. - In the following quote he is, alas, back in the world of mere "floating abstractions" rather than practical blueprints and options. - J.Z., 25.1.93.
AMERICANISM: the enemies of the American Revolution have known that this is World Revolution. Until fifty years ago, every American school child knew that this Republic is a revolution against the whole world, and that its first enemies are the European despots. Every Fourth of July speaker until 1888 said so." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.255. - The essence of the American freedom ideal was not so much a collectivist revolution for the whole world but the chance for the individual to become fully free, no matter what all the other individuals would go on preferring for themselves. Individual sovereignty, rights and liberty ideas, lead ultimately to individualized revolutions and revolutions, non-violent and tolerant - for minorities of volunteers only. While this would, indeed, in the medium and long term, revolutionise most of the world, not a single peaceful dissenter would have to accept any part of this revolution for himself. That would, perhaps, be the other side of the coin or its most revolutionary feature: the one-man revolution. - Revolutionise revolutions through one-man revolutions! - J.Z., 25.1.93. – REVOLUTION, PANARCHISM
AMERICANISM: the framers of the rules of the American society established the conditions for the release of 'creative energy' - as Leonard Read would say." - Earl Zarbin, THE FREEMAN, 10/75. - Unfortunately, they did not go far enough in this direction, i.e. towards panarchism. - J.Z., 25.1.93.
AMERICANISM: There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” - Teddy Roosevelt, Speech before the Knights of Columbus. - Territorialism creates problems, not exterritorial autonomy! Compulsory integration and uniformity arouses opposition, factionalism and party rule, not voluntary segregation, separatism, diversity or integration. One nation, one territory, one law, one leader, one system – is a kind of war declaration against all dissenters. Faction strife arises only when factions try to rule each other instead of only themselves. – J.Z., 4.1.08. – We should allow the full range of hyphenated Americanism to be applied, all versions only among their voluntary adherents. – J.Z., 3.11.08. - TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS
AMERICANISM: There was pride in being American, not because it was a great, beautiful place, but because it was a beautiful idea - an idea everyone could embrace because it allowed everything possible to all people in a creative atmosphere of ordered peace.) It was the idea that each individual has an importance that transcends the imposed will of anyone else, whether singly or in a group, and should therefore be free to pursue his interests so long as he doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same." - Joan Marie Leonard, America - A Time, Not a Place, THE FREEMAN, Jan. 77, pp 5/6. - However, individual sovereignty was not recognized to the extent of granting individual the right to secede and the personal law option under exterritorial autonomy, in their self-chosen communities. - J.Z., 25.1.93. Under that territorialism too many other statist authoritarian and monopolistic features were retained, for a while even slavery and the expropriation and repression of native tribes. – J.Z., 5.11.08.
AMERICANISM: We have examined this American formula in specification and detail. At this point we need only to recall that the substance of the formula is 'continuous, strict and closely guarded limitations upon the power of government.' - Neither the peril of war nor the promise of welfare must ever serve to relax any time of this formula unless we are prepared to subject ourselves to the perverted dehumanised conditions of slavery." - Clarence Manion, The Key to Peace, p.65. - It seems to me that his general formula would as well apply to the powers of a corrective services department as to the remaining few liberties and powers of the prisoners in their charge. Without introducing some real substance into the limitations, like untouchable individual rights and responsibilities, such formulas seem to be as useless as "lawful" or "law and order". With the "limited" powers left to the U.S. governments, they have managed to invalidate almost every point of the Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals, Republicans or Democrats, Libertarians or Anarchists like to talk or write much about limiting governments through well and rightfully organized, trained, enlightened, armed, autonomous and self-mobilising volunteer militias. - Even monetary and financial freedom is still insufficiently discussed by them – and the concept of rights, natural law, individual rights and all the implications of individual sovereignty and voluntary associationism, e.g. exterritorial autonomy. Seeing such insufficient interests and theories, we should not be surprised about unsatisfactory practices by the least enlightened and most numerous groups and minorities and, naturally, majorities. - J.Z., 25.1.93.
AMERICANS: the Americans, who are but a vast, undisciplined tangle of conflicting nationalities and ideologies …” - Ingo Swann, Star Fire, Sphere Book Edition 1978, p. 342. – Let them sort themselves out, peacefully and that requires here: without any territorial interventions. XYZ different panarchies, all only of volunteers, could release all their creative energies much better than their Constitution ever did, allowing each group of volunteers to do its own things for or to itself, in peaceful competition with all other such societies and communities. This would work in the sphere of political, economic and social systems as well as it does already in all other spheres where it is free to do so. – J.Z., 10.9.08. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM
AMIABILITY: It is not agreement among ourselves that we should seek but, rather, an amiability in our countless differences - without which we could not exist. Whether this stance or attitude can be achieved depends on an ability to discipline our animal instincts and to look at the matter rationally, as human beings.” - Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.93. - LOVE OF FREEDOM, JUSTICE, HUMAN RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITY, TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, DOMINATION, DUTY
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL & PANARCHISM: Amnesty International has gained much support just for the release of political prisoners or their somewhat more humane treatment. Panarchism considers all suppressed minorities and dissenters everywhere as “political prisoners”, even though they are not formally imprisoned in what are normally classed as prisons or concentration camps. Panarchism considers all territorial States as nationwide “prisons” – all least for all their dissenters. It not merely petitions for the release of some or all political prisoners, or for their better treatment, but insists upon their right, and that of other dissenting citizens, to secede individually and in groups from the territorial States that subjugated them in many ways, and to set up their own desired alternative or parallel institutions everywhere – but only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. – J.Z., 21.10.93., 14.1.99.
AMUSEMENTS: Life - a condition that would be tolerable but for its amusements." - Adapted from G. B. Shaw by L. L. Levinson. - Why look down intolerantly upon amusements of others, with inclinations towards prohibiting them, when participation and avoidance of them is quite left up to individuals? At least in this private sphere we do have already voluntarism, autonomy and exterritorial choices and personal law rules. I can only wish that soon we can similarly amuse ourselves with our favourite political, economic and social systems, institutions, games and dreams, - i.e., without disturbing those of any self-responsible, peaceful and similarly active dissenter, enjoying the society or government of his dreams. - Shaw, obviously, was not amused when many other people found his state socialist notions only amusing to ridiculous. They rather amused themselves with other games, which they preferred for themselves. Intolerant utopians all expect us to take their utopias serious for ourselves, instead of them being satisfied with the opportunity to take their utopias serious for themselves only. With freedom to experiment, for all the early state socialists as well, they could not have grown so powerful and could not have done as much harm to whole populations and for whole decades, as they have done. - J.Z., 25.1.93. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT
AN INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE REPRESENTING ALL BUT TOTALITARIANS & TERRITORIAL AUTHORITARIANS: It could be by its nature more representative and have a much larger membership than any other movement, for it would offer “to everyone the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams.” – J.Z., n.d., 14.1.99.
ANALOGIES TO PANARCHISM: Fashions, sports, schools of thought, schools of painting, sculpture, music, architecture, hobbies, crafts, diversely filled shopping carts, transport options, shoes, ties, socks, shirts, pullovers, pants, (clothing variety), jewellery, furniture, interior decorations, gardens, tours, amusements, collectors of various things, varieties in private lives and lifestyles, choice of careers, doctors, medicines, ideologies, educational avenues, various gurus, saviours and experts, experimental freedom in technology, science, literature and, especially, in religion. Panarchism works well regarding all these and other choices. It would work as well regarding "public services" and "public affairs". - J.Z., 15.10.04.
ANALOGIES: Laissez faire, laissez passer, Religious freedom, lifestyle freedom, experimental freedom in science and technology. Compare: Precedents. - Fashions, sports, schools of thought, schools of painting, sculpture, music, architecture, hobbies, crafts, diversely filled shopping carts, transport options, shoes, ties, socks, shirts, pullovers, pants, (clothing variety), jewellry, furniture, interior decorations, gardens, tours, amusements, collectors of various things, varieties in private lives and lifestyles, choice of careers, doctors, medicines, ideologies, educational avenues, various gurus, saviours and experts, experimental freedom in literature and, especially, in religion. - Panarchism works well regarding all these and the multitude of other choices in our private lives. It would work as well regarding "public services" and "public affairs". - J.Z., n.d.
ANALOGIES: Though analogy is often misleading, it is the least misleading thing we have." - Samuel Butler, Notebooks: Music, Pictures and Books, 1912. - One has to have a chance, when attempting to communicate any idea that is new to other people, to latch on to some of their ideas and experiences. Analogies do often make this possible. Free, i.e. exterritorially autonomous experiments among volunteers would be even less misleading. - J.Z., 25.1.93. – FREEDOM OF ACTION, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT
ANARCHISM FOR ANARCHISTS. Any other ism for those favouring it. - J.Z., 1974.
ANARCHISM is essentially individualism and group voluntarism or voluntary associationism, not egalitarianism or decentralisation or abolition of property or of money or any other sensible or senseless aim that anarchists strive for because they also happen to believe in it. - J.Z., 26.3.91, 25.1.93.
ANARCHISM & ANARCHISTS: Anarchism: "...as opponents of any authority and any government." - A wrong and exaggerated image of anarchism. If you examine the anarchist beliefs more closely, you will find that, apart from some dogmatists and purists among them, they are mainly opposed to authorities, governments, institutions and laws that are imposed upon them without their consent and that, instead, they would prefer their own alternative arrangements. This they do have in common with all dissenters, who are not necessarily anarchists in all respects. And this common liking for individual choices, freely made rather than forced upon oneself, indicates a procedure and a framework for action which almost all somewhat rational and mature people could come to adopt for themselves. Most anarchists have their own and self-chosen authority figures or preferred prophets, whose writings and suggestions form their "holy scriptures". At least they demand individual or group secessionism from the present establishment and the choice to establish their ideal for themselves. Alas, they are not necessarily in favour, as well, of individual secession from their own ideal societies and for free competition in the same territory by people with other anarchist or archist ideals. Why not, in most cases? Simply because they have not thought consistently about individual sovereignty, secessionism and associationism and voluntarism. Under such liberties all present governments would become reduced to merely exterritorially autonomous associations of volunteers and thus largely harmless towards others. Only territorially imposed governments and laws and jurisdictions are wrong, not individually chosen ones. Furthermore, one should distinguish between impositions upon genuine criminals, those with victims and lawbreakers without victims. Moreover, in both cases, one should distinguish between laws applied to wrongdoers and lawbreakers who are members of a community and do wrong or break the laws of that community against one of is members or against one of its taboos and those, who invade the different and self-chosen spheres and relationships of the members of other personal law communities and offend against them. Aggressors, who merely commit their offences against members or laws of their own communities can be left to the justice provisions of that community. But when they commit offences against the members and laws of other communities, then they may have to be subjected to the authorities, laws and judgment of these communities. Only imposed authorities and governments are wrong, not individually chosen one. When tribal rules allow the beating of wives or husbands then that is right for them - until these victims do individually secede from such conditions. But when members of such tribes beat up members of other tribes or exterritorially autonomous communities, in which such assaults are considered to be wrong, they must suffer the consequences. Suum cuique: To each his own. - J.Z., 19.6.92, 6.1.93.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: Anarchism without panarchism is just another form of authoritarianism. The majority of communist anarchists would make sure of that. Even some individualist anarchists are territorialists still and to that extent still totalitarians. Even the best possible system should not be territorially imposed upon dissenters. To each his own. - J.Z., 15.9.04.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM, CHOICE OF FREEDOM OR OF DEGREES OF UNFREEDOM: Anarchism means for different anarchist groups as total a freedom as its members can imagine – but only for themselves. They have no right to impose their anarchistic preferences upon other anarchists or archists. For all who disagree with them it means their free choice of the degrees of freedom and or subordination which they do want and consider to be ideal for themselves. – J.Z., 1.9.94, 7.1.99.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: Everyone would have to become an anarchist for anarchism to become universally realized. That kind of utopian method condemns anarchism to remain a utopia for a minority. To attempt to coercively impose anarchism upon the majority of non-anarchists would be self-contradictory and self-defeating. Attempts to spread it widely enough, in its consistent forms, have failed for decades and are likely to fail for further decades. No other faith or conviction has ever attained unanimous approval. Why should we expect anarchism to achieve that? Panarchism demands no more and no less than that everybody be freed to follow his own preferences in his own affairs at his own risk and expense. For such an aim anarchists and libertarians could sign up many allies among those, whom they do presently merely consider as being their inevitable opponents. Any kind of anarchism for any kind of anarchist, any kind of libertarianism for any kind of libertarian and any kind of other ism for any kind of archist, is a much more realistic approach and a time and energy-saving one. It does not require any sacrifices or compromises except the discarding of the utopia of anarchism or libertarianism (of one kind or the other) for all people in the world. Maybe, in the future, once various forms of anarchism and libertarianism have been freely and successfully demonstrated, by their minority groups, a considerable or large majority will adopt their benefits for themselves as well, even though they might not understand why and how freedom works, in the same way as many have now opted for capitalism, without really understanding it. – But do not expect all people to ever subscribe to one or the other form of anarchism or libertarianism. You would not expect everybody to become a wise person, either and to act always self-responsibly. - J.Z., 1.9.97, 9.1.99. See also under LIBERTARIANISM.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: All people are not yet ready for some kind of anarchism. But, by all means give them the anarchist options. Just do not force any one of them upon any person. - All that is needed would be an understanding, acceptance and application of panarchistic principles, which by their very nature tend to minimize opposition and friction (once understood). - But so far they are so misunderstood that there is much opposition to them and numerous misunderstandings even in anarchist and libertarian circles. Without being also and primarily panarchists the anarchists are not really anarchists and the libertarians are not really libertarians. - J.Z., 12.9.04.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: Anarchist enemies of Panarchism argue in practice, often without being aware of this, AGAINST a) an extension of freedom, cooperation and competition, b) maximizing tolerance, c) experimental freedom for all, in all spheres, d) minority autonomy, e) individual sovereignty, f) voluntary associationism, g) the consent requirement, h) freedom for individual choices, other than anarchistic ones. OR AS IF THESE IDEALS APPLIED ONLY TO ANARCHISTS! - - The panarchist aim is minority autonomy for all minorities, for archists and anarchists alike, autonomy for the largest majorities as well as for the smallest minorities and the absolutely smallest minority, the individual. For this they advance moral as well as utilitarian reasons, political, economic and even military and pacifist arguments as well as revolutionary and reformist ones. They hold themselves to be consistent anarchists and those presently calling themselves anarchists to be still partly authoritarians. (They oppose only imposed rule, not wanted and asked for rule. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06.) Moreover, they hold that this panarchist approach is also the only moral and practicable way to achieve anarchism for all - IF AND WHEN THESE forms of social arrangements should ever become the preference of every single individual that is of age (however unlikely that may be).
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: As an anarchist you are an enemy of the State and of all of the statists. As a panarchist you could continue to be an anarchist and could, at the same time, become a saviour of States and statism, when they are continued, by others, for themselves only on a voluntary and exterritorial basis and at their own risk and expense. Thus and to this extent, you could become an ally of numerous to most statists, who, in the more or less vain pursuit of their particular ideals, are also in opposition to the ruling territorial statists and have few chances to see their own ideal realized and or long maintained - territorially. (Especially the advocates of "limited governments". - J.Z., 21. 11. 06.) Moreover, as a panarchist you could liberate them from their self-defeating and frustrating in-fighting. Exterritorially there is room for all kinds of opponents to practise their own ideals independently, among themselves only. Thus all of them could and should become allies, with exterritorial autonomy for all volunteers who do want it, as their common aim. Looking at it closely: Any government really wanted by an individual and being one that would only rule that individual and people like him, is not really the kind of "government" which anarchists strongly oppose. Why should they? They might assert that such governments are impossible. But that is no reason not to demand freedom to try to establish them - together with the freedom to try to establish non-governmental free societies. Freedom of action and experimentation for all, not just for anarchists! - J.Z. 5.12.89, 9.1.93.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: I will not attempt to prove to you in detail what the original and basic doctrines of anarchism were. Read and abstract original writings yourself to check my assertions on this out. I do assert, however, that the main and basic aim of anarchism was to do away with COMPULSORY association with and subjection to others. To do away e.g. with tyrants and absolutist kings, authoritarian, aristocratic or democratic governments - institutions obviously not based on unanimous consent. Most were rather vague on what was to follow. (Societies of egoists, according to Stirner, a cooperative society, according to Engels and Marx, a society based on contract, according to Proudhon etc.) But when you analyse their various proposals and notions of a society without coercion, privileges and monopolies, or coercive "rule" of man over man, the only common basic feature was VOLUNTARISM, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AND VOLUNTARY RESISTANCE AND DEFENCE AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD NOT PERMIT THESE. - J.Z., 1986.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: No anarchist should presume to speak or act for all other anarchists, far less for all the diverse archists. At most he can rightly speak and act for all those who happen to share his particular ideal and action programme. Nor, as an anarchist, should he ever attempt to force his ideal and action programme upon any archists. Anarchism of any colour only for anarchists of that colour. That would require, in practice, exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups - or panarchism. - J.Z. 13.10.92.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: Some anarchists have understood anarchism panarchistically but, alas, most haven't and rather represent an authoritarian or intolerant form of anarchism in which whatever should be the secondary ideal of these "anarchists" predominates over their primary anarchism, one based on individual choice, self-determination and rejection of any rule over peaceful dissenters. - Most anarchists have even demonstrated an astonishing lack of interest in panarchism - although it offers them the fastest and easiest approach towards the anarchism of their own choice. - In this respect their territorialism has blinded them as much as it has the statists towards peaceful and rightful alternatives. - J.Z., 29.8.04. - Perhaps I should and, with a special effort, I could, quote to you hundreds of references from classical anarchists, proving my case that their basic notion was voluntarism and that they objected mainly to the coercive nature of states and churches and other vested interests and pressure groups and to imposed privileges. So far, apart from my collections of related remarks in my "Slogans for Liberty" file and in my "On Panarchy" series, I have not made such an effort. I do hope that, for my purposes here, just some such quotes, still in the classical anarchist tradition, will serve: 1.) "Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." - said Victor Yarros, as quoted by J. J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 237. - - 2.) "Anarchism, as I see it, admits of any kind of organization, so long as membership is not compulsory." - Joseph A. Labadie, quoted ibid, p. 245. - - 3.) "If we, in any way, dominate the lives of others and prevent them from doing what they wish to do, then for all practical purposes, we cease to be anarchists." - E. Malatesta, "La Question Sociale", Nov. 25, 1889. - - 4.) "I am in favour of free competition in all human enterprises, and to the utmost limit." - H. L. Mencken, Prejudices, 3rd. series, article: "The Dismal Science", p. 280. (Admittedly, he probably did not mean it in a panarchistic way. - J.Z.) - - 5.) "... each and every individual has the unquestionable and unabridgeable right of free and voluntary association with other equally sovereign individuals for economic, political, social and all other purposes, ..." - Emma Goldman, Mother Earth, Vo. IV, 1909-1910. - Alas, she concluded that this would require the abolition of property rights rather than their establishment and maintenance. In "Anarchism and other Essays", p. 62, she speaks of the "sovereignty of the individual". But would she have favoured it being expressed in panarchies, even by proprietary anarchists? - See also Kropotkin, Gegenseitige Hilfe, S. 134, which I have recently micro-fiched. - - - While anarchists WISHED that everyone would sooner or later subscribe to their own ideals, what they really opposed was only the coercive imposition of the ideals of others upon themselves and upon other victims of the State, i. e. RULE against one's will, over oneself or over others against their will, when those ruled over have not acted invasively but merely want to be left alone to do their own thing. - - The original anarchists did not demand that any rule that is FULLY BASED ON CONSENT ought not to be tolerated. - J.Z. in an old talk. - - By expressing a rightful and limited demand in absolute terms one can sometimes turn it into absolute nonsense, as happened e.g. with the demand for the abolition of all government and with that for a general strike. - The greatest real enemies were always only the territorial rulers, with regard to all their involuntary victims. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06. - Also the very language use, words, definitions and ideas of the rulers and of most of the ruled as well as that of most of the "freedom fighters", "protestors" and "liberators". In this respect they can be their own worst enemies. - Without clear and rightful aims and methods, clearly expressed and applied, they won't get anywhere except by chance. - J.Z., 28.11.11.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHISM: Under panarchism anarchists would then no longer have to convert their opponents to anarchism but would merely have to make their own choices while letting others do their own. - That is a much easier task - because it respects other people with their different choices. (The "Doctrine of Otherness" formulated by David Brin in the editorial to "Analog", April 1986, would be fully practised.) - Each to his own tastes. And that applies, naturally, to the potential victims of those cannibalistically inclined. - "Suum cuique" or: To each his own, was already the definition of justice in ancient Rome! - In short, panarchism means governments and non-governmental societies by individual choices, everywhere, for those who choose them, rather than territorial impositions upon any non-criminal dissenters. It offers a peace-promoting and just freedom framework for people as they are (apart from their remaining territorial prejudices) rather as they ought to be, in our opinion. - To anarchists it offers the fastest road to their kind of anarchism for themselves and it literally disarms their opponents and turns them at least into neutrals, if not outright allies, in an international federation that has only one platform: full exterritorial autonomy for all who desire it for themselves, regardless of whatever internal policies they want to unanimously apply among their volunteers. Sufficient unanimity would remain assured by upholding individual secessionism. - All kind of anarchies for all kind of anarchists AND all kinds of archies for all kinds of archists. Who could and seriously object against this non-compromising compromise, offering to each his own, the essence of justice? "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams!" This implies freedom to join any and to secede from any group or system or organization, even an anarchistic one. - J.Z.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHSIM: As an individualist I have to oppose even those anarchists, whose political ideal I do share, whenever they do try to impose or aim to impose their ideal upon all those who doubt anarchy as an ideal or who are its enemies. All such attempts are, inevitably, self-defeating, since they do provoke negative feed-back, often of a severely repressive type. Once one equates one's own political, economic and social beliefs with beliefs in religious doctrines, one becomes aware why this is the case. From then on one will tend to try to advocate anarchy rather with respect for human nature and all its present foibles, than against it. - People are different. Let them make their different choices, away from anarchy, as long as they want to. – J.Z., 1986, 2004.
ANARCHISM & PANARCHSIM: Who is right, the modern anarchists, who are relatively numerous compared with panarchists, or the panarchists? That question has not yet been settled. Matter of fact, it has rarely even been raised. I raise it whenever I do get the opportunity. - For panarchism to win - i.e. EVERYBODY TO WIN HIS IDEAL FOR HIMSELF AND AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND RISK ONLY - anarchists and libertarians have to be won over first, apart from the very few who so far arrived at panarchistic ideas as a result of their own thinking or studies. - J.Z., n.d.
ANARCHISM, ARCHIES & PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE & COMPETITION BETWEEN THEM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM: Genuine anarchism can lead to order, wanted rules or laws, peace, justice, freedom, progress – just as much as any kinds of anarchists wants for themselves, for their internal affairs. Provided only, that “anarchists” are not at the same time and primarily e.g. egalitarians, coercive “sharers” and distributors and enemies of property rights and other individual economic rights and liberties. To the extent that some, too many, anarchists, want to impose their anarchist ideal upon dissenters, i.e., to the extent that they are still territorialists, wanting to impose their kind of territorial “rule” or system uniformly upon a whole territory, they are really authoritarians, even totalitarians and are preparing for a civil war against the statists and must not be surprised if they are the losers in this war, for anarchists are still largely outnumbered by archists. – The territorial archies of all kinds, at least in the large States, lead generally only to ever more oppressive and exploitative laws and institutions, even when they start out with the ideal of a limited and constitutional government and a bill of rights, usually a still all too limited & flawed one. They are quite immoral and irrational in many respects. Archies are tolerable only for their voluntary victims. – J.Z., 17.2.07, 25.10.07.
ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM & COSMOPOLITAN REPUBLICANISM: Comparison of Anarchism with the New Social System Proposed by by U. v. Beckerath, 1957, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506. - See also: CRITICISM OF PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM, SOCIALISM, LEFT ANARCHISM & COMMUNIST ANARCHISM & ECONOMIC FREEDOM OR ECONOMIC ANARCHSIM: Merely political anarchism without economic anarchism or full economic freedom amounts merely to another form of authoritarianism, coercion, compulsion, confiscation and distribution of property and earnings. – J.Z., 15.3.05. – However, whatever anti-economic actions, rules, systems and institutions volunteers want to apply among themselves should be their own affair. Maybe at least some of them will soon learn from their own mistakes. – J.Z., 15.3.05, 29.10.07.
ANARCHISM: A free man (1945: THE ANARCHIST) achieves victory and establishes the free society merely by holding to a natural and free life. It is not necessary for him to defeat anybody. If he is creative, he wins. If he resists and suffers, he wins. (J.Z.: ???) ... The free man does not strive to dominate organizations but to act within natural groups, which are significant for him. Human beings act predominantly in groups.” - Paul Goodman, in Blankertz/Goodman, Staatlichkeitswahn, retranslated into English. - PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: A free market in every respect - as an institutionalised anarchistic or panarchistic and thus voluntaristic and exterritorial framework for all kinds of societies and communities, even governmental and States as well, as long as they confine themselves to exterritorial autonomy for their own volunteers. – No territorial powers any more to anyone over any dissenters. - J.Z., 13.9.91, 25.1.93, 5.11.08.
ANARCHISM: a school of thought which teaches that social cooperation of men could be achieved without compulsion or coercion." – Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, 48.
ANARCHISM: all authority over man is unjust, that if individuals are left absolutely free to associate themselves as they see fit, all individuals and groups will, responding to natural impulses of sympathy and mutual aid, act in mutual helpfulness & in respect for the interests of one another. Under his view, discord in society is due only to the perverting influence of the unnatural and unjust restrictions inherent in the system of political authority (and private property)." - W.A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories, Recent Times, 113, on Kropotkin.
ANARCHISM: A system of social organization ‘holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable’.” - Erwin S. Strauss, quoting a dictionary, in THE CONNECTION No. 84. - This still does not offer an anarchist solution to the problem posed by those who do consider authority to be necessary and desirable at least for themselves - and against those who would attack them. - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ANARCHISM: All state coercion, all state classes, should be abolished. - For dissenters that is correct. For consenting “victims” it would be a further and unasked-for victimisation. They would be expelled from their statist utopia and deported into a free society they do not know and are afraid of and thus would not choose for themselves. Why be so cruel to dumb animals? - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ANARCHISM: An anarchist organization must (allow for) complete autonomy, and independence, and therefore full responsibility, for individuals and groups; (*) free agreement between those who think it useful to come together for cooperative action, for common aims; a moral duty to fulfil one's pledges and to take no action contrary to the accepted program. On such bases then one introduces practical forms and suitable instruments to give real life to the organization. Thus the groups, the federation of groups, the federations of federations, meetings, congresses, correspondence committees and so on. But all this must be done freely, in such a way as not to restrict the thought and the initiative of individual members, but only to give greater scope to the efforts which in isolation would be impossible or ineffective." - Errico Malatesta, Il Risveglio, Oct. 15, 1927. - - (*) For itself and for all other volunteer groups, not only anarchistic or libertarian ones. – J.Z., n.d.)
ANARCHISM: An anarchist program can be put quite briefly - the abolition of institutionalised power or control from the top over people. (*) It is, in this, very specific as to what it is against. It is less specific in what it is for - any sort of voluntary, participatory social organizations. It is perhaps more important at this period to emphasise what the various schools of anarchist thought oppose rather than what they want. - Now that religion has largely declined from a position of imperial power to one of personal preference, the single most important form of the power that anarchists oppose is the nation State. (**) Corporate capitalism and state socialism are its most highly developed and all embracing forms. (***) Imperialism is simply this same power moving outward. That is theory." - Karl Hess, LIBERTARIAN ANALYSIS, Winter 70, p. 57. - - It is not even theory, which is at least somewhat backed up by facts. It is merely a false hypothesis. - All such statements should be systematically criticised and re-stated, as often as desired or necessary. Micrographically or electronically this could be done cheaply and fast enough. - - (*) J.Z.: In other words, exterritorial and voluntaristic governments and States would be left or could be established still. - - (**) Not the nation state of personal preference! - - (***) Mrs. Chisholm: “Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the name national.” - J.Z., 26.1.93.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism ... advocates the abolition of all government as we today understand the term, save that originating in voluntary cooperation." - Encyclopaedia Americana, 1959. - Why do most anarchists ignore the second part of that definition, in its application to the vast majority of the remaining archists? - J.Z., 25.1.93. – Any government based upon unanimous consent would also be a kind of anarchy – because in it no one would be ruled against his will. To that extent rule over others would be abolished! – Statism for statists only! Anarchism for anarchists only! Any other ism only for its adherents! - J.Z., 5.11.08. – VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MYOB!
ANARCHISM: Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the State into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society..." - Murray Rothbard, LIBERTARIAN FORUM, 1/75. - Did he anywhere and in detail discuss the possibilities of exterritorial autonomy for anarchists and archists alike? - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism for the perfect man is not seriously contested, only anarchism for the imperfect man is. It would be less provocative, if anarchism were only proposed for those who want it and would remain avoidable for those who don't. Whatever stage of development anybody might be in at present, such a condition could only help to directly or indirectly improve him further. Whoever is imperfect enough to aggress against others must be effectively resisted, forcefully or non-violently, i.e., to that extent he must be ruled over or governed. Archies and anarchies would have the same task and could not always solve it by wishful thinking and non-violent means, no matter how hard they tried. Anarchism is not a design for criminals and their aggressions. But it would allow them to do their things to themselves, i.e. to consenting victims. Like a group of card--players who like cheating each other. Only the others, the peaceful and honest ones, however imperfect they might otherwise still be, can be free of government (apart from their self-defence organization or organisations) or could have only the kind of government or society they want for themselves. - J.Z., 23.6.87.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is as much an individually preferred point of view and lifestyle as is atheism and should be similarly tolerant towards those who are tolerant of it.” - J.Z., 13.1.81.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is neither left nor right nor any middle of the road idealism or materialistic religion or anti-religion. Instead, it is concerned with freedom for individuals and their voluntary groups, with un-coerced actions of all kinds, whatever they may be and whoever wants to engage in them, as long as they are undertaken only at the own risk and expense. – J.Z., 3.9.98.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is no problem, if freed of its archist - authoritarian and totalitarian because territorialist - remaining traces - but anti-anarchism is a problem at least for anarchists, if it is territorially enforced. - J.Z., 4.6.82, 25.1.93, 5.11.08.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is not "... a fixed, self-enclosed system, but rather a definite trend in the historical development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and government institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life..." - Rudolph Rocker, in his work Anarcho-Syndicalism, as quoted by Noam Chomsky in Notes on Anarchism.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is not just adopting a negative stance: "We have something very tangible to offer, - something very rational, practical, and easy of application. We offer cooperation. We offer non-compulsive organization... We offer every possible method of voluntary social union by which men and women may act together for the furtherance of well-being." - Benjamin Tucker. - He was one of the all too few tolerant anarchists, so tolerant that they were panarchists. - J.Z., 25.1.93. – Non-compulsive or non-compulsory? – ANARCHISM, POSITIVE & COOPERATIVE, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
ANARCHISM: anarchism is the doctrine which contends that the government is the source of most of our social troubles and that there are viable alternative forms of social organization.” – George Woodcock, Anarchism: A Historical Introduction, in The Anarchist Reader, Fontana Original, 1977, p.11. – Did Woodcock ever discuss exterritorial autonomy options and their peaceful coexistence even with such options for statists? – Or did he have only in mind a free competition between various anarchistic groups and communities? - J.Z., 21.9.08. - GOVERNMENT, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is the hammer-idea, smashing the chains. Liberty is what results and, in liberty, everything is up to people and their ideologies.” - Karl Hess, DANDELION, Spring 80. - Here he comes close to panarchism. - J.Z.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is the ideal of a society without coercion, a society where membership in all organizations is voluntary.” - Larry Gambone, TOTAL LIBERTY, Autumn 98. - Some, but all too few anarchists are also tolerant enough to be panarchists, at least by their general definitions of anarchism. - J.Z., 1.2.02. - COERCION, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is the thesis that government is an unnecessary evil." - Peter Crosby, The Utopia of Competition, in THE PERSONALIST. Date? – It is only territorial government that is a quite unjustified and unnecessary evil. – J.Z., 3.11.10.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism must mean liberty first, liberty second, liberty always.” - Larry Gambone, ANY TIME NOW, No. 5, Winter 1998. - Instead of liberty one might say here: voluntarism or individual sovereignty or exterritorial autonomy. - It means "equality" or "socialism", "communism" or "capitalism" or "collectivism" or "propertarianism" only for those who make these features their individual or group choices within a general framework of individual liberty and rights. - To the extent that these individual or group choices are the primary thing for those who call themselves still "anarchists" and to the extent that they are not prepared to allow others to make other choices for themselves, including governmental ones, to that extent they are not anarchists, individualists, voluntaryists and tolerant and non-authoritarian people but have joined the hordes of aggressors, coercers, territorialists and invaders. - J.Z., 1.2.02. - LIBERTY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM, INTOLERANCE, HYPHENATED ANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: Anarchism then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the domination of religion (*); the liberation of the human body from the domination of property (**); liberation from the shackles and restraint of government (***). Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free groupings of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations. (****) - Anarchism does not stand for military drill and uniformity; it does, however, stand for the spirit or revolt, in whatever form, against everything that hinders human growth. All anarchists agree in that, is they also agree in their opposition to the political machinery (*****) as a means of bringing about the great social change.” (*** ***) - Emma Goldman, Anarchism, 1910. – (*) There are religious anarchists, too! - - (**) There are propertarian or individualist or philosophical and cooperative anarchists, too! - - (***) That does not mean from a merely exterritorially autonomous government that is desired for and by volunteers only. - - (****) Who is to provide these and why should he? – Other anarchists have other ideals! - - (*****) Really only the territorial State machinery! They never considered, in most cases, a voluntaristic, exterritorial and freely competing one! - - (*** ***) Individual people and different minority and majority groups, among the anarchists as well, desire different great and small social changes and different combinations and degrees of them. - J.Z., n.d.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism wants to abolish every rule of man over man. That is the common notion of anarchism among anarchists. But what about rule over volunteers? This is then no longer any imposed rule of man over man but, rather, an asked-for rule of man over man and thus, no longer an objectionable domination over involuntary victims, which anarchists want to resist and abolish. To take a sexual analogy: If no one should dominate anyone, even if invited to do so, neither husband nor wife should ever to be on top. They would only be permitted - sideways – or standing-up sexual relationships! Is this the "lateral thinking" consensus of anarchists? - J.Z., 25.1.93. – VOLUNTARISM, SUBMISSIVENESS, STATISM, RULE, RULERS, GOVERNMENT, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: Anarchism, as Tucker defined it, is indistinguishable from the natural sociability of human beings which leads them to cooperate with one another in the realisation of mutual social ends when left free to do so.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.162.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism, the doctrine that in all matters there should be the greatest amount of individual liberty compatible with equality of liberty." - B. R. Tucker, Individual Liberty, p. 251. - The minimum amount of individual liberty required, compatible with equality of liberty is voluntary membership and exterritorial autonomy of volunteers - no matter what these volunteers want to do among themselves. No one who believes e.g. in freedom of expression, imagines that he has to fill his days with the maximum practice of it, e.g. by continuously writing letters to the editor. The greatest amount of individual liberty includes also the choices of voluntary limitations upon one's liberties. These absolutist and generalised wordings always tend to lead us astray. – Their flaws would be best shown by attempts to realize them in practice among volunteers, in panarchies or polyarchies or free experiments under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy: panarchies under panarchism. - Egalitarianism might be adopted only in few panarchies and even in them only for a while. The Founding Fathers of America soon got sick of it. Most of them did actually starve, got sick and died under it. So they discarded communism and adopted individual and family responsibilities and property rights and from that time onward and to that extent they did prosper. – J.Z., 25.1.93. 5.11.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION
ANARCHISM: Anarchist beliefs and convictions should not be accompanied by still more irrationality and irresponsibility than is already all too common today - but by much less, if any at all. They should be recognizable and provable by reason and facts. Anarchist actions should all be reasonable, just, peaceful and tolerant ones - towards all reasonable, just, peaceful and tolerant people, who just doing their own things to and for themselves, with their own property and labor. Anarchists and libertarian should recognize and respect all the basic rights of others, even if, for themselves, the others do make other than anarchist and libertarian choices. - J.Z., 24.7.00. , TOLERANCE, RATIONALITY, REASON
ANARCHISM: Anarchists ... believe that all associations should be voluntary and free from coercion." - Patricia Mills, THE MATCH, 2/75. - Including States. Which means, they ought to have voluntary members only, which they would have once all individuals and groups are free to secede from them. Moreover, their territorial sovereignties over whole populations would have to be confined, like that of the secessionists and voluntarily re-associated groups, to exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. In other words, all institutions would have to become voluntaristic and competitive and subject to private contracts, i.e., subject to individual sovereignty, here expressed as consumer sovereignty, combined with free and competitive free enterprise (including, naturally, all kinds of cooperative, fraternal and other kinds of enterprises in the "government" sphere). - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ANARCHISM: Anarchists ... would reject both government and law, except to the extent that they were voluntary." - WESTERN WORLD REVIEW NEWSLETTER, Nov. 71. - And 22 years later I still disagree with its editor, Robert Sagehorn, on panarchism, with him only favouring limited government for all. Have such sayings become meaningless prayer verses for the believers, ritually and thoughtlessly repeated? - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ANARCHISM: Anarchists have let themselves be tempted to preach, as the only cure a coercive and irreconcilable resistance against all laws; and the immediate result of this is that others welcome any tyranny which saves them from this kind of chaos. But there is really no reason at all to leave only the choice between anarchy and tyranny.” – G. B. Shaw, alas only in my rough translation of the German version: “Die Anarchisten lassen sich hinreissen, als das einzige Heilmittel gewaltsamen und unversoehnlichen Widerstand gegen das Gesetz zu predigen; und das sofort eintretende Ergebnis besteht darin, dass andere jede Tyranny willkommen heissen, die sie vom Chaos rettet. Aber es besteht wirklich keine Veranlassung zur Wahl zwischen Anarchie und Tyrannei.“ - DIS, INTOLERANCE, RESISTANCE, AUTHORITARIANISM, TERRORISM, BOMB-THROWING, TERRITORIALISM, REVOLUTIONARY ANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: Anarchy, as I see it, admits of any kind of organization, so long as membership is not compulsory." - Joseph A. Labadie, quoted by James Martin, Men Against the State, p.245. - PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: As a fundamentalist and individualist anarchist I am interested in voluntarism rather than egalitarianism. As an individualist and voluntarist, also as a panarchist, I can tolerate communist anarchists, socialist libertarians, syndicalists etc., even statists, as long as they would leave me alone, as much as I would leave them alone, each doing his own things to or for himself only and for like-minded people. - J.Z., 12.3.01. - But there are too many intolerant, authoritarian and confiscatory (expropriating, coercively egalitarian ), aggressive, occupying, marching, shouting, vandalizing, sabotaging, violent, violently revolutionary, criminal and even disgusting people (e.g. pedophiles, or child abusers and abortionists, prepared to kill the most innocent, their own unborn children!) who call themselves "anarchists" and "libertarians". - J.Z., 2.2.02. - INDIVIDUALIST ANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EGALITARIANISM
ANARCHISM: Better two small groups advancing to the common aim, Anarchy, along different paths, than a single and larger one made up of a majority and a minority, who mutually hinder each other or even continuously accept only compromises." - St. Ch. Waldecke, Gedanken über Anarchie, S.14. - Why let only anarchists advance in their desired directions? - Experimental freedom, freedom of action, tolerance for all isms and sects - that only want to do their own things to themselves, their own volunteers. - When anarchists, now very small minorities, can only envision a future of anarchist organizations, then their imagination is very limited, indeed. It is as if footballers could only see the future of sport confined to football games. - J.Z., 25.1.93. – PANARCHISM, INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM
ANARCHISM: But anarchism is not an ideological movement. It may well be. In a concept of freedom it, they, you or we, anyone has the liberty to engage in ideology or anything else that does not coerce others, denying their liberty. But anarchism is not an ideological movement. It is an ideological statement. It says that all people have a capacity for freedom. It says that all anarchists want liberty. And then it is silent. After the pause of that silence, anarchists then mount the stages of their own communities and history and proclaim THEIR, not anarchism's ideologies - they say how they, as anarchists, will make arrangements, describe evens, celebrate life, work." - Karl Hess, DANDELION, Spring 80. - Here, again, he comes close to panarchism. Alas, it is rare to find anarchism thus confined to essential features. Most are too much in love with secondary choices to be able to do that. They are like religious people, unwilling to talk and discuss and think about religious liberty but willing to endlessly study and preach about their own particular religion. – J.Z., n.d.
ANARCHISM: Communist anarchism is really a misleading term. Involved is only a somewhat anti-authoritarian and decentralized communism that is only rarely advocated as merely a desirable option for its volunteers but, instead, as a supposedly optimal and exclusive system for whole populations, of territories or countries or even world-wide. Towards all voluntaristic alternatives it has largely remained intolerant, precluding all voluntaristic alternatives to it, with the exception of the religiously motivated communist anarchists, who, due to their religious bent, have at least become tolerant in the religious sphere and thus tried to practise their brand of religious communism only among their own kind of volunteers. Typically, the religiously motivated anarchist communists have become the most long lasting anarchist communities. They others had usually only a short life-span due to their basic economic flaws. – Thus the internal contradiction of authoritarian, coercive and monopolistic “anarchist” communism arose, usually acting all too non-anarchistically towards all dissenters. – How many or how few communist anarchists have so far become consistent panarchists, i.e. consistent voluntarists and exterritorialists? But then the rightists or individualist anarchists have so far also only all too rarely subscribed to panarchism, although it would give them their best chance to demonstrate their truth in practical experiments among their volunteers. – J.Z., 29.4.96, 21.9.08.
ANARCHISM: Everyone to take the liberty to determine the forms of his social relations himself." - Chris Misere, 1986. Open Mind Festival. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT & SELF-DETERMINATION
ANARCHISM: Excess archy should not be called “anarchy”. – J.Z., 81.98. Chaos in human relationships is mainly only the result of competing territorial domination attempts, not of peaceful and productive genuine self-government and self-management efforts. – 21.9.08. - CHAOS? TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, DOMINATION
ANARCHISM: His devotion to individuality leads to a marriage with anarchy." - B. R. Barber, Superman and Common Men, p. 92/93, on Robert Paul Wolf. - Individuality is a fact of nature, requiring only observation and understanding, not devotion. It does not lead only to one form of marriage with one form of anarchy but, instead, to all kinds of free love affairs and marriages, or even abstinence, for all kinds of individuals with or from all kinds of voluntary and competing States and non-governmental societies. This can, naturally, be done only when one can exterritorially and autonomously associate oneself with one's beloved person or persons while, at the same time, abstaining from intimate relationships with any to whom one is indifferent or whom one dislikes. This applies to the "marriages" and free love relationships of others, under their personal laws, in their voluntaristic and competing governments and competing free societies. - J.Z., 26.1.93.
ANARCHISM: How would public services be organized under Anarchy? First of all, I should remark that it is a mistake to talk about life 'under' Anarchy. There is no 'under'. The implication of 'under' is that a uniform system is to be imposed upon everyone, and that standard solutions to societal problems will be accepted and take precedence over the ones of today, so that instead of living under the present system, we live under a new one. In reality, the nature of the projected pluralistic Anarchy is such that a wide diversity is not only tolerated, but encouraged ... - Fred Woodworth, Anarchism, 6. DIVERSITY, PLURALISM, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE
ANARCHISM: I have come to the conclusion that philosophical anarchism is true. That is to say, I believe that there is not, and there could not be, a state that has a right to command and whose subjects have a binding obligation to obey." - Robert Paul Wolff, On Violence, JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, LXVI, no. 19, 1969, p.607. See also his: In Defence of Anarchism, N.Y., 1970. - Quoted by Barber: Superman and Common Men, p. 32. She added: "If authority is to be sent into exile, it is legitimacy that must be banished." - From the above it merely follows that States that have usurped a right to command and extract obedience from their subjects are not "legitimate" or, rather, not moral or rightful. But this would make no case against any State constituted by volunteers only, who remain volunteers through the liberty of individual secessionism, and who practise their kind of obedience to their unanimously supported governmental institutions only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy, which is the voluntary combination of their own individual sovereignties only, i.e., it remains dependent upon individual consent - through individual secessionism. - See under Panarchism. For such volunteers their kinds of exterritorially autonomous States would be legitimate and for all who do not like them for themselves, they should, nevertheless, be considered as "legitimate" or "rightful", too, - for the self-selected others. No right or liberty means that it must be claimed by everyone and quite completely and that it must be fully practised all the time and anywhere and by anyone, too. Rights and liberties only state how far individuals could go, without infringing upon the equal rights and liberties of others, not how far they must go. Regarding the first sentence, I would rather say: No TERRITORIAL State, as such, has or can have ANY right..." - no more so than any murderer or robber or oppressor, as such, can have any right. - J.Z., 26.1.93, 25.9.02.
ANARCHISM: I have no objection against anarchists who mind their own business. - J.Z., 2/75. – Nor to any archists – who merely mind their own business in their way. All kinds of anarchy for all kinds of anarchists, all kinds of libertarianism for all kinds of libertarians and all kinds of statism for all kinds of statists. – J.Z., 5.11.08.
ANARCHISM: I remain convinced on the grounds of my practical fighting experience that anarchism is as revolutionary, as diverse and as sublime in every facet as is human life itself." - Nestor Machno, The Anarchist Revolution, in RABELAIS, 21.9.71. - With its limited stress of diversity - only among anarchists - still a rather Catholic view of the future. Non-anarchists have the right to be and remain non-anarchists among themselves. Nobody is obliged to become an anarchist. All that anarchists can demand is that they be left alone by archists. And they must be willing to leave the archists alone. At present it would be hard to decide who is the more intolerant of the two groups. - J.Z., 25.1.93. – PANARCHISM, INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM, UNIFORMITY
ANARCHISM: If a total anarchism ever were to exist, there would be no politics, no governing, no statesmanship." - LIBERTY, Summer 75. - Why insist on any kind of absolutism, no only for oneself but for all others, too? Why not be satisfied with anarchism for anarchists only and any kind of archism for archists? - J.Z. 1/76. - Even the Protestants ultimately agreed upon their kinds of Protestantism for their kinds of people while leaving Catholic beliefs and practices and other religions and faiths to their believers. - J.Z., 26.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: In the fewest words, anarchism teaches that we can live in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind. - A life without compulsion naturally means liberty; it means freedom from being forced or coerced, a chance to lead the life that suits you best. - You cannot lead such a life unless you do away with the institutions that curtail your liberty and interfere with your life. the condition that compels you to act differently from the way you would like to.” - Alexander Berkman, Now and After, 1928. - Only the territorial State does constitutionally and habitually interfere with the affairs of its internal and external dissenters. Only the exterritorial State or society does not constitutionally and habitually interfere with the lives of others than its own voluntary members. - J.Z., 26.1.93.
ANARCHISM: Is anarchism attacking all kinds of hierarchical organizations or only organizations which are essentially coercive? The coercion might merely be expressed already by compulsory membership or exclusive territorial organization. Hierarchies might be accepted, to some extent, by volunteers, as e.g. among the Freemasons. For them it is not wrong. Because of their voluntary membership, they are not coerced or ruled against their will. Voluntary hierarchies are tolerable, at least in others. Involuntary or imposed hierarchies are intolerable, for anarchists and statists alike, as soon as they become aware of the panarchistic alternatives. - J.Z., 25.1.93. – HIERARCHIES, COERCION
ANARCHISM: It is either anarchism or herding and being herded. - J.Z., 16.11.82, 25.1.93. – However, some forms of enforced egalitarian “anarchism” are even worse than the present statist and territorial authoritarianism, which recognized at least some limited property rights. –J.Z., 5.11.08.
ANARCHISM: Laissez faire capitalism means ‘hands off’ in terms of economic life. Anarchy means "hands-off" in legal and political life.” - Wolf de Voon, The Case for Anarchy, 1988. - Consistent laissez faire practices should be extended into all spheres, political, economic as well as social arrangements, even of those people, who are opponents of laissez faire. In their own internal affairs they should be free to rule or mis-rule themselves as much as they like. Full anarcho-capitalism, competition, freedom of contract, market relationships, free enterprise and freedom of association – even for the great variety of statists. Let them do their things – to themselves, religiously! - J.Z., 31.1.02, 3.11.08. - LAISSEZ FAIRE, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM, PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: Lizzie M. Holmes argued, there is really very little difference of opinion between 'a Communist-Anarchist who advocates voluntary association on a communist basis, but who would not force any one to live that sort of life, and an Individualist Anarchist who believes in liberty and would not prevent the organization of any number of voluntary communistic societies." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.262. - To become panarchists, they would have to become tolerant towards different voluntary archist communities, too. And only when they become so tolerant may they actually get the chance to practise their favourite kind of anarchy among themselves. - J.Z. 26.1.93.
ANARCHISM: Merely political anarchism without economic anarchism or full economic freedom amounts merely to another form of authoritarianism, coercion, compulsion, confiscation and distribution of property and earnings. – J.Z., 15.3.05. – However, whatever anti-economic actions, rules, systems and institutions volunteers want to apply among themselves should be their own affair. Maybe at least some of them will soon learn from their own mistakes. – J.Z., 15.3.05, 29.10.07. - SOCIALISM, LEFT ANARCHISM & COMMUNIST ANARCHISM & ECONOMIC FREEDOM OR ECONOMIC ANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: Most anarchist writings were written in ignorance of most other anarchist writings and their different ideas, opinions and observations. – J.Z., 5.12.98. – They were also written in ignorance of genuine economics and of panarchism. – J.Z., 21.9.08.
ANARCHISM: Nature acts without masters.” - Hippocrates. - It does not even impose any uniform territorial rule. It allows any living thing to live anywhere that it can manage to live. - J.Z., 11.2.02. - PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENT, MASTERS, LEADERS, RULERS, POLITICIANS, NATURE
ANARCHISM: Neither for Mackay, nor for us, is it merely a matter of faith that one day non-domination, our ideal, will exist. We know that it CAN exist, if only at least a strong minority is capable of clear and independent ( free of ideology) thinking and finally perceives what anarchism is in reality, namely, the peaceful SIDE-BY-SIDE of very different relationships, on the only basis which makes this possible: the mutual renunciation of aggressive force (violence and coercion), and of suppression, exploitation and domination. We know, likewise, that this condition is not possible while the existing ideologies go on brutally fighting and possibly mutually exterminating each other (as was tried by America in Vietnam) (*). And as long as those, who believe that they have an 'alternative' to offer, want to make their ideology into a general measure for all (against the will of others), Anarchism will need all the more time to realise its social order." - LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, No. 5. – (*) Much more systematically by the Vietnamese communists against their opponents! – J.Z. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM & TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS
ANARCHISM: Neither God nor Master!" - Bakunin. – Rather: To each only the “God” or “master” of his or her own free choice – if any! – J.Z., 5.11.08.
ANARCHISM: No domination, no authority, no State!“ – ("Ohne Herrschaft, ohne Obrigkeit, ohne Staat.") - Slogan at the „Open Mind Festival“, near Cologne, 1986. - With this limited ideal the anarchists have still nothing to show for. – (Mit dieser beschraenkten Idee koennen die Anarchisten immer noch keinen "Staat" machen.) - Neither domination nor authority nor any State to be un-asked-for, by individuals. But by all means let us have competing States and competing stateless societies, all of them only for volunteers and limited to exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 25.1.93. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS
ANARCHISM: Opponents of Arshinov accused him of 'party anarchism'." - Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p.242. - This would not be as absurd as it sounds, provided this party aimed only at exterritorial autonomy for itself and all other parties. Compared with this only the usual attempt of each party to territorially dominate all other parties, is wrongful, irrational and even absurd. - J.Z., 25.1.93, 5.11.08. - PARTIES
ANARCHISM: Proudhon defined it as a system "based not on force but on contract.". - The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century. - PANARCHISM, FORCE, COMPULSION, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, SELF-CHOSEN VS. IMPOSED TERRITORIAL UNIFORMITY
ANARCHISM: Some anarchists believe in syndicalism under which workers own and control their factories. (*) Other anarchists emphasise decentralized power and community decision-making. Still others believe in laissez-faire economics and the ability of the free market to efficiently coordinate the productive activities of free men. All anarchists oppose authority and stand on the side of more personal freedom and autonomy on every issue." - Rod Manis, in the anthology: Outside Looking In, p.415. - The choice of a monarchy or of a limited, republican or democratic government for oneself and among like-minded people, would also be a non-authoritarian and free and autonomous choice, one not to be forcefully blocked for anyone and by anyone. – - (*) Collectively, their whole industries or individual enterprises only? - J.Z., 26.1.93.
ANARCHISM: Some would make the government the be-all and end-all of society; others would deny all place for government..." – G. C. Roche III, Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.199. - Panarchism would provide a framework, resting only upon some basic common principles and practices, for all voluntary and exterritorially autonomous and competing self-governments of volunteer groups, too, in addition to all kinds of competitive, cooperative or fraternal free societies which are wanted by and for their voluntary members. All on the basis of personal laws only, i.e. limited to exterritorial autonomy for their more or less dispersed members, living intermixed with members of other such communities in the same territories. If you want to, you could consider such personal and voluntary and competing and limited governments as being merely free societies, too. But formally they might retain all but their compulsory membership and territorial sovereignty. And if they tried to go beyond that, then one should attack only these features, not the voluntaristic remainders. - J.Z., 26.1.93.
ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs (*), or other forms of coercion or privilege. RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate. LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.” - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus III, p.72. - - (*) Even the inserted requirements should be irrelevant to anarchists who are primarily voluntarists and self-managing. If they want outlaw interest or to increase it among them, have landlords or do without them, have tariffs or do without them, have union coercion and privileges among them or are happy without them, all these and other options should be quite up to exterritorially autonomous volunteers. - J.Z., 25.9.02. – Cooperation is also a form of competition while competition is also a form of cooperation: All participants strive to provide better goods and services. – J.Z., 5.11.08.
ANARCHISM: The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that 'the best government is that which governs least,' and that which governs least is no government at all.” - Benjamin Tucker – DEMOCRACY – Even if a territorial government confined itself to prescribing only decent table-manners or polite ways of addressing other people, it would still be a government, although, admittedly, one much preferable to those forms we have now. – J.Z., 3.11.08.
ANARCHISM: The Anarchists conceive a society in which all the mutual relations of its members are regulated, not by laws, not by authorities, whether self-imposed or elected, but by the mutual agreements between the members of that society, and by a sum of social customs and habits - not petrified by law, routine, or superstition, but continually developing and continually readjusted, in accordance with the ever-growing requirements of a free life, stimulated by the progress of science, invention, and the steady growth of higher ideals. No ruling authorities, then. No government of man by man; no crystallisation and immobility, but a continual evolution - such as we see in nature." - Peter Kropotkin, Modern Science and Anarchism, 1913. - Mix in voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy for all groups and communities that want it, not only for various anarchists or libertarians, and you arrive at panarchism. - J.Z., 26.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: The farthest left you can go, historically at any rate, is anarchism - the total opposition to any institutionalised power, a state of completely voluntary social organization (*) in which people would establish their ways of life in small, consenting groups, and cooperate with others as they see fit." - Karl Hess, Dear America, 12. - Voluntary associations are not necessarily small and local only. They can be international and have millions of members. The Catholic Church, for instance, is and has. - E.g. a society of free traders. - (*) A state of completely voluntary social organization, or, rather, several of them in the same territory! – These communities need not be small, they may even be very large and world-wide. - J.Z., 26.1.93. - J.Z., 26.3.93, 5.1.08. – LEFT & RIGHT, TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: The hyphenated brands which have usurped the name of anarchism seem to have overlooked the fundamental essence of the anarchistic philosophy, that it is not a system or form of organization (each of which necessarily requires rules or 'government') but implies a no-rule or anarchic order. That is, the liberty to try every form of association which voluntary participants may deem workable for their purpose." - Laurance Labadie, DANDELION, Winter 78. - Here he comes close to panarchism. - J.Z. - PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, INTOLERANCE, TOTALITARIANISM
ANARCHISM: The idea of anarchism stems from the proposition that freedom is impossible where an established order is imposed upon people from above." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.186, on John Beverley Robinson.
ANARCHISM: The optimism of anarchism has been (on the whole) the optimism of people who have found it easy to love and feel sympathy and do justice... But what is the case with the brothers?" - David Wiek, ANARCHY 8. - The unfounded optimism for universal anarchism ought to be replaced by the much more realistic: anarchism for anarchists and archies for archists. - J.Z., 26.1.93.
ANARCHISM: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." - Fred Woodworth, Anarchism. - Actually, that is a very ancient order for human societies. Only man-made territorial laws need total rejection, apart from quarantine arrangements and rules on right or left-hand driving. A girl in Berlin, who hates all cars, wanted that rule abolished, too, to slow the beasties down! And why should any government formed only by volunteers and remaining supported only by volunteers and ruling only over them, be abolished for them? They ought to be established, rather than abolished - for the present majorities of statists in all nations. They may not be up to the highest moral standards and they may also do some wrong to their members, considered objectively, and they would be objectively unnecessary, but since they would be subjectively sanctioned by their victims, individually, i.e. operate with their unanimous consent, what right would outsiders have to abolish them? They may, indeed, constitute and practice all the liberties they can presently comprehend and handle. States so limited may be the classrooms and workshops necessary for their maturation into free human beings. Abolitionism towards the beloved institutions of most others can only lead to the continued unpopularity and suppression of anarchists. It would be as wrong as abolishing all freely competing schools for infants and children. Do not even try abolish the beloved institutions of others, for you do not have the right to do so and in the attempt you might do yourself more harm than you would to them. Instead, opt out of their associations, to do your own things among yourselves and do defend your right and opportunity to do so. To a limited extent, but only for different anarchies for different anarchists, most anarchists have always recognized that, F. W., too. - J.Z., 26.1.93
ANARCHISM: The road to anarchism and to limited governments leads through panarchism, in the same way as atheism, agnosticism, rationalism, humanism and free thinking could only become widespread after religious liberty or tolerance was finally achieved. - J.Z., 23.10.81, 26.1.93. -LIMITED GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: The State is the chief cause of anarchism." - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus II, p.129. – The territorial State ruling over involuntary members is. – J.Z., 5.11.08. – DIS.
ANARCHISM: The struggle between libertarian and authoritarian groups in radical movements has a long history. Libertarians have usually been anarchists, while authoritarians have usually been state socialists. - Anarchists believe that it is a moral imperative for all governments and other institutions of violence and coercion, to be abolished and replaced by a system of voluntary association. They oppose all violations of individual rights and see the governments as the greatest violators of all. In place of the present systems, in which some men ruler others, anarchists would substitute any and all forms in which people freely agree to live and work together." - Rod Manis, in the anthology Outside Looking In, p.414. - PANARCHISM.
ANARCHISM: The theory that all forms of government are undesirable.” - Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. - I would merely add "territorial" before "governments". That they would then have to become voluntaristic and autonomous, but autonomous only with regard to the affairs of their voluntary members, would automatically follow from this. Without territorial organization and powers, governments would essentially be reduced to voluntary and competitive associations of like-minded people, just like anarchies. Their aims and practices might differ but not their voluntaristic structure and their exterritorial status. They would all be peaceful by definition. Only compulsory membership and monopoly powers over territories makes governments aggressive, internally and externally. - If any game is worth playing, it will find sufficient volunteers. Nobody should be conscripted into and forced to contribute to any political game or economic or social system not of his own choosing. - J.Z. 26.1.93.
ANARCHISM: The theory that all government is evil." - The Merriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary. - Again, the voluntary and competing and exterritorial government options are overlooked. - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ANARCHISM: The threat to the statists of an involuntary anarchism, which they perceive as a chaos, might terrorise the archists even more than the anarchists are now terrorised by being subjected to involuntary archism or statism through the territorial utopias of the archists or statists. Why be so nasty to each other? When you can't convince each other, the only practicable and peace-promoting and just thing is to leave each other alone. To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams! - J.Z., 25.1.93.
ANARCHISM: The trouble is not that anarchism does not work but that anarchists do not work, sufficiently, to promote and realize it - primarily only among themselves, their own and like-minded volunteers, in an anarchist way. This requires, that they would only operate in a voluntary way, leaving statism to statists and confining themselves to exterritorial autonomy for themselves and tolerating it for all those, who do not agree with them. Instead, they aim to territorially impose anarchism on the majority of territorial statists. This is an attempt that in most instances defeats itself. – J.Z., 24.11.96, 21.9.08 – TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL
ANARCHISM: To the extent that a free market relationships do already exists they are anarchistic, exterritorial and voluntaristic. To the extent that anarchism already exists it is expressed in voluntary free market, free choice and free contract relationships for individuals and their free associations in all spheres. – J.Z., 13.2.98, 21.9.08, 3.11.10. - FREE MARKETS, POVERTY, RICHES, PROPERTY RIGHTS, ANTI-MONOPOLISM
ANARCHISM: True anarchism will be capitalism. True capitalism will be anarchism.” – Murray N. Rothbard, quoted in THE NEW BANNER, 25.2.72. – As if true anarchism, the essence of voluntarism, would not have room and opportunity for communism and any other form of collectivism and statism - to be also freely practised among their volunteers, as long as they really want to. – Here MNR showed clearly, that he did not yet think like a panarchist. However, under panarchism the remaining and voluntaristic State communism, State socialism or State capitalism of e.g. the Soviet Union and Red China would have developed much faster into genuine free enterprise or laissez-faire capitalism then they did and do under territorialism. – But, like the nunneries and monasteries under religious freedom, a few communistic communities of volunteers might remain or become newly experimented with for a long time, doing their things to themselves, even when their members are surrounded by the various free societies of panarchism. A kind of mental atavism will see to that. They would serve as enlightening and deterrent examples to others. J.Z., 21.9.08. – CAPITALISM, PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM: We are struggling for a better and brighter life. Our ideal is to achieve a community of workers, without authority, without parasites, and without commissars. - Our immediate goal is to establish a free soviet regime, without the authority of the Bolsheviks, without the pressure of any party whatever." - Makhnovitsi, partisan army of the Ukraine, Appeal to the Red Army, 1920. – Did M. ever consider exterritorial autonomy for volunteers? – J.Z., 5.11.08.
ANARCHISM: What anarchism is in essence is a belief in a method - the method of ordinary people running their own lives and tackling their own problems by direct, and if needs be, by forceful actions in solidarity with each other." - Mike Payne, 7.7.91, LIBERTARIAN POLITICS, p. 26.
ANARCHISM: Why does the anarchy in the New World please me so much? Everyone lives according to his choice. That is also to my advantage. I leave everyone alone in order to be able to live my life." - Goethe. - ANARCHISM: Why, in the new world, does anarchy please me so well? Everyone lives according to his ideas, that is also to my advantage. I leave everyone to his endeavor, so that I can also live my kind of life.“ – Goethe, Sprueche in Reimen, J.Z. rough tr. of: “Warum mir aber in neuester Welt // Anarchie gar so wohl gefaellt? // Ein jeder lebt nach seinem Sinn, // Das ist nun also auch mein Gewinn. // Ich lass’ einem jeden sein Bestreben, // Um auch nach meinem Sinn zu leben.“ - PANARCHISM
ANARCHISM NET, Anarchism.net, Forum on "Panarchy" (2008) - ANARCHISM.net / forum - a response to panarchy discussion - Then Zube is brought up (www.panarchy.org/zube/toanarchists.1986.html) and there develops a current thought of as "peacefully coexisting" between ... - Cached - Similar pages - www.anarchism.net/forum/index.php?id=34125 - 16k - ANARCHISM.net / forum - Panarchy - A Critique - I will quote Zube: http://www.panarchy.org/zube/toanarchists.1986.html - "Luckily, for the chances to realize this kind of voluntaristic anarchism, ... - Cached - Similar pages www.anarchism.net/forum/index.php?id=33118 - 27k
ANARCHISM ONLY FOR ANARCHISTS, ARCHISM ONLY FOR ARCHISTS: To force non-anarchists into anarchistic relationships is as wrong as to force monogamous lovers and marriage partners into promiscuous or “free love” relationships. Free love and societal arrangements should become really free, rather than being forced upon any non-consenting persons. - Let those, who love the State, in any of its forms that are peaceful towards non-members, have it, but for themselves only, and let those, who love anarchism, in any of its forms, or libertarianism, however limited or unlimited, have it for themselves. To each his own! Then no one has any reason to complain any longer that he was harmed or wronged by other than his own choices. – J.Z., 4.4.93, 12.1.99. - E.g.: The Welfare State for Welfare Statists, the "limited government" for its adherents, conservative and even reactionary governments - for their supporters only! - J.Z., 4.9.04.
ANARCHISM WITHOUT PANARCHISM? Anarchism without panarchism tends to lead to oppression or chaos for its supporters rather than to anarchism for anarchists. Anarchism is not suitable for the vast majority of archists. At best, if consistently thought through and applied, it might help to provide anarchists with effective defence for their anarchistic and voluntaristic experiments. But then and to that extent it would have to become panarchistic or voluntaristic rather than dogmatic and utopian. Anarchists can become and remain successful, in a world filled with archists, only as panarchists, i.e. as volunteers doing their own thing, while favouring panarchism for other people, i.e., letting other people doing their own things to and for them themselves in their own preferred ways. Anarchism panarchistically for anarchists! All other isms, panarchistically for all others. - - - This program of full minority autonomy for all volunteer groups has the potential to unite the majority of all human beings in a common liberation effort, one that would provide all the participants with precisely the degree of liberation which they want for themselves. - - - It would tend to disarm and dissolve most of the opposing forces, which do also to have their minority problems, which they cannot fully solve with territorialist and consequently intolerant methods and "solutions". - J.Z. 7.12.91. "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams!" That would reduce complaints and resistance to a minimum through the maximisation of satisfactions. False dreams would also become rapidly exposed as such and would lose their status as ideals. - J.Z., 11.12.03.
ANARCHISM, ANARCHY, ANARCHISTS & PANARCHISM, PANARCHY, PANARCHISTS: Anarchy is the first necessary step on the road to a new order. - Morris West, disapprovingly, in Proteus, 67. - It can be so only if it does not forget its highest priorities, namely: individualism and voluntarism, expressed e.g. in individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, whatever ideals these volunteers may want to realize thereby. A collectivistic and compulsory or territorial anarchy is a utopia or dead end, a contradiction in itself. Only individually chosen anarchies, based on individual secessions and individual and voluntary and exterritorial associationism offer hopes for the future, to anarchists and to all others - totalitarians and territorialists excepted. - J.Z., 30.6.92, 14.1.93.
ANARCHISM, ATHEISM, PANARCHISM & RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE: Atheism hasn't as yet conquered the world and made all religions harmless but religious freedom or tolerance did bring religious peace and gradual enlightenment wherever and to the extent that it was realized.
ANARCHISM, AUTHORITARIAN: The all too popular attitude among anarchists towards dissenters to the anarchist faith or conviction can be summed up with: No freedom for non-anarchists that disagrees with our own notions of freedom. Organizational variations are only permitted to anarchists." - " (*)...'VOLUNTARY CO-OPERATION' is a more accurate rendition of anarchism." - When some people still want some form of government for themselves then that organizational form is right and also educational for them. They should not be hindered to obtain it, retain it or join such an organization - at their own expense and risk. Further reams of anarchist literature will not sufficiently convert them. Their own experience might, especially once they have to pay themselves for all of their own mistakes. (*) - Anarchism, when proclaimed or implied in this form, amounts almost to a declaration of war against all others and it does also disagree with its own original and primary notions of rights, individualism, voluntarism, choice, tolerance, independence, consent and equal liberty. - The imposition of anarchism upon non-anarchists should be resisted as well as the imposition of territorial governmentalism upon anarchists. - J.Z., 4.9.04.
ANARCHISM, INTEREST, RENT, UNEARNED INCOME, CAPITALISM & THE STATE: For some anarchists the State was not embodied in "private property" in general or in "land-rent" in particular, as the first enemy of mankind but in "interest". To drive out this, to them primary evil, this Satan, as seen by them, they believed that they had to aim at doing away with the State completely, even for volunteers. Thus, again, they came away from voluntarism and often became even statists, although not as comprehensive ones as the totalitarian communists are, in order to liberate mankind from what they considered to be the primary evil. There was no room for voluntarism in their scheme, either and yet they still considered themselves as "anarchists." (I must admit, though, that the Gesellians in West Germany, for political reasons, have become rather quiet about Gesell's anarchism and did not want to reprint his 2 books on this.) But neither "equality", nor "no property", nor "abolition of private land or rent or interest" are primary anarchist ideals - even though some anarchists put them first. They are all deviations from the primary voluntaristic, associationist, autonomous and individualist ideal, one of personal independence even sovereignty and autonomy, one of contractual and voluntary association only - with individual secession or withdrawal always to be free after all rightful contractual obligations have been fulfilled. – Even the worst territorial statists did not prevent enemies of interest from granting each other interest-free loans! – J.Z., n.d. & 20.4.12.
ANARCHISM, ORDER, ASSOCIATIONISM & VOLUNTARISM: Landauer, quoted by E. Muehsam in his "Der Revolutionaere Mensch G. Landauer", 1929: 'Anarchie ist Ordnung durch Buende der Freiwilligkeit' (included as postscript in a reprint of Revolution (1907) by G. Landauer; Berlin, 1974, p. 121) ..." - Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 47. My translation attempt: "Anarchism is order through voluntary associations." - How long will it take before this panarchistic idea will finally fully penetrate the anarchist and libertarian movement? - J.Z. 15.1.93. - VOLUNTARISM, ORDER, CHAOS, ASSOCIATIONISM, NATURAL HARMONY, INVISIBLE HAND, FREE MARKET RELATIONSHIPS
ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM & COSMOPOLITAN REPUBLICANISM: Comparison of Anarchism with the New Social System Proposed by by U. v. Beckerath, 1957, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.
ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM & PROPERTY: The basic issue of voluntarism became rather confused among the anarchists because the anti-property anarchists saw in the State a protector of property rights (rather than a protector of privileges and exploiter or even destroyer of property rights) and, their animosity to property being their first priority and interpreting the State in this way, they, naturally, wanted to do away with it altogether, in all forms, as seemingly ONLY upholding imposed PRIVILEGES. All who were consenting to it or demanding it , were merely classed either as privileged people, oppressors and exploiters or as fools, with the wishes of neither of these to be respected. The possibility that people might voluntarily uphold contractual property relationships between themselves was not considered by them - although it should have been. Only the individualist anarchists saw and preferred that option. Panarchism would allow the enemies of property rights and the propertarians to sort themselves out, doing their own things to and for themselves, as long as they would not interfere with the affairs of non-members, whether these are e.g. communists or capitalists. - - To anti-property anarchists: That people ought to be free to "exploit" each other, if they want to, in a propertarian and contractual and free trading way, in their own voluntary associations and free contracts with outsiders, does apparently go beyond the imagination of fanatical enemies of property. They want to destroy it for all, even those who highly favour it among themselves. In this they are as totalitarian as those who advocate and insist upon either abstinence, or monogamy or polygamy or "free love" for all. - They are blind to the understanding that a propertarian society permits all to pool and share, socialize and combine their property and use it between them as they please. - They are also blind to the various free market options for the acquisition of considerable private properties for all willing to work for them or use their current assets for this purpose. - Thus "robber-anarchists" might be a more suitable term for these "anarchists". They want to establish their free and non-violent society by theft, ignoring e.g. the lease and purchase options, even their savings options and the future value of their own labour (which could be capitalized and used for purchasing enterprises). - J.Z., n.d.
ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENT, CONSENT, SOCIAL CONTRACT: “Furthermore, the doctrine of contractual relationship as the basis of all the political institutions in society had very early in England far-reaching consequences. Thus, the theologian, Richard Hooker, in his work, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, published in 1593, maintained that it is unworthy of a man to submit blindly, like a beast, to the compulsion of any kind of authority without consulting his own reason. Hooker bases the doctrine of the social contract on the fact that no man is really able to rule over a large number of his fellowmen unless these have given their consent. According to Hooker’s idea such a consent could only be obtained by mutual agreement; hence, the contract. In his dissertation concerning the nature of government Hooker declares quite frankly that ‘in the nature of things it is by no means impossible that men could live in social relations without public government.’ This work later served John Locke as a foundation for his two celebrated treatises on Civil Government, from which the germinating liberalism drew its main nourishment.” – Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, 140.
ANARCHISM: Anarchism is essentially individualistic and voluntaristic, expressing primarily individual and voluntary group sovereignty. Whatever other aims anarchists may have, they are quite secondary, like equality, decentralization, the abolition of money and private property or any other sensible or senseless aim that they might proclaim. The individualistic and voluntaristic aspects of anarchism can be fully realized only on the basis of exterritorial autonomy and among the true believers. And only this approach gives both, anarchists - and their critics - their best chance to get their ideals realized or maintained, each only for the own voluntary members. As soon as anarchism discards its individualistic and voluntaristic base, it ceases to be anarchism and becomes just another form of territorial archism or authoritarianism. - J.Z., 26.3.91, 10.1.93. (With regard to all those, who live in the "anarchist territory" but are not anarchists and do not want to live as anarchists. - J.Z., 4.9.04.)
ANARCHISM: Is anarchism to be considered as an attack on all kinds of HIERARCHICAL organizations or, rather, one against any kind of COERCIVE ones (towards peaceful and creative dissenters), which are e.g. characterized not only by hierarchies but also by compulsory membership? Even if the hierarchical aspect were removed, a compulsory membership e.g. in an egalitarian organization would still be morally objectionable while, when compulsory membership is removed and dissidents have thereupon separated themselves from the remaining hierarchies, these remains are then at most harming but not wronging their remaining voluntary members only, while they neither harm nor do wrong to any of the secessionists and voluntary associationists outside these hierarchical and non-territorial spheres and organizations. Hierarchies are acceptable to some volunteers. We have still monarchists among us and followers of supposedly great leaders and prophets. For them such leadership and followership is not wrong. They are not coerced, ruled or dominated against their will. They get what they deserve. It will be more educational for them than the present system, that always provides them with scapegoats and victims to plunder. All we need to insist that individual members, once they are sufficiently enlightened about hierarchies, remain free to secede from them. In short anarchists ought at the same time to become exterritorialists. - J.Z. 4.7.89.
ANARCHISM IN PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITH STATISM THROUGH PANARCHISM? Extract from PEACE PLANS 671: How could anarchist communities peacefully coexist even with statist ones,with each individual being free to choose between them? - - For the transformation one would obviously have to do without centralistic, national, compulsory, uniform, territorial and majoritarian "solutions". The remaining options are: Voluntary membership for all, based on individual secessionism and individual associationism and non-territorial organization under personal laws or private and cooperative agreements and compacts. - - Voluntarism and non-territorial organization will have to be combined to make this alternative practical. - - When alternatives are permitted only on a territorial basis, then only exclusive nation-states are involved, on a smaller scale or various ghettos and deportation systems to achieve the desired "territorial integrity" and uniformity, which has nothing in common with individual liberty. - - Since there is nothing quite new under the sun, as a rule, one should expect that sometime, some place, between some people, such an alternative has already been practised to some extent and for a while. - - If one does not only rely on nationalistic and centralists and statist historians alone, then one can find, indeed, quite a number of historical precedents and even contemporary practices for the "panarchistic" alternative, for as many different "governments" or free societies as their clients, consumers or subjects desire, or, if you will, for consumer-sovereignty even with regard to governmental services or disservices. - - Panarchism attempts to look at all historical precedents and future possibilities of this kind and at all the theories so far advanced on these subjects and tries to develop them further, in order to provide a political, economic and social philosophy of freedom that would release everybody's creative energies in his own self-chosen circles, while freeing or creating new options to resist all privileges, monopolies, coercion, impositions and aggressions. - - For panarchists do not just dream that quite non-violent people ought to be at liberty to do their diverse things but that all people are also at liberty to resist aggressors and protect their way of life in diverse forceful and rightful ways and to collaborate in such resistance and protection efforts in many different ways. - - Freedom has many more and better answers to offer than statism has. And, for the foreseeable future, we cannot expect all people to agree on some, supposedly ideal protection, resistance and penal method. - - Thus, in a panarchistically reorganized society, there will be a great variety of protective systems, policing and jurisdiction options, including, naturally, self-defence efforts and neighbourhood watches and all kinds of voluntary jurisdiction and arbitration or popular and liberated jury systems, all agreed upon in advance. - - The different autonomous and non-territorial groups would have their "international" compacts with each other on all offences across the non-territorial "borders" between them. - J.Z., 1986, slightly revised 10.12.04.
ANARCHISM IN PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITH STATISM THROUGH PANARCHISM? Extract from PEACE PLANS 671: How could anarchist communities peacefully coexist with statist ones, with each individual being free to choose between them? - In order to achieve harmony and concord, based on shared beliefs and close to unanimity in common decision-making within any group, to the extent that this is possible between human beings, they must agree to let all their dissenters leave them freely. - - The popular call "Let MY people go!" must be transformed into a generalized appeal: "LET ALL PEOPLE GO -THEIR OWN WAY!" - (This applies, naturally, only to creative and peaceful people, not to convicted violent criminals. They are criminals because they did not let other people go their own way undisturbed.) - To achieve this transformation, one would obviously have to discard all centralistic, national, coercive, uniform, territorial and majoritarian "solutions". - - The remaining options are: VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP for all, based on individual secessionism and individual associationism and NON-TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION under personal laws or private and cooperative agreements and compacts. - - Voluntarism and non-territorial organization will have to be COMBINED to make this alternative practical. For when alternatives are permitted only on a territorial basis (including rule over dissenters, just because they live or work in the area) then still only exclusive nation states are involved, (although on a smaller scale) and do lead, in extreme cases, to despotisms, deportation or extermination systems to achieve the desired "territorial integrity" and uniformity, which has nothing in common with individual liberty. - - Self-rule within small private areas, individually, cooperatively or in voluntary partnership owned and managed, is quite another matter. They are all based on individual consent and contracts: Business, industrial or housing complexes, utopian colonies, intentional communities or “proprietary communities”. - - Since there is, as a rule, nothing quite new under the sun, one should expect that at some time, some place, between some people, such an alternative has already been practised to some extent and for a while. If one does not only rely on nationalistic and centralists and statist historians, then one can, indeed, find quite a number of historical precedents and even contemporary practices for the "panarchistic" alternative, for as many different "governments" or free societies as their clients, consumers or subjects desire, or, if you will, for consumer sovereignty even with regard to governmental and communal services or disservices. - - Panarchism attempts to look at all historical precedents and future possibilities of this kind and at all the theories so far advanced on these subjects. It tries to develop them further, in order to provide a political, economic and social philosophy of freedom that would release everybody's creative energies in his own self-chosen circles, while freeing or creating new options to resist all privileges, monopolies, impositions and aggressions. - - On the one side, panarchists try to so organize diverse human beings, with their different values and aspirations, in a way that friction between them is reduced to a minimum. - - On the other side, panarchists do not just dream that quite non-violent people ought to be at liberty to do their diverse things but are aware, that all people, who do not swear by non-violence, are to be at liberty to resist all aggressors (who initiated coercion) and to protect their way of life in diverse forceful and rightful ways, whenever these are required and to collaborate in such resistance and protection efforts in many different ways. - - Freedom has many more and better answers to offer than statism has, in this sphere, too. And, for the foreseeable future, we cannot expect all people to agree on some, supposedly ideal protection, resistance and penal method. (For the wrongfulness of nuclear war preparations see not only Murray Rothbard's excellent essay "War, Peace and the State" but also e.g. Douglas Lackey: "Ethics and Nuclear Deterrent", in "Moral Problems", edited by James Rachels, 2nd. ed., Harper & Row, 1975. - - For the inherent moral contradiction of most non-violent pacifist positions see another outstanding essay in the same anthology: Jan Narveson: "Pacifism: a Philosophical Analysis." I wish I would be at liberty to reproduce these articles and this anthology may still contain other pearls, as yet unread by me.) - - Thus, in a panarchistically reorganized society, there will be a great variety of protective systems, policing and jurisdiction options, including, naturally, self-defence efforts, libertarian revolutions and insurrections against dictatorships and totalitarian regimes and mere neighbourhood watches against private local criminals. - - There will be all kinds of voluntary jurisdiction, arbitration and popular and liberated jury systems, all agreed upon in advance and developed and provided competitively, based on individual choice and diverse contracts. - - The different autonomous and non-territorial groups would not only have their own internal jurisdiction services but would have their "international" compacts with each other on all offences committed across the non-territorial "borders" between them, i.e. between members of different personal law communities. They will in advance agree upon using either the laws of the accused or those of the accuser, or those which provide the larger penalties for the same offence or they will let paritetically manned courts (mixed courts) make the decisions, as has often happened historically. - - Disagreements within groups of people will become minimized, within voluntary communities of people, who largely agree with each other. And because of that kind of freedom for all the clashes with adherents to other system will also become rare. Most of the relationships will be within friendship and ideological circles, among self-chosen associates. - - With outsiders the members will mostly have only some free market trading relationships - which they may restrict as much as they like. - - By mobilizing all resistance and liberation efforts and appealing to the followers of all ideologies & faiths, panarchy, once understood and sufficiently publicized, will tend to be self-realizing, and self-maintaining. - - It would tend to transform current party-struggles, resistance efforts, revolutions, insurrections and wars - anywhere on Earth, into their peaceful, competitive and cooperative equivalents or avoid them altogether. - - With this program rightful defensive wars could become reduced to rightful and limited police actions against genuine criminals with victims. - - In some countries it will be possible to introduce it quite constitutionally or merely by civil disobedience based on individual secessionism and alternative institutions and communities. In others, it will help to reduce violence to a minimum (that of rightful and discriminating force) and will speedily bring about liberation FOR ALL but aggressors. - - As a watchdog organization and to help this already partly self-realizing scheme, that offers to each the government or no-government of his dreams (K.H.Z. Solneman), local volunteer militias should be set up for the protection of individual rights (to the extent that these are claimed by members of the diverse communities). These could and should also be internationally federated for larger police actions. - - For new and "great" leaders and prophets that are inclined towards initiated violence are always being born and self-made and, for a while, believed in by some. - - Panarchy would merely help to prevent their followership from growing too large, since already the first followers would want to see their ideals panarchistically realized and, to the extent that they contain flaws in their theories, these experiments would fail and prevent an excessive growth of new false movements. - - No claim is made here that panarchy would establish absolute peace forever. But it would promote lasting peace as far as is possible among as contentious beings as human beings are and would tend to reduce the remaining clashes to mere police actions. - - There would be almost universal consensus upon unilateral destruction of nuclear and similar "weapons", seeing that the territorial targets would have disappeared and most of the antagonism and the means to build, keep and protect them. - - Even terrorists would become rare once they become aware of and utilize the option of non-territorial autonomy for whatever ideals they hold. Why fight for something that one is free to realize for oneself? - - To offer a simple analogy of the peace-promoting effect panarchy: When is consumer-satisfaction maximized? When all are offered only one indifferently cooked meal, in all of the nationalized restaurants, with home-cooking prohibited, or when all are free to choose between a variety of dishes offered in each of a large diversity of private and cooperative restaurants and their home-cooking? In short, let each be free to select or cook his own stew, then he will "stew" least. - J.Z., 1986 draft, then ca. 900 words. Slightly revised: 10.12.04.
ANARCHIST ABOLITIONISM OF THE STATE: Most anarchists want to abolish the State and everyone to become anarchists. Panarchists want to preserve the State but only panarchistically for the statists and the remaining exterrritorially autonomous States, that permit individual secessionism, as an avenue for dissenters. They want e.g., only the anarchists to live as anarchists, while all other believers, reformers and revolutionaries would be likewise free to live in accordance with their beliefs - at their own expense and risk, in tolerant forms of organization that do permit, encourage, protect and perpetuate such peaceful coexistence. Territorially such tolerance is not possible. Exterritorially it is. - J.Z., 20 Sep. 89, 10.10.89, 11.12.2003, 9.4.04, 21. 11. 06.
ANARCHIST FAQ, AN: An Anarchist FAQ: Anarchy and Panarchy March 2009.
ANARCHISTS & LIBERTARIANS: Anarchists and libertarians, in their theories, have at last to account for the fact that for a long time to come they will have to find a modus vivendi with the numerous statists they are living amongst in the same local areas, countries and world. "To everyone the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams", would have to be turned by them into a common and popular slogan. - J.Z., 10.1.93.
ANARCHISTS & PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: Anarchists will be able to get along with and in the world only once they have learned to get along with each other, as a first step, towards achieving a modus vivendi or peaceful coexistence or panarchistic relationship with all those large groups and movements of non-anarchists. - J.Z., 29.6.92.
ANARCHISTS: An anarchist is one who rejects all forms of governmental authority." - Michael Hough, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, 10.7.72. - That applies only to the territorial model of government, those which impose their power upon whole population and do not allow dissenters to opt out and live under their own personal laws. With only this territorial State model in mind, anarchists could not even define anarchism properly. - J.Z., 26.1.93.
ANARCHISTS AS TERRITORIAL ARCHISTS: Anarchists are mostly enemies even of governments that would have only voluntary members and subject. To that extent such anarchists are wrong in their aims. They ought to welcome and not fight any voluntaristic option, any exterritorial autonomy options for anyone. - J.Z., 3.4.89, 11.12.03.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchist: "One who disaffiliates himself from the machinations of society and government in order to fulfil his personal quest." - Eugene E. Brussel. - I would rather say: One who disaffiliates himself from the machinations of the Great Machine (the State of Spencer) in order to reduce all his "external relations" to voluntary relations with other individuals or free societies. – J.Z., n.d.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists are generally only too willing to advocate or tolerate secession of individuals or, preferably, anarchist groups, collectives or communities from a State but not the disassociation of individuals from anarchistic societies and communities and their re-association in exterritorially autonomous States of volunteers. Nor are they ready to allow statists to voluntarily remain in exterritorially autonomous States after all anarchists have seceded from them. They do share this basic intolerance in common with statists and, e.g., some orthodox Muslims, who threaten anyone who would dare to secede from Islam with the death penalty. No wonder, they are territorialists and thus intolerantly in favour of the domination of their own ideals over those of all others in "their" territory. - J.Z., 24.9.84, 27.1.93. - I find it shocking that even after centuries of large degrees of at least religious liberty or religious tolerance so many people are still not subscribing to it but are, instead, involved in more or less religious wars and civil wars. That there is not a single country in the world in which all liberties are practised, not only religious liberty but also economic, political and social liberty, all only among volunteers - does not help matters at all. - J.Z., 25.9.02.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists are people who read each other out of the anarchist movement! – J.Z., 27.12.95. – Each anarchist sect believes to be in possession of the only anarchist truths. – That makes them intolerant and authoritarian towards other kinds of anarchists, not only towards all statists. – That voluntarism, combined with exterritorial autonomy has a framework for the peaceful coexistence of all kinds of anarchists, even with all kinds of statists, has mostly escaped their notice. – J.Z., 21.9.08. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, INTOLERANCE
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists can't win (anarchy for themselves) as long as anarchists are at war even with themselves, instead of being tolerant towards each other and all others when and to the extent that each group is aiming at or doing only its own things for or to its members. - J.Z., 20.4.84, 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists have, mostly, not pondered individual sovereignty, exterritorial autonomy and voluntary associationism and complete voluntarism as essential features of non-governmentalism and free societies. Most do still subscribe to egalitarianism, collectivism, communism, socialism, territorial decentralization, trade unionism, syndicalism etc., really merely secondary choices, as if they were the primary values. They largely ignore consistent mutual tolerance and voluntaristic options made possible by exterritorial autonomy under personal laws and rules, the full range of individual rights and liberties, especially in the economic sphere, the importance of free choice and free contracts and of free market relationships between those, who otherwise disagree with each other. – They think and behave all too much like religious sectarians. – But they are not yet as tolerant as most of these have by now become in most countries. - J.Z., n.d. & 21.9.08.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists insisted that freedom can be preserved only in small voluntary groups, and that mass participation in the politics of a large state is an impossibility.” - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p. 6. - This is largely true for territorial organisations but not for exterritorial ones. The latter could be larger than large modern States and still consist only of like-minded volunteers. (E.g., like the Catholic Church.) They would still only consist of volunteers who are much more likely to arrive at unanimous decisions. And dissenters would continuously secede while consenters would continuously join. However, the membership might fluctuate in numbers, with ongoing fluctuations of opinions. No one would be bound to stay in them longer than they wanted to, apart from a short and agreed upon withdrawal period. Degrees of participation in political decision-making are all only for those who do want them. Many are ready to subscribe to what they believe to be expert opinions. On the other hand, the individual rights and liberties sphere of voluntary members might be fully utilized by them, according to their anarchistic "constitution" and thus any common and internal "politics" between them would be minimized or even disappear. Among their voluntary members they might only have laissez-faire or the consumer sovereignty and free enterprise competition of a free market, in which each votes with his dollars and anyone would consider any participation of others in his own free choices of this kind, except as a wanted consultant, as an impertinence. Market relationships could one day come to cover the world, without any single "organization", in which all would “participate”. - J.Z., 28.2.88, 2.4.89, 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists largely agree on the words anarchy and anarchism – but that is almost all they do agree upon. – J.Z., 22.12.95. – Their secondary preferences, which they have often turned into their primary one, assure numerous schisms among themselves, which cannot be peacefully settled under territorialism. – Naturally, apart from the limited agreements within the various anarchist sects. – Thus they are not only largely at war among themselves but also at war against most of the various sects of the statists. - J.Z., 21.9.08.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists of course shared this perception with elitists; large-scale organization necessarily involves oligarchy, particularly in the case of compulsory associations like the State. Instead of welcoming oligarchy, which is the invariable companion of organisation, they rejected both.” - Source? Probably also from David Nicholls, The Pluralist State. - Even if oligarchies were always involved, an oligarchy from which one can individually secede would be different from one which would not permit that. The scope of the organization, the number of its constitutional functions, would also be decisive in judging such an organization and the power of its aristocracy or bureaucracy. Take for instance the constitution of Na Griamel, proposed for the New Hebrides by libertarians. According to my memory and due only to international law requirements, they were just to have two powers: passports and international postal services. Hardly an aristocracy in the usual sense. As for defence preparations, to the extent that they might still be needed: They might be taken over by autonomous local militias of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and their international federation. Their officers would all be elected, recallable and subject to organized disobedience and resistance if they ever gave wrongful orders, and to instant dismissal and replacement. No "aristocratic" powers would be left for them. There might also remain so few "common decisions" to be made in a world-wide panarchy of freedom lovers, that these could be made by referendum - with either postal or electronic voting. The minority of dissenters might opt out. Small, natural and optimal sizes of organisations apply largely only to organizations that do require frequent interactions and cooperation towards a common aim, e.g. some trade or production activity. And if these are properly organised, with all creative energies released and applied, then the job commands, rather an any person. Free Trade and Free Enterprise need specialists but hardly aristocrats. All their specialists are under contract. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists opposed government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection.” - Carl Watner, JLS, Fall 77, p.308. - Even protection should not be compulsory, neither for privately organized protection rackets nor for official ones. - J.Z., 21.11.82, 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists seem to forever merely to define and introduce anarchism to each other or to concentrate on anarchist history and biographies rather than on future anarchist possibilities. – J.Z., 14.12.05. – I miss e.g. anarchist full employment, anti-inflation, free trade and housing programs that show enough economic interest and knowledge, an anarchist defence, liberation and revolution program of sufficient tolerance for dissenters who are tolerant towards them. – Instead of “anarchism only for anarchists” and each type of anarchism only for its volunteers, they aim at anarchism for all people in a territory and thereby they act as authoritarians and as their own worst enemies. Max Nettlau and Gustav Landauer are among the few exceptions. - J.Z., 14.12.05, 30.10.07.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists unite!” - Tony Waters, in "GEGENSCHEIN" No. 11. – Why should they, when they are so different from each other? The only thing they should unite on is tolerance for all kinds of tolerant other anarchists, libertarians and statists. To make that possible they should promote voluntary membership for all of them and the confinement of their communities to exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 5.11.08.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists want real authorities, real laws, real order. - J.Z., 22.12.78. - But they are or should be satisfied enough with having them for themselves and being merely optional for all others. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists want to abolish the State and everyone to become or live as anarchists. Panarchists want only to abolish the coercive and monopolistic, i.e., especially, the territorialist features of the State and, otherwise, preserve it but only for the statists. They want only anarchists to live as anarchists, while adherents of all other ideologies would remain free to live according to their personal choices. - J.Z., 20.8.89, 27.1.93. – PANARCHISM, WITH TOLERANCE EVEN FOR TOLERANT STATISTS, BASED UPON VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIALISM ANARCHISTS: Anarchists will be able to get along with and ahead in the world only once they have learned to get along with each other as a first step towards achieving a modus vivendi or peaceful coexistence or panarchistic relationship with all those other types of anarchists and with the masses of non-anarchists. - J.Z., 29.6.92, 6.11.08, 3.11.10.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists without economic knowledge and interest are either emotional utopians, mere protesting artists or even, worst of all, authoritarian and coercive activists, misled by one or the other non-anarchistic and anti-freedom and anti-human rights ideology, which they imagine everyone else ought to subscribe to or abide by. Only if and when they do not attempt to rule over and rob all those who disagree with them, i.e., when they only aim at and practice the autonomous management of their own affairs, are they true anarchists, voluntarists, individualists etc. - J.Z., 21.6.91, 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Anarchists, representing only small sects, should not aim, for the near future, at taking over the world with their philosophies & "ideal" systems or non-systems, but merely at toleration for doing their different anarchist things to and for their different anarchistic and voluntaristic groups. This they could achieve best by fighting for a like tolerance for all other dissenting movements and even by a fighting alliance with them. All minorities could and should unite on the platform of full exterritorial minority autonomy for all volunteer groups that want it for themselves. J.Z. 19.5.92, 4.1.93, 9.12. 03.
ANARCHISTS: Anarcho-anarchists ... those who attach no this or that to limit their tolerance ..." - Steve Halbrook, ANARCHY 8. – If only that were really the case! How many of them do advocate exterritorial autonomy for volunteers not only for the various kinds of anarchists and libertarians but also for all kinds of statists? – J.Z., 3.11.10
ANARCHISTS: Anarchy can only exist where people are anarchists and to the extent that they are anarchists." - St. Ch. Waldecke, Gedanken ueber Anarchie, 3. – That is so self-evident that I wonder why he bothered to state it as a truth. - How many anarchists does it take to form an anarchist society for anarchists? Would statists resist them as much if anarchists proposed separate panarchies for statists instead of abolition of the State even for all statists? Anarchists as advocates for full exterritorial autonomy not only for themselves but for all dissenting minorities could get very many allies and also sympathizers for their own causes, even though not necessarily many subscribers. But by setting themselves up as enemies of all but their own kind and other kinds of anarchists, they do really set themselves up and become their own worst enemies. Moreover, they are not even very tolerant and well informed about their own varieties of anarchism and split into many directly opposed groups, which I tried to list shortly in my anarchist spectrum on www.butterbach.net/piot1.htm - If anarchists took their own varieties seriously enough then they would complete this survey and thoroughly discuss all these differences. This might then make them a bit more tolerant not only among themselves but also towards other freedom lovers, like the various libertarians and even towards all kinds of statist idealists and utopians, - as long as these do not longer insist in a territorial monopoly for themselves. No longer should they declare “the State” to be the enemy, to be abolished, but only the territorial nature and the compulsory membership and compulsory subordination of the State. Without these features all States would, essentially, be reduced to communities of volunteers doing their kinds of things for or to each other – as is their right! – If these statists were then to regard all kinds of anarchists and libertarians as mere fools, impractical idealists etc. – then suppression of anarchist and libertarian tolerant experiments would be much less likely and tolerance of them much more. Anarchists are only suppressed when they are feared. If the exterritorialist anarchists and libertarians then took the initiative to form an international federation of all suppressed minorities, one that advocated full exterritorial autonomy for all of them, they would find numerous statists allies of all kinds, who would push for this autonomy not only for themselves but as well as for all the diverse anarchists and libertarian “sects” in the same way as all religious believers and non-religious people at one stage stood together in most countries for religious tolerance or religious liberty. In our times its equivalent in the political, economic and social sphere could become very attractive to masses of people, in all their varieties of freedom lovers and governmentalists, especially once the first experiments to e.g. overcome involuntary unemployment and inflation are already successful and widely imitated. Guess who would be successful with such experiments? – Politicians would realize that by getting rid of all their involuntary subjects, often trouble-makers, they could created lasting sinecures for themselves, as long as they have any true believers left. – They could also make cheap and peaceful “conquests” by signing up like-minded people in other countries. A tiny model State could become a world-wide one – for its volunteers. – There are already many large territorial States that have members from over 100 diverse ethnic groups, nationalities and religious, e.g. the USA, Russia, Canada and Australia. – International Corporations or Multinationals have shown, just like the large churches, that they can have members in numerous other countries. - J.Z., 5.11.08.
ANARCHISTS: Archism over all criminals with victims. Anarchism for non-invasive people. - J.Z. 1981, 27.1.93. - States for statists, anarchism for anarchists and thus panarchies for both - and all others, according to their personal choices. - J.Z., 27.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ANARCHISTS: As an individualist anarchist I disagree with most other anarchists, except that I favour exterritorial autonomy for their volunteer groups as well as for volunteer groups of statists. Even on this tolerance for tolerant actions we do tend to disagree. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: as opponents of any authority and any government." - This typically wrong definition stresses precisely the wrong and self-defeating aspects of "anarchistic" beliefs. According to this doctrine even individually self-chosen and quite competitive authorities and voluntary associations and their services must be opposed, i.e., authorities and organizations which anyone may freely join or refuse to join, patronise or refuse to patronise. Authorities and organisations from which individuals may freely secede are equated with those from which they may not secede. Authorities and organizations in which they are forced to invest and to which they are forced to contribute are equated with those which ask for or levy contributions only from their voluntary members and which invite but do not enforce investments in them. Territorialist coercion and monopolies, extended over whole populations, are equated with exterritorial voluntarism and autonomy for each of a multitude of freely competing or cooperating groups. Such anarchists do not really know their enemies and what is right, rational and efficient for themselves and for others. They have not recognized the voluntaristic and diversity implications of anarchism. In wanting to completely destroy “the” State, an institution obviously still beloved by the majority, consisting of various statists, instead of merely aiming at removing the coercive, monopolistic and exploitative features of States, they unnecessarily provoke all statists and thus turn them from potential allies into bitter enemies. Governments that are merely exterritorially autonomous, individually chosen by their voluntary members and freely competing with each other - and with all non-governmental free societies - are not the enemies at all but are rather potential and numerous and powerful allies against all territorially imposed and monopolistic and coercive governments. We should be almost as eager to promote such voluntary or competing governments as we are in promoting anarchistic communities and networks. For, if you come right down to the essentials, what would be the difference between their frameworks? – And could we not rely upon the long-run attractiveness of rights and liberties and an almost certain development towards liberties, especially when compulsory tax burdens are compared with the tax relief involved in voluntary taxation schemes inherent in all communities of volunteers, whether they are made up or radical freedom lovers or of statists? – It would also be easy to prove how much better off old people would be under the insurance and investment options of free societies. – The degrees of liberty that the USA once offered attracted 50 million immigrants. How many would have come if it had offered complete liberty as a matter of individual choice? How long would it have taken the best freedom models to become widely copied all over the world? - J.Z., 19.6.92, 27.1.93. – DIS.
ANARCHISTS: But all anarchists do agree that the abolition of coercive political authority would liberate us to be genuine social animals; all appeal to a principle of voluntary cooperation, personality, personal freedom, self-realization, are shared values." - David Wiek, ANARCHY 8.
ANARCHISTS: Do you know the man against whom you have most reason to guard yourself? Your looking glass will give you a very fair likeness of his face." - Richard Whately. – The anarchist response to my anarchist spectrum on www.butterbach.net/piot1.htm has so far been almost zero. They march off in all directions at once, with each believing that he would rightfully lead all the others and they remain even unaware that many to most of the others have other and different aims for themselves. And they do not try to dissolve their differences by subscribing to a common framework that would allow each different group to do its own things. They still subscribe, just like the statists, to territorialism and its inherent intolerance. – Thus they are still involved in their equivalent to religious warfare. - J.Z., 6.11.08. - SELF-KNOWLEDGE, TERRITORIALISM & ITS INTOLERANCE
ANARCHISTS: Do you really want to be lumped with all of those calling themselves anarchists? I don't. - J.Z., 7.9.85. – Are you quite tolerant of all the different types of anarchists? If not, then why should you expect archists to be tolerant of all different kinds of anarchists? You are certainly not tolerant of any of the archists. And why not? Because you, like the archists, are still intolerant territorialists, with no other and better model in mind than territorialism! It sets anarchists against each other and against the statists and statists against each other and against the anarchists. It is a prescription for civil war, war or domination and repression only. – J.Z., 6.11.08. – TERRITORIALISM & ITS INTOLERANCE
ANARCHISTS: For almost every archist error, myth, dogma and prejudice the various anarchists provide one or even several of their own. – J.Z., 29.12.95. – It is thus no wonder that they never got anywhere as yet. They have not even agreed on full experimental freedom for all kinds of anarchists and for all kinds of statists as well, in the same country and even world-wide, which is possible under full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of voluntary communities. – I do respect and honor the few exceptions from this rule. - J.Z., 20.9.08.
ANARCHISTS: He's no longer a crazy anarchist, a restless rebel, he's got sense into his head, he's grown up." - Oriana Fallaci, A Man, 447. – He is only grown up once he demands no more and no less than full exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of different groups of volunteers, anarchists as well as archists. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHISTS: I consider it terrible that our movement, everywhere, is degenerating into a swamp of petty personal squabbles, accusations & recriminations." - Alexander Berkman, letter to Senya and Mollie Fleshin. Emma Goldman added a P.S.: "Dear Children, I agree entirely with Sasha. I am sick at heart over the poison of insinuations, charges, accusations in our ranks. If that will not stop, there is no hope for a revival of our movement.” – Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p.243/4. - That factionalism is the inevitable consequence of most anarchists, in spite of the great diversity of views among them, being able to perceive only an intolerant realisation of anarchism, one on a territorial basis, for themselves and for whole populations. Each anarchist sect wants its particular variation of the faith thus generally realised. With this recipe for disaster they must clash, not only with each other but with all statists, who, if they were also confined to another model, an exterritorial and voluntaristic one, could become quite tolerable for anarchists, might even become allies. By leaving dissenters and opponents no other way out, no alternative path to their particular sectarian anarchistic and supposedly universal ideal, not universally perceived as such, they demand in practice their unconditional surrender. Instead, they should adopt for quite rightful peace and war aims, not only towards other anarchist faiths but also to all governmental ones - provided the latter are, likewise, organized volunteers only and aim merely at exterritorial autonomy for themselves as well as for all other societies of volunteers. - J.Z., 27.1.93. – Alas, this exterritorialist and personal law model for peaceful coexistence remains still largely unknown or unappreciated in the political, economic and social spheres – although it is daily practised by billions of very diverse people in all other spheres, those not monopolized by territorial governments and does essentially merely amount to experimental freedom for all. – J.Z., 6.11.08. - SCHISMS, INFIGHTING, FACTIONS, EXTERRITORIALISM & ITS TOLERANCE & PERSONAL LAWS FOR ALL
ANARCHISTS: If only most anarchists had become similarly passionate students of economics! - J.Z., 30.3.85. And of the exterritorial and personal law opportunities for mutual tolerance! – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHISTS: In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though rising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interests of the immense majority in subjection to them. - This is the sense in which we are really anarchists." - Michael Bakunin, 1814-1876, in God and the State, 1871. - What he was attacking was, naturally, the territorial, monopolistic, coercive, unified State with an exclusive sovereignty and compulsory membership, which is almost the only one practised then and today. In other words, what he said does not apply to exterritorially autonomous associations of volunteers. - J.Z., 26.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Instead of making themselves fundamentally and radically tolerant, in their aims, methods, means and actions, towards all tolerant organizations, aims and practices, they have made themselves, by their own definitions and interpretations and inclinations, extremely intolerant towards all those who disagree with them and want to act differently, even when these dissenters show no aggressive intention or actions against anarchists and anarchistic activities among anarchists. They tacitly or expressly assume that all non-anarchists must inevitably aim at or suppress all anarchistic activities. But that is no more sensible than to assume that every chief cook of a hotel would conspire or act to coercively place his own favourite dish upon every table in the country and force everyone to eat it, too. The fact that most statists are intolerant, even towards tolerant actions, should not make all anarchists likewise intolerant even towards tolerant actions, aims, authorities and organizations. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: It is nothing to be proud of when one says that one is an anarchist.” – (“Das ist ja keine Ehre wenn man sagt man ist Anarchist.") - T.M., 29.11.84. – Most anarchists, just like most statists, are still merely another type of territorialists and thus of intolerant authoritarians, who want to impose their own favorite system upon all dissenters. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHISTS: It is sometimes forgotten that the thorough-going anarchist should be anarchistic not only with respect to the State, which is one outstanding kind of voluntary or involuntary association, but with respect to ALL associations: it is rule itself (arche) to which it is opposed." - William Leon McBride, An Ideal Model and the "Democratic" Failure, in NOMOS, XI: Voluntary Associations, p. 212. - Precisely because only rule in the sense of domination is objected to by dissenters, only it should be opposed. It implies an imposition, a territorial one, for consenters and dissenters alike. This “model”, utopia or “ideal” suppresses alternative societies, i.e. competing and voluntary governments, exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, all freely and peacefully coexisting with their diverse network relationships and competing with each other in the same territory, for more voluntary members, just like business enterprises, sports clubs or sects do. Inevitably, all would have, as a result of their voluntary membership, also only voluntary contributors, and individually asked-for authorities (like we enjoy now a free choice among doctors, architects, engineers, barbers and interior decorators.). Another analogy is that of replacing an e.g., Catholic hierarchy not by totally abolishing all religion and all religious organisations and actions but by replacing a particular territorial and monopolistic hierarchy by religious freedom and tolerance, not only for religious believers of all kinds but also for non-believers: atheists, rationalists, freethinkers, agnostics and humanists and also for the remaining volunteers of the previously one and only church. Would any of the non-religious people even have survived if they had attempted, like many anarchists try to do in their field, to destroy all religious beliefs, organizations and cult actions? Would the chances for atheists etc. even be good in our time, if they pursued such an intolerant policy, rather than continuing to provide enlightenment via counter-teachings and by trying to set better personal examples through their own lives? - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Lenin, quoting a passage from Engels' 'Anti-Duehring', had accused the anarchists of naivety (in) desiring to abolish the state 'overnight'." - Lenin, Sochineniia, XXI, 410, quoted in Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p.167. - That was and is naive. Realistic would have been and is now only the aim of "anarchism for anarchists, all the different kinds of anarchisms for all the different kinds of anarchists." It is quite naive to aim at instant anarchism for all non-anarchists as well. - J.Z., 28.6.92. - For the others, the multitudes of different archies and the multitudes of their statists, their true believers, the aim of the freedom lovers must simply be to deprive them of their present absolutist, territorial, sovereign, coercive powers over others, as all revolutionaries would do, but without depriving them of their own beloved governments, great leaders, gurus and authorities - once they have lost all those features which endanger their opponents. Upon a close look, all the remaining and still wanted governments, when all dissenters have effectively seceded from them and set up their own free societies for themselves, would just be "free societies of statists", voluntary associations, very similar in their basic framework to that of the anarchistic, libertarian and other voluntary associations. Only internally, among their remaining faithful, which would be very numerous indeed, at least initially and for years to decades to come, they would then simply continue their current statist practices, as long as they would be prepared to put up with them. They would be among their own, without any internal fundamental opposition. That is and should be their affair, their business, their responsibility and their risk and expense. - J.Z., 27.1.93. – PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE BETWEEN ANARCHISTS & ANARCHISTS, POSSIBLE & DESIRABLE UNDER PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM & FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY. TO EACH HIS OWN!
ANARCHISTS: Marxism and other forms of sectarian and egalitarian communism constitute the opium of most of the anarchists. – J.Z., 13.5.99. They are so addicted to it that they will not read and seriously consider the literature written to refuse their faith. Only the own free experience within their own peaceful and competitive panarchies might cure the curable among them of their remaining flaws, so far removed from the anarchism that consists, essentially, of voluntarism, which can be fully practised only under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws or rules. – J.Z., 21.9.08. – PANARCHISM, COMMUNISM, EGALITARIANISM, ANTI-CAPITALISM
ANARCHISTS: Most anarchists are just advocates of local self-government, on a very small scale, and have not yet advanced, beyond this model, to fully individualistic and voluntarily cooperative personal law associations on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 30.12.82, 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Most anarchists are just deviationist archists. They still want enforced territorial uniformity - but on different subjects and on different levels. Thus, like archists, they clash even with each other. - J.Z., 14.11.82. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS
ANARCHISTS: Most anarchists have still to discover the anarchy of the free market and how it could be applied to political organizations and their services as well, voluntarily and exterritorially. I.e., they remain unaware of the panarchistic and exterritorially autonomous options for communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 29.11.92, 27.1.93. – PANARCHISM, FREE MARKET, LAISSEZ FAIRE FOR ALL VARIETIES OF COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS
ANARCHISTS: Most anarchists, who simply propose to "abolish government(s)", do overlook the historical experience that most actual governments, that were ever abolished, were abolished by new or other governments. Even when they were abolished from below, by revolutions, then these were usually carried out by a majority or strong minority of statists who had nothing better to do than to shout: “The king is dead. Long live the king!” or: The old government is abolished. Long live the new government." If they ponder this reality and also how unhappy most statists are with their statist "achievements", then they will come to merely aim at competitive and tolerant anarchies for themselves and competitive and tolerant archies for archists, all on the basis of exterritorial autonomy - for volunteers and their particular desired experiments. Freedom to experiment with like-minded volunteers in the political, economic and social spheres as well, maximise the speed of enlightenment and progress among the experimenters. The imposition of anarchy upon all, regardless of the illusions and wishes of the vast majority, is not any better than the imposition of uniform and territorial governments upon numerous dissenting and more or less enlightened minorities. Both are war aims rather than peace aims. Both prevent peaceful coexistence and competitive developments. Both fail to maximise individual responsibilities and creative incentives. Both offer only what they want themselves and what they think others ought to want, rather than leaving others free to pursue their lives and happiness in their own way. They have all too much in common with each other, all too much that suppresses individual liberties and rights and individual sovereignty or consumer sovereignty in all spheres. Both have totalitarian aspirations for their ideologies. - J.Z., 25.4.93, 27.1.93. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIALISM, INTOLERANCE, MONOPOLIZATION OF EXPERIMENTATION
ANARCHISTS: No anarchist should presume to speak and act for all other anarchists but, at most, for all those who share his particular ideals and programme. Nor, as an anarchist, should he attempt to force his ideals upon any archists. He may only usurp freedom and defend it against any further encroachments by the State. Even this can be done in a way that does not promote civil war. Anarchism of any kind or colour only for anarchists of that kind and colour. - Statism of any kind only for that kind of statists. That requires exterritorial autonomy for volunteers - or panarchism. Properly timed, anarchists could successfully, e.g. via free market economics among themselves and those who join them, solve economic major problems which the governments are, apparently, unable to solve for us, e.g. mass unemployment and inflation. Such incomplete secession and self-determination actions could then become more and more numerous and finally lead to complete secessions and exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities." - J.Z., 13.10.92, 26.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: No anarchist should presume to speak or act for all other anarchists, far less for all the diverse archists. At most he can rightly speak and act for all those who happen to share his particular ideal and action programme. Nor, as an anarchist, should he ever attempt to force his ideal and action programme upon any archists. Anarchism of any colour only for anarchists of that colour. That would require, in practice, exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups - or panarchism. - J.Z., 13.10.92.
ANARCHISTS: On most points I am not a majoritarian or consider myself as part of a majority but, rather a minoritarian or individualist who favours individual sovereign choices. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Only self-thinking, self-knowing and self-deciding people can be anarchists." - St. Ch. Waldecke, Gedanken ueber Anarchie, p.3. – Although they are hardly scholars and thinkers, as far as economics is concerned, collectivist or communist anarchism should also be an option for their volunteers. They should be granted full exterritorial status to do their things to themselves without what they perceive to be archies. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: Only the particular and additional notions which most anarchists have of anarchism are impractical or wrong in most cases, not the basic anarchistic idea itself. - J.Z., 11.6.91. All these wrong and impractical notions they could and should freely experiment with voluntarily and tolerantly in their own exterritorial communities of volunteers, at their own risk and expense. That would be the only truly anarchistic and also fastest and cheapest way to enlighten them on these notions. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHISTS: People who call themselves anarchists but who try to impose their kind of anarchism upon other anarchists and upon archists, are not really anarchists but archists themselves. In their way most anarchists are just as intolerant and authoritarian as most archists are and they do not notice this basic contradiction in their beliefs. They are still primarily, even though largely unconsciously and in a decentralist way, territorialists, never having seriously considered the exterritorialist options of voluntaristic autonomy for all. Moreover, while they call themselves anarchists, they really have other ideals, like communism or collectivism, as their primary ideals, and with regard to these they are intolerant and see anarchism only as a way for them to realize them not only for themselves but for all others, too. To that extent they are still authoritarians, nationalists, imperialists, and even totalitarians, just like the early Protestants were, before they learned to demand not only toleration for themselves but were also willing to grant it to others. - J.Z., 13.10.92, 27.1.93. – TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE
ANARCHISTS: Some anarchists are more against what they misperceive to be capitalism than they are against what they perceive to be the State and State actions. – J.Z., 13.5.99. – They do not even realize that e.g. exterritorial and voluntary States are not their enemies but that only territorial States with involuntary subjects are. – J.Z., 21.9.08. - ANTI-CAPITALIST MENTALITY, COMMUNIST ANARCHISM, EGALITARIANISM OF THE TERRITORIALIST TYPE
ANARCHISTS: the absolutists of individual freedom." - Max Eastman, Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, p.70. – Compare: "Freedom is always the freedom of the one who disagrees with us, or who thinks otherwise."
ANARCHISTS: The majority of anarchists think and write about the future without understanding the present. This is what divides us communists from them.” - Lenin, quoted by Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p.211. - One could say that especially the communists and the communist anarchists neither understand the past nor the present nor the future, e.g. the free market, the free economy, the free exchange and free contract and free development options. Economically they are still illiterate. Instead they are enraptured by their ideology, their fixed ideas. - J.Z., 27.1.93, 5.11.08. - This applies to almost all ideologues, especially communistic ones, the leftists, humanitarians, utopians and Welfare Statists. Only a few people have so far understood and appreciated all of man’s rights and liberties, their potentials for realization and the opportunities they would offer to all. Only the consistent freedom lovers and advocates can perceive and provide a peaceful, tolerant and educational framework for all ideological activities among volunteers, the equivalent to religious freedom in the political, economic and social spheres: namely panarchism or experimental freedom in the last spheres still territorially monopolized by the present States. - J.Z., 28.6.92. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, MARKET ECONOMICS, HUMAN RIGHTS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM
ANARCHISTS: Their coercive opposition to property is organized and essentially totalitarian in its objective. They are not satisfied with eliminating private property among themselves. Their private and collective expropriation actions against dissenting proprietors are essentially actions of territorial and totalitarian statists, never mind their anarchistic pretences. - J.Z., 28.6.92, 27.1.93. – Only a fraction of them are well enough informed propertarians and free marketers. – J.Z., 5.11.08. - MOST ARE OPPONENTS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. THEIR COMMUNIST SHARING PRINCIPLE EVEN DENIES SELF-OWNERSHIP & SELF-RESPONSIBILITY. THE ABLE & INDUSTRIOUS ARE TO BE ENSLAVED & EXPLOITED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEEDY & NON-INDUSTRIOUS.
ANARCHISTS: They should strive for recognition as a distinct ideological group just as others are recognized as racial, ethnic, religious or national groups. They should insist that all such groups are entitled to full exterritorial autonomy if they do wish it for themselves. Thereby they could make themselves the friends and allies of the majority, since even the temporary majorities are mere combinations of minorities. - J.Z., 11.2.85, 6.11.08..
ANARCHISTS: Too many anarchist do all too readily assume that e.g. property, trade, money, capital, investments, interest, profit, and markets are not aspects of individual liberty and show thus no interest in the corresponding liberties. – J.Z., 12.2.98. – To that extent they are often no better and sometimes worse than the territorial statists are. – J.Z., 21.9.08.
ANARCHISTS: True and consistent anarchists would allow non-anarchists to make their own archistic choices at the same time that anarchism becomes realized for anarchists. Thereby anarchism for anarchists could become realized much sooner. - J.Z., 29.4.86, 27.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ANARCHISTS: What is an anarchist? One who, choosing, accepts the responsibility of choice." - Ursula Le Guin, The Day Before the Revolution, in The Wind's Twelve Quarters, 133.
ANARCHISTS: Without being also panarchists, they are not really anarchists. - In the political and economic sphere they want us to fill our shopping basket only with the same assortment of goodies that are "officially sanctioned" by the anarchist movement - or their particular section of it. - J.Z., n.d. & 6.11.11.
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: Amber Pawlik in Christian Butterbach letter of 26.7.04. - " Anarcho-capitalists reject a government-run police, military, or courts. Anarcho-capitalists believe everyone should be able to do everything "voluntarily," including voluntarily deciding, in essence, what would be their own personal government. - Their argument is that no one should dictate to you what police you should use, what military you fund, or what courts will handle your justice. All of these things should be 'your decision'." Pawlik argues against this position, almost as absurdly as Ayn Rand did. - J.Z., 29.8.04.
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: Some otherwise intelligent people, who still do not know what panarchism is all about, simply assert that anarcho capitalism is identical to panarchism and do persist with this belief. Why? Perhaps because they believe it to be the most tolerant system. However, panarchism is rather intolerant towards all territorially imposed systems. Under it anarcho-capitalism is just one of the options for volunteers. It also allows volunteers any deviation from it and even to practise among themselves, as far as they can, its very opposites: communist, collectivist, socialist and all kinds of statist communities for their volunteers, all of them ideological opponents of anarcho-capitalism. Thus the term anarcho-capitalism does certainly not represent the essence of panarchism. - J.Z., 19.8.11. - Compare: Anarcho-Libertarianism. It realizes that what is usually misunderstood under "capitalism" is not popular at all. Thus Ayn Rand, in one of her book titles, called it "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal." However, she too misunderstood the concept of "competing governments", in her "The Virtue of Selfishness". - OBJECTIONS, DIS., LEFTISTS, TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, DEFINITIONS, TERMINOLOGY, NAMING IT
ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS: Anarcho capitalism is just our trip. We don't mean to impose it on everybody..." - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus II, p.111. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, ACTION, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PLURALISM.
ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS: Anarcho-capitalism is the theory that what are generally considered the proper functions of a strictly limited government - basically police protection, adjudication, and defence - can and should be provided by the free market, just like other kinds of services." - James A Kuffell, REASON, 3/72. . – They still failed to stress that all kinds of statists should be free to make their own choices and their own kind of institutions for themselves. – J.Z., 3.11.10.
ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS: This group believes that all functions presently performed by government can be transferred to market-place agencies. They wish the government removed totally, reserving even the functions of protection, defense, retaliation and punishment to competing market-place agencies." – Robert LeFevre, The Libertarians, p.26. - Panarchists predict that package deal enterprises in form of voluntary and competing governments, only exterritorially autonomous, would remain or become established and that they would not only offer competing limited government services but all kinds of government services which their voluntary members would want for themselves. Some might, indeed, secede from all such package deals and contract only for themselves, with specific free enterprise protection services or, perhaps, hire police protection from panarchy A, court protection from panarchy B and defence services from panarchy C, and, perhaps, even some welfare or insurance services from panarchy D. - J.Z., 1993.
ANARCHO-LBERTARIANISM: This is the beauty of anarcho-libertarianism: utter and complete toleration for any and all styles of life so long as they are voluntary and non-aggressive in nature. Only under such a system can the capitalist and socialist mentality coexist peacefully, without infringing the rights of other individuals and communities." - J. Tuccille, Radical Libertarianism, p.60. . - PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, VOLUNTARISM, NON-AGGRESSION, TOLERANCE. Compare: ANARCHO-CAPITALISM, MARKET ANARCHY.
ANARCHO-TOTALITARIANISM: The character of the libertarian movement is now such that all true lovers of liberty must oppose it. It has already achieved - on the intellectual level, a seemingly impossible synthesis: anarcho-totalitarianism." - Ernest van den Haag, in NATIONAL REVIEW, quoted in OUI, 2/80. – That remark rings no bells with me. – Except that most anarchists just like most statists are still territorialists and that territorialism is one of the preconditions for authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. - J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY & ARCHY, ANARCHISM & GOVERNMENTALISM, COMBINED IN THE SAME TERRITORY & YET EFFECTIVELY SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER, BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICES: PANARCHISM CONSISTING OF XYZ PANARCHIES, ALL EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS FOR THEIR VOLUNTEERS: A panarchistic "anarchy", that would leave to each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams, would be, essentially, acceptable to anarchists and statists alike, once they have understood its theory & practice. - J.Z., 4.9.04. - ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIAL COMPULSION, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICES, FREE ASSOCIATIONISM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT FOR ALL VOLUNTEERS.
ANARCHY & PANARCHY: afaq's blog: http://anarchism.pageabook.com/user/afaq - I hold that this short statement is far from covering the subject. - J.Z., 17.9.11.
ANARCHY & VOLUNTARISM: Freedom Press, London, No. 69, Nov. 66, pp 348/349, LINDENFIELD, FRANK, Voluntarism and Politics: "Voluntarism implies a diversity of social forms. Different groups of people would be free to choose between alternative forms of social organization and ways of life. The voluntarist does not want all men living the way he would like to live, with everybody forced into the same strait-jacket of utopia. The voluntarist wants to live as he likes with his friends, and let others live as they like, with their friends. Voluntarism means the freedom to choose a life of creativity and pleasure, or one of ignominy, wretchedness, and boredom." - He does not say at whose expense. And on 349 he reveals his ignorance of economics: "As Staughton Lynd has put it, 'Employment appears to be the Achilles heel of parallelism.' This is the major problem to which we must address our efforts if we are to put our ideas into practice...." - He does not even speculate on what would happen if hundreds of millions of unemployed and their sympathizers are free to experiment with the multitude of supposed or real solutions offered. - Naturally, most authors of this publication have not explored the monetary freedom option at all. - J.Z.
ANARCHY FOR ANARCHISTS – THROUGH PANARCHISM & ITS PANARCHIES? - An extract from PEACE PLANS 671: ON PANARCHISM FOR ANARCHISTS: Although it follows from a consistent application of often repeated anarchist principles and proposals, panarchism still remains, to a large extent, an unknown ideal, even among most anarchists, in the same way as anarchism, as a consistent democracy, is still largely unknown or misunderstood among most democrats. - - Panarchism proposes to offer a conscientious objection opportunity not only against conscription, compulsory taxation, unions and school attendance and other particular coercive practices - but a comprehensive one against all coercive, exclusive, territorial, political, economic and social systems, institutions and practices, on the basis of complete autonomy for conscientious objectors ,who are prepared, in order to be able to follow their conscience, to cut all their ties to the old system, losing all their citizen rights, while upholding all their individual rights. - (I hold, though, that they would still have the right to have their share in public assets, either paid out to them or certified to them in form of convertible and transferable certificates. This in itself, particularly in the case of Australia, might be an additional motive to secede, since it comes here, according to some estimates, to ca. 1 million dollars per head. For further details see Peace Plans No. 19 c.) - This conscientious objection opportunity might also be described as freedom of action or experimental freedom or minority autonomy or voluntaryism or associationism - for all who want to be creatively active among themselves - while remaining quite tolerant towards the rightful actions of other groups and communities doing their own thing, within their own individual rights. - The practice of panarchy implies individual secessionism and personal or non-territorial law organization, on a voluntary basis, regardless of whether the secessionists and voluntary associates are anti-statists or statists. - Whatever ideology the seceded and non-territorially reorganized persons share among themselves and want to support and practise among themselves is to be entirely up to them as their own internal affair. - Within the territory of any former large State, the diverse panarchies finally established, would be likely to represent the whole ideological spectrum. But market forces would operate to prevent some quite unrealistic schemes, to reduce the number and the followers of flawed schemes and to cut short the lifespan of false Utopias. The latter would tend to run out of followers. - However, the same mistakes are likely to be repeated again and again by different people wanting to experiment with the same ideas, as the statists, and especially the communists, have done, again and again. - - Panarchists will make mistakes and repeat mistakes, too. But they will do so with a decisive difference: Their mistakes will only be undertaken at their own expense, not like those of politicians, bureaucrats and ruling parties, at the expense, largely, of other people, even of dissenters. - - Individual secessionism, the foundation of panarchism, is itself based upon the assumption that individuals do own themselves rather than being owned by others or that they are sovereign in their own affairs (individual sovereignty) and thus may not be bound to any purposes, methods and institutions of others, as long as they do not invade the equal rights and liberties of others - which are expressly or tacitly claimed by these others. (If, for instance, enemies of private property put out a book titled : "Steal this book!", then they must not be surprised if potential customers do follow their advice. Then they cannot claim that they would have been wronged by such actions. On second thoughts, using the term "steal" does actually amount, however unintentionally, to a recognition of property rights. Even Proudhon seems to have overlooked that in his most famous work, titled: Property Is Theft.) -Panarchism thus rests firmly on a proverbial view of man as the maker of his own fate, not as a mere tool or experimental subject of any God, ruler, minority or majority of his countrymen, not even of any particular anarchistic group or movement. - It would thus truly realize self-government or self-determination - for all who desire it and without making this an imposition. - It would realize even the freedom not to be free and to choose, instead, a condition of voluntary servitude or other dependence - as long as one can stand it. - After sufficient disappointments one will not only be at liberty to secede but will want to secede from disappointing authoritarian autonomous and non-territorial communities. - - Panarchy also rests upon the full recognition of all individual rights - to the extent that these are known, publicized and understood. - - Since individual rights do offer only options or free action spheres, however natural these may be to fully grown up and enlightened men, they do not oblige people to use them to the fullest. They may even temporarily renounce them and introduce, like Catholics have done, e.g. censorship among themselves. - Consequently, WITHIN their own community and among the own voluntary members, panarchists would only have to abide by their own and particular bill of rights. - In their relations with others, they would have to pay attention to their fundamental laws. - All individual rights do thus merely describe the maximum sphere or accumulation of rights and freedom of action spheres within which panarchic experiments may be freely undertaken. - - To use a simple analogy: Freedom of press does not mean that everybody ought to publish a newspaper, ought to buy one, read it fully or ought to write a letter or article for one every day of the year. He ought only to be at liberty to do so to the extent that he likes doing it - and can afford the costs. (On the latter aspect you ought to study the microfiche alternative.) - - Basic rights can, naturally, either be used or not used by different people in many different ways. - - In short, the diverse panarchies, that would arise under this degree of liberty, would have to recognize each other and respect their differences. The same would apply to their individual members. - The assumption will always have to be in favor of individual rights unless certain rights have been expressly or to a particular degree renounced by members of one or the other autonomous and non-territorial community of volunteers. - - One could sum up the aims and means of panarchists with statements like: statism for statists, anarchy for anarchists, free trade for free traders, protectionism for protectionists, non-violence for pacifists, defensive force for those who see its justification against initiated aggression, capitalism among consenting adults and any kind of socialism for those who desire it. - - Then a libertarian party would have the option to rule over the libertarians who voted for it, the Labour Party over its voters and members and the Liberal Party over its followers while the Anarchists would free to "rule" themselves or enjoy their liberty undisturbed by any officials, as long as they did not interfere with any rightly claimed liberties of others: Administrative nihilism for some and administrative welfarism or even totalitarianism for others, according to their individual choice. - - There would no longer be a case for secret voting but one for publicly registering the vote of everyone - which would only bind the individual voter to the candidates and institutions of his choice. That would be the fundamental vote. - In these elections every party would win a full victory for itself - and over all its followers, with their unanimous consent. - Only the requirement of voluntary membership and of non-territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdictions and organizations are to apply to all. - - Any remaining exclusive "territorial" rule, jurisdiction and administration is to be reduced to the relatively small areas of private or cooperative households, enterprises and real estates. - - Even there most owners will find it economical not to impose arbitrary territorial rules but merely some common sense house and hospitality rules, for the protection of basic rights, while leaving "alien" visitors and contractors whatever benefits they may derive from still being subject, in most respects, to their own and freely chosen personal laws. - - Guests and contractors would, naturally, not enjoy non-territorial diplomatic immunity for aggressive, violent, criminal offences while within or without these small private or cooperative "areas", which do not really deserve the name of "territories", since they are not extensive enough for this, in most instances. - - If they did something that would not be objectively a crime of aggression but would, at least in such an environment and among these people be considered a severe breach of manners, they would be shown or escorted to the exit and, most likely, never invited again. - - Nobody is to be "at liberty" to step on anybody's toes, even if these toes are not especially marked: "Don't step on me!" - - Thus in some respects, in ordinary and civilized social relationships between different human beings with different private preferences, little would change, at least for a considerable time to come and perhaps nothing in a quite fundamental way. - - However, to mention just one tiny social innovation from South America, that I do like: It is quite accepted there to respect and leave a person alone, who simply and quietly states a phrase like: "I am not here." The privacy that this person claims with that phrase is there generally expected. Here one all too often feels compelled to engage in conversation, out of what is perceived to be a requirement of politeness and good manners. It tends to produce more or less covered-up boredom on both sides. This tiny declaration of independence is actually also a kind of minor and temporary panarchistic and non-territorial secession by an individual and it is there respected as such and would it help to improve our own social occasions. - - In the Christian Science Monitor, which is often quite interesting in its large non-religious section, I read once about the efforts one lady to institutionalize quite the opposite, a specially marked conversation table for those who do not want to be left alone for the time being but, on the contrary, would welcome a good talking partner. - We have here two mini-instances of individual non-territorial secessionism and associationism. - While the members of each autonomous and non-territorial minority group will mainly be concerned with their own affairs, there will also be some international relationships between them and members of other minority groups. For these a new kind of international law and new international arbitration system will develop, one based on respect for claimed human rights in members of other communities, even while one has renounced particular individual rights within one’s own community. - - Jerome Internoscia’s ”New Code of International Law” would be a useful reference work for the development of such an international law. It would, anyhow, in most cases be preferable to the kind of international law or, rather, international warfare rules, that have been developed by national and territorial "sovereign" governments. (I microfilmed this work on 11 microfiche in PEACE PLANS 85-95.) - - To some extent the various minority groups would also be united by local militias for the protection of human rights and their international federation and by a federation (or even several ones, run on different principles, by their volunteers) of autonomous volunteer and minority groups, established to protect their common interests through international cooperation between them. - - Panarchy, once realized, would offer anarchists the chance to enjoy anarchic relationships between themselves, right here and now, undisturbed by statists. - - Moreover, once anarchists do adopt the panarchistic tolerance, they will have a common platform with statists and all other minority groups who want to panarchistically maintain or realize different ideals among themselves. - They would then only have one kind of common enemies, namely territorial totalitarians. These enemies would soon be only a relatively powerful minority that could be defeated and forced to become if not a tolerant then a tolerating minority. FIOT would become a real option for anarchists. - In other words, panarchy would offer anarchists the opportunity to sow their seeds, cultivate their plants and harvest their products for themselves, here and now, undisturbed by others who cultivate other crops. - They would not have to wait for decades or generations to get a chance to realize their ideal. - - The only concession that they would have to make and that those formulating their principles have made already, in general terms, would be to let non-anarchists do their own thing among themselves. - Draft only, to be revised. - J. Zube, 10.3.1986. – Slightly edited: 10.12.04.
ANARCHY FOR ANARCHISTS & STATES FOR STATISTS: An extract from PEACE PLANS 671: On anarchy for anarchists and states for statists or: To each the non-government or government of his dreams! (Some thoughts on panarchism.) - The various forms of socialism and capitalism are only various forms of secular religions and their followers and organizations do not deserve any more privileges than any church or sect does. But they are also entitled to no less rights and liberties than any church or sect has in a relatively free society, or any atheistic, humanistic and rationalistic association. - - One can consider "denationalization" and "reprivatization" in a narrow sense, as referring only to the transfer of particular State enterprises into private or cooperative hands or one can understand them in a general sense, which would amount to privatizing and cooperatizing and voluntarizing ALL of the governmental political, economic and social system. - - As an individualist anarchist, free-market libertarian, voluntaryist, mutualist and panarchist, I favor not only denationalization and privatization of some but of all government enterprises and departments. - (By the way, the sales proceeds belong into the pockets of all citizens, not of any politicians and bureaucrats!) - Such a comprehensive denationalization would offer all kinds of voluntaristic avenues for all kinds of anarchistic, socialistic and liberal schemes and experiments, all coexisting peacefully in the same territories, supported and used only by their supporters, with their failures to be born only by them and their benefits to be shared only among them. - - Such a system would, so to speak, universalize the principle of conscientious objection against military servitude, against tax slavery compulsory education, medication or prohibition. - - It would realize freedom for dissenters and non-conformists, not only in the religious but also in the political, social and economic spheres. - - It is not true that our “nation” is endangered but that the very existence of our “nation”, in exclusive, territorial and coercive form, endangers US and OTHERS. - - Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the name of “national”, according to Mary Chisholm. (Carolyne Chisholm? She was an Australian pioneer women. I have a terrible memory for names especially and still haven't got her writings or at least the source of that remark. - J.Z., 28.11.11.) - What is voluntary does rarely make enemies and it can be defended much easier and with much more justification and less costs and risk. - - Panarchism pleads for freedom for statists - as well as for all others - to do their own thing. - Only narrow-minded anarchists would insist that all other people make the same choice which these anarchists prefer. - By rights, anarchists can demand no more than anarchism for anarchists - within a general voluntaryist system that would leave statists to their own choices on their own affairs. - Then each could have the government or no-government of his choice and, to that extent they would no longer have to fear and fight each other. - - No more forced marriages with any government, army, union or school. - - No more compulsory associations. - - Each individual to be free to divorce himself from any of them, by one-sided declarations, and to join or establish any alternatives that may take his fancy, always at his own cost and risk. - - Excommunication of disagreeable members is, naturally, also an option for the voluntary members of any autonomous minority group or protective association. - - Panarchism is nothing but the freedom to disassociate and to associate – consistently applied in the last spheres where it is so for not realized, namely in politics, economic and social relations. - - Panarchy means freedom for communists as well as anti-communists to live the way they want to live. Both would be free to follow their beliefs - but only at their own expense and risk, as if they were religious sectarians living under religious tolerance. - Perhaps they are such sectarians and ought therefore to be given that autonomy - if there were not already a thousand moral, political and social other reasons in favor of it. - - Almost all of our public institutions in the political, economic and social sphere amount to ritualized and legalized intolerance and domination. - - In an age of mass-murder-devices, kept ready as a matter of policy by the most powerful governments, with considerable popular support, it is high time to ritualize and institutionalize their direct opposite, namely quite tolerant, voluntary, i.e., quite non-coercive institutions, each doing its own things only for its own members, as best as it can, while leaving all others to their own and individually chosen actions and relationships among themselves. - - "… as Lysander Spoonder points out in NO TREASON, a contract surrendering the rights and basic liberties of one of the parties is absurd and invalid in terms of common law." Kerry Wendell Thornley, “Factsheet 5”, 1985. - - We have to replace this kind of “social contract” relationship between rulers and citizen-subjects by something much more moral and useful, to the extent that the alternatives are preferred by individuals, in accordance with their individual stage of enlightenment. - - "The political philosophy that is called libertarianism is the doctrine that every person is the owner of his own life, and that no one is the owner of anyone else's life; and that, consequently, ever human being has the right to act in accordance with his own choices, unless those actions infringe on the equal liberty of other human beings to act in accordance with their choices.” - Prof. John Hospers, quoted in THE FREEMAN, August 1974. - Alas, he is one of the many who failed to draw the panarchistic conclusion from this principle, since he still advocates merely limited government. - - Why did territorial and compulsory statism rather than exterritorial and voluntary panarchism prevail so far? - - Was the remaining overlordship in instances of part-realizations of panarchic freedom a hindrance or a help to those involved? - - Historical records on these experiences are, perhaps, not yet complete enough to allow us to make a sufficiently informed judgment upon them. But on first principles one could conclude that any compromise with evil or wrong will benefit the evil or wrong while doing no good to the good or right side. - - People who see and appreciate only a small segment, like panarchic freedom in entertainment and religion, and “conscientious objection to military service”, do not see and appreciate the whole picture of it and its potential. On the contrary, our kind of "society" will tend to prejudice them against it, in many ways. - (In the same way as most people are e.g. prejudiced in favor of central banking vs. free banking and in favor of coercive protectionism vs. free trade.) - Only a full vision of a consistent panarchy will be persuasive and effective, will become self-realizing. - - The written record of panarchic options has so far been much too small and out of sight to have been able to change public opinion in favor of panarchism. For instance: My PEACE PLANS series, with its limited means, and medium, attempts to change that situation, but remains largely ignored, even when its extensive, but still very incomplete libertarian literature list is placed on the Internet. (www.butterbach.net/ & http://users.acenet.com.au/~jzube (On the latter only the main list, not the supplementary list can be found.) - - Reprints are free and invited and more contributions to its sub-series “ON PANARCHY” are wanted, of which the first 24 issues are now out. (By 2004! –J.Z.) - - "Abolition of all forms of government is the libertarian political proposal that binds together left and right wing anarchists as does the common social vision of totally free individuals integrated with small, autonomous, intentional communities." - ELF, 1972. - - But there is still the vast difference between "abolition" by destruction and abolition, step by step, through competing better alternatives that are freely chosen by individuals - whenever they are ready for them. - Moreover, there are all kinds of ideas on "smallness", degree of autonomy and type of community, with most people being able to envision only exclusive and territorial ones and unable to envision non-territorial ones. - This happens in spite of the fact that much of their private lives is spent and enjoyed in non-territorial association with other likeminded people. - - "The libertarians say : Let those who believe in religion have religion; let those who believe in government, have government; but let those who believe in liberty, have liberty, and do not compel them to accept a religion or a government they do not want." - Charles T. Sprading, in his introduction to "Liberty and the Great Libertarians". - - "The libertarian favors a condition of freedom for all, yet he realizes that freedom, because of its nature, can never be imposed by force." - Robert LeFevre, “LeFevre's Journal”, Spring 1974. - - Consequently, opponents of anarchism must be left at liberty, to continue and enjoy as much as they can the kind of statism they do like, as long as they do. - - Anarchists must not threaten them with the abolition of their kind of beloved state and government but, rather guarantee it to them, as long as it remains their own free choice. - - Towards them anarchists can rightly advocate only the one-man revolutions that are exemplified by individual secessionism that is based on individual sovereignty or self-ownership - as soon as people are enlightened enough to want to claim this basic right. Even then they might only be partly enlightened and will only choose new and lesser ties but still restrictions upon their own liberties. They should be at liberty to do so. Anarchists should not threaten their choice with destruction but, at most, try to convert them by words or by their own cooperative and competing examples of living in complete freedom. - - - "By uniting the ideas of freedom in social affairs and freedom in economic affairs, the libertarian philosophy also does something else. It almost completely (some people would say completely) eliminates the power of the third area - politics. It frees both our social and economic affairs from political manipulation, domination and control. It allows individual people to control their own social and economic affairs. - - This libertarian philosophy, based as it is on voluntarism or individual freedom, can equally encompass people who wish to live as communists in voluntary communes, and people who wish to be free traders and run their own business enterprises for a profit." - Bob Howard and John Singleton: “Rip Van Australia”, 12. - I would add, for the sake of clarification and consistent application of the principles involved, that the people in any group need not be territorially united. A non-territorial association will serve them as well as it did serve churches and sects. - - - "If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy." - Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto Jr., The New York Times Magazine, Jan. 10, 1971. - I see no difference between consistent libertarianism and consistent anarchism. Their common basis is voluntaryism, self-ownership, natural rights and liberties, individual sovereignty, free choice. Nothing but consumer sovereignty towards so-called "government services" is involved. - - - Why only "let MY people go"? Why not let ALL people GO - THEIR OWN WAY?" - - - If the Libertarian Party came out quite clearly in favor of individual secessionism, then I, as an individualist anarchist, would have no other and quite as fundamental objection against it. But as an individualist I have to oppose even those anarchists, whose political ideal I do share, whenever they do try to impose or aim to impose their ideal upon all who doubt anarchy or who are its enemies. All such attempts are, inevitably, self-defeating, since they do provoke negative feed-back, often of a severely repressive type. (Compare the assassination attempts against popular monarchs or presidents.) - - Once one compares one's own political, economic and social beliefs with beliefs in religious doctrines, one becomes aware why this is the case. From then on one will tend to try to advocate them rather with respect for human nature and all its present foibles, than against it. - - People are different. Let them make their different choices, away from anarchy, as long as they want to. - - A full franchise includes the right to vote oneself out of any coercive political, economic and social system and into any system that corresponds to one's own individual choice or invention, and to have, moreover, all the other voting powers that one wants to have – but only among likeminded volunteers. - - To oppose party politics and party powers does not require that one opposes the political, economic, social and military policies of individual secessionism but, on the contrary, it requires such a consistent opposition to territorial statism and consistent expression of voluntarism and of exterritorial autonomy. - - But if one is completely committed to nonviolence, and to all its postures and attitudes and "actions", then one will not sufficiently explore this voluntaryist option and obligation. - (Yes, one OUGHT to secede from a Hitler regime and from a government armed with anti-people "weapons" or mass murder devices!) - Instead of: "No nation can long endure half free and half enslaved", one could state: No nation can long endure when one section cannot be as free as it wants to be while the other is not allowed to be as unfree as it wants to be. - - Most governments are "good" only for the waging of more or less open and aggressive international or civil wars and for their prolongation against the wishes of external and internal dissenters. - Only full exterritorial autonomy for all dissenters can establish peace, justice and freedom for all. - It would soon maximize prosperity, at least via the examples set by some dissenters. - And this autonomy for all volunteers and their associates would be possible and maximized only on a non-territorial, i.e. a personal law basis. - - - Secessionists of the world unite, into a world federation that works for non-territorial autonomy for all volunteers who desire it, for all minorities that wish it for themselves and for other minorities and even for the majority. - - FIOT, John Zube, 9.3.1986, slightly revised 10.12.04.
ANARCHY VS. IMPOSED, I.E. TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY: Anarchy means essentially the opposition to a domineering power and the absence of a monopolistic centre of direction, legislating for everybody on everything. It certainly does not mean what the state oriented social scientists want us to believe, that is the rejection of any authority and the disrespect for any rule. In fact the anarchist recognizes and willingly accepts the authority of those rich in knowledge and wisdom and is willing to follow voluntarily their advice. - "Je m'incline devant l'autorité des hommes spéciaux parce qu'elle m'est imposée par ma propre raison. J'ai conscience de ne pouvoir embrasser dans tous ses détails et ses développements positifs qu'une très petite partie de la science humaine. La plus grande intelligence ne suffirait pas pour embrasser le tout. D'où résulte, pour la science aussi bien que pour l'industrie, la nécessité de la division et de l'association du travail. Je reçois et je donne, telle est la vie humaine. Chacun est autorité dirigeante et chacun est dirigé à son tour. Donc il n'y a point d'autorité fixe et constante mais un échange continu d'autorité et de subordination mutuelles, passagères et surtout volontaires." (Mikhail Bakunin, Dieu et l'état, 1882) - "I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." (Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, 1882) - What the anarchist does not accept is the imposition on everybody of rules manufactured for their own convenience by a clique of arrogant and ignorant people that simply happen to be in power thanks to illusory promises, dishonest favours and corruptive bribes. - The image of anarchy as the reign of disorder and brutality is a convenient one, made up by state propagandists who depict in sensational and over-censorious terms a small number of acts of violent rebellion committed in the past by some anarchists against a few rulers and, on the basis of them, condemn the whole conception and the whole movement. - The reality is that anarchy, far from being a state of general disorder, is a very advanced process of dynamical order, brought about by individuals who have reached a high level of humanity (freedom, development, knowledge). - To be proficient in the practice of anarchy requires possessing the humility and the awareness to recognize the need for a constant apprenticeship in the art of living. - In common parlance it should be appropriate to talk of ascending towards anarchy (i.e. to an ever more accomplished order via self-rule) and descending into state tyranny (i.e. to fall under the dominance of one tyrant, of many tyrants or even of a majority acting as tyrant like in a representative democracy). - Gian Piero de Bellis, Straightjackets and Superstitions of the Statist Age.
ANARCHY: A society without any government imposed on any individual but not necessarily a society without any governments. The demand of most self-styled anarchists, that all governments be abolished, even the governments constituted only by and for those who desire them, is intolerant, authoritarian and in disagreement with their demands for voluntary association and autonomy. Like the statists, these anarchists can only envision one uniform solution for all the diverse people and groups in one territory. Economically most anarchists are still so backward that they are communists or authoritarians in outlook and in their proposals, never mind their propaganda slogans. - J.Z., n.d. & 28.1.93. – TERRITORIALISM, AUTHORITARIANISM, COMMUNIST ANARCHISTS
ANARCHY: All power back to everybody - but only over his own affairs. Free contracts on everything where formal or informal agreements are needed with others. Every State coercion, every statist class system to be abolished.” - Notes from a German discussion. OMF 1986? Individual sovereignty, free contracts and voluntary and autonomous associations under personal laws. Does that express it more clearly? Can any formula, with a few words, fully express what its intended, sufficiently and clearly enough for others, unfamiliar with such ideas? - J .Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHY: anarchy ... the refusal of individual or tribe to respect the privileges of others." – Dagobert D. Runes, Treasury of Thought, p.39. (When I finally made to N.Y., in 1990, he was already dead for several years. - But his numerous books live on and are worth reading. - J.Z., 27.1.93.) – Territorialism is the most comprehensive privilege. – Only in societies and communities of volunteers, all thus only exterritorially autonomous, are any remaining privileges based upon unanimous consent. Such societies may retain many and large privileges, only a few of them – or none at all. Only those subjected to them would have the right to complain and if their dissent were strong enough then they would be free to secede. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: Anarchy for All! - is also an authoritarian imposition! - J.Z., 7/76.
ANARCHY: Anarchy for anarchists! - J.Z. 14.9.82. And for anarchists ONLY! - It is too good for anyone else. "Do not throw pearls before the swine." - J.Z., 28.1.93.
ANARCHY: Anarchy is a condition of continual bliss as opposed to government which is a state of unremitting chaos.” - George Kysor, THE CONNECTION, p. 27, 2.6.80. - While full self-responsibility certainly will have its worries and troubles, it will have its achievement opportunities and satisfactions. And even in case of failures, one can say to oneself : At least I was free to try and I did my best. - J.Z., 28.1.93. Moreover, I am free to try again, in a different way. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: Anarchy is Greek and means, verbatim, without rulership; not being ruled. According to our vocabulary, anarchy is a state of society in which the only government is reason.” (*) – Michael Schwab, courtroom speech after being sentenced to hang for the Haymarket bombing (later commuted), 1886. - (*) or any kind of spleen one wants to practice at the own expense and risk. Anarchists and others do not have to be reasonable. But they must become tolerant and just towards others, who did not sign up with them and who do not want to be victimised or directed by them or deprived of their beloved traditions, great leaders and holy institutions. - J.Z., 27.1.93. – TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE
ANARCHY: Anarchy is order; government is civil war.” - Anselme Bellegarrigue, quoted in The Match, Sept. 75. – Territorially imposed anarchies also mean wars and civil wars! – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: Anarchy is the first necessary step on the road to a new order. - The terrible thing is they may be right. Anarchy will inevitably produce tyranny.” - Morris West, Proteus, p.67. - A collectivist, territorial and compulsory anarchy is a utopia or dead end. It already has these 3 features in common with any tyranny. Only individual sovereignty, leading to individual secessions and from them to voluntary and exterritorially autonomous communities and free contractual associations, for whatever functions their members assign to them, leave us any hope for the future. - J.Z., 30.6.92, 28.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ANARCHY: Anarchy is to me a situation where MYOB (mind your own business ) and 'Freedom - I won't' are the cornerstones of human relations.” - Joe Fulks, THE CONNECTION 115, p.39. – Sufficiently tolerant anarchists would also allow statist volunteers to do their own things among themselves. However, they would insist on complete voluntarism, which also means individual and group secessionism for peaceful dissenters. In other words, these volunteers would not have to “marry” into communities or societies until death does them part. – J.Z., 4.111.10.
ANARCHY: Anarchy isn't the problem. Territorial Archies are. - J.Z., 16.1.77, 6.11.08. – Territorial claims of anarchists do also create problems, especially while most statists are also still territorial statists. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: Anarchy means only no IMPOSED rules, i.e. only as much egalitarianism and as much or as little non-hierarchical structure as corresponds to the choices of individual VOLUNTEERS. Different volunteers are bound to make different choices within their volunteer-communities. Only some would choose one or the other form of anarchy for themselves. All those who now or in the near future would choose one or the other form of anarchism or libertarianism for themselves would still only constitute a small minority, even if they combined. They ought to federate even with all enlightened statists on the platform of "exterritorial autonomy under personal laws for all minorities and majorities that want it for themselves." Such a common platform could draw more subscribers than the “ideal” of "democracy" and of the general franchise. - J.Z. 13.6.89, 27.1.93. – It would certainly be more attractive e.g. in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where territorial democracy has almost no tradition and appreciation at all – and quite rightly so. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: As foundation of all social life in anarchy counts the condition of the social freedom of each individual..." LERNZIEL ANARCHY, Nr. 5. Better perhaps: Social life based on individual sovereignty? General terms all too often do not explain each other enough. - J.Z., 27.1.93. – This wording would cover exterritorial statism of volunteers as well but not statism for the population of whole territories. Even in families and friendship groups there are strong disagreements and people do have the right to sort themselves out to do their own preferred things, however foolish and risky these may be – at their own risk and expense. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: decentralisation, dispersal and final elimination of authority and its replacement by autonomous and independent organisational units.” - G. P. Maksimov, quoted in Paul Avrich, The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, p.103. - Unfortunately, most anarchists envision such autonomous organisational units only for anarchists not for the various archists, too. Consequently, they become enemies of voluntary and tolerant archists, rather than comrades in arms. - J.Z., 6.1.92. - Moreover, they tend to overlook that complete voluntarism, without separation of volunteers and autonomous independent organisational units into local ghettos, requires exterritorial autonomy. No one would have to change his residence or job to leave one panarchy and join another. We live already widely intermixed and personal law associations could separate us into our own kinds of societies and States as much as we want to. Thus not being out of sight of each other's different free societies and government systems, we would also tend to learn more from each other. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHY: Democracy has been defined as the principle that 'one man is as good as another, if not a little better.' Anarchy maybe defined as the principle that one government is as bad as another, if not a little worse." - B. R. Tucker. – Territorially imposed forms of anarchism are almost as bad, if not worse in some cases, than territorially imposed forms of statism usually are. – J.Z., 6.11.08. – TERRITORIALISM, DEMOCRACY, GOVERNMENT, STATISM
ANARCHY: Freedom Press, London, No. 100, 6/69, p.185 & 191. Some notions on pluralism close to de Puydt's panarchism.
ANARCHY: Has history not shown that when governments are destroyed, people not only manage to survive, but the basic fabric of society is maintained? Does society not depend more on individual self-control for stability and prosperity than on government control?" - Samuel L. Blumenfeld, in PENTHOUSE, Nov. 73. - Free societies depend only upon the support of their voluntary members, not upon State regulation, control or assistance. They come into their own and become self-supporting and independent and greatly varied as soon as the impositions of the territorial and monopolistic and coercive State disappear. They express the nature of individual men, with all their diverse abilities, skills and aspirations and release all their creative energies. - J.Z., 28.1.93.
ANARCHY: I prefer to think of anarchy as a way in which people deal with one another in a peaceful, cooperative manner; respectful of the inviolability of each other’s lives and property interests; resorting to contract and voluntary transactions rather than coercion and expropriation as a way of functioning in society.” - Butler Shaffer, The Wizards of Ozymandias, chapter 60. – Even territorial statists do already act in this way and take it for granted in many of their daily activities. But they fail to apply this behavior consistently in all spheres. Anarchists should be able to get along with those statists, who do confine their statist system to their own volunteers. They might come to compare them with voluntary members of a very comprehensive insurance and protection company. As such, and operating in free competition with all other such corporations and with anarchistic and libertarian ones, they would have to offer much better services than any of the present territorial States do – or they would tend to lose more and more members and subscribers. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: I wait for the withering away of all governments." - Allen Ginsberg. - It will only wither when it can no longer tax and conscript dissenters and order them around and when it is exposed to full competition from other suppliers of really wanted services. - J.Z. 27.1.93. – In short, when it loses all its territorial privileges and thus all its involuntary subjects and victims. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: If the principle of government were extended consistently and uniformly throughout society, true chaos would result - every civilised relationship would give way to the gun or knife: force, not persuasion. We have only the principle of Anarchy operating - the principle of no compulsion - to thank for the fact that the present social condition is not as faulty as it might be." - Fred Woodworth, Anarchism, p.12. - The principle of no compulsion should also be extended to voluntary or merely exterritorially autonomous governments of volunteers and their personal laws. Most people are still archists and the ideals of most archists differ perhaps even more than those of most anarchists and libertarians. This is the only form or framework in which each could have the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams. Thus ultimately, we must almost all of us come to subscribe to it, if we intend to survive. We cannot forever continue to exist as "nuclear giants and ethical infants", as General Omar Bradley described us many years ago. - J.Z., 27.1.93. – NUCLEAR TARGETS, NUCLEAR WAR READINESS, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRITORIAL POWER, COMPULSION & COERCION & TERRITORIAL “WEAPONS”
ANARCHY: Let anarchy drive out chaos." - source? date? – Can that be done territorially or only exterritorially? – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: Let me declare at the outset that in this paper I take it for granted that governmentlessness is an innocent state of affairs and requires no justification, but that the formation and continuance of political societies does." - David B. Suits, JLS, Summer 77, p. 195. – It does do territorial States too much honour to call them “political societies”. They are rather organizations to suppress the general and any particular societies that might become effective competitors to them. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: Neither slave nor master. Equal liberty for all. Mutual aid. No centralised leadership.” – Open Mind Festival, 1986. - Within different panarchies and for their voluntary members quite different ideals and arrangements would be possible, too and yet would still fit into the anarchistic general framework of panarchism. - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHY: No country under any government has any worthwhile future. - J.Z., 25.12.92. - As you can see, even I do sometimes forget to add the words "territorial" or "monopolistic and coercive" before "government". - J.Z., 27.1.93.
ANARCHY: Non-domination. - K.H.Z. Solneman. – Voluntary victims of non-territorial States are not dominated in the wrongful sense. They feel like members of sound and very comprehensive insurance companies – at least until they wake up out of their day dreams. Then they would be free to secede from such systems. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual." – Murray N. Rothbard, THE LIBERTARIAN FORUM, 1/75. – Such a society could peacefully coexist with non-territorial Welfare States – and even worse forms of States, all confined to their voluntary victims. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: On the other hand, socialism vitalised by liberalism logically leads to the ideas of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin and their successors. The idea of reducing the state's sphere of activity to a minimum, itself contains the germ of a much more far-reaching thought, namely, to overthrow the state entirely and to eliminate the will to power from human society." – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p. 238. - It would be so much more civilized to leave the statists to their own and self-chosen fate, not depriving them of their favourite toys, rituals, “leaders” and taxes – but let them have them, as long as they are willing to put up with them. The main aim should be to get out from under their system, without having to leave one’s country and without losing any single genuine right but, rather, potentially, gaining all of them. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: One of the most enslaving ideas of our time is the idea of revolution. Anarchy is not the way of mass revolution but of individual rebellion." - LIBERTY, Summer 74. - I would say: secession instead of "rebellion". J.Z., 1/76.
ANARCHY: People with vastly different occupations and interests and lifestyles could live together because none of them would be capable of using a politician to threaten the others." - Patrick Brooks, 2/71. – I.e. in a societal condition in which all territorial power monopolies are abolished. Volunteers, like e.g. monks, nuns, hermits and vegetarians, could restrict themselves as much as they like. – It is only territorially imposed statism and anarchism that has to be abolished or revented. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: Rational and moral anarchy makes for order and peace, whilst every territorial government promotes disorder and war. - J.Z., 14.11.82, 28.1.93. – However, such anarchies would have to be exterritorial ones and formed by volunteers only. – Then they could be as irrational and immoral in their own internal affairs, among their volunteers, as they want to be as long as they can stand this. - J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: Scientific investigation has discovered that cooperation is more natural and efficient than competition. It's time to do away with government and make the world ... SAFE FOR ANARCHY." - Jay Amrod, TANSTAAFL, Feb. 76, page 8. - How scientific is an examination that did not notice that cooperation and competition are not opposites but merely different aspects of free actions? To achieve the reported result, conditions of fully free cooperation (with probably ignored competitive aspects) must have been compared with competitive conditions that were only presumed to be free but in reality excluded competition, as well as cooperation, in several ways. For instance, the completion of competition through monetary and financial freedom and exterritorial autonomy is usually ignored. Thus I think that the above should be reworded into something like: Competition and cooperation, if fully free and consistently applied, are superior to monopolism and coercion and could make free societies win against totalitarian governments in an almost bloodless liberation struggle. - J.Z., 27.1.93. – The world can only be made save through persistent voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy. It remains threatened through compulsory membership in or subordination to involved in each territorial regime, authority or system. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: shut up the people who want to restore the bureaucracy?' - 'Shut them up?' He stopped and looked down at her. "We're not. That's what modified anarchy is all about - nobody shuts anybody up.' ... 'Without obedient local police, the government's helpless. See, we pay taxes, ultimately, because cops have guns. But if there are no cops, no guns, then the crats can't force the money out of us.'" - Kevin O'Donnell, Jr., Tears for Emily, in DESTINIES, 3/1. - Panarchies would see to it that each would only “shut” himself up, within like-minded people, in his own favourite experimental system. And since their membership would be voluntary, all their tax contributions to it would be, too. - J.Z., 28.1.93.
ANARCHY: Socialism is planned chaos; anarchy is unplanned chaos." - Leonard E. Read, The Love of Liberty, p. 10. - Trying to express a love for liberty through a love for a supposedly limited government, one that has still a territorial monopoly and exclusive sovereignty, is like trying to express love for your wife by falling in love with a very demanding and domineering mistress. - J.Z., 27.1.93. – JOKES, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM
ANARCHY: Sydney Harris defined democracy as "... the only system that persists in asking the Powers That Be whether they are the Powers That Ought to Be". – READER’S DIGEST, Aug. 72. - Anarchism is the only system that questions all the Powers That Exist and also denies that any Powers Ought to Be. - J.Z., 1977. - By now I deny only the rightful existence of territorial powers. Others, i.e. exterritorial powers or autonomies, are so relatively harmless or harmful only to their followers, that they are tolerable and even valuable as educational experiments for the participants and the observers. - J.Z., 27.1.93. – EXTERRITORIALISM, VOLUNTARISM & TOLERANCE VS. TERRITORIALISM AMONG ANARCHISTS & STATISTS ALIKE
ANARCHY: That every individual shall do as he likes, providing he does not interfere with the liberty of others." - D. W. Brookhouse in Bob James, Australian Anarchism, p.9. – That should be applied not only by and to the anarchists and libertarians but also towards the various kinds of statists and authoritarians, as long as they are not territorialists, i.e. do not try to dominate those, who disagree with them and would rather engage in their own activities and experiments, quite undisturbed and without interfering with other societies and communities of volunteers. Only territorialism is, by its very nature, intervening with the desires and activities of peaceful dissenters in the population. – J.Z., 4.11.10. - NON-INTERFERENCE, NON-INTERVENTION, NON-INITIATION OF VIOLENCE, NON-VIOLENCE, NON-AGGRESSION, NON-DOMINATION
ANARCHY: That government is best which governs least." - Jefferson. - "That government is best which governs not at all." - Thoreau. - "The best government is no government." - source? – That government or non-governmental society is best for its members which has been freely chosen by all of its members. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: The absence of any imposed ruling power or a condition of voluntarism in all creative, productive, self-responsible and defensive activities. If e.g. limited governments or even Welfare States or Monarchies confined themselves to upholding and protecting only the activities and institutions, rights and liberties of their own voluntary members, as well as they can, without trying to territorially impose them upon anyone else, why should any anarchists or libertarian oppose such utopian attempts? Let them try, let them fail, let them learn, if they can, from their own failures. – Experimental freedom for all. To each his own utopian attempts. - J.Z., 5.11.92, 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: The art of getting along with each other while respecting the differences between human beings and their groups, as long as no one lives at the expense of others and no one dominates others. That would be nothing else than anarchy." - Horst Stowasser, Leben ohne Chef und Staat, S. 105. - Alas, to plunder rich people and banks, without killing anyone, that is for him a "defence against expropriators"! - J.Z., n.d. – It is the secondary “ideals” of most anarchists that are all too intolerant and prevents them from becoming tolerant panarchists. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: The choice is only between anarchy and chaos." - source? date? – Anarchy or any other ism – for everybody, according to individual choice, under the experimental freedom of panarchism. Even chaos for its adherents, among themselves. – J.Z., 6.11.08. – CHAOS, TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY ORDER VS. THE NATURAL ORDER & HARMONY OF PANARCHISM
ANARCHY: The consistent democracy finds in Anarchy its genuine realisation and completion." - LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, Nr. 3. - Self-government by individual consent, would reflect the individual differences of political points of view, i.e. every view of politics and would lead to the realisation of every political form and machinery, not only democratic ones, among volunteers. That would, definitely, be a very extended definition of democracy, since it would embrace e.g. republicanism, aristocracy, monarchy, even wanted dictatorships, besides, naturally, all kinds of anarchies. - J.Z., 27.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ANARCHY: The liberation of society from the State." - Erich Muehsam. – Liberation from the territorial State, with its compulsory membership or subjection, would be enough – and would also turn the present territorial States into forms of free societies, all with voluntary members only, whatever their remaining statists spleens may be, otherwise. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: Thus he stands at the border between two worlds and anew epoch in the life of mankind begins with him, the epoch of freedom! - We have still found no better name for it than that of anarchy: An order constituted through mutual interests, instead of the so far existing chaos of power, the exclusive sovereignty of the individual over his personality instead of his subjection, self-responsibility for his actions instead of his subjection, his uniqueness!" – John Henry Mackay, Max Stirner, p.176. – To the extent that statists will recognize individual sovereignty, voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy they will, at least initially, establish diverse panarchies for their diverse statists. Why should anarchists or libertarians object to that, rather than inviting them to practise this kind of experimental freedom or utopism, exterritorially, among themselves, their kind of volunteers? After all, they still form the vast majority and anarchists will not get this freedom recognized for themselves until they manage to demand it not only for themselves but for everybody. – J.Z, 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: True, in the international sphere, the great problem has been anarchy; but this is not anarchism (the deliberate elimination of government for cooperative living). It is, in fact, due to an EXCESS OF ORDER in the national states, which under the rule of obedience to law, are able to send their citizens again and again into the maelstrom of trans-national murder, without the deterrent effect of civic resistance." - Howard Zinn: Disobedience & Democracy, p.17. – Here he calls the international confrontations of territorial monopolists and coercers – Anarchism! What he means is merely the absence of a still more powerful territorial, i.e. world-wide monopolist standing over these territorial monopolists, i.e. the absence of a world State or world federation! – J.Z., 6.11.08. – Actually, he may have favored a single territorial world State or world federation, one corresponding to HIS ideal. – J.Z., 20.4.12.
ANARCHY: Tyranny, bad as it is, is better than anarchy; and the worst of governments is more tolerable than no government at all." - Lord Chief Justice Camden: Judgment in the Case of the Seizure of Papers, 1765. - What he calls anarchy is usually the ruthless fight between several contenders for territorial, monopolistic and coercive power, it is something that should rather be called "multi-archy" or "poly-archy", when such contenders fight it out on the backs and at the expense and risk also of their involuntary subjects. - J.Z., 12.7.86, 27.1.93, 6.11.08. – DIS., TYRANNY, TERRITORIALISM
ANARCHY: We anarchists are enemies of the State because we want liberty and order. Liberty and order are only guaranteed by anarchy, the absence of domination. Only the Anarchists were always defenders and protectors of a mature society." - LERNZIEL ANARCHY, Nr. 3. (" In diesem Sinne, naemlich ...) – Territorialism is the worst form of domination. Without it numerous and diverse experiments among volunteers become peacefully possible and thus peace, international justice, freedom, prosperity and progress are assured and their realization speeded up. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ANARCHY: We live today in the purest anarchy! - runs the complaint from all sides. Alas, we do not live in an anarchy but under an archy." – John Henry Mackay, Abrechnung, 136. – Not all anarchists want to live under a single form of anarchy, either. Nor all statists under a single form of statism. To each his own! Under voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy this would be possible. – J.Z., 6.11.08. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, TOLERANCE
ANARCHY: We need more anarchy, not the chaos produced by every territorial government. - J.Z., 12.4.89. - J.Z. 12.4.89, 6.11.08.
ANARCHY: What is usually called anarchy, in the sense of chaos and disorder, is usually the result of excess archies or of excess territorial governing: Too many governments trying to govern, each whole territories, each all too much over whole populations, even over foreign territories and populations. The degrees, to which the individual subjects do want any government, are ignored, as well as the desires of those, who do not want any government but would be content with their own societal arrangements. – Such governmentalism or territorial imperialism must inevitably create disorder, at least until all of us become transformed into uniform model robots, i.e., cease to be individual human beings. - J.Z., 11.11.76, 27.1.93.
ANATIONALISM: Over the past few years there has been a movement in economic circles toward 'international' or 'multinational' corporations, which seems a good thing to me. However, 'multinationalism' is only a small step in the right direction. The logical extension of this trend is into 'anationalism', a phenomenon we shall certainly be hearing more about in the years to come. - Briefly, several major corporations are now contemplating moving their facilities out to sea beyond the legislative reaches of all national governments. This is certainly one aspect, and an important one, of the libertarian dream come true. First anational corporations; then, inevitably, communities, power plants, airports, schools, shops, research centres, eventually completely self-contained societies trading and communicating with other autonomous anational societies. A network of free, apolitical, private societies rising up as an alternative to increasingly debt-ridden, decaying nations-states." - Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Handbook, 1973. - Compare the origin and rise of "free cities". But should we leave all of terra firma to the enemies? A retreat to “ocean freedom” or “Formosa/Taiwan” makes only sense when it is temporary and ultimately a liberation of the mainland is aimed at. This also requires the liberation of the remaining sects of communists and socialists, so that they can pursue their diverse ideals safe from prosecution by a temporarily predominant territorial sect. - J.Z., 26.9.02.
ANATIONALISM: The 1990, under the leadership of the world's first reanimato, marked the beginning of the anationalist age. - Disney was not the first to set up headquarters at Sea. In 1975 Burlington Industries became the first corporation to build an island headquarters in the Atlantic Ocean, two hundred miles east of New York City. There, in international waters, the company was no longer subject to the laws of any nation and was free to trade in the international marketplace without restrictions.” - Tuccille, Here Comes Immortality, 107. – OCEAN FREEDOM
ANCIEN DIPLOMATE, UN: Le regime de capitulations, son histoire, son application, ses modifications, par un ancien diplomate, Paris, E. Plon, 1898, 396pp.
ANCONA: Even in the fourteenth century, the maritime statute of Ancona, which bore the date of 1397, required all merchants of Ancona trading abroad to elect their own consuls and to submit to them their disputes, the penalty for resorting to any other tribunal being a fine of fifty Pounds.5 - (5 Rubrique xlviii, Pardessus, op. cit., vol. v, pp. 160-161.) – LIU, Exterritoriality, page 30.
ANDERS, General, Polish Corps: According to Ulrich von Beckerath this corps was, under General Anders an autonomous and juridical body. It fought in the Italian campaign, e.g. at Monte Cassino.- I have so far not yet found any confirmative reference. - “Exilpolen bleiben gespalten. Einigungsversuch missglueckt …” war ein Teil der Ueberschrift eines kurzen Artikels in DIE WELT, 22.5.54. Darin wurde erwaehnt die Rede, die General Anders, der Fuehrer des polnischen Korps im Italienfeldzug zum zehnjaehrigen Jubilaeum des Kampfes um Monte Cassino in der Londoner Albert-Hall und anschliessend bei den Jubilaeumsfeiern in Rom hielt. Ulrich von Beckerath strich diesen Hinweis an und bemerkte dazu: “Das Korps des Gen. Anders war eine autonome Rechtsgemeinschaft!” – Bth. 23.V.54. - Nach solchen Beispielen sucht man gewoehnlich vergeblich in Geschichtsbuechern und Buechern ueber politische Theorie und Praxis. – J.Z., 9.12.04.
ANDERSON, BENEDICT: Imagined Communities, London, Verso, 1983. Listed by J.D. Davidson & W. Rees-Mogg.
ANDERSON, POUL: A Stone in Heaven, 1979, 1980, JZL. Page 243, on territorialism: "Merseia's collision with Terra was another example of that old adage: 'Two tough, smart races want the same real estate.'" - They are not so smart when they do not realize their panarchistic and free trade and free migration options. I am reminded of the remark of a rowing captain to his crew: "It's not all brute strength and stupidity!" There are many other ways nowadays to make a living than the ownership of exclusive hunting grounds or of much land for grazing or farming purposes. Territorialism is a wrongful generalization of ways of living that we depended upon for many centuries. Now we can often make a much better living without even owning our own home or business premises. "Society is exchange" as Bastiat said. It is not a territory. But it allows free individuals their privacy and liberty in their hired "nests" or business premises and upholds their rights and liberties, even if they are "aliens". - Ibid, page 251: "The best justification for the early Empire was that it spread a military umbrella over 100,000 unique cultural experiments." - The international militia federation, for the protection of individual rights and liberties, suggested by Ulrich von Beckerath, would have the same function but it would not have to be maintained by an "empire", for which neither he nor I could envision a moral and rational function. But the tradition that territorial States and empires can fulfil such a function is still all to widely upheld. - J.Z., 28.1.99.
ANDERSON, POUL: once people can manage for themselves … what better can a king do for them than take off his crown? - Poul Anderson, Tau Zero, Coronet edition, 1978, 1980, p.190. - ABDICATION:
ANDERSON, POUL: After Doomsday, Panther SF, 1875 issue. Somewhat mentions the option of exterritorial tolerance between different communities - but these ideas are still mixed up with territorial hegemony ideas. Pages 26, 31, 78, 103/4, 114, 156/7. - All these are only marginal panarchistic ideas. He never wrote a book that centers on them. I did write to him, in vain, about this. - J.Z.
ANDERSON, POUL: Freedom in the Future, an Interview with P. A., "reason", 10/73, contains his notion on private government by contract gradually replacing other governments. Also notes on old Islandic "anarchism".
ANDERSON, POUL: No Truce with Kings, in The Hugo Winners, II, ed. by Iaac Asimov, Fawcett Publications, Inc., Greenwich, Connecticut, 1971, 1973, JZL. Page 119: "The Espers obeyed the laws wherever the lived, but acknowledged no country their own: nothing less than mankind, perhaps ultimately all life through the space-time universe." - I wish he had tried once to consistently include all such and other pearls into the novel on a panarchistic meta-utopia for all voluntaristic utopias, working out solutions for the problems that might still arise, describing the problems they could easily solve between them and pointing out the historical precedents for such liberty and self-rule, with the stress on "self" rather than any territorial collective. - But I am willing to forgive him for this omission since with his writings, as they are, he has already given me many hours of pleasure. - J.Z., 28.1.99.
ANDERSON, POUL: OWN WAY: Go your own way if you don't want to go mine. - Poul Anderson, ibid, p.75.
ANDERSON, POUL: The Ancient Gods, ANALO, July 66: "And if somebody doesn't want to play the game, he should be free to opt out. Only then he can't expect to be subsidized by those who do want to keep on playing."
ANDERSON, POUL: The Psychotechnic League, TOR, A Tom Doherty Associates Book, 1981, 1985, JZL. Page 144: "What we're slowly attaining is a society where the individual has maximum freedom, both from law and custom." - Page 145: "It takes months or years to change a man's convictions, and when you have hundreds of millions of them...." - Then you should let those who do agree do their own things for or to themselves. - J.Z. - Page 130: "This was but a single battle in the everlasting struggle between growth and decay. Could enemies within and without be held in check long enough for the forces of progress to advance?" - Under panarchism there would be many less "enemies" and they could be much easier held in check by the competing protection services of the other societies and by local and internationally federated militias for the protection of individual rights. Via panarchism one can turn many former enemies, including terrorists, into allies or at least into neutrals, who do mind their own business and are busy enough with that. To take a very lowly example out of the sphere of autonomous private enterprises: Local barbers, greengrocers, butchers and bakers do not fight each other or even their competitor. They run their business as well as they can and better, if they can, than their competitors. They do not engage in street battles but at most bad-mouth each other. - On page 116 he shows a better concept of the "enemy" than most: "You wouldn't get anywhere bombing China, except to turn four hundred million innocent victims who had been your friends against you - because it was a small key group in the Chinese government which was conspiring against sanity." On page 250 he mentions one of the few cases of voluntary abdication, namely, Kemal Atatuerk, around 1920. "Abdication" from subordinated status as a territorial subject or citizen is quite another matter and better termed "individual secession". - J.Z., 28.1.99.
ANDERSON, POUL: The Shields of Time, Snippet from page 321 with one of his hints towards panarchism: 166, in PP 1540. As my collection of panarchist SLOGANS FOR LIBERTY partly reveals, Anderson had quite a number of panarchistic statements in his SF. However, he never developed them into a system of exterritorial autonomy as prevailing upon a single planet. Rather he described interplanetary large private corporations as competing with territorial powers and acting like exterritorially autonomous communities. In a letter, in which I suggested some panarchistic writing to him he came merely out in favour of limited governments and even in favour of the UN. An explicity panrchistic novel may still have to be written. All too many such writings simply transfer all the errors and mistakes made on Earth into Space. - J.Z., 28.8.04. – In his novel “No World of their own”, Ace Books, 1955, P.A. describes a space-travelling society of traders with a-territorial status on all inhabited planets. Its members have no country of their own. Their spaceships are their homes. He describes this society as a very influential one, especially on pages 42-43, 46, 48, 59, 63, 64, 87, 121, 126, 127. I know of no SF novel which applies this system consistently on a single planet. – J.Z., 23.11.04. JZL.
ANDERSON, POUL: The Trouble Twisters, p 189: Short discussion of exterritorial notions on the gypsie, caravan or trade route model. "Because what you should do is establish a nation on your own right. Not in any particular territory. Everything hereabouts is already claimed. But you can be an itinerant people. There are precedents, like nomads and gypsies on ancient Earth. Or, more to the point, there are those nations on Cynthia which are trade routes rather than areas." - Here he still recognizes territorial claims as exclusive, bar for a few exceptions. But the rightfulness and rationality of territorial claims is wholly imaginary. - J.Z.
ANDERSON, POUL: They had a proverb in America which went, "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. - Poul Anderson, ibid (? One of the above!), p.189. - Not in a territorial system, anyhow. Among like-minded friends, all volunteers, it would be quite another matter. - J.Z., 25.8.11. - RUNNING FOR OFFICE, TOLERANCE, SUUM CUIQUE, TO EACH HIS OWN, CHOICE, PANARCHISM TERRITORIALISM, POLITICS AS USUAL, VOTING
ANDREWS: Andrew's Course in Anarchy, n.d., 16pp 274, in PP 1689-1693. - 22pp, downloaded from the IN. No further details on the author were given: 63 – 22, in PP 1539. This is one of the few anarchist articles that contains a segment on panarchism. – J.Z. -
ANDREWS, STEPHEN PEARL: Die Wissenschaft von der Gesellschaft, in PP 359. Verkuerzte Ausgabe! English and complete edition: The Science of Society, PP 222.
ANDREWS, STEPHEN PEARL: The Science of Society, English and complete edition, 1848. PEACE PLANS 222. (ANDREWS, Stephen Pearl; Die Wissenschaft von der Gesellschaft, German abbreviated edition, 1902, in PP 359.) - Andrews may have been the first or one of the first, including e.g. Josiah Warren, who quite clearly spoke up for individual sovereignty. Did he, likewise, speak up for individual secessionism and voluntary associationism on the basis of exterritorial autonomy? Who will bother to extract all the relevant passages from their writings?
ANDREWS, STEPHEN PEARL: The Sovereignty of the Individual, first published in Warren's PERIODICAL LETTER in September 1857, later as a separate pamphlet by Joseph Ishill, Berkeley Heights, N.J., 1938. (Roscher)
ANGELL, NORMAN, The Great Illusion. A Study of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to their Economic and Social Advantage, 1911. Extracts on "communities across borders". - On page 153/54 he speaks of communities across borders: “Indeed, where the co-operation between the parts of the social organism is as complete as our mechanical development has recently made it, it is impossible to fix the limits of the community, and to say what is one community and what is another. Certainly the State limits no longer define the limits of the community; and yet it is only the State limits which international antagonism predicates. If the Louisiana cotton crop fails, a part of Lancashire starves. There is closer community of interest in a vital matter between Lancashire and Louisiana than between Lancashire and, say, the Orkneys, part of the same State. There is much closer intercommunication between Britain and the United States in all that touches social and moral development than between Britain and, say, Bengal, part of the same State. An English nobleman has more community of thought and feeling with a European Continental aristocrat (will marry his daughter, for instance), than he would think of claiming with such ‘fellow’ British countrymen as a Bengal babu, a Jamaica negro, or even a Dorset yokel. A professor at Oxford will have closer community of feeling with a member of the French Academy than with, say, a Whitechapel publican. One may go further, and say that a British subject of Quebec has closer contact with Paris than with London; the British subject of Dutch-speaking Africa with Holland than with England; the British subject of Hong Kong with Peking than with London; of Egypt with Constantinople than with London, and so on. In a thousand respects association cuts across State boundaries, which are purely conventional, and render the biological division of mankind into independent and warring States a scientific ineptitude.”- - Page 167: "Are we not justified in concluding that, just as the progress of rationalism has made it possible for the various religious groups to live together, to exist side by side without physical conflict; just as there has been in that domain no necessary choice between either universal domination or unending strife, so in like manner will the progress of political rationalism mark the evolution of the relationship of political groups; that the struggle for domination will cease because it will be realized that physical domination is futile, and that instead of either universal strife or universal domination there will come, without formal treaties or Holy Alliance, the general determination for each to go his own way undisturbed in his political allegiance, as he is now undisturbed in his religious allegiance." - - Page 271/72: “…when we remember that the best men of Russia are looking forward wistfully, not to the enlargement, but to the dissolution, of the unwieldy giant – ‘stupid with the stupidity of giants, ferocious with their ferocity’ – and the rise in its stead of a multiplicity of self-contained, self-knowing communities,’ ‘whose members will be united together by organic and vital sympathies, and not by their common submission to a common policeman.” - - Page 274: “We have here, at present in merely embryonic form, a group of motives otherwise opposed, but meeting and agreeing upon one point: the organization of society on other than territorial and national divisions.” - - Pages 311/13: “Patriotism is the religion of politics.” … “ But is it likely that a general progress which has transformed religion is going to leave patriotism unaffected; that the rationalization and humanizing which have taken place in the more complex domain of religious doctrine and belief will not also take place in the domain of politics? The problem of religious toleration was beset with difficulties incalculably greater than any which confront us in this problem. Then as now the old order was defended with real disinterestedness: then it was called religious fervour; now it is called patriotism. The best of the old inquisitors were as disinterested, as sincere, as single-minded as are doubtless the best of the Prussian Junkers, the French Nationalists, the English militarists. Then as now the progress towards peace and security seemed to them a dangerous degeneration, the break-up of faiths, the undermining of most that holds society together. Then as now the old order pinned its faith to the tangible and visible instruments of protection – I mean the instruments of physical force. And the Catholic, in protecting himself by the Inquisition against what he regarded as the dangerous intrigues of the Protestant, was protecting what he regarded not merely as his own social and political security, but the eternal salvation, he believed, of unborn millions of men. Yet he surrendered such instruments of defence, and finally Catholic and Protestant alike came to see that the peace and security of both were far better assured by this intangible thing – the right ideas of men – than by all the mechanical ingenuity of prisons and tortures and burnings which it was possible to devise. In like manner will the patriot come finally to see that better than the Dreadnoughts will be the recognition on his part and on the part of his prospective enemy that there is no interest, material or moral, in conquest and military domination. - - And that hundred years which I have mentioned as representing an apparently impassable gulf in the progress of European ideas, a period which marked an evolution so great that the very mind and nature of men seemed to change, was a hundred years without newspapers, almost without books, a time in which books were such a rarity that it took a generation for one to travel from Madrid to London; in which the steam printing press did not exist, nor the railroad, nor the telegraph, nor any of those thousand contrivances which now make it possible for the words of an English statesman spoken to-night to be read by sixty million Germans to-morrow morning – to do, in short, more in the way of the dissemination of ideas in ten months than was possible then in a century. - - When things moved so slowly, a generation or two sufficed to transform the mind of Europe on the religious side. Why should it be impossible to change that mind on the political side in a generation, or half a generation, when things move so much more quickly? Are men less disposed to change their political than their religious opinions? We all know that not to be the case. In every country in Europe we find political parties advocating, or at least acquiescing in, policies which they strenuously opposed ten years ago. Does the evidence available go to show that the particular side of politics with which we are dealing is notably more impervious to change and development than the rest – less within the reach and influence of new ideas?” - - Page 315: “Millions of us are prepared to throw ourselves with energy into that part of national defence which, after all, is only a makeshift, into agitation for the building of Dreadnoughts (*) and the raising of armies, the things in fact which can be seen, where barely dozens will throw themselves with equal ardour into that other department of national defence, the only department which will really guarantee security, but by means which are invisible – the rationalization of ideas. - - The only permanent revolutions in the history of civilization are those that result from a revolution of ideas. In the absence of such, ‘the more it changes the more it is the same thing,’ and in the absence of such one may remake the map of Europe, and in a short time we should be starting the same old weary process over gain. That, indeed, is the history of the attempt to settle this thing by force. ‘Dynamite,’ said the late head of the Russian Holy Synod, ‘is almost innocuous compared with the destructive force of a new idea.’” - (*) Even much worse, all too many do now still believe in the “nuclear deterrent”. The remaining task requires merely thinking about and organizing a proper “chain reaction” or “information explosion” of the better and best ideas against the flawed and false ones. - J.Z. - - Page 317: “Our security from persecution is simply due to the general recognition of the futility of the employment of physical force in a matter of religious belief. Our progress towards political rationalism will take place in the same manner.” - - Page 323: “One cannot too often and too emphatically present the parallel which exists between the growth towards rationalism on the religious side and upon the political.” - Here he should rather have spoken of “tolerance towards tolerant people” than of “rationalism”. For tolerance does also permit irrational actions, e.g. statist ones, which are undertaken only at the expense and risk of their believers. For many other people such deterrent examples are just as necessary for their enlightenment as are the good examples. - However, even a fan of Angell’s writings, like Chris Tame was, was not, by such passages, led to comprehend and appreciate panarchism. - These quotes have their non-effect in common with many other anarchist and libertarian statements. They do not express clearly enough a new world vision and a better understanding of past precedents. - A few words, a few sentences do, usually, fail to get a new idea or a new system sufficiently across. Especially not when they are mixed in with many other ideas, opinions and proposals. - If they were properly arranged in an “argument map” or “mind map” - then they might be much more effective. But so far such maps - for the thickest of ideas, opinions, arguments and facts - have not yet been compiled, to my knowledge, in this sphere. Nor are all the arguments against panarchism represented in an encyclopedia of the best refutations or put together in a Q & A compilation. - Panarchism needs also to be included in political classification schemes. - The relevant facts, ideas and references are so dispersed that they need to be included in special alphabetic and encyclopedic compilations, not only in a general encyclopedia like the WIKIPEDIA, or a general Ideas Archive, but also in a special library, bibliography and abstracts and review collection. CDs, DVDs and external HD’s offer practically unlimited and cheap space for this. - Otherwise, this book offers many good statements and refutations of popular errors, myths and prejudices, which could have prevented WW I & WW II, if they had been widely enough known and accepted. The book should be extracted for a future encyclopedia of the best refutations and Slogans for Liberty compilation. - Angell mentions Herbert Spencer five times in his index and thus may have read his chapter on the "Right to ignore the State", in his “Social Statics”. - However, he seems unaware of the personal law tradition, that of exterritorially autonomous communities and of writings in their favor. He mentions H. L. Follin only as a pacifist. But by then Follin might not yet have stood up for individual secessionism and for voluntary cosmopolitan organizations. I do not know when Ulrich von Beckerath first got in touch with Follin and whether, at least on Follin’s side, their correspondence has been preserved. If only we had as eager ideas hunters as we have treasure hunters for gold, jewels, silver and art objects. - PIOT, John Zube, 17.12.09. - - Angell, Sir Norman, 1874-1967: “He became world famous as the author of ‘The Great Illusion’, 1910, whose theme is that war is unprofitable to the victor.” - “The Economic Chaos and the Peace Treaty”, 1919. “In 1928 he invented “The Money Game”, a card-game, which taught the elements of economics, banking and currency."- Further Works: “The Unseen Assassins”, 1932. “Peace with the Dictators?” 1938.
ANGER: Losers get angry.” – From film “Blue Ice”, with Michael Caine. – Under panarchism everyone can be a winner with his system, if it is a good enough one. And if it isn’t, then he should be angry only with himself, - for have chosen it all too uncritically. – J.Z., 20.8.08. – RED.
ANONYMOUS: Anonymous, Democracy with a small "d" (1962) [English] - Anonimo, La democrazia con la "d" minuscola (1962) [Italiano] - Available on www.panarchy.org
ANSWERS: That I know precisely the right words is not claimed; indeed, my thesis is that neither I nor anyone else has all the answers. - Yet it behoves us to bring as much light to the surface as lies within our power. Where are the answers to be found? Not in governmental management of creative activities! They are not to be found in the planned economy and the welfare state, but in the absence of these arrangements, which is to say, IN THE PRACTICE OF FREEDOM. For it is only in an essentially free society that unknown answers to problems of this nature emerge from the minds of men and become known. Freedom, with all the answers there are, is allowed to perform when coercion, which has no answers, is removed. This is my thesis." – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, XIV. Elsewhere, he said, much more concisely: "Release all creative energies." Alas, he never asked or pushed for an ideas archive, as suggested in PP 183 or for panarchic and exterritorial and competitive experimental freedom among volunteers, as suggested in my On Panarchy series. - J.Z. 29.1.93. – Most of his writings are now offered free of charge, digitized, by the Mises Institute. – J.Z., 20.4.12.
ANTERRITORIAL SELF-DETERMINATION VS. TERRITORIAL POWER.
ANTI-AMERICANISM: Our lack of poverty is called materialism, our lack of political dogma is called aimlessness and confusion." - Pulitzer Prize historian Daniel J. Boorstin, quoted in THE FREEMAN, 9/75, p. 564. - The extensive ideological influence of long outdated and refuted European thoughts upon the U.S.A. has finally born fruit there, too, by creating artificially and by interventionist law, under the pretence of doing good, very extensive poverty, which would not have occurred without this ideologically motivated interventionism. If Americans had been less "idealistic" and more pragmatic, they would merely have let all the leftist experiments go ahead, quite autonomously, exterritorially and under their own personal laws and constitutions, among their first followers. They would soon have disappointed themselves and taught themselves and observers the necessary lessons. Their movement would never have become large enough to establish again and change territorial legislation in their favour, for the whole country, and all their opponents, thus running the whole country down, without individuals and minorities being left free to opt out of this mess. - J.Z., 29.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ANTI-ASSOCIATIONISM OR TYRANNY: Discussing the means of preserving a tyranny, Aristotle wrote, in Politics 5:11: "One of them is the forbidding of common meals, clubs, education and anything of a like character. ... A second measure is to prohibit societies for cultural purposes, and any gathering a similar character; in a word, the adoption of every means for making every subject as much of a stranger as is possible to every other." - And even today the most important restrictions upon the autonomy of voluntary associations do remain. If these restrictions were only applied to coercive associations or "States within States" (e.g. crime syndicates), then one could approve of them. But territorial States do, as a rule, fight non-coercive autonomous volunteer groups even harder and more effectively than they do fight organized crime. They are probably more aware than the ordinary citizens are, that such alternatives could become very popular and could come to replace all territorial States, while more or less criminal activities, i.e. crimes with victims, are largely confined to the relatively few criminal types. - J.Z. 2.4.89. - The large-scale official crimes, of territorial States, all-over committing more wrongs and doing more damages than all private crimes combined, require territorial coercion to maintain them, i.e., the suppression of competing services by and for voluntary communities that act only under exterritorial autonomy. Such competition would clearly show up the flaws of the territorial States. Thus the good, because voluntary and exterritorial communities, without compulsory value and acceptance (compare Gresham's Law, in the correct formulation), are not allowed to gradually (sometimes very fast) drive the territorial States out of existence, via free individual choices, under full consumer sovereignty and free enterprise even in this sphere. - J.Z., 4.9.04.
ANTI-CAPITALISM: The immense majority of the world's population is extremely poor when compared with the average standard of living in capitalist (*) nations. But this poverty does not explain their propensity to adopt the communist program. They are anti-capitalistic because they are blinded by envy, ignorant and too dull to appreciate correctly the causes of their distress. There is but one means to improve their material conditions, namely, to convince them that only capitalism can render them more prosperous." – Ludwig von Mises, Planning for Freedom, p.141. - Unfortunately, Mises did not include e.g. full monetary freedom in his vision for capitalism, nor cooperative forms of production, nor competing governments and communities for "public services". - J.Z., 29.1.93. - CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, MISES, LIMITED GOVERNMENT – (*) already or still somewhat capitalistic! – J.Z.
ANTI-COMMUNISM: I am an anti-communist who wants to conclude a peace treaty with genuine communists (not aspiring tyrants and totalitarians), to which other anti-communists would also be inclined to subscribe - because it would grant all of us exterritorial autonomy, e.g. capitalism for consenting adults, as well as communism for consenting adults. The common enemy would be any group that attempted to continue territorial, coercive and monopolistic impositions upon any dissenters, in the pursuit of their supposedly ideal society and ideal "public service" notions. - J.Z., 28.4.83, 29.1.93. – PANARCHISM, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR FULL EXTERRITORIAL MINORITY AUTONOMY FOR ALL (The latter not necessarily under that particular wording.)
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: Millet System, a CONVERSION CRISIS FRONT PAGE, home page, 1p, 1999, from the IN: 84 in PP ?
ANTI-MONOPOLISM: Panarchism is just a consistent extension of anti-monopolism, laissez faire, competition, cooperation, individual liberty, free associationism, democracy, pluralism, capitalism, freedom of contract, free markets, consumer sovereignty, free enterprise, minority autonomy, constitutionalism, liberalism, libertarianism, property rights and propertarianism, decentralisation, utopism, alternative institutions, intentional communities, participatory democracy, direct democracy, government by consent, free voting (not just confined to territorial party candidates) syndicalism, anarchism and libertarian socialism, and insurance company package deals. - J.Z., 10.12.92, 29.1.93.
ANTI-POLITICS: Go into anti-politics, not into politics! - J.Z., 31.12.75. Get into exterritorial autonomy rather than into territorial despotism. - J.Z., 26.9.02. - PANARCHISM.
ANTISEMITISM & ALL OTHER KINDS OR RACISM & ETHNIC & RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE: Antisemitism and other racist or otherwise intolerant faiths, ideologies and movements are all merely subsets of territorial statism and could best be overcome by the voluntary separatism, voluntary integration and voluntary and a-territorial self-government or self-management of panarchism. – J.Z., 4. + 14.12. 04. See: RACISM, ISRAEL, IRAQ, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, MASS MURDERS, ETHNIC CLEANSING, TERRITORIALISM, POGROMS, COMPULSORY & LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GENUINE RIGHTS & LIBERTIES OF INDIVIDUALS..
ANTI-TRUST RULINGS AGAINST GOVERNMENTS: Vernor Vinge, Conquest by Default, ANALOG, May 68, plan 237, page 68, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507.
ANYTHING GOES WITH PANARCHISM: Anything goes, which is rightful and tolerable, i.e., is practised only at the own expense and risk. - J.Z., 04-11, 16.10.11.
APARTHEID, VOLUNTARY VS. COERCIVE & VOLUNTARY VS. COERCIVE SEGREGATION: Voluntary apartheid versus coercive apartheid, voluntary integration versus coercive integration, voluntary segregation vs. coercive segregation, exterritorial apartheid, integration or segregation vs. territorial apartheid, integration or segregation for South Africa - and the rest of the world. To each his own. The own choices never to be forced upon anyone else. -J.Z., 10.1.93.
APARTHEID: Compulsory togetherness is not a moral alternative to compulsory Apartheid. - J.Z. 30.6.89. - Voluntary segregation and voluntary integration are both moral alternatives. - J.Z., 12.12.03.
APARTHEID: Don't fight Apartheid. Make it perfect, instead. This requires that it would be continued only on a non-coercive and non-territorial basis, together with all other systems that do have some supporters, all only among volunteers and all under full autonomy, i.e. their own constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and any other services they want to arrange for themselves, at their own expense and risk. Naturally, there would also be quite a few more or less enlightened volunteer communities to whom at least racial differences would not matter at all. Hopefully, gradually more and more people would join such communities. But to compulsorily introduce e.g. racial integration is no more right or possible than a complete compulsory segregation is. We are already all of us racially much too mixed for that and live too much intermixed with each other. Even that integration has to be an individual and voluntary and quite free choice. Or should we introduced quotas for mixed marriages, too, and calculate for these racial percentages like the Australian Immigration Office did at least until a few years ago, for potential immigrants? Should we centrally plan for our children from mothers and fathers of different races, too? Anyhow, according to my 1959 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica no pure race is left. We have already, individually, opted for gradual biological integration and no human meddling can stop or reverse that process, however clubbish and isolationist some groups may become in their voluntary affiliations. Exterritorial and voluntary apartheid for the segregationists of any colour and exterritorial and voluntary integration for the integrationists of any colour. Also voluntary communities which do not pay any attention to such differences at all, however much e.g. the sexual partner preferences of their members might differ. However, Apartheid has become a swear word by now and most cannot sort out its voluntarist possibilities from its present coercive and monopolistic features. Thus the rightful alternatives should probably be advocated under other terms. E.g. see under Panarchism. Only today I saw something very similar proposed as "Kritarchy", by Michael van Notten, Africa, in ISIL's WORLD FREEDOM BULLETIN, Nov. 92, p. 4. - J.Z., 3.7.86, 29.1.93.
APARTHEID: This is not voluntary separatism ... it is coercive separatism - not freedom of association, but racial segregation enforced by the jackboot of the state." – Jerome Tuccille, Radical Libertarianism, p.21.
APATHY: We have all of us sufficient fortitude to bear the misfortunes of others." - Rochefoucauld. - Territorial taxes and laws force us to bear their stupidities and their consequences, too. And these two are still such popular idols or objects of the sanctions of their victims, that we are, mostly, apathetic towards them, too. But at least a few could and should describe in an appealing way the exterritorial and voluntaristic alternatives to these two evils and most others. And we would have usually the fortitude to engage and suffer the consequences of our own favoured experiments - were we finally freed to undertake them. With the scientific and experimental approach, in fields now pre-empted by governments, we would tend to be spurred on by our failures as well as by our successes, just like any technologist, inventor or scientist is. How much apathy would remain if we could all freely practise all our individual rights and liberties? Or if there were clear roadmaps towards all of them? - J.Z., 29.1.93.
APHTHONIUS SCHEME APPLIED TO PANARCHISM: Its layout might be suitable for a short exposition of panarchism. Ulrich von Beckerath may already have provided a draft for this. I do not have it readily on hand. But I provided one such draft on my own. It can be found on www.panarchy.org : John Zube. Edited by Gian Piero de Bellis, 16 12 2004. - - - PANARCHY Described by the simple system of Aphthonius: Note - Aphthonius of Antioch, Greek sophist and rhetorician, 4th century A.D. - The essential part of the Aphthonius system embraces 7 simple questions, which every seriously-meant reform advocate should answer, as a minimum requirement. The questions could and should be supplemented and sub-divided to suit the subject. - - - 1.) Latin: Quis? Quid? Ubi? Quibus auxiliis? Cur? Quomodo? Quando? - - 2.) English: Who? What? Where? Whereby? Why? How? When? - 3.) German: Wer? Was? Wo? Wodurch? Warum? Wie? Wann? - 3.) French: Qui? Quoi? Où? A travers qui-quoi? Pourquoi? Comment? Quand? - - 4.) Spanish: ¿Quien? ¿Qué? ¿Donde? ¿A través quien-qué? ¿Por qué? ¿Como? ¿Cuando? - - 5.) Italian: Chi? Che cosa? Dove? Attraverso chi-che cosa? Perché? Come? Quando? - - - Please, do draft, publish and try out your own utopias, panaceas, ideal societies and experiments among yourselves - but make sure that they do not constitute any impositions upon dissenters and that they provide rational answers to at least these 7 questions. In this attempt I have changed the order of these questions. - Choose your own sequence - do not omit any but, rather, add others. - - - 1. WHAT? - Panarchy (or aterritorial multigovernments – or Polyarchy or Personarchy) as the general framework for all the different degrees of liberty and or restraints, which individuals want for themselves in their own associations, voluntary communities or panarchies, quite independent from those of others. - All presently compulsory memberships (e.g. in States, armed forces and trade unions) to become voluntary. - Territorial and collectivist monopoly claims (for large areas, occupied by many dissenting people) are no longer to be recognized and upheld. Thus territorial borders are to disappear, via peaceful “one-person-revolutions.” - - 2. WHO? All individuals, who volunteer to participate in the realization or conservation of one or the other ideal, reform, experiment, tradition or custom, together with all like-minded people, anywhere and always only at the own risk and expense, i.e., without infringing the individual rights and liberties of anyone else. - In short: Free individuals, without “royal charters” and territorial monopoly claims, aware of their equal rights and liberties – and respecting those of others. - Primarily dissenting minorities striving for self-rule. - All governments in exile already existing or still to be established, which do not favour any new monopoly power extended over the whole population of any territory. - All revolutionaries and freedom fighters, who aim at no more than the development of freedom, so that they can gain the greatest number either of supporters or of people neutral towards them. - Thus even the enemies of liberties are not provoked into desperate resistance. They can try to enjoy their own more or less authoritarian panarchies, as long as they accept them, directly and personally. - The federations of all autonomous volunteer communities, freely and peacefully coexisting and competing with each other for members, like many churches and insurance companies do - although they may dislike each other. - - 3. BY WHAT MEANS? Individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, individualism, voluntarism, self-help and associationism going even to aterritorial autonomy and personal laws for the members of communities of volunteers. - These new organizations are to realize full freedom to experiment or freedom of action or full minority autonomy for all, always at the own expense and risk only. - They are to have their own rule-making, adjudicating, protective and service institutions, to the extent that they consider them necessary or desirable or will hire the services of competitive protection and other public service companies. - Consumer sovereignty to prevail in all spheres in which politicians and bureaucrats had so far blocked or obstructed it. - Individuals to become free to chose and abide by different political, economic and social systems for themselves – all with their different membership contracts or constitutions, personal laws and fees or subscriptions. - - 4. HOW? By withdrawal or disassociation from the existing territorial States, reclaiming their individual independence from them, freedom from their imposed tributes, institutions, laws and jurisdiction and also claiming their shares in the remaining capital assets of the territorial States they withdrew from. - However, they must declare their readiness to pay their shares of the costs of institutions they are still using or want to use in common with the territorial statists. Details are to be peacefully negotiated or settled by arbitration. - Those who have withdrawn from the existing territorial States are to be free to run whatever contribution, budget, election and administration system they want for themselves. - By the establishment of alternative, voluntary, aterritorial and parallel institutions, governments, non-governmental societies or experimental systems, with their own constitutions, personal laws, jurisdiction, policing and other services, in free competition with the existing territorial ones, freed from the burdens and regulations imposed upon their territorial counterparts. - E.g. freedom for alternative institutions and practices concerning education, police, courts, prisons, parks, libraries, banks, currency and finance systems, and so on. - Via individual consumer or contractor preferences, let the good and competitive institutions and services peacefully drive out the inferior ones, which are still imposed upon whole populations. - The remaining volunteers of the former territorial States could retain all the laws and institutions they like - but could no longer force them upon others. - - 5. WHY? Because territorial institutions, with their monopolies, size, power addicts bureaucracy, and territorial politics as usual, have led to continuous strife, of which the strife among contending parties and the associated corruption are among the lesser evils while national wars, violent revolutions and official or group terrorism are the major evils. - With contestants now largely armed with ABC mass murder devices or all too efficient other killing and destruction tools, the price to be paid for territorialism - in freedom, rights, security, blood and tribute-money, even in risking the very survival of human beings - has become much too large to be any longer tolerable. - Peace, justice, freedom, progress & enlightenment can only become sufficiently assured and speeded up aterritorially and voluntarily, by freedom of action for all to go their own ways towards their own ideals, at the own risk and expense and also to their own benefit. - Motives and opportunities for aggressions and crimes would become minimized. Even the targets for mass extermination devices would dissolve. - - 6. WHEN? Whenever the time is ripe for significant secessionist and self-help steps, e.g. during galloping inflations, by introducing then new, stable and competing currencies, during mass unemployment, achieving full employment via alternative issued sound media of exchange or clearing avenues, as well as alternative and sound value standards, all subject to refusals or discounting by all their potential acceptors. - When a territorial government wants to start another unjust war. - Whenever a despot becomes unbearable. - When no ruling or large opposition party upholds the rights and liberties of citizens at all or does not do so sufficiently. - When all minor self-help options become insufficient or blocked and when military insurrections and violent revolutions are to be avoided. - When neither sufficient freedom of expression and information exist any longer and either emigration from unfree countries or immigration to somewhat more free countries are largely prevented. - - 7. WHERE? Where there are dissatisfied or more or less suppressed and exploited minorities or even majorities, in all countries and continents. - That is, practically, everywhere. - - - - - - PRECEDENTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, EXAMPLES: Religious liberty. Divorce. Business partnerships. Consumer sovereignty.Competition between different sports and sports clubs, charities, scientific associations, universities. Choice of doctors, medicines, jobs, hobbies, crafts, meals, contracts, tourist attractions, clothing, houses, gardening options, entertainment, arts involvements: All the numerous daily choices of individuals to the extent that they are not pre-empted by government laws, regulations and institutions. - Personal laws, arbitration courts, freedom of association and disassociation in various clubs and organizations, consumer sovereignty, competing partnerships and other business forms. - Dissent exists even within family and friendship circles but there voluntary separation is, as a rule, no longer outlawed. - PIOT, John Zube - (Panarchy In Our time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice!) - email@example.com - 35 Oxley St., or P.O. Box 7052, Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia, Tel.: (02) 48 771 436. - - - One of my longer versions follows. Gian Piero de Bellis did not like it as much as the above one. You pick your own or make your own! - - - File: PAN Aphtonios scheme 16 12 04 - PANARCHISM, DESCRIBED BY THE SIMPLE SCHEME OF APHTHONIUS - The essential part of the Aphtonius system embraces 7 simple questions, which every seriously-meant reform proposal should answer, as a minimum requirement. These could and should be supplemented and sub-divided to suit the subject. But for a brain-storming on ideas, that are still new to most people, they are not a bad start. - - Latin: Quis? Quid? Ubi? Quibus auxiliis? Cur? Quomodo? Quando? - - English: Who? What? Where? Whereby? Why? How? When? - -German: Wer? Was? Wo? Wodurch? Warum? Wie? Wann? - - For Spanish and Italian versions see the additions G.P. de Bellis made in the above draft. - - - No reform proposal that does not at least try to sensibly answer these simple questions should be taken serious. - Obviously, most party platforms & other movements do not give satisfactory answers to these questions. Without answering these questions they are built upon sand or are merely “castles in the air”. - They should be supplemented by other justified questions like e.g.: Can these proposals be practised tolerantly, among volunteers and at their risk and expense only or do they require any monopoly, new laws, government subsidies or compulsion? - The full answers exist in the details, or blueprints, not in the general slogans and words. - - Please, do draft & publish and try out your own utopias, panaceas, ideal societies and experiments among yourselves - but make sure that they do not constitute any impositions upon dissenters and that they provide rational answers to at least these 7 questions. In this attempt I have changed the order of these questions. - Choose your own sequence – but do not omit any but, rather, add others. - PIOT, John Zube, 16.12. 04. - (Panarchy In Our Time or: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her free choice!) ********************************************** 1. WHAT? Panarchism or Polyarchy or Personarchy as the general framework for all the different degrees of liberty and or self-restraints, which individuals want for themselves in their own associations, voluntary communities or panarchies, quite independent from those of others. - Opting out and opting in to be quite free, for individuals, towards the present States and for the new and only a-territorially autonomous communities of volunteers. - - All presently compulsory memberships (e.g. in States, armed forces and trade unions) to become quite voluntary and all voluntary associations that desire this status to become a-territorially quite autonomous. - - Territorial and collectivist monopoly claims (for large areas, occupied by many dissenting people) are no longer to be recognized and upheld. Thus territorial borders are to disappear, via peaceful “one-man-revolutions” or individuals withdrawing, even while territorial nationalists continue to congregate in their country-wide “parishes”, which they may still call their States, within the former borders and may exclude from their voluntary membership whomsoever they dislike, e.g. in their exclusive ethnic etc. clubs. At the same time, cosmopolites or internationalists will have their own voluntary communities and societies – everywhere. - - However, boundaries around individuals and their voluntary institutions are to be recognized more than ever before and secured by all the diverse voluntary communities, in their common interest in genuine self-government or self-management, of whatever political, economic or social system each of them choose for itself and its volunteers. - - 2. BY WHAT MEANS? - Individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, individualism, voluntarism, self-help and associationism going even to a-territorial autonomy and personal laws for the members of communities of volunteers. - These new organizations are to realize full freedom to experiment or freedom of action or full minority autonomy for all, always at the own expense and risk only. - They are to have their own rule-making, adjudicating, protective and service institutions, to the extent that they consider them necessary or desirable or will hire the services of competitive protection and other public service companies. - Consumer sovereignty to prevail in all spheres in which politicians and bureaucrats had so far blocked or obstructed it. - The individual to get a “sovereign” vote and veto right over his own affairs, rather than merely one vote among millions. This will make peaceful “one-man-revolutions” possible. - Individuals to become free to vote even for different political, economic and social systems - for themselves – all of these with their different membership contracts or constitutions, personal laws and fees or subscriptions. - Individuals will be free to withdraw from any of the present States and from future non-territorial “government” systems and societies and to join or establish any of their own, anywhere. Their only “land” or country will be the real estate of their members and that will remain, mostly, in the hands of their members. Otherwise the whole world will be “their oyster”, living space, residential option and work sphere, based on private contracts with the present owners. - Even now most people do have to earn their own living and pay their own way. There will be many less unwanted & unjustified obstacles laid into their way - in a future with full experimental freedom for all peaceful and productive activities among volunteers. - - - 3. WHO? - All individuals, who volunteer to participate in the realization or conservation of one or the other ideal, reform, experiment, tradition or custom, together with all like-minded people, anywhere and always only at the own risk and expense, i.e., without infringing the individual rights and liberties of anyone else. - In short: Free individuals, without “royal charters” and territorial monopoly claims, aware of their equal rights and liberties – and respecting those of others. - All adult & sufficiently rational travelers on “spaceship Earth”, which does neither need a single captain nor 200 “captains”, all with sectional monopoly powers. - Primarily members of dissenting minorities striving for self-rule. - All governments in exile already existing or still to be established, which favor only exterritorial autonomy for their present and future official members and not any new monopoly power extended over the whole population of any territory. - All revolutionaries and freedom fighters, who aim at no more than that, so that they can gain the greatest number either of members and allies or of people declaring themselves neutral towards them. - All parties and movements – becoming a-territorially self-governing or self-managing. - The federations of all or many of the new and only exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities, all freely and peacefully coexisting and competing with each other for members, clients or customers, like so many churches and insurance or computer companies do now, all minding their own business only - although they may dislike each other. - NOT the State, the government, the law, the constitution, the prime minister or president, the parliament, the politicians, the administration, the jurisdiction, the armed force, the country, the bureaucracy or the people – BUT (apart from those already seceded and doing their own things to or for themselves) only their remaining individual volunteers, after all their dissenters have left them. Thus, these groups, too, would become reduced to or advance to the status of voluntary societies or community, that is, they would remain fully autonomous only a-territorially. They would have “lost” merely their unjustified powers and privileges over dissenters and thus and consequently, all of them would gain real independence and togetherness for themselves and a largely trouble-free existence, without any active internal or external opponents. These, too, would be busy doing their own things for and to themselves. For their remaining troubles they could only blame themselves or nature. - It would be an obvious win-win situation for all who are able and willing to act self-responsibly. - The less productive and incompetent will have to look after their own welfare as well as they can or hire, at higher premiums or subscriptions, shepherds, leaders and protectors for themselves. They may arrange any social insurance, credit, mutual aid, safety net or charity organizations among themselves. Their living standards will, indeed, be lower – but it will be based, proudly upon their own efforts. (It has been proven, again and again, that even handicapped people can produce their own livelihood if not artificially prevented from doing so. Under full economic freedom, which would soon spread from the first successful experiments, their chances would be greatly increased.) Like all others they will automatically share in the general benefits of an advancing and also peaceful civilization, in which basic needs can ever more cheaply bought on a free market (look e.g., at the prices of watches, pencils, paper tissues, plain rolled oats or other grains) and in which every person has dozens to hundreds “iron slaves” and in which every remaining productive capacity and willingness will be easy to sell. (Full employment would rapidly result from the free experimentation that is involved.) - However, the “poor” leaders of voluntary communities, who can then no longer blame their internal opposition, which has disappeared, or other communities, busy with doing their own things, will be forced, by their own followers, to deliver upon their promises – or will lose the disappointed members. Market instead of political or military discipline! Rulers really controlled from the grassroots level. Like businessmen & managers they will have to offer better services, through cost savings & cutting of waste, while reducing the prices of their basic and wanted services and goods. They could no longer get away, for all too long, with misleading and general promises, secrecy, censorship, lies and deceptions. Their customers will want results, and this soon – or will leave them and join others, whose rightful and rational actions bring positive results. - The future “sovereign” “public service” entrepreneurs, leaders, politicians and bureaucrats will really have to serve sovereign customers, and do so well enough, or go bankrupt, soon. - - - 4. HOW? A) By withdrawal or disassociation from the existing territorial States, reclaiming their individual & minority group independence from them, freedom from their imposed tributes, institutions, laws and jurisdiction and also claiming their shares in the remaining capital assets of the territorial States they withdrew from, while they remain living and working wherever they do. (Unless they were employees of a territorial government. Then they would have to look around and accept some productive job. Full employment will be rapidly reached under free experimentation among volunteers. Only territorial governments and their “experts” found it too hard to look for, comprehend and adopt the already long offered solutions to mass unemployment, deflations, inflations, stagflations and involuntary exploitation.) However, they must declare their readiness to pay their shares of the costs of institutions and facilities that they are still using or want to use in common with the remaining territorial statists. (Like e.g. roads. Unless they are already paying more than is required for road building and maintenance by e.g. taxes on petrol.) - Details are to be peacefully negotiated or settled by arbitration. - - Those who have withdrawn from the existing territorial States are to be free to run whatever contribution, budget, election, administration or reform system they want for themselves. - - B) By the establishment of alternative, voluntary, a-territorially autonomous or parallel & competing institutions, governments, non-governmental societies or experimental systems, all with their own constitutions, personal laws, jurisdiction, policing and other services, in free competition with each other and with the remains of the existing territorial ones (continued for their volunteers only), freed from the burdens and regulations formerly imposed upon them by territorial governments. - All of them to exist in peaceful coexistence and quite free competition with other a-territorially autonomous panarchies, all operating in the same territory or in several ones or world-wide, as if they were merely churches, sects or ordinary or extraordinary national or international companies or organizations. - E.g. freedom for alternative educational institutions and practices and for private or cooperative alternatives to State police forces, crimes acts, government courts and prisons, to national insurance and welfare systems, parks, zoos, libraries, schools, banks, currency and finance systems. - - The withdrawal and autonomy process and organization may either apply only to some of the present governmental services, laws and organizations (e.g., conscientious objectors against conscription) or to whole package deals of them, leading to the establishment of new societies, providing new package deals, including only wanted services. - Consumer sovereignty is to prevail, even towards political, economic and social systems, in combination with free enterprise or cooperative or mutual provision of competing service offers, on a free market for governmental or societal services. - Free enterprise, free competition, free markets, free trade and consumer sovereignty are not free enough until such “public services” are competitively offered and voluntarily accepted or rejected, too. - Naturally, all kinds of cooperative, charitable, collectivist, communist, socialist, anarchist and libertarian societies, communities and experiments would become possible on this basis as well, quite independent of what e.g. present governments, their experts or the majority of scholars or ordinary people may think or believe about them. - - Let the good and competitive institutions and services peacefully drive out the inferior ones (presently enforced upon whole populations), via individual consumer or contractor preferences. - Gresham’s Law would be applied to government services: Let the good & cheaper services drive out the bad ones. No government service would be granted the legal tender privilege or any territorial monopoly. - - Enemies and users of drugs would have their own and separate panarchies. So would the pro-abortion people as well as the pro-life people. - Fans of central banking would be free to continue suffering under it - while friends of free banking would enjoy monetary freedom among themselves. - Free Traders would be free to associate world-wide with all other Free Traders and Protectionists and Anti-Globalists would be free to do their things – to and for themselves, but only at their own risk and expense and, as they suppose, to their own benefit. - The remaining volunteers of the former territorial States could retain all the laws and institutions they like - but could no longer force them upon others. - - On the other hand, they would get the chance to sign up many new members from other former territorial States, who would not have to migrate to enjoy the benefits of a membership that they prefer for themselves. - - The best of the present democracies, in spite of their remaining flaws, could thus gain many more members in other countries that are less advanced. - But they could also refuse new members, all kinds or only special types and say to them: Establish your own panarchy, wherever you live, under the rules and institutions you like most for yourself. We claim no monopoly for our “ball game” and its rules. - - - 5. WHY? Because territorial institutions, with their monopolies, size, power addicts, bureaucracy, and territorial politics as usual, have led to continuous strife, of which the usual party strife, the associated corruption and black markets, e.g. the drug wars against black market drug traders, are among the lesser evils, while national wars, civil wars, violent revolutions, official and private terrorism, and unintentionally but legally or juridical caused economic crises are the major wrongs and evils. - - With territorial governmental contestants now largely “armed” or on the road to be “armed” with ABC mass murder devices or all too efficient other mass murder and destruction devices, and people are living organized in territorial targets for ABC mass murder “weapons”, and frequently held collectively responsible for the crimes of their territorial governments, the price to be paid for territorialism - in freedom, rights, security, blood and tribute-money, even in risking the very survival of man, has become much too large to be any longer tolerable. - - Peace, justice, freedom, progress & enlightenment can only become sufficiently assured and speeded up a-territorially and voluntarily, by freedom of action for all to go their own ways, towards their own ideals, at the own risk and expense. - Then we might come to see the “social sciences” and general enlightenment advance fast, perhaps as fast as computer science & technology progressed over the last few decades. - - - There is no territorial solution to the problems created by territorialism. (Just look at the last 6000 years of attempts to build territorial world empires or powerful kingdoms or republics and the prices ordinary people had to pay for all these vain attempts and at the current attempts to achieve territorial “solutions”, e.g. in Ireland, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan – or anywhere else.) By individual secessionism and a-territorial autonomy for voluntary communities even the enemies of liberties are not provoked into desperate resistance. On the contrary, then they, too, can try to enjoy their own more or less authoritarian communities, as long as they, individually, can stand them. - Motives and opportunities for aggressions and crimes would become minimized. - Motives and opportunities for progressive, i.e., moral and rational changes, would become maximized. - - Even the targets, motives, funds and secrecy opportunities for mass extermination devices would become dissolved. Everyone would tend to become a disarmament inspector towards them. - - - 6. WHEN? - Whenever the time is ripe for significant secessionist and self-help steps, e.g. during galloping inflations or severe deflations, by introducing, then, new, stable, sufficient and sound competing private currencies. - (Thus, during such crises [with their mass unemployment, bankruptcies, sales and financial difficulties] full employment & easy sales [at price and wage levels unaffected by imposed “monetary policies”] could be achieved, very fast. This could be done via privately or cooperatively issued alternative sound exchange media and clearing certificates or account, based upon ready for sale goods and services, issued mainly by the supermarkets and shopping centers, and via alternative and optional sound value standards, all subject to contracts, refusals or discounting by all their potential acceptors. Only the issuers and, by contract, their debtors, would have to accept them at any time at par. Thus the monetary despotism and monopolism of central banks, with the compulsory acceptance and compulsory value of their paper money and the subsequent inflations, deflations and stagflations could be rapidly ended or prevented and truly free exchanges could be initiated, at first only among some enlightened volunteers. But their successful steps would spread fast.) - When a territorial government wants to start another unjust war, unwarranted because it is aggressive rather than a merely defensive or even liberating war. - Whenever a despotism becomes unbearable. - When no ruling or large opposition party upholds the rights and liberties of citizens at all or does not do so sufficiently. - When all minor self-help options become insufficient or all too blocked and when military insurrections and violent revolutions are to be avoided. - When neither sufficient freedom of expression and information exist any longer and either emigration from unfree countries or immigration to somewhat more free countries are largely prevented. - - - 7. WHERE? Everywhere where there are dissatisfied or more or less suppressed and exploited minorities or even majorities, in all countries and continents. That is, practically, everywhere. - Dissent exists even within family and friendship circles but there voluntary separation is, as a rule, no longer outlawed. - - - SOME PRECEDENTS & EXAMPLES: Religious liberty. - Divorce. - Business partnerships. - Consumer sovereignty. - Competition between different sports and sports clubs, charities, scientific associations, universities. - Choice of doctors, medicines, jobs, hobbies, crafts, meals, contracts, tourist attractions, clothing, houses, gardening options, entertainment, arts involvements: All the numerous daily choices of private lives, to the extent that they are not pre-empted by government laws, regulations and institutions. - The long but still largely unknown or unappreciated history of Personal laws, “Capitulations”, the “millet system”, extraterritorial treaties, consular jurisdiction, the tradition of personal law associations and voluntary communities, probably as old as mankind, and of protective associations and leagues and orders, arbitration courts and the early alternative institutions of all revolutions, before they lapsed again into territorialist notions and practices. - Freedom of association and disassociation in various clubs and organizations. - Consumer sovereignty, competing partnerships and other business & enterprise forms, including cooperative ones. (For some historical examples see here e.g. under: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON, On Panarchy.) - - Obviously, these simple questions can be answered in many different ways. - No social reform proposal can be taken quite serious if it does not at least attempt to somehow answer all of them. All too often one or even several questions are not put or answered regarding them. - I would be glad to receive some or even many different panarchist or polyarchic replies to these questions. - We can never have too many tools, resources, ideas, references, plans and proposals to promote liberties and individual rights. - Naturally, these short replies are not yet sufficient. Please, regard them as mere appetisers or attempts to promote further and better thoughts and ideas on the subject and, finally, comprehensive papers and monographs, even encyclopedias. - Everybody, who is seriously interested, can still be a pioneer in this sphere, one of the “Founding Fathers” of the future free societies and communities. - - Every further improvement suggestion is welcomed by me! - - At least consider this proposition as a new and interesting mental game – if you cannot come to believe that even the very survival of mankind may depend upon it. - - PIOT, John Zube, 16.12.04, firstname.lastname@example.org
APPEAL FOR OR DECLARATION OR SHORT EXPLANATION OF PANARCHISM & PANARCHIES: It would be nice if a relatively short statement of this kind could already bring about sufficient enlightenment in this sphere and overthrow long established ways of thinking, acting and institutions. Nevertheless, attempts should be made and continued to supply short statements of this kind until they have been optimized and will do what they can to get us from here to there. See: SHORTEST DESCRIPTIONS.
APPEALS, PETITIONS & ADVICE TO OR DEMONSTRATIONS, MARCHES, REVOLUTIONS OR TERRORISM AGAINST GOVERNMENTS? One should not only be able to appeal to or petition to a government, advise it, criticize it, put pressure upon it, vote for or against it or fight it in one way or the other. Instead, one should be free to act quite independently of its experts, aims, programmes, measures, institutions, constitution, laws and jurisdiction, but only in one's own circles of sovereign volunteers. No majority consent of outsiders should be required for any self-concerned actions. The unanimous consent of the insiders should suffice for them, as long as they engage only in creative or self-destructive activities. - J.Z., 19.7.91, 13.1.93.
APPELBAUM, A.: The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora, in "Compendium Rerum Judaicarum, s. Safrai and M. Stern, eds, vol. I, 1974, pp. 420-63 & The Organization of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora, ibid, 464-503.
ARABS, CHRISTIANS & JEWS, CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM & ISLAM: Arabs are Jews and Jews are Arabs, biologically and ethnically derived from the same nomadic tribes in the same area. Neither of their religions are moral and rational enough, so far, to keep them at sufficient peace with all their neighbors. Christ was a Jew, too and thus, biologically, also an Arab. He tried to improve upon the existing religions but, obviously did not go far enough, in this, for some of his followers were even more murderous than ancient Jews and Arabs were and some of the modern ones are. Neither of the them taught and practised full religious tolerance right from the beginning and for most of their history. Maybe full religious, political, social and economic tolerance may have to be forced upon them. If that is consistently tried, not much force might actually be necessary. For then they could still live as much apart from each other and independent of each other as they want to be, not only in the sphere or religion but in all other spheres. So far their holy books and their all too many contradictions and varied interpretations have brought an enormous strife to the world and quite insufficiently enlightened them, morally, socially, politically and economically. How could they come and continue to believe that these writings were inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent and loving father of all? Such a being, surely, could be a much more clear and convincing writer and would have preserved all his dictations and would not have ordered the crimes reported in their supposedly holy writings. They need new “prophets” who clearly tell them only genuine truths and do not care about their diverse rituals. – J.Z., 17.10.03, 23.10.07.
ARBITRATION COURTS: Self-Chosen or Voluntary vs. Imposed Jurisdictions: Arbitration Courts or arbitration arrangements constitute voluntary or competing jurisdiction and do already play a large role in otherwise quite territorial State systems. Alas, they are not yet quite autonomous. E.g. dealing with "crimes" is still largely reserved to State courts. They are not yet allowed to become e.g. the court arrangements for alternative & exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers. But they do already demonstrate that competition in jurisdiction is possible and often adventageous and the right to individually engage such alternatives is not altogether denied.
ARBITRATION: arbitration has grown to proportions that make the courts a secondary recourse in many areas and completely superfluous in others. The ancient fear of the courts that arbitration would 'oust' them of their jurisdiction has been fulfilled with a vengeance the common-law judges probably never anticipated. Insurance companies adjust over 50,000 claims a year among themselves through arbitration, and the American Arbitration Association (AAA), with headquarters in N.Y. and 25 regional offices across the country, last year conducted over 25,000 arbitrations. Its 23,000 associates available to serve as arbitrators may outnumber the total number of judicial personnel ... in the U.S. ... Add to (this? J.Z.) the unknown number of individuals who arbitrate disputes within particular industries or in particular localities, without formal AAA affiliation, and the quantitatively secondary role of official courts begins to be apparent." – Murray N. Rothbard, THE LIBERTARIAN FORUM, 1/75.
ARBITRATION: Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes." - Rothbard, THE LIBERTARIAN FORUM, 1/75. - Alas, criminal law and its enforcement has been monopolised by the government. Here we need the voluntaristic alternative of freely competing governments. - J.Z., 30.1.93. - PANARCHISM
ARBITRATION: Every rational being not wanting to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of its State or exterritorial and autonomous community, has the right to agree with others upon courts of arbitration to settle all their disputes." - Point 44 of the human rights draft in PEACE PLANS 4 also in the collection of private human rights drafts in PEACE PLANS 589/90. See: Index of /lmp/cd on www.butterbach.net, entry ANTHOLOGY OF PRIVATE … (I HAVE STILL TO ADD MANY OTHER TITLES TO A NEW CD AND TO PRODUCE A GOOD ENOUGH CONTENTS LIST FOR IT.)
ARBITRATION: LORA, MANUEL, Would You Like Fries With Your Arbitration? - http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora16.html
ARBITRATION: The arbitrator has regard to equity and the judge to law." - Aristotle, Rhetoric, Bk. 1, ch. 13, sec. 19.
ARBITRATION: The handclasp is mightier than the fist." - Motto of the American Arbitration Association, quoted by Rothbard in REASON, 3/73.
ARBITRATION: Wooldridge also points out that there are at present more professional private arbitrators in the U.S. than federal judges." - Mike McMaster, OPTION, 6/78. – COURTS, JUDGES
ARCHIMEDEAN LEVERAGE: The panarchist ideology and practice amount to one of our present Archimedean Leverage options that are not yet sufficiently realized. – J.Z., 14.3.04
ARCHYTAS, HECTOR, Coexistencialism.& Panarchy. H. A. to J.Z., 29.12.02: Subject: Bring Panarchy and coexistencialism to the public debate. - (I took the liberty to eliminate those English mistakes that I noticed. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) Dear Sir, I think that we share in common the passion to bring panarchy in the public debate. I have currently stopped my carrier of financial mathematician and software developer to consecrate my life to panarchy. - I have developed my own doctrine of panarchy called coexistencialism and I put it on the web at: http://lautbry.tripod.com/cpce - The only difference between panarchy and coexistencialism is that in coexistencialism, I include a territorial meta-government which is regulating the competitive governments of community in the same manner than the State regulates private companies. - In doing so, I made panarchy more stable and so scientifically more acceptable for the economic and financial world to which I belong. - I contact you as I try to evaluate the number of people reading to act to bring panarchy in the public debate. - As you will see in my web site, my objective is to persuade a government in a underdeveloped country to create a social laboratory to test panarchy. - I am already in contact with some officials of the government of Bihar. - I am now trying to see how I can exploit "mediatically" such an event so in that purpose I contact you in order to locate all individuals ready to convince "journalists" to make article about events related to panarchy. - Kind regards, H. Archytas. - - - J.Z.: coexistentialism or coexistencialism? My Cassell's dictionary says: existentialism. mediatorily? mass media? - Robert Nozick, in State, Anarchy & Utopia, spoke of a remaining meta-utopia" as a limited government presiding over various sub-utopias or panarchies, as he saw them. - - LeGrand E. Day, in this A New Dimension of Freedom, also envisioned some remaining territorial features. I do not know whether he still subscribes to them or even whether he is still alive. I only met him, all too shortly, in an LA restaurant, in 1990, which was all too crowded and loud to make conversation possible. (Most of his accessible and related writings are now on www.panarchy.org. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) - Like you, I dedicated my life and most of my small income to such ideas, especially since my retirement in 1988. - … More stable, more scientific? Can one persuade any territorial government sufficiently? Businessmen and financiers do often already strive for sufficient alternatives to the limited scopes left to them by territorial governments. But they mostly seek just exemptions or privileges, rather than complete and consistent and quite moral independence from territorial governments - as a matter of individual choice. The voluntary taxation aspects that are involved might be most appealing to them. - - - H. A.: Dear Gian, All my work is also based on competitive government on the same territory which also mean for me extra-territoriality. I am trying to convince the government of Bihar about the media potential of such experience: http://lautbry.tripod.com/cpce/coexistencialism_india.htm - but I have first to gather journalists who might be interested in such an event. - Regards, H. - - - J.Z.: There is a difference between exterritoriality and extra-territoriality. Exterritoriality amounts to almost pure "personal law" practice, apart from private property rights. – - Extraterritoriality is the autonomy of small enclaves affiliated with the home country. Embassies are something in-between: Privater properties or properties of other States, with a personal law status. Extraterritoriality amounts to almost pure "personal law" practice, apart from private property rights. But even there, you would not force your personal law upon all your house guests (some of them may practise e.g. polygamy or monogamy) or even force all members of your own family to subscribe to the same set of laws, apart from the house-rules laid down by whoever is owner of a house. Extra-territoriality refers usually to small and set-aside "territories" in which the territorial law of the home country, motherland or fatherland applies, rather than the territorial law of the large country in which these extra-territorial but still territorial enclaves do exist. - Ibid: - Original Message from: Gian Piero de Bellis, December 28, 2002, to: Hector Archytas. Subject: Re: Bring Panarchy and coexistencialism to the public debate. - Dear Archytas, thank you for your message about panarchy. Probably the person more in tune with panarchy is John Zube who introduced me to the work of De Puydt (e-mail: email@example.com). His vision (and I agree with him) is based on exterritoriality and so it does differ from yours. I will explore your web site. - Clearly it would be interesting if some experiments could be started somewhere and I will be glad if you keep me informed about any progress in that respect. - Yours sincerely, Gian Piero de Bellis. - P.s. In future messages you can write in French if you wish. - - - Dear Hector Archytas, sorry for not replying earlier to your two e-mails. I was busy filling a floppy disk with already digitized and newly scanned free banking and monetary freedom writings of the kind that I like. I e-mailed most of its contents to you yesterday and hope you will have the time and interest to peruse the panarchistic segments among these files. - That being done, while I was looking forward to seeing your websites, I finally got around to them yesterday. - Firstly, let me congratulate you. You are one of the few who independently discovered some of the great potentials of non-geographical and voluntaristic political, economic and social systems and of their monetary and financial aspects. - I was not so lucky to discover such ideas on my own but lucky enough to be early, since 1952, steered in their direction. Before, for a few years, I was just another young individualist anarchist. - - Altogether quite a few writers dealt with this kind of experimental freedom or at least described it. However, in the flood of political, ideological and conventional writings on public affairs, most of these writings were and still are rather effectively drowned or buried, remain unknown and inaccessible, mostly also un-translated. Some are almost 200 years old and I have still been unable to find copies of them, after decades of book hunting! I listed at least a fraction of them in my bibliography of panarchism, which needs updating. - They have not yet been made part of the public debate, not even on acute problems, to which only they do have to offer the most important, the only rightful and efficient as well as immediately practicable solution - if only contrary prejudices and errors can be sufficiently refuted - or confined to the practices of those who suffer under them. - - Alas, my perhaps excessively high hopes for your website were somewhat disappointed: Firstly, there were technical aspects: I could not download your sites to disks. My screen froze three times in the attempt! I was told that I would need a special graphic programme of several Mbs and would have to download it, which would take about 10 minutes. In the attempt to do so I was told that I would also have to update Explorer 6. That turned me off. I prefer plain text sites. - Then I managed to print out, probably most of your pages, all with some fault indications, which I ignored. - To get most of them took some searching, from various of your pages, since I did not find a combined URL list or contents list, from which I could have copied all - into print - systematically. So I jumped from page to page, backwards and forwards, looking for links that I still had not printed out and in the process probably missed out on some of them and managing, with my flawed memory, to copy some repeatedly! - But I suppose I got most of the important ones with the following titles: How currency are created? (Should have been: How are currencies created? or How currencies are created.) - The Multi Monetary Economy - The role of money in the society - PanArchy - PanArchie - PanArchia (The gateway page of Gian Piero de Bellis) - Cash exchange and power. - Coexistencialism and the pressure to innovate. - Collective action in coexistencialism. - Committee for the promotion of the coexistencialism. - Create a government according to your personal values. - Is Coexistentialism the next step after Democracy? - Object: A French researcher is making a political campaign all over India to present the most innovative political concept since communism. - Scarcity - Social measurement system. - The coexistencialism: A framework for social and economical creativity. - The "Coexistencialism: A source of opportunities for the private sector. The coexistencialism: An inevitable step of the human history. - The constitution of the "Coexistencialism. - The creation of a social laboratory in order to experiment the coexistencialism. - The description of "Coexistencialism. - The interest of political party in creating a social laboratory. - The participation of the political party. - The two levels of the state. - An annoyance with the URL links list, printed out from one of your pages (Committee for the promotion...), was the different spelling of existentialism: coexitentialism & coexistencialism. - All your pages would easily have fitted into a single file, which could have been downloaded or printed in a single effort. Or one could have chosen preferred ones from a single but comprehensive contents list. Then you could have given your various contributions also the kind of sequence that you prefer for them. On the other hand, all such contributions are, obviously, just works in progress. (I did not notice any significant progress since then, while e.g. www.panarchy.org goes from strength to strength. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) - There is something to be said in offering even imperfect drafts and translations rather than waiting until one can offer improved ones. - Anyhow, I finally got the above listed ones printed out and read them yesterday. This led to some further small disappointments: The translation of your (originally probably French texts) into English was partly so bad that they obstructed easy reading and comprehension. - From my all too little French learned in school, I remember a favourite saying by a teacher: "Ce n'est pas claire - ce n'est pas Francaise!" - It asserted thus that all genuinely French writings would shine by their clarity. I do not know whether it does. My fragments of French are not good enough to judge that question. Are other people and languages less able to coin "bon mots"? My collection of "Slogans for Liberty" has not led to this belief. Like with songs and art work, all of them offer much in "proverbial wisdom" - among much more proverbial foolishness and fractional truths. - Well, some clarity and grammatical correctness, style, logic and perhaps even beauty, is also required in literary English efforts, which might not be necessary in some verbal or written business communications. - At least some concessions to colloquial English usage are also in order, although one can go too far in this direction, when its expressions are false or misleading. - If you want to reach many English speaking or English reading people, then you may have to get your rough English translations edited by a good translator. (The pot is calling the cattle black! - as the saying goes.) I am not one of them and I am also too busy with other projects to point out all the flaws that even I found. Bellis or Butterbach might be willing to do this job, for a consideration - but they are both also busy with other projects. Butterbach, probably, could use an extra income, so it might be worthwhile if you contacted him and made him an offer. - Alternatively, you should get sufficient proof-reading done by friends or critics. The latter may have little to say against your fundamentally sound ideas but, and perhaps because of this, they may be all the more eager to help you by correcting some of your flawed expressions. - That is merely "hair-splitting" or "nit-picking", you might say. But, like mistakes in mathematics or in programming, or in URLs, they are significant. - The subject is so important that one should not feel let down that one was not the first one to ever have thought on it. On the contrary, one should be glad that others have thought along the same truthful lines, even though, in their details, they might have arrived at some different conclusions, more or less radical ones. - Once you become aware of the other writings on the subject, then you might want to revise some of your own suggestions. Naturally, polyarchism or panarchism or exterritorial autonomy, or consistent pluralism or full minority autonomy or voluntarism etc., has room for all kinds of variations. - So far not even all the related terms have been compiled. The term "coexistentialism" was new to me. Thanks for contributing it. - Your way of cooperating with one of the State governments in India, for concessions to political experiments, to reduce taxes and corruption and to improve services, may be one effective and gradualist way, although not the one that I would prefer. It reminds me of the proposals of others to achieve protegee status citizenship in some foreign, small and poor country, to do one's own things there, free of "law and order", only restricted by natural rights and well defined and founded moral laws, while paying a "consideration" to the government that would concede this freedom. From such concessions freedom ideas and practices could spread, as they could from Free Ports and Industrial Development Zones - provided these are not still all too much regulated and taxed, i.e., under the "thumb" of the territorial government. The natives living and working in these zones should not be deprived of their traditional preferences but remain under their personal laws, the laws of their whole country, as long as they prefer them. - The foreign "concessionists" should also do their best to achieve the same status for citizens of their host country, in other countries of the world, so that, once again, "capitulations" would be achieved that are "equal treaties", as opposed to the "unequal treaties" that were achieved by privileged foreign concessionists in China, while Chinese, in foreign countries, were denied these liberties. - - Much could already be achieved if the former consular jurisdiction of consuls in foreign countries were revived and expanded or if at least the choice between two kinds of citizenships were introduced in territorial countries, for the remaining two largest groups that oppose each other, whether they are e.g. Hindus and Moslems or Democrats and Republicans, or Arabs and Jews. (I know at least of one text on what the author called "bi-archy". - J.Z., 22.8.11.) A practice of peaceful independence and coexistence for each of these two major groups could soon lead to peaceful coexistence for smaller dissenting groups as well. (There are quite a few other start-up options, only some of them shortly described so far in my first Panarchy A to Z compilation. - J.Z., 22.8.11.)- Even the difference between representative democratic governments and totalitarian ones was not great and obvious enough to lead to the rapid decline or overthrow of the latter. Relatively minor changes and reforms do not inspire enough enthusiasm in most people. However, if they can already be freely practised by individuals and minorities, by all kinds of experimenters, and this for long periods, then, many of them combined, and gradually introduced, in ever new models, can lead to large changes, comparable e.g. to the development of automobiles and planes from primitive first ones, in thousands of small steps. - The former Soviet Empire seems to have succeeded in indoctrinating about 30% of the population with its ideology, sufficient anyhow, to make it oppose even the limited liberties that have so far been introduced in these countries. Thus it would be very important there, and also for the future of countries like Red China, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and many others, that those "conservatively" adhering to the "ideals" of the old regimes, are offered the option to continue practising them, voluntarily, at their own expense and risk, as long as they can stand them. These people feel threatened by liberties! Let them have the un-freedom of their own individual choices and of their self-chosen groups or communities. Progress will be most rapid and least resisted if it is quite voluntary and self-responsible. - I believe more in the potential of embodying this freedom in a peace, defence, liberation, revolution and resistance programme, or, as far as the monetary freedom revolution goes, that is also involved, in an experiment in an obscure village or town, initially with no publicity at all, until it is obviously very successful. Alternatively, it could become practised on a large and very public scale, in a well prepared, well timed and widely publicized monetary freedom experiment in a city, during high unemployment or high inflation rates and shortly before an election. Then the politicians and their advisors might not dare or be able to suppress a successful experiment but would soon legalize it. - Such liberties could also be safely advocated not e.g. to revolutionaries or even terrorists in the own country, in which peaceful reform avenues are still open, at least to dissenting majorities, but to genuine freedom fighters in other countries, those suffering under open dictatorships. - - Your proposals contain still remnants of territorial statism and centralization or over-lordship or supervision and regulation and controls, which are not necessary, desirable or moral parts of exterritorial autonomy for voluntary protective and self-help communities, at least not from my point of view. But then this is not one that is shared by many people but only by a very tiny minority. - De Puydt, in his Panarchy article, at least pointed out that his system would also apply to Proudhon's anarchy. This suggests that it would also be fit for other forms of anarchism and libertarianism, not only the great variety of archisms, governmentalism or statism. - One also gets the impression that you did not discuss your proposals very much, if at all, with sympathetic dissenters, who might have pointed out some of the remaining flaws or imperfections, if, objectively, there are any. - - All such proposals would also need, I believe, new and improved declarations of individual rights - and a special organization to defend these rights. I tried to develop these ideas in my two peace books, now online, accessible at www.exterritorial.info - www.butterbach.net/epinfo/abc.htm and www.butterbach.net/epinfo/peace.htm and many other relevant texts are at www.panarchism.info - and in my whole PEACE PLANS series, especially its ON PANARCHY sub-series, of which 24 volumes on 24 microfiche are out by now. (Since then they were digitized, upon the urgings and efforts by Peter Wraith. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) - - Religious liberty and tolerance constitute obvious precedents, to the extent that they have been realized. (Unfortunately, even in our times, there exist still largely religiously motivated wars and civil war and terrorist atrocities are committed. One of the causes of this might be that the principles involved were never consistently extended and applied in the political, economic and social spheres as well, bringing about there, too, peace, progress, enlightenment and contentment, to the extent possible for human beings. - - Any "patient" whose "sickness" is only partly cured, is still sick. No "mumbo jumbo", still traditionally passing as "social science" will sufficiently cure him. - As territorialists we are still made to "eat dirt" and other abominations, and have to follow the orders of "great" "medicine men", as supposed "cures" for our sufferings. The "fees" which they charge for these disservices are the most extortionist ones of all. "Blood-letting" or "vampirism" or "parasitism" and various forms of enslavement and serfdom, compulsory distributionism or the "transfer economy" or the "Welfare State" are still widely considered to be an effective "cure". Well, they are good for vampires and parasites, I suppose. - - - Even the caste system of India, the class system in other countries and the Apartheid system, existing for some decades in South Africa, do have something to teach us in this respect - if one views them and their remaining wrongs and flaws dispassionately, i.e., as objectively as possible: As imposed and compulsory segregations they were obviously wrong and ultimately self-defeating. As voluntary segregations, for the segregationists, combined with voluntary integrations, for the integrationists, they would have been rightful, enlightening and progressive and would have made a peaceful coexistence possible. - As exclusive territorial models all of them had to fail and still do. However, in spite of all their flaws, they did demonstrate that different groups of people can coexist in the same country under different rules, however wrongful and oppressive these rules are, however they manage to privilege some groups at the expense of others. - The task must be to eliminate the oppression, the territorial impositions, the privileges involved, not to eliminate but to preserve the differences and even leave scope for an increase in the number of differences, in freedom of action spheres, i.e., always on a voluntary and individualistic basis (which allows also collectivists to do their things for and to themselves) in the same way, as we must leave scope for the increases in knowledge and ideas, in all spheres of our lives. - - I find it encouraging that in religion, in technology, in sciences, in the arts and crafts and in private life-styles, fashions, sports, entertainment and tourist preferences, foods, drinks, consumer article choices, i.e., in spheres that to most people are more important than participation in "politics", we have already largely becoming tolerant, but without full awareness of the principles of voluntarism, autonomy and exterritoriality and experimental freedom that are involved. My friend Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1968, used to say: The revolution is already 90% over. We have just to see to it that the rest, the 10%, will also occur, the corresponding revolution in the political, economic and social spheres, now pre-empted by territorial governments. - However, it is discouraging that so little awareness of this lack of freedom does exist, so far. Most people still consider "the right to vote", as restricted and authoritarian as it is, as most important and quite complete and do ignore the most important vote, namely to choose for oneself a government or society that corresponds to one's own ideals, not to those of the majority of the voters. In this respect the dissidents are still disfranchised and remain quite unaware of this and do not even readily and easily comprehend the full alternative liberty - once it is pointed out to them. - The science of modern salesmanship and public relations has, obviously, not yet been sufficiently applied in this sphere, either, in the same way as it has not yet been applied against deathism and tribute levying and monetary despotism. - As I see the task: It consists not only in "spreading our present messages to the masses or to large minorities" but also in "improving our messages" and in: collecting, reviewing, listing and surveying and discussing, as well as publishing them, at least upon demand, as widely as possible. - Not only microfiche, floppy disk, e-mail and online-options but even more so CDs, DVDs and external HDs, with their huge capacity for texts and enormous cheapness, could be used very effectively for this purpose as well. They could very cheaply offer whole special libraries and encyclopaedias for freedom lovers. - I envision collaboration at least towards one panarchistic CD and one Monetary Freedom CD as intermediate targets and as helpful tools for all of us. - Naturally, anyone should be able to include in them his own summaries and short and popular versions of our common or related ideals, which are more likely to be picked up, sooner or later, and reviewed, by other media, than are scholarly tomes and whole freedom encyclopaedias and libraries. However, I for one, consider it to be very important that the latter are also made available, finally, completely, easily and cheaply, upon demand, so that individuals, like yourself, do not longer have to "re-invent the wheel", but, can, instead, come to advance the frontiers of human knowledge, in this sphere as well. - We all should proudly stand on the shoulders of those admirable giants who preceded us, hoping that we will be able to help some of their ideas towards their realization and to contribute a little bit towards their further development. - PIOT, John Zube. (Slightly edited: 22.8.11.) - I have not heard of him in years. When advocating radical ideas it would greatly help if an Ideas Archive already existed, a complete library, bibliography, abstracts and review service, if one's language skills are sufficient or if one has a good enough editor or helpful friends in this respect and if one is ready to accept good advice. Besides, one needs an enormous patience and much time and energy, otherwise one becomes another burnout after a while. I discussed many of these preconditions in my 2010 book draft, still only called New Draft, not yet online, but reviewed by GPdB. On H. A. - Some of the interesting topics, that he dealt with on his site are the following, accessible only through his links, then not systematically presented by an index or contents page: How currency are created? - -The Multi Monetary Economy - - The role of money in the society - - PanArchy - PanArchie - - PanArchia (The gateway page of Gian Piero de Bellis) - - Cash exchange and power - - Coexistencialism and the pressure to innovate - - Collective action in coexistencialism - - Committee for the promotion of the coexistencialism - - Create a government according to your personal values - - Is Coexistentialism the next step after Democracy? - - Object: A French researcher is making a political campaign all over India to present the most innovative political concept since communism (*) - - Scarcity - - Social measurement system - - The coexistencialism: A framework for social and economical creativity - - The "Coexistencialism: A source of opportunities for the private sector - - The coexistencialism: An inevitable step of the human history - - The constitution of the "Coexistencialism - - The creation of a social laboratory in order to experiment the coexistencialism - - The descriptionof the "Coexistencialism" - - "The interest of political party in creating a social laboratory" - - The participation of the political party - - The two levels of the state. - (*) Communism was hardly new and creative but merely a revival of ancient errors and wrongful practices. I haven not heard of him for years. He may have developed his ideas further on his website. - - - On 29.12.02 he wrote me a letter from firstname.lastname@example.org from which I quote: The only difference between panarchy and coexistencialism is that in coexistencialism, I include a territorial meta-governement which is regulating the competive goverments of community in the same manner than the state regulates private companies. - In doing so, I made panarchy more stable and so scientically more acceptable for the economic and financial world to whom I belong. - I do still hold that any territorial central government, nation- or world-wide, would be even much worse in that than they are, still, in "regulating" private companies and the financial markets. - Territorial statism seems to die only very slowly in most heads, just like many other primitive collectivist and communist notions. - J.Z., 22.9.11.
ARDREY, ROBERT, TERRITORIALISM OR TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE OF ROBERT ARDREY: From the limited territorialism of some animals, by far not all of them, he wrongly concluded upon a general territorialism of the human animal, which he called "The Territorial Imperative", a term also used as the title for his most famous book. From this book one can also gather quite a few examples for non-territorial behaviour among ordinary animals. Why man should be so irrational and immoral to follow only the examples territorial animals - he does not say. Nor did he explore exterritorial activities of the human animal, by a corresponding examination of human history, which rather indicates that his approach and his conclusions were not really scientific. - J.Z., 2.9.04. - For humans only the "territory" or small area of the home represents what among animals is covered by their "nesting instinct". Beyond that their territorial behaviour is not deminated by an instinctive "territorial imperative" but, rather, by a combination of false ideas on territory, strength, unity, equality, security, rights and liberties, choice, freedom, voting, tradition, societies, mandates, consent, authorization, majority rights, minority and individual rights, etc., by all the wrong and flawed concepts of what has been mislabelled "policial science" or "Realpolitik" or "pragmatism", "experience" or "common sense", all abused in the same way in favour of defending political intolerance as other popular prejudices were once utilized to uphold religious hierarchies, religious States or religious intolerance. For hundreds of years public affairs were based on the "foundation" not of human nature and of the nature of associations but upon popular prejudices, myths and errors which are even now not yet systematically and comprehensively refuted, e.g. via an encyclopaedia of the best refutations so far found of popular errors, myths and prejudices which are obstacles to enlightenment, progress, peace, freedom, justice, prosperity and security. - Robert Ardrey was an all too successful apologist for the greatest wrongs man has committed towards other men, because he was and is coercively organized into territorial States. J.Z., 22.9.04. - EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE. (One of the web-pages on www.butterbach.net)
ARDREY, ROBERT: The Territorial Imperative" as opposed to the "Exterritorial Imperative": 9, 36, 45, 46, discussed in ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. (The numbers might refer to his bestselling book or to the pages in OP I. - Criticism by Geoffrey Gorer & John Zube, of his notions in "The Territorial Imperative": 84, 85, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833. - "The Territorial Imperative, A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations", Collins, London, 1967, XII 390 HC, bib. 357-373, index 377-390. - This book requires a thorough refutation regarding the free behaviour of human beings to which most of the animal analogies do not apply. He himself admits, e.g. on pp. 220/1 and 224 that gorillas and hamadryas are not territorial animals and that primates have tried out almost every social behaviour. - A good review and criticism was the article by Geoffrey Gorer in Encounter, June 1967. See: Geoffrey Gorer & John Zube, 84, 85, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833.
ARDREY, ROBERT: The Social Contract. A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder, Collins, London, 1970, with bibliography & index, 406pp. - Again, he concentrates on animal examples and again they do at least partly refute his theory of the "territorial imperative". E.g. on page 272, 275, 288. He never states what size territory is required for all humans, does not deal with the mini-states and remains as vague on the mini-size of citizenship numbers for a nation as the territorial nationalists usually are. - J.Z. -
ARENDT, HANNA: On Revolution. Letter by John Zube on this book and on panarchism, 1965, 4pp, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051.
ARETIA, PANARCHISM & ANARCHISM: From some correspondence: From: Exitil@aol.com File: ARIETAreply21300Word - To: email@example.com - Subject: Re: ARIETA in ANY TIME NOW, No. 9, Spring 2000, 21 March 2000 2:38: In a message dated 3/20/00, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: 21 March 2000. - Mr. ALEXANDER TEMAL, thanks for your article on ARETIA in ANY TIME NOW. I read it with great interest, since there are resemblances to the kind of PANARCHISM that I try to represent and also some divergencies. Shall we discuss these? - A. T.: Sounds good to me. Do we need to agree? That's the beauty of anarchism. People can work in different directions. And of course we can cooperate without necessarily agreeing. - J.Z.: Do both permit peaceful coexistence with other tolerant systems? - A. T.: Aretia really is a non-system. Its a "nation" only in that it is a name applied to anarchist politics (meaning direct action). The purpose of a nation such as Aretia would simply be to promote a sense of identity, and to have some sort of identity for dealing with other nations. - J.Z.: You say: "The meaning of anarchism is quite simple. Anarchism is freedom. Anarchism is independence as an individual. ..." - Here I must already stop for a moment, for the term freedom is at least as much abused, misunderstood and differently interpreted as is the term anarchism. - A. T.: Direct Action: You can make any agreement or arrangement you wish and no agreements or arrangements you did not agree to are binding upon you. Basically this is what is always true, but formally legitimizes individual actions that might be against the will of the majority or of the state. - J.Z.: Perhaps one should not even try to do this - once each is freed enough to make his own choices, in all spheres, as long as this is done at his own risk and expense only, i.e., not infringing the equal rights and liberties of other moral and rational beings. - A. T.: If we say "if ..." we're starting to impose laws. Instead of putting in a law that says you can't infringe on the rights of others, simply count on others to fight back if their rights are being infringed upon. After all, those other people are the ones who'd enforce any law of that kind anyway. Also, I'd prefer not to have any laws anyway, because they're often misinterpreted or manipulated by groups trying to achieve their own goals by legitimizing themselves through law. - J.Z.: You say: "rather a society that governs itself via the direct actions of each individual." - If each individual is in all matters to engage in direct actions anyhow, then why would that individual need any societal organization at all? - A. T.: Well they don't need the nation, the nation is just for common identity, cooperative purposes, etc. As for "societal organization", they don't "need" any of this, but they would most likely want to. After all, associating with others to create defensive systems or to trade goods easier (economic associations) would be beneficial. "... various associations would, among other things, take over all the services provided by the state, with none of the usual oppression of the people ..... free to develop any arrangements between each other and to form any association they see fit, to fill any want, need, or other purpose ..." - J.Z.: Does that mean that you would tolerate statism of any kind to be practised among all the volunteers that favour it, at their expense and risk? - A. T.: Yes. As long as there is consent by those who are being ruled, I have no problem with it. Also, if those people are being enslaved and agree with that government because they're brainwashed, I personally would want to stop this, but I don't want to put in any ideology into the basic anarchist system which I think should remain pure and untainted. I would hope though that through their own direct actions, groups outside the authoritarian state would try to "free" those within. - J.Z.: To that extent you would agree with panarchists. But, in practice, that kind of arrangement would require that we get away (apart from private, company and coop property) from all territorial arrangements for all inhabitants and adopt personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups instead. That should be clearly stated as well. - A. T.: Yes, nations having boundaries is simply outdated, unless of course they made special arrangements to where a certain group would buy land and then only people of a similar frame of mind would live there. - "... Aretia's economy is primarily a free market instead of socialist." - J.Z.: Does that mean that Aretia would not get along peacefully with other volunteer communities that have chosen various mixed economy, welfarist protectionist or socialist systems for themselves? Will its propertarians fight, if necessary, not only to defend their property and lives but also to establish propertarianism and free markets among those who want to do without them? - A. T.: Free market simply meaning you can make any economic agreements you wish, including socialist. I said "INSTEAD of socialist" because many times anarchism is automatically assumed to be anarcho-communism, and I don't agree with adding in any ideology (in this case, an economic ideology) into the system. - Ibid: A. T.: "When the owner of a company takes, for no reason other than ownership, the products of the labor of their employees, this is exploitation." - J.Z.: Regardless of the contracts that are involved? - A. T.: If someone made a certain contract, it really doesn't matter. Heck, even without a contract, it doesn't matter, as long as the worker chooses to work there. I'm just trying to explain the "goal" of free market, rather than what is "legal". - I have to agree, however, with the following sentence: "The free market is simply about owning the products of your own labor and being able to trade this with others." - J.Z.: Yes, if you work with your own tools, your own knowledge, machines and rooms and raw materials and services only. But if those of others are involved then a variety of contractual options come in, not all of them automatically "exploitative", for beings free to give notice, work independently, set up alternative enterprises, or purchase them. To the extent that they made contributions of any kind to your output, their right to the products of their work, or to their share in the output is involved. - A. T.: Yes, if someone else helps with the project they deserve funds. - J.Z.: As a panarchist I can agree again with your following statement: "Because of free association, those wishing to create socialist associations with each other may do so." - But, does your tolerance extend to all kinds of capitalism, corporationism and supposedly "exploitative" arrangements among consenting adults? That seems to be the case according to later statements, where you come out for free market options - even for those socialistically inclined for their own affairs. - A. T.: Yes, if they agree to live in a capitalist system its fine with me. Its all about consent. Mentioning exploitation is just to let known what the system really is, not necessarily to illegalize it. [In a capitalistic system or surrounded by capitalists and workers or cooperators, who have chosen capitalism for themselves? - J.Z., 22.8.11.] - J.Z.: In the next long paragraph you speak of "... associations would be created and funded by the citizens of a particular area through free association." - If you left out the "the" in this segment, then, as a panarchist, I could agree with it. That would also be in accord with the following sentence: "The purpose of associations such as these would only be to serve and protect those who voluntarily associated themselves with it ..." - In other words, in any particular area SEVERAL such associations might exist, all with voluntary members and services for them only. The fiction of "the" people is no longer upheld. - A. T.: Yes, multiple associations can coexist. Its like the businesses Coke and Pepsi. Both provide a soda drink, but both can coexist with each other and people choose what they like best. - J.Z.: We seem to partly agree on voluntary taxation. But, you say, that property taxes and income taxes would not exist. Why not, if members of an association want their private property and income taxed by their voluntary community for its purposes? It would amount to voluntary taxation or subscriptions paid in a certain and, between them, accepted way. - A. T.: Again, if its consented, feel free to have it. I'm just trying to explain that those types of things are unfair. - J.Z.: Currencies: Will there only be one or two currencies commonly used? That may be true, for local communities or areas, for their predominant local currencies. But country-wide, continental-wide and world-wide a great variety would be used, a much greater variety than is in existence now. At the same time nothing would prevent those who could do so from providing a world-wide accepted exchange medium and value standard, both without any legal monopoly and coercive powers. - A. T.: Agreed. - J.Z.: In the last paragraph you still speak of "micro nations". Do you want them to be exclusive masters over coherent micro-territories or not? If so, then they would still be territorial States. If they are non-geographical micro nations then this should be clearly stated, with all that is implied. - A. T.: Micronations are basically for that purpose. They're sort of an advanced association that takes a shape quite similar to current nations, but without "Absolute Legitimacy" (i.e. love it or leave it, nationalism, my country is always right). They'd be set up for the purpose of ease - if you enter a certain area you're subject to certain laws, you have a certain economic system, etc. which the inhabitants of large areas would agree to, instead of walking down the street and being subject to ten different legal codes as you walk in front of each person's house. - For the most part associations will not have territorial boundaries but some may choose to solidify themselves territorially through agreements/associations. - J.Z.: Are "micro nations" .... "needed to sustain independent economies"? - What do you mean by "independent economies"? - A. T.: I don't really have an answer to that. Just disregard it. Economics are just another thing people can freely associate to create. - "Generally those who have the same political/economic opinions will come to live near those who hold similar views, and thus they form micro nations for mutual benefit." - J.Z.: Is geographical proximity still essential today for a community? Do not many of us have more relations with other people than those in our neighbourhood? (Presently at least 10% of consumer shopping is done no longer in the nearest shopping centre by via the Internet. This percentage is much larger among young people. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) - A. T.: I'm just saying that if we start getting into legal systems etc. most likely people would choose a simple solution and move to areas where they like the legal system. (Under panarchism people belonging to a special legal system and its institutions could live anywhere, except in private homes and land and employee relationships etc. where they are not wanted. Here he seemed to thing still territorially. Naturally, volunteers could have their private or cooperative or collectivist property under whatever discrimination or Apartheid rule they do prefer for themselves. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) People would form natural separations: not an actual border but just a separation created by "invisible lines" ie. artificial boundaries where laws come into effect based on the agreements between people on that area of land. - (As long as no whole country or district is meant here, but merely private real estate - of single persons or groups of them. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) - A. T.: I'll respond to attachments and expand on Aretia tomorrow. Basically though its just the ability to make your own agreements - the basic principle is very simple, the details of that principle are what I write about most of the time. - - From: ALEXANDER TEMAL, Exitil@aol.com - File: Aretia & Panarchy 24 3 00 in Word. - To: email@example.com - Subject: Re: Aretia & Panarchy, your e-mail of 21.3.2000. Date: Friday, 24 March 2000. - In a message dated 3/23/00 - firstname.lastname@example.org writes: Back to the first sentence of your article: "Aretia is an association attempting the creation of an anarchist nation and the spread of anarchist materials." - Panarchism does not attempt, like ARETIA, to establish just ONE anarchist nation or community but as many nations or communities, … - Aretia's just meant to be a common name applied to the idea of direct action. It wouldn't really be a ruling body of any kind, just some sort of form to put associations into, showing some sort of separation from other nations. - - How did you come to choose the term "Aretia". Does it have any special meaning or reference for you? Have you compiled a literature list? - - "Aretia comes from ancient Greek "arete" meaning "excellence". - What do you mean by lit list? - - How did you arrive at the tolerance displayed when describing your ideal? Did you have any mentor of favourite book on this subject? - - Just my own thoughts. - - Thus Panarchism tries to address not just one minority, the anarchist one, in order to win it over to tolerance, but all minorities, to win them over towards a rightful, rational and practical solution to their common problems. It even offers degrees of liberation and security to the majority. It would be happy to get rid of all the "trouble-makers" and dissidents in its ranks and achieve unanimity for all its measures and institutions. - - This actually is anarchism. Anarchism isn't "just one minority", anarchism itself is about allowing freedoms for all minorities. - - Your Aretia model has the potential to attract anarchists but not, directly, many archists. - - The article in the magazine you read was about a year old, I've written two more since then which are better at explaining my ideas, and am working on a 3rd, a universal declaration of individual independence, along with other writings. (I just sent an email to his old email address, asking for further such details. - J.Z., 21.8.11.) - ARETIA, as you describe it, is largely only an ideal for anarchists, anarchists who are tolerant and who appreciate the economics of liberty. But that, on its own, will not be attractive enough to draw non-anarchists to it. - I'll try to make clear in the future that direct action includes the ability to choose monarchic leaders etc. - "Direct Action: You can make any agreement or arrangement you wish and no agreements or arrangements you did not agree to are binding upon you." - - That may be your definition of "direct action" but is it the meaning of "direct action" for most anarchists, especially syndicalists and unionists? - - Yes, at least the rational ones. There are a few extreme radicals that twist terms but the term, as began by Voltairine de Cleyre, it simply means the ability to make your own agreements and associations, without needing the "approval" of any outside force. - - For what kind of cooperative purposes are "nations" - I mean territorial "nations" required? For what purpose do you need the U.S.A. and I "Australia"? - - There is no need, but since we are dealing with a bunch of other nations that haven't become anarchist yet it might be simpler to have some sort of name or borders applied to the whole. Then within this would be the "real" nations. - - However, you add: "I would hope though that through their own direct action, groups outside the authoritarian state would try to 'free' those within." - I meant if those people were being forced to stay there. "Yes, if someone else helps with the project they deserve funds." - - Whose funds? How are earnings to be divided among employers and employees? - - Agreements made between them, which would HOPEFULLY reflect their input in the work. If you want to measure work, go by supply and demand. A person could charge $5000 an hour if someone else was willing to pay it. - - Wasn't the term "exploitation" all too liberally used so far in many cases where nothing wrongful at all happened? And wasn't the living standard among those supposedly living in exploitative systems usually much higher than among those supposedly living in non-exploitative systems? - - Sometimes it is misused, but living in a place where you have more food to eat doesn't make it not exploitive. - - Do you use "capitalism" as a swear word or as a term of praise or as a term describing one economic aspect in all economic systems? - - Neither. I use it simply as a word. There're a few definitions but in that case I think I was simply referring to it as a free market. - - I do agree with you that all kinds of taxes are unfair - when imposed. But I disagree with you that all kinds of taxes are unfair if they are chosen only for themselves by those who like them to finance whatever programs they do have in common. For them it's a voluntary contribution to a common "community chest". For them it is "voluntary taxation". - - I didn't mean ALL taxes are bad, just forced ones. If you agree to them that's fine. - There're 3 categories: Forced, consented, fair. Forced is when someone forces something on you, whether fair or not; consented is where people agree to it, whether fair or not; and fair is the actual system that is fairest, whether followed or not. For example it is my opinion that it is not fair to have certain kinds of taxes but this becomes "okay" if consented. - - Your micro nation has still a territorial feature. But, apparently, the territory is confined to that which it or its members have bought. While I agree with house rules and business rules and associational rules, I deny that either have legal, juridical, policing, penal or constitutional powers over non-members, who are guests or visitors or tourists in their area. - - Of course. Basically, to use a crude and possibly misleading phrase, what we're talking about is "gang warfare" laws. People join up with their "gang" and if something against the gang's code is done to them, the "gang" (i.e. police) attacks the rival gang (i.e. criminal). Nothing really makes it right or wrong, legality is relative to what you yourself believe. - - Do the people in large areas agree upon certain economic systems? - - Yes. This is the result of contracts on entering the land, or by consented agreements between them and the others in the area. (I still deny that consensus is achievable in whole territories. Sometimes it cannot even be achieved in nuclear families and among close friends. - J.Z., 21.8.11.) - - Are people voting in a referendum on taxes and government spending? - - Voting (majority rule) is tyrannical. Instead people will make their own decisions. If no agreement can be reached, a group may attempt to impose their will by force, i.e. military conflict. This is actually where democracy began. Majority is generally assumed to be the greater military force so the minority must follow what they say instead of go to war. In direct action, people could see the enemy against them and could back off, or if they felt an extreme need they could choose not to back down, either causing the other side to reconsider or resulting in a small war. - - Can only one economic system be practised at any time in any area? Under "capitalism" or the mixed economy you have already several competing systems all, unfortunately, oppressed and exploited or wrongly subsidized by territorial laws and legal privileges. And even under totalitarian systems you have extensive black or partly free markets. - - Economic systems will be all over the place. Money knows no boundaries. The only reason there'd be borders is if all things on the land in a certain area had contracts on them saying that people share everything (communist agreements). - - Walking down the street, you say - but whose street? Whom does it belong to? - - Streets, since most likely paid for by a group of people, would belong to all people who contributed and the laws upon it would be of their making. (Note that even if all the other people on the street say "fine, it is your street" to a single person, they don't necessarily need to help that person enforce his laws) - - Even if you enter a house or a business enterprise: You are then not automatically subjected to all its laws but only to the common sense hospitality and guest rules. You ought to behave politely. - - Going by strict basics and adding in no ideology would mean you don't NEED to do anything. However, it might be your custom or theirs to behave politely. - Also, even if the people in the house have laws, you don't NEED to follow them. Remember, laws are viewed as regulations set up by groups that tell people what they will do to them if they do certain things (basically a "threat": "if you walk here I'll shoot you") - so just because someone owns a house doesn't mean you'd automatically behave how they want. You could have a conflict between them or come to other agreements. - - Even now, if we want to live, work and trade somewhere, we always have to make our contractual arrangements for this, which have to respect the rights of others. What further territorial rights should individuals possess, in your opinion? - - Territorial rights are artificial, basically just agreements between people that a certain parcel of land is theirs. Usually if there is a dispute or if money is trading hands, some sort of bartering takes place. This settles the dispute for the time being, but the "right" of property is still relative.. - - I have slightly edited my input in this exchange. - I do, usually, distinguish between large territories, like those of States or nations, occupied also by numerous dissenting groups, and privately or cooperatively acquired and held land or real estate. - J.Z., 21.8.11. - - From: Exitil@aol.com To: email@example.com - Subject: Re: Aretia & Panarchy, your e-mail of 21.3.2000 & 24.3.2000. - -Date: Saturday, 25 March 2000: In a message dated 3/24/00 firstname.lastname@example.org writes: I wonder whether you have ever browsed in any of the few existing anarchist bookshops, in which, usually, the majority of texts has quite another notion of "direct action", one not greatly different from other communist, socialist and trade unionist MOBS, who could not care less about the agreements and voluntary associations of others and their property and their right to work unmolested and unexploited by them. - What you seem to mean is closer to the "individual sovereignty" ideas of some individualist anarchists. They are not popular or very wide-spread among anarchists and, naturally, far less among statists. - - I don't do much in the way of researching the current anarchist movements, mostly because I don't have the time. Besides, I think the VAST majority of current anarchists are Marxists in disguise or some other perversion. - J.Z., 25.3.00: Name, yes, but borders, no! (Sometimes I express myself so cryptically that by now I do not understand what I meant here! - - Exitil@aol.com - Just (as?) if we were to have a homeland. People could exist outside the homeland of course. - J.Z.: The term "nation" has been so widely abused and misunderstood, that it would be better to speak of intentional or utopian or communities of volunteers, which are not geographically confined. An ideal term for them has, possibly, still to be invented, provided neither "aretia" nor "panarchy" will be adopted. - I like the term "internation". - Exitil@aol.com - Sometimes it's misused, but living in a place where you have more food to eat doesn't make it not exploitive. - J.Z., 25.3.00: Define "exploitive" or "exploitative"! - - Exitil@aol.com - Exploitive is taking from other person for your own gain, usually accompanied by not giving anything (or less) back in return. - J.Z.: But no employee-employer relationship is automatically to be classed as exploitative. - Exitil@aol.com - Of course. - J.Z.: Do the conventions and customs of polite society, respecting the rights and liberties of hosts as well as other guests really amount to gang-warfare "laws" or, rather, to the ethical and rational and customary avoidance of it? - Exitil@aol.com - Yes. Forgive my terminology, its rather blunt, but I prefer to look at politics without any ideologies built in. These are still gang-warfare laws, they just might happen to go along with the things people in that area agree with so they'd be considered "polite society" regulations. - J.Z.: Is nothing really right or wrong in any absolute sense between any human beings? - Exitil@aol.com - Thats correct, nothing is right or wrong naturally. - J.Z.: Has justice no meaning? - Exitil@aol.com - Justice has meaning to the person. Well, justice has two meanings (well, more but two for this purpose) ... the first meaning being revenge, in which justice does have a meaning. The second being justice as in rightful punishment, that doesn't really exist. However people can have their own "justice" by punishing someone that threatened their life/happiness, but its still all in the eye of the beholder. - J.Z.: Is legality by consent or contractual law meaningless? - Exitil@aol.com - Legality by consent works - basically in a defensive way. You join groups which protect you from certain actions, based on whatever laws they believe in. For example the US government, as a citizen you've been associated with it, and therefore the police (Judges, courts, juries - J.Z., 22.8.11.) will inflict punishment upon people that harm those they protect. The same is true of [the] military. If someone tries to harm the people within [a country] the military reacts. (I hold that the military is powerful but not autonomous. Usually it is still subjected to the decision-making monopoly constitutionally prescribed. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) - J.Z.: Are barbarism, criminality, savagery, aggressiveness, physical violence, home invasions, riotous behaviour of drunks or other drug addicts, etc. merely imaginary? - Exitil@aol.com - Not "imaginary" ... they aren't good or evil naturally but some of us view things certain ways. However, in my opinion, these things are real and we shouldn't cause any unnecessary pain to others, but again it's in the eye of the beholder. Morals are based on ones own sympathy for others etc. - J.Z.: Is there no need or right for decent, peaceful people to rule over such people? - Exitil@aol.com - There is no right. However, if people feel there is a need they can take action against those people to subdue them. But lets not make things right or wrong, either way its still one group taking dominance over another. But if its your interpretation that is being enforced, in your eyes this can certainly be called justice or a right to help others. - J.Z.: or should they grant them "anarchy" in the worst possible sense? - Exitil@aol.com - That's up to the person who's deciding what action to take against them. I'd hesitate to make any of my own judgements without having more specific circumstances to answer about. - J.Z.: Are criminals with victims right when they believe that whatever they did to their victims was right and legal, ethical and moral, that "they were asking for it!"? - Exitil@aol.com - Not necessarily. Ethical and moral, perhaps in their own eyes, but we always judge others by our own interpretations. Just because there is no natural good or evil doesn't mean you must let everyone do as they please. Your interpretations are not invalidated. As for "asking for it" that would depend on the situation. - J.Z.: We still seem to misunderstand each other regarding "territories" as > opposed to privately or cooperatively owned blocks of land. With "large areas" I meant territories, which can be very large, even continental-sized, as in case of Australia. To speak of consent on major subjects among all the subjects of their Federal, State and Local governments is ridiculous. - Exitil@aol.com - These people would need to sort it out, or have some sort of military conquest. As for sorting it out, I'd suggest that they only pass laws that they all agree on. Any variations in legal system should be posted at city limits (or state entrances) if you want to narrow down the area. - (Here he is still territorial. - J.Z., 22.8.11.) - J.Z.: Panarchists argue that consent among like-minded people should matter, between them, regardless of where they are living in a national territory or in the world. They should not only be free to hold different ideas and opinions - but also be free to apply them, act on them, experiment with them, under full exterritorial autonomy, within their own volunteer communities, at their own risk and expense, no matter how large the majority is, of the population or that of the supposed experts, who are opposed to the ideas and practices of dissenting minorities. - Exitil@aol.com - Of course. - J.Z.: I see that you have fixed your mind so far on your own concept of "Aretia" and are only prepared to explain it. But once you are becoming aware that there are many related or perhaps even identical ideas around, you might become ready to discuss them. I do hold that this old treasure chest of traditions, ideas and opinions should be brought to light by us, at least to the light of microfiche reading machines and computer screens, via emails, websites or discs. With this intellectual ammunition ready on hand we will have it much easier to win our battles. - Exitil@aol.com - Well I was explaining it because you asked questions l0l, I am open to other ideas however. I have my preferences yet I don't see any problem with any other ideas as long as the people within them [within a community from propertarian communities to exterritorial ones] are consenting to it. - J.Z.: I would welcome any objections against "panarchism" as advocated so far in my series. So far I have not yet encountered what I would have to consider being a valid objection. But misunderstandings abound here, too, among those who have read at least some of the basic texts on the subject. - Exitil@aol.com - I have no objections at this time. - J.Z.: Propertarians and anti-propertarians, free traders and protectionists, monetary freedom users and adherents of central banking, they and others could all peacefully coexist - if only they confined their own system to their own believers and subscribers or members, i.e., if they acted as panarchists or aretists. - Political parties could all win, each for itself, complete autonomy for their members and voters, in their own fully autonomous communities. No movement would have to battle on, for years or decades. It could achieve instant liberation for its members via individual and group secessionism and personal law autonomy - once this concept and practice is well enough publicized, discussed and understood. It offers so many solutions to the problems of our times. The best ones will ultimately prevail most widely and, mostly, quite non-violently, being peacefully adopted, one by one, by more and more individuals, opting out of the inferior ones or the "non-solutions". But no system will ever win absolutely over all others, among all people and for all times. As someone once said: "Each new generation is an invasion by barbarians!" - Exitil@aol.com - Agreed. - J.Z.: On ethics, morality and rights we will probably never come to agree. For me they are essential features for free future societies, at least for their peaceful interrelationships. Libertarianism and anarchism as well, without rights and liberties are rather meaningless to me. - PIOT, John Zube, 26.3.00.
ARISTOCRACY & PANARCHISM: It was long an autonomous State within the State. Fichte mentions it as an example for individual secessionism and exterritorially autonomous communities. Alas, the aristocrats were mostly not content with ruling themselves but, being victims of their superiority complex, they almost always tried to dominate the lower classes, the plebes and to overcome the power of kings and emperors and, naturally, resisted democracies and republics and were not enough of an intellectual elite to think through the principles, rights and liberties of genuine autonomy for all. – J.Z., 27.12.04.
ARMAMENTS: Governments are too irrational and violent, coercively organized and financed, in practice, and also too irresponsible and too much concerned with their own power only, to be permitted to be militarily organized and armed or to hire professional armed forces for their purposes, or to command any militia forces. - J.Z. 15.9.87. – GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, MILITIA
ARMAMENTS: When people are willing to spend large amounts in order to kill or be killed, then it is no surprise when some people make great profits from this kind of stupidity. - J.Z., 25.3.84. - How many people would spend on government armament under voluntary taxation? - J.Z., 30.1.93. – PROFIT, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, PANARCHISM, WAR AIMS
ARMS RACE: The increase of armaments that is intended in each nation to produce consciousness of strength, and a sense of security, does not produce these effects. On the contrary, it produces a consciousness of the strength of other nations and a sense of fear. Fear begets suspicion and distrust and evil imaginings of all sorts... - The enormous growth of armaments in Europe, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them - it was these that made World War I inevitable." - Sir Edward Grey, 1st Viscount of Allodon, "25 Years." - And many other aspects of territorial warfare States. - J.Z., 1.2.93.
ARMENIANS IN ROMAN EMPIRE: Under the rule of Justinian (483-565, A.D.), the Armenians were granted the benefit of the same laws on certain subjects as those by which the Romans were ruled; but questions of marriage, succession to property, and personal status generally, were left to be settled either by the Armenians themselves or by a magistrate named by the Emperor to administer Armenian law.2 (2 Pears, Fall of Constantinople (New York, 1886), p. 148. – Liu, Exterritoriality, page 27.)
ARMINJON, P.: Etrangers et Protégés dans l'Empire Ottoman, Paris, 1903.
ARRANGEMENTS, FRIENDLY: You see, you have many possibilities of gain if you come to a friendly arrangement, but none at all if you insist on your legal rights." - Isaac Asimov, Foundation & Earth, p.82. – Laws and whole legal systems can only satisfy those, who individually subscribed to them. Today most laws are territorially imposed upon the majority, who do not even know of their existence and would not have the time and energy to spare to read them even once, although they are supposed to abide by them. – J.Z., 4.11.10., LAWS, PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM,. CONTRACTS, LEGAL CLAIMS
ARROGANCE: It is arrogance to suppose that one man or one woman or one group of man and women can know what is good for another or for a collection of others, and it is a high crime against humanity to act upon such an assumption.” - H. S. Ferns, The Disease of Government, p.58. - Every territorial party, politician and bureaucrat commits that kind of crime daily. - J.Z., 30.1.93. - KNOWLEDGE, IGNORANCE, FOOLISHNESS, INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM
ARSON AGAINST SCHOOLS: If we force school-age kids to attend schools, some of them will burn schools down. If we force some dissidents to remain subjects of the present States, some of them will turn into terrorists. Remove the initial coercion - the compulsory membership in schools and States. Then both, arson and terrorism would be greatly reduced. - J.Z., 23.6.79.
ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS: See the Atlantis and the Minerva Project. The largest comparable projects may be land recovery schemes like those practised in Holland or expansion of land areas to provide airports, like the one in Hong Kong and in Sydney.
ARTISTIC LICENCE & PANARCHISM:
ASHBY, WILLIAM ROSS, Design for a Brain (The origin of adaptive behaviour) (1960) - Gian Piero de Bellis thinks that some of his thoughts are so relevant to panarchism and polyarchism, that he selected passages from this book and put them on his website, on 14.2.09, under the title: Feedback, Adaptation and Stability. These remarks are truthful but still only in very general terms and these do not clearly enough indicate all the realities that they do sum up. - J.Z., 10.10.11: http://www.panarchy.org/ashby/adaptation.1960.html - William Ross Ashby - GPdB added this note: They represent a mine of intuitions and data that could be applied to the social environment (e.g. society as a brain in constant search of dynamic balance). This mental exercise would highlight the past and current failings in adapting to the requirements of the environment by any centralised ruler (e.g. the central state, the central bank, the central planner, etc.) intent on ignoring reality and the limits imposed by reality and in pursuit of extravagant power and riches. Being this the actual case, the final result is likely to be a disastrous feedback that amplifies disequilibria and plunges everybody into a protracted depression or even a never ending decadence; unless we understand how the human brain works and we are willing to put again nature and human nature as the central focus of our thinking and caring.
ASHWORTH, GEORGINA: Editor, World Minorities, Volume One, Quartermaine House, Sunbury, 1977, indexed, 167pp, JZL. Also, ibid, 1978, World Minorities. A Second Volume, indexed, 159pp, JZL. (JZ Library) - She is Research Director of the Minority Rights Group, whose publications are listed. Both works seem to confine themselves to descriptions of the problem. - They remind me of the endless volumes on unemployment, inflation, poverty, war and oppression, which seem never arrive at rightful and sensible cures. - J.Z., 1.2.1999.
ASIMOV, ISAAC: The End of Eternity, John Curley & Associates, Inc., South Yarmouth, Ma, 1955. – It contains some statements with ideas similar to those of panarchism. Page 447: “Whom do you mean by ‘we’? Man would not be a world but a million worlds. We would have the infinite in our grasp. Each world would have its own stretch of the Centuries, each its own values, a chance to seek happiness after ways of its own. There are many happinesses, many goods, infinite variety. … That is the Basic state of mankind.” - Page 449: “The number of Realities is infinite. The number of any subclass of Realities is also infinite.” (For political, social and economic systems the same applies as for religions and sects.) – Page 457: “This is Earth. Not the eternal and only home of mankind, but only a starting point of an infinite adventure. All you need do is make the decision. It is yours to make.” – Panarchism provides this kind of freedom options – without the need for space travel, in the same way as individual secession from a territorial State obviates for the secessionist the need to flee to or try to find another and more free country in the world. – J.Z., 23.11.04. - Only one ideology or faith or system for a whole planet is even more wrongful than e.g.: Equal laws for all people in a country or the same religion for all of them, or the same education and old age insurance system or the same protection and jurisdiction system. - J.Z., 28.11.11.
ASSAF, S.: In the Tents of Jacob, Jerusalem, 1943, in Hebrew, on self-government.
ASSAF, S.: Texts and Studies in Jewish History, Jerusalem, 1946, in Hebrew, on self-government. - All such texts reveal great historical scholarship but, in my opinion, rarely draw sufficient conclusions from the historical traditions they report on. This might be explainable through the all too prolonged, wide-spread and severe prosecutions that Jews mostly suffered under. It made them generalize and disinclined to sufficiently appreciate the degrees of exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities that they did achieve, for periods, in some countries, and to ponder how this freedom tradition could be modified, extended and applied to our times, not only for the benefit of Jews but for all other volunteer communities, even Arabic and other antisemitic or anti-zionist ones, and how such communities could not only help to overcome, via experimental freedom under full exterritorial autonomy, the remaining religious, racial and ethnic prejudices but all other political, economic and social problems. They rather consider these traditions as mere adaptions to their times, as temporary self-help measures under very difficult conditions, as the best that could possibly achieved then, rather than as the beginnings for new, free, just, peaceful and prosperous communities for all volunteers who are tolerant enough in their thinking and actions for this framework. This kind of practical and idealistic utopianism should have been explored in their Talmudic studies as well. But perhaps the "myth of the chosen people", which they, too, upheld, prevented them from doing so, in most instances, in spite of the enormous quantity of scholarship which they provided. - Needless to say perhaps: Integration, assimilation or "equal rights" in even the best territorial republics and democracies is not the ultimate solution or even an intermediate one for them, either, although it can be widely considered as a lesser evil compared with most of the other presently available options for them. The territorial solution of Israel has led to many internal and external problems and not to peace, security, freedom and justice for all in the region and may not be considered as worth the long struggle for it and the maintenance costs. But for many victims pogroms and of the Holocaust it seemed to be the one obvious alternative solution and like most territorial statists, they did not bother to consider the exterritorial and voluntaristic alternatives, although they could have brought peace to Israel long ago. Panarchies do not have any strongly dissenting minorities or borders to defend and do not constitute targets for mass extermination devices. PIOT, J.Z., 31.1.1999.
ASSISTANCE, MUTUAL: in “Science and the Modern World”, Alfred North Whitehead had suggested that any being which by its influences deteriorates its environment commits suicide. And that those organisms are successful which modify their environment so as to assist each other." - Alexei & Cory Panshin, The N.Y. REVIEW Of SF, No. 16, Dec. 89. – Alas, human beings have not yet attained all the genuine individual human rights and liberties to modify their own environment when it comes to the political, economic and social systems that they do prefer for themselves. They are stuck in country-wide territorial prisons, almost maximum security ones, as far as these rights and liberties are concerned. All the powers in this sphere are concentrated in the territorial systems, i.e. in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, who have not proven their management competence in free market competitions in their kinds of “business”. Their power rests upon territorially imposed constitutions, legislation and jurisdiction, majority voting that is largely based upon ignorance, misunderstandings, popular errors and prejudices, false assumptions and conclusions, tax slavery and governmentally mismanaged or controlled education systems and mass media, on tax slaves, military slaves and also numerous legalized but wrongful monopolies. – J.Z., 4.11.10. – PERSONAL LAWS, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM
ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, PANARCHISM: An indissoluble association is no longer an association but an imposition, a despotism, like an indissoluble marriage or partnership. – J.Z. 16.8.94. - State membership, too, should be quite voluntary. - J.Z., 4.9.04.
ASSOCIATIONAL DIVERSITY: An association in diversity can be more powerful than one based upon imposed uniformity. But the correct military and political form for this is not easily seen and realized, particularly when one thinks only in conventional political and military terms. - J.Z., 31.3.89
ASSOCIATIONAL ANARCHISM: Proposed by an individualist anarchist, Lev Chernyi (P. D. Turchaninov), according to Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, p.180. – If applied exterritorially and to voluntary societies and communities of statists as well then it amounts to panarchism. – J.Z., 4.11.10. - PANARCHISM, SECESSIONS, VOLUNTARISM, ASSOCIATIVE INDIVIDUAISM
ASSOCIATIONISM, AN-TERRITORIAL ALSO VOLUNTARY & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM VS. TERRITORIAL DOMINATION & SUBORDINATION.
ASSOCIATIONISM & VOLUNTARISM, WITH OR WITHOUT FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY: Associationism without full exterritorial autonomy is enough for some purposes but it is not enough in significant spheres: "In a highly complex cultural system, such as that in the U.S., there are scores of sub-cultural groups, which allow individuals to move from one to another until he finds one in which he fits fairly well, and can operate efficiently and happily." - John W. Campbell, editorial, Analog Jan. 70, p. 178. - Just let us expand this experience to political, economic and social systems, all for volunteers and exterritorially and autonomously organized. - J.Z., 9.4.92.
ASSOCIATIONISM: Voluntary & Exterritorial vs. Compulsory & Territorial, in every sphere, with no exception for "public affairs" and "public institutions": Page 21, in ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505.
ASSOCIATIONISM, VOLUNTARY WORK IN THE USA: When de Tocqueville visited the United States in its early years he found that associations were the most characteristic and vital part of American society. Associations – rather than government or profit-seeking business – provided for education, hospitals, libraries, and canal trasportation. Even with the rise of business in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and with the growth of government in the latter century, this association sector has remained vital. Today there are approximately one million of these associations, worth more than $ 50 billion. About 5 % of the labor force, or one million more than the total paid civilian employment of the national government, is directly employed in this sector; and in terms of unpaid employment, half of adult Americans have done volunteer work at one time or another in their lives.” – page 54: Donald J. Devine, University of Maryland, “Does Freedom Work? Liberty and Justice in America”, Caroline House Books, Green Hill Publishers, Inc., Ottawa, Illinois, copyright 1978, ISBN 0-916054-65-9 (clothbound), 0-916054-56-X (paperbound), Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 77-15914, (Notes 56-58 are not reproduced here.- J.Z.) Ibid, page 107: “Now, there are about one million nonprofit associations with three million employees as compared to 70 000 governments with sixteen million employees and twelve million businesses with sixty-seven million employees.” – If only the territorial governments went out of their ways, voluntary associations would soon take over in every sphere and would be able and willing to do much more for less – but always only as much as is really wanted and as people are willing to pay for or labour for. – J.Z., 17.3.05.
ASSOCIATIONS: A long association - prolonged human contact, when a man and woman live together - this ends up producing a sort of rot, a poison.” - Ugo Betti, The Inquiry, 1944-45, 1.10, ed. Gino Rizzo. - Divorce and individual secessionism can stop this rot and must be free. No association should last beyond its mutual usefulness to the associates. - J.Z., 31.1.93. – MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM
ASSOCIATIONS: An association is really rather like a comet - a large tail of docile followers dragged along by a small dynamic head." - Jouvenal, The Pure Theory of Politics, Cambridge, 1963, p. 30. - This applies more to the coercively, territorially and hierarchically organized groups than to others. - J.Z., 28.1.87, 31.1.93. We have still numerous private associations from which members can freely secede or drop out and frequently do. Only those which claim a territorial monopoly do not permit this freedom to their involuntary members or subjects. – J.Z., 6.11.08.
ASSOCIATIONS: Associations are true. The State and Society are a lie." - Mackay, Stirner, The Ego and His Own, p.147. („Wahr ist der Verein, unwahr der Staat und die Gesellschaft.“) – It is only the territorial State and its kind of society that is full or lies and errors. – By finally ending territorialism, its coercion and monopolies, all present States and future societies and communities would become reduced to mere associations of volunteers. As such they could, largely, only wrong and harm their own voluntary members. – Without territorialism all associations can try to come close to their own supposed ideal. - J.Z., 4.11.10.
ASSOCIATIONS: At any given moment of history it is the function of associations of devoted individuals to undertake tasks which clear-sighted people perceive to be necessary, but which nobody else is willing to perform." - Aldous Huxley, The Doors of Perception, Shiprecords. – They should be conceded full exterritorial autonomy or full experimental freedom for this purpose. – J.Z., 4.11.10. - VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, PUBLIC SERVICES, COMPETITION, AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIALISM, PLURALISM
ASSOCIATIONS: exercise individual liberty and practice voluntary association." - Edmund A. Opitz, Thinking About Economics, THE FREEMAN, 5/79, p. 289. – Did he ever propose it for all kinds of exterritorially autonomous societies and communities of volunteers, including not only anarchists and libertarians but also statists of all kinds? – J.Z., 4.11.10. - VOLUNTARISM
ASSOCIATIONS: Figgis even more perhaps than his masters saw the liberty of groups as the essential element in a free society. 'The battle of freedom in this century', he declared from the pulpit, 'is the battle of small societies to maintain their inherent life as against the all-devouring Leviathan of the whole.' Small groups in particular must be allowed to take their place alongside the larger associations if freedom is to be a positive thing." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p. 31. - And they ought to have the choice to become exterritorially partly or completely autonomous. If they were free to associate across present borders, many of them would become more than local minorities or local suppressed majorities (by majorities predominating in other areas of a territory). They might then become as large as small to large nation State are today. - J.Z., 31.1.93. – AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL VIA TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, DECENTRALIZATION & CENTRALIZATION
ASSOCIATIONS: Forced association, even with someone innocuous, is bound to provoke resentment." - Digogenes of Panarchy, THE CONNECTION 135, p.18. - In the case of territorial States it even provokes terrorism, national and civil wars and revolutions and many attempts at genocide or "ethnic cleansing", as the latest mass murder phrase runs. - J.Z., 31.1.93.
ASSOCIATIONS: free and spontaneous organization from below upward, by means of free associations..." - Michael Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy, 1873. – Alas, he wrote here and elsewhere in general terms that almost no one among his followers arrived at panarchism. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ASSOCIATIONS: Full freedom of association does not yet exist because it would also mean freedom to disassociate oneself from all present States, completely or partly and to organise e.g.: 1. new voluntaristic States or competing societies, exterritorial ones, 2. volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights, 3. alternative unions, e.g. of young or coloured people or women, if the existing unions infringe their rights, 4. payment associations using other than the official dollar as private means of exchange and standards of value, to avoid unemployment and inflation among themselves, 5. free trade associations, world-wide, running production and distribution without custom duties and other protectionist interventions among themselves, 6. world federations of any kind, autonomous and exterritorial ones, 7. associations of experimenters which exempted themselves from the supposed benefits of certain laws, for all their internal activities, because they consider these interventions to be rather harmful or wrong, 8. autonomous associations of drug addicts, who opted out of our moralistic and health restrictions, and even 9., associations of mass murderers, like the abortionists, who kill now about 40 to 100 million of their own unborn children every year. - I for one don't want to have to live in forced association with such people, nor do I want to engage in a civil war against them. 10. Freedom to organise or participate in open air meetings, in all public places and in private ones with the owner's permission, without asking for prior police permits, wherever and whenever one does not block or severely obstructs traffic. - J.Z., n.d. & 31.1.93. You name you own examples for voluntary associationism – among possibly tenthousands. – J.Z., 7.11.08.
ASSOCIATIONS: Herder explains that the forced organisation which constitutes the state maintains itself primarily by continually creating external interests which run contrary to the interests of other states; and for this reason it is ill-suited to function as a mediator and adjuster. Therefore, he substituted for the idea of the international league of states, advocated by Kant, his 'association of all thinking men in all continents' (*), proceeding from the correct view that mutual agreement between the human groups of the different countries is not achievable by dictation from above, but only from below upwards, by the will of the people themselves. By this 'all the prejudices of state interests, of native religion, and most foolish prejudice of all, of rank and class, are mitigated, confined, and made harmless.' But, 'such victories over prejudice are' - Herder maintains - 'achieved from within outward, not from without inward." - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.187. - From individual secessionism to voluntary associationism. From territorial sovereignty to individual sovereignty, from compulsory to voluntary associationism, from territorial law to personal law, from territorialism to exterritorialism, from archies to panarchies. - - (*) Since most thinking men think differently on most subjects, many such associations would be required - as many as are wanted by volunteers. - J.Z., 31.1.93.
ASSOCIATIONS: I am always longing to be with men more excellent than myself." - Charles Lamb, Letter to S.T. Coleridge, Jan. 10,1797. – Let each become free to follow his own hero, guru, prophet, leader etc. but never into territorially attacking or suppressing the free and different choices, constitutions, laws and institutions that other people have chosen for themselves. – J.Z., 4.11.10. – FOLLOWERSHIP, PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, GENUINE LEADERSHIP
ASSOCIATIONS: I am here because you see in me the promise, the promise that we made 200 years ago in this city - the promise kept. We have kept it, on Anarres. We have nothing but our freedom. We have nothing to give you but your own freedom. We have no law but the single principle of mutual aid between individuals. WE HAVE NO GOVERNMENT BUT THE SINGLE PRINCIPLE OF FREE ASSOCIATION. We have no states, no nations, no presidents, no premiers, no chiefs, no generals, no bosses, no bankers, no landlords, no wages, no charity, no police, no soldiers, no wars. Nor do we have much else. We are sharers, not owners. We are not prosperous. None of us is rich. None of us is powerful..." – Le Guin, The Dispossessed, 249. - Full freedom would have given them much, by making them very productive. Alas, too many anarchists do not extend associationism and its freedoms and opportunities into economics. - Obviously, they dispossessed and impoverished themselves by their anti-property policy of sharing. Man can do that successfully only in very close family and friendship circles. It cannot replace nation- and world-wide market cooperation and competition. When some sense is mixed with much nonsense the result can never be great and often it is disastrous. - J.Z., 31.1.93. – PROPERTY, SHARING, COMMUNISM, PROSPERITY
ASSOCIATIONS: I prefer association to gregariousness ... it is a community of purpose that constitutes society." - Benjamin Disraeli, Sybil. - SOCIETY, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-HELP, PANARCHISM.
ASSOCIATIONS: In early societies a man's position is determined by his place in the complex of traditional groups into which he has been born, and history shows men gradually emancipating themselves from this closed society, and placing themselves in associations and in relationships of their own choice. Maine regarded groups as of primary importance, being the cells out of which the body politic is formed." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, 1975, pp 54/55, on Sir Henry Maine, Lectures on the early history of institutions, p. 396 – Personal law associations can be exterritorially quite autonomous and do not necessarily or freely form territorial political institutions. Most such conversions are the results of conquests or usurpations. – J.Z., 7.11.08.
ASSOCIATIONS: in the teeth of hard glad weather, - In the blown wet face of the sea: - While three men hold together, - The kingdoms are less by three." - A. C. Swinburne, Poems and Ballads: A Son in Time of Order, 1852. – Let all dissenters secede, not only from kings but also from republics and democracies. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ASSOCIATIONS: Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto: 'a free association of people in which the free development of the individual is the condition of the free development of all', where organisation exists to administer things rather than people." - David De Leon, For Democracy Where We Work, in: Reinventing Anarchy, 320. - Whoever administers the things of people does administer the people, too. But some take a while to learn that lesson. – Mentioning the term “free” three times in this single sentence, twice the word “development” and once “association” does not make up for the coercive expropriation of the property of people that is involved. He even claims this to be individualistic! – Elsewhere he and Engels attacked voluntary communist experiments as utopian and “unscientific”. They never favoured genuine cooperative production and self-management or autonomous work groups or purchase rather than conquests or occupation of enterprises. They imagined themselves as becoming TERRITORIALLY in charge of all the property of all the people, naturally always “in the best interests of all the people”, just like all too many politicians of today, in the “Welfare State”, but even more comprehensively. - J.Z., 31.1.93. – COMMUNISM, PROPERTY RIGHTS, FREEDOM, ASSOCIATIONS, GOVERNMENTS VS. THE PEOPLE, EXPROPRIATION, TOTALITARIANISM, MARXISM, STATE SOCIALISM
ASSOCIATIONS: One day Saint-Simon declared, "I cannot imagine association without government by someone." - Thierry answered: "And I cannot imagine association without liberty." - reported in Elie Halevy, The Era of Tyrannies. – GOVERNMENT, LIBERTY
ASSOCIATIONS: Philosopher Lancelot Law Whyte stressed the urgency of a network: 'We who already share intimations of this emergent attitude must become aware of one another... COLLECT ALLIES BY TIMELY SIGNALS. (J.Z.: Capitalized by me.) - The only possibility for our time, said Joseph Campbell, the mythologist, in 1968, is 'the free association of men and women of like spirit... not a handful but a thousand heroes, ten thousand heroes, who will create a future image of what humankind can be.'" - Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.60. - All kinds of pioneers, experimenters and innovators must be free - not subject to bureaucrats, politicians and majority votes of outsiders, as long as their activities are undertaken at their own risk and expense. To decide whether it does, might in some instances require some arbitration. It should not require an almost suicidal kind of heroism to start something new. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 31.1.93. – NETWORKS, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW ASSOCIATIONS, EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS, OF VOLUNTEERS
ASSOCIATIONS: Recent theories of social and cultural pluralism must clearly be distinguished from the political pluralism with which this monograph is concerned. J. S. Furnivall employed the term 'plural society' to describe a type of society which resulted from the European colonisation of tropical lands. A plural society, according to Furnivall, exists when there are a number of distinct groups living side by side, but separately; they meet only in the market-place. Religious, cultural, racial and linguistic divisions re-enforce one another so that the groups form quite distinct blocks. The political entity is held together, not by shared values or by common institutions, but by force, which is exercised by an elite of colonial administrators and their local collaborators, who form a small but coherent minority in the society. Furnivall also claimed that these groups into which plural societies are divided, are not natural, organic associations, but are aggregates of individuals - they are crowds, not communities. The capitalist economic system, which has been the invariable companion of imperial expansion, led to the break-up of village life and traditional ties...." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, 1975, p. 119. - That under territorial State pressures and privileges many associations are not natural and free growths and that natural societies are even destroyed under these conditions, is conceded by me. But that genuinely free and capitalistic developments would merely tend to dissolve old associations is denied by me. It merely allows their individual members to leave them - and gives them, individually, the choice to establish new affiliations, which they do like more. Legally sanctioned and customary or traditional associations should not be the only options for anyone. - J.Z., 31.1.93. - The more freedom, the more different voluntary associations there will be. - J.Z., 26.9.02. – Also: the more they will become exterritorially autonomous – if that is their desire. – J.Z., 7.11.08. – PLURALISM, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUALISM, VOLUNTARISM
ASSOCIATIONS: We do not believe that the free man must needs be solitary." - Emmanuel Mournier, Be Not Afraid: To the Heart of Materialism. - - Let people secede individually and then individually and autonomously associate into their kinds of personal law associations. - J.Z., 31.1.93. ALONE, INDIVIDUALISM, ALLIANCES, PANARCHISM
ASSOCIATIONS: Yet such associations can be rightful and desirable only in so far as they are purely voluntary. No man can rightfully be coerced into joining one, or supporting one, against his will. His own interest, his own judgement and his own conscience alone must determine whether he will join this association, or that; or whether he will join any. If he chooses to depend for the protection of his own rights, solely upon himself, and upon such voluntary assistance as other persons may freely offer to him when the necessity for it arises, he has a perfect right to do so, and this course would be a reasonably safe one for him to follow, so long as he himself should manifest the ordinary readiness of mankind, in like cases, to go to the assistance and defence of injured persons; and should also himself to 'live honestly, hurt no one, and give to every one his due.' For such a man is reasonably sure of always having friends and defenders enough in case of need, whether he shall have joined any association, or not." - Spooner, Natural Law. - He might merely have joined an insurance group, credit union or a fraternal or religious welfare or self-help group. - J.Z., 31.1.93. – PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATIONS, PANARCHIES
ASSOCIATIVE INDIVIDUALISM: I saw that term somewhere. Source? Not a bad term to describe panarchism, either. Alas, many who are not individualists would not be attracted to it. - J.Z. 10.1.93. - Only the individual choice option for their non-individualist "ideal" would tend to attract them. - J.Z., 9.12.03. - ASSOCIATIONAL ANARCHISM
ASUBEL, NATHAN: Pictorial History of the Jewish People. Crown Publishers, N.Y., 11th printing, 1961, page 135: 1/2 p. extract on “Jewish Self-Rule”: 146, in PP 1540. Also extract, 1p, from page 223, on the remains of an ancient Jewish community in China, biologically and by dress integrated with the Chinese after several centuries but not yet religiously: 147, in PP 1540. – The latter seems to indicate that, in the long run, voluntary, biological and individual integration is stronger than voluntary and group segregation based on race, religion and culture. Or it might indicate that a panarchy, to persist over the centuries, must have a minimum, if not an optimum size. So far we do not know enough to draw firm conclusions of this kind. But we can conclude that the voluntary segregation as well as the voluntary integration that occurred there was peaceful, even if It had led to many family squabbles. – We might also take note that distinct Chinese communities in the Western World have by now existed also for a considerable time and they have at least their underground community autonomy, in which they try to deal with their own problems in their own way without bothering the institutions of the “foreign devils” – It is noteworthy that orthodox Jewish and Chinese communities have the lowest numbers of juvenile delinquents. - Chinese secret societies and criminal gangs are another matter. Like territorial governments they fight violently for turf and power and to gather taxes or tributes from their victims. – Territorial police forces have been no more effective in coping with them than they have been with the Mafia in other countries. - J.Z., 9.2.1999.
ASYLUM & PANARCHISM: The right to exterritorial asylum from persecution is even more denied to innocents than is the territorial asylum in other countries. Exceptions to this rule are only those who succeed in getting asylum in a foreign embassy. - J.Z., 12.9.04.
ATERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM: With territorial politics you haven’t got a prayer’s chance while with panarchistic choices all peaceful and productive individuals get their chances, aterritorially, in their own voluntary associations and communities. – J.Z., 29.12.04. – See: EXTERRITORIALITY, NON-TERRITORIAL.
ATHEISM: Atheism indicates force of mind, but to a certain degree only.” - Blaise Pascal, Pensees, XXIV, 1670. - Particularly if it demonstrates itself incapable of drawing the panarchistic conclusion from the analogy of religious tolerance, applied even to atheists. - J.Z., 12.7.86. - Theism indicates a mentality but only that of a certain degree. - J.Z., 31.1.93.
ATHEISM: Belief in the existence of God is as groundless as it is useless. The world will never be happy until atheism is universal." – Source? How many were murdered in Spain and in the Soviet Union alone, under that assumption? - The world, every superstitious fool in it, need not be but could be happy, as long as the atheists can be happy and free in their atheism. The belief that all ought to share a particular faith, universally, country-wide or even world-wide, even if merely an atheistic faith or an anarchistic faith, brings us into the greatest dangers, in a world of "ethical infants and nuclear giants" ( General Omar Bradley). Atheistic intolerance is morally no better than religious intolerance. - J.Z., 12.7.86, 31.1.93, 4.11.10. – Full religious liberty would also tolerate the “faith” of atheists. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
ATHEISM: Most of the atheists, rationalists, humanists etc. do remain, alas, victims to the usual prejudices, errors, myths, spleens and dogmas that exist in the political, economic and social spheres (including the moral or ethical sphere) and thus stagnate on the road to full enlightenment. Being enlightened only in the religious sphere is by far not enough. The theory and practice of panarchism in these other three spheres might get them moving again, on the road to enlightenment, often in the right direction, at least by and by. – J.Z., 3.8.07, 19.10.07. - ENLIGHTENMENT, FAITH, PREJUDICES, ERRORS, MYTHS, DOGMAS, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, RELIGIONS, ENLIGHTENMENT, CHURCHES, SECTS, DIS.
ATHEISM: There's even a new organization called the Reformed Atheists, who are claiming tax-exempt status as a religion." - Jim St. Clair, Selling the promised Land, in ANALOG, May 77, p.155. - I am afraid that they were as unsuccessful in this as the various libertarian churches were. There are many other reformist and statist groups that would be interested in tax exemption and I hold that only a consistent and general program including e.g., voluntary taxation and full exterritorial minority autonomy for all, and expropriation of the politicians and bureaucrats, as far as all public assets are concerned, can unite them with the corresponding interests of anarchists and libertarians.- J.Z., 31.1.93, 7.11.08.
ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY REVOLUTIONARIES & FREEDOM FIGHTERS: These atrocities are strongly related to the ignorance of most revolutionaries and resistance movement people of the proper methods to finance their revolutions. Thus Holzhauer's work on "Barzahlung in besetzten Gebieten" is still important for our times. One great wrong, like central banking and its note issue monopoly, with its legal tender power, leads to many other wrongs. Under full monetary and financial freedom rightful resistance fighters against despotic regimes will have a much better chance. See: HOLZHAUER, GEORG, Barzahlung und Zahlungsmittelversorgung in militaerisch besetzten Gebieten, 1939, 115 pages, with bibliography, in PEACE PLANS 532. The manuscript to this work, with some notes by me, was also fiched in PEACE PLANS 531. A manuscript by Ulrich von Beckerath especially on financing rightful revolutions was, unfortunately, burnt in an air raid on Berlin in November 1943. But some of B.'s ideas on this subject are preserved in his remaining later correspondence. – U. von Beckerath did also strongly criticize the „collective responsibility“ notions that lead to atrocities. The Christian churches and sects haven’t managed to do so, not even after 2000 years, although they do pretend to take an ethical and spiritual stand. They still stand by their jealous and revengeful „God“, which prosecuted even the offspring of „sinners“ into the 4th generation! That idea remains even part of their Ten Commandments. Just like the Koran has its section on extreme intolerance towards non-believers. (Koran, sura xlvii, verse 4, "When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast and fetters.") - Even religious tolerance is still a primary requirement in many countries today, not to speak of the equivalent political, economic and social tolerance. - J.Z., 17.1.05.
ATTACK THE SYSTEM, Attack the System » Free Market Anarcho-Communism - This view is called “free market anarchism” and it is also called “panarchy”. This view is elaborated upon here on this web-site: http://www.panarchy.org/ ... - attackthesystem.com/free-market-anarcho-communism/ - 50k - Cached - Similar pages -
ATTRACTION: I believe rather in drawing men toward good than shutting them out from bad." – Emile Zola. – ATTRACTION VS. PROHIBITION, COMPULSION, COERCION, VIOLENCE, INTOLERANCE, LEGISLATION, FORCE
ATTRACTION: In my judgement, one hasn't a prayer of being an effective worker in freedom's vineyard except as he grasps and adheres strictly to the law of attraction - that magnetism founded exclusively on the pursuit of excellence. Doubtless, many freedom devotees are influenced to employ wrong methods because of the success of such methods in destroying a free society. But creating a free society is a different matter and so must the methods be different. The methods that work in destroying are destructive when used in creating...." – Leonard E. Read, The Love of Liberty, 131. - POWER OF ATTRACTION, VOLUNTARY TAXATION, FULL MINORITY AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAWS, DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS, SOUND CURRENCIES COMPETITIVELY SUPPLIED, PERSONAL LAWS, FREE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS, LIBERTARIAN LIBRARY, ENCYCLOPAEDIA, ABSTRACTS, BIBLIOGRAPHY, REVIEWS, DIRECTORY, COMPREHENSIVE PUBLISHING & INDEXING, IDEAS ARCHIVE, REFUTATIONS ENCYCLOPAEDIA
ATTRACTION: there is a powerful alternative to compulsion, and it may be rediscovered when compulsory measures finally fail. It is called attraction." - Melvin D. Barger, THE FREEMAN, 10/67, p. 605. – ATTRACTION VS. COMPULSION, VOLUNTARISM
ATWATER, JAMES: Israel's Man of War & Peace, READER'S DIGEST, December 1972, p.219: "Dayan allowed the Arabs to maintain their own municipal governments, courts and school system." Further details in "TIME", Nov. 5th. 1979, pp.22 & 23.9. ? (J.Z. clippings.)
AUDACITY: Sapere aude! Dare to use your own reasoning powers!” - Quoted by Kant in his famous essay: What Is Enlightenment? - COURAGE, "ZIVILCOURAGE"
AUERBACH, JERALD S.: Justice Without Law? Resolving Disputes Without Lawyers. Oxford U.P., 1983, with notes and index, 182pp, JZL. - A worthwhile treatment of arbitration options. Social justice and egalitarian as well as anti-capitalist notions detract somewhat from the value of this work. He favours at least a choice not only of one form of arbitration but also among different arbitration systems: 111. However, choice not only among lawyers is required and among arbitration systems but also among constitutions, laws, judges, jury-, court-, police- and penal systems and methods as well as among other competitively supplied "public services". The author confined himself to one aspect. - The book is valuable already through its many bibliographic notes on arbitration titles. - J.Z., 24.1.1988, 31.1.1999. See also under ARBITRATION.
AUSTRALIAN, THE & ABORIGENES: 26.5.1972 , contains a report on a Federal Government committee report which sponsored a large measure of autonomy for aboriginals. Alas, territorial governments do go only very rarely far enough in recognizing autonomy for those who do not want to be ruled by them. - J.Z., 12.9.04. See: ABORIGINES.
AUSTRALIAN, THE & ABORIGENES: 29.4.1971, p. 8, editorial: Recognizing Aboriginal Rights, states, while being still tied to territorial and unity thinking: "... their right to full equality, which includes being allowed to form their own social and economic organizations."
AUSTRALIAN, THE & FOREIGN BASES: 30.11.1971: Bid for U.S. base inquiry". The article mentions, almost as an afterthought, that US law applies to the US bases in Australia. Naturally, that some of these bases are just appendages to the US nuclear holocaust machinery does cast a bad light on this kind of exterritoriality. These exterritorial communities are the few targets here which would really attract nuclear destructive devices.
AUTHOR LIST ON PANARCHISM: Especially on who is currently writing on or researching the subject.
AUTHORITARIAN SYSTEMS: Let almost all major authoritarian systems implode or puff apart, quite harmless, by removing their territorial borders and sovereign powers over all their dissenters. Let the resulting fragments fly their own way as far or stay as near as they want to go. If, instead, you keep them territorially, constitutionally, legally and juridically confined, then you create a dangerous and even explosive atmosphere. - J. Z., 21 1.99. - This is the equivalent to closing the safety valves in a steam boiler. - J.Z., 28.11.11.
AUTHORITARIANISM: Authoritarianism? Yes, but only among authoritarians! J.Z., 04-11.
AUTHORITARIANISM: Authoritarianism assumes (1) that we KNOW how everyone should live, and (2) that we have the right to FORCE them to live that way. The libertarian denies both. If man is to progress, some must try new ways. Many will fail. But we will all gain from those who find better ways." - Rod Manis, Manifesto, 118. - PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, TOLERANCE, ACTION, EXPERIMENTATION,
AUTHORITARIANISM: Authoritarianism is O.K. for those who desire and thus deserve it but no one else should be subjected to it. - J.Z., 26.7.87. - PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM
AUTHORITARIANISM: Authoritarianism ought to be scrapped.” - THE MATCH, Jan. 75. – For all but authoritarians! Let them alone suffer under their self-chosen “ideal”! – Panarchies even for them! J.Z., 7.11.08.
AUTHORITARIANISM: Every form of authoritarianism is, however, a small 'State', even if it has a membership of only two." - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus III, p.240. - I would say: a territorial State, not a voluntaristic, competing and panarchistic one. - J.Z., 1.2.93.
AUTHORITARIANISM: I have never heard of a consistent socialist. That is, I am not aware of any person who believes that authoritarianism should be universally applied, that the state should forcibly direct and control ALL creative and productive activities. There are areas that the most ardent Marxist would leave to free will and volition. In short, there is hardly a person who does not balk at authoritarianism in some of its forms." – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.81. - Read himself was an authoritarian not only with regard to his advocacy of a territorial limited government, one not only over its few present supporters but over all its present and future dissenters, but e.g. in his definition of socialism. Of over 500 definitions he picked upon just one, that of State Socialism, and acted as if it could sufficiently represent or stand for all other forms of it, even those forms that have been advocated for quite some time as libertarian socialism or communist anarchism and individualist anarchism or cooperative and voluntary socialism. Granted, even among these some authoritarian features remained, not to speak of most of the others, but they were certainly not identical with the State Socialists. Even the Marxists greatly disagree with each other and because of their all too general remarks about a future classless society and the withering away of the State, earlier on, they were welcomed by many anarchists. Most of the different socialists are against private property rights in all too many respects. But some are pure propertarians, too. Read remained blind towards these alternatives and authoritatively condemned the lot. - J.Z., 1.2.93.
AUTHORITARIANISM: I met recently the leader of a small republican party in Australia. With only about 1,000 members, he has already become almost inflexibly wedded to his party's programme, as supposedly containing the only or best solutions to all problems faced by Australians. The programme contains a small number of liberating points among a large number of authoritarian ones. Representing at best only 1 in 17,000 of the population, he aims to rule all and to impose his programme upon all, all - with the very best intentions, for he imagines that he knows all there is to know and that he could apply this knowledge best. He asked me about the panarchist alternative, and that makes him unique among Australian politicians, but showed not real interest my answers, which was not surprising, seeing his general authoritarian stand. He remained unaware how much exterritorial minority autonomy for all would improve his chances to come to rule at least over his own followers. Because he also stood for some liberties, like repeal of all drug laws and extension of the referendum option, a reduction of taxation and an end to frequent meddling with the old age security systems, he thought that we had sufficient in common for a cooperative working relationship. - Cooperation would only be possible for me with parties that had only a one or several points programme, all being for liberty or at least the liberty and tolerance involved in panarchism. -J.Z., 1.2.93, 7.11.08.
AUTHORITARIANISM: Ideology which assumes that decisions are and can be rightfully made by those in authority (power), elected or self-appointed etc., rather than being made by individuals themselves or chosen by individuals for themselves. Compare the choice of a physician as an advisor and specialist for themselves, individually. There is a great difference between coercively imposing authorities upon peaceful others, who have not individually asked for that authority over themselves and voluntarily and individually asking for or accepting authorities as specialists. The latter is part of social and capitalistic and individualistic market relationships, i.e. of division of labour, free enterprise and free exchange, of the economic means. Authoritarianism is the political means and usually connected with territorialism. But in private criminal cases authoritarianism can also be applied non-territorially, against victims not given the chance to opt out of e.g. a Mafia rule. Terrorists, not yet territorially ruling, but having territorial ambitions, do also impose their authoritarian decisions as far as they can, with terror measures over whole territories and their populations. Only an authority that is individually asked for and continues to be granted by individuals and authority that is exercised in self-defence over aggressive people, can be rightful. - J.Z., n.d. & 1.2.93. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIAL MONOPOLISM
AUTHORITARIANISM: The authoritarian attempts to be the master of others when, obviously, he is not even master of himself. Plato likens the authoritarian to the man who passes his life, not in the building of his inner self, but in fighting and combating other men. Need we do more than look about us to confirm the rightness of Plato's observations?” – Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership, 90. - We have to try to turn all men as far as possible from fighters, looters and dominators, or from warriors and barbarians, to creators, producers, industrial and trading and thus peaceful, just and free people. A genuine human culture and civilisation has barely begun. Our cannibalistic and slavery origins still persist in all too many traits. Man, individual man, is still considered as merely a means by most others, instead of as an end in himself. - J.Z., 1.2.93. DOMINATION, RULE, LAWS, STATISM, CENTRALIZATION, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENT
AUTHORITY, POWER, AUTHORITARIANISM, MIGHT, SUBJUGATION, IMPOSITIONS, INTERFERENCES, AGGRESSIONS, DOMINATION, TERRITORIALISM, TERRITORIALLY ORGANIZED INTOLERANCE: … it’s important that no one ever be given authority to impose his or her opinion on others by force. – L. Neil Smith, Forge of the Elders, 578.
AUTHORITY ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL CONSENT: What is missing is the provision of authority, if there is to be one at all, only upon the basis of consent, i.e. chosen by individuals and for themselves only. - J.Z., 27.5.87, 10.8.87.
AUTHORITY & CONSENT: Die Grenze der Autoritaet liegt dort wo die freiwillige Zustimmung aufhoert." - Jouvenal. (The limit of authority lies where voluntary consent ceases.)
AUTHORITY: A government may be freely chosen, but it is still not all of us. It is some men vested with authority over other men." - Charles Frankel, The Democratic Prospect, N.Y., Harper & Row, 1964, p. 136 & 30. - It is not freely chosen when it operates on the principles of majoritarianism combined with territorialism. - J.Z., 2.2.93. – This simple common-sense wisdom is still totally ignored in the foreign policy towards Iraq, Afghanistan and most other “countries”, “peoples”, “states” or governments. – and even in the “own” democracy”. – J.Z., 7.11.08. – DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATION, VOTING, PANARCHISM, PARLIAMENTS, POLITICIANS, UNITY, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM
AUTHORITY: According to our advice each should stay on the self-chosen path and should not let himself be impressed by authority or public opinion or dominant fashion.” - Goethe, “Sprueche in Prosa”, J.Z. tr. of: “Nach unserm Rat bleibe Jeder auf dem eingeschlagenen Wege und lasse sich ja nicht durch Autoritaet imponieren, durch allgemeine Uebereinstimmung bedraengen und durch Mode hinreissen.” - PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DOING THE OWN THING
AUTHORITY: All authority is quite degrading." - Oscar Wilde. – Especially that of territorialism. – J.Z., 4.11.10. - For those who practise it and those, who are subjected to it, territorially, without free choice among these "doctors" or e.g. naturopathic professionals. Compare: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - To call preparations for nuclear mass murder "defence" or "deterrence" is one extreme instance of this corruption. - J.Z., 28.11.11.
AUTHORITY: All men of common sense disregard authority." - Lysander Spooner. – Are they, as yet, free enough to do so? - SECESSIONISM
AUTHORITY: And what is political authority? It is the right to compel people to do what they do not want to do or to refrain from doing what they want to do. There is nothing else that government can do, that it has any competence for." - Frank Chodorov, Out of Step, p.60. - The right? And is it really competent even in that? - J.Z., 2.2.93. – Think e.g. of the often very extensive black markets. – J.Z., 7.11.08. – Territorial powers are not based upon any genuine right. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
AUTHORITY: Authority ends where voluntary assent ends.” - Bertrand de Jouvenal. – At least it SHOULD. But to achieve that the knowledge of genuine individual rights and liberties must become wide-spread and also an ideal militia of volunteers to uphold these rights and liberties for all those, who can rightfully claim them and do so. – J.Z., 4.11.10.
AUTHORITY: Authority is the capacity to win the consent of others.” - Jouvenal. - The majoritarians think it is enough to win the consent of the majority to rule over it and the minorities. But this consensus entitles only to rule over the majority. Each minority must remain free to reach its own consensus. That is already achieved in most spheres of daily living. Only the spheres of political, economic and social systems are pre-empted by territorial powers. Liberation will not be complete until they, too, are reduced to individual consent and exterritorial autonomy among volunteers. - J.Z., 2.2.93. - PANARCHISM, CONSENT, VOTING, REPRESENTATION, DELEGATION, MAJORITY, MINORITY
AUTHORITY: declare war on all authority that is not based on courage and manhood... the authority of lying priests, conniving judges, blackmailing police." - Jack Parson's inspiration quoted by Robert Anton Wilson, in Cosmic Trigger, p.141. - Military dictators often claimed to rest their case on heroic courage and manhood. - And why not let them do their things to consenting victims? - J.Z., 2.2.93.
AUTHORITY: Governments cannot accept liberty as their fundamental basis for justice, because governments rest upon authority and not upon liberty. To accept liberty as the fundamental basis is to discard authority; that is, to discard government itself;..." Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.20. - As usual, exterritorial governments with voluntary members only are overlooked here. -
AUTHORITY: History is there to teach us that all governments resemble one another and are worth the same. The best are the worst. More cynicism among some, more hypocrisy among others. At bottom, always the same proceedings, always the same intolerance! Government is liberal only in appearance, for it has in reserve, under the dust of legislative arsenals, some nice little law ... for use against troublesome opposition. – Evil ... in the eyes of the anarchists does not lie in one form of government more than another. It is in the governmental idea itself, it is in the principle of authority." - Peter Kropotkin, courtroom speech in Lyons, 1883. - What he says here apply only to territorial or imposed governments, not to voluntary, competing and exterritorial governments over volunteers only. Authorities that are not imposed are no threats to free men. They can still form their own free societies without governments. Thus they ought to go for this option. Not only the freedom lovers but all others, too. To each the government or non-governmental free society of his or her dreams. - J.Z., 2.2.93. - PANARCHISM
AUTHORITY: Human society can be structured either according to the principle of authority or according to the principle of liberty. Authority is a static social configuration in which people act as superiors and inferiors: a sado-masochistic relationship. Liberty is a dynamic social configuration in which people act as equals: an erotic relationship. In every interaction between people, either Authority or Liberty is the dominant factor. Families, churches, lodges, clubs, and corporations are either more authoritarian than libertarian or more libertarian than authoritarian." - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus III, p.240. – However, communities of volunteers should also be free to subject themselves to those, whom they perceive as authorities, and as long as they do.
AUTHORITY: It is always well to remember that the commonest practice of mankind is that a few shall impose authority and the majority shall submit." - Don Passos, THE FREEMAN, 2/78, p. 126. – Territorialism demands the submission not only of the majority but also of all dissenting minorities. Exterritorial voluntarism lets all rule or self-manage their own affairs, under whatever authorities they can agree among themselves, or even none at all. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: It is not just the coercive political power structure that must change. People's attitudes toward authority must change. All authority, whether political, scientific or whatever, which calls for unquestioning obedience and denial of individual conscience and good sense, must be delegitimised." - William Kingdon Clifford, LFB Summer catalogue, 75. – STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, LEGALISM
AUTHORITY: It makes no difference what he imagines this Authority to be - Ra or Baal or Zeus or Jupiter; Cleopatra or the Mikado; or Economic Necessity or the Will of the Masses or the Voice of the People; the stubborn fact is that there is no Authority, of any kind, that controls individuals. They control themselves." – Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.179/80. – Self-control is quite insufficient once it is reduced to suicidal “actions”. The tortured or imprisoned person is also not in full control of himself. However, it is true that even a totalitarian regime does not control individuals 100% and that societies can be successful only to the extent that they allow individuals to control their own actions. - J.Z., 5.11.10 – SELF-DETERMINATION, INDEPENDENCE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUALISM, SELF-CONTROL
AUTHORITY: it’s important that no one ever be given authority to impose his or her opinion on others by force.” – L. Neil Smith, Forge of the Elders, p.578. - POWER, AUTHORITARIANISM, MIGHT, SUBJUGATION, IMPOSITIONS, INTERFERENCES, AGGRESSIONS, DOMINATION, TERRITORIALISM, TERRITORIALLY ORGANIZED INTOLERANCE
AUTHORITY: LIBERTY denies the authority of anybody's 'public opinion', 'social custom', 'consensus of the competent', and all other fashionable or scholarly despots, to step between the individual and his free option in all things." – Benjamin R. Tucker.
AUTHORITY: Minimise 'public authority and thus maximise personal liberty.'” - Edmund A. Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 7/73, 399. – It is not enough to minimize territorial authority. It must be altogether abolished. Then it does not matter, at least not in the long run and for dissenting outsiders, how much authority individual followers maintain among themselves. Exterritorially authoritarian and non-authoritarian societies and States can peacefully coexist, all only for their volunteers. A public authority does not have to be a territorial one. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: My hostility toward the principle of authority has in no way diminished. The studies of history I have been pursuing in my spare time for the last ten years have convinced me that it is the curse of society." - Proudhon, in S. Edwards, Proudhon, p.94. - Rather, the curse of the territorial State upon society and societies. - J.Z., 2.2.93, 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: Nazism has been justly called an attack on civilisation. This characterisation applies with equal force to every form of dictatorship; indeed, to every kind of suppression and coercive authority. For what is civilisation in the true sense? All progress has been essentially an enlargement of the liberties of the individual, with a corresponding decrease of the authority wielded over him by external forces. This holds good in the realm of physical as well as of political and economic existence." - Emma Goldman, The Place of the Individual in Society, 1930's. – She, too, failed to distinguish clearly between wrongful authorities, territorially imposed and rightful authorities that are merely exterritorial ones and individually chosen by individuals for themselves. How could such a fundamental omission have remained unnoticed for so long? – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: Never trust anyone who volunteers to assume authority." - Belkey's Law, THE DIAGONAL RELATIONSHIP, April 79. – Do not fear him when he wishes to rule only over his kind of volunteers. Although the wealth and power of the rulers and the ruled will then be quite different, in the average both will be impoverished and diminished in their human potential. Any leash has two ends. The attempts to rule the lives of others does not leave much time and energy for living a satisfactory life of one’s own. – J.Z., 5.11.10. - POLITICIANS, LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, REPRESENTATIVES, DELEGATES, DEMOCRACY, VOTING
AUTHORITY: No authority, no government, even if it be popular government; this is the revolution." - P. J. Proudhon, The General Idea of Revolution in the 19th Century, 1851. - No authority, no government, not even popular government, to be territorially imposed upon a compulsory membership. But any authority or government, popular or not, if only it is practised tolerantly, i.e. exterritorially and autonomously among and over volunteers only. - See Panarchism. - J.Z., 2.2.93.
AUTHORITY: No more Authority! That is to say further: free contract in place of arbitrary law; voluntary transactions in place of the control of the State; equitable and reciprocal justice in place of sovereign and distributive justice; rational instead of revealed morals; equilibrium of forces instead of equilibrium of powers; economic unity in place of political centralisation. Once more, I ask, is not this what I may venture to call a complete reversal, a turnover, a Revolution?..." - Proudhon, General Idea of Revolution in the 19th Century. – At least here he also failed to distinguish between territorially imposed and voluntarily chosen authority. – J.Z., 5.11.10. - MUTUALISM, VOLUNTARISM, ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM
AUTHORITY: One spoke of the national workshops only with a kind of terror, for fear of the people is the sickness of all those who belong to authority; the people, for those in power, are the enemy." - Proudhon, Confessions of a Revolutionary, in George Woodcock, Proudhon, p.129. – Only the territorial power mongers and power addicts are the true enemies of the peoples. – J.Z., 5.11.10. - PEOPLE, POWER
AUTHORITY: Panarchists reject the authority of others and merely tolerantly experiment among themselves on their own authority. - J.Z., 12.7.86.
AUTHORITY: Perhaps it is tough on human beings, that no Authority exists to take care of them. But no such Authority does exist, or can exist. In the human world there is nothing but individual persons, born free. That's the brutal fact. It is a tough job to be free. But six thousand years of trying to escape from freedom were tougher." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.200. – And yet the basic first steps towards as much freedom as one wants for oneself, is very simple: individual secessionism. Then one either establishes or joins a society that is to one’s liking. Under territorialism these basic free steps are as much suppressed as freedom of expression and information once were. However, once enough people clearly see them and insist upon them, without engaging in aggressive and terrorist actions, they will succeed. They will then have even many of the numerous dissenting statists on their side, for whom this experimental freedom for volunteers will also be the easiest way to realize their own ideal among themselves. – This approach will release all the centrifugal forces. - J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: reject authority, for it is not only immoral but functionally incompetent, which is unforgivable." - Paul Goodman, N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE, 14.7.68. - But those unable to see that should remain free to have their wished-for authorities for themselves and over themselves. - J.Z., 2.2.93.
AUTHORITY: Repudiation of [territorial – J.Z.] authority may spring equally from maturity and immaturity..." - Alex Comfort, Authority & Delinquency, p. 104.
AUTHORITY: Rocker has made it his guiding principle to take man as given and, taking him as given, he finds him altogether too complex and incalculable to be formulated at all - unless it be a formula to say that he IS complex and incalculable. - And the standard of value, the test that he applies to cultures, institutions, social forms, is that they shall leave to this incalculable complexity the utmost possible freedom - the utmost opportunity to be complex and incalculable. His indictment of authority is that it seeks always and inevitably to make man simple and calculable, seeks to make sure that he will always do the expected thing at the expected time; and so must also decree that he may do only certain sorts of things at all." - Ray E. Chase, translator of Rocker, Nationalism and Culture. - Those in territorial authority would like to reduce us to voters, taxpayers, subjects and soldiers, i.e. their kinds of robots, their kind of property, to their kind of pawns and other subordinated figures in their kinds of political chess games. – Allow all the figures in a country, even in the whole world, play their own games, under their own personal law rules. J.Z., 2.2.93, 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: So long as any large group of persons, anywhere on this earth, believe the ancient superstition that some Authority is responsible for their welfare, they will set up some image of that Authority and try to obey it. And the result will be poverty and war." – Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.70. – If they adopted the voluntary and exterritorial model of authority for themselves then they would tend to learn, relatively soon, from their own errors, mistakes and choices, just like a sovereign consumer of ordinary consumer goods and services does. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: Taking issue with Benjamin Tucker for too boldly asserting that liberty and authority are mutually exclusive principles, Andrews argued that no such easy proposition can be successfully maintained, for these two forms of human action always stand in juxtaposition. Without doubt, Andrews held, freedom is the fundamental prerequisite of a libertarian society, and it is the necessary condition for any true moral act. Yet it is impossible to live one's life in such a way that authority plays no part whatever in one's actions. 'We all do and must serve two masters, from the cradle to the grave; two fundamental opposite principles, always and everywhere existing in the nature of things, and the whole art of life consists in reconciling them approximately or relatively, as they can never be reconciled absolutely." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom. - To choice of doctors and teachers and other consultants and experts, panarchism adds the free choice among exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, or panarchies, and the free enterprise opportunity to establish new panarchies and to ask for volunteers to subscribe to them. - J.Z., 1.2.93. - PANARCHISM
AUTHORITY: The authorities were at their wit's end, nor had it taken them long to get there." - Desmond McCarthy, 1877-1952. - But it would take a long time to get them to admit this. In spite of their ignorance and helplessness, they want to go on keeping their position of authority and monopolistic decision-making while unable to make morally and rationally correct decisions, especially economic ones. - J.Z., 1.2.93. – E.g., they do not know how to come to a disarmament agreement on the destruction of all mass murder devices, how to end and prevent inflation, unemployment and other economic crises, how to end involuntary poverty, bureaucracy etc. But they do know how to keep themselves in territorial power – even with the consent of most of their ignorant and prejudiced victims. They are unable as territorialists to appreciate experimental freedom and all genuine individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: The authority of government ... can have no pure right over my person and my property but what I concede to it." - H. D. Thoreau: An Essay on Civil Disobedience, 1849.
AUTHORITY: The Constitution itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority does our government practically rest? On what ground can those who pretend to administer it, claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who deny their authority to dispose of men's properties, liberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion?" – Lysander Spooner, No Treason, VI/27, VII, in Works I.
AUTHORITY: The Deity has not given any order or family of men authority over others, and if any men have given it they only could give it for themselves." - Samuel Adams, Speech on American Independence, July 4, 1776. - Compare how far from this pure thought the U.S. government practice has come. It is always so much easier to apply criticism to others than to oneself. It is always so much more pleasant to imagine oneself as representing many others than to realize that no one can properly represent anyone else, except for very limited and specifically authorised actions and that most people, even politicians, find it hard to properly represent present even themselves. Does it really require 200 to 300 years for such sentences to sink in, deeply enough, to arrived at panarchism? - J.Z., 12.7.86, 2.2.93. – DELEGATION, REPRESENTATION
AUTHORITY: The delegation of authority is, along with economic pressure and force by arms, the major method of human enslavement in the world today. The power is wrested from the people and the people bow down. The people bow down at the ballot box as if to say: 'I agree to obey your laws and follow your decisions, and if I don't, I give you herewith the authority to punish me.' - The delegation of authority is a form of self-demeaning submission like the payment of taxes, or service in armed bodies. - But of course, we are all conditioned and educated to regard voting and the delegation of power as a form of noble and humane conduct. Because when voting and the delegation of power become recognisable as forms of submission, then the anarchist principle of human freedom and human possibilities becomes clear also, and then we are ready to make those changes that we anarchists call revolution." - Judith Malina, Anarchists and the pro-hierarchical Left, ch.5, in H. J. Ehrlich et al, Reinventing Anarchy. – Most of the victims of it are still not aware that in spite of all their other differences between them, all of them do still subscribe to territorialism. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: The follies of the fool are known to the world, but are hidden from himself; the follies of the wise are known to himself, but hidden from the world." - C. C. Colton, Lacon, 1820.- While investigative journalism has made progress, it is still far from revealing all the follies and crimes of those in territorial authority over the public. Naked power and its effects are still rarely seen under their camouflage or if the effects are seen then they are not seen as causally connected to territorialist authoritarian measures. - J.Z., 2.2.93, 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: The history of every group of men who ever obeyed a living Authority is a history of revolts against all forms of that Government ..." - Lane, Discovery of Freedom, p.15. – Is there such a thing as a “living” authority or are the territorial “authorities” dead abstracts only, apart from being physically alive – i.e. brain-dead? Or can you tell me a single problem which they did not cause themselves and which they did solve? – J.Z., 7.11.08, 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: The Obsolescence of Authority". - Richard Cornuelle, Demanaging America, ch.3, heading. – It will become clearly revealed only once all people become free to secede from it and do their own things, together with like-minded people. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: The purpose of LIBERTY, boiled down to its ultimate essence, is the abolition of authority ... LIBERTY denies the authority of anybody's god to bind those who do not accept it through persuasion and natural selection." - Benjamin R. Tucker. – The first significant step towards that aim is the abolition of territorial and thus centralized, monopolistic and enforced authority. – Freely chosen authorities, from which dissenters are free to secede will not last indefinitely and their failures will be educational for their participants as well as their outside observers. - J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: The sailors and people of Kronstadt rebelled against the central power of the Supreme Soviet and were brutally crushed. Their slogan is the essence of anarchism: 'Where authority begins, the revolution ends.'' - Rod Manis, How Can We Survive in an age of Discontinuity? in Outside Looking In, p.416. – When territorial authority is being continued, merely in another form and under other rulers, the revolution ends. One might even say, then a genuine revolution hasn’t even begun. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: They replace the priest by a king, the king by an oligarchy, the oligarchs by a despot, the despot by an aristocracy, the aristocrats by a majority, the majority by a tyrant, the tyrant by oligarchs, the oligarchs by aristocrats, the aristocrats by a king, the king by a parliament, the parliament by a dictator, the dictator by a king, the king by - there's 6,000 years of it, in every language. - Every imaginable kind of living Authority has been tried, and is still being tried somewhere on earth now. - All these kinds have been tried, too, in every possible combination; the priest and the king, the king who is the priest, the king who is God, the king and a senate, the king and the senate and a majority, the senate and a tyrant, the tyrant and the aristocrats, a king and a parliament. - Try to think of a combination; somewhere it has been tried.... Each of these kinds of living Authority, and every one of the combinations, has worked all right, except that its subjects did not get enough to eat." – Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.16. – Most of these authorities were only territorial ones. The few exterritorial ones, without sufficient knowledge of and application of all genuine individual rights and liberties, were not defensively strong against the territorialists, habituated to and organized for aggression and domination. Even now the exterritorialist and individual human rights alternatives are insufficiently known and appreciated. Thus an inevitably the feeling of helplessness prevails among the freedom lovers, who still imagine that recognition or appreciation of only a fraction of all rights and liberties would be enough to give them the chance to realize, among themselves, all of these rights and liberties, to whatever extent they want to. They thus denied to themselves the Archimedean leverage options. – The continued to vote merely for new territorial rulers instead of the drop-out and genuine self-management or self-government options on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy. To a large extent they still have the slave or serf mentality of being afraid of freedom. - J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTHORITY: They stood against both monarchy and democracy, because they knew that when men set up an imaginary Authority armed with force, they destroy all opportunity to exercise their natural freedom." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.179. - But they fell for Republicanism and Democracy! - J.Z., 2.2.93. – They became the victims of their remaining territorialism and of their disinterest in all genuine individual rights and liberties, in genuine libertarian revolutions, quite rightful war and peace aims and ideal militias of volunteers for the protection of these rights and liberties. – They still see in the tax- military and education slaves of other governments their enemies rather than their potential allies. They even favour threatening them with mass extermination devices! - J.Z., 5.11.10. – ENEMIES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILIY, TERRITORIALISM
AUTHORITY: This ancient belief in Authority is the whole basis of such shadowy 'nationalism' as actually exists. If there is no other Authority to obey, Europeans can only obey an Authority that calls itself National. As a lost child will obey any adult, so a Breton who has lost his own King will obey the Government of France, and a Bavarian will obey the Government of Germany. - On the continent of Europe (excepting only France) all Europeans obeyed their Kings until the first World War. They have never questioned Authority. Their only outcry has been, and still is, that Authority does not control them PROPERLY." – Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.149. - Quite a few kings were deprived of their power in Europe, too, before that time. - J.Z., 2.2.93. – However, the non-victimizing and quite liberating exterritorialist and voluntarist revolution, is still to come. It could be over within a day, almost without any bloodshed at all. But to achieve this it has to be very well prepared, long in advance, first in the minds of most people, beginning with those of anarchists and libertarians and finally extending to the minds of most policemen, soldiers, officers, public servants and politicians. For even they would greatly benefit from this revolution, as much as they want to and this time through genuine earnings. – J.Z., 5.11.10. – NATIONALISM, REVOLUTION, LIBERATION
AUTHORITY: This malignant expansion of authority has not been the result of new legislation passed by Congress. Rather, it stems from ever-new and often untenable interpretations of existing law, made by federal functionaries to suit their own purposes (and often, to satisfy personal whims)." - O. V. Garrison, The Dictocrats, p.37. - Authority is the cancer of society. - J.Z., 1.7.80. - Actually, free societies, exterritorially quite autonomous and having only voluntary members would be almost immune to this kind of cancer attack. If such a society were sick the enlightened voluntary member could simply withdraw from it and thus regain his full health. - J.Z., 26.9.02. - PANARCHISM
AUTHORITY: Tucker's use of the word 'invasion' is remarkably precise, considering that he wrote more than fifty years before the basic discoveries of ethology. Every act of authority is, in fact, an invasion of the psychic and physical territory of another." - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus III, p.241. – Even he abused the term “territory”. He should have written, rather, of self-ownership, individual sovereignty and genuine individual rights and liberties. Alas, he was opposed to natural or human rights, because he mixed them up with governmentally granted “human rights” or “civil liberties”. – By using incorrect or flawed terms one is unlikely to arrive at full truths. - J.Z., 5.11.10. - AGGRESSION & INVASION
AUTHORITY: Undermine all authorities - except individually chosen ones, which individuals remain free to leave again. - J.Z., 8.1.93.
AUTHORITY: VERY few men have ever known that men are free. Among this earth's population now, few know that fact. - For 6,000 years at least, a majority has generally believed in pagan gods. A pagan god, whatever it is called, is an Authority which (men believe) controls the energy, the acts, and therefore the fate of all individuals. - The pagan view of the universe is that it is static, motionless, limited, and controlled by an Authority. The pagan view of man is that all individuals are, and by their nature should and must be, controlled by some Authority outside themselves." - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.3. – TERRITORIALISM, SLAVE- & SERF-MENTALITY, NATIONALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS
AUTHORITY: When the individual does no longer recognize or tolerate any authority over the affairs of his own life ... if, but these are so far merely pious wishes ... When it finally begins to fall, the anti-life structure of the State, and the peoples save themselves from the sinking wreck upon the safe land of liberty..." – John Henry Mackay, Abrechung, S.151. – Liberty, justice, peace and prosperity can only be achieved non-territorially, via the first volunteers managing to realize them among themselves, under full experimental freedom and tolerantly towards the remaining unenlightened and under-developed “natives” or statists, but setting up light-tower guides and examples for them. – J.Z., 5.11.10. – Being quite obvious tolerant and self-responsible volunteers, they will not generate maximum resistance against their efforts and examples, which they could even advance as “fools’ liberties” among statists expecting them to fail. Small examples of this possibility are duty-free shops, industrial development zones and tax exemptions. – Comprehensive examples, all confined to their volunteers, would be much more persuasive. Under territorialism the rulers are also never quite safe in the saddle. Under voluntarism they could indefinitely continue their regime exterritorially, together with their remaining volunteers. The Catholic Church has done this for a long time. But the future secular “churches” will have to have e.g. sufficient pocket-book appeal as well. – They will have to try to offer, as cheaply and easily as they can, the kind of “paradise” on Earth which their subscribers still believe in and this in free competition with all other kinds of “paradise” offers, next door, just like e.g. any travel agency. – J.Z., 5.11.10. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT & SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.
AUTHORITY: When these revolts succeed, they are called revolutions. But they are revolutions only in the sense that a wheel's turning is a revolution. An Old World revolution is only a movement around a motionless centre; it never breaks out of the circle. Firm in the center is belief in Authority. No more than the Communist or the National Socialist (Nazi) today, has any Old World revolutionist ever questioned that belief; they all take it for granted that SOME Authority controls individuals..." – Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.16. – Again, she does not distinguish between territorially imposed authorities and those exterritorial ones which were freely chosen by and subscribed to by individuals for themselves and for the time being only. Such a subscription should be no more binding than e.g. a subscription to a magazine or a club or party. – J.Z., 5.11.10.- GENUINE REVOLUTIONS, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW
AUTHORITY: Where authority begins, there the revolution ends." - GOLOS TRUDA, No. 14, 4 Nov. 1917, p. 1. - That, too, applies only to the territorial authority over compulsory members and subjects. The exterritorial authority granted by volunteers is another matter, while individual secessions remain an option. Panarchism makes one-man-revolutions possible. - J.Z., 2.2.93. - REVOLUTION
AUTHORITY: Where everyone is said to be an authority, the concept of authority operates without sense." - Jeffie G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosphy of Right, p. 119. - No, it merely limits it to the own affairs. Any authority over the affairs of others, without the consent of each of these others is without sense. - J.Z., 8.1.93. - Also with the ethically required individual authorisation. - J.Z., 28.11.11.
AUTHORITY: Where people live under authority for any appreciable length of time, he argued, their ability to govern themselves is bound to atrophy." - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.296, on Ezra H. Heywood. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, SLAVE MENTALITY
AUTHORITY: Without attempting a complete argument, because of space limitations, may I merely state categorically that there is only one way any human being can physically inflict an injury and hence impose a 'wrong' on any other human being. He presumes to act as the authority over another person or that other person's property against that person's wishes. This is contrary to the basic nature of man as a profit-seeker. As a profit-seeker, each of us seeks to make decisions over his own person and property, and must do so to stay alive and to achieve any measure of satisfaction. I am not speaking of children, nor of any other incomplete or incompetent mentality. I speak of man qua man." - Robert LeFevre, THE FREEMAN, 4/79. – For many years LeFevre was they only libertarians who had reprinted De Puydt’s article on panarchy. (In RAMPART JOURNAL, Fall 1966.) - INJURY, HARM, WRONG, INJUSTICE, INTOLERANCE, AGGRESSION, TERRITORIALISM
AUTHORITY: You are your own authority now,..." - William Hjortsberg, Gray Matters, SF, p.143. – You should be or, at least, you should have free choice between all the kinds of supposed or real authorities that are on offer. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTONOMISTS: See FIREHAMMER, REGINALD
AUTONOMOUS & ABSOLUTELY FREE INDIVIDUALS IN HISTORY? Seen from an historical point of view, man is not, and never has been, the autonomous, absolutely free individual presupposed by liberalism and individualism, who, together with other individuals, on the sealing of a social contract (pactum unionis) creates a society. ..." - C. Bax, Kropotkin on Law, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 165. - However, the history of exterritorial law and exterritorially autonomous societies is still very incompletely written and largely unknown, so that e.g. Robert Ardrey's "Territorial Imperative" could become a bestseller and my materials compilation "On Panarchy", remains largely unappreciated. There were, indeed, many precedents in which individual sovereignty and exterritorial autonomy of volunteer communities was asserted and realized and some traits of them have persisted for a long time, in spite of territorial powers and prejudices. And whatever man was able to do in the past, with much less knowledge and experience and under much more primitive conditions, he can do much better now and in the future. We should also take into consideration that the ideas of individual rights and of mutual tolerance, and their practices, are relatively new and still widely unpopular and yet they are preconditions for the free functioning and successful persistence of all genuine liberation attempts. Moreover, as an individualist, one does not have to become isolationistic, and asocial or anti-social but will simply prefer exclusively voluntaristic relations to any others. - J.Z. 15.1.93.
AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES, AN-TERRITORIAL & VOLUNTARY: Therefore, these communities according to the will of the individuals who constitute them, hereby assert their autonomy. ..." - Richard Cummings, "Proposition 14. A Secessionist Remedy." - SECESSIONISM
AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES: See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON: On Panarchy.
AUTONOMY & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY: Barring force and fraud, autonomy need NEVER be abridged in society, if autonomy is understood in the sense of individual sovereignty. It is in this sense, as well, that autonomy in a rational sense is the key to the solution to Adler's problems, i.e. the key to the establishment of the free market." - Roy Childs, Anarchism and Justice, INDIVIDUALIST, 10/71.
AUTONOMY & INDIVIDUALISM: What was vital for this nation – and there are signs that this has not been entirely forgotten even now, except perhaps by most of our intellectuals and politicians – is that each individual had the liberty to strive for his or her own goals in life, provided he or she did not trample on the efforts of others.” – Tibor Machan, Liberty and Culture, 288. - Negro slaves, Red Indians, Mexicans and other minorities would not have completely agreed with this statement. The U.S. Constitution did reserve too much power to governments and did not prevent an excessive growth of these powers, either. Otherwise he has got a point but does not yet envision, at least here, full individual sovereignty and individual secessionism nor full exterritorial minority autonomy, although they could be described with similar wordings. – J.Z., 12.1.99.
AUTONOMY, AUTHORITY, PUBLIC SERVANTS & PUPPETS: It would make much more sense and would promote freedom, justice, peace and prosperity at the same time, if politicians, generals, bureaucrats, judges and policemen were our individually hired or subscribed to puppets rather than we being theirs, without having given them our individual consent for most specific cases or a general power of attorney. - J.Z., 18.5.92, 13.1.93, 4.9.04.
AUTONOMY: Comprehensive & Exterritorial for Volunteers only, vs. all too Limited Autonomy Granted by Territorial Governments: Not just some licensed and limited autonomy is to be achieved (THAT is granted even in the Soviet Union ) as a moral and essential state of affairs, but full autonomy that is limited only by individual choice, which means non-territorial and personal law organization and voluntary membership.
AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL: Without territorial politics, i.e. under full exterritorial freedom of choice for all who want it, which means under full self-responsibility in all spheres, we would all have a good chance to get somewhere, fast, and as far as possible and as we deserve, however different our premises, aims and methods are. - J.Z. 23.9.91, 13.1.93.
AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIAL VS. TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS: Most governments are "good" only for the waging of more or less open and aggressive international or civil wars and for their prolongation against the wishes of external and internal dissenters. Only full autonomy for all dissenters can establish peace, justice and freedom for all. It would soon maximize prosperity, at least via the examples set by some dissenters. And this autonomy for all volunteers and their associates would be possible and maximized only on a non-territorial, i.e. a personal law basis. – J.Z., 1986, 2004.
AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL, MORAL ISSUES, VALUES, LIFE STYLES: The moral issue is life-styles. Values. Individual autonomy." - Marie Jakober, The Mind Gods, 137.
AUTONOMY: Baring force and fraud, autonomy need never be abridged in society, if autonomy is understood in the sense of individual sovereignty." - R. A. Childs, Jr., INDIVIDUALIST, 10/71.
AUTONOMY: Baron von Ketteler, the Bishop of Mainz, who was one of the leaders of this catholic social movement, pointed back to the Middle Ages, when a mass of autonomous groups flourished and when 'concentrated unlimited power in the hands of a single man was unknown'." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.31. - POWER, ABSOLUTISM, MIDDLE AGES, PANARCHISM
AUTONOMY: David Riesman's definition of autonomy thus focuses not on nonconformity per se, but on the capacity to 'choose whether to conform or not.' – “The Lonely Crowd”, N.Y., Anchor, p.279. - Footnote in Benjamin R. Barber, Superman & Common Men, p.55. - The socially important factor is only whether the autonomy of others becomes infringed. - J.Z., 18.11.76.
AUTONOMY: Every centralised state, however liberal it may pretend to be, whatever republican form it may have, is nevertheless an oppressor, an exploiter of the working masses for the benefit of the privileged classes. It needs an army to keep these masses in check, and the existence of this armed force drives it into war. Hence I come to the conclusion that international peace is impossible until the following principle is adopted with all its logical consequences: Every people, whether weak or strong, little or great, every province, every community, must be free and autonomous; free to live and to administer itself according to its interests and special needs. In this right all people and communities are so united that the principle cannot be violated with respect to a single community without endangering all the rest at the same time." - Michael Bakunin, speech at the congress of the Peace and Liberty League, 1867. - If workers of an enterprise seriously considered purchasing it, on long terms, and under stable value clauses, they could soon be its owners, without any revolutionary effort or sacrifices. If they applied monetary freedom principles in paying their suppliers and wages, they would have many less sales problems than the present employers have. - PEACE, LIBERTY, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, DECENTRALISATION, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, ASSOCIATIONISM
AUTONOMY: For if the essence of men is that they are autonomous beings - authors of values, or ends in themselves, the ultimate authority of which consists precisely in the fact that they are willed freely - then nothing is worse than to treat them as if they were not autonomous, but natural objects, played on by causal influences, creatures at the mercy of external stimuli, whose choices can be manipulated by their rulers, whether by threats of force or offers of rewards." - Isaiah Berlin, quoted in The Free Man's Almanac, ed. by L. E. Read. – RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM
AUTONOMY: Full exterritorial autonomy for everyone (who is not aggressive ) and woe to anyone who attempts to repress it. (I.e. to all unofficial and official criminals.) - J.Z., 77/78, 2.2.93.
AUTONOMY: Gradually, progress toward a new organization form, based on autonomy instead of autocracy, accelerated, and became a self-propelling, continuous process. In the new plant, the workers participated from almost the beginning in planning and, eventually, management..." - David Jenkins, Job Power, 255. - Revolutionary panarchistic and exterritorial autonomy practices and theories in the job sphere are rather numerous by now. In the sphere of territorial states or political, economic and social systems they are still amiss, in most cases. - J.Z., 2.2.93. – Or still widely unknown. However, Google supplied 68,100 references upon a search for panarchy, on 4.11.10 and 4,430 upon a search for panarchism. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTONOMY: Humanity craves but dreads autonomy. One does not want to live under the yoke of guilt and fear. Autonomy consists of making with open eyes the decisions that give shape to one's life. But being afraid of making fateful decisions, one is tempted to hide autonomy in a metaphysical fog and to become side-tracked and bogged down in puzzles about free will and determinism..." - Walter Kaufman, Without Guilt & Justice, p.2. - Humanity is a figment of the imagination. It does not have any craving as a single body. It consists of billions of autonomous bodies with different cravings. And because they crave different things they like the opportunity to autonomously satisfy their cravings, to the extent that this can be done without treating others as mere things or sacrificial animals. Give the first few courageous people the chance to live as free and to set examples to the rest, not in far away countries or even planets, in special ghettos or enclaves, but right next door, under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. - Then you might have to step aside, in order not to be crushed by the rush. Compare the collapse of the Iron Curtain, on the communist side, which now Western statists try to partly restore from the Western side. - Compare the multitude of different activities which people, somewhat autonomously and exterritorially, do already engage in privately, every day, individually or in voluntary associations. - Only "sovereign statist activities" restricted autonomous individualistic and voluntary actions in these public service spheres, so far. Just knock these general chains or territorial State monopolies down - and allow people to put on their own non-territorial restrictions upon themselves, if they like any such jewellery or burdens or to try to live without them. Who, for instance, could not manage his income once it is no longer taxed? - J.Z., 2.2.93, 7.11.08. – And if management of their property is too bothersome for them then they can hire skilled managers for that job. – J.Z., 5.11.10.
AUTONOMY: In "Both East and West these ideologies aim at denying to individuals the autonomous (i.e. the conscious and self-managing) exercise of their own activities. They aim at depriving people of freedom and responsibility in a fundamental realm and at obliging them to conform to externally imposed norms and to the pressures of 'public opinion' rather than to criteria determined by each person according to this own needs and experience..." - Maurice Brinton, The Irrational in Politics, p. 85.
AUTONOMY: In the FOUNDATIONS, for example, Kant claims that the Principle of Autonomy is the supreme principle of morality." - Jeffrie G. Murphy, Kant, The Philosophy of Right. – Alas, he was never clear about exterritorial autonomy for volunteers. – J.Z., 5.11.10. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, VOLUNTARISM, ASSOCIATIONISM, PANARCHISM, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, LIBERTARIANISM, INDIVIDUALISM, ANARCHISM
AUTONOMY: Individually chosen rather than merely uniform local and collectively imposed "autonomy". Local and collectivist autonomies do still retain most of the majoritarian and collectivist evils, at least in all too mixed populations. - J.Z. 21.11.92.
AUTONOMY: Man's autonomy is a given." - Michael R. Dillon, THE ACADEMIC REVIEWER, Fall, Winter 73. - Compare Rose Wilder Lane's thesis in The Discovery of Freedom, of the individual as the one and only controller of his own energies. - J.Z., 2.2.93. – However, where is THAT fully realized as yet? – 5.11.10.
AUTONOMY: No matter what anybody else thinks and acts like - think and act for yourself!" - D.Z., 1975. - and let them do the same! - J.Z. - SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, THINK, FREEDOM OFACTION & EXPERIMENTATION, CHOICE, SELF-DETERMINATION
AUTONOMY: Recover your autonomy - opt out from under constitutions, laws, governments, courts, bureaucracies imposed by others. Choose your own, if you must have any of these or other services. Your own vote should only bind you. The votes of others should only bind them. - J.Z. 17.5.89.
AUTONOMY: Russell maintained that the theory of democracy demands more than majority rule; it requires the division of the community into more or less autonomous groups, which should have the right to determine those matters which affect their members only. Actions of groups which are likely to have direct effects upon non-members should be regulated by the State." - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p. 88, on Bertrand Russell, Democracy and Direct Action, p. 6. - That lets the criminal territorial State creep in through the back door, to take over your property and your life, again, always under the pretence that it would be in the common interest, that your activities would harm others etc. The autonomous community approach would only work well among people fully aware of their rights and liberties, at least in their international relations and very critical towards "common good" appeals and their authoritarian defenders. Alas, as is proven by all territorial constitutions, their avalanches of laws and bureaucracies and jurisdictions, the science of mutual tolerance and respect for each other's rights and liberties, is still vastly underdeveloped and the presumed protectors have become the major aggressors. Russell was essentially a State Socialist still and as such unaware of the freedom options to replace all territorial state services by voluntaristic and competitive private alternative institutions. - J.Z., 2.2.93.
AUTONOMY: Sociology points to the ways in which human beings can achieve secure and satisfactory attitudes, but a condition of this kind of stability is the ability of individuals and groups to create their own institutions without too much pressure from outside." - Alex Comfort, Authority and Delinquency, p. 116. – Is any territorial pressure required and justified? – J.Z., 5.11.10. - STABILITY, ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATIONS, PANARCHISM, ANARCHISM
AUTONOMY: support the claim of the Czechs to deny autonomy to several million Germans and Slovaks, or the claim of the Germans, to deny autonomy to all Czechs?" - Mises, Omnipotent Government, p.15. - Alas, Mises remained a supporter of statist, collectivist and territorial monopolies when it came to introducing market relationships in this sphere, via individual secessionism and consumer sovereignty and voluntary and competing governments. And most of his followers, in this respect, have not yet developed far beyond him, as yet, in this respect. - J.Z., 2.2.93.
AUTONOMY: The presupposition of autonomy, treating each citizen as the best judge of his own interest, places few restrictions on what counts as being in a citizen's interest." - Dennis Thompson, quoted by David Jenkins, Job Power, p.175.
AUTONOMY: today, for the first time in human history, autonomy has become a live option for millions." - Walter Kaufmann, Without Guilt and Justice, p.46. - Yes, we only have to knock down the oppressive burden of statist territorialism and exclusive sovereignties and compulsory membership. - J.Z., 2.2.93. – Panarchism will offer people many different community package deals to choose from. And they would not be forever tied to any one of them but could secede from the one they formerly choose and simply join another one, which they would then believe to be better for them. – J.Z., 7.11.08.
AUTONOMY: We have relinquished more and more autonomy to the State, forcing governments to assume functions once performed by communities, families, churches, people. Many social tasks have reverted to the government by default, and the end result as been creeping paralysis - unreality." - M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, 211. - Let's rather say that constitutions, laws, regulations, police, law courts, bureaucrats and politicians have left us more and more powerless and without means to pursue our own interests independently and with sufficient self-management powers. In short, "authority" took our autonomy away. Some may have been willing to give it away on a platter but the already somewhat enlightened and freedom-loving individuals and minorities were outvoted or over-ruled, so that they could not set examples for others. - J.Z., 6.4.89.
AUTONOMY: We must ... try to live in our own communities, if we want to live at all." - Paul Goodman and S. Blankertz, Staatlichkeitswahn, 81. - PANARCHISM, PEACE & WAR
AUTONOMY: You want autonomy? Grant it to others! Never insist upon unconditional surrender of your enemies. Always offer them autonomy over their own affairs. - J.Z., on Tolerance.
AVRAM, DUKE OF: Tasmania, Secession & Free Banking Attempts, in ON PANARCHY IX, in PP 689. - Grand Duchy of Avram - It is one of several self-declared Australian micro-nations; based in Tasmania and founded on October 1, 1980 by Prince John, the Grand Duke of Avram: ... chiefacoins.com/Database/Micro-Nations/Avram.htm - Similar - One of 143 search results I got on 3.8.09. - J.Z., 13.10.11.
AWARENESS: develop the awareness that we are not simply members of some community, religion or nation. Or simply part of a specific place and a specific time. But that we are members of this entire human family, creatures of this entire planet, part of a dynamic continuity - and ongoing forward-thrusting evolution whose origins go back to the animals, the forests, the oceans, but whose potentials are now suddenly infinite." - F. M. Esfandiary, Up-Wingers, 1973, p. 17.