D. K.: On Millet System, 1972, 1974, in POLITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE MIDDLE EAST IN THE 20th CENTURY, 1 page, 122, in ON PANARCHY XI, in PP 832.
DAILY PANARCHISTIC PRACTICES WHILE QUITE UNCONSCIOUS OF PANARCHISTIC IDEAS, PRINCIPLES & HISTORICAL TRADITIONS. PRIVACY: In our everyday lives we do already make thousands of autonomous individual choices, exterritorially, quite independent from the different voluntary, autonomous and exterritorial choices of others. Granted, these actions are under limited autonomy only but they are often to mostly those choices which matter very much or most to the individuals involved. For them interest in political, economic and social system is secondary. They put up with impositions in this sphere only because there they have no sovereign consumer choice or free enterprise so far in the spheres pre-empted by territorial governments and the political and collectivist vote is a very poor and limited substitute for free choice for individuals. With coercion, territorial monopoly and compulsory membership removed, we would rapidly see 1,000 flowers bloom in these fields, too. The transition would be so individualised and thus gradualised, that few would perceive it as the radical change that it would mean and lead to - except those who immediately would make radical alternative choices for their own lives. Others might perceive these changes first by finally noticing that the nuisances dissenters used to make of themselves, had quite disappeared lately. - J.Z., 5.9.87, 5.2.93, 9.12.03. - Even terrorist acts would become greatly reduced. See: Terrorism & Collective Responsibility. - J.Z., 5.9.04.
DAILY PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE WITH SOME DEGRESS OF PANARCHISM: There are numerous voluntary and to some extent exterritorially autonomous associations now, usually with rather limited objectives. They are not yet fully panarchistic because they are not yet fully autonomous. Their members are still voluntary or involuntary members of territorial States, voluntary or involuntary taxpayers and conscripts etc. and the existing territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions protect them only in their limited objectives, some sports, hobby, fashion, collection or research activities, nothing that directly threatens the territorial monopoly of governments, especially for their whole economic, social and political systems. - When most people speak of freedom of association and freedom to leave and association, they have, usually, only associations with such limited objectives in mind. However, even these do already demonstrate, with their multitude, how very diverse activities of volunteers, respecting basic rights, like property rights, can get peacefully along with each other, nation- and even world-wide. They sort themselves out and do their own things, while letting others do theirs. The exceptions are provided by some intolerant people and their associations, not only ordinary criminals, robbing, assaulting or even murdering people, for "fun" or "profit", but simply because they disagree with them, mostly out of religious, ideological or racist motives. Against these, as well as ordinary criminals, with involuntary victims, the statist territorial institutions offer as a rule all too little protection. On the contrary, the very existence of territorial regimes, combined with notions of collective responsibility, do promote terrorism, because it offers such people either no or too few opportunities for exterritorially autonomous self-governance wherever they happen to live. Mostly, they, too, are too ignorant or prejudice to demand this kind of self-determination but, rather, try to impose their views territorially upon dissenters as well. They, too, are territorial monopolists, but relatively weak in numbers and thus they resort to terrorist actions. The safety valve of the exterritorial autonomy option is removed for them as well. - J.Z., 18.10.11. - PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS, TERRORISM, TERRITORIALISM, INTOLERANCE, FANATICISM
DANGER: - Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.” - Harry Emerson Fosdick – There may be no greater man-made danger, insecurity and risk than those provided by territorial statism, in spite of it asserting to be able to provide security and promising it and offering its kind of “security” and “safety” and “protection” and “defence” at huge cost and risk. – J.Z., 5.1.08. – How “safe” and “secure” are we when our “democratic” governments possess ABC mass murder devices or allies armed with them? – J.Z., 6.1.08. - SAFETY, RISKS & LIBERTY
DANGERS, RISKS, FEAR OF FREEDOM: The problem is, people have a tendency to get excited about dangers that they do not really understand, and at the same time ignore dangers that are a very serious threat to them." - Gary North, "The Freeman", Nov. 85. - Choose your own dangers and securities - but do not impose them upon anyone else. That, like free scientific experimentation, would maximize learning from experience. Politically deciding what is dangerous and what is not is as absurd as to make political decisions on medicine, science, religion and philosophy. - J.Z. 31.7.92.
DARROW, CLARENCE: quoted in "READER'S DIGEST", September 1969: "Laws should be like clothes. They should be made to fit the people they are meant to serve." – LAWS, PERSONAL LAWS
DATA: No amount of data will convince an unwilling mind.” – John W. Campbell in: The John W. Campbell Letters, vol. 1, 1985 Eds.: Perry A. Chapdelaine, Sr., et al., AC Projects Inc., ISBN 0-931150-16-7, p. 390. – Example: According to L. Neil Smith there are now ca. 20 000 to 25 000 gun control laws in the U.S. – Will they reach the million mark? Price controls were tried, in vain, for over 4000 years. – Territorialism has practised its terrible wrongs and failures again and again for maybe 6000 years – and most people are still territorialists. - J.Z., 28.9.07. – But then all the ideas, facts, references and refutations were never as yet sufficiently combined and made readily accessible. – And freedom to experiment was largely suppressed by territorialism. - J.Z., 28.11.08. - IDEAS ARCHIVE, REFUTATIONS ENCYCLOPEDIA, FACTS, MIND, UNWILLINGNESS TO LEARN OR UNDERSTAND OR ACCEPT AN IDEA OR A FACT, DIS., RED., PANARCHISM, ENLIGHTENMENT, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, ARGUMENT MAPPING, DIS.
DAVIDSON, BASIL: The Black Man's Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation State, N.Y., Times Books, 1992. (Davidson, J.D. & W. Rees-Mogg)
DAVIDSON, JAMES DALE & REES-MOGG, WILLIAM: The Sovereign Individual. The Coming Economic Revolution. How to Survive and Prosper in it, Simon Schuster, Macmillan, 1997, with notes and index, 426pp, JZL. One of the very few cases in which I was prepared to spend $ 50 for a new book. But there is not all that much in it that is of special interest to me, since the authors expect almost all liberation to come from the computer revolution and the Internet, like a few years ago some people expected everything positive in the future to come from "free" nuclear energy and some still do from a "single tax". However, there are some interesting hints. E.g., there are some personal law and competing government notions on pages 24/25. Page 245: Parallel institutions. 225 & 373 reveal them as territorial decentralists but at least they mention exterritorial notions on pages 226, 252, 260, 275, 370 & 371. There is a hint towards competitive jurisdiction on page 17 and fairs and exterritoriality on pages 370/371. Worth reading but not necessarily worth $ 50, in print on paper, when the same information could be offered alternatively on one or two microfiche or floppy disks. - J.Z., 3.2. 1999. - Advertisements for the book speak as if the authors had invented the concept of individual sovereignty, which was discussed by the individualist anarchists in the 19th century. Only their term "the sovereign individual" is new, if "new" is the proper term for such coinage. - J.Z., 30.8.04.
DAVIES, STEPHEN, The Private Supply of 'Public Goods' in Nineteenth Century Britain. - Stephen Davies - The Private Supply of `Public Goods' in Nineteenth Century Britain (pdf) - Libertarian Alliance, Historical Notes, 03, 1988
DAVIS, GARRY: clipping on Garry Davis, NEWSWEEK, May 1, 1978, 76, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PEACE PLANS 870.
DAVIS, URI & MEZVINSKY, NORTON, Editors: Documents from Israel 1967 - 1973. Readings for a critique of Zionism, Ithaca Press, London, 1975, 228pp, JZL. - The authors seem to have confined themselves to describing the minority problems of territorial Israel but without attacking territorialism there or anywhere else and exploring the exterritorialist solution. All other countries have similar problems though often on a lesser or even larger scale. Territorialism has not rightful, peaceful and freedom-promoting answers to offer - but it is still the only model that is widely considered and applied. - J.Z., 1.2.1999.
DAY, LE GRAND E., A Letter from the Future, 11pp. This was later included in his: "A New Dimension of Freedom." - In ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755. - -TC 150, 80, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.
DAY, LE GRAND E., A New Dimension of Freedom, 1977, California, Mojave Books, Reseda, XI 49 H.C. 49pp, 10-21, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PEACE PLANS 833. - On "multi-government", competing governments, no-governments and resigning from the government. Retains some territorialist notions. - He invited me once for dinner to a good restaurant in L.A. The meal was good but the noise in the vast dining room so overwhelming that conversation became impossible. I would have preferred a cheap coffee but fruitful talk in a quiet coffee shop. - J.Z. – I recently digitized this small book. In Word it came to 380 Kbs, together with our letter exchange and sent it to Gian Piero de Bellis, who promptly put it, in 3 files, on his website: www.panarchy.org
DAY, LE GRAND E., Multi-Government, from THE CONNECTION, No. 140, 28, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PEACE PLANS 672.
DAY, LE GRANDE E., Outline of the Theory of Multigovernment. – This was later re-written and included in one of his books.
DAY, LE GRAND E., PANARCHY. Government by choice, not chance. People oriented Government, not government orientated people. Idea whose time has come. Investigate a political system offering both Freedom and security. Ultimate Libertarian Newsletter. $ 8/ year or $ 3 for sample. Checks to Le Grand E. Day, Editor, PANARCHY DIALECTIC, BOX 363F, Reseda, California 91 333. - An advertisement from a libertarian periodical. - In ON PANARCHY XIII, in PEACE PLANS 869.
DAY, LE GRAND E., The Northbridge Incident. - Le Grand E. Day, The Northridge Incident - [English] - "An attempt to describe Multigovernment concepts in a readable form." Le Grand E. Day, A Letter from the Future - (1975) [English]
DAY, LE GRAND E. DAY, The Theory of Multigovernment - Le Grand E. Day, The Theory of Multigovernment (1969-1977) [English] - "Multigovernment will present to every individual the right to expand the choice of options in every aspect of his lifestyle. It will introduce a new dimension of freedom not yet experienced by mankind. Not only is Multigovernment workable, but with the advent of sophisticated atomic weapons, it is necessary to save civilization as we know it."
DAY, LE GRAND E., to John Zube, Jan 23, 1989 & undated, 25 & 26, in ON PANARCHY XII, in PP 833. -- 70, 73, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901. -- 9, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755. - TC 150, 80, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.
DAY, LE GRAND E., Writings on Panarchy. - Writings on Panarchy (1986-1989)
DE PUYDT, PAUL-EMILE, de Mons, 1810 – 1891, wrote the classical article on panarchism in REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE, Brussels, July 1860, pages 222-245. – This hint from Max Nettlau’s A Traves de los Tempos, page 87, contains some details on De Puydt that were, until I recently read this passage, still unknown to me. Perhaps someone else can supply more information. Perhaps even some of his correspondence on this subject or another manuscript of his, that are relevant, do still exist somewhere? Was there any response in this journal to this article? According to Ulrich von Beckerath, P.- E. D. P. was once a famous botanist. Beckerath read about him in one of Wilhelm Roscher’s works. I have still not found that passage, either. I hold that he was far more radical and much more realistic than Max Stirner was and yet much less is known and written about him and his great contribution to a genuine political science. – J.Z., 9.1.99. (Another researcher pointed out to me that there were two P. E. De Puydts at about the same time, one a botanist and the other a historian. Which of these two was the author? Who can find out more about this writer? - J.Z., 8.12.03.) – See: PUYDT.
DE PUYDT, PAUL-EMILE, Panarchy, first published in French, REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE, Bruxelles, July 1860, - in Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique, Bruxelles, translated by Adrian Falk and reproduced and discussed e.g. in PEACE PLANS No. 4, 16-17 & 61-63 and, especially, in its sub-series: ON PANARCHY, 24 isues. - - 38, 44, 71, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. - See: PUYDT.
DEATH & AGING: Objectively the involuntary aging and finally death of each human being should be considered as the primary enemies of man. They are enemies of every human being. But do we generally treat them as such? We spend much more (involuntarily) on increasing the death rate or shortening the average life spans through “modern” and “scientific” warfare, which is systematically murdering soldiers and non-combatants, by the millions, on behalf of territorial rulers, more and more automating mutual slaughters, under all kinds of prejudices, delusions and coercion, against “enemies” and for war aims quite insufficiently defined and justified. – J.Z., 11.7.96, 21.9.08. - ILLUSIONS, DELUSIONS, PREJUDICES, WARFARE STATES, ARMAMENTS, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, WAR AIMS, ENEMIES
DEATH THREATS, NATIONALISM, FRIENDSHIP & PARTNERSHIPS, TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People say: either companionship or death." - Ta'anit, 23a. - Either exterritorial association or death! - J.Z. n.d. - Compulsory state membership is not companionship. Compulsory friendship is a contradiction in terms. Within territorial and coercive and monopolistic political bodies dissenters are indeed threatened individually and in groups with death or conscripted or taxed or forced to work for international slaughters. Only exterritorial autonomy, individually claimed, can save us from such institutionalized death threats. - J.Z., 14.1.93. - Bastiat said: "Society is exchange". An exchange conducted and controlled by territorial bureaucrats and politicians is no more a free exchanges than are private embezzlements. Territorial claims combined with collective responsibility notions do lead ruling and aspiring politicians to mass murder via wars, civil wars, revolutions or private terrorist acts. - Territorialism or compulsory associationism leads, ultimately, to a general holocaust for the human race - and most other living beings, via ABC mass murder devices. All too often we have already come very close to this. But the lesson has still not been learnt. Territorial governments are still all too widely trusted, even when armed with obvious anti-people "weapons". The sanction of the victims applies here, too. The supposed protectors have become the greatest threat. - J.Z., 5.9.05.
DEATH: Death-ism” is even worse than statism and territorialism in its effects. – I heard or read this term first via Ben Best. – J.Z., 11.1.95, 24.9.08.
DECENTRALISATION, NON-GEOGRAPHICAL OR EXTERRITORIAL & VOLUNTARISTIC: Numerous cross-divisions favour peace within a nation, by dispersing and confusing animosities." - T. S. Eliot, Notes towards the Definition of a Culture, p.60. Quoted by David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p. 9. - Did he here have in mind panarchism or the old "divide and rule" principle? Anyhow, the peace-promoting effect of exterritorial autonomy, which releases all creative energies for internal free action and for external free trade actions and confines authoritarianism to volunteers, who are statists and like to subordinate themselves, is not sufficiently described by Eliot. There are so many aspects involved in voluntary and exterritorial state or societal membership, i.e. the implied abolition of conscription and realization of voluntary taxation and of free banking and free trade, that a single sentence or paragraph can barely hint at them. - J.Z. 2.4.89.
DECENTRALISATION: The wearer only knows where the shoe pinches." - Only under individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers could decentralisation reach its optimum. - J.Z. in pamphlet on Tolerance. – Only thus can e.g. freedom of contract, freedom of association and free enterprise as well as consumer sovereignty, freedom of action and experimentation become completed. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, CENTRALIZATION, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY
DECENTRALIZATION & DIVISIONS, EXTERRITORIAL ONES, STRENGTHEN RATHER THAN WEAKEN. UNITY IN MUTUAL TOLERANCE: A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." - A kingdom greatly divided and decentralized in full accordance with diverse individual choices would show less internal unrest and more cohesive strength for defence against external enemies and internal totalitarian enemies than a forcefully united kingdom would. - J.Z., 11.10.88. – With such a rightful war aim for a country despotically ruled from a centre, it would have many secret and finally also open allies among the subjects, soldiers and officers of such a regime. – J.Z., 13.12.11. – GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, SECRET ALLIES, DESERTION, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS
DECENTRALIZATION OF REPUBLICS, DEMOCRACIES & OTHER MORE OR LESS LIMITED TERRITORIAL EMPIRES: Republics and democracies, too, not only dictatorships and totalitarian empires, should be subdivided in a rightful, natural and liberating way, rather than in a penal and repressive one. This requires, that the subdivision into smaller and more natural units is not done territorially or geographically and against the will of the people involved but merely exterritorially or non-geographically and with the full consent of the people involved and in accordance with their own highest aspirations and loyalties. All the volunteer communities they want to set up or join should be open or allowed for them. No foreign or internal association should be forced upon them. In other words, their natural decentralistic tendencies should be given full scope to develop and their natural internal and international federative inclinations as well. Thus all the resulting volunteer communities will only be exterritorially autonomous and will tend to reach and stay near their optimal sizes. If they do not find sufficient supporters, they would not be viable in the long run. And if they exceeded their optimal size, then administrative costs and internal conflicts would become excessive and lead to the reduction of membership. – J.Z., 23.9.93, 12.1.99. - Obviously, this was not even publicly discussed as a war and peace aim in Afghanistan and Iraq. - J.Z., 5.9.04.
DECENTRALIZATION, GEOGRAPHICAL: Even the decentralization into local governments and communities constitutes coercive territorial monopolies with their inevitable wrongs, corruption, high costs and disservices, at least in the eyes of the local dissenters. - J.Z., 14.9.91, 13.1.93.
DECENTRALIZATION, NATIONALISM, BALKANIZATION, FRAGMENTATION, MINORITIES ETC.: President Wilson ... his concept on self-determination for small nations in the creation of Czechoslovakia, Finland, Poland and Yugoslavia, brought with it almost as many inequities as were cured. Geographers might outline theoretical boundaries but this does not correct the wrongs suffered by racial (J.Z.: and other) minorities." - Donald Day, Will Rogers, A Biography, 98/9. Wilson was a territorialist and most present self-styled liberators still are and to that extent they favour of at least local oppression or domination of minorities. - J.Z. 13.1.93.- The minority problem and that of realizing individual choices cannot be solved territorially but only by markets, that include free enterprise and free consumer choices and freedom of contracts in every sphere. - J.Z., 5.9.04.
DECENTRALIZATION, NON-GEOGRAPHICAL VS. GEOGRAPHICAL, CENTRIFUGAL FORCES, ATOMIZATION, FRAGMENTATION, FRICTIONS, INFIGHTING, SCHISMS, SPLITTING, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUALISM, PLURALISM, NATIONALISM: Panarchists could fully utilize all the internal factions and movements and dissatisfactions and utilize all their centrifugal forces to "atomize" and "fragment" or split up all excessive State powers, i.e. all State powers that go beyond the consent of individual victims. They would aim at unity only among volunteers and realize the dictum of Caroline Chisholm: "Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the name 'national'". Consensual, voluntary subordination would remain - but only as long as individuals found it tolerable for themselves. - J.Z.
DECENTRALIZATION: According to an Optus advertisement there were already 228 countries by 1995. Thus at least territorial decentralization is advancing. Mankind might not be able to survive for long 228 territorial States but it could survive and even prosper under 2280 or even 22,800 communities, societies or competing rump-states governments or nations that are all only exterritorially autonomous for their own volunteers, wherever these may live or concentrate on this planet. – J.Z., 2.3.95, 24.9.08. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, EXTERRITORIALISM, WAR, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, PEACE, MANKIND’S SURVIVAL
DECENTRALIZATION: All decentralist arguments for local governments apply even more so to panarchies that do not exceed their optimum size. – J.Z., 9.11.04. - Local territorial governments or voluntary governments & societies? Territorial decentralization or exterritorial decentralization? Compulsory decentralization or centralization or only voluntary decentralization or centralization? Voluntary integration or segregation or compulsory integration or segregation? - Q., PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL – BUT WITHOUT ANY TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY, VOLUNTARISM
DECENTRALIZATION: Class-interest led him almost always to the side of the smaller political unit against encroachment by the larger, because the greater the power of local self-government, as a rule, the better for the producer and the worse for the exploiter. (*) Thus he was quite regularly for State rights against the Union, for country rights against the State, for township rights or village rights against the county, and for private rights against all. But in this he was far from doctrinaire; when the producer's interest lay in the other direction, he promptly changed sides.” - A. J. Nock, Jefferson, Harcourt, 1926, 199. - (*) In my time, in the Southern Highlands of N.S.W., particularly in Moss Vale, I have seen Moss Vale businessmen occupying, for many years, most of the local council positions and using them to exclude potential competitors, e.g. by imposing uneconomic conditions for granting them operating permits! Bowral, another town nearby, had initially less consumers, but more sensible businessmen, so its business enterprises multiplied and developed fine - taking many consumer away from the Moss Vale enterprises, since these small towns are separated, by car, bus or train, only by a few minutes. Belatedly they saw their mistake and eased or promoted some development of Moss Vale. Now Bowral has e.g. 3 super-markets, Moss Vale just one. The third small town in the district, Mittagong, seems to have acted, for many years, like Moss Vale did, with the same results. Government powers can be harmful at every level, even despotic, even in "democratic" countries. Instances in local history abound! - But then Australia doesn't even have a governmental Bill of Rights, far less a rightful Militia of volunteers to uphold them. - J.Z., 2.5.00. – By now Bowral has 4, Moss Vale 2 and Mittagong 2. – Even territorialists can, sometimes, learn something from their mistakes. However, usually, it takes them all too long. - J.Z., 13.11.10. CENTRALIZATION
DECENTRALIZATION: Decentralization down to the individual, in order, for instance, to eliminate nuclear targets and powers and most motives for wars and to turn everyone into a unilateral nuclear disarmament inspectors. - J.Z., 7 July 89.
DECENTRALIZATION: JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E., Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery, 1984. - Page 326: He favours the provision of services at the "lowest feasible level" and wrongly assumes that this would be the level of local governments. The lowest and at the same time the highest level should be that of individuals. Let the individuals secede and make their own choices of alternative governments or societies and their services, whether they are, provided world-wide, federally, state-wide or locally. As consumers we are already largely free to do so for ordinary goods and services - alas, not for the so-called "public services", all too often unwanted services, disservices or over-priced monopoly services. - - Page 331: "Politically, this requires a structure of the maximum possible decentralization of power, so that each group can follow its own path." - Volunteers should also be free to adopt centralization, even world-wide, for their own purposes, at their own risk and expense. E.g., the Free Traders would like world-wide free trade relationships between themselves. J.Z., I letter to GPdB & C.B., 11.11.04. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE, DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT, LIMITED GOVERNMENT
DECENTRALIZATION: Just give decentralization an even chance, e.g. by abolishing central banks and other monopolies, Quangos and, most importantly, exclusive Territorialism, with its uniformly imposed constitutions, laws, bureaucracies and jurisdiction. - J.Z., 25.4.97. [QUASI-AUTONOMOUS NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS.]
DECENTRALIZATION: Our world is becoming rapidly decentralized, as horizontal networks are replacing vertically-structured systems of power. Alternative schools, health-care, and systems of dispute resolution; the Internet and other decentralized forms of communicating information and ideas; the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the breakup of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia; secession movements throughout the world; smaller business firms along with the decentralization of management; Internet-based retailing and payment systems; “on-demand” publishing; on-and-on go the examples of decentralized systems of individual interconnectedness.” - Butler Shaffer, in speech: “The Failure of Governments to Limit State Power”, as reviewed in FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS. 12/07, p.15. – “He has a continuing E-Book at LewRockwell.com – “The Wizards of Ozymanidas: Reflections on the Decline and Fall.” – Decentralization must come to include full exterritorial autonomy for communities, societies, even governments of volunteers only, all peacefully competing with each other to retain their members & to gain more members: The panarchies of panarchism. – J.Z., 10.9.08.
DECENTRALIZATION: Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Du Principe Fédératif [chapitre VII] (1863) [Français] - Clarence Lee Swartz, What is Mutualism? (1927) [English] - Leopold Kohr, Disunion now - (1941) [English] - Max Richard, Principes et Méthodes du Fédéralisme - (1956) [Français] - George Woodcock, Reflection on decentralism - (1969) [English] - Gian Piero de Bellis put these titles in his Polyarchy - Polyarchie - Poliarchia - Poliarquia collection. - J.Z.
DECENTRALIZATION: Reflections on Decentralism, George Woodcock, 1969. - www.panarchy.org/ - Note: Originally published in Anarchy, October 1969.
DECENTRALIZATION: Towards the limits of voluntary decentralization and of voluntary centralization, for each according to his or her choice, which requires exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. - J.Z., 28.3.89, 31.3.89.
DECENTRALIZATION: We had, in other words, thoroughly internalized the mindset that our world could be rendered orderly only through pyramidically structured institutions, which would bring about such ends through the imposition of laws, regulations, and other directives that flowed, vertically, from leaders to followers. This model has been thoroughly discredited by work in such fields as the study of "chaos," economics, biology, information systems, and managerial theory, the implications of which have slowly been working their way into human consciousness.” - Butler Shaffer, The Wizards of Ozymandias, chapter 18. – Hierarchies are least efficient when combined with territorial monopolies. – If confined to exterritorial autonomy and such as well as non-hierarchical competition by many others, in the same area, then they are no longer wrong, because confined to their volunteers and can harm only them. – J.Z., 13.11.10. - COMPULSION, GROWTH, POWER, CONTROLS, SELF-GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, HIERARCHY, TERRITORIALISM, STATES
DECENTRALIZATION: Whenever possible, we must develop governmental services and programs at the least centralized and most human level possible. Instead of controlling people through big government, we must make government small enough that people can control it.” - - Newt Gingrich, Window of Opportunity, A Blueprint for the Future, p.145. - That can only be achieved by individual self-government and volunteer communities, requiring the individual secessionist option or panarchism, comprehensive voluntarism or consistent consent and representation arrangements, rather than the present farcical substitutes for them. - J.Z., 23.1.02. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SMALL GOVERNMENT, BIG GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE, ARMAMENT& DISARMAMENT, INTERNATIONAL LAW, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION, UNDER EXTERRITORIALISM & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRRITORIALISM & ITS COERCION. DECISIONS & SELF-GOVERNMENT BY INDIVIDUALS & MINORITIES FOR THEMSELVES: 43,59,61, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505.
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: As everyone concedes today, Congress has become a figurehead body in deciding the paramount issue of peace or war. Under our Constitution only Congress can declare war; but we recognize, in the missile age, in which obliteration from launching bases on the other side of the world is less than thirty minutes away, that there is not time for Congress to meet, to debate, to declare war. There is only time to react. And so, we say, the President will decide; the red telephone on his desk will be always at the ready; he will order the buttons of holocaust pushed. This is the theory, a theory that is a delusion; for in practice the President, no more than Congress, can really decide – there is not time.” - Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.30. - - With this decision taken out of the hands to the top politicians, their cabinets and out of the hands of parliaments, congresses, etc. and placed into the hands of the people, the targets of mass murder devices, these devices would be destroyed by the people, even unilaterally, before it ever came to a nuclear war. But left in the hands of a few, not always the most rational, moral, learned and wise people, often power-mad or fanatic ones, fundamentalists of one kind or the other, under the influence of sleeplessness, exhaustion and drugs - anything can happen then. – J.Z., 6.10.07. – TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: But how could any man, any group, make such decisions for the country – for the whole human race?” – John K. Gibbons, Voice of the People, p.114 in ANALOG, Nov. 96. - It’s all part and parcel of the territorialist and statist faith or religion. – J.Z., 25.9.07.
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: If they could even run a war properly! The machine's like an old, rusty spring, and all the wrong people are in charge - a bunch of doddering fools! Everything they touch withers and dies, and they touch everything. They don't understand a single thing they're doing, they don't understand this century! They look upon this amazing country as though it were their personal fief: if they feel like it, they'll make peace; if they feel like it, they'll make war - just as they behaved toward Turkey in the last century. And they imagine they'll always be able to get away with it. Why, not one of the grand-dukes even knows what the world "productive forces" mean! The people at court are supplied with whatever they need, and that's as far as their interests extend. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, August 1914, 657. – ANOTHER WRONGFUL GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY, VS. A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, OF MINORITIES & INDIVIDUALS (BINDING ONLY UPON THEMSELVES), STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: If you really believe that some men are enemies because of a declaration by people who claim to have authority over you, …” - Alex Comfort, The Power House, p.263. - BY GOVERNMENTS, ENEMIES
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: Politicians hide themselves away. They only started the war. Why should they go out into a fight? They leave that all to the poor.” - Black Sabbath, War Pigs, From the album 'Paranoid', 1970. – Or to the misled. Territorial rulers treat their subjects – and the subjects of the governments they oppose – as sacrificial lambs or human sacrifices for the external policies they pursue. And the victims on both sides let themselves be moved to the mutual slaughter fields (A literal translation of the German term “Schlachtfeld” for “battle field, called in German a “slaughter field.”) and feel all too often still very patriotic about that, although no clear and quite just war and peace aims have been proclaimed. – They should rather fraternize, rebel and conclude a peace treaty between themselves, over the heads of their rulers. – But such actions have to be prepared in enough minds, many years before it comes to a war. – Then a war could even be altogether avoided. - J.Z., 4.1.08.
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: Rascals, do you want to live for ever?” – Frederick II, attributed to the hesitant guards at the battle of Kolin on 18 June 1757; MacDonagh, 1999, p. 255. One fleeing grenadier reputedly replied: “Fritz, for eight pence, we’ve had enough for today!” - “Fritz, for thirteen Pfennige we have done enough for today.” – is another version. – J.Z. – People were so starved for money that they were prepared to risk their lives for as small monetary returns! – J.Z., 28.11.08. - JOKES
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: That a whole nation should resolve upon robbery and therefore make war upon a neighbouring country is impossible, because in a State, in which all are equal, the loot would not become the property of a few but would have to be divided equally among all. This share of the individual would never be worth the labours of the war. Only wherever the advantage is all on the side of a few oppressors and the disadvantages, the efforts, the costs, are born by the numerous army of the slaves, is a war of robbery possible and comprehensible. Not from other (free) States would the former have to fear a war but merely from savages or barbarians, who, unable to enrich themselves through labour are induced to commit robberies, or from enslaved people who are driven by their masters into a conquest from which they themselves would never profit anything. …” J. G. Fichte, Die Bestimmung des Menschen, p.137/138. – DECISION MAKING BY THE PEOPLE (COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS) RATHER THAN BY GOVERNMENTS, PANARCHISM
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” – James Madison (1751-1836), 4th U.S. President. - It is also vested quite wrongly and dangerously in a parliament or president. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - TO BE THE MONOPOLY OF A FEW OR THE RIGHT OF EVERY ADULT, SINCE EVERYTHING IS AT STAKE FOR HIM?
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: The royal or imperial privilege to decide exclusively on war and peace should not have been continued by republics and democracies, at the expense and risk of their subjects. Likewise, international negotiations, conferences, treaties and alliances should not be so monopolized because, like all other monopolies and powers this leads inevitably to many abuses. How many more historical instances do we need for this, before ending this ancient and quite wrongful custom and power? - It is closely connected to the very institution of territorial states and democratic & republican ideas and practices. The usual “thinking” and writing on individual rights and liberties has not yet been extended to this sphere, foreign affairs & foreign politics, the war and peace making powers and monopolies. Already Kant pointed out that that decisions on war and peace by governments, rather than by the people, indicates a kind of despotism. – However, to consider all of the population living in a territory, to be its one and only “people”, a real entity, sufficiently uniform and effectively united, and then granting some limited self-government or voting powers only to the majority of those people, forming a temporary majority, ignores all the individual rights and liberties, different ideas, beliefs, convictions, opinions, prejudices and inclinations of all those not belonging to this majority. It does not mean self-government, choice or consent for them. Not only democratic and republic but also individualistic ideas, including individual sovereignty and individual secessionism, have to be introduced in this sphere, to really achieve self-government, self-determination, genuine independence and self-management, consent, choice and genuine representation. Genuine representation can be realized only by voluntary associations, communities and competing governments, none of them with any exclusive territorial privileges. What has been misnamed “political science” has not yet sufficiently explored this alternative. Nor have the economists and advocates of various economic and social systems, based upon various hypotheses, theories and dogmas, religious, philosophical and ideological beliefs, sufficiently considered, the possibility of various systems and communities peacefully coexisting in the same territories but only for their voluntary members. Now, under threat of WMDs, from various criminal government and terrorist groups, it is high time that we dissolve the territorial targets for them and also the wrongs towards minorities that are inevitably associated with territorial rule and that lead to terrorist notions and attempts. The very existence of territorial States also leads too many people into quite wrongful collective responsibility ideas, opinions and actions and perpetuates problems and discontent that could soon be solved and turned into satisfaction via freedom to experiment among volunteers. – Let each person fill his “shopping cart” only with as many and those governmental goods and services that he or she want for themselves. That would maximize consumer sovereignty and consumer satisfaction in this sphere as well and prevent clashes between them. Imagine the political battles that would result if all of us were only allowed to purchase centrally determined and allocated rations in fixed quantities. We would get street fights between vegetarians and meat eaters, consumer of white or brown bred, those of factory-like produced eggs and those who want only organically produced ones, etc. etc. – J.Z., 9.7.04, 26.10.07. – MONOPOLIZED, CENTRALIZED, DESPOTIC DECISION-MAKING, ON WAR & PEACE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRORISM, FREE CHOICE AMONG GOVERNMENTS &SOCIETIES, PANARCHISM, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, CENTRALIZATION
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: Then, Kipling’s call “to take up the white man’s burden” fell upon the receptive ears of Bill McKinley, who came down from a sleepless night of consulting the Almighty to tell the press: ‘God told me to take the Philippines’.” – Patrick J. Buchanan, A New Nationalism, quoted in: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, The Environmentalist Threat, in Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ed., The Economics of Liberty, Mises Institute, 1990, p. 364. – The current President Bush also seems to have his “divine inspirations”, according to some reports. – J.Z., 9.10.07. – How many other presidents and prime ministers felt themselves divinely inspired and authorized? – J.Z., 13.12.11. - LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENTS
DECISION ON WAR & PEACE: You can’t stop me! I spend 30 000 men a months.” – Napoleon I., speaking to the Austrian foreign minister, Prince Metternich, 1810. - POWER-MADNESS, LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIALIST MENTALITY, RULERS, EMPERORS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS
DECISION ON WAR AND PEACE, etc., 43, 59, 61, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. – This whole sub-set has been digitized. – J.Z.
DECISION ON WAR AND PEACE: Why continue the monopolization of such decision-making in the hands of a few men in the world? – That is, certainly, one of the many wrongful factors that are making for wars and turn States into Warfare States. - J.Z., 27.8.08.
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: a mind on whose decisions all fate may turn has to function efficiently, - Poul Anderson, Conflict, 241. - No mind can do so efficiently. Anyone proves his mindlessness if he even tries to do so. - One would need an SF imagination to imagine extreme cases where the survival of all peoples would depend upon the rational decision of just one person. Alas, we have allowed a condition to become established in which even one irrational mind, armed with ABC mass murder devices, could come to threaten the survival of all - and we have yet to rebel against this condition. - J.Z., 6.10.01. – Nothing can make territorial monopolies rightful and efficient. – J.Z., 13.11.10. - LEADERSHIP, RULERS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: And definitely take back from them, for instance, the right to take (make? – J.Z.) decision on major national issues such as defence of the country, military build-up and declaration of war. Going one step further, forbid them to be involved in international conflicts, …” Kevork Ajemian, The Fallacy of Modern Politics, Books International, PO Box 6096, McLean, Virginia 22106, 1986, Tel. (703) 821-8900, p.189. - POLITICIANS
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Avoid making irrevocable decisions when tired or hungry.” - Robert Heinlein. – While our rulers are unlikely to ever make war and peace decisions that affect all of mankind, while they are hungry, they are likely to often make them while overly tired or drugged. – And they are much more dangerous to mankind than are over-tired or drugged airline pilots. - J.Z., 23.1.08.
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Both, the monopolization of war making decisions as well as the monopolization of peace-making decisions will assure many abuses of this territorial power. Each person ought to decide for himself who his enemies, his friends and his associates are. Prescribed enemies are no enemies. Prescribed friends are no friends. Prescribed allies are no allies. Even neutrality should be a matter of personal choice. Enforced collectivist decision-making pushes whole collectives, territorial collectives with numerous dissenters, into the same man-made disasters, rather than confining them only to their volunteers. – J.Z., 26.4.06, 30.10.07. – TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, WAR & PEACE, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & ALLIANCES, ENEMIES, PANARCHISM, ALLIANCES
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Criminal, stupid and mass murderous decisions on war and peace and international relations are all made via more or less constitutional or legalized powers and authorities at the highest territorial levels. We, as ordinary people, subjects and victims of their decisions, policies, powers and actions, are given no say in these matters, nor freedom to opt out from under them, choose sides or remain neutral. We have only the “freedom” or “choice” to become the victims of these constitutional or legalized criminal and even mass murderous powers, their decisions, “activities”, “measures”, “aims” and mass-murder “weapons”. And we have all too uncritically and obediently put up with this kind of extreme power abuse for all too many centuries. – J.Z., 17.12.98, 24.9.08. – WAR AIMS, CENTRALIZATION, TERRITORIALISM, OBEDIENCE, GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY, DESPOTISM, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, POWER, MONOPOLIES, POLITICIANS, RULERS, STATISM, CONSTITUTIONALISM, WAR, PEACE, FOREIGN POLICIES, NEGOTIATIONS, TREATIES, VOTING, POLITICS AS USUAL, DIPLOMACY
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man.” – Mark Twain, quoted in Larry Niven & Jerry Pournell, The Moat Around Murcheson’s Eye, p.151. – VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, MAN, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, WAR & PEACE DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, INDIVIDUALISM
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Executives or rulers are all too often executioners, at least for dissenters, if not, via ABC mass murder devices, even for their own followers. Their power addiction or even power-madness, combined with the system of territorial warfare States often does not seem to leave them any peaceful and rightful choices. – J.Z., 8.12.02, 20.10.07. - EXECUTIVES, EXECUTIONERS, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRITORIALISM, PRESIDENTS, RULERS, LEADERSHIP, FOREIGN POLICY
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Fancy people entrusting their very survival to professional liars like politicians. - J.Z., 30.4.98. – At least by now we have reached the stage where many somewhat enlightened people say about a war their government is engaged in: This is not my war. If it were up to me, I would end it immediately. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - WAR & PEACE DECISION-MAKING
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: He is free who knows how to keep in his own hands the power to decide, at each step, the course of his life, and who lives in a society which does not block the exercise of that power.” – Salvador de Madariaga, quoted in Sy Leon, None of the Above, p.32. - He should also have the freedom to choose such a society or community for himself! – J.Z., 24.9.08. – PANARCHISM, FREEDOM, INDIVIDUALISM, CHOICE
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Here’s your enemy for this week, the government says. And some gullible Americans click their heels and salute – often without knowing who or even where the enemy of the week is.” – Charley Reese (1998) – DECISION-MAKING ON WAR & PEACE, ENEMIES, OBEDIENCE, PATRIOTISM, POLITICIANS, FEAR, DIVIDE & RULE, POLITICS, PERSONAL RATHER THAN CAUSAL THINKING, PATRIOTISM TOWARDS DESPOTIC DECISION-MAKING
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: If individuals are to be deprived of the right to make their own choices, whether in matters of economics or anything else, what is the alternative? Who will then be designated to make these choices? The history of human affairs gives little comfort to those who believe that kings, priests, legislators or party leaders are wise enough to decide what is best for the subjects. A heavy burden therefore rests upon those who would argue that any area of human conduct should be removed from the control of those who are most directly affected.” – Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.129. – Let all of them have their way – as long as we can have it our way! - Allow both or multiple options to happen - but each only for volunteers and exterritorially! – J.Z., 2.10.07. - INDIVIDUALIZED OR COLLECTIVIZED, CENTRALIZED & MONOPOLIZED DECISION-MAKING? FREE CHOICE OR CONTROLS?
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Individualized decision-making alone can finally abolish wars, bloody revolutions and civil wars, terrorism, despotism, poverty, inflations, unemployment, monopolies and exploitation by taxes. – J.Z., 15.1.97. – INDIVIDUALISM, FREE CHOICE, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIAL COLLECTIVISM OF THE DEMOCRATIC OR DESPOTIC TYPE, VOLUNTARY STATE OR SOCIETY OR COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” – Thomas Sowell. - The “limited” government advocates and Constitutionalists, still put decisions on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties into the hands of a few government officials! – J.Z., 2.1.08. , CONSTITUTIONALISM, POWER, ORGANIZED & CENTRALIZED IRRESPONSIBILITY
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Let important decisions be up to us, individually, as sovereign individuals, free to secede from any of the so far territorially imposed States, with their decisions made centrally, monopolistically and coercively, by politicians and bureaucrats, without our individual consent or authorization. They do least of all know and appreciate our rights and liberties, our needs, wants and aims and what we are willing to work and pay or fight for. They do also least care about us – except as their voting cattle, their tax slaves and their supposed beneficiaries, seemingly justifying their existence. Let us have full self-determination rather than any vote in determining the fate of others through the election of political quacks and their laws and policies. They never got them right. All politicians and bureaucrats should become confined to their voluntary victims - in exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers (panarchies). That means that all of us should become free to secede from them and run our own affairs either alone, in market-relationships only, or together with like-minded other volunteers in our own personal law communities. Thus doing our own things only for or to ourselves. – J.Z., 1.8.99, 24.9.08. – DECISION-MAKING ON THE OWN AFFAIRS, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Make your own international friends and allies or enemies. Don’t rely on your territorial government to provide you with the right decisions regarding them. – J.Z., 18.9.96, 24.9.08.
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Man lives by his decisions.” – Alfred Bester, Starburst, p.106. – And all too often dies prematurely through the wrongful decisions made by others for him. – J.Z., 19.3.99. – At least he should always live and die by his own decisions rather than be the decisions of others that are imposed upon him. – J.Z., 24.9.08. – MAN, FREEDOM, CHOICE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY VS. TERRITORIAL SUBORDINATION, OBEDIENCE & LOYALTY, STATISM, PANARCHISM
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: One decision for all the population in a country is usually wrong or unsuitable for many to most of its people. Every consumer knows that for his shopping, his recreation, his sports and many other private activities. Alas, he is not allowed to shop around for political, economic and social systems among diverse and exterritorially autonomous societies and communities free to offer them to him, quite competitively. – J.Z., 24.5.02, 24.3.09. – UNITY, UNIFORMITY, ONE LAW FOR ALL, TERRITORIALISM, MAJORITIES, DEMOCRACY, GOVERNMENTS, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, FREE ENTERPRISE, A FREE MARKET FOR ALL SERVICES, EVEN FOR WANTED DISSERVICES OR ACTIVITIES THAT ARE OBJECTIVELY HARMFUL FOR ONESELF &, NEVERTHELESS, WIDELY ENGAGED IN
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: reduce the decision burden as the overloaded centre – the nation state. Decision division is essential. - - But moving decisions up the scale is only half the task. It is also clearly necessary to move a vast amount of decision-making downwards from the centre.” (*) - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p.442. - - (*) Or to create new and smaller – or new and even larger centers - but all only applicable to their own volunteers, beginning with competing but only exterritorially autonomous world federations, down to the smallest federations and groups, none of them necessarily tied to any territory or embracing only their own volunteers in any territory. – J.Z., 24.9.07. , DECENTRALIZATION, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Simply speaking, the destiny of mankind is in the hands of a few individuals …” - Kevork Ajemian, The Fallacy of Modern Politics, Books International, PO Box 6096, McLean, Virginia 22106, 1986, Tel. (703) 821-8900, p.169. – And only few people in all of mankind do fundamentally question thIS territorial and terrorist arrangement. – To that extent almost all people are to blame for this situation. - J.Z., 7.10.07. – CENTRALIZATION
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Such a monopoly for territorial governments is certainly not a libertarian tradition and practice. It is closely related to the legislative, juridical, defence and policing monopolies and that for international negotiations and treaties claimed by territorial statists and will end with them. – J.Z., 21.11.98, 24.9.08.
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: Test the nature of our feeling by what was after all perhaps the most dramatized situation in the whole drama: the fact that in the Western world a single man, or a little junta of military chiefs, could by a word send nations into war, millions to their death; and – worse still in a sense – that those millions would accept the fact of thus being made helpless pawns, and with appalling docility, without question, kill and be killed for reasons they did not even know. It must be made impossible ever again for half a dozen Generals or Cabinet Ministers thus to play with nations and men and women as with pawns. … - - Commands for youths to die in wars of unknown purpose do not strike us as monstrous when the commands are given by our own Governments – Governments which notoriously we do not trouble to control.” –Norman Angell, Human Nature and the Peace Problem, 1925, P.64. - - UNQUESTIONING OBEDIENCE, SUBMISSIVENESS, STATISM, LOYALTY, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, HEROISM, DOCILITY, WAR & PEACE
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.” – Thomas Sowell. - Let all people make their own choices for their own "fate", even in the sphere of political, economic and social systems, principles and institutions. From then on they can only complain about their own choices - but will also be free to change them once they have seen the light. - J.Z., 23. 11. 06. – Each man for himself – and this together with like-minded people, not with all kinds of other people, who happen to live in the same territory. – J.Z., 2.1.08. - Even those who made the best decisions on their own affairs do not have the right to impose these decisions upon the affairs of others. All people have the right to make mistakes - at their own expense and risk. - J.Z., 22.8.02 - Let each decide for himself in all of his own affairs, alone or in association with like-minded people only, even if they have to form exterritorially autonomous communities for themselves to achieve that. - No more territorially imposed decision-making for whole populations. The whole of history is full of the messes made by that system, wherever and to the extent that it was applied. – J.Z., 23.1.08. - DECISION-MAKING, EACH FOR HIMSELF, PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VS. TERRITORIAL RULE & ORGANIZATION, JUDGMENT, SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, AUTONOMY, UTILITARIANISM, RIGHTS
DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY: We ought to go after the monopoly decision-makers and the opinion-makers, depriving the first of their power and systematically trying to enlighten the others, with the best information tools and methods that can be compiled, concentrating on their special interests and particular errors, prejudices and myths, familiarizing them with all opposite views, seemingly only in an attempt to become more influential, but in reality, in order to use them as tools to spread more truths than they did before. - Attempts to positively influence the masses are much to slow and expensive and constitute usually a waste of efforts and funds - at least until suitable tools and methods to accelerate the process of enlightenment are developed and applied. See under: GENUINELY CULTURAL REVOLUTION. - J.Z., 23. 5. 01, 29.1.02. - DECISION-MAKERS, OPINION MAKERS, PUBLIC OPINION, PUBLICISTS, FAMOUS SPEAKERS, WRITERS & "EXPERTS", ENLIGHTENMENT
DECISION-MAKING TO BECOME INDIVIDUALIZED: Captain: Men! in five minutes we will attack. It will be a fight at close quarters, man against man. Private Isaac: Would you please point out my man to me? I believe I could come to an agreement with him. - - (One of those jokes which do show Jews from their best side. – I wish I would come across more such thought-provoking jokes. – Can one educate and enlighten people through a collection of suitable jokes? – At least one should try. - J.Z., 13.12.11.) A similar joke came from the German Russian front during WW II: A soldier was refused leave because of the desperate military situation. The only exception would be, his commanding officer told him, if he obtained an enemy machine gun. Then, as a reward, he would get his leave still. Half an hour later, this German soldier was back, with a Soviet machine gun. He got his leave certificate but then the officer took him aside and ask him: „How did you manage that? I didn’t hear any firing. I won’t give you away. Just tell me!“ The German soldier, trusting his officer, replied: „A Russian soldier needed a machine gun, too, for the same reason!“ – Maybe both of them even got a medal. I think they deserved it much more than other military heroes. - I desperately need not a machine gun – but more such jokes, relating to panarchistic decision-making. – J.Z., 11.1.05. – JOKES, DIOBEDIENCE RATHER THAN OBEDIENCE, FRATERNIZATION, MUTINY, INSURRECTION, DESERTION
DECISION-MAKING TO BECOME INDIVIDUALIZED: Grim Humour "Wouldn't you hate to be the President of the U.S. and have all his worries?" - I asked my husband. "Honey," he said, "don't you know that I have to worry about what the President has to worry about plus what I have to worry about, too?" ‑ Jeanne Anschl. - JOKES
DECISION-MAKING, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, SURVIVAL, LEADERSHIP: Should decisions on your survival, health, freedom, rights, your standard of living, your exchanges, your production, be subjected to those of "great leaders", party politics, official compromises, politicians, bureaucrats, committees, boards, leading minorities or majorities - or should you have fully free choice of "doctors", advisors and experts and fully autonomy regarding your own life? Should THEY not fully depend upon YOUR individual consent or veto? Should you not be as free to choose your political, economic and social expertise, advice and guidance as freely as you should be able to choose your doctors and a healthy or an unhealthy lifestyle? Should you not have full consumer sovereignty in these three important spheres as well? Should you not be as free to drop out or secede from a political system as well as from a medical scheme or a church or sect or any voluntary association or movement? - J.Z., 23.4.99, 26.6.01.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE & SECESSION: 71, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505.
DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY, THE: by Philip H. Farber, 1988, 3pp, 150, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PP 1,051.
DEFECTORS: Defectors from the present territorial and authoritarian institutions are usually their least defective subjects. - They should always be welcomed with open arms and permitted full exterritorial autonomy under their own personal laws if that is their wish. Such institutions, made well known as potential governments in exile for those who had not yet escaped a despotic government may be the best “weapon” of free or somewhat free societies, all of volunteers only and all confined to personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. – Ideas know no frontiers and can influence even darkened and misled minds after a while or greatly reduce their numbers. - J.Z., 23.7.95, 24.9.08. – DESERTERS, REFUGEES, PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, ASYLUM, IMMIGRANTS, FREE CHOICE AMONG GOVERNMENTS, COMMUNITIES & SOCIETIES - FOR ALL ADULT INDIVIDUALS
DEFENCE & PANARCHISM: 2-4, 32, 33, 60, 65, 73, 74, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON: On Panarchy.
DEFENCE & PROTECTION: Maybe voluntary protection agencies or market police will work. I don't know. But when I examine man's propensity for violence, even outside the State and when I consider most men's propensity to go for their short-run interests even when they see the long run disasters that loom as a result, I wonder about such schemes. I truly wonder. Is ethical pluralism - those who believe in and advocate violence as a way of life and those who advocate peaceful exchange living side by side - possible?" - Jim Downard, in TC, No.? p. 34. - Bloody and bone-breaking contact sports, like boxing and football, do coexist peacefully side by side with non-contact sports, like tennis and golf. And violent activities among sado-masochistic associations must be distinguished from criminal actions against innocent outsiders. The latter our present systems have never effectively prevented via education, institutions and policing. In many cases they have been systematically encouraged, instead. And people have been kept mentally immature and irresponsible by our legislators, e.g., via their mis-education systems, leading to childishly violent actions even when people are physically grown up. Another alternative is not discussed here by Downard, namely local volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights. They could be almost omnipresent, compared with the present police forces, would be less likely to be corrupt, have only rightful aims and weapons, could be property trained for this purpose and would certainly not tolerate armed and organized and active criminals within or outside their communities. But maybe they would establish special zoos for them, under the highest security precautions, where their continued criminal activities, continued and tolerated against themselves only, could become educational object lessons that could perhaps even be profitably filmed and screened. And they would not be foolish enough to tax themselves for the benefit of such criminal communities and thus force them to become self-supporting. See especially my own discussions of private and profit-making gaols and on ideal volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights, especially in PP 13 & 61-63. Whatever State organizations do now either not at all or rather badly or too expensively, can be done well an cheaply enough by volunteers, probably even at a profit. - J.Z. 8.1.93, 10.12.03. – Our basic schooling and education and enlightenment system still does not provide us with sufficient knowledge of genuine individual rights and liberties. In this respect most people still grow up illiterate and remain not even aware of this or have excuses for not recognizing and respecting these rights and liberties. They give their “representatives” as a result almost a “carte blanche” for infringing or even suppressing them. To that extent most people are still primitives or barbarians from my point of view. – What is your excuse for not working towards a comprehensive declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties? - J.Z., 13.12.11.
DEFENCE & TERRITORIAL NATIONALISM: Only territorial nations need a "national defence". - J.Z., 29.4.87. And they provoke such "defence" efforts in others, leading frequently to mutual national aggressions. - J.Z. 14.1.93. - Territorialists have good reasons to fear each other. Exterritorialists have no good reasons to fear each other. - J.Z., 11.12.2003.
DEFENCE, TERRITORIALISM: The superiority of territorial defence is already thrown in doubt e.g. by guerrillas, terrorists, assassins, black marketeers (Free traders in my view.), criminals, traffic offenders etc. in many ways. And in some ways we are lucky not to get all the "defence" and "protection" we are paying for. The potential of alternative libertarian defence, resistance, protection, revolution and liberation forces and methods and arms, training and organization is still all too little explored or publicized and discussed. Oddly enough, totalitarian regimes have sponsored more research into methods how their kinds of minorities for their kinds of aims can successfully fight established despotic governments or take over democratic ones, than libertarians have examined their alternative libertarian liberation options. - J.Z. 27.4.89, 4.7.89. – Not to speak from governmental preparations for a mutually mass murderous nuclear war. – J.Z. 13.12.11.
DEFENCE: A bureaucratized, i.e., militaristic, hierarchical, authoritarian, statists and territorialist “defence” is not the best kind of defence. Often it results in more aggressive than defensive acts. Anyhow, it is largely used merely to defend territorial domination, which offends already against the rights of individuals and minorities, sometimes even against the rights of the majority. – Almost never is it in favor of quite just war and peace aims and confined only to methods and weapons that respect individual rights and liberties. - Alas, what would constitute a libertarian and panarchistic defence and what would be justified in libertarian and panarchistic liberation efforts has not yet been sufficiently discussed or publicized, although this should have been one of our highest priorities, seeing the messes produced by territorial statist policies and practices in this sphere. - J.Z., 10.7.99, 24.9.08. – WAR, PEACE, DEFENCE, WAR AIMS, LIBERATION, FOREIGN POLICY, AIR RAIDS ON CITIES, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, LIBERTARIANISM, REVOLUTIONS, WARFARE, INTERVENTIONISM
DEFENCE: A defence by territorial governments amounts all too often to aggression under the pretence of defence. – J.Z., 19.11.95. – Where is the sense e.g. in bombing innocent non-combatants rather than executing a tyrant that has forced them and his conscripted soldiers into a war? - J.Z., 24.9.08.
DEFENCE: A libertarian, genuine and panarchistic defence is required, one that is, at the same time, tolerant and liberating towards all movements, faiths and beliefs - on both sides, all practised among volunteers only and at their expense and risk. Thereby it could remove almost all moral and rational motives and institutional options for the further conduct of wars, civil wars, revolutions and terrorism. – J.Z., 16.3.98, 13.12.11. – PANARCHISM, LIBERATION, REVOLUTION, CIVIL WAR, TERRORISM, MILITIA, WARFARE, WAR & PEACE AIMS
DEFENCE: Almost no territorial government is worth defending, excepting only a somewhat democratic government against a totalitarian one. And even then the defence should not be one merely of that territorial democratic government but merely of those few and limited individual rights that it already stands for and also of all the others and unlimited rights and liberties as well, to the extent that individuals want to practise them among themselves, in their self-chosen communities of like-minded other volunteers. No territorial states, governments, nations, communities or societies are worth defending as such. Thus the first defensive act should consist in a panarchist transformation and decentralization, corresponding to individual preferences, rather than calling for “national unity” and a united national defence effort. A united defence effort between very diverse panarchies, aiming to similarly transform the enemy regime, would be quite another matter. – J.Z., 7.10.95, 24.9.08, 27.11.08.
DEFENCE: Firstly, one has to become quite clear about one thing: A really free society hardly needs any defence. If it were attacked, it could "turn the other cheek" by rather liberating than killing the attacker's subjects. If that were made quite clear to any potential attacker, that his regime might thus lose most of its armed subjects and its civilian conscripts and tax slaves. Thus and then they would think at least twice about any attack. Their subjects could also be inspired and would be encouraged to resist and overthrow their oppressive regimes - with the example of really free societies impressed upon their minds. Then dictatorships would rather have to become afraid of the liberating influence of free societies and could not overpower these free societies. However, they could then still safely retreat into exterritorial autonomy, based upon their remaining volunteers, if they survive being held individually responsible for any crimes they might have committed. - J.Z., 9.8.85, 5.9.04.
DEFENCE: Government defence might costs us more than a surrender to some enemy government would. – J.Z., 3.6.96. – The way it is conducted now by territorial governments costs the own citizens often more than an outright surrender to an enemy regime would have cost them. We should rather try to defend ourselves, i.e., our individual rights and liberties by attempting to dissolve the own and the foreign territorial regime into mere communities of volunteers, all of them under personal laws only and full exterritorial autonomy, i.e. in a form that makes peaceful coexistence between them possible, likely, easy and profitable and thus end or prevent a war. – J.Z., 18.4.98, 24.9.08. – With the wisdom of hind-sight, consider whether WW I was really worth fighting – for any of the participants. If the other side had easily won, would the average persons of the defeated States by now really be worse off? And that war led to the rise of the Soviet regime, xyz inflations, the Great Depression, the Nazi Regime, the Holocaust and WW II! – J.Z., 2.12.08. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIAL WARFARE STATES, SURRENDER
DEFENCE: How much do we spend now, in the average, upon militarily killing a conscript of an enemy government or capturing him and keeping him captive as a POW? How much less would it cost us to set him free, by welcoming him and rewarding him as a deserter or finally liberated person, or releasing him from a P.O.W. camp to become self-maintaining through honest labor or by giving him a gold handshake for his life support, for a period or the rest of the war? How much cheaper would it be for us to pay him for the weapons he brings with him as a deserter than trying to militarily destroy them and him, while they are still on the other side of the frontline? And if we could not turn deserters or POWs into freed allies, members of their self-chosen government in exile (one of several peacefully competing ones, all without any territorial monopoly claim), through quite just war and peace aims, on our side (much more attractive to them than are the war and peace aims of their despotic or authoritarian - however “democratic”- governments for them, and convincingly publicized as well as demonstrated already now, as far as possible), then at least we should be able to turn them into neutrals, temporarily settling in a neutral country, chosen by them, where, under sufficient economic freedom, they could soon earn their living expenses and save something for their future. And how much or how little would it cost us, apart from the re-thinking and enlightening propaganda required, to induce them to rise effectively against their despotic government, acting thus as our allies, without having first deserted to us or been captured by us and then set free on our side, being treated as an ally or a neutral in a neutral country? The unnecessarily murderous and destructive military “defence” activity should be looked at anew from a moral and also business and economic angle. We could offer most of our merely imagined or artificially produced “enemies” and also ourselves a much better deal than fighting them and them fighting us. - Really patriotic enemy soldiers and officers would not even have to be bribed into becoming our allies - as long as we have declared and honestly stick to quite rightful war and peace aims and quite rightful defence and liberation methods and treat them as they deserve to be. Having been born and brought up on the other side of a territorial border does not turn them automatically into our enemies, even when their despotic government says that they are or ought to be. Their self-selected panarchy or government in exile should be much more attractive to them than is their territorial dictatorship. Under all economic liberties and rights their deserters, defectors and refugees could, on our side or in neutral countries, earn almost immediately much more than they could ever earn before under their territorial despotism at home. So why should they or why would they continue to fight us - if we offer them such alternatives and the best patriotic reasons and motives to come over to us, or to their rightful government in exile? – Provided we do this in a very convincing way, which is possible. Then they could soon become, after their territorial and despotic and all too warlike regime is overthrown, as free and prosperous in their newly liberated home countries as they can be on our side. And they would not have further risked their lives and limbs to uphold a despotic regime. – J.Z., 15.1.04, 31.10.07. - DESERTION, LIBERATION, PRISONERS OF WAR, FRATERNIZATION, TURNING ENEMY SOLDIERS INTO ALLIES OR NEUTRALS, RIGHTFUL & PEACEFULLY COMPETING GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS AGAINST DICTATORSHIPS, QUITE RIGHTFUL & PEACE-PROMOTING DEFENCE, LIBERATION & WARFARE
DEFENCE: Mankind has no defence for himself.”- Frank Herbert, Eye, 74, - Itself? Governments do not defend mankind but only themselves, their powers and abuses. - J.Z., 17.3.99. – Mankind needs a defence against territorial governments. It should reduce all governments and all non-governmental societies to their own voluntary followers – wherever they might live and work. – J.Z., 2.11.08. –PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIAL WARFARE STATES, MANKIND, HUMANITY, MILITIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES
DEFENCE: Mass murder or ABC anti-people or genocide "weapons" are either glorified or wrongly defined as "strength" and "weapons" and "defensive" or "preventative means" while e.g. tyrannicide, liberation attempts, fraternization, desertion, revolutions and military insurrections are maligned or suppressed or prevented, as if they could only be used against the own side. - J.Z., 5.2.02, 7.2.02. – Nuclear weapons are territorialist weapons. Exterritorialism would obviously make them wrong, superfluous and all too dangerous in the eyes of most people. - J.Z., 14.11.10. - MASS MURDER, INDISCRIMINATE WARFARE, GENOCIDE, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TYRANNICIDE, RESISTANCE, REVOLUTION, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, DESERTION, MASS FRATERNIZATION, DECISION
DEFENCE: See under HOPPE & HUMMEL. Also my two peace books (www.butterbach.net) describing libertarian defence options. - J.Z., 24.9.11.
DEFENCE: The best defence is war prevention, i.e., not "counter-force" or "non-violent defence" but the dissolution of all coercive and aggressive institutions. - J.Z., 6.9.87. – Alas, the following misconception is still popular: “The best defence is an attack. ” – Governments interpret this notion as an authorization of “aggression”. As if Ju Jitsu hadn’t and similar defensive skills had not been invented long a go. Not even when their representatives of territorial States are combined in the UN could they agree upon a definition of “aggression”. In other words, they want to “keep their options open.” - J.Z., 13.12.11. - PANARCHISM, WAR AIMS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTIONS & MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, DESERTION, TYRANNICIDE, LIBERATION, QUITE RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS, STRICTLY ADHERED TO
DEFENCE: The British Soldier can stand up to anything except the British War Office.” – George Bernard Shaw. – The ultimate decisions on war and peace ought to be in the hands of people in arms, who are enlightened about all their individual rights and liberties and thus motivated to defend them and also trained and organized properly for this purpose. Their natural allies are the suppressed peoples of an enemy regime, which should be treated as allies or at least as neutrals, thus isolating the enemy regime and its relatively few supporters, its true believers and power addicts. – J.Z., 14.11.10. - DEFENCE BY THE STATE, OBEDIENCE, DISOBEDIENCE, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, UNILATERAL PEACE OFFERS TO THOSE, WHO DESERVE THEM, DESERTION, PRISONERS OF WAR TREATMENT, WAR & PEACE AIMS. (To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice!)
DEFENCE: The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” - James Madison – What would be the primary preconditions and measures for libertarian defence, liberation attempts and the initiation of military insurrections and popular revolutions against foreign dictatorships? Territorial defence efforts do largely practise themselves the kind of aggression that is inherent in territorialism. – J.Z., 8.8.08. – Especially when it is expressed in indiscriminate bombing of cities that are under an enemy regime’s taxes, inflation, forced labor and conscription and when even quite basic rights and liberties if the regime’s subjects are suppressed. – Our nuclear weapons and conventional air raids do then tend to turn involuntary subjects of a despotic enemy regime into patriotic defenders of it! – We ought to treat them, instead, as our secret allies, to be liberated. - J.Z., 27.11.08.
DEFENCE: The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.” - Samuel Adams, Article published in 1771. - LIBERATION, MILITIA, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, MINORITY AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIALITY, MONETARY FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM
DEFENCE: There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.” - Woodrow Wilson, Speech at Philadelphia, May 10, 1915. - Alas, this was not right for "his" nation, nor is it for any "nation" today. But for a truly libertarians society, which would grant the statists, among themselves, their kind of "freedom" as well, at the expense and risk of only these statists, it would be true. - Isn't it high time to clearly work out all the details of such a program and to publish and discuss it sufficiently? - J.Z., 12.5.00, 13.12.11. - LIBERATION WARS, JUST WAR AIMS, PANARCHISM
DEFENCE: This matter of national defence would take on an entirely different aspect if peoples could be brought to understand that the only government they need to defend themselves against is their own government, and that the only way to defend themselves against it is by continual distrust and vigilance. It is a rather bitter reflection on human imbecility that the world could be reduced to permanent peace tomorrow, if by some magic its peoples could be made to transfer to their own governments all the fear, hatred, and incessant suspicion which they bestow on other governments. It is their own governments which have the power to hurt and despoil and destroy them. Other governments have no such power: and if all the peoples once perceived this, there would be no wars and no need of further defence against war.” – Source? – Tolstoi? Not the ONLY government but the FIRST! - All territorial governments deserve suspicion, fear and hatred - and transformation into exterritorially and therefore peacefully competing ones. Therefore the people, individuals, groups, minorities, should transfer to their own governments or free societies! - J.Z., 4.5.00. - WAR, PEACE, SUSPICION, FEAR, HATRED, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS
DEFENCE: We need, ultimately, the abolition all violent and aggressive or suppressive institutions and methods - without destroying at the same time all forceful and defensive options. To a large extent this can be achieved via individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. Then barely any forceful or non-violent defence will be required any longer - since violence would then occur only on the individual and small group level and even there it would be greatly reduced. - J.Z., 9/87 & 26.1.02, 1.12.08. - VIOLENCE, PANARCHISM, REVOLUTIONARY WARFARE, LIBERATION WAR, WAR AIMS, DESERTION, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, TYRANNICIDE, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, MASS FRATERNIZATION
DEFINITION ATTEMPTS: 1. The only tolerance in the political sphere which is sensible and justified is one which respects the right to organise or participate in all kinds of social, political and economic experiments undertaken by volunteers, at their expense and risk, without let or hindrance by the majority or any of the minorities. - All experiments which are forced upon a disagreeing majority or minority or which occur at the expense or risk of others than the voluntary members, offend against this principle of tolerance and should, therefore, not be tolerated. - 2. "No government has the right to force individuals not to do something which they may desire to do at their own risk, provided that they, in turn, do not force their will on others or put others at risk." - From a Workers Party discussion paper on drugs, 1975. - 3. Tolerance means fully free competition for all, even those who offer disservices for sale, as long as they do so without deceiving their customers any more than they are deceived themselves. - 4. Tolerance means self-ownership and the abolition of monopolies, especially the economic and political ones. - 5. Don't impose on others what you desire for yourself. Let them follow their own aspirations. Tolerance demands that you not only tolerate what you love or could not care less about - but also what you hate - as long as it is tolerantly practised. - J.Z., in pamphlet on tolerance.
DEFINITIONS OF PANARCHISM: Panarchism means "laissez faire, laissez passer" for governmental and non-governmental services and organizations, as many as different people and their groups desire, in any territory and right across all territories and their borders, world-wide. "Laissez-faire, laissez passer" means here, as originally: "Let people produce, let people exchange, freely" and not: let any crime or legal monopoly remain uninterfered with. No constitutional, legal, administrative, juridical, policing, military or diplomatic or decision-making monopoly at all, for anyone, over any dissenters. All services to be freely supplied and individually chosen, quite freely, by volunteers, or refused, in particulars or wholesale. It means voluntarism applied to all institutions. Thus it would give each individual and minority- and, naturally, all majority preferences their own undisturbed choice. "To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams!" It would be the equivalent to religious freedom or religious tolerance. It would apply in the political, economic and social spheres that panarchistic freedom that we do now take already for granted in the arts, in literature, in poetry, in philosophy, in film and the theatre, in sports, in fashions, in science, in technology, in entertainments, in gardening, in fashions, in hair styles, in professional services, and in the numerous different daily choices in our private lives. It would deprive all governments - and all private associations - of all coercive and exclusive and exploitative powers, since it would be up to individuals (not to the results of general elections, where individuals have only one vote among millions, once every few years), to cut their connections with any government, any time in emergencies and otherwise after an agreed upon withdrawal period. It would make all tax payments and all war involvements quite voluntary and thus reduce them to a minimum, if not prevent or abolish them altogether. I hold that ideal volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights, rightfully armed, organized and trained, would be helpful to necessary and in any case justified to realize and maintain panarchism against the remaining intolerant fanatics and "true believers". The explanation of this would require a long article. Much on it has been stated in PEACE PLANS 61-63. (Now online at www.panarchism.info/ ) - JOHN ZUBE, MARCH 1996, to JOE TOSCANA. - - Panarchy means a free market for politics and economics, for systems and ideologies, even including those amounting to anti-politics and anti-economics. Each to his own choice. Each to be the master of his own fate and none to be master over the fate of other more or less rational adults. That also implies that all their own free actions take place only at their own expense and risk. Each would purchase, on the free market, whatever political or economic or insurance package deal he likes for himself, at competitive prices. Alternatively, he would provide such services cooperatively, charitably or would receive them in this way. Consumer sovereignty in all spheres. This would mean even a free market for central planning efforts among central planners, for regulators - among those who like to be regulated, for despots among those who like to subordinate themselves to them. - CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY TOWARDS GOVERNMENT SERVICES, ALL PUBLIC SERVICES: PANARCHISM, DEFINITIONS, TERMS, NAMES, TERMS, SOME PANARCHISTIC DEFINITIONS
DEFINITIONS OF PANARCHISM: Panarchy means tolerance in the sphere of actions, also experimental freedom and unrestricted liberties and rights - where they matter most, nowadays, in politics, economics and social arrangements. Individual people, in their own choices in these important spheres, are to be quite independent from the preferences and actions, from the systems and organizations, constitutions, laws and jurisdictions of others, even if these others form large majorities. – NAMES, TERMS
DEFINITIONS OF PANARCHY: A Google search for "Panarchy + definitions" brought me 28,000 results, i.e. more than I can cope with. - J.Z., 24.9.11. - Compage: SHORT DESCRIPTIONS, in the old Pan A Z compilation. - The Mises Institute, on its website forum, called for definitions of this term. - J.Z., 18.10.11. - See under SHORT DESCRIPTIONS OR DEFINITIONS.
DEFINITIONS: The definition dominates over that what is defined.” - (Die Definition dominiert ueber das Definitiere.) – Hans Habe, Leben fuer den Journalismus, Band 1, Reportagen und Gespraeche, Knaur, 1976, S. 29. – Prejudices and errors still dominate all too often over truths. Territorial politics allows them to do so. Panarchism and polyarchism would confine them to their volunteers and would also demonstrate their truths and realities much more effectively than can be done by mere verbal attempts or interpretations. – J.Z., 15.9.07. – A huge encyclopedia should bring all the false and correct definitions of any significant term, with their entire pro and con and the definitions distinguished by a number or other code. – Not only “money” is not yet properly defined, but even terms like “aggression” and “enemy”. Nor has an ideal declaration of individual rights and liberties been compiled or published so far. – J.Z., 28.11.08. – FALSE DEFINITIONS, ERRORS, PREJUDICES, IDEAS, CONCEPTS, WORDS, LANGUAGE, DIS., PREJUDICES, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF REFUTATIONS
DEIGH, ROBB: Praised, Decried and Joined, Associations Are Multiplying, 3pp from INSIGHT, May 26, 1986: 200, in PEACE PLANS 1539.
DEITCHLER, WESLEY: Advocate of individual sovereignty. See: reports of 1989, 1p, in PP 1578-81, page 263.
DEJAN, JOSEPH: Le droit d'ignorer l'etat, by Herbert Spencer, translated by Joseph Dejan, 3pp, abbreviated, 171, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PEACE PLANS 1,051.
DELEGALIZATION: Term used in: E. Blankenburg et al, editors, Alternative Rechtsformen und Alternativen zum Recht, Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1980. – ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS, PANARCHISM & PANARCHIES, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, POLYARCHIES
DELEGATION: Delegate nothing to territorial governments any longer! – J.Z., 9.11.97. – STATISM, DECISION-MAKING, REPRESENTATION
DELEGATION: The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.” – John Locke, "A Treatise Concerning Civil Government". – They have, all too much, delegated many of their rights, liberties and responsibilities to their rulers, but have done so only collectively, not contractually, rightfully, individually, as a matter free choices. – J.Z., 28.11.08. – DELEGATION OF POWERS, RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, GOVERNMENTS, REPRESENTATION, DEPUTIES, VOTING, POWER, SELF-HELP
DELEGATION: You cannot paint "Mona Lisa" by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters.” - William F. Buckley, Jr. – Individual rights and liberties can be rightly and rationally practised only by individuals, not by compulsory collectives. – J.Z., 28.11.08. - VOTING
DELUSIONS: One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.” - Thomas Brackett Reed – By territorial legislation and powers. – J.Z., 14.11.10. - PREJUDICES, LEGISLATION, DIS., LAWS, LEGISLATION, PROBLEMS, SOLUTIONS
DEMAND & SUPPLY: Some agency must determine what should be produced. If it is not the consumers by means of demand and supply on the market, it must be the government by compulsion.” - Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, p.34. – Not only the demand and supply of ordinary consumer goods should be “regulated” by the free play of supply and demand, by free enterprise and consumer sovereignty, all under full monetary and financial freedom, but also the supply of all governmental and non-governmental systems, constitutions, bodies of law and juridical as well as police and defence institutions. All of the territorially imposed ones are all too wrongful and inefficient. – J.Z., 14.11.10. - CONSUMERS AND THE GOVERNMENT, PLANNING, COMMAND ECONOMY VS. FREE MARKET, FREE EXCHANGE, FREE CONTRACTS, FREE CHOICE
DEMOCRACY & NAZI LEADERSHIP SLOGAN: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer” (One people, one empire, one leader”) was one of the Nazi slogans I often heard in my youth. Alas, this Nazi doctrine is still upheld by territorial democracies, in the form of: “One people, one State, one Prime minister or President.” Is there enough of a difference between these “choices” for individuals? – J.Z., 12.4.05. – The Nazis refuted themselves in this, simply by putting all too many Germans into concentration camps and even extermination camps. – Only a minority joined their party. Some were even signed up by their employers, against their will – and without a protest option. – Hitler, too, had to rely on conscription, taxation and confiscation for his armed forces. – J.Z., 13.12.11.
DEMOCRACY & OPPRESSION: Demokratie verleiht jedem Menschen das Recht, sein eigener Unterdruecker zu sein. - Lowell. (Democracy grants every human being the right to be his own oppressor.) Only to the extent that he is represented by a majority or ruling party or ruler. It does not permit individuals to choose their own form of oppression or liberation, independent of the votes of others. It does not allow exterritorial autonomy for dissenting minorities or experimental freedom in the political, economic and social sphere. To that extent Lowell's statement is clearly wrong. The individual is only allowed to participate in voting for his own oppression or liberation. He is not given individual consumer sovereignty for "public" services. - J.Z. 8.7.92, 6.1.93.
DEMOCRACY & PANARCHISM: Democracy as genuine self-government for individuals or communities that have only voluntary members and are only exterritorially autonomous, with their constitutions, personal laws, jurisdiction and other protective institutions and referenda only applying to their own members. (Apart from applying them upon genuine aggressors.) Only democracies which really protect minorities, down to the smallest minority, the individual, from any despotic majority decision, do really deserve the name democracy. Thus the minimum requirement for democracies is that they permit individual and group secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for their communities. Democracy combined with territorialism isn't a genuine democracy. See: HOME RULE.
DEMOCRACY & PANARCHISM: Democracy is an insufficiently rightful and useful means to introduce anarchism for anarchists, libertarianism for libertarians and any other ideal for those who like it. Panarchism, based upon individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities, is such a framework. Freedom of speech, press, and information, combined only with the conventional forms of association and disassociation in all too limited private spheres, are not enough to spread e.g. the various anarchist ideas and practices, as experience has shown over many decades. Thus they must be supplemented by freedom for tolerant actions, that would not only give all kinds of anarchist ideals their chance to be practised among their believers but the same chance to all other idealists as well, so that no one would remain who have any just reason to complain that he would not be given the chance to live his life his way. – J.Z., 21.3.86, 9.1.99.
DEMOCRACY & PANARCHISM: No democracy is fully democratic, no republic fully republican without full experimental freedom for all dissenters – to do their own things for or to themselves, at their own risk and expense and on the basis of fully voluntary and only exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 28.7.93, 7.1.99.
DEMOCRACY & PANARCHY: Die demokratische Methode verlangt, dass Einzelwesen wie auch Voelkern gleiche Gelegenheiten gegeben werden soll, ihre Moeglichkeiten zu entfalten. - Julian Sorell Huxley. (The democratic method demands that individuals as well as peoples are given equal opportunities to develop their potential.) That applies at most to the Scandinavian concept of democracy as a system, which truly safeguards the rights of minorities. Not that any Scandinavian country has so far ever fully realized this ideal or could have, on the territorial model. It applies better to the panarchistic method. However, opportunities and rights cannot be given but they can be claimed realized and utilized, with some and unequal efforts and abilities. Not happiness should or could be granted to anyone but the pursuit of it and its enjoyment. - J.Z. 6.1.93.
DEMOCRACY VS. PANARCHIES: Democrats want only large, territorial, exclusive and coercive collectives to have the government of their dreams. Panarchists want every individual to have free choice among governments and also among non-governmental societies - but in each case only for themselves. - J.Z., 29.3.89, 31.3.89.
DEMOCRACY WITH A SMALL "d": THE REGISTER, 12.1.62, plan 240, pages 69-70, in ON PANARCHY III, in PEACE PLANS 507. - Democracy with a small d, was reproduced in and digitized with PEACE PLANS No. 15. This text is also online at www.panarchy.org - Anonymous, but I suspect Prof. Galambos being the "culprit". - J.Z., 13.12.05.
DEMOCRACY, LEADERSHIP, MAJORITIES & PANARCHIES: In democracies you have to follow the leads of leaders approved by the majority. In panarchies you are free to follow your own leads - among like-minded people. - J.Z., 23.9.04.
DEMOCRACY, PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: Participatory democracy is possible only in small groups. - David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, 7. - This is true only for territorial organizations with involuntary membership. Exterritorial ones could be large, even world-wide, representative or direct democratic and consent on or participation in fundamentals would always be implied - as long as voluntary membership remained. - J.Z., 28.2.88, 3.4.89.
DEMOCRACY, PROTEST, OBEDIENCE, LAWS VS. PANARCHIES: Territorial democracies allow you to protest against their laws etc. but you have to obey them. In panarchies you need not protest because you can secede from them to do your chosen things in another panarchy. And you are unlikely to protest since you have chosen it for yourself in the first place because you liked it. Thus you would have you own personal laws in it. If you no long liked them or some other aspect of your panarchy, you would secede. - J.Z., 23.9.04.
DEMOCRACY, TERRITORIAL: one of the evils of democracy is, you have to put up with the man you elect (*), whether you want him or not. That's why we call it democracy. - Will Rogers, Autobiography, 299. - (*) More correctly, "that others have elected", in most cases. Votes ought to be reduced - and extended - to free individual contracts with politicians, who are freely competing for our sponsorship and not granted any powers and monopolies except over their own consenting victims. - J.Z. 9.1.93.
DEMOCRACY: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, when fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” – Thomas Jefferson. – One of my sons said, while he was still quite young: “Why should the 51 rule the 49 or the 49 the 51, rather than the 51 the 51 and the 49 the 49?” – J.Z., 9.10.07. , MAJORITARIANISM, VOTING, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, MINORITY AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM
DEMOCRACY: All territorial democracies are "guided democracies" and, as such, misguided. - J.Z., 25.8.93. – All can only pretend to represent ALL of “the people”, although most of them are not as wrongful and and dishonest as those, which call themselves a “people’s democratic republic”. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - GUIDED” DEMOCRACIES, TERRITORIALISM
DEMOCRACY: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.” - The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532. – Even this democratic master would not allow the people themselves to decide on war and peace and refused to let individuals and groups of volunteers, even slaves, to secede from his rule and the rule of any state government. – Did he object to military servitude, tax slavery and monetary despotism and centralized powers in the hands of the US. presidents? – Even long before the Civil War he was an advocate of central banking, from which it is but a small step to an exclusive and forced currency, which he abused during the Civil War to finance the struggle for the supremacy of his own federal government, at the price of about half a million American lives. – J.Z., 4.1.08. - SLAVERY & MASTERS
DEMOCRACY: At the source of the democratic idea, there is not the desire to “obey only oneself”, as Rousseau put it, but rather the desire to obey only because it is just.” - Jacques Maritain, Man & The State, ed. by Richard O’Sullivan, London, Hollis & Carter, 1954, p. 116. – Isn’t full minority autonomy, if that is the wish of a minority, a basic requirement of justice? That would come closer to the ideal of Rousseau than a supposedly just system that is uniformly and territorially imposed upon all. That it is not quite just and perfect is largely proven by the fact that it is constantly changed by new legislation with majority or political or vested-interest support. – J.Z., 29.9.07. - OBEDIENCE, SELF-GOVERNMENT & JUSTICE
DEMOCRACY: By a wise constitution, democracy may be made nearly as calm as a water in a great artificial reservoir; but if there is a weak point anywhere in the structure, the mighty forces which it controls will burst through and spread destruction." - Sir Henry Maine, Popular Government. - Democracy is inherently unstable, if it is defined and organized as a territorial majority despotism. If, instead, it is interpreted as a system to uphold all individual rights and all the rights of minority groups, then it leads, ultimately, to panarchism. - J.Z. 24.7.92. - Individual secessionism allows then quite peaceful one-man revolutions or one-man voting on each man's self-chosen fate, destiny or ideal to take place. It acts as safety valves and prevents the built-up of excess pressures and their eventual explosions. It does away with the delusions of collectivist voting and representation. - J.Z., 7.1.93, 10.12.03.
DEMOCRACY: De-romanticizing democracy is frowned upon today, but I believe that it must be done. Democracy might be the most appropriate means of choosing government officials, but that does not imply that democracy equals freedom. Freedom requires more than the right to vote; it requires that each person be as unrestrained as possible from the arbitrary will of others - regardless of whether the others are conquering tyrants, hereditary oligarchs, black-robed judges, or a majority of neighbors or countrymen.” firstname.lastname@example.org - March 04, www.cis.ksu.edu/~mcalhoun/home.html - VOTING & FREEDOM
DEMOCRACY: Democracies and republics require voluntary rather than compulsory and territorial membership and subjects. Territorial sovereignty cannot achieve that. Only exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities can introduce voluntarism in the remaining monopolized spheres which are now mismanaged by territorial governments. Self-government under territorialism is a fraud or farce. - J.Z., 30.7.98, 12.5.00. - DEMOCRACIES & REPUBLICS, PANARCHISM & VOLUNTARISM, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIALISM
DEMOCRACY: Democracy brought the wrongs and evils of monarchism to millions, by allowing each to rule over millions with his vote, while also subjecting each to the votes of millions. Only in voluntary and exterritorial free market relationships and autonomous organizations can the millions who sufficiently agree with each other come to rule merely themselves and their own affairs, instead of having to engage in a continuous struggle to maintain a majority and to dominate all dissenting groups. A genuine democracy is one which respects the rights of minorities and individuals, instead of subjecting them to its own laws. Majority decisions in elections and in referendum should apply ONLY TO THE MAJORITY and to those choosing not to opt out from under its rule. - J.Z. 14.11.92, 4.1.9, 5.9.04.
DEMOCRACY: Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions it only guarantees equality of opportunity.” – Irving Kristol. - It does not even do that, as long as it still denies or suppresses most important rights, like e.g. the right to trade freely, even across borders, the right to work untaxed and unregulated, the right to exchange freely with all rightful monetary, clearing and credit options, the right to bear arms, the right to secede from a government and to try supposedly better arrangements together with other volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy or freedom to experiment. The whole democratic or republican baggage is still full of mythology, errors, ignorance, popular prejudices, fallacies and flawed principles. - It urgently needs dry cleaning or washing, for it is dirty and stinks, at least in the opinion of the numerous dissenters. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. - EQUALITY, OPPORTUNITIES
DEMOCRACY: Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something. - - Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?” - Robert Heinlein, in Time Enough for Love. - - Wisdom comes only from genuine self-government, which means sovereign individuals and their societal choices: communities of volunteers and free contracts with all kinds of service associations. – J.Z., 8.9.07. – If the decision on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties would have been up to the population or voluntary members of panarchies, would they have made as wrongful and irrational decisions and this as often as their political leaders did, with their monopoly on such decision-making? – J.Z., 28.11.08. – PEOPLE, LEADERSHIP, WISDOM, AUTHORITY, AUTOCRACY, DICTATORSHIP, TYRANNY, DESPOTISM, PEOPLE, GOVERNMENT, SELF-DETERMINATION, DECISION ON WAR & PEACE
DEMOCRACY: Democracy is not a true alternative to totalitarianism. It still contains too many territorial features in common with those of totalitarian States. Neither of them are genuine "people's democracies". - J.Z., 9.4.95, 12.5.00. - TOTALITARIANISM
DEMOCRACY: Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.” - D'Arcy J.M. Cain ( email@example.com ) 10/15/1997. – Panarchism offers “dinners” according to the menus of thousands of different “restaurants” or panarchies, all run under free enterprise principles by volunteers, using free pricing & free competition to satisfy their customers as much as they can, and without preventing anyone from shopping for their foods anywhere and preparing the own meals for themselves at home. – J.Z., 28.11.08. - PANARCHISM, MAJORITY RULE, VOTING, SELF-HELP, COMPETITION, FREE ENTERPRISE
DEMOCRACY: Democracy with corruption is better than tyranny without it. ... Democracy in its inherent toleration must be on guard against self-destruction." - D. Runes, "A Dictionary of Thought". - Why offer people only a choice between these too? Offer them rather consumer sovereignty in this sphere. Then, in the long run, they will not hire or not for long, the services of any corrupt or tyrannical people. Moreover, there would be few slush funds for hiring or attracting either of them. Nor would there be many monopolies left which attract them. As for the second sentence, I would rather say: Present democracy, in its inherent territorial intolerance, must expect self-destruction - if it is not first destroyed from the outside, in an attempt at territorial conquest or defence or liberation. - How inefficient and wrongful democracies can be in this they demonstrated by their all too bloody wars against authoritarian German governments in WW I and WW II., in which they could have and should have gained fast and almost bloodless victories. But then, on still all too many points, they were not all that much better than the German regimes. Nor was their method of warfare altogether different and appropriate. They did not even proclaim quite rightful war aims in time. However, exterritorial democracy, in various panarchistic forms, is quite possible, rightful and harmless to peaceful people and largely immune to enemies of the present types of democracy. And should its enemies gather some powers, then such democracies would be very dangerous and formidable enemies against such powers and would often be able to turn their powers against them, by truly liberating policies. For instance: All the despotic State assets could be utilized as incentives and rewards for their overthrow, too. A price on the head of a tyrant would not have to be very great to become effective. Deserters and refugees could be welcomed with open arms as neutrals or even allies and rapidly and fully employed and a genuinely liberating program could be communicated to the internal opposition, in the despotically governed States, mobilising and combining all their centrifugal forces, e.g. via rightful governments in exile and quite rightful war aims proclaimed in time, resulting in a successful revolution or military uprising. Some details on such approaches can be found in PEACE PLANS 19c, 61-63 & 16-17. - J.Z. 26.7.92., 8.1.93.
DEMOCRACY: Democracy, says Proudhon, is nothing but a constitutional arbitrary ruler.” - Daniel Guerin, Anarchismus, Begriff und Praxis, edition Suhrkamp, 1967, p. 17. - As such it is rightful only for volunteers, i.e. under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 17.9.07 - A CONSTITUTIONALIZED ARBITRARY REGIME, PANARCHISM
DEMOCRACY: Democracy's the worst form of government except for all the others.” - Winston Churchill. – Are there any genuine democracies when the power to decide upon war and peace, armament and disarmament is still concentrated in a few hands? Immanuel Kant denied that in his “Eternal Peace”. Nor should we forget those western democracies and the “people’s democracies” which armed themselves with mass murder devices. It makes no difference to me whether I am murdered by the nuclear mass murder device of a democracy or a dictatorship. – Personal law institutions were, apparently, unknown to Churchill, too, although he was a conservative, and wrote history books and was said to have possessed an almost photographic memory. Perhaps that memory was burnt out by excess alcohol consumption? He not only subscribed to territorialism but also to collective responsibility and thus his government destroyed not only 10 German cities for every English one that the Nazi regime destroyed, as he had promised to do, but did over 300 times the air raid damage to German cities, mostly under the pretence of attacking only military targets. - Indiscriminate air raids do not win friends for democracies and make more enemies than friends. How many innocents were thus murdered, while arms production was even increased in Germany? The German furnaces and ball bearing industries, essential for technological warfare, were not destroyed in time. The “ dam busters” also demolished, indirectly, some POW camps. - Did he organize or command any of the over 40 assassination attempts against Hitler? - Without such past wrongs and mistakes being sufficiently criticized they will be all too often repeated. – J.Z., 4.1.08. – Compare: Rethinking Churchill, Mises Institute, DAILY ARTICLE by Ralph Raico | Posted on 11/15/2008 – QUESTIONS, AIR RAIDS, INDISCRIMINATE WAR FARE, NON-COMBATANTS
DEMOCRACY: Even democracies do not "Let 100 Flowers Bloom" but, rather, let most of them wither away. Equal taxation and equal regulation is not equal representation. - J.Z., 30.7.98, 12.5.00. - DEMOCRACIES & THE 100 FLOWERS, REPRESENTATION, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM
DEMOCRACY: For instance, democracy means, literally, power of the people, but the fact of being allowed, every four or five years, to decide who will be the future masters (and not succeeding even in that unless the voter is on the side of the majority) is something that no true political scientist, in full possession of his rational capabilities, should characterize as power of the people. - And certainly not in the present century, with all the technological advances that we witness and enjoy, which are putting in the hands of the individual much more power (of information, communication, movement) than any deceitful political rite. - "La dottrina democratica è una fonte di produzione ideologica a cui la mente ricorre volentieri per dare un travestimento di tolleranza e di apparente consensualità agli istituti più rudi della coazione statale, generata dalla volontà di potenza dei forti sulle masse." (Enrico Leone, Teoria della politica, 1931) - "The democratic doctrine is a productive source of ideology to which the mind willingly turns in order to give a veil of tolerance and apparent consentaneity to the harshest institutions of state coercion, which derives from the will to power of the strong over the masses." (Enrico Leone, Theory of Politics. 1931) - "All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority." (Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, 1849) - In order to justify the holding of this illusion, many social scientists and, after them, many common people, keep repeating the famous statement of Winston Churchill: "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." (Speech in the House of Commons, November 1947) Unfortunately, Churchill didn't add "so far"; in this way, he would have spared us a lot of idiotic myths about democracy. - However, if the social scientists had examined the statement honestly, they would have remarked that, what it says is that democracy is a. only one of the many forms of government devised throughout history b. a bad one c. acceptable just because the others existing at his time were even worse. - So, to hear the social scientists reiterating the same concept after more than 50 years from the moment it was originally formulated should be a matter of deep concern for all creative and progressive individuals. - In fact, it means that in the past people were clever enough to introduce more acceptable (or less bad) forms of social organization but now we are totally incapable or incapacitated of doing so because, according to the present democratic rulers and their intellectual servants, we have reached, with democracy, the end of the road. This is not only a very preposterous idea but also a very depressing perspective. … "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another." - "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way." - "Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality." (George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946) - Gian Piero de Bellis, Straightjackets and Superstitions of the Statist Age.
DEMOCRACY: For the curse of this country, as of all democracies, is precisely the fact that it treats its best men as enemies. The aim of our society, if it may be said to have an aim, is to iron them out. The ideal American, in the public sense, is a respectable vacuum.” – H. L. Mencken, Essay in Pedagogy, in Prejudices, Fifth Series, page 234. – But have the real elites so far bothered to establish e.g. an Ideas Archive and Ideas Market and done the same for all talents in the world? Have they pushed for their right as dissenters and pioneers to secede and practise their ideals among themselves, with other volunteers, under personal laws – of have they rather shared the territorialist prejudices and false premises and wrongly assumed that a free market for ideas and talents does already exist? – J.Z., 9.10.07. - CITIZENS, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, TERRITORIAL RULE & SUBORDINATION
DEMOCRACY: He also stated that the solution for all the problems of democracy was more democracy.” – G. Harry Stine, Titbits, ANALOG, June 96, p.115. – Ascribing this view to Robert A. Heinlein. - Rather: More genuine self-government than majoritarian and territorial democracy can possibly offer. – J.Z., 25.9.07. - PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, ETERRRITORIAL AUTONOMY & VOLUNTARYISM
DEMOCRACY: How dictatorial democracies can be - can be judged e.g. by their many statist monopolies, territorial constitutions, laws, jurisdictions, police and prison systems and their military organization. They have sterilized supposedly unfit people and taken children away from their parents and prosecuted or suppressed minorities, deported people or put them into concentration camps, imposed taxes, military servitude, educational servitude, monetary despotism, compulsory licensing, protectionism, regulations etc., long before the modern totalitarians did their things to us, more comprehensively and ruthlessly. - J.Z., 9.4.95, 11.5.00. - DICTATORSHIPS
DEMOCRACY: It would be folly to argue that the people cannot make political mistakes. They can and do make grave mistakes. They know it, and they pay the penalty, but compared with the mistakes which have been made by every kind of autocracy they are unimportant.” - Calvin Coolidge, Speech in Evanston, Ill, Jan. 21, 1923. - One of their mistakes is to assume that they are a uniform people. In reality, either a majority or a minority dominates a people or a democratic country - and both can be very autocratic, too. - I would be folly to assume that in all respects democracies are quite different from dictatorships. In their foreign relations, their taxation, their uniform legislation, their territorialism, their statism, they are not. - Let each individual and each group among the people make their own mistakes, at the own risk and expense. Then we would come close to democratic self-government. - J.Z., 11.5.00. – PEOPLE OR VERY DIVERSE POPULATIONS? TERRITORIALISM
DEMOCRACY: One of the great virtues of our democratic system is that only one of the candidates gets elected.” - Bernard Meltzer. - That's already one too many! - J.Z., 11.5.00. – As a “representative” for all people in “his” territory! – J.Z., 29.11.08. – If each candidate were only to represent or rule his voluntary followers then it would not matter how many such free societies or communities were established for a while. In the long run their number would be self-regulated, too, by individuals joining or seceding from them and at least some such societies disappearing altogether, at least for the time being, just like failed businesses or factories. – J.Z., 14.11.10. - POLITICIANS, VOTING, ELECTIONS, REPRESENTATION, TERRITORIALISM, JOKES
DEMOCRACY: Our dilemma is clear. We have not found any means to make democracy a viable, exportable ideal. (*). We have confined ourselves to preaching rather than to deeds. …” - Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.353. – (*) People like Cook and the military experts and politicians he attacked, have not even seriously looked for such means. “Democracy” and its present mixed economy should at most have been offered as an exterritorialist option for volunteers, one of many such options and all of them should already have been freely demonstrated in the Western World, by exterritorially autonomous communities, including numerous governments-in-exile. That would have been much more useful than the continuance of the arms race and the greatest governmental military strength. The military experts, although they also teach forms of unarmed combat, seem to be unable to apply some of its lessons to military strategy and tactics, least of all those forms of unarmed combat which turn the strength of the opponent against him. Their psychological warfare methods are a very poor substitute for such a military policy. – They still think and act in terms of territories and collective responsibility and pure strength or power. - J.Z., 6.10.07. – And yet a knitting needle through the ear, nose or eye, or a well aimed body blow, can kill the strongest and best armed man, and, especially, a tyrant & war monger. The latter are also defenceless when their own troops are induced to rise against them with a real liberation program. – J.Z., 9.10.07. - QUITE RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS
DEMOCRACY: Parliaments, parties, free elections, education under governments, free mass media, government judges and "public opinion" cannot sufficiently correct the remaining wrongs and flaws of territorial democracies. On the contrary, they are part of the problem. - J.Z., 22.11.99. - POLITICAL LIBERTY, TERRITORIALITY
DEMOCRACY: Robert Heinlein … also stated that the solution for all the problems of democracy was more democracy.” - G. Harry Stine, ANALOG, 6/96. - Ultimately this requires self-government not only for minorities but for individuals, too and not only for territories largely occupied by a minority group but also self-government for volunteer communities that are exterritorially autonomous, although they might be outnumbered almost everywhere. - Heinlein, unfortunately, was not specific about this. - J.Z., 11.5.00.
DEMOCRACY: Sie ist die anspruchsvollste und eben damit gefaehrdetste aller politischen Ordnungsformern, naemlich jene, die bestaendig aus dem freien Kraeftespiel gleichberechtigter Personen erwaechst. - Guardini. (It is the most demanding and thereby the most endangered of all political forms of order, namely one which grows from the free play of all the energies or all persons with equal rights.) A panarchist would rather say: Panarchies are the least demanding (for dissenters) and most demanding (for consenting members) and thus the least endangered and least endangering of all political forms of order. They can continually and freely grow, utilizing the creative energies of all their voluntary members, who will tend to have equal rights internally, regardless of their differences and of at least the possibility of some internally despotic panarchies being established by some for a while for themselves. Democracies would rather disfranchise all dissenters and enfranchise only fluctuating and more or less ignorant, prejudiced and misled majorities and their temporary leaders. - J.Z. 6.1.93.
DEMOCRACY: Territorial democracies and republics still practise despotism towards the lives, activities and properties of their involuntary subjects, who did not vote at all or who voted against them. - J.Z., 25.8.98. - Majority despotism can be even worse than the despotism by an somewhat enlightened despot. - J.Z., 12.5.00. - Territorial democracies, too, have to become reduced to exterritorial ones, confined to their volunteers and their personal law system – J.Z., 14.11.10.
DEMOCRACY: The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.” – Voltaire, quoted in: SAVE AUSTRALIA ALLIANCE, a newspaper, issue no. 36 (12 01 06 ), p. 1. – I believe that there is no such animal as an ideal territorial government. Moreover, even majoritarian democracies and “representative” ones are inherently flawed. – And assassinations should be distinguished from tyrannicide. – J.Z., 21.10.07. – Any form of government that requires assassinations is hardly an ideal one. – J.Z., 28.11.08. - GOVERNMENT & ASSASSINATION, TYRANNICIDE, DIS.
DEMOCRACY: The popular opinion that democracies are much less belligerent than autocracies seems to be unwarranted by our data. In the 20th century the relative magnitude of the war activities of democratic England (measured by casualties) was higher than of Spain; of France higher than of Austria or Russia." (Pitirim Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics, 1957)
DEMOCRACY: The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this.” – Rep. Ron Paul in Democracy Is Not Freedom - The founding fathers were still unaware of the panarchistic rights and liberties, even of full monetary and financial freedom. - They did not even introduce free competition in the postal services! - J.Z., 25. 11. 06. – If the founding fathers had clearly understood it then they would have allowed minorities to opt out and rule themselves under full exterritorial autonomy, including the slaves and the Red Indians, and oppressed women and children. – J.Z., 28.11.08. – DEMOCRACY IS NOT FREEDOM, MAJORITARIANISM
DEMOCRACY: With exceptions so rare that they are regarded as miracles and freaks of nature, successful democratic politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate the demanding and threatening elements in their constituencies. The decisive consideration is not whether the proposition is good but whether it is popular – … This devitalization of the governing power is the malady of democratic states. … It can be deadly to the very survival of the state as a free society, …” - Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, A Mentor Book, 1955, p.28/29. – As if any territorial government powers were vital for a free society! Flexible, fast and rightful foreign policies can be practised by competing governments. Their very nature constitutes also a most important “foreign policy” towards all other societies and remaining territorial States. The very existence of panarchies will make most foreign policies, alliances and defence efforts of the present kind – superfluous! – J.Z., 14.1.00, 11.9.08. - POLITICIANS, STATES, GOVERNMENTS, SOCIETIES, LEADERSHIP, POPULARITY
DEMONSTRATE, TOO, DO NOT ONLY TRY TO PERSUADE: Persuade or demonstrate rather than enforce. J. Z. 12.6.92, 6.1.93. "According to the doctrine of liberty, we are to devote ourselves to prevention, as the surest and most wholesome mode of extirpation. Persuade; argue; cherish virtuous example; bring up the young in habits of right opinion and right motive; shape your social arrangements so as to stimulate the best part of character." - John Morley, On Compromise. But do not confine yourself to teaching and demonstrating "virtue" only. Allow failures and vices to be practised and demonstrated freely among volunteers. They also do have their lessons to teach and no pupil should be deprived of them or should be expected to comprehend the better alternatives sufficiently without these bad examples. We learn tend to learn as much or more from our mistakes and those of others than from our successes and those of others. J. Z. 6.1.93.
DEMONSTRATING TRUTH: Don't argue the truth - demonstrate it, and allow others to demonstrate even their errors, at their expense and risk. - J.Z. in pamphlet on TOLERANCE, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXAMPLES
DEMONSTRATIONS & MARCHES: To my mind, the bringing of people out into the streets is not a part of the persuasive process. On the contrary, it marks the end of the persuasive process and the beginning of coercive action.” - Benjamin A. Rogge, NOTES FROM FEE, May 78. - Marches of mobs engage the legs while they disengage the brains. Just look at most of the slogans they shout or hold up on signs. Moreover, they tend to concentrate the number of brainless people and brainy people only under delusions of grandeur, in which they imagine themselves to be leaders of a popular movement or even revolution. When did you last see or hear of a demonstration against monetary despotism, i.e. central bank monopolies and legal tender powers - and for full monetary freedom and for individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy? - J.Z., 12.5.00. - PROTESTS
DEMONSTRATIONS OR EXPERIMENTS RATHER THAN PERSUASION ATTEMPTS TO SPREAD TRUTHS: But the name doesn't matter. If you've got the truth, you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." – Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, p, 388. - As if we were already exterritorially autonomous to demonstrate our truths in the political, economic and social sphere. - J.Z., 7.1.93.
DEMONSTRATIONS, PRACTICAL, EXPERIMENTATION: Demonstrate, too, do not only try to persuade: Persuade or demonstrate rather than enforce. - J.Z., 12.6.92, 6.1.93. "According to the doctrine of liberty, we are to devote ourselves to prevention, as the surest and most wholesome mode of extirpation. Persuade; argue; cherish virtuous example; bring up the young in habits of right opinion and right motive; shape your social arrangements so as to stimulate the best part of character." - John Morley, "On Compromise" - But do not confine yourself to teaching and demonstrating "virtue" only. Allow failures and vices to be practised and demonstrated freely among volunteers. They also do have their lessons to teach and no pupil should be deprived of them or should be expected to comprehend the better alternatives sufficiently without these bad examples. We learn tend to learn as much or more from our mistakes and those of others than from our successes and those of others. J.Z. 6.1.93.
DEMONSTRATIONS: If you've got the truth, you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." - Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, p. 388. - One cannot demonstrate them, in that sense, in the political, economic and social sphere, until freedom to experiment is introduced there, too. Such demonstrations are best done by quite free experiments among volunteers, under exterritorial autonomy, rather than by marches of people who spout slogans or uphold signs stating that they do disagree. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM
DEMONSTRATIONS: Persuade; argue; cherish virtuous example; bring up the young in habits of right opinion and right motive; shape your social arrangements so as to stimulate the best parts of character. By these means you will gain all the advantages that could possibly have come of heroes and legislative dragooning, as well as a great many more which neither heroes nor legislative dragooning could ever have secured.” - John Morley, On Compromise. - Persuade or demonstrate rather than enforce. - J.Z., 12.6.92. - EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM
DENATIONALIZATION & PRIVATIZATION UNDER PANARCHISM: The Nationalizers as well as the denationalizers would have their own panarchies, each with as much public government or administration or as little of it as suits themselves, down to zero for some. - J.Z., 13.9.04.
DENATIONALIZATION: Antony Fisher calls for ending all government monopoly and control.(*) Accordingly, over a period of years he would 'demobilize' the British civil service, denationalize the post office, cut all tariffs and subsidies, terminate all exchange controls, end all forms of direct control over prices and incomes, roll back the welfare rolls, make unions subject to the law of contracts, adopt Milton Friedman's voucher system to reintroduce choice and competition in schooling, and reprivatize all nationalized industries.” - Antony Fisher: Must History Repeat Itself? Churchill Press, 1974, reviewed in THE FREEMAN, 6/74. - (*) Why not allow them to be continued at the risk and cost of volunteers only? Among themselves they should also be free to uphold their monopolies. - J.Z., 12.5.00.
DENATIONALIZATION: Denationalize people! - J.Z., 24.11.94. Denationalize territories! - Denationalize laws, constitutions, jurisdictions, police and defence forces! - J.Z., 11.5.00. – PEOPLE, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY UPON INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, TERMS, DEFINITIONS, NAMES
DENATIONALIZATION: 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 failures to be born only by them and benefits to be shared only among them. – J.Z., 1986, 2004.
DENATIONALIZATION: Our denationalization efforts should be all-embracing enough to set an example to be followed for anti-totalitarian revolutionaries. They should put assets and purchasing power into their hands, instead of the hands of their oppressors. Moreover, they should set an example of tolerance for individually preferred differences among freely competing political, economic and social experiments, all conducted by volunteers under full exterritorial autonomy, even state socialistic ones, among the remaining true believers, but this time at their own expense and risk only. - J.Z., 16.6.86, 12.5.00.
DENATIONALIZATION: We need a denationalization and demonopolization of the political and economic life as well as of our educational, cultural, religious and private lives, all on the basis of voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy. The result would be: "To each the government or the free society of his or her dreams." - J.Z., 2.10.80.
DENATIONALIZATION: What most needs to be denationalized, desocialized, depoliticalized, is not the veterinary industry but the government industry. Not until the government industry itself is individualized, privatized, economized, can the same be done for any other industry.” - Pyrrho, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION 107, p.56. - Via individual secession, once that is introduced, each could do that for himself, when he is ready for it. - It would also be possible to make a take-over bid for all remaining government assets, by distributing in advance, before an election, promises to hand over to each voter or taxpayer their share in them, once a trustee-administrator for the voters is elected into office. That would, at the same time, offer the biggest tax refund ever. In some countries it would be a "bribe" of the voters that would prove to be irresistibly large. In Australia probably still over 1 million A $ per head of the population. But time runs out, for the ruling bureaucracy manages to sell the voter's public assets, one by one, to some private interests - and pockets the proceeds for its political ambitions. - See PEACE PLANS 19 C for details. - J.Z., 12.5.00. - DENATIONALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT & THE STATE
DENATIONALIZING NATIONS & DE-GOVERNMENTALISING GOVERNMENTS: The nations and governments themselves ought to be denationalized, privatized and individualized, if they are not to destroy all of us. - J. Z., 20.12.87
DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENTS: Do not protect government departments from competition. - J.Z., 1976. - COMPETITION, PUBLIC SERVICES, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS
DEPENDENCE: no people can be truly free, whatever the name or external form of its government, whose institutions allow its welfare to depend on the contingency of the capacity and honesty, the love and concern, of any special number of individuals out of the whole body.” - J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government & Centralization, p.6. - WELFARE STATE, DECISION, POWER, RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-RELIANCE, TERRITORIALISM, CENTRALIZATION, IMPOSED HIERARCHIES
DEPENDENCE: Oh, how wretched is that poor man that hangs on princes' favors! - Shakespeare & John Fletcher: Henry VIII, iii, 1613. - Replace "princes" by territorial bureaucrats' and politicians"! - J.Z., n.d.
DEPENDENCE: The dependence of the human masses upon their masters must be destroyed.” - Gustav Landauer, All or Nothing, DER SOZIALIST, Oct. 12, 1995 (? - 1909?) – Only the dependence upon imposed territorial masters must be destroyed. Any truly self-chosen one could remain. It is self-limiting through individual secessionism. – J.Z., 29.11.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE
DEPENDENCE: We are not the tame defeated dependents of "the system" unless we choose dependency.” - Ronald Higgins, PROGRESS, 5/81. - Territorial systems do not give us the chance to choose for ourselves whatever degrees of dependence or independence we want. To achieve this requires exterritorial autonomy and individual secessionism. - How often will that truth have to be repeated - and to how many people and for how long, until it finally sinks in? - J.Z., 12.5.00.
DEPORTATION: Deport or incarcerate rather the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration than any refugee! - Full monetary and financial freedom and other economic liberties would provide job opportunities for all able and willing to work. It would also increase our standard of living. If territorial governments do not know how to achieve that, then they should resign or at least let voluntary communities set them such examples. Not only according to the models of Hong Kong, Singapore, free ports and industrial development zones – merely with some less governmental restrictions. Any economic, political and social rights and liberties ought to be permissible among volunteers, everywhere. Let all of them succeed or fail on their own merits. We are not obliged to offer welfare state services or entitled to impose our kind of democracy upon all the people in the world, but must to allow all people to apply their various self-help options. – J.Z., 1.8.03, 24.10.07. - INCARCERATION OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS OR NOT RECOGNIZED REFUGEES & ASYLUM-SEEKERS
DEPPING: Histoire du Commerce entre le Levant et l’Europe (Paris, 1830), vol. ii, p. 52, where the author says: "It is from a remote antiquity that there were, in all the States on the shores of the Mediterranean, courts of commerce, where nearly the same rules were followed. The consulates were nothing but courts of this nature transported to foreign countries." - Mentioned by LIU, ibid, p. 33.
DEPUTIES, APPOINTMENTS, OFFICES, LEADERSHIP: Panarchism demands the right of the individual to appoint his own political agents over or for himself and to change them when it suits him. - J.Z. 20.8.92, 4.1.93.
DEPUTIES: Deputies are not deputed by individuals. - J.Z., 19.11.93. Nor for the affairs of individuals. – J.Z., 2.12.08. – Territorialism enforced collectivism rather than individualism. It does not leave individuals fully free choice on their own affairs. – J.Z., 29.11.08. – PANARCHISM, REPRESENTATIVES, ELECTED CANDIDATES OR POLITICIANS, PARLIAMENTS, VOTING, DEMOCRACY, VOTING
DEREGULATION: Deregulate our society. - Bob Howard, FREE ENTERPRISE, 2/76. - It isn't our society that is being regulated. Rather, a free society is not allowed to exist in the political, economic and social spheres, to the extent that they are preempted by governments and their constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and administration. Nor is it "our" State that is being regulated and restrained but, rather, our own lives. When even top freedom advocates confuse basic issues - then what can you expect from the rest of the citizens. Confucius was right: Start by properly defining and clarifying your terms. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT & EXPERIMENTATION IN ALL SPHERES
DEREGULATION: Every knee-jerk conservative now rides the bandwagon of deregulation, what with President Ford's recent advocacy of less government regulation in order that free enterprise might work unencumbered. But the idea is hardly new nor even very Republican. It has, in fact, been nursed and refined for years by a special breed of rightists known as libertarians.” - SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 2/76. – Individuals should be free to deregulate their own affairs simply by opting out from any territorial system. Among like-minded volunteers and under full exterritorial autonomy they would have only personal laws and self-chosen rules, not regulations imposed upon them by territorial dominators. – J.Z., 29.11.08. – PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM
DEREGULATION: The wicked anarchistic policy of allowing free competition to lower prices and improve services.” - J. C. Lester.
DESERTION & PANARCHISM: 23, 32, 41, 43, 58, 61, 62, 65, ON PANARCHY I, in PEACE PLANS 505. - Desertion is a particularly significant form of individual secessionism. - Its past and future role has not yet been sufficiently explored. - J.Z., 30.8.04. See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON: On Panarchy. - Napoleon I had his excuse for his defeat in Russia. Later, defeated and incarcerated, he claimed a debt of gratitude from the Russian Czar to him, for, he declared, if I had set the serfs free, I would have won! Maybe, he would have. He, the killer of about 2-3 million people, claimed, then, that humanitarian motives prevented him from making such a proclamation. He would not have wanted a repetition of the atrocities of the French Revolution! I believe the total number of victims of the Red Terror of it, already smaller than the total number of victims of the following White Terror, would have been far exceeded by the total number of victims of the Napoleonic wars. The decentralist, alternative institution, liberation-approach was not even applied then and there, even when it might have led to an easy military victory. - Such possibilities are not even fully recognized, discussed and developed by most libertarians and anarchists now. Humane treatments of POWs, better still, their liberation and choice of governments for them, could have turned the course of many a war and could have led to liberation and short wars with little bloodshed. Alas! See the short essay of Beckerath on this, in appendix 18 of my second peace book. Try to interest a member of the usual peace movement in such an approach! The history of mass desertion, invited or spontaneous, is also interesting in the history of wars and revolutions and has its obvious panarchist aspects. Alas, a complete history of such events has not yet been written. - - Such somewhat panarchistic actions have been peace promoting. But mostly they were not panarchistic enough and led only to new territorial despotism or at least authoritarianism. - B. also wrote a very interesting and panarchistic draft of peace conditions for the next war with Russia. He worded it so cleverly, in accordance with the official prejudices of the time, that he did get away with it, even under the Nazi regime! - J.Z.
DESERTION: I don't know of a greater advantage than to recognize an enemy's merits.” - Goethe, Sprueche in Reimen: Sprichwoertlich. (Nicht grösseren Vorteil wüsst'ich zu nennen, / Als des Feindes Verdienst erkennen.) - The real enemy is the enemy regime, as a rule, not its captive nations, which are really our secret allies and ought to be treated as such. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – While the means, e.g. indiscriminate bombing, applying the wrongful “principle” of collective responsibility”, and the aims of terrorists, namely their territorial rule, should be totally condemned, their right to rule themselves, in accordance with their ideals, should be recognized and the way to achieve it, quite peacefully, should be opened for them – as well as for all other people. – Territorialism and majority rule, in combination with popular “collective responsibility” notions and the insufficient recognition and publication of all genuine individual rights and liberties, including personal law or exterritorial autonomy options, has, among other things, also “bred” or motivated some people into committing terrorist acts, when they felt they were not free to engage in genuine self-government. - J.Z., 29.11.08. - PEOPLE VS. GOVERNMENTS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS, REAL VS. IMAGINED ENEMIES, TERRORISM, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
DESERTION: If possible, leave room for your enemy to become your friend.” - Robert Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, IF SF, April 66, 129. - ENEMY, SECRET ALLIES, WAR AIMS, WARFARE, LIBERATION OF POW’S, ENEMIES, DESERTION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE
DESERTION: If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.” - Bible, Proverbs, 25/21 and Romans 12:20. - No matter how incapable the enemy regime is, it manages, as a rule, to feed its ruling members and top supporters well, at the expense of its victimized people. These captive nations are not our enemies and they, rather than their rulers, ought to be fed, aided, supplied with advice and credit by us, and welcomed with open arms when they defect. We should in advance proclaim rightful war and peace aims towards them, make treaties with their governments in exile and demonstrate our good intentions by realizing full freedom, under panarchism for all, on our side. Moreover, we should give and keep our words to them, directly, not through the mouths and promises of politicians and diplomats. We should publicly swear that we would rather disobey our rulers than deviate from our genuine liberation program and should educate, train and arm ourselves properly to carry it into effect, on our side as well as on their side, inviting all kinds of collaboration with our rightful aims and actions. After all the historical experiences with governments and their wars and war aims, who can still automatically accept as an enemy whosoever is pointed out by his government as such? Is "his" government "his" government, as long as it monopolizes all war and peace decision-making? - People who know and apply all economic liberties would know how to welcome and set to productive employment millions of deserters and refugees from dictatorships, instead of using the armed forces to keep them out, as potential tools of the dictatorships, or deport them back to them. Does anything else demonstrate the ignorance and incapacity of governments as well as these instances? - J.Z., 12.5.00. - DEFECTORS, REFUGEES, ENEMIES, PRISONERS OF WAR, FRATERNIZATION, LIBERATION, CAPTIVE NATIONS, LIBERATION, WAR AIMS, WARFARE
DESERTION: mass desertion would be absolutely impossible to cope with.” - James J. Martin, The Return to "War Crimes", RAMPART JOURNAL, 28/29. - For anyone but political, bureaucratic and military experts they would be relatively easy to arrange for, if the arrangers are free to apply their moral and common sense. - The same applies to mass fraternization, to well organized military insurrections and revolutions. - The military bunglers among our leaders are no better than the political and bureaucratic ones. What they are good at is supplying is very expensive failures and to do so over and over again. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – Under full monetary and financial freedom, armies of refugees and deserters could and would be welcomed with open arms, rapidly and productively employed and increase the own standard of living and also the own security. They could dissolve enemy regimes. Especially when they are given panarchistic choices for themselves. – J.Z., 29.11.08. – DIS.
DESERTION: Nuclear weapons neutralise each other and as for divisions, yes, the 'communist' powers do possess a terrific number of divisions; but do they truly possess them? Remember, the only non-Hungarian men who fought for Hungary's freedom in October 1956, were Russian deserters. They had chosen freedom.” - Salvador de Madariaga, The Blowing Up of the Parthenon, 92/93. – There are still too few writings on non-statist, libertarian defence, liberation, revolution and military insurrection programs directed against all totalitarian, despotic or authoritarian regimes – and, basically, all territorial regimes are at least authoritarian regimes. – J.Z., 29.11.08.
DESERTION: Offer better and better paying jobs to all soldiers and officers, the own nationals and the foreign ones, or at least work towards the preconditions for such offers. - J.Z., 2.5.89. - How high would be the fighting spirit of a foreign conscript sent to fight against us when as soldier for his regime, or as a civilian, at home, he might earn annually only $ 100 to $ 1,000, whilst if he deserted to us he could almost immediately get a job in which he could earn $ 15,000 - $ 30,000? However, we should also remove religious, racial, trading, professional licensing and immigration barriers against his people. Otherwise hatreds could spur him into participating in a conquest effort. And we should permit all deserters, refugees and immigrants their own preferred institutions and laws, in complete exterritorial autonomy, thereby removing most motives for fighting against us. - J.Z., 12.5.00.
DESERTION: Our politicians are not even trusted by ourselves and far less, and rightly so, would they be trusted by members of an enemy regime's armed forces, who would be willing to conclude a separate peace with us, ignoring their own regime and ours, if we give them reasons to trust us much more than they would trust the promises of their and our politicians. - J.Z., 8.5.83, 12.5.00. – Let soldiers and civilians make their own foreign policy by desertion, defection, separate peace treaties or joining their self-chosen kind of government-in exile. – J.Z., 29.11.08. - DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, REFUGEES, REVOLUTIONS, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, ASYLUM, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, IN FORM OF PANARCHIES
DESERTION: Our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within, to conquer him through himself. … when the enemy is demoralized from within …" - Adolf Hitler. - He probably thought here mainly of his "Fifth Columns", rather than deserters, which he did not welcome or only too late. - Freedom lovers would rather use techniques that would "moralize" an enemy's forces from within and offer them economic as well as patriotic incentives to rise, desert or declare themselves neutral and exterritorially independent. - J.Z., 5.6.92, 12.5.00. - Very often doing just the opposite of what territorial governments habitually do can could set one on the right track. - J.Z., 12.5.00. , LIBERATION WARS, LIBERTARIAN DEFENCE, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, SEPARATE PEACE TREATIES, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS, THE CAPTIVE NATIONS – OUR SECRET ALLIES, DIS.
DESERTION: Power usurped / Is weakness when opposed; conscious of wrong / 'Tis pusillanimous and prone to fight. / But slaves that once conceive the glowing thought / Of freedom, in that hope itself possess / All that the contest calls for - spirit, strength. / The scorn of danger and united hearts, / The surest presage of the good they seek.” - Cowper. - Unless they include exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer communities, there will be much self-defeating infighting before and after a victory over a despotic regime. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – In the absence of exterritorial autonomy for tolerant communities the totalitarian territorialists will often and for all too long be the winners. – Panarchism releases all centrifugal and decentralist forces and can thereby come to dissolve or defeat the territorialist, coercive and collectivist unity ideologies. - J.Z., 29.11.08. - POWER, STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, USURPATION, CONSCRIPTION, OPPOSITION, PANARCHISM
DESERTION: Protestants were deserters and secessionists from authoritarian Catholicism. – J.Z., 20.8.95. - More such desertions and secessions are required from today's territorially authoritarian and intolerant territorial systems. - J.Z., 11.5.00. , REFUGEES, DISSIDENTS, REFORMATION, PROTESTANTS, CATHOLIC AUTHORITARIANISM, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, TOLERANCE IN ALL SPHERES – TOWARDS ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE
DESERTION: Really welcome deserters from the other side - either as neutrals or as potential allies. Treating them and their countrymen, still at home, as well as all POWs, as enemies - is one of the greatest crimes and mistakes. - J.Z., n.d. & 12.5.00. - Eugene Lyons wrote, in the fifties, an excellent book on this subject, titled somewhat like: The Captive Nations, Our Secret Allies. - Under the Soviet Regime there were over 100 of them, including the Russian people. - J.Z., 12.5.00.
DESERTION: render service to an enemy, to make a friend of him.” - Len Deighton, Yesterday's Spy, 107. - If that were morally and rationally systematized, nobody could afford to abuse conscripts any longer in wars of conquest and domination. They would rather desert, thereby, at least indirectly, helping to liberate their own country. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, UNILATERAL PEACE OFFERS, NEGOTIATIONS OF ARMED FORCES - OVER THE HEADS OF THE RULERS, WAR AIMS, LIBERATION, PANARCHISM
DESERTION: Soldiers given only the choice of death or imprisonment, by their rulers, if they do not want to fight against us, should be given better chances by us than death or imprisonment by us, when the enemy regime has managed to conscript, train, arm, uniform and set them in march against us. Our rightful offers to them should be so attractive that they would rather come to rise against their government or desert to our side than fight us for the benefit of their oppressive regime. They should be given the option to become neutrals or active allies against their former dictatorship and our war or liberation aims must be genuine, clear and believably made, best by realizing them already fully on our side. Our warfare methods must also be rightfully discriminating, directed against he victimizers only, not against the victims. The military insurrectionists, deserters and refugees must become free to establish their own exterritorially autonomous volunteer communities, anywhere, as the ally of all other free governments and societies. They must not be confined to hand-outs in concentration camps but freed to support themselves through productive labors anywhere in already liberated areas. While exclusive private clubs etc. could be continued, by those who prefer them for themselves, all territorial immigration and settlement and work barriers must be removed. - Under a complete libertarian defence and liberation and revolution program little fighting and bloodshed would occur. Opposed in this way, most dictatorships could be destroyed even before they could send their armies against us. And their ABC mass murder devices could also be destroyed by their internal opposition - once we do not longer use such "weapons" against the captive nations, our secret allies. - Tyrannicide rather than genocide by ABC mass murder "weapons"! - J.Z., 4.11.85 & 12.5.00. - PRISONERS OF WAR
DESERTION: The best way to defeat an enemy is to make a friend out of him." – Source? - Often "the enemy" isn't really an enemy but already a secret friend and ally. Then his desertion or capture is not a defeat but a liberation. - J.Z., 12.4.84. - ENEMIES, SECRET ALLIES, PEOPLE & INDIVIDUALS VS. GOVERNMENTS, WAR AIMS, TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR, DESERTERS, DEFECTORS & REFUGEES
DESERTION: The conscripts on the other side are not, as a rule, "the enemy" but, rather, most of them are potential friends and allies or at least neutrals - if they are clearly treated as such. - J.Z., 6.9.88. , ENEMY, CONSCRIPTS, PRISONERS OF WAR
DESERTION: The good, if they are actually good, do not battle against the good; those who are at war are either the bad against the bad, or the bad against the good.” - St. Augustine, City of God, I.c., XV. - In both of the last 2 cases desertion or mass fraternization or military insurrections or neutrality declarations are indicated. - J.Z., 12.5.00.
DESERTION: Those who serve the greater cause may make the cause serve them.” - T. S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral, 1, 1935. Dramatists and SF writers ought to explore the potential for rightful liberation wars and libertarian revolutions and military insurrections much more so than they have so far. - How can one prevent wars or turn total wars into limited and rightful police actions? How can one fight a liberation war together with the conscripted soldiers and oppressed citizens of an enemy regime on one's side? How can one turn one’s secret allies on the other side, the various captive nations and other communities, into open allies? Which steps are essential for a libertarian revolution? What are rightful war aims and how can they be most easily realized? - Rightful international interventionism, that reduces oppression, bloodshed and destruction and poverty should be as much considered and developed as are radical internal libertarian steps. - A part of the program against the remaining communist totalitarian regimes and state socialistic dictatorships should be e.g., Communism for communists - but on a voluntary basis, in their own personal law communities only, which will be only exterritorially autonomous for all their voluntary members, with freedom for individuals to secede for them - and this side by side with e.g. the same kind of communities realizing among themselves e.g. "capitalism for consenting adults". - Who would really remain a fanatic enemy when our motto is: “To each the government or free society of his or her dreams!" - and when we do already practise this principle among ourselves? - J.Z., 12.5.00. - RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS, SECRET ALLIES, CAPTIVE NATIONS, LIBERATION WARS
DESERTION: Under a system of systematically encouraged desertion, practised by both sides, and if both governments were equally good or bad, then they would lose their conscripted soldiers to each other. Then the warring governments would be reduced to use only the remaining few volunteers that they might still find. Most likely there would only be enough volunteers to arrest and punished the governments that started the war or made it possible. The deserters should either declare themselves as neutrals or as allies and should organize themselves under governments in exile or in communities in exile, practising only exterritorial autonomy. Then they might negotiate treaties with the government of the host country, insisting e.g. upon rightful war or peace aims towards their home countries. They should certainly not grant unlimited obedience to aggressive and oppressive actions by the government they deserted to. - In short, the officers and soldiers on both sides should cease to act as mere pawns in a game of "chess" between their governments. - They have the greatest interest to negotiate a separate peace between them, over the heads of their governments, and this on conditions that are quite just to both sides. - Why should they risk their lives for the benefit of the politicians and bureaucrats on either side, far less for any despotic regime they suffered under so far? - J.Z., 29.5.83, 12.5.00.
DESERTION: When opposing warriors join in battle, he who has pity conquers.” - Lao-Tse, in Lionel Giles' translation. – Offer genuine freedom, justice, prosperity & peace, through exterritorial autonomy and personal laws for volunteers, rather than demanding “unconditional surrender” - WAR AIMS, PARDON, TREATMENT OF PRISONERS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE:
DESERTION: Who is the bravest HERO? He who turns his enemy into a friend. - Abot d'R. Nathan, 23. In: Lewis Browne, editor, The Wisdom of Israel. - ENEMIES, FRIENDS, ALLIES, HEROES
DESIRES: Can anyone force you to desire what you do not want? - No one.” - Epictetus, 85-136 CE, philosopher, Greece, in The Discourses of Epictetus, II, Book V, chapter I. – Under territorialism: Yes! Under panarchism: No! – J.Z., 29.11.08.
DESIRES: God said to King Wan: "Be not like unto them who reject this and cling to that. Be not like them who are ruled by their likes and desires!" - Shi King, Major Odes, decade I, ode 7, in The Wisdom of Confucius. - And yet there is nothing wrong or immoral or unethical if, within one's own exterritorially autonomous community, and among like-minded people only, one does exactly that and no more than that. Others, from whom such people would have seceded, might then say to themselves: "Good riddance!" For instance, let us have exterritorially autonomous communities of abortionists and drug addicts, duelists and religious fanatics, Nazis and Communists. The more they would slaughter each other, mind you, always only in their internal struggles and actions, the better the human race would become. - J.Z., 12.5.00. - DISLIKES, LIKES, PASSIONS
DESPAIR: In Desmond Morris' perfect metaphor, the naked ape behaves exactly like a zoo animal: despair is the essence of the cage experience. …” - R. A. Wilson, Illuminati Papers, p.29. - I for one don't agree with his succeeding conclusions, so I left them out. - Governments do treat their territories and inhabitants of these territories as their property, but like gamblers, as property to be squandered and reduced by gambling and exploitation rather than well treated and multiplied. But then, governments, as parasites, cannot do more for the people than the people, if free, could and would do for themselves. - I have not yet seen a clear indication in Wilson's writings that compulsory membership in States and their territorial organization are among the major problem factors and that voluntary membership combined with exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities are among the major solutions required. - J.Z., 12.5.00. - POWERLESSNESS, TERRITORIAL NATIONS & WORLD AS A PRISON, CAPTIVE NATIONS
DESPOTISM: All political government must necessarily become despotic, because all government tends to become centralized in the hands of the few, who breed corruption among themselves and in a very short time disconnect themselves from the body of the people. The American republic is a good illustration.” - Lucy Parson, interview with the NEW YORK WORLD, 1886. - She, too, did not consider the option of competing governments and societies and communities, all of them only exterritorially autonomous and manned by volunteers only. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM
DESPOTISM: Despotism never advertises itself as such. Invariably it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. By its own definition it will be "democratic," "progressive," "liberal," "humanitarian" and "fraternal." Those who oppose it will be reactionaries, fascists and other currently bad names. It is not by its name, therefore, that you shall know Absolutism, but by what it proposes to do. Whenever relaxation of existing limitations upon the power of government is suggested, you are upon notice that your liberty is threatened. Unless you counteract swiftly and sharply you are likely to be denatured.” - Clarence Manion, The Key to Peace, p.65. - Honesty in advertising is not a characteristic of dictators nor of ordinary politicians. - J.Z., 21.11.82. - They are full time busy planning further legal or illegal restrictions upon your liberties. Each of these, to prevent or overcome, might need campaigns of large numbers for decades, under the territorial system. But, under individual secessionism and competition from exterritorially autonomous communities, dissent can be practised easily and any time by individuals doing their own things, in their own one-man revolutions. Manion did not consider that option but remained stuck, like so many libertarians, on the concept of a supposedly limited and ideal but still territorial government and thus a coercive, collectivistic and monopolistic one. - J.Z., 12.5.00, 29.11.08. – CAMOUFLAGED DESPOTISM, LIES, MYTHS, CLICHÉS, PREJUDICES, EUPHEMISMS, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM
DESPOTISM: Despotism or unlimited sovereignty is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratic council, and oligarchical junta, and a single emperor.” - John Quincy Adams. - Unlimited individual sovereignty would abolish what he calls sovereignty, namely that of the ruler or ruling clique, a territorial and collective sovereignty, and it would be practised by individual secessionism and individual associationism in exterritorially autonomous communities. We should finally advance beyond discussing merely features of territorial political, economic and social systems - seeing that our exterritorial autonomy options are practically unlimited, peaceful, harmonious, progress, liberty and wealth-promoting. - J.Z., 5.4.89 & 12.5.00. - PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, SOVEREIGNTY, MAJORITIES, DEMOCRACIES, PARLIAMENTS
DESPOTISM: Exclusive territorial rule IS despotism. - J.Z., 29.12.87.) (is despotic. J.Z. 14.1.93)
DESPOTISM: In any event, this despotic way of life - the very antithesis of freedom - rages throughout the world as a forest fire out of control, in the U.S.A. as elsewhere.” - Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, p.164. - He wanted only a territorial limited government for each "nation" and opposed, to my knowledge, like Ayn Rand, the concept of "competing governments and free societies". - J.Z., 12.5.00.
DESPOTISM: The danger is not here or there, it is all around us.” - Dr. J. J. Ray, 8.10.76. – Mostly it is based upon territorial laws, institutions and ideologies. – J.Z., 29.11.08.
DESPOTISM: The difference between free institutions and despotic governments is simply the difference between men taking care of their own affairs, and submitting to have their affairs taken care of, for them, by others.” - J. Toulmin Smith, Local Self-Government & Centralization, p.28/29. – Alas, J. T. S., apart from autonomous juries, had only small territorial self-government in mind. – J.Z., 14.11.10. - SELF-GOVERNMENT, CENTRALIZATION
DESPOTISM: The fact is that the despots - Domitian, or his counterparts today - cannot direct creativity; they can only stifle it. They are not wise enough to handle a power of coercion over others. Nor will anyone ever be!” - Leonard E. Read, NOTES FROM FEE, July 76. - CREATIVITY, COERCION, POWER, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, BIB BROTHER
DESPOTISM: Those favoring a “benevolent” despotism are willy nilly the sponsors of the Caesars, Napoleons, Stalins, Mussolinis & Hitlers - and are, obviously, unaware of the freedom alternatives. - J.Z., 2.3.85. – Any form of territorialism is basically despotic and can easily lead to full scale despotism or even totalitarianism. – J.Z., 14.11.10. - BENEVOLENT DESPOTISM
DESPOTISM: Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it be called.” - J. S. Mill. – INDIVIDUALITY, COMPULSORY COLLECTIVISM, INVOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP & SUBJUGATION, TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
DESPOTISM: You can't pacify despots, you can only disarm them. A crocodile is harmless only when its teeth are out.” - Dagobert D. Runes, Handbook of Reason, p.12. – Even when it has no longer teeth, I would not like to be struck by its claws or hit by its horny tail and its de-toothed mouth with its strong jaws could still grab me, draw me under and drown me. – We would largely disarm despots by confining them to their volunteers and exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 14.11.10. - APPEASEMENT
DESTATIZE POLITICS: Destatize politics. Make it a completely voluntary affair. - J.Z., 2/75. - Today I would rather say: Exterritorialize politics. Without territorial monopolies it is relatively harmless or harmful only to its voluntary followers. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – EXTERRITORIALISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISTIC TOLERANCE VS. TERRITORIAL INTOLERANCE
DESTINY: A man takes charge of his own destiny, or he is as good as dead.” - Michael F. Flynn, On the Wings of a Butterfly, ANALOG 3/89, 62. – As if all people did already know, appreciate and were free to practise all their individual rights and liberties! – 29.11.08. – Men will become really alive only once they do, finally, become aware of all their genuine individual rights and liberties and begin to realize and utilize them. – J.Z., 14.11.10. - MAN, SELF-RELIANCE, INDEPENDENCE, FREEDOM, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-GOVERNMENT
DESTINY: Destiny - is what you make it.” - James P. Hogan, The Proteus Operation, p.401. – How free are we to do so – in the spheres still monopolized by territorial governments? – At least we should mentally prepare ourselves for the abolition of this monopolistic coercion. - J.Z., 29.11.08.
DESTINY: Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.” - William Jennings Bryan. - Your destiny will, usually, not fall into your lap. You have to work for it, hard, rightly and rationally. - J.Z., 12.5.00. – As if full experimental freedom in all spheres did already exist for all people! – J.Z., 29.11.08. - FATE, CHOICE, ACHIEVEMENT
DESTINY: Forget the bloody Others! We make our own destiny!” - Poul Anderson, The Avatar, 213. – Yes, but only once we have achieved our right and liberty to do so. – J.Z., 14.11.10. - CHOICE, SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-GOVERNMENT, CONFORMITY, CUSTOM, TRADITION, DECISION-MAKING, SELF-RELIANCE, PANARCHISM, FATE, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY
DESTINY: Human beings today are not in control of their destiny. They have their destiny usurped by a gang of plunderers and thieves, sometimes under the guise of "democracy", other times under the guise of "socialism", and still other times under the guise of "divine right". Whatever the name, the result is the same: a small group of tyrants have usurped humanity's destiny and are now quarrelling amongst themselves over who is to shovel dirt over humanity's corpse.” - Leon Kapersky, PROTOS, 11/70. (PROTOS was one of the few attempts to provide a quite libertarian newspaper. Now, online and via email attachments, almost everybody can attempt this. Perhaps there are already too many such blogs, websites and emailed newsletters for anybody to be able to peruse them all. Perhaps some consolidation should take place? – At least e.g. for a common slogans, ideas, abstracts, refutations and reviews collection, new publications hints, address, projects, URL hints, a list of libertarian writings already offered electronically, local meeting calendars. – J.Z., 29.11.08. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIALISM FOR VOLUNTEERS
DESTINY: Let any man weld his own destiny.” - Radio commentator to Melville's writings, 28.6.77. - MAN, FREEDOM, SELF-DETERMINATION, FATE, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE, FREEDOM OF ACTION, IN ALL SPHERES FOR ALL NON-AGGRESSIVE & NON-CRIMINAL PEOPLE
DESTINY: the Manifest Destiny of Intelligent Life, that it shall be self-determined and free from either coercion of its own kind, or from any other kind of life, in this and in all other galaxies of the universe.” - From the finish of Barry Longyear: Manifest Destiny.
DESTINY: There is no predetermination of fate. Destiny is choice. - - Some choices are better than others. - - Yes.” - Damien Broderick, The Judas Mandala, 72. - - One’s own destiny should be, as far as humanly possible, the result of one’s own free choices. – J.Z., 9.10.07. - FATE, DETERMINISM, PREDETERMINISM, CHOICE, FREE WILL, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM
DESTROYERS: Nothing can make it moral to destroy the best.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p.80. – Often the best people and ideas are simply ignored rather than destroyed. That can be almost as effective, as long as there does not exist full experimental freedom for them and their supporters. – J.Z., 29.11.08. – A world-wide Ideas Archive and Talent Centre, starting with one for libertarians, would also be able to help them greatly. – J.Z., 14.11.10. – IDEAS ARCHIVE, DESTRUCTION OF THE BEST
DESTROYERS: Stop supporting your own destroyers.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p.990. – Easier said then done regarding taxes, compulsory State membership or subordination, the flood of laws & regulations, when one is not free to secede. – J.Z., 29.11.08. - STATISTS, GOVERNMENTS, STATES
DESTROYING OR ABOLISHING THE STATE? Under panarchism the State would not be destroyed or abolished but gradually competed out of existence, neglected, by-passed, boycotted or ignored. Right away it would be totally deprived only of its wrongful exclusive and coercive territorial powers.
DESTRUCTION: Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived lives.” - Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom, 1941. - Seldes. – People free to act productively, creatively, in accordance with their beliefs and convictions are certainly less likely to act murderously and destructively. What will be the all-over effect of panarchism, when it is realized, not only on the usual aggressions but also on crimes with victims? – J.Z., 29.11.08.
DESTRUCTURALISTS: You have heard of the Destructuralist Movement? I had indeed. They believed that there should be no social structure beyond the extended family. Even tribes were too much for them. “Destructuralists tried to burn the Dallas Civic Centre.” – “That was us”, the girl said simply. – No wonder they had left Texas. “People were outraged.” - “People are addicted to social structure. …” - Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka, War Day. It lasted thirty-six minutes – and devastated the world, p.147. – In their primitive notions and over-simplification attempts some people even fail to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary relationships. If divorce is free and economically feasible for both, then marriage is the smallest voluntary association. Likewise: any other voluntary exchange between two people. The extended family has blood or marriage linkages but already includes much antagonism, which is much less to be found in voluntary associations, friendship circles or associations of people with alike interests and aims. To generalize: All voluntary structures, merely doing their own things for or to themselves are right, peaceful and to that extent tolerable. But all structures imposed upon peaceful dissenters are wrong and intolerable. Most wars, civil wars and bloody revolutions were caused and carried out by imposed rather than self-chosen structures. Naturally, stupid, ignorant, prejudiced intolerant, aggressive and violent people will commit inexcusable crimes within their own structure and against the people in structures of others, regardless of the merits or demerits of these structures. But structured, especially territorially structured aggression against and suppression of other kinds of peaceful people should no longer be tolerated. Structures that do competitively deal with aggressors and other criminals with involuntary victims are rightful and useful. – J.Z., 13.9.07. - OPPONENTS OF ALL ORGANIZATION OR SOCIAL STRUCTURE, VOLUNTARISM VS. COMPULSION, FROM THE SMALLEST COMPETING STRUCTURE, A MARRIAGE, TO THE LARGEST ONES, ALL ONLY FOR VOLUNTEERS, ALL ONLY EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS
DÉTENTE: If murderers, who live by violence, offer us détente, should we be happy to go along with them? Willy Brandt once said, "I would even be willing to have détente with Stalin." (At a time when Stalin was executing 40,000 a month?) How short-sighted! Look into the future!” - Solzhenitsyn, in READER'S DIGEST, 11/75. - The French Revolution slogan: "Peace to the cottages, war to the palaces!" - has still not been properly developed and applied in our times into rightful and rational liberation policies and steps. - To negotiate with or treat an empire that ruled over 100 captive nations, including the Russian one, as if it were a single and the only body in existence there and a rightful partner for negotiations and treaties, was simply absurd. But what else do you expect of our likewise territorialist politicians with quite insufficient knowledge of and appreciation of genuine individual rights and liberties? - The non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin was just an extreme case. Fundamentally most agreements between territorial governments are of the same kind, different only by degrees. - J.Z., 13.5.00. – Any genuine détente requires an end to the suppression of any peaceful minorities and majorities. – J.Z., 14.11.10.
DÉTENTE: In international affairs we talk of ‘détente’ when we really mean ‘appeasement’: incidentally, to give Chamberlain his due, he used the term "appeasement" in the 30's and did not try to cloak his craven appeasement with high-flown intellectual jargon.” - Stephen Haseler, QUADRANT, 7/77. - Still, he came home deluded into believing: "Peace in our time!" - Most of what politicians say on their politics is hogwash, designed to deceive the own and other people. - J.Z., 13.5.00, - A program of panarchies for all tolerant communities of volunteers can hardly be called a program of appeasement for dictators and authoritarians. Luckily for them and unluckily for us, they were never as yet confronted by such a program sufficiently publicized and discussed. – J.Z., 29.11.08. – APPEASEMENT, PANARCHISM, TOTALITARIANISM, DICTATORSHIPS
DÉTENTE: In the time of détente, American technology and wheat continue flowing to the Soviet Union, and its satellites, much of it on credit. Moscow now owes Western banks more than $ 40 billion.” - Philip C. Clarke: Soviet Threat. - Aiding an oppressive regime with technology or even supplying it with weapons and war materials, should be distinguished from aiding its oppressed and starving people with wheat. The latter can promote the overthrow of the regime, especially when accompanied by sufficient publicity. Shortwave can't be jammed. - J.Z., 13.5.00. – Trade and credit offers to the victimizers should be distinguished from trade and credit offers to their victims. – This could start by fully recognizing these victims as our secret allies and offering them a quite just separate peace and recognition already now by recognizing their various governments in exile as exterritorially fully autonomous and as models for the various peoples still to be liberated. - J.Z., 29.11.08. TRADING WITH THE ENEMY, FOREIGN AID TO DICTATORSHIPS?
DÉTENTE: It might be said of east-west détente that never has so much been written about so little.” - Winston S. Churchill, THE ECONOMIST, Jan. 8, 1977. - Nevertheless, it was significant for the non-militaristic thinking even of leading politicians in the West that they did not try to exploit the several government crises in Russia after the downfall of the communist regime. Territorialism was not questioned or attacked before or afterwards by either side. Neither was the nuclear deterrence theory, still based on wrongful territorialist and collective responsibility assumptions. - J.Z., 13.5.00. 29.11.08. – Compare: PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
DÉTENTE: We are slaves there from birth. We are born slaves. I'm not young anymore, and I myself was born a slave; this is even more true for those who are younger. We are slaves, but we are striving for freedom. You, however, were born free. If so, then why do you help our slave owners?” - Sozhenitsyn, in address in N.Y., NEWS DIGEST INTERNATIONAL, Dec. 75. - Politicians are so accustomed to overlooking the rights and interests of their own people and those of a despotic enemy regime that even in dealings with an enemy governments they do rather deal with it, as if it were quite a legitimate one, than with the people suppressed by such a regimes. People-to- people negotiations, agreements and treaties would be quite another matter and ideal agreements of this kind could be unilaterally offered and guaranteed under the assumption that they would find wide-spread tacit consent among the various peoples of the other side, our secret allies. But that is not part of territorialist political, military, revolution and liberation science as taught at our universities. But it is a science that should be developed and promoted by anarchist and libertarian publishers. - J.Z., 13.5.00, 29.11.08.
DETERRENCE THEORY: Some Remarks on the Theory that the Security of the Free World Could Be Assured by means of the Deterrent Effect of Nuclear Devices, by J.Z., page 100, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506.
DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR: Bureaucratized annihilation preparations that can be set off by some maniacs, drunks, addicts or depressed button pushers, by accident, computer failure or miscalculation, or by the spleens of the territorial imperative, statist nationalism and the delusion of collective responsibility. - The balance of terror isn't sufficiently balanced, seeing the risks involved. Mutual Assured Destruction: MAD, is a mad policy. I keep in mind the caricature of two bow and arrow men, standing close to each other and aiming at each other, with both saying to themselves: "The tighter I draw my bow, the safer, I think, I am!" - J.Z., 28.9.85.
DETERRENT EXAMPLES: I favour even the nation- and world-wide practice of communistic, socialistic, left-anarchistic and national-socialistic experiments and those of all other isms, provided that all of them are practised exclusively among volunteers and at their own expense and risk, i.e. exterritorially autonomous and within their corresponding minority communities only. We will not have peace from them until they are thus allowed to publicly and obviously disprove themselves by setting their deterrent examples, in the limelight, so to speak, harming and wronging only their own voluntary members, as long as they are prepared to accept this treatment, i.e., do not yet secede. - J.Z., 2.5.89, 11.12.03.
DEVALUATION: Rather devaluate politicians than the currency. - J.Z., 1966. - Better still, let the politician's currency find its own value, if any, after compulsory taxation, payable in their currency, has been abolished and free competition has been set up in the supply of alternative exchange media, clearing avenues and value standards. - J.Z., 13.5.00. – Just like the value of politicians and their platforms or “programs” should be determined by voluntary membership or subordination to their rule, confined to exterritorial autonomy and personal laws and limited by individual and group secessionism. – J.Z., 2.12.08. CURRENCIES & POLITICIANS
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PANARCHISM: Statist and territorial development usually goes slow - and sometimes stagnates or goes even backwards. The experimental freedom of panarchies would allow many approaches to be tried, by their volunteers, at the same time. The successful ones would be widely adopted. Consequently, the rate to development would be increased, in a quite natural way. - J.Z., 31.8.04.
DEVELOPMENT: Development. - Idiocies on development. - Development is a powerful concept that applies to all sorts of realities of the living world, be it a person, a community, an ecosystem. The common traits that are present in all these realities make for the richness and poly-functionality of the concept. This inclusivity and vitality of the concept and practice of development is almost totally lost when social scientists talk about so-called social development. - Unless they are cognitive psychologists of the Piaget type, most social scientists automatically equate social development with economic development or, more precisely, economic growth expressed through a monetary increase in GNP (gross national product). - This mental attitude resulted in many of the false notions promoted by the social scientists, namely the equation of individual = society = state (so channelling aid funds to the state is equivalent to giving them to the individuals); and the exclusive stress on economic realities (economism) as the surest basis and sign of development. - This gives rise to a host of idiocies on development, especially concerning its economic aspect, that need to be highlighted. - The focusing here only on some economic idiocies should not mislead anyone into thinking that development is exclusively (or even primarily) an economic affair. On the contrary, such a belief has shown itself to be totally erroneous and is here considered as the main blunder of most social scientists dealing with development. - This flawed position underpins, for instance, the idiotic conviction that the transfer of monetary resources (so-called capital) to the (state rulers of) underdeveloped societies represents a necessary condition for starting a process of development. - But even a cursory historical survey reveals that this transfer of money as financial gifts or very cheap loans represents a gigantic block to development because it activates a dynamic of: Corruption at the top. Most financial aid that goes to state governments gets used for the bureaucracy, which is supposed to implement so-called development projects, which in practice very rarely materialize into something useful. However, as long as development funds keep reaching the state bureaucracy, it derives no short-term gain for itself in promoting development, while it has plenty of interest in blocking it, so that funds continue arriving. This is the vicious circle of external compassion feeding internal corruption and leading to overall inaction. - Inaction at the bottom. Even if some of that money trickles down to the bottom of the social pyramid the result is to keep the most energetic individuals who have not yet left the country (the potential local entrepreneurs) in a situation of contented dependency and dull passivity. This dependency through aid is useful to the ruling elites everywhere in the world because it blocks or postpones the emergence of new competitors to positions of political and economic power (new active entrepreneurs and leaders from the backward regions of the world). - In other words, with their ideas and practical attitudes towards development, social scientists really behave as the perfidious advocates of a paralysed world, the dispensers of dreams about development that have produced instead the nightmares of state criminality and mass servility. - - Fallacies on development. - The idiocies that have been placed by social scientists at the foundation of many discourses on development are reinforced by the many fallacies that have been produced and piled one on top of the other. There are so may of them that it is almost impossible to list all of them. Let us examine briefly only the most absurd ones: - The state as the engine of development. - An organization can set up favourable conditions for development or pull down obstacles to development but cannot engender development, since development is a direct personal transformation/evolution of individuals achieved through their interaction with each other. Apart from that, it is necessary to stress that the state has, generally, acted as the spanner in the works, obstructing development whenever the people were going in a direction inimical to the authoritarian interests of the state rulers (as is the case in any real development), that is whenever individuals were promoting their own personal emancipation. - Protectionism as necessary condition for development. - The idea that a closed system can start and continue developing is totally absurd in so far as development requires a variety/plurality of interactions between free entities across open environments. The care and nurture of an organism, idea or project, in view of its development, has nothing to do with pampering and shielding it or, worse, cutting it off from the outside world. In the latter case the likely outcome is a dependent weak entity, which is the very opposite of a developed strong one. - The unequal terms of trade as the reason for underdevelopment. - Besides considering international trade (especially imports) as deleterious for development and recommending protectionism, social scientists have addressed their criticism to the unequal terms of trade between the industrial and the underdeveloped worlds. They should rather have focused on the very low level of trade between the two areas, mostly as a result of state policies. Those policies are characterized by a considerable lack of freedom in the world commerce that has distorted all terms of trade and for decades kept low cost producers outside the reach of most consumers in many parts of the world. - - The multinationals as an obstacle to development. - This is again a fallacy originating from the adherence to a closed system, supported by national state rulers in collusion with national monopolistic producers, both afraid of any external intervention. The aim is that of total control exercised from the top over every aspect of reality to the point of actually blocking any possible free development. This kind of control is not conducive to the establishment of businesses, and certainly not favourable to the setting of multinational companies. The fear of multinationals as negative factors for development is, then, often unwarranted, because almost none of them is present in very backward or rigid economic systems (unless they have bribed the national clique of state rulers, in which case they are given privileges by the national rulers and act, essentially, as national firms). - The vicious circle of poverty as the cause of underdevelopment. - The expression 'vicious circle of poverty' means that people are poor because they are trapped in a chain of negative conditions which reinforce one another (e.g. poverty - malnutrition - bad health - lack of energy - low productivity - poverty), and from which there is no personal escape in the absence of an intervention from the top (state planning) or from the outside (economic aid). Historical evidence (and also current reality) does not lend support to such a bleak vision for the individual, otherwise the life of every human being would still be identical now to that of the first humans, given the absence, at that time, of state planning and external aid. Contrary to this view, the process of development has generally been started by people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, avoiding being crushed by the heavy boots of power, whoever it might have been (feudal master, invaders, church hierarchy, etc.). - - The accumulation of capital as the condition for development. - Corollary to the previous fallacy is the notion that somebody needs to accumulate a lot of capital in order to start a process of economic development. This is not true at all if we take exemplary cases from the Industrial Revolution in England, where many workshops, later to become large industries, were started by small yeomen (Josuha Fielden, Jedediah Strutt, David Dale), ex-apprentices (William Radcliffe, Joshia Wedgwood) or humble workers (like Richard Arkwright, the barber) with very small amounts of resources. Laisser-faire and laisser-passer are the pre-conditions for socio-economic development, not the quantity of gold kept in a coffer or money deposited in a bank account. State rulers in backward systems have plenty of monetary funds (courtesy of the World Bank and the IMF) but not much inclination for the laisser-faire and laser-passer of their subjects. - - Some of these fallacies that had a wide circulation and following in the past have simply been dropped because subsequent events have shown that they were only ideological constructs devoid of any empirical basis, mere pies in the sky put forward by creative social scientists to justify or satisfy their constituencies (employers) and audiences (readers) in the so-called developed and underdeveloped world. Nevertheless, some still keep circulating, albeit in a more moderate form. In same cases they have been supplanted (or supplemented) by numerous ambiguities, which is the normal reaction of social scientists when their ideological positions start to crumble. - Ambiguities on development. - The congenital inability of the state cliques to foster development has led some social scientists into a more liberal and less statist approach to the matter. But this shift is taking place with so many equivocal and crooked modes of thinking that, in the end, totally contradictory views are held side by side. - To give an example, some so-called progressive intellectuals who advocate freedom of trade and freedom of movement feel obliged to add that everything should be done with fairness. This very appealing request, i.e. to be fair, means in actual fact, that things must be kept under public control (read: state control) otherwise someone's position might be compromised. Since the appeal to fairness comes usually from intellectuals in rich countries, the "someone" they want to safeguard is the rich producer and the super-protected worker in the already developed countries, which have no intention of opening their pastures to newcomers. - And so, the ultra-reactionary self-proclaimed "progressive" intellectuals, assisted by the journalistic circus, have invented the idiotic threat of the "race to the bottom" that is supposed to result from unfair practices of economic development (e.g. low wages, inexistent health protection in the workplace, excessive work ethic, etc.). They wilfully ignore that these have been the initial conditions of every worker at the beginning of any process of economic growth leading to development. As for the unfairness of this dynamic, certainly development as "climbing from the bottom" was, is and always will be "unfair" towards any existing position of supremacy and privilege. - The outcry of the social scientists against this dynamic is quite understandable, considering that the very status of the social scientists is put at risk by a universal process of social development. Especially in the so-called developed world, the social scientists are starting to realize that their interventions are more and more futile, if not downright detrimental, because most people left free and unimpeded to develop are very well able to do so. - Once this becomes a real commonsense belief, we will see the downsizing of the cultural power and prestige of those social scientists and the arrogant state rulers of whom they are the supporting agents and servile mouthpieces. - This is a dreadful prospect for them and for their masters. That is why the social scientists talk about development, write books about development, receive funds for running development projects, but, as far as actually letting people free to develop, that is a totally different matter. - This is something so important to them that they certainly cannot leave it to the people directly concerned. In the process of developing, people left to themselves might introduce all sorts of inequalities, instabilities, imbalances and, perhaps, after all, if really unimpeded and unexploited from above, they might even succeed in developing themselves, exposing, in so doing, the uselessness of the social scientists. - This would be the final straw for the development economists and social workers, sidestepped and finally dismissed as worthless professionals. For this reason, the social scientists, totally unprepared and unqualified for social experiments, follow unwritten advice: better to talk than to act, or, better to act with corrupt assistance under the aegis of the state than to let people act for self-help and self-development outside, beyond or, worst of all, against the state. - - Development as idea and practice. - Once we clear away all idiocies, fallacies and ambiguities concerning the idea and practice of development, we are ready to focus on its true nature. - Here we highlight briefly three intrinsic and basic aspects of development: Development as a multi-faceted process (moral-mental-material). - Development involves and affects the entire spectrum of reality (moral-mental-material) through a series of interrelated transformations (new relations, re-organization, differentiation, accretion, etc.). - - "Under the general notion of [biological] development four kinds of processes have been concealed: - Tactical Displacements. Movements of embryonic parts relatively to one another. - Internal Organization. The passage from the original unitary condition of the embryo into a mosaic of partial regions in some degree independent of each other. - Histological Differentiation. The passage of the individual cells from an original state of uniform appearance into the various states of morphological and functional specification. - Growth. The enlargement and multiplication of cells." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Modern Theories of Development, 1933) - - To focus only on one aspect to the detriment of the others is absurd, but this is what has happened because of the fragmentation of the social sciences. Moreover, in each subject area (anthropology, psychology, sociology, economics, etc.) the social scientist, expert in that specific area, wants to appear as the one who leads the way, and should be followed by the other social scientists and especially, by all the social actors, namely all the individuals concerned by his theories and schemes. And this is an absurdity with reference to another of the intrinsic/basic characteristics of development. - Development as an autonomous process (self motivated-initiated-directed). - "By 'development' [therefore] we shall understand only such changes in economic life as are not forced upon it from without but arise from its own initiative from within." - "... economic development is not a phenomenon to be explained economically ...." - "... the explanation of the development must be sought outside the group of facts which are described by economic theory." (Joseph A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, 1912) - - If there is something that should be extremely clear about development it is the fact that no one can be developed from the outside. Development is a truly autonomous process that must necessarily be performed by those who aspire to it. That does not mean that outside stimuli and contributions are not relevant to development. As a matter of fact they are indispensable (only open systems evolve and develop) but in so far as they are freely accepted and internalized by the developing entity. - The social scientists should then disappear as the directors of fake development in order to leave plenty of room for real development. The only role they might play is to uncover the obstacles and unmask those who put obstacles in the way of development (e.g. vested interests, authoritarian attitudes, obsolete customs, etc.). In other words, the social scientists can contribute to generating a universal climate favourable to the emergence of an indispensable requisite for development, i.e. freedom. - - Development as a free process (undertaking risks and enjoying rewards) - Freedom per se does not necessarily lead to development, but without freedom there is no way for development to take place. We might achieve economic growth (up to a point) through the use of slaves, but economic growth is a different phenomenon from development, whatever the opinion of some social scientists. - Clearly, the exercise of freedom as a means to development has more risks and more uncertain rewards than a quiet life under the protective eye of a benevolent master. That is why we should not confuse development with security, any more than we should confuse security with liberty. Lack of exploitation does not mean absence of uncertainties and tensions and hardships of which there are many in a process of development. But, when voluntarily accepted and skilfully overcome, they are part of the beauty of life evolving. - "Un voyageur célèbre … arriva au milieu d'une tribu sauvage. Un enfant venait de naître et une foule de devins, de sorciers, d'empiriques l'entouraient, armés d'anneaux, de crochets et de liens. L'un disait: cet enfant ne flairera jamais le parfum d'un calumet, si je ne lui allonge les narines. Un autre: il sera privé du sens de l'ouïe, si je ne lui fais descendre les oreilles jusqu'aux épaules. Un troisième: il ne verra pas la lumière du soleil, si je ne donne à ses yeux une direction oblique. Un quatrième: il ne se tiendra jamais debout, si je ne lui courbe les jambes. Un cinquième: il ne pensera pas, si je ne comprime son cerveau. Arrière, dit le voyageur. Dieu fait bien ce qu'il fait; ne prétendez pas en savoir plus que lui, et puisqu'il a donné des organes à cette frêle créature, laissez ses organes se développer, se fortifier par l'exercice, le tâtonnement, l'expérience et la Liberté. - Dieu a mis aussi dans l'humanité tout ce qu'il faut pour qu'elle accomplisse ses destinées. Il y a une physiologie sociale providentielle comme il y a une physiologie humaine providentielle. Les organes sociaux sont aussi constitués de manière à se développer harmoniquement au grand air de la Liberté. Arrière donc les empiriques et les organisateurs! Arrière leurs anneaux, leurs chaînes, leurs crochets, leurs tenailles! Arrière leurs moyens artificiels! Arrière leur atelier social, leur phalanstère, leur gouvernementalisme, leur centralisation, leurs tarifs, leurs universités, leurs religions d'État, leurs banques gratuites ou leurs banques monopolisées, leurs compressions, leurs restrictions, leur moralisation ou leur égalisation par l'impôt! Et puisqu'on a vainement infligé au corps social tant de systèmes, qu'on finisse par où l'on aurait dû commencer, qu'on repousse les systèmes, qu'on mette enfin à l'épreuve la Liberté, - la Liberté, qui est un acte de foi en Dieu et en son oeuvre." (Frédéric Bastiat, La Loi, 1850) - "A celebrated traveller … arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks armed with rings, hooks, and cords surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the aroma of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull." - "Go away," cried the traveller. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, trial and error, experience, and liberty." - God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs are so constituted that they will develop harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their social projects, their bureaucracy, their centralization, their tariffs, their universities, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their pious moralization and their equalization by taxation! - And after the legislators and do-gooders have futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may we finally end where we should have begun: May we reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an act of faith in God and His works. (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law, 1850. - Gian Piero de Bellis in: Escaping Obscurantism & Overcoming Nonsense . - That is, practically, an excellent essay within an excellent essay. - All important ideas should be made accessible alphabetically in encyclopaedias, also through a digitized databanks and an Ideas Archive. - J.Z., 26.8.11. - POVERTY, UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES, DIS., PREJUDICES, FOREIGN AID, VS. PRIVATE INVESTMENTS, FREE TRADE, FREE MIGRATION, FINANCIAL & MONETARY FREEDOM, VOLUNTARY TAXATION VS. COMPULSORY TAXATION, GOD, NATURE, BASTIAT, “SOCIAL SCIENCES”.
DHIMMI: There are people that advocate the abolition of dhimmi rights, existing in various forms also under Saddam Hussein in Iraq, since people believe they are second-class citizens without a right to vote in democratic elections. However, a far more beneficial path for any minority would of course be an extension of such dhimmi rights, rather than submitting to the laws of the majority. - RCBJ.
DHIMMI.COM: Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights: An International Civil Rights Movement for the Victims of Jihad and Islamization - Take Action in the struggle for religious equality and civil rights for all people in the Islamic world: Sign our Petition to End Dhimmitude - Join the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights. - Learn what you can do to help - Contact The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights. mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org - Dhimmi is the status given to Jews and Christians under Islam. Throughout history, these religious minorities in Muslim lands have been opressed and victimized. Ending the culture of dhimmitude is a prerequistite for achieving peace and justice for all people in the Islamic world. - Learn more about the history of the Dhimmi. - Dhimmi is the status given to Jews and Christians under Islam. Throughout history, these religious minorities in Muslim lands have been oppressed and victimized. Ending the culture of dhimmitude is a prerequistite for achieving peace and justice for all people in the Islamic world. - Learn more about the history of the Dhimmi. - Indonesia's Christians are under assault and at risk of extinction - As an opposition to the remaining religious and political territorial intolerance I can sympathize with this movement. However, as a movement for territorial unification under a single territorial political system, even if it offers full religious liberty, and "equality", I can only oppose it, for all those, who would prefer for themselves a different religious and or political community, all only of volunteers, who do not claim any territorial monopoly for themselves but just their genuine individual rights and liberties, to the extent that they do already appreciate them and wish to practise them among themselves. - J.Z., 2.9.11.
DHIMMI SYSTEM: How come many Muslims remember only the intolerant parts of their religion and not the tolerant parts? - I made once an effort to read through the Koran, in search of the passages for tolerance. But I found the job too much of a chore. - Probably one or the other Islamic scholar has already assembled and commented upon all these passages. But their influence was, apparently, not strong enough to prevent further strife between Islamic sects and between Islamic fundamentalists and members of other religions or faiths. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06. - MILLET SYSTEM
DHIMMITUDE: Dhimmi. A web project of the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights. An International Civil Rights Movement, Protecting Endangered Peoples under Muslim Rule - The Victims of Muslim Religious Apartheid. - DHIMMITUDE: The Dhimmi: An Overviewfile:///H:/Dhimmis/Pan%20D%20H%20I%20M%20M%20I%20%20History%20Coalition%20for%20the%20Defense%20of%20Human%20Rights.htm - DEFINITION: The status of People of the Book (Jews and Christians) unders Islamic rule. - DHIMMI HOTSPOTS: Pakistan: anti-Christian legislation. - Iran: Systematic oppression of the Bahai community. - Sudan: Murder and enslavement of Black Africans. - Saudi Arabia: Apartheid for all non-Muslims. - Indonesia: Terrorizing of Christian minorities. - Egypt: Oppression of Coptic Christians. - Bangladesh: Terrorizing of Hindu and Christian minorities by Islamic radicals. - DHIMMI: A BRIEF OVERVIEW: 7th-21st century. The notion of Dhimmitude, originating in the 7th century, still applies today to non-Muslims under Islamic rule - whether Jews or Christians, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Sudan. Dhimmitude began in 628 CE when Mohammed and his forces conquered the Jewish oasis at Khaybar. They massacred many of the Jews and forced the rest to accept a pact ("Dhimma") which rendered them inferiror to their Muslim conquerors. Over the centuries, the ideology of Dhimmitude expanded into a formal system of religious apartheid. - Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya. - No legal rights. Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman; there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew (at most, it can be manslaughter). In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed. - Humiliation and vulnerability. Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that Jews had wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe. It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the apartheid system of Dhimmitude. - Conditional protection. The protection of the Dhimmi is withdrawn if the Dhimmi rebels against Islamic law, gives allegiance to non-Muslim power (such as Israel), refuses to pay the poll-tax, entices a Muslim from his faith, or harms a Muslim or his property. If the protection is lifted, jihad resumes. For example, Islamists in Egypt who pillage and kill the Copts do so because they no longer pay their poll-tax and therefore are no longer protected. - Dhimmi Victims Gallery | History and Theory of Dhimmitude | Dhimmi Links :http://www.dhimmitude.org/ - Excellent History of Dhimmi. - www.dhimmi.org - Good history and bibliographical material on Dhimmi. - www.barnabas.com - http://www.persecution.com/ - Excellent accounts of anti-Christian persecution in Muslim lands - http://www.copts.com/ - Website of the American Coptic Association. - - While territorial compulsory unification under one government might introduce democracy and its kind of "equality", it would not offer these victims full exterritorial autonomy on their own affairs, which would merely be a further development of dhimmis, without confinement to any territory and without compulsory or permitted and wrongful discrimination against them, depriving them of individual rights and liberties. But even the worst kind of dhimmitude was already a progressive step away from enslavement, extermination or genocide. The trouble was only that it did not go far enough. But did it go far enough in any other country and as early? It was actually an early achievement of Islam, that it restrained itself in this way. Naturally, by the way, dhimmitude preserved the lives of large groups of tax slaves for the benefit of the Ottoman Empire. Dead people pay no taxes. Moreover, if they are at least somewhat tolerated in their differences, they are less likely to rise in rebellion. - Then and there, the wrongs and harms of the problem of territorialism was not completely solved - and it isn't even today, anywhere, as far as I know. The rightful and positive aspects of the dhimmis should be fully developed instead of being altogether abolished, together with its wrongful and harmful aspects, which should, certainly, not be continued. - J.Z., 2.9.11. - RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, ISLAM & MUSLIMS, FANATIC SECTS & GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, COERCIVE DISCRIMINATION INSTEAD OF VOLUNTARY DISCRIMINATION & APARTHEID OR VOLUNTARY SEGREGATION. ALL INTEGRATION TO BE VOLUNTARY FOR INDIVIDUALS & MINORITIES.
DHIMMITUDE: Dhimmitude Past and Present: An Invented or Real History? By BAT YE'OR. October 10, 2002, Brown University C.V. Starr Foundation Lectureship - - I call dhimmitude the comprehensive legal system established by the Muslim conquerors to rule the native non-Muslim populations subdued by jihad wars. It is my opinion that this system has not been fully investigated. However, one can rightly ask: (1) Did such a system in fact exist? - (2) If so, what are its characteristics? - (3) Was this system merely theoretical or actually implemented? (4) If implemented, is there a debate today on the interpretation of jihad and dhimmitude, and if there is no debate, why? - - The dhimmi condition can only be understood in the context of jihad because it originates from this ideology. Muslim, as well as non-Muslim scholars, from the 7th century through the present, have acknowledged that all the lands from Portugal to Central Asia that constituted the Muslim Empires were conquered by Muslim armies. These vast territories were neither populated by Arabs - except in specific regions bordering the deserts – nor by Muslims. Around the Mediterranean, the population was Christian and Jewish. Along with other religious groups, Jews and Christians also lived in Iraq, Persia, and Arabia. [Which conquerors have treated their new subjects as well or much better? Has any conqueror, after his victory, ever treated all his subjects quite justly? Has any among them offered the subjugated peoples a larger degree of autonomy than was offered by the dhimmi system? - J.Z., 2.9.11.] - - Beginning in the eighth and ninth centuries, Muslim theologians and jurists endeavored to give to the jihad – a war of conquest - a religious and legal structure. Living during and after the great wave of Arab-Muslim expansion on mainly Christian lands, they built their theory of jihad on their interpretations of the Koran and the hadiths (the sayings and acts attributed to the prophet Muhammad). Thus they elaborated the concept and doctrine of jihad that established the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in terms of belligerency, temporary armistices, or submission. The aims, tactics and strategies of jihad were defined, as well as the specific rules concerning the troops, the compulsory conditions for treaties, the treatment of prisoners, and the division of the booty. This conceptualization of war led to a considerable literature that constituted the classical doctrine of jihad, which was fixed, from the mid-eighth century onward, in comprehensive theological and legal treatises. - - JIHAD - - The ideology, strategy and tactics of jihad constitute a most important part of Islamic jurisprudence and literature. Muslim theologians expounded that jihad is acollective, religious obligation (fard 'ala al‑kifaya) binding the community and each individual (fard 'ala al‑ayn) indifferent ways according to situations and circumstances. - Here are two definitions of jihad by recognized authorities: Abu Muhammad Abdallah Ibn Abi Zayd al‑Qayrawani in the 10thc. (d. 966); and Ibn Khaldun in the 14th c.(d. 1406). Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani wrote: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.1 - And Ibn Khaldun: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” 2 - One may ask: Who are the enemies? Here is a definition from al-Mawardi, the great jurist in Baghdad in the 11thc.(d. 1058). “The mushrikun (infidels) of Dar al-Harb (region of war) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them in one of two ways that is in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun: the first, to harry them from their houses and to inflict damage on them day and night, by fighting and burning, or else to declare war and combat them in ranks; “Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays (....) if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.”3 - Jihad may be exercised by pen, speech or money. The 'enemies' are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law and its sovereignty over their lands. The world of infidels is considered as one entity. It is called the dar al‑harb (region of war) until, through jihad, itwill come under Islamic rule. The war between the region of Islam (dar al‑Islam) and the region of war is supposed to last so long as unbelief exists. According to Mawardi, the Muslim “should give battle with the intention of supporting the deen [religion] of Allah ... and of destroying any other deen which is in opposition to it: “so as to render it victorious over all [other] deen even if the mushrikun detest it.” (Koran 9:33) - - Islamic law forbids the killing of women, children, the elderly, the sick and the priests, unless they have helped the enemies. It also forbids the mutilation of corpses. - In this same chapter al-Mawardi examines the opinion of different jurists on the booty and on prisoners of war taken by the jihad. “Prisoners of war refers to the fighting men from the unbelievers taken alive by the Muslims.” 5 - He distinguish three cases: 1) The inhabitants who convert to Islam after their defeat - in this case they and their lands become part of the dar al-Islam. 2) “The second thing that might occur is that Allah gives victory over them but they remain mushrikun, in which case their women and children are taken prisoner, and their wealth is taken as booty, and those who are not made captive are put to death. (*) As for the captives, the amir has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favour to them and pardon them.” (*) I do presume that here we have a flawed translation. For among those, not made captive, are also those, who escaped. They, then and there, can hardly be put to death. - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - 3) “The third possibility is that the enemy make a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.” - The payment is of two sorts: 1. It is treated as a booty and paid once, but this does not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future when they stop paying. 2. “They make a payment every year in which case it constitutes an ongoing tribute by which their security is established .... It is not permitted to resume the jihad against them as long as they make the payments, because the peace is being maintained by the regularity of these payments. If one of them enters Dar al-Islam, this contract of reconciliation guarantees safety for himself and his wealth. If they refuse to make payment, however, the reconciliation ceases, their security is not longer guaranteed and war must be waged on them - like any other persons from the enemy camp.” 6 - According to Abu Yusuf, an important jurist of the 8th c., peace treaties can be signed for four months, and they can be renewed but should not extend for more than ten years. In another chapter, devoted to the division of the booty, Mawardi states: “As for land seized by the Muslims, it is of three types: First, that seized by force and violence, when its inhabitants abandon it by their own deaths, or they are taken captive, or they emigrate.” “Second, land which is acquired from the inhabitants without violence because they have abandoned it out of fear.” “Third, land which is taken through treaty.” - - the people convert to Islam or pay the jizya and become dhimmis.7 - Among the infidel peoples there are differences. Those who do not possess Revealed Scriptures - and all Arabs - have, in theory, the choice between Islam or death. The others ‑ principally the Jews and Christians ‑ are granted protection status, according to the modalities of the conquest. They become dhimmis ‑ people protected by the law of Islam, by a dhimma. - - From Islam’s beginning the universality of jihad was proclaimed. Jihad has not been ordered only against specific groups or for specific times, but - like Muhammad’s mission - it is a universal injunction till the only remaining religion is that of Allah (Koran 2:189). Today many Muslims reject such theories, but there are others who reaffirm the same standardized interpretation and conceptualization of international relations. - For example the late Prof. Ismail al-Faruqi, a Palestinian, who was Professor of Islamic Studies and the History of Religion at Temple University (1968-86), and who also taught at the University of Chicago and Syracuse University. In a forward to Islam and Other Faiths (1998 - a collection of Faruqi’s articles), his former student John Esposito referred to him as “a Muslim trailblazer of the twentieth century” Here is Prof. Faruqi’s position: “The Islamic state is hoped by all Muslims some day to include the whole world. The Pax Islamica which the Islamic state offers is more viable than the United Nations ... Per contra, the Pax Islamica is dominated by law, born out of nature and necessity, has law courts open to all plaintiffs, and is backed by the power of a standing, universal army. - The doctrine of Jihad or Holy War is valid in Islam. A Holy War could be entered into only for two reasons. The first reason is defence ... The second is the undoing of injustice wherever it takes place. Like the Muslim individual within Dar al-Islam, the Islamic state regards itself, and does so rightly, as vicegerent of God in space and time, a vocation which lays a great responsibility upon the Islamic state ...to redress injustice wherever men have caused it – even if that has been the other side of the moon. The Muslim regards it as his religious duty to rise up and put an end to injustice. 8 - Today many Muslims reject such theories. As for states, only Turkey has officially rejected them. We can therefore affirm that the universality of jihad hadimplied also the universality of the rules pertaining in the past to the whole territory conquered by jihad. (Underlining inserted here by me: J.Z.) - - DHIMMITUDE - - Like the rules of jihad, the rules of dhimmitude were elaborated from the Koran, the hadiths and the biographies on the Prophet. Those laws and their religious justification were taught throughout the Islamic Empires. Despite some differences in the four schools of Islamic Sunni jurisprudence, there is a quasi unanimity in matters concerning the dhimmis. The fundamental rulings relevant to them were established quite early. We read of them extensively in Abu Yusuf (731-98), a follower of Abu Hanifa (d. 767) the founder of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. He expounded them in a treatise written for the caliph Harun al-Rashid (786-809). Their implementation over the dhimmi populations is mentioned by numerous Muslim jurists throughout the centuries. - Now we must remember also that for centuries the vanquished populations, mainly the Christians, formed the majorities in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Muslim Empires. Being the targets, along with the Jews, of dhimmitude regulations, Christian chroniclers have left many testimonies of their implementation from the earliest time and in different regions. Hence, the enunciation of the rules that one reads in abstract legal treaties are confirmed by Christian sources which depict their lethal consequences. They reveal their human concretization, adding a perceptive insight that complements the dry legal texts. - - The sources on dhimmitude - - Theliterature on jihad by Muslim historians is quite extensive. It describes the conquest and the process of Islamization of Christian lands which integrate the rules of dhimmitude. Hence, the many sources on dhimmitude over the centuries comprise the Muslim legal and historic texts. Jurists from the later Middle Ages and after, usually list the successive ordinances of caliphs, which are usually referred to by Muslim historians and dhimmi sources. - Then there are the dhimmi sources, as I have mentioned, which are not uniform. Some are very meagre because of the disappearance of whole communities in some regions or at some periods, while some are more abundant. - And then there are the numerous testimonies, including diplomatic records, left by Europeans Christian and Jewish pilgrims, as well as travellers, merchants, consuls and other diplomats. These foreigners observed and described the discriminatory rules imposed on the dhimmis, and in general against infidels because they themselves had to conform to these rules. Not being aware of Islamic legislation (??? - J.Z.), their testimonies are thus a valuable confirmation that the rules were enforced. - The characteristics of dhimmitude are manifold. They embrace the whole expression of life and rather than analyse each of them, which is impossible to do in a lecture, I shall instead examine if they belong to a permanent and homogeneous pattern in the dar al-Islam. - - Characteristics of dhimmitude - - The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: 'land for peace'. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of jihad were ‘protected’, providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority. - The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of 'toleration' is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgression of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied. - The first 'right' is the right to life, which was conceded on payment of the jizya (Koran 9:29), a poll-tax paid with humiliation by the dhimmi..The refusal to pay the jizya is considered by all jurists as a rupture of the dhimma, which automatically restores to the umma its initial rights of war ‑ to kill and to dispossess the dhimmi, or to expel him, because he has therefore returned to his former status of beingan unsubjected infidel. - Hence Abu Yusuf wrote in his book on the kharaj (land tax)that it was not allowed for the governor to exempt any Jew, Christian, or other dhimmis from the jizya:“and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one tobe exempted and another not, for their lives andbelongings are spared only because of payment of the poll tax." 9 - Protection is abolished if the dhimmis rebel against Islamic law, giveallegiance to a non‑Muslim power, refuse to pay the jizya, entice a Muslim from his faith, harm a Muslim or his property, or commit blasphemy. The moment the pact of protection is abolished the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. Today, one finds Islamists in Upper Egypt who kill and pillage Copts, because they argue that these dhimmis have forfeited their 'protection' as they no longer pay the jizya. - The Baha'i religion is not protected even today in Iran. In 1994 two Muslims kidnapped and killed a Baha'i. The Islamic court held that as the Baha'is were "unprotected infidels ... the issue of retribution is null and void". 10 This means that an infidel has no human rights, unless he is protected by Islamic law. - In the context of its time, the protection system presented both positive and negative aspects. It provided security and a measure of religious autonomy, but in a legal context of discrimination. These rules, mostly established from the eighth to ninth centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim community's social behavior toward dhimmis. - - Political aspects - - Because protection was set in a context of war, some rules pertaining to the dhimmis have a military character. Among the military elements of the dhimmi condition is the prohibition for dhimmis to carry or possess weapons. It is mentioned in the earliest legal texts, from the beginning of the Islamic conquest and is attributed to the second caliph Umar b. al-Khattab (634-44). (By that standard, most people in Western civilizations" do still live in "dhimmitude"! - J.Z., 2.9.11.) It was confirmed throughout the centuries and in different regions by many witnesses until the 19thc. and, in regions applying the shari’a until the 20thc. Many sources mention the prohibition on carrying arms for Jews and Christians in Palestine 11, Syria, Egypt, Armenia, the Maghreb, and Persia. Its debilitating and tragic consequences were analysed by foreign consuls. Dhimmis became prey to marauding, pillage, and massacre especially during periods of insecurity, such as rebellions and invasions. With the spread of the Islamic conquest, this prohibition was applied also in Anatolia and in the European Islamized provinces. British Consul Blunt noticed in his report to the Foreign Office in 1860 that Christians in the Ottoman province of Macedonia were not allowed to carry arms. British Consul in Jerusalem, James Finn, attributed to this interdiction, the cowardice of dhimmis. William Shaler, the American consul in Algiers (1816-26) mentions the prohibition for Jews and Christians to bear arms. In Yemen, Jews were forbidden to carry arms until their departure to Israel in 1949-50 12. - - The deportations of dhimmi populations for slavery or for strategic reasons are mentioned in time of war, and in time of peace. During the Arab conquests many populations were deported as booty, from Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, Armenia and other regions. Muslim as well as Armenian and Coptic sources mention deportations in the 8 and 9th c. during rebellions. Muslim chronicles refer to the deportation of dhimmi population from towns and villages during warfare. Seljuk Turk rulers imposed deportations during the 11th c. from Armenia and Anatolia. Prof. Speros Vryonis 13 has extensively documented this phenomenon for Anatolia, using contemporary Greek and Muslim sources, as did Greek, Serb and Bulgarian historians for the Ottoman period. Deportations from the Holy Land were carried out by Arab tribes in middle of the 10th c., and in Anatolia under the Ottomans during the 15th – 17th centuries 14. - (To that extent they acted like the Czars and the Soviets did, much later, or like English kings did with their deportations first to America and later to Australia. - The Australian Federal Government still deports some refuges and asylum seekers, who did not come to Australia on official channels, after putting them first for a long time into Australian concentration camps, until the Australian bureaucrats catch up with their cases. - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - Population transfers motivated by economic causes affected dhimmi populations and were not restricted to newly subjugated or enslaved populations. Some chronicles provide information on these transfers. Departure had to take place on the same day or at very short notice - two or three days - making it impossible for the deportees to sell their possessions. In order to discourage flight, they were counted, closely supervised, and forbidden to move from their new place of residence, generally very far from their places of origin. After all had been deported, their houses were burnt down and the entire village destroyed. (A case to prove not only the wrongfulness but also the irrationality of these territorial unifiers. - J.Z. 2.9.11.) - Arakel of Tabriz has recorded the deportation of Armenians by Shah Abbas in 1604 from Julfa, with its terrible hardships, and the killing and abductions of girls and boys. He also describes the expulsion of the Armenians from Isfahan by Shah Abbas II, and the expulsion and forced conversions of the Jews in several cities of Persia at the same time (1657-61). Abraham of Crete, and Armenian priest, witnessed the deportation of Armenians by Nadir Shah in 1735 from the Ararat region. The deportation of Jews from Mashad (1839) and from Herat (1857-59) were described by Mattatya Gargi, the head of the Jewish community of Mashad 15. - Billeting and provisioning soldiers and horses were imposed by laws on dhimmis – another obligation which is stressed in every legal treatise on dhimmis. Abu Yusuf attributed it to the second caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab. Soldiers and beasts had to be lodged in the best houses, or in churches or synagogues, which were then abandoned because they became refuse dumps or stables. In the 19th c. British and French consuls and travelers mentioned this obligation in Bulgaria, Bosnia, Greece, Armenia, Syria and the Holy Land.16 - (Compulsory military quartering was common, for centuries, among "Christian nations, acting thus, "lovingly" rather than cash-paying, towards their fellow Christians. - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - In the Maghreb during periods of instability and a change in monarch, Jewish quarters were plundered, men slaughtered or ransomed, and women and children abducted by tribes massed around the towns. This was witnessed by among others, the American consul Shaler in Algiers in the 1820s, and is described in local Jewish and diplomatic reports in the early 20thc. in Morocco. 17 - - (For how many centuries and how often did pogroms happen in "Christian" countries against Jews? - Are there any States, parties of movements now which do recognize all genuine individual rights and liberties? - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - - Abduction of women and children for slavery or ransom in times of war and rebellion, or during peace time raids (i.e., razzias), was recurrent. Documentation is provided in Jewish dhimmi sources, but mainly in Christian chronicles: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, and Muslim. Coptic chronicles of the Middle Ages mention the abduction of Christian children as slaves or as a deduction of unpaid taxes. In Yemen, Jewish children under the age of 12, upon the death of their father, were removed from their families and converted to Islam. The law was retroactive, and was applied until the departure of the Jews to Israel in 1950. However, such practices are theoretically forbidden by Muslim law. According to al-Mawardi: “ One may buy children of people residing in enemy territory, just as one may make them captive, but one may not buy children of dhimmi peoples or take them captive.”18 - - The revolt of dhimmis restored the rule of jihad, resulting in slaughter of the rebels, and slavery for their women and children. After the Greek and Serb revolts in the 19th c., thousands of women and children were enslaved. At the fall of Missolonghi (22 Apr. 1825) 3.000 to 4.000 Greek women were sold in slavery. Countless Armenians were enslaved during the massacres at the end of the 19th c. and during the genocide of 1915-17. - (To see all these atrocities in proportion: How many millions of Christians were slaughtered, raped, plundered, expropriated and otherwise wrongly treated by other “Christians”, in war-, peace-, civil-war- and revolutionary times - during the last few centuries? Fanatic Muslims were, certainly, not the only offenders. It was also a "Christian" government that first produced and kept in readiness e.g. nuclear mass extermination devices and used them, in two cases, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, against Japanese people, regardless of how many of them were civilians, children, democrats, republicans of even Christians. - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - - Religious slavery was widespread throughout the Islamic lands. Christian Nubia was obliged to deliver contingents of slaves from the beginning of the Arab conquest. The Mamluks, who ruled Egypt and Syria for centuries, were all non-Muslim slaves, bought or captured. In the Ottoman Empire, for over 300 years under the devshirme system, Christian children were requisitioned annually for slavery in Albania, Greece, the Aegean Islands, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Hungary. In Persia, the koulars or militia slaves represented a similar institution. This system of enslaved Christian militias also existed in Andalusia (Spain), where military slaves were particularly numerous. - (Compare the centuries of slavery and serfdom among "Christian" peoples. - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - Concerning the dhimmi peasantry 19, we see that chronicles from Egypt, Armenia, and Palestine in the 8th and 9th centuries onward describe a similar pattern concerning the taxes and the ransoms levied on the dhimmis, the general insecurity, the usurpation of lands by Arab immigrant tribes, the continuous extortion of the population, and its flight. A similar pattern developed centuries later with the penetration in Anatolia of Turkish tribes from the 11thc. During the early Middle Ages, strict control of the whole village dhimmi population, reinforced by severe penalties for those who fled, was needed to keep the peasants on their lands. Extortion under torture is mentioned in Palestine, Egypt, Armenia, and Mesopotamia. Abu Yusuf alludes to tortures inflicted on the tributaries to extract money by stating that this is forbidden. Coptic and Armenian dhimmis sources describe the same type of tortures. - The same fiscal oppression and the ransoming for security, was observed in the 19th c. for Christians and Jews in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon 20, as well as Mesopotamia, Armenia and Kurdistan, and some European provinces of the Ottoman Empire. It was reported by Edouard Engelhardt 21, the French plenipotentiary minister in Turkey in the middle of the 19th c. The same situation relating to Armenians some decade later is reported by an Anglo-French, and Russian Commission of Enquiry in the Sassun region after the massacres of 1894-95. (Have all forms of tax-, military- and "educational" slavery been abolished in all "Christian" countries and also all other forms of territorial despotism? - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - - The general pattern for the dhimmi peasantry, most frequently discussed in texts related to the beginning of the conquest, concern the conditions of the conquest, the character of the Islamized lands, the fiscal regime, the sporadic deportations, the overall insecurity, and the destruction of churches and synagogues. Even if all those evils were neither continuous nor generalized, and sometimes resisted by the Islamic central power, especially the Ottomans, they were recurrent enough to have destroyed, in some regions, the indigenous non-Muslim peasantry. - Since dhimmitude is the result of a war of conquest, it comprises thestudy of the jihad rules and of the modalities of the battles and the treatises with conquered peoples. For traditional Muslim jurists the modalities of conquest of each land or city was to determine for all time the jurisdiction to be applied there. Those points are constantly stressed by jurists. Here are some examples: In the early fourteenth century, churches and synagogues were closed in Cairo and a legal opinion on this matter was requested from Ibn Taymiya, a renowned Hanbali jurist. He confirmed the legality of the closure by referring to the conditions of Egypt's conquest in the seventh century by the Muslims, that is, eight centuries earlier. - In the treatise (1739) of Shaykh al-Damanhuri, an Egyptian scholar from al-Azhar, we read an interesting examination of the opinions of the most prominent Islamic scholars on the building and restoration of churches and synagogues in Islamic lands. All opinions are based on the conditions of the conquest: if the land was taken by violence, by treaty or was occupied by Muslim colonists. - Another example comes from Morocco a century later. From 1836 to 1837 the Jews of Fez had asked the Sultan Abd ar‑Rahman for permission to build a hammam (public bath) in their quarter. The most learned qadis (judges) were consulted; they produced twelve fatwas on the subject, going back to ancient chronicles that described the conditions of the Islamic conquest of the Maghreb more than a thousand years earlier. All of them ‑ with one exception ‑ ruled that Jews could not be granted the right to build a hammam because of the manner in which the conquest of the Maghreb had taken place in the 7thc. As late as 1898, the same request was again refused to the Jews. - (Can our governmental and territorial monopoly jurisdictions be much more relied upon to provide justice in all cases? - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - - Socio-religious aspects - - The economic and social domain projects a much wider and deeper pattern of dhimmitude, because one can say that the Muslim peasantry was also – though in a much less severe way - victim of the period’s vicissitudes. In wars, invasions and rebellions, there is a degree of uncertainty. This is not the case with the legal regulations determining the economic and social status of the dhimmis. As there is no time to develop this aspect, I will briefly enumerate them. Many are stated in Abu Yusuf, the rather open-minded 8th century jurist from the Hanafi school. - - As we have seen, the jizya was mandatory under threat of jail, conversion, slavery, the abduction of dhimmi children, or death. Dhimmis paiddouble the taxes of the Muslims and were subjected to the most degrading corvées. (Progressive taxation, forced labour and military servitude are not exactly unknown for "Christian" countries, either, even in modern times. - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - In North Africa and Yemen, repugnant obligations, such as executioner, grave-digger, cleaner of public latrines and the like, were forced on Jews, even on Saturdays and holy days. Religiousrestrictions were numerous, ranging from prohibitions in building, repair and enlargement of synagogues and churches to regulations imposing humility, silence and secrecy in prayer and during burial. The destruction, confiscation and Islamization of synagogues, and more often churches, were common and are often mentioned in legal treatises and dhimmi chronicles. - - In the legal domain, specific laws ordained permanent inferiority and humiliation for the dhimmis. Their lives were valued at considerably less than that of a Muslim. The penalty for murder was much lighter if the dhimmi was the victim. Likewise, penalities for offenses were unequal between Muslims and non-Muslims. A dhimmi had no right to defend himself if he was physically assaulted by a Muslim; he could only beg for mercy. He was deprived of two fundamental rights: the right of self-defense against physical aggression, and the right to defend himself in an Islamic law court as his testimony was refused. Dhimmis could be judged under the provisions of their own legislation. However dhimmi legislation was not recognized in Muslim courts, whose judgements superseded dhimmi legal decisions. - - Dhimmis were forbidden to have authority over Muslims, to possess or buy land, to marry Muslim women, to have Muslim slaves (What a terrible restriction! - J.Z., 2.9.11.) or servants, or to use the Arabic alphabet(confirmed by Colonel Charles Churchill in Syria and Lebanon during 1840-60). - - In the social domain dhimmis had to be recognized by their discriminatory clothes whose shape, color and texture were prescribed from head to foot, likewise, their houses (color and size) and their separate living quarters. Dhimmis were forbidden to ride a horse or a camel, since these animals were considered too noble. A donkey could be ridden in towns but only on a pack-saddle, the dhimmi sitting with both legs on one side and dismounting on sight of a Muslim. A dhimmi had to hurry through the streets, always passing to the left (impure) side of a Muslim, who was expected to force him to the narrow side or into the gutter. He had to walk humbly with lowered eyes, to accept insults without replying, to remain standing in a meek and respectful attitude in the presence of a Muslim and to leave him the best place. If he was admitted to a public bath, he had to wear bells to signal his presence. Stoning Jews and Christians ‑ especially in Arab-populated regions - was not unusual - likewise disdain, insults and disrespectful attitudes toward them were customary. Some regional rules represent an aggravation of this pattern. In Morocco and Yemen, Jews were forbidden any footwear outside their segregated quarter. - - These laws are the basic regulations set down in the classical texts on dhimmis and they had to be enforced throughout the lands of dhimmitude. Muslim jurists strongly condemned the alleviation of these measures when it temporarily occurred. Dhimmitude covers more than a millennium of Christian and Jewish history and is a comprehensive civilization encompassing customs, legislation and social behaviour. Its various constituents were constantly imposed with lesser or greater severity depending on circumstances - they may be found whether in the Balkans, in Anatolia, in the Levant, Persia, Yemen and the Maghreb. - - (Rights for e.g. children and women in "Christian" countries are still a relatively recent practice and all genuine individual rights and liberties are still not recognized in any of them. What degrees of autonomy have the various Muslim sects in Muslim countries and in Christian countries? In the latter they do have at least religious liberty, which does not sanction any kind or religious intolerance. - J.Z., 2.9.11.) - - Thus we can answer the questions posed at the beginning of this lecture as follows: yes, indeed, dhimmitude represents a comprehensive legal system; it was introduced throughout the lands conquered and Islamized by jihad; and it was implemented as recorded in numerous texts, and viewed or experienced by countless witnesses for thirteen centuries. - This comprehensive systemhaspermeated Islamic civilization and culture from its inception, and is being revived today through the Islamist resurgence and the return of the shari’a in some countries. Hence this pattern is not transient but permanent. - - Jihad-dhimmitude: a stable and enduring pattern - - The considerable number of chronicles written by Muslims and non-Muslims provide copious information on the methods and implementation of jihad over the centuries. These texts make it possible to establish the close correspondence between actual Islamic military practices and the legal and theological prescriptions of jihad. The wars currently waged by Muslim states or through their proxies, in Israel, the Sudan, Nigeria, Kashmir, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other parts of the world, reproduce the classic strategy of jihad. For instance Abu Yusuf mentions the military conscription of pubescent and pre-pubescent children in jihad campaigns. Contemporary examples include: the Iraq-Iran war, the jihad against Israel (intifada), and the Islamist militias in the Sudan. The refusal to return enemy corpses (for example by the Lebanese Hizbollah) conforms to another opinion of Abu Yusuf. Raids on villages, killing of adult males, and the abduction and enslavement of women and children (Sudan, Indonesia), as well as terrorist campaigns against civilians infidels and apostates (Algeria), conform with the opinions of al-Mawardi, mentioned earlier. The victims of such actions are deprived of all rights. - - Today, many aspects of dhimmitude remain active or potential political forces. Hence we see a return to the same situation in modern states where the shari’a is applied or constitutes the source of the laws, as in Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and until recently in Afghanistan. - - The condition of Christians in some modern Muslim states is inspired by the traditional rules of dhimmitude relating to the laws of blasphemy, mixed marriage and apostasy, or those concerning the building and repairing of churches, and of religious processions. Discrimination in employment and in education occurs, as well in equality between Muslims and non-Muslims in penal law. - - A recently published book by Canon Patrick Sookhdeo22 examined the condition known in Pakistan as “bonded labour”. This is of particular interest to the historian of dhimmitude because it was the condition of the Jewish and Christian peasantries, so often referred to in their chronicles from the eighth to the nineteenth centuries. It illustrates the subservience maintained by fiscal exploitation and indebtedness which led to expropriation and a system of slavery. Likewise, Sookhdeo demonstrates how the inferior status of the non-Muslim can validate an abuse, in theory forbidden by law, and make it irreversible, as for example the accusation of blasphemy or the abduction of Christian women. This crime, also perpetrated in Egypt today, has been a permanent feature of dhimmitude. - - As a brief conclusion, I would say that there is no public debate yet on the ideology of jihad against the infidels, nor about dhimmitude, because these subjects are simply obfuscated or denied outright. Thus, Dr. Abdel-Mo’ti Bayoumi, the Secretary of the Islamic Center of the prestigious al-Azhar university in Cairo, recently wrote (Al-Musawwar – a mainstream Egyptian weekly, in Arabic - Aug. 23, 2002) in a rejoinder to an article of mine on Jihad (National Review Online, July 1, 2002), that the dar al-harb never existed, which implies then that neither jihad, nor slavery ever existed in Islam. Thus in one stroke of the pen, a reputable Islamic scholar summarily dismissed thirteen centuries of Islamic writings and laws on this subject. - - Since the end of the 1960's some professors in Europe and North America teach that jihad wars produced no civilian victims, and that the Muslim armies of conquest were welcomed by their future dhimmis with open arms. This, of course, is the Muslim version of history and it is interesting to see that it is being adopted in Europe. This interpretation is in conformity with the shari’a which forbids any criticism of Islamic law or government, and attributes all evils to the mushrikun (the infidels), hence the necessity of the jihad, whose aim is to impose the Islamic law of justice over the land of Evil - the dar al-harb, the region of war.” - - - - - “References - - 1. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, La Risala (Epitre sur les elements du dogme et de la loi de l'Islam selon le rite malikite.) Translated from Arabic by Leon Bercher. 5th ed. Algiers, 1960, p. 165. - 2. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah. An introduction to History. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. (New York, 1958), vol. 1, p. 473. - 3. Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah. The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 60. - 4. Ib., 70. - 5., Ib., 192. - 6. Ib., 76-77. - 7. Ib., 200-202. - 8. Ismail Raji al-Faruqi, Islam and Other Faiths, ed. by Ataullah Siddiqui, (Herndon, VA), 1998, p.100. - 9. Abu Yusuf, Ya'koub, Le Livrre de l'Impot Foncier. (Kitab el-Kharadj). Translated from Arabic by E. Fagnan. (Paris, 1921), p. 189. - 10. Pedro Moreno ed. Handbook on Religious Liberty around the World, Rutherford Institute, 1996, p.277. - 11. Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634 - 1099, translated from Hebrew by Ethel Broido. Cambridge University Press, 1997. - 12. For consular sources on dhimmitude, see Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi. Jews and Christians Under Islam Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985., The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996., Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002. - 13. Speros Vryonis,Jr. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1971. - 14. Gil, A History of Palestine, and Joseph Hacker: “The Surgun System and Jewish Society in the Ottoman Empire during the 15th – 17th centuries”, Zion 55/1 (1990), 27-82. - 15. For references on deportations, see the documents section in Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude. - 16. Albert Hyamson, ed. The British Consulate in Jerusalem in Relation to the Jews of Palestine (1838-1914). Vol. 1, p. 211. - 17. David Littman, “Jews under Muslim Rule, II: Morocco 1903-1912”, Wiener Library Bulletin 29, n.s. 37/38 (1976): 3-19; and WLB 28 n.s. 35/36 (1975): 65-67. - 18. al-Mawardi, op. cit., 200. - 19. For the evidence provided by Sawirus b. al-Muqaffa, Denys of Tell-Mahre and Pseudo-Denys, Michel the Syrien, Bar Hebraeus, Thomas Ardzruni, Ghevond, Sepeos, see Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude. - 20. Col. Charles Churchill, The Druzes and the Maronites under Turkish Rule from 1840 to 1860 (1862). - 21. In Bat Ye'or Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide, pp.341-42. - 22. Canon Patrick Sookhdeo A People Betrayed. The Impact of Islamization on the Christian Community in Pakistan, Scotland. 2002.”
DHIMMITUDE: ISLAM AND DHIMMITUDE. Where Civilizations Collide, byBat Ye'or. - First English Review: Islam & 'the rest' - The Jerusalem Post - 11 January 2002 - - DHIMMITUDE: Bat Ye'or was born in Egypt. A British citizen living in Switzerland, since 1971 she has written numerous articles and three books on non-Muslims under Islam. The translation of Le Dhimmi (Paris, 1980) into English (1985), Hebrew (1986), and Russian (1991), brought her international recognition. The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam remains an essential introduction to her second major work, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude (French, 1991; English, 1996; German edition: May 2002), which put the study of this topic on a new footing. Bat Ye'or's latest book, Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide, examines the trend toward dhimmitude during the 20th century. An assessment of Jihad and Dhimmitude is all the more essential since the terrorist Jihad-war struck America on 11 September 2001. - Read on ... (click on your selection) >>> NEW BOOK: View this NEW Website: http://www.dhimmitude.org/ - Bat Ye'or: In English: Books, articles and lectures - En français: Livres, articles et conférences - Others: In English: Articles, and UN Statements - © Bat Ye'or 2002. - There are at least two and these quite opposite views of dhimmitude. The one sees in that tradition at least a new beginnings of religious tolerance and even of religiously motivated autonomous communities of volunteers. The other sees in them only a compulsory segregation and territorial domination by an overlordship. I am still inclined to the first view and would simply have wished for them complete exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. - Compare other continuing opposite views e.g. on abortion, free markets, free market money, centralization & decentralization, voluntarism & compulsion, gun control laws, immigration, individual vs. collectivist sovereignty, secessionism & compulsory unification, capitalism, State Socialism, equality, rights, freedom, liberty. - J.Z., 2.9.11. - MILLET SYSTEM, RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, UNIFICATION, STATES, IMPERIALISM, CENTRALIZATION
DHIMMITUDE: Original Message from: "Christian Butterbach" email@example.com to "John Zube" firstname.lastname@example.org - May 11, 2005. Subject: eine kleine Zwischenbemerkung: Dear John, In your panarchist writings you have often referred to the dhimmitude in Muslim countries and it seemed to me in a somewhat positive sense. Recently I received a number of texts by qualified researchers (unfortunately all in French or other languages you are not fluent with) which explain or prove that the conditions of the people living in that dhimmitude were far from being as positive as it is often seen. I just wanted to let you know that. - PIOT, Chris - [I never called it dhimmitude, which is comparable to servitude, but millet system or dhimmi. Dhimmitude is a derogatory term by those, who complain, rightfully, that the dhimmis did not provide sufficient or even complete independence and protection. Large degrees of suppression, exploitation and prosecution still occurred, all too frequently. - J.Z., 24.9.11.] - - - From: John Zube 11 May 2005, to Christian Butterbach: - Dear Christian, - fully conceded! - But then what conditions in any country where quite idyllic a few centuries or more ago? - Even the ghettos in Russia and Poland, which were also a kind of concentration camps, had a degree of communal self-administration. - Jewish representatives were permitted to select the next victims from the Warsaw ghetto for the next transport to the concentration camps. - Nevertheless, at some times and places at least degrees of Jewish autonomy or of autonomy for foreigners or members of other faiths did exist. - This autonomy never went far enough. And they had their own internal flaws as well. In Poland, among Jews, sectarian infighting occurred, for instance, according to Dubnow. - There was never a genuine paradise in the past, as yet, unless you have only primitive or barbarian tastes or love the most simple survival "games" from day to day. - All these cases prove merely that men do not have to live in territorial herds under imposed shepherds and butchers. They are not territorial animals, even when most of them have are still the victims of their territorialist ideas. - Even Robert Ardrey had to admit in his famous book, The Territorial Imperative, that there are exterritorial animals. We have sparrows and swallows in Australia. I doubt that they originated in Australia. Even rats and mice can make themselves at home almost everywhere where it is dry and warm enough for them. - The first Protestants were not very tolerant people, either. And the Hansa merchants strove to attain monopolies. - Even now sufficient knowledge of all individual rights and liberties so far discovered is not yet widely enough spread. - - So what can we expect from past times? - It is the future, our future and that of our descendants that we ought to worry about and prepare for. - All men do not have to remain the victim of popular prejudices and of traditional but wrongful and flawed institutions and practices. - Men armed with ABC mass murder devices will either learn to become sufficiently tolerant - or they will wipe themselves off the face of this planet. - PIOT, John. - - - I'm inclined to second John on this. The dhimmitude was far from a beauty. In theory it was somewhat more tolerant, in practice probably very intolerant. But that does not imply that the dhimmi rights to go about with some of your own affairs without interference should be abolished. No, the solution isn't to abolish the dhimmitude and force everybody under the same rule. That's where we are today, right? The way to go would rather be to extend the dhimmitude rights (*) to every sphere of life. I comment on this at least in the longer review of the Liu book, available at GPdB's site. - Cheers, Richard C. B. Johnsson, 12.5.05. – (*) and much more than these all too limited and insufficiently protected liberties or “concessions”! – J.Z., 13.12.11.
DHIMMITUDE: Pan Dhimmi Notes by J.Z. 21 12 03: Judging by what I have read so far, while downloading some web pages on Dhimmis, their opponents take the modern territorialist stand, and do not ascribe the persecution of non-believers by ruling or majority Muslims to territorial rule and remaining religious intolerance but, rather, to the remnant of dhimmi self-government or autonomy that existed and still exists, e.g. in form of the remaining "personal law" tradition and "diplomatic immunity?" and separate laws and jurisdiction for occupation forces. - They do seem to favour religious tolerance - but not exterritorial autonomy for diverse groups of believers but seem to have some democratic and religiously tolerant but only territorial and democratic model in mind as their ideal. - Nowhere did I see them attack the principle and practice of collective responsibility and monetary despotism. Nowhere did I see them appreciate the few instances of exterritorial autonomy that were once exemplified also by dhimmis. (Although still only in an all too limited way. - J.Z., 2.9.11.) Nowhere did I see them defend the right of minorities to arm and militarily organize themselves and to run their own police forces, juridical, legislative and administrative system. - They take the suppression of or disrespect for the limited and often only temporary autonomy, that did exist in the form of dhimmis, as a proof that this autonomy or insufficiently protected status was inherently wrong. Moreover, they take this incomplete autonomy itself as an instance of oppression or of coercive ghettos for non-believers, instead of seeing in it an already large degree of tolerance for tolerant people, the start of a natural and free development of alternative and non-territorial communities for volunteers. Sometimes they write as if it would have been preferable for the dhimmis to have become coercively "converted" or "integrated" or enslaved or even exterminated. The Dhimmis were steps in the right direction. They did not go far enough and these steps did not remain uninterfered with. But with a small head tax a degree of religious tolerance was introduced, rather early. Religious tolerance came much later to Europe and even to North America. - Moreover, it is not yet completely realized anywhere. Nor is taxation of dissenters everywhere abolished. On the contrary, it is everywhere territorially institutionalized. - They are also blind, apparently, to the direct and indirect effects of monetary despotism, in which dissatisfactions increase and culprits are sought, instead of causes for the existing miseries. Under full monetary freedom fanaticism would rapidly decline. - It would also be greatly reduced by full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, that is, by the EXTENSION of the dhimmi system to its natural limits. Fanatic political, nationalist, statist, collectivist and territorialist intolerance as well as religious intolerance would also decline when the ideas of collective responsibility and of religious intolerance are systematically fought by the ideas of individual responsibility, individual genuine rights and liberties, including individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers and full religious tolerance for all religions that are tolerant towards those with other religions or none at all. - The intolerant associations and their institutions could and should also be systematically resisted by ideal volunteer forces for the protection of all genuine individual rights and liberties. Alas, such militias have still to be established and these rights and liberties have still to be fully declared, discussed and understood, many important and genuine individual rights and liberties have still to be declared and realized everywhere. The analysis of the opponents of "dhimmitude" is largely quite wrong and so are their proposals for its complete abolition. They do, so to speak, "throw out the child with the bathwater"". - Anyhow, that is my first impression, when I saw these sites. Now I have to proceed to read them closely, for any positive information they might contain. - - It is true that the dhimmis were treated as second-class citizens, discriminated against. Quite exterritorially autonomous and armed and organized diverse communities, all of volunteers only and all only dong their own things, at the own expense and risk, were not exactly tolerated at the same time in Christian countries, either, nor are they even now, apart from a large degree of religious tolerance and some "civil rights", which are still far from the realization of all genuine individual rights and liberties. - They were often robbed and enslaved and still had to live somewhat under Muslim laws and jurisdiction and an all too incomplete "protection" by the Muslim authorities, this in spite of the word dhimma being derived from an Arab word of protection. - Well, where else can promises of territorial politicians be relied upon? - As my friend Ulrich von Beckerath used to say, payment of a poll tax of one gold coin per head per year was a cheap prices to the degrees of religious liberty and community autonomy that they achieved in their dhimmis and this tax tended to make their Muslim overlords a bit more tolerant. - At least to a limited extent, they were left to their own affairs and, naturally, they had always the option to say "yes" to their conquerors and become Muslims themselves. - Individual secessionism is nowhere recognized by any government even now as a basic individual right, far less is full exterritorial autonomy for alternative communities of volunteers. - Should we expect a much higher morality and wisdom from the ancient Muslim conquerors and fanatics and from their modern counterparts? Often the dhimmi members constituted not various small minorities but, between them, the majority in the conquered countries. - The remaining and upheld abuses, which in our times not only lead to arson and murder in isolated instances, by private mobs, sometimes sponsored or tolerated by the occupying authority, like in East Timor, but also, e.g. to official mass deportations e.g. of Jews from most Arab countries, after territorial Israel was established. The Soviets did the same kind of thing for decades and the modern Chinese Empire isn't any better towards its minorities and dissenters. It may even have murdered more of them than the Soviets did, certainly even more than the Nazis did in the few years they had for their atrocities. - - In other words, full protection, far less full exterritorial autonomy and a corresponding self-government under their own personal laws, was never offered and guaranteed to the members of the various dhimmis and is not offered to them now. Nor is it demanded by these critics of the dhimmis. - Their all-over impression of this institution was only as an institution of oppression, like the coercive Apartheid in South Africa, or the inferior status ascribed to the "untouchables" in India and various Aborigines, e.g. in Japan and in Australia and to e.g. Negroes, Red Indians and Eskimos, until modern times, in America, native tribes in South America, minority tribes in Africa etc. - These critics of "dhimmitude", too, fail to distinguish between voluntary and coercive segregation and voluntary and coercive integration. - The remaining abuses of dhimmitude led to blindness towards the beginnings of alternative free societies that were involved. That applied even to Dr. Walter Zander and his interpretation of this tradition, according to the talk I had with him about this, many years ago. As a persecuted Jew, he naturally concentrated on the negative aspects that remained or were introduced, for centuries, and so did the Christian critics of the dhimmi then and now. - None of these critics envisioned an extension of the dhimmi status to full exterritorial autonomy for all kind of like-minded people in their own volunteer communities. At best they envision only "equal liberties" for all under some kind of democracy and demand human rights, all too limited minority rights and civil rights from the present territorial governments and governmental protection against armed fanatics. Sometimes the fanatics form the territorial government and are the ruling mass murderers. At best the territorial rulers do constitute a quite insufficient defence against fanatic mass murderers or terrorists. - Due to the many remaining restrictions and abuses the critics of the dhimmi system equated it almost with servitude or slavery. But where in the world, at least in the past, when most of these persecutions and abuses did occur, before the rise of modern territorial nationalism and its continuing abuses against dissenting minorities (e.g. the Kurds in 3 or 4 nation States), were dissenting minorities treated more tolerantly, e.g. in "Christian" countries, under "Christian" kings and churches? - - The European ghettos for Jews were not any better and did not prevent pogroms. - One article mentions at least, although only by the way, a limited autonomy for the dhimmis. - More than the existence of such a limited autonomy status was never asserted by me. I saw in this a positive sign. Most of these writers ignored or do not appreciate this positive aspect at all and cannot or will not imagine its extension into full exterritorial autonomy, as an ideal for the past, the present and the future. - That is like saying: Religious tolerance is no good at all - because in the past there was an almost all-powerful Catholic Church with its Inquisition or because, even today, all too much religious intolerance is still being continued in a least some countries. - How tolerant were the Christian rulers towards their diverse minorities during the last 1500 years? How tolerant are they now towards those who are outvoted or outgunned? - The article "The Dhimmi, an Overview" equates "dhimmi" with suppression and persecution, all forgetting about the limited autonomy aspect. This autonomy aspect was much larger before the new religion of territorial nationalism became predominant in most countries. - In all the cited literature and surveys I see no hint at appreciation of the "separate" and "somewhat independent" development that was involved for the ruled minorities or majority. - Partisanship that sees only remaining negative aspects and ignores altogether all positive aspects and development possibilities can hardly be described as a scientific approach. - Are there other and more objective voices on this question? Is there any literature that describes this positive aspect and its development potential for the future - that is not yet included in my literature list on panarchism? - I would like to hear about it. - - I do not believe that it is worthwhile to try to engage in discussions with these people. They uncritically adopted a false analysis and a faulty cure. To convert them to better ideas is probably more difficult than to convert those without these flawed convictions. - PIOT, John Zube, email@example.com 21.12.03. - Somewhat revised: J.Z., 2.9.11.
DHIMMITUDE: The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule. - Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a. - This similarity, which includes also regional variations, has created a uniform civilization developed throughout the centuries by all non-Muslim indigenous people, who were vanquished by a jihad-war and governed by shari'a law. It is this civilization which is called dhimmitude. It is characterized by the different strategies developed by each dhimmi group to survive as non-Muslim entity in their Islamized countries. Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad. - Dhimmitude encompasses the relationship of Muslims and non-Muslims at the theological, social, political and economical levels. It also incorporates the relationship between the numerous ethno-religious dhimmi groups and the type of mentality that they have developed out of their particular historical condition which lasted for centuries, even in some Muslim countries, till today. - Dhimmitude is an entire integrated system, based on Islamic theology. It cannot be judged from the circumstantial position of any one community, at a given time and in a given place. Dhimmitude must be appraised according to its laws and customs, irrespectively of circumstances and political contingencies. - For books by Bat Ye'or, see http://www.dhimmi.org/ - © Bat Ye'or2001-2003 - Hosted by CyberNet Communications, Inc. - Project of Jewish Internet Association. - Have other territorial empires conceded as much to the diverse peoples that they subjugated? - As an old proverb has it: "One should not malign even the devil." - Provided he, she or it did exist. - J.Z., 2.9.11. - TERRITORIALISM, TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, AUTONOMY, HUMAN RIGHTS
DIBELIUS, OTTO, Grenzen des Staates, im Furche Verlag Tuebingen,1959, 121 S., developed W. v. Humboldt's ideas somewhat further. Microfiched in PEACE PLANS 786 with some notes by U. v. Beckerath & J.Z. - U. v. Beckerath marked many passages in this book - and so did I. - J.Z., 5.10.11. DIBELIUS, OTTO, Dr. and Bishop, developed W. v. H.'s ideas somewhat further. On page 79 he suggests even a world-wide stateless society, realized through a revolution. - But O. D., too, does not go into sufficient details. - Humboldt wanted to confine the State to the provision of internal and external security and leave everything else to private initiative. In this he trusted the territorial State still too much, just like most modern advocates of "limited governments" do. -J.Z., 4.10.11.
DICEY & MORRIS: The Conflict of Laws, 10th ed., 2 volumes and supplement, 1983.
DICTATORSHIP: A ‘good dictatorship’ is a contradiction in terms.” - Ayn Rand, Textbook of Americanism, in: “The Ayn Rand Column”, revised edition, 1998, p 94, Second Renaissance Books, New Milford, Connecticut, www.rationalmind.com – One that is unanimously supported by volunteers and does not claim a territorial monopoly will supply its supporters with a good lesson, which, apparently, they still need. Outsiders will thus also get a good deterrent example – without risk and costs to them, apart from losing these people to a large extent as trading partners. – J.Z., 15.11.10. – DIS.
DICTATORSHIP: Dictatorship can arise only when power or powerful positions are there for the grabbing. - J.Z., 27.10.95, 11.5.00. – Under territorialism this is often the case. – J.Z., 15.11.10.
DICTATORSHIP: do not believe that humanity can be saved by coercion and oppression. … foresee that dictatorships must result in endless conflicts, wars and revolutions.” – Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, 284. - Still, one should consider the possibilities of relatively harmless dictatorships that are practised, under exterritorial autonomy, only over voluntary members. Monasteries, nunneries, and certain sects supply some good examples. Even some universities and corporations do. The urges for domination and submissiveness can thus be channeled to operate only among those who deserve their consequences. To the extent that democracies and republics are still territorial and with decision-making, especially on everything related to war and peace still monopolized in the hands of governments, however elected, they are still dictatorships, although not, generally and clearly recognized as such. - J.Z., 14.5.00.
DICTATORSHIP: No dictatorship ever stayed benevolent for long, for the obvious reason: the most ruthless addicts of power fight their way to the top.” - Robert Conquest, We & They, Civil & Despotic Cultures, Temple-Smith, London, 1980, p 211. – If they were confined to their volunteers and exterritorial autonomy only, then they would have to put up or shut up. Especially when all their members would be surrounded by more successful because more free members of other societies, communities and voluntary governments. But within territorial borders, as monopoly governments, with their subjects largely involuntary victims, disarmed and not militarily organized, they can run their own zoos, slaughterhouses, and prisons, on a country-wide scale, for all too long, based upon successful but misleading propaganda, as numerous examples have shown. – J.Z., 15.11.10. - RULERS, GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS, BENEVOLENT POWER ADDICTS?
DICTATORSHIPS, TYRANNIES & TOTALITARIAN REGIMES: There exists no ideal and practice that is more opposed to them and more destructive of them than that of individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and of voluntary communities that are exterritorially autonomous. Nevertheless and in spite of the continuance of all too many despotic territorial regimes, the freedom lovers have not yet sufficiently explored their panarchistic options. Why not? What can be done about it? See e.g. Startups, Education, ON PANARCHY, Bibliography, Abstracts, Indexes and Reviews of panarchist writings and History and Precedents for the exploration of panarchistic precedents. - J.Z., 31.8.04.
DICTOCRAT: Dictocrat" brings out the common strain that you will find in Communists, Socialists, Anarchists-of-the-deed, Social Democrats, Majority Rule fanatics, Planners, Collectivists, and what-not, including all the many varieties of Progressive or Liberal (modern sense) who need forgiveness, for they know not what they do.” - John Chamberlain, THE FREEMAN, 5/74. – As territorial States, ruling thus over many involuntary subjects, even democratic States are, largely, dictocratic. – J.Z., 15.11.10.
DIFFERENCE: exceptional individuals, instead of being deterred, should be encouraged in acting differently from the mass.” - J. S. Mill, quoted in Sprading, p.140. – However, even ordinary people should have free choice in following their diverse gurus, prophets or “great” leaders under full experimental freedom, i.e. exterritorial autonomy. Let them, too, live their way and learn. At least some good ideas, however little their steps, can come from almost anyone. – J.Z., 15.11.10. - ACT DIFFERENTLY, ECCENTRICITY, NONCONFORMITY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, CREATIVITY, IDEAS, DIVERSITY, CHOICE
DIFFERENCE: If men would recognize the imperative need of others to be themselves, to be different, perhaps many of the ills of the world would vanish. - We make a terrible mistake when we think that what is good or right for us is necessarily good or right for the man next door. How presumptuous of anyone to imagine that he has the right to interfere with his neighbour, to tell others how to live their lives! If we are asked for advice, we can give it. Otherwise we should leave well enough alone. - Respect for others, tolerance of their ideas and foibles, compassion in their misfortunes, are the marks of the truly civilised human being. - The reforming zeal is good, but with too many of us it takes the form of wanting to reform others, to persuade them to accept our own standards and ideas. - The first step towards improving things, towards making a better world, is to make oneself better. That is surely task enough in itself.” - IPA FACTS, 12/68. - Aren't opposition and abolition of repressive institutions and laws also required? - J.Z., 14.5.00. - RIGHT & NEED TO BE DIFFERENT, INDIVIDUALISM, TOLERANCE, CIVILIZATION
DIFFERENCE: Indifference is isolation. In difference is texture and wonder.” - Edwin Schlossberg, ANALOG, July 84, page 84. This is correct only as far as it goes. - There is an indifference towards social problems that is accompanied by a great interest and involvement in pleasure activities, among many if not most people. And how many libertarians share indifference towards human rights, aborted unborn children and the nuclear threat? - J.Z., 7.4.91. - VARIETY, INDIFFERENCE, TOLERANCE, CHOICE
DIFFERENCE: Mass society has no form apart from the individual, and it follows from this that social progress can only take place to the extent that the individual differentiates himself from the mass.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.17.– Rather, to the extent that the individual becomes free to engage in different kinds of actions and institutions, including whole societies, communities etc. of volunteers, exterritorially autonomous. This full freedom (including the choice of being less free) is, alas not yet in individual option – J.Z., 15.11.10. - DIFFERENTIATION, INDIVIDUALIZATION, PROGRESS, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM
DIFFERENCE: The Role of Differences: Each of us is unique and the whole case for liberty hinges on our differences. - Leonard E. Read, Comes the Dawn, summing up ch. V. - the Leonard Read who insists that we all have a vested interest in the uncompelled differences of human beings …” - John Chamberlain, THE FREEMAN, 6/79. - - Vive la difference - & full freedom for all differences, including those of one’s enemies, as long as their antagonism confines itself to mere words or contrary examples set among themselves – No compulsory political marriages, country-wide, not even temporarily! – J.Z., 15.11.10. - DIVERSITY, TOLERANCE, DIFFERENTIATION, UNIQUENESS, INDIVIDUALITY, INEQUALITY, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM, CONSENT, COMPETITION, LAISSEZ FAIRE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, THE MARKET
DIFFERENCE: To give any fair play to the nature of each, it is essential that different persons should be allowed to lead different lives. In proportion as this latitude has been exercised in any age, has that age been noteworthy to posterity. … Individuality is the same thing with development, … it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings, ...” - John Stuart Mill, quoted in S. Hutchinson Harris, The Doctrine of Personal Right, p.115. – That should even apply to the individual’s choice among political, economic and social systems, all confined to their volunteers and exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 15.11.10. - - MAN'S NATURE, FAIRNESS, FREEDOM, LIVING, INDIVIDUALISM
DIFFERENCE: unrestrained difference offers the nearest and truest approach to true unity which this world allows.” –. Auberon Herbert, Mack edition, p.256. - Let all individuals sort themselves out, according to their own convictions, ideals, interests and abilities, in their own preferred "States" and free societies, all only exterritorially autonomous and ruling only over their voluntary members. - Is that idea really so difficult to grasp when one contemplates our endlessly diverse daily actions? - J.Z., 14.5.00. – In this way the degree of freely chosen unity or uniformity, expressed in globalism, will spread most freely via individual and sovereign consumers and entrepreneurs. Compare: “Unity in diversity.” – While no change or progress would be territorially FORCED on anyone. – In their private lives and voluntary associations all who desire this, at their own risk and expense, could still practise their degrees of traditions, customs, ignorance, prejudice and stupidity as much and as long as they like, but without the authority or power to hold up the progress or other stagnant people and their associations. – J.Z., 15.11.10.DIVERSITY, UNITY, UNIFORMITY, PANARCHISM
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION: On almost every acute and important question and even among libertarians and anarchists, there exist alternative to opposite views. Voting won't settle these differences, nor will prolonged discussions, in most cases or soon enough. The contestants will thus have to settle, until they manage to agree with each other - for a tolerant practice and experimentation with their own ideas among themselves, leaving their opponents free to do the same thing. - J.Z. 8.8.87, 14.1.93, 5.9.04.
DIFFERENCES, VARIETY, DIVERSITY, INDIFFERENCE, ISOLATION: Indifference is isolation. In difference is texture and wonder." - - Edwin Schlossberg, ANALOG, July 84, p. 84. - This is correct only as far as it goes. There is an indifference towards social problems, accompanied by mere individual and social pleasure seeking activities, among many if not most human beings. And how many libertarians share e.g. indifference towards human rights, abortion of unborn children, the nuclear threat? - J.Z., 7.4.91, 12.1.93. - Panarchies allow individualised differentiation. And they isolate people much less from others than do territorial "nations" or States. - J.Z., 5.9.04.
DIFFERENCES: Individual differences are to be celebrated, … not lamented. They're what make trade and every other achievement possible for intelligent beings." - L. Neil Smith, Taflak Lysandra, p. 129. - DISTINCTIONS, VARIETIES, INEQUALITY
DIFFERENT LAWS, DIFFERENT PEOPLE: Different laws for different people. No laws of one volunteer community to apply to the people of other communities, i.e. not to any of them, who are peacefully pursuing their own affairs. – J.Z., 12.2.98. – Isn’t it rather obvious what troubles would result if e.g. soccer players would force their preferred game as an exclusive sports activity upon cricketers, if beer drinkers forced their drinking habits upon teetotalers, if meat eaters forced vegetarians to eat meat – and vice versa? Precisely this kind of wrongful nonsense we do attempt with political, economic and social systems, instead of respecting consumer sovereignty and the right of private judgment there as well. Other people do not exist to be ordered around by us, to follow our own preferences, tastes or whims, not even when we manage to get them turned into legal compulsions. Any legalized tyranny is still a tyranny and releases the victims from all obligations towards that tyranny. – “The” people is a delusion or an intentionally imposed and wrongful image. Even supposedly "identical" twins are not perfectly alike in everything. There are no two persons in the whole world who are quite alike. All are different. Thus all territorial laws and territorially imposed solutions do not fit men, women and children as they are and cannot satisfy all of them but are bound to frustrate many of them. It is rather naïve to assume that such a wrongful and irrational construction as territorial politics can be considered as an art. At best it would be in league with the art of con-man-ship, lies and deception, the art of torture, “perfect” mass murder crimes, prolonged despotism, terrorism and warfare, using and using up other people, who have not given their consent, as mere game tokens. People who willfully confine their visions and practices to such nightmarish institutions and actions will one day be classified as obviously mad. For now this kind of madness has the whole world in its power and threatens to destroy mankind. J.Z., 11.1.99.
DIFFICULTIES: Inter-individual-difficulties do sometimes lead to murder but rarely ever to war - unless these individuals are given national decision-making powers. There are more difficulties between the concepts of nations than between the real individual members of these nations. Allow individuals to define their own enemies and the collective enemy notions and nations will tend to disappear, together with the notions on "collective responsibility". - J.Z., 3.8.92, 11.5.00. – INTERNATIONAL DIFFICULTIES
DIFFUSION OF POWER: as political freedom consists in the diffusion of political power, so economic freedom consists in the diffusion of economic power.” - Lord Hailsham, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 13.5.78. - Diffusion and self-government down to the smallest level, that of individuals, means individual sovereignty and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, beginning with individual secessionism. - J.Z., 14.5.00. - DECENTRALIZATION, INDIVIDUALISM PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, SELF-MANAGEMENT, POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALITY
DIGNITY: dignity … consists in absolute self-determination and self-sufficiency.” - J. G. Fichte, The Science of Ethics, p.149. – Absolute self-sufficiency? – J.Z. – DIS., SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-SUFFICIENCY, PROTECTIONISM, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM.
DIGNITY: The free market (or free enterprise) system (*) has, … a strong philosophical foundation (**); it protects freedom by elevating the dignity of the individual to social prominence (***). - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free, Hoover Institute Press, 1982, p. 54. - - (*) What real say do individuals have towards e.g. compulsory taxation, inflated currencies of monetary despotism, governmental education, gun control laws, decisions on war and peace and international treaties, even in the best of the present democracies? – (**) Alas, it does not go far enough towards individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and their organizational consequences. - - (***) How much dignity can one have in a society or State from which one many not freely withdraw from, without having to change one’s residence or job, e.g. by emigration? How much dignity has man who remains subjected to the votes of millions of others or is allowed to help outvote them, with the own vote? – J.Z., 2.11.07. - - The individual human rights recognized by territorial governments are very limited, incomplete and restricted, already in their original form and much more so in their practical application or via ignoring them altogether or suppressing them with ”positive” laws or juridical decisions. - J.Z., 6.10.07. – DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, NOT ONLY THOSE SOMEWHAT CONCEDED BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS?
DIGNITY: To behave with dignity is nothing less than to allow others freely to be themselves.” - Sol Chaneles. TOLERANCE, FREEDOM, NEUTRALITY, ALOOFNESS
DILEMMA OF THE ANARCHISTS, SOLVABLE ONLY BY PANARCHISM: I, who wish to be free, cannot do so, because around me are men who do not yet desire freedom, and, not desiring it, become, as opposed to me, the instruments of my oppression.” – Michael Bakunin, quoted by Malatesta in ANARCHY. – Panarchists would grant them their wishes, those for themselves, while realizing their own wishes only among themselves. Thus friction, including wars, revolutions and terrorism, would become minimized as soon as enough people comprehend the new kind of “game” and begin to play it. – J.Z., 23.6.93, 14.1.99.
DILGER, ALEXANDER, Der Staat als Räuberbande und was das für die Freiheit bedeutet. - eigentümlich frei - Nr. 9 (1/2000), http://www.der-markt.com/ef - (The State as a Robber Band and what this means for Freedom. - STATE, TERRITORIALISM, TAXATION
DIMONT, MAX I., Jews, God and History, A Signet Book, New American Library, 1962, bibl., indexed, 472pp, JZL. - It has entries on Jewish self-government at least on pages 80, 122, 173, 180, 238, 242, 301 & 358. Many of the titles in its bibliography contain probably at least some short hints towards degrees of Jewish autonomy achieved in the Diaspora. But their titles do not indicate this. - J.Z.
DIOGENES OF PANARCHIA, On Panarchy, 7, 10, 49, 40, 76, in PEACE PLANS No. 505. 95, 107, in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. 28, 58, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. 20 & 28, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869. 101-103, in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879. 1-5, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.
DIOGENES OF PANARCHIA, to ZUBE, JOHN: Extract from a letter to John Zube, June 7, 1985, 63, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. 16 August 85, page 71, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585.Jan. 1, 1986, 37, & 27/4 -6/7/86, 50, in ON PANARCHY VIII, in PP 672.
DIPLOMACY, DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY & FREE TRADE: Let everyone have diplomatic immunity, for all productive and creative actions, e.g. for the smuggling of goods. It would give all of us the benefits of Free Trade. - J.Z., 1975 & 14.5.00.
DIPLOMACY: Compromise is the cornerstone of diplomacy.” - W.G.P. - That's why present diplomacy is wrong! - J.Z., 2.1.76. - I have never as yet heard or read about any diplomat who had a sufficient understanding and appreciation of individual rights and liberties. - J.Z., 14.5.00. – I doubt that panarchies will still require diplomats. By their very nature they do largely eliminate conflicts of interests, while territorial States multiply them, so much so that many of them are warfare States. – J.Z., 29.11.08. – DIS., COMPROMISE VS. PRINCIPLES & ETHICS & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES
DIPLOMACY: Diplomacy is war with peaceful means.” - Werner Mitsch. - Alas, diplomats know very few of the rightful and possible means that would contribute to prevent armed clashes, nor do they care to find out about them. The are part of the war-preparing and war-making territorial systems. - J.Z., 14.5.00.
DIPLOMACY: Diplomats are associates of the greatest crime syndicates and protection rackets of them all, the territorial warfare States. – J.Z., 29.11.08.
DIPLOMACY: Governmental diplomacy is just one aspect of the territorial warfare State. - A people's diplomacy would involve exterritorially autonomous governments in exile, representing their present or future voluntary members, the declaration of rightful war and peace aims, the decision on war, peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties by the people themselves, the destruction of all ABC anti-people and mass murder "weapons", volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights, especially monetary freedom and individual secessionism, free trade even unilateral and, at least, between pro free trade panarchies, free migration and the freeing and using of all information and communication channels, separate peace treaties, over the heads of the rulers, unilateral peace declarations, mass fraternization, tyrannicide, the encouragement of revolutions and military insurrections against dictatorships, open arms policies for refugees and deserters and freedom for all political, economic and social experiments undertaken by volunteers and at their expense and risk. - J.Z., 1.7.92 & 14.5.00.
DIPLOMACY: Lie and deny.” (Mentir et dementir.), Baron Jacques Baeyens, TIME, 1954. – Are diplomats more than servants to territorial power mongers and power addicts? – J.Z., 29.11.08.
DIPLOMACY: The patriotic art of lying for one's country.” - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, p. 72, (1948). Originally published in 1906 as The Cynic's Word Book. – As if such lies were of lasting value and could establish real trust between nations and governments. This kind of diplomacy leads, in the long run, more to wars than to peace. Diplomats act mostly in ignorance of or with prejudices against quite rightful war and peace aims. All-over they are part of the problem rather than the solution. Between panarchies they would be
DIPLOMACY: We would need very little diplomacy, military and police strength, secret service agents and no party politics at all - if only we left each other exterritorially alone. - J.Z., 24.10.93. - VOLUNTARISM, TOLERANCE, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, MINORITIES
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY: Diplomatic Immunity, recognized even by territorial politicians, an example of personal law application. This can also be used as a cover for crimes with victims and to that extent it is to be condemned. It constitutes extension of territorialism into the sphere of other territories. But it is strong in its application to individuals: ambassadors and consuls. (Diplomatic immunity - for all members of dissenting minorities! - J.Z., 6.7.04.)
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY: Letters by John Zube & Wayne B. Yeager, 1990/91, with a leaflet on his book: Above the Law ... , 180, in ON PANARCHY XVII, in PEACE PLANS 1,051.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY & PANARCHISM: Why the Swiss Model Does not yet Go Far Enough. - Essentially, the cantonal model of Switzerland is still territorial and that is its worst feature - the same as in all other States. - Perhaps the Swiss have gone as far with the "large" territorial model as one can go. Advocates of "Proprietary Communities", whose property might cover hundreds of acres, might think otherwise. - J.Z., 13.9.04. – REFERENDUM, DIRECT DEMOCRACY, SWITZERLAND.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY: The ideal to be aimed at in matters of government is not "direct legislation or direct government or simplified government, but no more (*) government." - D. W. Brogan, Proudhon, p.59. – (*) territorially imposed – J.Z., 15.11.10.) - LIMITED GOVERNMENT, ANARCHISM, DEMOCRACY, PARTICIPATION, REFERENDUM, PLEBISCITE
DIRECT DEMOCRACY: town-meeting system instead of representation.” - Richard Cummings, Proposition 14, p. 94. - At least for all those who want it for themselves, on the basis of exterritorial autonomy. - That could start by people becoming free to opt out from particular laws, even those passed by a local majority in a referendum. - J.Z., n.d., & 14.5.00. – Even local majority despotism is still not a good enough substitute for individual sovereignty and free individual choices. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - TOWN MEETINGS, REFERENDUM, INITIATIVE, RECALL
DIRECTORY: Addresses of living and still active panarchists, to the extent that they can afford to be so listed, have not yet been sufficient compiled. – I would be grateful for every such address sent to me. – J.Z., 13.12.11. – firstname.lastname@example.org
DIS.: GOVERNMENT: The government told everyone what to do, or so he assumed.” - Philip K. Dick, in the anthology: I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon, ed. by Mark Hurst and Paul Williams, p. 137. - Actually, the government passes so many legislative and regulative orders that it only gets around to publish them but not to inform each of its subjects about them. And, if it tried, the subjects would have neither the time, nor the energy, nor the ability to comprehend all its often very complicated "instructions". So, only a fraction are enforced against a few - many of them never even knew that they had "offended" against one absurd or wrongful law or the other. If an individual hasn't even been informed on a law then he should not have to obey it at all. This problem would be greatly reduced once people are all voluntary members of communities. They would not overload themselves with laws they would not even have time to read. People should become free to ignore the laws passed by others and also the governments that others have chosen for themselves for their affairs. - J.Z., 22.1.02, 15.11.10 – Nobody knows or can know all the territorial laws and regulations. – Thus obeying all of them cannot be dutiful or obligatory. Legalism is either not lawful in the best sense or all too full of wrongful laws in the worst sense. - J.Z., 28.11.08, 15.11.10. – LEGISLATION, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, GOVERNMENT, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM. – DIS. is just my abbreviation for possible entries in a future encyclopedia of the best refutions of popular errors, myths, prejudices etc. that are obstacles to progress. – Most of my collection of possible entries are not yet keyboarded into a file. - J.Z., 13.12.11.
DIS.: It is the greatest good to the greatest number which is the measure of right and wrong. - Jeremy Bentham, Works. – Just one of the popular errors and prejudices which is still being territorially enforced by the modern utilitarians, who do not realize how useless or harmful and even contradictory many of their actions are, not to speak of their wrongfulness and irrationality. – J.Z., 15.11.10. - RIGHT & WRONG, UTILITARIANISM, MORALITY, ETHICS, UTILITARIANISM, MAJORITIES, VOTING
DIS.: Legal justice is the art of the good and the fair. - Anonymous Latin Saying. – (Ius est ars boni et aequi.) – Who in our time, can still consider all laws and regulations to be just and fair? – There are probably even more prejudices, errors, myths, false assumptions and conclusions in the social science sphere than there are laws and regulations. – We need optimal individual defence options against all of them. - J.Z., 28.11.08. – Panarchism, an ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and an ideal militia for their protection, would offer them, to the extent that people do wish them upheld in their own affairs and voluntary associations, communities and societies. – J.Z., 15.11.10. - RIGHT & WRONG, JUSTICE, LAW, PREJUDICES
DIS.: Our first work must be the annihilation of everything as it now exists.” - Mikhail A. Bakunin, Dieu et l'Etat, posthumously published, 1882. - Only territorialism needs to be annihilated. All other evils can be continued, at the expense and risk of those still believing in them, becoming gradually reduced by individual secessionists and exterritorialist competition from volunteer communities. - J.Z., 13.10.02, 28.11.08.
DISAGREEMENTS & PANARCHISM: Two people who are in full agreement can learn nothing from each other. I'm glad you aren't in perfect agreement with me!" - John W. Campbell, Jr., Letters, Vol. I, p. 149. That is an argument for panarchism. However, one can also say that those who do agree can happily play their kind of games with each other. And their kind of game, thus being optimally played, may well provide a good learning example for onlookers. - J.Z., 31.3.89.
DISAGREEMENTS: Agree to disagree. Separate your interests and activities and tolerate each other. If people don't even agree on facts, how can you expect them to agree on opinions and ideas and then build a whole territorially monopolistic social, economic and political system on this expectation? - Exterritorial autonomy for volunteers rather than territorially enforced "unity"! - J.Z., 20.1.75, 14.5.00, 15.11.10. - AGREE TO DISAGREE, TOLERANCE, DIVERSITY, FREEDOM OF ACTION & FOR EXPERIMENTS
DISAGREEMENTS: There is no more reason to be distraught by disagreement than by gravitation. Or, put it another way: if one favors self-improvement, he should see that this is impossible without differences of opinion.” - Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.90. - Let each advance at his own speed by his own free actions and experiments, at the own risk and expense. - Read wanted to confine all freedom of action within the framework of a single, monopolistic and territorial but limited government, the supposedly top freedom ideal. Panarchism, on the other hand, makes not only this ideal possible - for all those who have it, but any other ideal for those in favor or possessed by it, always only at the own risk and expense. Seeing the present popular notions on libertarianism and anarchism, which option does have a wider appeal and which one would be easier to realize for all: Libertarianism, Anarchism or Panarchism? - J.Z., 14.5.00. , SELF-IMPROVEMENT, PROGRESS, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PANARCHISM
DISARMAMENT & PANARCHISM: Nations do not seek armaments as they seek wealth or food or health. They consider armaments as a burden and a nuisance; which they accept merely as a necessary evil. It follows that the only way to disarm would be to remove the cause which makes the evil and nuisance of armaments necessary." - Salvador de Madariaga: The Blowing Up of the Parthenon, p. 71. - Disarm all States of their territorial powers and with them their arms and armies will disappear. J. Z. 1.7.92.
DISARMAMENT: Agreement between nations to scuttle all weapons that are obsolete. - Leonard Louis Levinson. - If he does not expect that to happen by a referendum, but by territorial governments, then he should not abuse the term "nation" in this connection. - He should also answer the question whether any nation that is held together in a territory only by coercion, is really a nation. How many territorial nations would remain unchanged if every individual and every dissenting community were free to secede from it and adopt exterritorial autonomy for themselves? - In the social sciences, from the lowest to the highest levels of theorizers and practitioners, most minds are still dominated by primitive and false notions, prejudices, errors, myths and false premises - and no systematic attempt is made to collect and refute all of them and to publish the proceeds. - J.Z., 14.5.00. - DISARMAMENT BY GOVERNMENTS, ABC MASS MURDER DEVICES, NUCLEAR BY GOVERNMENTS?
DISARMAMENT: And if a single army in the world remains, whose leaders refuse to disarm or be disarmed and if they strive to become the decisive power in the world? What then? - J.Z., 25.9.83, 13.12.11. - One has to think very much beyond this primitive proposal. Just ask yourself, how effective have State police forces been in disarming criminals they haven't caught yet and how efficient have governments been in disarming the military forces of other governments? - What is impossible for territorial governments could be relatively easy for volunteer communities and their militias or protective associations. - That applies even to the prevention of violent crimes. See e.g. my short article on this in PEACE PLANS 15 on crime reduction through libertarianism. - J.Z., 14.5.00.
DISARMAMENT: Disarmament of territorial governments by armed people rather than disarmament of the people by armed governments. For territorial governments are the most dangerous and murderous of all the armed criminals with victims. – J.Z., 13.1.07, 25.10.07. – DISARMAMENT OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS BY THE PEOPLE, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE POTENTIAL VICTIMS
DISARMAMENT: Governments won't disarm themselves. The People must do it for them. - J.Z., 9.7.84. - And they ought to organized, educate, arm and train themselves for this purpose and for whatever other protection of their individual rights and liberties they do need, in ideal local volunteer militias that are nationally and internationally federated. Otherwise, in the next major war, they will be murdered not only by the dozens but by the hundreds of millions - by their great "defending territorial State machines" and their "super-weapons". - J.Z., 14.5.00. - DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE
DISARMAMENT: If territorial governments were moral institutions then they would not have built and kept ABC mass murder or anti-people weapons in the first place, or if they had built them and then pondered the ethics of their actions thoroughly, they would have destroyed them, even unilaterally - and would have prepared alternative defences against dictatorships and their "weapons", including libertarian resistance, tyrannicide, revolution, military insurrection and liberation programs. How great should a monetary reward be made for someone who either destroys a nuclear weapons or safely delivers it for destruction? It might kill 500,000 to 5 million people in a city, if used. Are these potential targets prepared to contribute at least $ 1 each towards such prizes? - The nuclear "weapons" of the own government are just as much a threat to the own people as are those of an enemy regime, for they invite retaliation - in kind. - But from territorial warfare States one should not expect such disarmament actions or any other moral and rational decisions and actions on war and peace. - Of all the IBMs and their nuclear weapons payloads, that were so far dismantled, their nuclear material cores have still been preserved and are stored, maybe to be so misused again, later, or now, in "peaceful" and "harmless" nuclear reactors. - Are they safe in the hands of any territorial government? Maybe that of Lichtenstein or Monaco. But from there high-jackers or known terrorist groups could easily acquire them. - J.Z., 14.5.00. - DISARMAMENT BY GOVERNMENTS, ABC MASS MURDER DEVICES, NUCLEAR WEAPONS
DISARMAMENT: In a non-governmental, in a world where the political State had been replaced by voluntary associations in which people produced and exchanged necessary goods and services, it would be impossible to induce enough people to invest their savings in such mammoth military establishments as now obtain. - I believe there is no assurance whatever in evading the increase of more and more military expenditure by the hope that government rulers are going to agree to the diminution of military might. In fact they mutually support each other by their mutual threats. The hope that governments will agree to reduce military might finds lodgment in minds that misapprehend the nature of government. But such minds are virtually universal simply because they have been taught in government-controlled schools throughout the world. What would surprise me is that anyone so "educated" had managed to think his way out of the universally-induced superstition that governments are in any way other than unmitigated evils.” - Laurance Labadie, Selected Essays, p.60. - In the meantime, they got rid of some of their obsolete equipment - and called this a disarmament agreement - while they continue to disarm the people and monopolize all military decision-making. From warfare States one should not expect anything else. - J.Z., 14.5.00. - GOVERNMENTS VS. FREE SOCIETIES, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLY DECISION-MAKING VS. INDIVIDUAL AND VOLUNTARY GROUP DECISION-MAKING, MILITIAS, WAR AIMS, TAXATION, DEFENCE, ANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, STATES
DISARMAMENT: Nations do not seek armaments as they seek wealth or food or health. They consider armaments as a burden and a nuisance; which they accept merely as a necessary evil. It follows that the only way to disarm would be to remove the cause which makes the evil and nuisance of armaments necessary.” - Salvador de Madariaga: The Blowing Up of the Parthenon, p.71. - Deprive all States of their territorial powers and with them their armies - and arms in government hands will disappear. - J.Z., 1.7.96. - Where, outside the PEACE PLANS series, can you find this radical alternative discussed at length? - J.Z., 14.5.00.
DISARMAMENT: When nations talk about reducing armies, every nation wants the last sword.” - Frank Jay Markey, READER'S DIGEST, 11/63. - If "nations" or, rather, territorial governments, were completely disarmed and wanted to make war against each other, if they still had taxation, inflation and public debt raising power and a governmental propaganda machines at their disposal, how long would it take, in the industrially developed countries, to produce mass murder devices in abundance? - It took the Hitler regime only a few years and even in the middle of the war, when he thought he had already won, his arms production was somewhat reduced! What say did the peoples, the nations, have under him - and what say do they have now, under any other territorial government regime, on such questions? - Peoples are not allowed to talk about disarmament, war, peace, treaties and expenditures with each other. Such negotiations and decisions are monopolized by territorial governments - with the predictable result. Separate peace treaties between armies and peoples are expressly outlawed as "high treason"! So is effective resistance against warmongering States, while territorial States, which are inherently warfare States, are constitutionally, legally and juridically legitimized. - J.Z., 14.5.00. - PEACE CONFERENCES
DISARMAMENT: Whoever thinks over earnestly and objectively this question of a general disarmament, and considers it in its remotest contingencies, must come to the conviction that it is a question which cannot be solved so long as men are (*) men, and States are (*) States.” - Theobald von Bethman-Hollweg. – (*) territorial – J.Z., 15.11.10.
DISASSOCIATION: Without freedom to disassociate oneself individually and to re-associated in volunteer communities that are only exterritorially autonomous, there is insufficient freedom in the political, economic and social spheres. Each needs the freedom to practise the own ideology - upon himself and like-minded people. - J.Z., 25.8.98, 12.5.00. - SECESSION, FRAGMENTATION, DIVISIVENESS, DESERTION, SCHISMS, ASSOCIATIONISM, PANARCHISM
DISASSOCIATIONISM VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONISM PLUS TOLERANCE: Rome died. Any culture that tries disassociation dies, too, before the pressure of a culture that accepts association and mutual responsibility." - John W. Campbel, Jr., Letters, I/151. - If one is so tolerant that one grants dissenters full exterritorial autonomy, one is not fully disassociated from them but does respect their rights and liberties. And the pressure exerted by barbarian hordes against Rome was not merely a cultural & military pressure, while the overtaxed and over-governed and largely enslaved Roman subjects did not really represent, in these respects, a superior culture but, rather, an inferior and even barbaric one. To many the barbarians brought liberation - and, according to Edward Gibbon, they did not impose their personal barbarian laws upon the Romans but gave them a choice. - J.Z., 31.3.89.
DISASTERS, NATIONAL: Canberra is the headquarters for the organization of national disasters. - J.Z., 10.10.75. - Just look at what it has done to the tax burden, that of the bureaucracy and to depreciate the currency and to create mass unemployment. Central, State and Local Governments have done us much more harm and killed many more of us off, than have all the natural disasters combined. And still the bureaucrats imagine that they are the most suitable people to cope with natural disasters, too. Just look at their record of "successes" and failures - in every sphere! - J.Z., 14.5.00. – CAPITALS, FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
DISCONTENT: there never was extensive discontent without great misgovernment.” - Lord Liverpool, 1819. – Misgovernment is an essential and inevitable part of territorial government over largely involuntary subjects. To the extent that it is territorial it may be compared with slavery and serfdom and their wrongs and inefficiencies. – J.Z., 15.11.10. - GOVERNMENT
DISCORDIA: All hail Discordia! - Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus I, p.110. – When each and everyone can have his own will in his own affairs then this leads to harmony rather than discord. How often have you seen adults fighting in shopping centre about how their own shopping cart should be filled? Let them shop around for their own political, economic and social system as well, their own personal laws. Panarchism does not demand anything more. Paying one’s way, rather than having to pay the bills of others. To each his own! Everyone making his own deals and bargains. – J.Z., 30.11.09. - DIVERSITY, VARIETY, NONCONFORMITY, PEACE, HARMONY, TRADE, PROPERTY, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT
DISCRETION: (Man) must consult his own reason, draw his own conclusions and consciously conform himself to his ideas of propriety. … For that purpose each man must have his sphere of discretion. No man must encroach upon my province, nor I upon his. He may advise me, moderately and without pertinaciousness, but he must not expect to dictate to me. He may censure me freely and without reserve; but he should remember that I am to act by my deliberation and not his.” – William Godwin, Justice. - "Let me make my own decisions!" - It's my life", isn't it?" - "Let me go to hell in my own way!" – “Living the own life. - "Let me make my own mistakes!" – “Free advice is worth its price!" - These are just some of the popular responses about meddling and against "backseat-driving". - J.Z., 15.5.00. – Alas, the same people are often all too obedient statists and victims and remain willfully under-informed or full of prejudices, when it comes to public affairs and so their governments get away with all too much at the expense of their victims. – What would happen if the best ideas and refutations were always readily available to these victims, if their taxation were voluntary and also their State membership? – Here and now I leave that to your own imagination. - J.Z., 30.11.08. – FREEDOM, CHOICE, POPULAR DEGREE OF INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY – BUT NOT YET CONSISTENTLY EXTENDED TOWARDS PANARCHISM
DISCRETION: no more discretionary powers left to officials or committees.” – Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Goodbye to Nationalization, p.7. – All discretionary powers to be transferred to individuals and their contracts and voluntarily joined institutions, from which they must remain free to secede. – No more territorial rule! - J.Z., 15.11.10. - DISCRETIONARY POWER, OFFICIALS, PUBLIC SERVANTS, MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, SELF-CONTROL, SELF-HELP, SELF-RELIANCE ETC.
DISCRIMINATION, VOLUNTARY VS. COMPULSORY EQUAL TREATMENT: Once those discriminated against are free to opt out and establish their own societies and governments without discrimination, they have no longer any reason to complain about discrimination - and the discriminators will have lost their involuntary victims. - J.Z., 13.9.04.
DISCRIMINATION: [Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964], many governments in southern states forced people to segregate by race. Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state laws, but failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But this federal law didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It also prohibited voluntary segregation. What had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about who they associated with.” - Harry Browne – Freedom of association or voluntarism in every respect, even under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy, is what panarchism is all about, regardless of what moral, rational or immoral or irrational notion a particular panarchy is based upon. People who share the same views do each other no wrong, even when they act like brutes, barbarians, totalitarians, racists, criminals, sado-masochists or cannibals towards each other. – Their behavior towards minors, who cannot as yet have given their informed consent, is another matter. Such victims have at least a right to asylum in civilized societies. – Brutish and even murderous parents do not have a right to their children to that extent. – In ancient Athens, I was told, everyone could make himself a guardian of a minor – but only to protect his or her rights. – True of false? I do not know, but I do approve of this in principle. - J.Z., 15.11.10. - VOLUNTARY VS. COMPULSORY INTEGRATION & SEGREGATION
DISCRIMINATION: 1. All people should be equal before the law. No law should discriminate on grounds of race, religion, colour, age or sex. In other words, the law should recognize and protect the equal individual rights of all people. However, while this is simple in concept, and probably agreed by all, it gets very muddled in application. For example, there are in existence literally thousands of laws which are discriminatory in one way or another. Means tests discriminate, as do licensing laws, tariffs, standards, wage legislation, welfare payouts and education standards, to name but a few. (*) - 2. However, private individuals and/or organizations do have the right to discriminate. This is a point that is being increasingly ignored, or denied. Implicit in the right to own property is the right to use and dispose of that property as one sees fit, provided only that one at all time respects the equal rights of others. Thus, you have the right to decide who you will allow into your house, who you will lend your car to, and who you will hire to work for you. We may disagree with your reasons for choosing who or what you choose, but we cannot morally force you to change your decision, no matter how irrational it might be.” – John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.75. – (*) People should be free to choose different law and societal systems for themselves! "The" territorial law is not the only possible or optimal and most just law. - J.Z. – PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, PANARCHISM, DIS.
DISCRIMINATION: Should we no longer discriminate in favor of politicians and bureaucrats and indiscriminately allow all people to make their own decisions? - J.Z., 15.5.00. – The fundamental ideas upon which all coercive territorial laws and institutions are based are, usually, all too primitive, flawed or limited. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - DIS., POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT
DISCRIMINATION: the preserves of discrimination in any society are the areas that are most monopolistic in character, whereas discrimination against groups of particular color or religion is least in those areas where there is the greatest freedom of competition.” - Milton Friedman, Capitalism & Freedom, p.109. Competition is a sphere of free actions for individuals, within their property rights, not for areas or even whole territories or countries. “Free countries” and “society” are among the most abused terms for all countries and their populations in which territorialism is still continued. – J.Z., 15.11.10. - CAPITALISM, RACISM, FREE COUNTRIES, SOCIETY, COMPETITION
DISENGAGEMENT: a political practice of methodical disengagement from and refusal of the establishment.” - Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation, p.15. As a leftist Statist he probably did not think here of individuals seceding from the State and establishing their own kind of exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 15.5.00, 30.11.08. - WITHDRAWAL, SECESSION, OPTING OUT, NAMES, TERMS
DISENGAGEMENT: The individual is free to associate or not to associate, he is free to disengage himself at any time.” - Kenneth Maddock, reviewing the work of Daniel Guerin in ANARCHIST No 1, Nov. 70. - Is or ought to be? - Merely to withdraw from active participation in territorial politics, while remaining its victim, is obviously not enough. - J.Z., 15.5.00. – We have to become free to withdraw from territorialism, its institutions and laws. – J.Z., 30.11.08. DISENGAGEMENT & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISMDISENGAGING THE STATE: remember the brave words of Mr. John Davies, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, at last year's Conservative Conference, when his announced his plans for "disengaging" the State from British industry.” – Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Goodbye to Nationalization, 30. - Alas, Boyson had to recall his prior words, in 1966, "to the effect that incomes policy and national economic planning were the twin cornerstones to our survival as a race." - Politicians will say at a certain time and place and to certain people whatever they think will gain them the most votes then and there. - I would rather have the individual option to hire and, finally, to fire them, like any other hired agent or servant that proves to be unsatisfactory, dishonest, too costly or just a nuisance. - J.Z., 15.5.00. – DENATIONALIZATION, PRIVATIZATION
DISGOVERNANCE: A term used by Vernor Vinge in: Marooned in Real Time, ANALOG, 6/86, 146. – NAMES, TERMS
DISINTEREST: Nine hundred and ninety-nine women out of a thousand are more interested in the cut of a dress than in the independence of their sex; nine hundred and ninety-nine men out of a thousand are more interested in drinking a glass of beer than in questioning the tax that is laid on it; how many children are not willing to trade the liberty to play for the promise of a new cap or a new dress? This is what begets the complicated mechanism of society; this is which by multiplying the concerns of government, multiplies the strength of government and the corresponding weakness of the people.” - Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism & American Tradition, p.128. – But what can one expect from people who never had fully free choice and freedom of action? What would happen if taxes became voluntary and choice of one’s government or society as well? We would finally get the chance to grow up and mature, make our own choices and decisions on all of our affairs, not only e.g. meals, hair styles, clothing, home decoration and reading matter or music. – Once all the walls come down, all the artificially imposed borders, frontiers and monopolies are gone, we would tend to explore all our options. For some this might go fast. Others will be slower. Some might continue to stagnate or even go backwards. That is their right as well. - J.Z., 30.11.08, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, APATHY, INDIFFERENCE, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT & PEOPLE
DISINTEREST: The lowest level in hell is reserved for those who don't give a damn.” - Dante, as quoted by Ron Berman, 28.7.75. - How much less disinterest would how many more people become if they had not been brought up and forced to live in a perpetual Kindergarten, in which the most important decisions for their lives are not up to them but to politicians and bureaucrats? We do not know as yet the man of freedom and his potential. What we do know is the man who has been conditioned, even selected, over many generations, by slavery, serfdom and statism. - J.Z. - 15.5.00. – Would not the lowest level of hell be the coolest one, assuming gravity conditions? – J.Z., 30.11.08.
DISMANTLING GOVERNMENT: But if the glorious public sector, if expanded government has brought us to this pretty pass, perhaps the answer is to roll government back, to return to the truly revolutionary path of dismantling the Big State.” – Murray N. Rothbard, in an anthology called: Outside Looking In, p.70. – Each type of anarchism only for each type of anarchist, each type of libertarianism only for each kind of libertarian and each kind of government only for each kind of statist! – Then the remaining statists could even form, for themselves, several kinds of world States of world federations, all only applying to their own volunteers, as long as they remain voluntary members. – Rothbard remained contradictory on this subject, to my knowledge. Only some of his remarks came close to panarchism and its tolerance even for tolerant statists. - J.Z., 30.11.08. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, NAMES, TERMS, DEFINITIONS.
DISMANTLING GOVERNMENT: It is not big business that is the enemy. It is the State itself. - This does not mean that businessmen are all lily white an pure. They aren't. Rather, it is simply recognition of the fact that if you build an instrument ( that is, the government ) that can be used to make enormous sums of money, and sit it down in front of an entire population, it won't be long before there is a fight over who gets to use it. That's simply human nature - and while we might deplore the fact that it is so, it doesn't help very much. Similarly, it doesn't really help to use our energies to build a bigger and more powerful government machine, which is in effect, what most reformers are doing today. The only solution to the problem is to dismantle as much of the government machine as possible, and put it out of the reach of those people who would seek to use it to line their own pockets. It is the exploitation of the State by vested interests …” - John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.58. – Only territorial governments need to be dismantled or abolished. – J.Z., 30.11.08. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, BUDGET, BUSINESSMEN, TAXATION, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, WELFARISM, PRIVILEGES, HANDOUTS, SUBSIDIES, LOBBIES, VESTED INTERESTS, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRACY
DISOBEDIENCE, INDIVIDUALISM & THE STATE: How could a State be governed if every individual remained free to obey or not to obey the law according to his private opinion?" - Thomas Hobbes, 1588 -1679. - Territorial States couldn't be - but panarchistic ones could be - being based on unanimous consent and on the individual secession option. Those sufficiently dissatisfied with a personally chosen government could and would opt out. - J.Z. 9.6.92, 7.1.93. - Naturally, these voluntary contractors would also be bound by the governmental and societal contracts they individually subscribed to - unless there is a great breach of contract by their contracting partner. - J.Z., 13.9.04. See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON: On Panarchy. – DIS.
DISOBEDIENCE: aggressive laws create discord where there was none before and set men at each other's throats. The willful and principled disobedience to aggressive laws is thus not a step towards social chaos, but a blow for freedom and human dignity.” - Jarret B. Wollstein, The Case Against Victimless Crimes, a leaflet. – The most effective disobedience or resistance would be secession. It would make further disobedience or resistance unnecessary, as long as the secession option remains. – J.Z., 15.11.10.
DISOBEDIENCE: Bob Hawke, has also challenged the rule of law. He has stated that he doesn't believe 'that there is any unequivocal proposition that I can accept that all laws must always be obeyed. I think once an individual or organization accepts that proposition, then you are on the road to servile dictatorship. I think all have ultimately to have (sic) the right to ask whether the law in question is morally right or not.’ - Thus Hawke appears to envisage that an individual has a free choice re every law as to whether or not he will obey it. As he has described it ‘if you are going to deny individuals the right of conscience to say whether a law is a good one or a bad one, then you are introducing the sort of society that I don't want to be part of.’ - No doubt, Hawke's rhetoric does not extend into the trade union movement itself. …” - Gerald Henderson, QUADRANT, Sep/Oct 72, 43. Date. - In the first part he spoke of disobedience to law. In the second part only of freely criticizing a law, rather than disobeying it. - It must be understood that here bodies of laws are discussed that were not freely selected by individuals for themselves, like particular private insurance or credit contracts. (“Personal laws”) So whence do territorial laws, designed and passed by others and for the benefit of others, derive any moral force over individuals? The notion of "consent" has been shredded, perhaps best, by Herbert Spencer in his original chapter 19 in his Social Statics, on the right to ignore the State. Here is one of the very few points at which I would agree with Hawke, who, for a while, was Prime Minister of Australia. How did he deal with those who broke his commands and his favorite laws? I don't know but can guess. But I do know that for all too long, as trade union leader and as politician, he had all too much territorial power. He, too, was a hawk rather than a dove. - J.Z., 15.5.00, 30.11.08. - THE RULE OF LAW
DISOBEDIENCE: disobedience might be the "essential condition" for individual liberty.” - Howard Zinn, Disobedience and Democracy, p.11. – It naturally follows from individual sovereignty, self-ownership, individual secessionism and the right to resist, associate and make one’s own contracts. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
DISOBEDIENCE: Henry Mayer has argued recently that "We all regularly and happily break some laws and, in fact, pick and choose those we will obey.” - Gerald Henderson, QUADRANT, Sep/Oct 72. – If only this were so free and easy! – But there do exist many “offences”, without victims, which I call “folk crimes”, which many to most people habitually engage in, e.g. somewhat exceeding the speed limits and cheating on taxes. – The lower the penalties are and the lower the risk of being caught, the more frequently they do occur. But this behavior has not yet become a principled one, in favor of personal laws, individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy and experimental freedom. - J.Z., 30.11.08. – PERSONAL LAW, LAW BREAKING, FOLK CRIMES
DISOBEDIENCE: I have not been tamed. I have only been enslaved.” - Jack Vance, The Brave Free Men, 74. - SLAVERY, STATISM, TAMING OF MAN
DISOBEDIENCE: Ideally, government ceases to function because no one any longer obeys; old authority is displaced by revolutionary organization without the massive confrontations of conventional warfare or the force majeure of the coup d'état.” - John Shy, A People Numerous and Armed, p.199. – If the myth of “the” people, for a territorial population were not excessively upheld, then a federation of minorities, all conceding exterritorial autonomy to the volunteers of the other minority groups as well, and if they did also concede to each other all the genuine individual rights and liberties that their members want to claim and practise for themselves, among themselves only, then they could easily overcome most forms of territorial authoritarianism, despotism and totalitarianism. – But territorialist thinking, statist prejudices, notions of “unity is strength” and “one law for all”, are obstacles to their self-liberation attempts. – J.Z., 30.11.08. – PREJUDICES, DIS., TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, STATISM
DISOBEDIENCE: If I have a profound conscientious conviction that I ought to act in a way that is condemned by governmental authority, I ought to follow my conviction.” - Bertrand Russell, Authority and the Individual, p.85. - CONVICTION & CONSCIENCE
DISOBEDIENCE: Ignore alien orders.” - ST. JOHN'S BREAD, n.d. - For most ordinary citizens all governments, including the "own" one, are aliens! - J.Z., 16.5.00. - IGNORING ORDERS & LAWS, OTHER THAN PERSONAL LAWS, FREELY CHOSEN FOR ONESELF
DISOBEDIENCE: In any civilized society, it is every citizen's responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same time, it is every citizen's responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” - Martin Luther King Jr. – The free panarchists would simply opt out and from then on obey only the personal law of the society or community that he has chosen for himself. – J.Z., 15.11.10. - LAWS, CIVILIZATION
DISOBEDIENCE: We can serve society best by disobeying and disestablishing the territorial State. - J.Z., 24.1.95. - STATE, SOCIETY & TERRITORIALISM
DISSENT & CONSENT: Dissent is the widespread reality while consent is the predominant but fraudulent fiction - except in individualized contracts and utterances. - J.Z., 1.10.88.
DISSENT: Allow all dissenters to stew in their own juice – or to cook their own stews and to consume them – all actions at their own risk and expense. - J.Z., 5.4.95, 30.11.08. - PANARCHISM
DISSENT: But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” - J. S. Mill, quoted in Sprading, p.119. – Dissent can be fully expressed only when there is also freedom of action – at the own expense and risk. – J.Z., 30.11.08. – Panarchy & panarchism might be considered as the organization and the ideology of all dissenters claiming their rights and liberties to the extent that they do wish to practice them among themselves. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, CENSORSHIP, DISSENTERS, PANARCHISM
DISSENT: Dissent is the wide-spread reality and consent the fraudulent fiction - except in individualized contracts and utterances. - J.Z., 1.10.88. Only panarchism would peacefully separate dissenters from consenters and result in at least two new volunteer communities, both exterritorially autonomous and both ruled by unanimous consent on all major principles, practices and institutions. - Nevertheless, it has so far been largely omitted from public discussion and political science as taught in the universities and explained in political literature. - J.Z., 16.5.00. - CONSENT & PANARCHISM
DISSENT: I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 948. – Alas, her ideal was a single limited but still territorial government for all the people in a territory, as if all of them would voluntarily subscribe to or consent to libertarianism. – J.Z., 30.11.08.
DISSENT: Let no man posture as an advocate of freedom if he claims the right to establish his version of a good society where individual dissenters are to be suppressed by means of physical force.” - Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, 56/57. – Any government upholding a territorial monopoly will have to use physical force to uphold it. Her opposition to “competing governments”, and competing communities societies of volunteers, in “The Virtue of Selfishness” was ill informed and irrational. – Only criminals with victims and other aggressors need to be suppressed, if necessary with physical force, which, in this case, when limited to the support of genuine individual rights and liberties, would always be rightful. - J.Z., 30.11.08 – PANARCHISM, FORCE
DISSENT: Personal laws, consular jurisdiction and full exterritorial autonomy for ALL peaceful dissenters! - J.Z., 12.2.88, 16.5.00. - PANARCHISM
DISSENT: We already welcome dissenters and let should also them secede to do their own things. That does not cost us anything or endanger us - and their experience and practice might even teach us a thing or two. - J.Z. 13.8.87. We have done so in the religious and private sphere. We should finally do likewise in the political, economic and social spheres now monopolized and mismanaged by territorial States. - J.Z. 14.1.93, 15.11.10.. – TOLERANCE, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSIONISM
DISSENTERS DOING THEIR OWN THINGS: Let all dissenters do their things to and for themselves. - J.Z., 30.10.89. - See: BECKERATH, ULRICH VON: On Panarchy.
DISSENTERS: confident that by suppressing all dissenters they can alter human nature." - Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History, p. 197. - Only by autonomising and exterritorialising all dissenters can human nature, human rights and liberties, be fully realized, respected and protected. - J.Z., 3.4.89, upon reading the above Mises remark.
DISSENTERS: No group has the right to impose upon its fellow citizens rules which are not approved by them - when through disregard of these rules only the lives, the health, the property, the earnings and the employment opportunities of those are affected who disagree.” - Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, 31.8.53. – He meant only territorial rules, not e.g. house rules. – J.Z., 30.11.08. – U. v. Beckerath mentioned that Wilhelm Roscher, somewhere in his works, mentions or discusses de Puydt’s essay “Panarchy”, but I have never found that passage. But then my collection of Roscher’s writings is incomplete. - AUTONOMY, TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIALITY, MAJORITY, MINORITY, PANARCHISM.
DISSENTERS: No group has the right to impose upon its fellow citizens rules not approved by them, when through disregard of these rules only the lives, the health, the property, the earnings and the employment opportunities of those are affected who disagree. - U. v. Beckerath, 1953
DISSENTERS: Personal laws and consular jurisdiction for ALL peaceful dissenters! - J.Z., 12.2.88.
DISSIDENTS: Full exterritorial autonomy for all dissidents everywhere - and a defensive confederation between them. - J.Z., 28.6.80. - MINORITIES, AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIALITY, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ALL MINORITY GROUPS
DISSOLUTION OF POLITICAL GOVERNMENT: With what delight must every well-informed friend of mankind look forward to the auspicious period, the dissolution of political government, of that brute engine, which has been the only perennial cause of the vices of mankind, and which has mischiefs of various sorts incorporated with its substance, and no otherwise to be removed than by its utter annihilation!” - Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p. 103, on William Godwin, probably quoting him. – Abolishing only all territorial governments over involuntary subjects would go far enough. Let the remaining statists oppress and exploit themselves as much as they like. They haven’t learnt their lessons yet. – J.Z., 15.11.10. – The dissolution of their territorial monopoly through individual and group secessionism and their replacement by communities, societies and governance systems all by and for volunteers only, would be enough. That would reduce the former territorial governments to mere associations of volunteers as well. – J.Z., 13.12.11.
DISSOLUTION OF THE STATE: That ultimate goal is the dissolution of the State into the social organism, the privatization of the public sector.” - Rothbard, American Values, in anthology: Outside Looking In, p.74. - As if the State were not already "dissolute" enough! Rather, let it remain for all those who still want it, at their expense and risk only - but let all others freely secede from it and associate in exterritorially autonomous communities of whatever kind they wish for themselves (panarchism) and let others hire and fire freely any among dozens of particular competing service which they do want or do no longer want. - No one would be force to hire the package deal of any panarchy and some panarchies might be reduced to offering only a single service, like any other free business enterprise. Their customers should be kings, i.e., individually sovereign. - I doubt that there is such a thing as a single social organism - or many of them. That is no more than a sometimes useful analogy. Cells from an organism cannot freely secede or harmlessly become quite autonomous within that "organism". Free individual members of territorial States could do so and could secede from exterritorially autonomous communities as well, in both cases without having to migrate into another territory. - J.Z., 16.5.00. , DENATIONALIZATION, PRIVATIZATION, COMPETITION FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, ABOLITION OF THE TERRITORIAL STATE
DISTANCE, KEEPING ONE'S DISTANCE: Keeping one's distance is the secret of culture and without culture human society is unbearable and impossible.” - G. B. Shaw, retranslated from a German version. - Panarchism institutionalizes and individualizes this option. - J.Z., 16.5.00. – Give all people “elbow room” for all their rightful and peaceful as well as self-responsible activities. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - PRIVATE SPHERES, ALOOFNESS, PRIVACY, CULTURE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSION, WITHDRAWAL OPTIONS, PANARCHISM, APARTHEID, AUTONOMY, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDEPENDENCE
DISTRIBUTION: Instead of endeavoring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made between the existing classes, our aim should be to increase, multiply, and extend the chances. Such is the work of civilization. Every old error or abuse which is removed opens new chances of development to all the new energy of society. Every improvement in education, science, art, or government expands the chances of man on earth. … if there be liberty, some will profit by the chances eagerly and some will neglect them altogether. Therefore, the greater the chances the more unequal will be the fortune of those two sets of men. So it ought to be, in all justice and right reason… if we can expand the chances, we can count on a general and steady growth of civilization and advancement of society by and through its best members. In the prosecution of these chances, we all owe to each other good-will, mutual respect, and mutual guaranties of liberty and security. Beyond this nothing can be affirmed as a duty of one group to another in a free state.” – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, p.145. – Free competition between e.g. state socialist and free market utopias would have rapidly revealed the better solutions and would confined losses to under-informed and prejudiced volunteers, whose “service” would then mainly exist in providing deterrent examples – at their risk and expense. – J.Z., 30.11.08. EQUALITY, INEQUALITY, OPPORTUNITY, CHANCES, FREEDOM, PROPERTY, PANARCHISM, META-UTOPIA, FREE CHOICE BETWEEN ALL KINDS OF GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETES FOR INDIVIDUALS.
DISTRIBUTION: It is not by dividing and diminishing the shares of what we have, but rather by multiplying them intensively that the total wealth of the world is increased at the same time that new private shares are made possible for each individual person.” - Clarence Manion, The Key to Peace, p.45/46. – The wrong assumptions, false conclusions, errors, myths and prejudices, upon which governmental economic interventionism is based, are almost unbelievably primitive, flawed, false and misleading – but, under territorialism, the politicians and bureaucrats got away with them and their power and earnings are supported by them. – Really free and enlightened voters would not support any of them – but, rather, opt out from under them. - J.Z., 30.11.08.
DISTRIBUTION: There is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out … There is no more a distributing or distribution of shares than there is a distributing of mates in a society in which people choose whom they shall marry.” - Nozick, p.149-50, quoted in Anthony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, p.90. – Wrongful and irrational distributionism in its various utopias should only be allowed among volunteers. That would also and inevitably reduce the number of such volunteers. – J.Z., 30.11.08, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, CONTROL, STATISM, LIBERTY, MARKET, FREEDOM, PLANNING, PROPERTY RIGHTS, WELFARE STATE, STATE SOCIALISM
DISTRIBUTION: There is no distributional process apart from the production and exchange processes of the market; hence the very concept of "distribution" becomes meaningless on the free market. Since "distribution" is simply the result of the free exchange process and since this process benefits all participants on the market and increases social utility, it follows directly that the "distributional" results of the free market also increase social utility.” - Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Toward a Reconstruction of Utility & Welfare Economics, in: Mary Sennholz, ed., On Freedom & Free Enterprise, N.Y., 1965, p.251. – Alas, we still suffer under the coercive and legalized redistribution through taxes and monopolies, subsidies and handouts and are not yet free to opt out from under such wrongful and irrational as well as impoverishing systems. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - THROUGH A FREE MARKET & SOCIAL UTILITY
DISTRIBUTION: violent revolutions do not so much redistribute wealth as destroy it. There may be a re-division of the land, but the natural inequality of men soon re-creates an inequality of possessions and privileges, and raises to power a new minority with essentially the same instincts as in the old.” - Will & Ariel Durant, quoted in Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.123. - A rightful revolution would include a rightful, tolerant and peaceful land reform. It would not re-establish legal privileges or positions of power over others, that are bound to become abused. - J.Z., 16.5.00. – Even land reforms should be introduced via experimental freedom, in all their varieties, always for volunteers only. Then, in the long run, the “open cooperative” system developed by Theodor Hertzka would, probably, become most generally used for natural resources like land, all step by step, via voluntary and individual action. – J.Z., 15.11.10. – REVOLUTION, LAND REFORM, OPEN COOPERATIVES
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, SOCIAL JUSTICE, INDIVIDUALIZED & VOLUNTARISTIC & ASSOCIATIVE JUSTICE, TERRITORIAL VS. EXTERRITORIAL JUSTICE, EXTERNAL & INTERNAL JUSTICE: To find the roots of the modern theory of distributive justice, under which governments appoint themselves the economic guardians of their peoples, Proudhon maintained, we must go far back in history to the time when the family, under the direction of the paternal power, served as the agency for the just dispersal of the economic goods which all members of the social unit collectively produced under the spirit of communism. So long as this social unit remained small and was composed of kinsmen united by ties of common ancestry and religious faith, the fundamental principle of distributive justice (i.e., the rule that those at the top of the political hierarchy hold sole authority to reign over the dispersal of economic goods) was workable, for social justice is indeed possible within a tightly-knit, integrated family structure. But in advanced industrial society, Proudhon pointed out, the family is swallowed up by the state and the bureaucracy that supports it. Accordingly, it falls to the state to regulate the distribution of goods under the system of jurisprudence that is essential to all the state undertakes. And consequently, the end effect of any system of distributive justice, as Proudhon viewed the situation, was that of 'a SUPERIOR granting to INFERIORS what is coming to each one’." - W. O. Reichert, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 141. - As if nothing else were possible within families and within voluntary and between voluntary groups and associations, as if no one else could be autonomous, as if there could be only territorial associations and as if ownership in one's products and services and their free and voluntary exchange, were not and could not distribute them already justly, without any externally imposed redistribution attempts, which inevitably would infringe basic self-ownership, property and trading rights. Under panarchism different justice systems would coexist according to the voluntary choices of their members. Internally they would distribute justice and their resources as they please, i.e. as they had previously, in signing up, agreed upon, as long as they can stand it. ("Social justice" would then inflict its "justice" only upon its voluntary supporters. - J.Z., 45.9.04.) Sooner or later, all but the most retarded members of very restrictive panarchies, would discover for themselves the rightfulness and benefits of individual rights in all or most cases, and would opt out of them and into comparatively free societies of volunteers. But all the time there would be consumer sovereignty between various justice systems offered and entrepreneurial and associative freedom to produce them. - J.Z., 1.7.92, 15.1.93.
DISTRUST: All territorial governments deserve only distrust, although at different degrees. Mostly they rob you only of part of your income and property and destroy only part of your life and productivity through taxation, laws and regulations. - J.Z., 20.6.92, 16.5.00, 15.11.10. - DISTRUST TOWARDS ALL TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS
DIVERSE PERSONAL LAW ASSOCIATIONS EVEN AMONG FAMILY MEMBERS & FRIENDS: There is no good reason for family members, lovers, friends, workmates, customers, partners etc. to share the same religion, philosophy, accommodation, hobbies, party membership or to be subjected to the same laws and administrations and courts - if they happen to choose otherwise. Territorial decentralists cannot offer as much freedom of choice, exterritorial decentralists, autonomists and voluntaryists or panarchists can. - J.Z., 17.9.87, 1.4.89.
DIVERSITY & BEAUTY VS. UNIFORMITY: Why do we recognize and appreciate the beauty of diversity only in flowers, birds, dogs, cats, cakes, biscuits, clothing, films, books, music, songs, poetry, etc., etc., but not yet sufficiently in human beings and in the institutions, constitutions, laws and jurisdictions they prefer for themselves? – J.Z., 15.2.05.
DIVERSITY IN GOVERNMENTS, EVERYWHERE: Tot homines tot senses!" (As many opinions as there are men.) So runs an old Latin proverb. -- Isn't it high time to apply this observation finally to governments as well? - J.Z., 24.2.99.
DIVERSITY, CIVILIZATION, SELF-DETERMINATION FOR INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, NOT ONLY “THE” PEOPLE, PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EQUALITY & INEQUALITY: Commandment No.1 of any truly civilized society is this: Let people be different.” – David Grayson, ANALOG, 1/93, p. 205.
DIVERSITY, NON-INTERFERENCE, TOLERANCE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: The very diversity of human natures, characters, interests, abilities etc. does indicate that although we do need some basic and common non-interference rules and practices, like those provided by the international law of panarchism, based on recognition for internally claimed individual rights. Otherwise we have to tolerate a large degree of diversity in principles and practices, laws and institutions. This does require exterritorialism, autonomy and voluntarism, i.e. panarchies. - J.Z. 31.3.89.
DIVERSITY, SALVATION & INTOLERANCE: Diversity is salvation, if it is asserted and tolerated. Intolerance towards diversity is damnation, for oneself and the victims. - J.Z. 10.5.92, 13.1.93.
DIVERSITY, VARIETY, CHOICE: So what have I been advocating here? Not any particular form of society. On the contrary, humankind seems to me so splendidly and ironically variable that there can be no perfect social order. I do suspect that few people are biologically adapted to civilization; consider its repeated collapses. This idea could be wrong, of course. Even if true, it may just be another factor which our planning should take into account. But the mutability of man is hardly open to question. - Poul Anderson, "Past Times", 140. - Failures of past "civilizations" and of our present one, are largely due to insufficient awareness of and realization of individual liberties and rights, which correspond to human nature and reasoning abilities. FULL freedom would be perfect for all, because it would include even the freedom to make one's own mistakes and to choose objectively flawed societal and political and economic arrangements for oneself and likeminded people. And even these would be subjectively good for oneself, in the long run, as experiments conducted among volunteers only (and thus under optimal conditions.) and learning experiences. They are objectively right for their voluntary victims, as lessons they do deserve and need. They might not be able to become sufficiently enlightened otherwise. - J.Z., 6.4.81, 12.1.93, 5.9.04
DIVERSITY, VARIETY: It’s the variety that counts.” – From a TV advertisement for blinds, 3.4.05.
DIVERSITY: A very important point is touched upon here. It is because Anarchists recognize the absolute necessity of allowing for this difference among human beings that they are Anarchists. The truth is that all progress is accompanied by a process of differentiation, or of the increasing difference of parts. … The point we have to notice is that the higher we get in the animal or vegetable kingdoms, the more difference we find between the tiny units or cells which compose the body or organism.” - George Barrett, MATCH, July/Aug. 75. - EVOLUTION
DIVERSITY: All men are different. - J.Z., 1976. - Only exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers would sufficiently recognize this fact and pull them only as much together as they want to be. - Territorial unity is no more than a delusion. - J.Z., 16.5.00. – One upheld by power-mongers. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - UNITY, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM
DIVERSITY: Anarchism must be made up of an infinite variety of systems and of individuals free from all fetters. It must be like an experimental field… for all types of human temperament.” - Frederico Urales, La Anarquia al alcance de todos, 1930 (?). - But are most anarchists prepared to concede the same freedom to others, seeing that consenting statists are free from fetters they do not desire for themselves? - Since the majority of people are still statists, and may remain so for decades to centuries, anarchists and libertarians are rather foolish when they deny them this freedom. - J.Z., 17.5.00. – Freedom to be un-free, in accordance with one’s own individual choice, as already clearly expressed by De Puydt back in 1860, is also an important freedom not only for e.g. hen-pecked husbands, and it is also educational, at least in the long run. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - VARIETY, TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, ANARCHISM, PANARCHISM
DIVERSITY: Anarchy is a function, not of a society's simplicity and lack of social organization, but of its complexity and multiplicity of social organization. - … The Anarchist alternative is that of fragmentation, fission rather than fusion, diversity rather than unity, a mass of societies rather than a mass society.” - Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action. - COMPLEXITY
DIVERSITY: And one reason we've come as far as we have, is that nobody has ever forced the whole race into a copy of himself - we've always had variety, always had the rebel and the heretic. We need them!” - Poul Anderson, Planet of No Return. - VARIETY, UNITY, REBELS, SCHISMS, FRAGMENTATION, DIVISIVENESS, DECENTRALIZATION, CENTRALIZATION, IMPERIALISM, AUTONOMY, EXTERRITORIALITY, NATIONALISM, ONE WORLD, WORLD STATE, WORLD FEDERATION, PROGRESS VS. ENFORCED STAGNATION THROUGH ENFORCED UNIFORMITY
DIVERSITY: Apparently paradoxically, diversity of individual purposes leads to a greater power to satisfy needs generally than does homogeneity, unanimity and control - and, also paradoxically, this is so because diversity enables men to master and dispose of more information. Only a clear analysis of the market process can resolve these apparent paradoxes.” – F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.95. - A consideration of individual rights can also dissolve them easily. Leonard Read expressed it simply with the advice: "Release all creative energies!" - J.Z., 17.5.00. - UNITY, KNOWLEDGE & DIVISION OF LABOR, CONTROL, PLANNING, CENTRALIZATION, DECENTRALIZAITON, CHOICE VS. COMMANDS
DIVERSITY: Applying this argument to the social body or organism which we call society, it is clear that the more highly developed that organism becomes, the more different will be the units (i.e., people) and organs (i.e., institutions and clubs) which compose it.” - George Barrett, MATCH, July/August 75. - Alas, still the notion of a single and organic "society" prevails here, of which other organizations are merely the organs. - J.Z., 17.5.00. – COMPLEXITY, SIMPLICITY OF PANARCHISM BASED UPON VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY
DIVERSITY: As many opinions as there are heads!” - Horaz, Satires, II, 1, 27. (Quot capita, tot sensus! - Soviel Koepfe, soviel Meinungsunterschiede!) - Isn't it high time to apply this observation finally to governments as well? – J.Z., 24.2.99. - How absurd to try to express or overcome them territorially, by means of territorial politics, constitutions, laws and jurisdictions! - J.Z., 16.5.00. - OPINIONS, DISAGREEMENT, KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING, FREE CHOICE IN GOVERNMENTS, EVERYWHERE, PANARCHISM
DIVERSITY: Brethren, if it be genuine piety you are aiming at, let us not feign uniformity when variety is, evidently, the design and end of Providence. None of us feels and thinks exactly alike with his fellow-man; then wherefore impose upon one another by deceiving words? … God has not stamped on every man a peculiar countenance for nothing: why, then, should we, in the most solemn concerns of life, render ourselves unknown to one another, by disguise?” - Moses Mendelson, 1729-1786. - Territorial nationalism is one of the official cover-ups of many differences within so-called "nations" and "peoples", to hide the official suppressions and exploitations, as well as the international abuses that are involved. - J.Z., 17.5.00. - VARIETY, UNIFORMITY, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM
DIVERSITY: But it is part of the glory of Europe that we are not egalitarians. We believe that our very diversity is a tremendous source of strength, so long as we remain united in essentials.” - Otto von Habsburg, The Social Order of Tomorrow, p.6. - I would add: "like upholding individual rights.” - J.Z., 30.6.92. - At least to the extent that they are claimed by members of voluntary and exterritorially autonomous communities. For instance: If some are opposed to freedom of press within their circles and prefer some kind of Pope as a censor, then freedom of press and the products of it should not be forced upon them. - J.Z., 17.5.00. - VS. ENFORCED TERRITORIAL UNITY OR STATES
DIVERSITY: Civilization is a progress from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity toward a definite, coherent heterogeneity.” - Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903. , CIVILIZATION, HOMOGENEITY, HETEROGENEITY, UNITY, UNIFORMITY
DIVERSITY: Civilization is the encouragement of differences. … Force, violence, pressure, or compulsion with a view to conformity, is both (*) uncivilized and undemocratic.” - Mohandas Gandhi. – CIVILIZATION – (*) are all? – J.Z.
DIVERSITY: Civilized society is a society that tolerates all sorts of divergences, to the point of eccentricity and to the point, even, of doubtful sanity.” - Robert Frost, interviews, Sep. 29, 59, 208.
DIVERSITY: Commandment Number One of any truly civilized society is this: Let people be different.” - David Grayson. , CIVILIZATION, PEOPLE
DIVERSITY: Different kinds of people thrive in different kinds of societies." - Stanley Schmidt, editorial, "ANALOG", 1/92, p.8. - Thus we should never be coercively subjected to territorial State systems. - J.Z., 13.1.93. - PANARCHISM
DIVERSITY: Different people, different ways.” - Quoted by F. M. Busby in: The Proud Enemy, p.97. - PANARCHISM
DIVERSITY: Diversity is not disorder. Debate is not strife. And dissent is not revolution.” - www.free-market.net/rd850632777.html - President Bush in a live broadcast to Chinese people, 2-22-02. - He should rather have declared that he would fully recognized every minority in China, including the communist one, in form of a government in exile for its present and future volunteers and, before that, he should have shown the same kind recognition and tolerance for every minority in the USA. – With the USA setting such an example, the rest of the world is bound to follow it and this relatively soon. – The recognition of some liberties is not enough. We must stand up for all of them. - J.Z., 28.11.08. - DISSENT, DISCUSSION, DISORDER, REVOLUTION, PANARCHISM, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, MINORITY AUTONOMY IN THE USA, COMMUNISM, HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION
DIVERSITY: Diversity is salvation - if it is tolerated. Intolerance towards diversity is damnation. - J.Z., 10.5.92.
DIVERSITY: Diversity is the greatest unity. - J.Z., 13.8.77. - After reading: Unity is the greatest diversity, by Starr, in ST. JOHN'S BREAD. - Unfortunately, neither term sufficiently describes present realities and future possibilities. - J.Z., 17.5.00. – UNITY, UNITY IN DIVERSITY, PANARCHISM FOR THE MOST DIVERSE PANARCHIES
DIVERSITY: Diversity is the propeller of evolution.” - Dr. Bronowski, Talk on Mendel, ABC, channel 2, 9.1.77.
DIVERSITY: Diversity is the source of harmony in human relationships. Because our tastes are different, we can exchange with each other in a way that is mutually beneficial. If you and I have exactly the same values, there is no way we can trade.” - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom, p.81/82. - Not only our tastes but also our specializations, interests, values, productivity, capacities, organizations etc. We might have the same ethical and artistic or literary values and our products may have the same market value but different subjective values for ourselves. Browne's case applies only when the subjective values of our product, which is equal or unequal, are the same, and if we have only one of them. But, if we do have several of them, then each one we do not need is ready to be exchanged for an equal value product of the other, which he does not need, because he has more than he wants for himself. And still their subjective value for us may be equal, as a trading item only. We have excess apples and the other has excess pears. Each one of the excess in pears and apples may be of equally low subjective value for the owner: an equally low use value and a somewhat higher but still low exchange value. But the other's excess fruit will have a higher use value for the side that hasn't got that kind of fruit in excess or at all. - Insofar Browne is right. - Oh the muddle of value theories, even more than a century after the discovery of the subjective value theory. - J.Z., 16.5.00. - TRADE, EXCHANGE & HARMONY
DIVERSITY: Diversity is worth fighting for - to the extent that it implies voluntarism and individualism. - J.Z., 19.2.73. - But by rightful weapons and warfare methods only, directed against the real enemies. Moreover, if consistently applied in liberation and revolutionary warfare methods and with consistent libertarian war and peace aims, little fighting might still be necessary. - My notion of such a conflict is that of turning a war, wrongful on both sides, into a rightful policing action against the real war criminals only. - J.Z., 17.5.00. - WAR, FIGHTING, FREEDOM
DIVERSITY: Diversity makes for peace. Uniformity makes for war. - D.Z., 15.3.77. - For instance, if the armed forces of one regime were not compulsorily uniformed then discipline among them would become harder to enforce and when the non-uniformed forces of different regimes encountered each other then they would find it harder to see each other as enemies of their own regime and thus they would be less prepared to slaughter each other. In some cases they might even consider the mutual slaughter command to be so wrong and absurd that they would simply laugh it off, or ignore it, fraternize and engage in a party. But, for their own safety, they would better arrest and disarm some of the commissars and officers first. - J.Z., 17.5.00. - PEACE & WAR
DIVERSITY: Diversity within communications and cooperation is life.” - Greg Bear, Slant, 157.
DIVERSITY: Divide and rule? Divide and become free! - J.Z., 3/77. – Rather, let individuals separate or join themselves as much as they like, to whatever associations they prefer and thus let them become as free or unfree as they wish to be. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DIVERSITY: Divided we stand, united we fall” - could be the new slogan to end the nuclear age. - J.Z., 6.9.73. - More precisely, exterritorially, autonomously and voluntarily divided we stand, federally sufficiently united for defensive purposes, against all territorial regimes that coercively united their subjects and forced them to attack us. Our freedom in diversity will be our greatest military asset, strategy and tactics against any authoritarian, dictatorial and totalitarian regime. With it we can turn a total war conflict into a kind of military ju jitsu in which the strength of our opponent is turned against him. - A confederation between all minority groups and in favor of exterritorial autonomy for all of them, could soon become the greatest political, military, economic and social "force" or influence for rightful and beneficial change in this world. - J.Z., 17.5.00. - UNITY IN DIVERSITY
DIVERSITY: Every divergence deserves to be cherished, simply because it widens the bounds of life. Let us be united by everything that divides us.” - Karel Capek, Letters from Spain. – UNITY, TOLERANCE, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM
DIVERSITY: Every question, every problem doesn't have a single correct answer. One must permit diversity. A monolith is unstable. …” Frank Herbert, Children of Dune, in ANALOG 3/76, 90.
DIVERSITY: Everyone has a vested interest in the other fellow's diversity. Reverence for differences leads to reverence for life which is made up of differences.” - John Chamberlain, THE FREEMAN, 6/75. - LIFE
DIVERSITY: exceptional individuals, instead of being deterred, should be encouraged (*) in acting differently from the mass.” - B. R. Barber, Superman & Common Man, p.44, referring to op. cit., p. 124. - Should only exceptional individuals have this freedom? Or ordinary people, too, with their hobbies and all other individual preferences? Do people with different interests need encouragement or should merely all artificial barriers be removed that prevent them from acting creatively, productively, peacefully, in diverse ways? Do not masses of volunteers, even if of inferior education and intelligence, also have the right to live in the way they prefer, as long as they do not prevent others to live in their ways? Why introduce elitist privileges here? - In their ways, in their sphere of interests, ordinary people can be innovative, too. Marvelous machines, like modern automobiles, were only possible through ten-thousands of minor innovations, often upon suggestions made by quite ordinary people regarding their work. Good suggestion box schemes have discovered & rewarded some creative abilities in most people. - The combination of a 1,000 minor innovations might lead us further ahead than a single larger innovation by a creative genius. - One does not need special encouragement for creative actions but one should certainly not impose any special, wrongful, unnecessary and harmful discouragements. - J.Z., 16.5.00. – (*) They need sufficient freedom for this, ultimately full exterritorial autonomy or experimental freedom, rather than merely encouragement. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DIVERSITY: General Electric, for instance, one among countless producers, manufactures more than 200,000 different products.” - Leonard E. Read, Castles in the Air, p.113. - Who can really know and manage the existing diversity? In all your life you never get to taste all kinds of apples! - J.Z., 11.11.82. – Compare my file Pan Numbers, offered digitized as an email attachment, until it appears online or on a disc. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DIVERSITY: greater diversity brings greater order.” - Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.65. – Once individuals are quite free do choose between diverse societies and communities, all practised by volunteers only, they will tend to pick among the most successful, the most prosperous ones and these are the once which have the most freedom and thus the greatest natural order and harmony to offer, including the best and cheapest defences against the remaining criminals and aggressors. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - CHAOS & ORDER, HARMONY, PANARCHISM
DIVERSITY: Highly structured, authoritarian, bureaucratic organizations were able to function passably well in a simpler world. (*) But they cannot keep up with change. They cannot digest diversity, and our society is becoming almost incomprehensively diverse.” – Richard C. Cornuelle, Demanaging America, p.16. - Actually, the number of diverse tribal societies, about a 1,000 in New Guinea alone, is being reduced, through trade, travel, communication and migration, although not as fast as could be, under full freedom. But the remaining differences are still so large that any attempt to forcefully and territorially unite different tribes and other groups leads to friction, going from terrorism to full-scale civil war. At the same time there are many more choices and specializations open to each individual, at home and world-wide. Would individual secessionism lead to more exterritorially autonomous diverse communities of volunteers than there are now territorial States with involuntary members? One thing is sure, exterritorially, they could be more than one world-government, world society, or world federation, all with voluntary members only. - J.Z., 16.5.00. – (*) J.Z.: I deny that. - CHANGE & BUREAUCRACY, COMPLEXITY VS. AUTHORITARIANISM, TRIBALISM, AFHANISTAN, IRAQ ETC.
DIVERSITY: How can one poor cortex with its ten billion cells reflect and model the human system composed of some 10\ 27 (that is, 10 followed by 27 zeroes) of complex molecules? Or our society whose components are still billions of times more numerous? If the structures of the human psyche remained constant, it would be possible, perhaps, to create more or less satisfactory general models. But everything in nature is fluid and is in motion, and it is mathematically impossible to calculate and predict all these changes.” - N. Amosoff, Notes from the Future, p.383. – Especially when freedom and its changes are involved. – J.Z., 30.11.08. PLANNING, MAN, SOCIETY, INTELLIGENCE, AWARENESS, UNDERSTANDING, JUDGMENT, MODESTY, HUMILITY, RATHER THAN IGNORANT & PREJUDICED ARROGANCE & UNINFORMED INTERVENTIONIST ACTIONS
DIVERSITY: human activity is complex, human motivation exceedingly mixed. By many writers, the multifariousness of men's thoughts, opinions, purposes and actions is insufficiently recognized. Over-simplifying the problem, they prescribe an over-simplified solution.” - Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, p.8. - TERRITORIALISM, INTOLERANCE, REFORMERS, CHANGES, UTOPIAS, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, SOVEREIGNTY & SECESSIONISM
DIVERSITY: I am aware of the fact. I am also aware that the world is not solidly behind anything.” - Eric Frank Russell, Dreadful Sanctuary, p.34. - WORLD, UNITY, AGREEMENT, DISAGREEMENT
DIVERSITY: I want diversity. It's the only way we'll keep from stagnating as a race.” - F. Paul Wilson, An Enemy of the State, p.185.
DIVERSITY: If there is unity, it is unity through diversity.” - Carl J. Friedrich, The New Belief in the Common Man, p.158. & UNITY
DIVERSITY: If tolerance of diversity involves an admitted element of risk, intolerance involves a certainty of destruction. - J.Z., in pamphlet: TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, DIVERSITY, RISK, TOLERANCE
DIVERSITY: If travel brings a conviction of human diversity, it brings an equally strong conviction of human unity.” - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, p.426, quoting Pilate, 1926. - Whatever unity man wants to attain is better achieved by free trade and free migration and by voluntary cooperation and volunteer communities that are only exterritorially autonomous than by any attempt at territorial unification or federation. - J.Z., 16.5.00.
DIVERSITY: In times of peace, the vitality of a free society can be measure by the extent to which diverse individual purposes are encouraged - or at least tolerated - wherever they are not a clear danger to others.” - Ralph Harris, in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editor, Right Turn, p.22. - To prevent wars or end them very soon, it is even more important to assure not only the remaining private diversity in the better democracies but to go much beyond it by permitting freedom of action and free experimentation for every minority formed into a volunteer community, on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy, and to declare this among the war and peace aims of that State, society or federation of exterritorially autonomous communities in case it is attacked. In this way the military and political forces of the enemy regime could be dissolved or turned against it. - J.Z., 16.5.00. - FREE SOCIETY, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM
DIVERSITY: Individuality … will stand its ground with increasing difficulty, unless the intelligent part of the public can be made to feel its value - to see that it is good there shall be differences.” - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. - One of the absurdities of egalitarianism is that even the fanatic egalitarians try to distinguish themselves as individuals from all other egalitarians - except in their doctrines. - J.Z., 17.5.00. & INDIVIDUALISM
DIVERSITY: Infinite diversity in infinite combination.” - Vulcan motto, in Startrek. - Isn't it somewhat depressing that after hundreds of millions of people have watched this TV series and read the books, and went to Startrek conventions etc., no one seems to have drawn all rightful conclusions from such remarks? If there are such people, where are they hidden? Send me their addresses! - J.Z., 17.5.00.
DIVERSITY: Infinite diversity is the universal law.” - Josiah Warren.
DIVERSITY: It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree.” - Charles Baudelaire, Intimate Journals, 1887, 99, tr. Christopher Isherwood. - Is unity based on misunderstandings preferable to diversity based upon understanding? - J.Z., 17.5.00. - AGREEMENT, UNITY, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, MYOB, TO EACH HIS OWN, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM
DIVERSITY: It is the diversity of its members that holds a society together, by providing a motive for communication and exchange.” - Joe Maxwell, NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, 70, April 17, 77. - Not only that, it provides the possibility for exterritorially autonomous actions by individuals and voluntary groups. To that extent it is the essence of freedom: not national liberty but individual liberty, combined with liberty for the general society and all particular societies. - J.Z., 17.5.00. - COMMUNITY
DIVERSITY: It takes all sorts to make a world.” - English proverb, traced by Smith to 1620. – “It takes all kinds to make a world." - Common proverb. - TOLERANCE, VS. UNIFORMITY, UNITY, NON-CONFORMISM, INDIVIDUALISM, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, PANARCHISM
DIVERSITY: Let them do their countless things ... permit ... me to do my thing." - Leonard E. Read, THE FREEMAN, 3/74. . - Alas, he remained merely an advocate of "limited" territorial governments to his death. But at least, in general terms, he did advocate full monetary freedom. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06.
DIVERSITY: Let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct our attention to our common interests and the means by which these differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help to make the world safe for diversity.” - John F. Kennedy, 1963, or one of his ghost writers. - Another version: "If we can't settle our differences - at least we can make this world safe for diversity." - Obviously, you do not make the world safer for diversity by means of anti-people mass murder devices, which were doubled in the U.S. under his rule. When I heard of his assassination my first thought was that they mixed him up with the tyrant on the Soviet throne. My second thought was, if not, then the assassin must have drawn his conclusion form Kennedy's "MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction" nuclear policy. - I have nowhere found any President or dictator advocating individual and group secessionism, combined with exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, for his subject and the subjects of his opponents. - J.Z., 17.5.00. – Consider also, that he, as a federal territorialist, was very much opposed to diversity that goes beyond State and local governments. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - SECURITY, COMMON INTERESTS, TOLERANCE
DIVERSITY: Liberty provokes diversity and diversity preserves liberty by supplying the means of organization.” - Lord Acton, Essays, p.60, quoted in David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, p.33. - LIBERTY
DIVERSITY: Maine has spoken of "the almost physical loathing which a primitive community feels for men of widely different manners from its own". - Sir Alexander G. Cardew, quoted in DANDELION, Winter 78. – For the classical Greeks all foreigners were “barbarians”. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - Are modern and supposedly "civilized" people so different in many cases, considering their opinions of dissidents, radicals, extremists, idealists, utopists, nonconformists, eccentrics, opponents, people with different skin colors or cultures, of all their perceived to be "aliens" or "foreigners"? Have all the primitive tribes over all of recorded history exterminated so many "different" people as the supposedly civilized nation States have e.g. in the 19th century? - As someone once said: It will be a long, long time before one can say that it was a long, long time ago that we were barbarians. - J.Z., 17. 5. 00.
DIVERSITY: Make the world safe through diversity. It isn't safe with uniformity. - J.Z., 3/77. - But this diversity must be established and maintained by individuals rather than politicians and bureaucrats. Otherwise, like under the left and right totalitarians, they might be left their choice of dresses, dances and folksongs - while in all other spheres they are treated as property & subjects to totalitarian regimes. - J.Z., 17.5.00, 16.11.10. – However, a great diversity of mass extermination devices in the hands of anyone, not only power addicts, does hardly help us. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - UNIFORMITY, SECURITY, PEACE, & WAR, TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT
DIVERSITY: Mankind speedily becomes unable to conceive diversity, when they for some time have been unaccustomed to see it.” - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. Most people adapt too much to any existing conditions. – And under territorialism the minorities of dissenters are not free enough to do all of their own things. - J.Z., 30.11.08. - UNDERSTANDING, MAN, HUMAN NATURE, HABITS, REALISM, STATISM, LAWS, TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLIES
DIVERSITY: Most thoughtful men recognize that group diversity is part of our world; how we learn to live with and accept diversity will determine in great measure the future of civilization.” - Gittler, Understanding Minority Groups. - GROUP OR COMMUNAL DIVERSITY, MINORITY AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM
DIVERSITY: No two people agree with one another about everything. The fact is that I’m often surprised that two people can ever agree on anything at all. We all seem to possess a drive – and I’m not sure that anyone has ever noticed it before – to differ with one another simply for the hell of it. And that drive appears far stronger to me than any contrary inclination towards conformity … This is a good thing. This is a very good thing. At any moment, human beings are trying every possible survival strategy in terms of geography, topography, diet, habitat, clothing, custom, and belief …” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001, email@example.com, p. 68/69. - - At the same time man is also a social being with strong team-work, cooperation and mutual aid drives, with an ethics largely based, as already Adam Smith pointed out, upon sympathy for others. He is a being of multiple traits and even changing characteristics or traits during his life span. Alas, the exterritorial autonomy options for all the diverse volunteer groups remain outlawed and also insufficiently explored today, in theory. – J.Z., 27.9.07. - CHARACTERS, INDIVIDUALISM, INEQUALITY, AIMS, METHODS, BELIEFS, CONVICTIONS OF MAN, HUMAN BEINGS, CONFORMISM & NON-CONFORMISMDIVERSITY: Nothing is so attractive as the different.” - Aristotle. - In the sexual sphere the term "opposites attract" has become popular. But old couples often show great similarities in their faces. Is that due exclusively to their original choices, seeking themselves in the other sex, or through their common experiences, or somewhat, also, through the cells they exchanged during their lives, were they somewhat merging together, biologically, as, obviously, their children were? - J.Z., 17.5.00. – DNA exchanges happen even among microbes. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DIVERSITY: numerous cross-divisions favor peace within a nation, by dispersing and confusing animosities.” - T. S. Eliot, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, p.60. Quoted in David Nicholls, The Pluralist State. - That was probably meant only in accordance with the old Roman maxim: Divide et impera! (Divide and rule!), rather than as a recognition of the exterritorial autonomy of volunteer communities, even while they are living dispersed within a territorial nation, as a step not to confuse but to defuse animosities. - J.Z., 17.5.00. - PEACE & PANARCHISM
DIVERSITY: On dreams of a global civilization that respects human diversity and values people one by one (*), a global civil society is beginning to take shape, mostly off camera. It is the only force we can see that can break the gridlock. …” - Richard J. Barnet and John Cavanagh: Global Dreams; Imperial Corporations and the New World Order, 1994, 429-30. (*) - Hopefully, enough, to let them go, to do their own things among like-minded people, in their own voluntary communities, under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy! – J.Z., 23.9.07. - A GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY, BASED UPON DIVERSITY & THIS UPON INDIVIDUAL CHOICES.
DIVERSITY: One man's meat is another's poison.” - Common proverb. – Choose your own meat, vegetable or poison! - Proverbial wisdom. –“What for one is an owl is for another a nightingale.” – German proverb in my rough translation. – J.Z.
DIVERSITY: Our problem today is not to enforce conformity (*); it is rather that we are threatened with an excess of conformity. Our problem is to foster diversity, …” - Milton Friedman, Capitalism & Freedom, 97, under: The Role of Government in Education. - This "problem" would disappear by completely separating education - and all other important activities from territorial States with compulsory membership and uniform laws for all. – Diversity does not have to be fostered but merely to be allowed. There will always be minorities that would make use of individual and group secessionism and freedom to experiment under full exterritorial autonomy for communities, societies or “States” under full exterritorial autonomy, all with voluntary members only. - (*) Yes, in the major spheres of political, economic and social activities, this enforcement is indeed the major problem and exterritorial autonomy and its diversity, based upon individual choice, is the major solution, there, too! Education vouchers offer more educational choices to their recipients, but not to the taxpayers. And the competitive schools that are so financed might still be all too much government regulated. - J.Z., 16.5.00. – Diversity in all spheres needs hardly to be officially fostered but, rather, no longer officially and territorially obstructed, like it would be, at least in some spheres, still under limited but still territorial governments. – J.Z., 16.11.10. CONFORMITY, EDUCATION, CHOICE FOR INDIVIDUALS IN ALL SPHERES
DIVERSITY: Physically Americans were pioneers; in the realm of social and economic institutions, too, their tradition has been one of pioneering. From the beginning, intellectual and spiritual diversity has been as characteristic of America as radical and linguistic diversity. … From the beginning Americans have known that there were new worlds to conquer, new truths to be discovered. Every effort to confine Americanism to a single pattern, to constrain it to a single formula, is disloyalty to everything that is valid in Americanism.” - Henry Steele Commager, Freedom, Loyalty, Dissent. – Seldes, The Great Quotations, - Nevertheless, we have all too much territorial local governments, States and Federalism in the U.S.A. as well, stopping free individual and quite tolerant and voluntary experimentation with other systems. – If that were not the case, then the best of Americanism would already have conquered the world, quite peacefully, by voluntary acceptance. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - AMERICANISM, PIONEERS
DIVERSITY: Progress is difference.” - Herbert Spencer, according to Auberon Herbert, State Education: A help or Hindrance? - Mack edition, p. 68. – Progress progresses by freedom for differences. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - PROGRESS
DIVERSITY: Second Wave ideologues routinely lament the break-up (*) of mass society. Rather than seeing in this enriched diversity an opportunity for human development, they attack it as “fragmentation” and “Balkanization” … we can either resist the thrust towards diversity, … or we can acknowledge diversity and change those constitutions accordingly. … Given appropriate social arrangements, diversity can make for a secure and stable civilization. – The answer lies in imaginative new arrangements for accommodating and legitimating diversity – new institutions that are sensitive to the rapidly shifting needs of changing and multiplying minorities.” - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81, p. 430/431. - - (*) Individual secessionism & personal law communities do not “break up” anything but wrongfully imposed bonds, chains, dependencies or exploitation. – J.Z., 24.9.07. – DIVERSITY IN FREEDOM FOR ALL OR FRAGMENTATION, BALKANIZATION? PANARCHISM! VOLUNTARISM VS. IMPOSED UNITY OR MASS SOCIETIES, AUTONOMY FOR ALL MINORITIES OR COMPULSION OR COERCION FOR ALL OF THEM? DIVERSITY BY FREE CHOICE OR ENFORCED CONFORMITY TO SUPPOSED NATIONAL IDEALS?
DIVERSITY: That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions.” - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, p.49/51.
DIVERSITY: The 1967 Dictionary of Occupational Titles compiled by the US Employment Service, listed 23,000 job categories, of which 6,000 were non-existent ten years before.” - The Big Picture, 22. - Window-shopping at night, at a closed bookshop in Frankfurt/M airport, at least 10 years ago, I believe to have seen a book title offering short descriptions of ca. 170,000 different jobs. If I remember right, early 50's, I thought of how desirable it would be to find or compile an encyclopedia of all the different kinds of jobs. A while later I found one had appeared and it described about 30,000 different ones. – [My bad memory had sometimes exaggerated this number into 300,000! – J.Z., 16.11.10.] The natural and man-made environment are of such an astonishing variety and diversity, that under "numbers", I am collecting significant hints of that kind, towards a book. E.g., there are ca. 5,000 different kinds of apples. And a single cable firm once bothered to count how many different kind of cables it had produced - and came to ca. 200,000! - About 38,000 different kinds exist in the fungus family. - Jack Denton Scott, READER'S DIGEST, 4/87. - Many such instances might point out to readers their own very limited knowledge and induce, in consequence, a bit more tolerance towards non-invasive and diverse actions by others, in every sphere. - J.Z., 16.5.00. – Compare my file Pan Numbers.
DIVERSITY: The Federation … not only wants to preserve human diversity, it wants to see it stretched to the limit.” - F. Paul Wilson, The Healer, p.29. - Alas, as in most other SF, Wilson meant this here only for the territories of whole planets, rather than advocating exterritorial autonomy for different volunteer communities on all planets. In other words, his ideal embraces more territory and uniformity than any empire on Earth ever achieved. Dissenters had only emigration to other planets as their option, which would have separated them e.g. from many family members, friends and beloved surroundings and forced many of them to become pioneers under primitive and hostile conditions. Why have most SF writers limited their imagination in this way? Why haven't they sufficiently pondered the territorial clashes on Earth and explored the exterritorial and voluntary alternative? - J.Z., 16.5.00. – SCIENCE FICTION
DIVERSITY: The free society not only tolerates individual differences, it encourages diversity on the ground that each person has his unique contribution to make to the total richness. This position runs counter to the pressure for uniformity in this age of mass man.” - Edmund Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 7/75, p.438.
DIVERSITY: The glory of the human race lies in the magnificent diversity we have in such a young species.” - From SBS TV series: Seven Wonders of the World, 12.9.95.
DIVERSITY: the great peace-making fact that freedom to differ is the keynote to social harmony …” - Josiah Warren, in a letter, according to William Bailie's biography of Warren, p.127. - PEACE, HARMONY, FREEDOM
DIVERSITY: the hallmark of freedom is diversity. … We must recognize that diversity in education, as in every other field, is one of the guaranties of freedom.” - Richard Nixon, The Challenges We Face, 1960. – If only he had extended this insight to all his internal and external policies, while confining his rule to exterritorial autonomy for his followers! Then this world would already be a much better place. But can one expect consistency from any territorial politician? – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DIVERSITY: The most remarkable thing about the human species is its infinite diversity. No man is precisely like another. No man has his duplicate. Each person is distinct from the next - and individual in his own right. This is why attempts to force men into a common mould, to impose upon them a single system of belief - political, social, religious - is to compel them to accept one particular ísm, are, in the end, doomed to failure. They run counter to the essential nature of man which consists in the assertion of his own God-given individuality.” - IPA FACTS, 12/68 - Jan. 69. - Well, at least not until he can freely clone himself. - And yet territorial States treat us as if we were alike. With soldiers they go even further and put all of them into the same kind of uniform, so that their government selected and appointed enemies, can recognize them as their supposed enemies! - J.Z., 16.5.00. – Then this official target practice, with live ammunition and against living human targets begins. Nevertheless, governments are so inefficient, and wrongful, in this sphere, that they manage to get more non-combatants killed than combatants! And the victims usually simply let that happen to themselves! – Why introduce a fictional character, like God, into such considerations? Is Nature unable to develop life over billions of years? - J.Z., 30.11.08. - MAN, HUMAN NATURE, INEQUALITY
DIVERSITY: The primary threat to nature and people today comes from centralising and monopolizing power and control. Not until diversity is made the logic of production will there be a chance for sustainability, justice and peace. Cultivating and conserving diversity is no luxury in our times it is a survival imperative.” – Vandana Shiva, quoted in: Geoff Davies, Economia. New economic systems to empower people and support the living world, ABC Books, Sydney, 2004, p.383. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PANARCHISM, MONETARY FREEDOM, CENTRALIZATION, MONOPOLIES, POWER, PEACE, JUSTICE, TERRITORIALISM
DIVERSITY: The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men.” – John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, U.S. President, Speech, University of California, 3/23/63. - He occupied a very powerful position against full diversity - by individual choice! - If an individualist secessionist had executed him, e.g., because he had doubled the US nuclear arsenal, then this might have led to some sensible discussions. But there existed much more justified targets for tyrannicide in other countries. At the next official opportunity he could still have been recalled by the voters. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – VS. TERRITORIALISM, UNITY
DIVERSITY: There are more individual differences among human beings than between whole species of many other organisms.” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001, firstname.lastname@example.org, p. 68. – These diverse people must also become free to act differently, among themselves. – Territorial statism tries to deal with these differences despotically. Panarchism, polyarchism and experimental freedom under person laws take all these differences into account and arrange for their peaceful coexistence. – J.Z., 27.9.07. – DIVERSITY AMONG HUMAN BEINGS, HUMAN NATURE, INDIVIDUALISM
DIVERSITY: There is probably only one issue on which a people ever expresses unanimous or general will: the defence of their physical liberty. Otherwise they divide according to their temperaments, and though these are limited in number, they are sufficiently diverse and so mutually opposed that in any given geographical area they will give rise to incompatible groups. - On that very account, say Rousseau and many other philosophers, a democracy is impossible. - But they are forced to this conclusion because they adhere obstinately to the arbitrary boundaries of the modern State - boundaries established by rivers, seas, mountains, and military treaties, and not by reason.” - Herbert Read, Anarchy & Order, p.131/132. - Given free individual choice, many members of "nations" would rather side with the enemy regime, others would like to remain neutral, still others might consider both warring regimes as their enemies and would rather enjoy peaceful self-government among like-minded people and under their standards and preferences. The term "a people" is a cover-name for a fiction. Nor are they as free to divide or separate themselves out, as Read presupposes. Especially not in the political, economic and social spheres that are preempted by the constitutions, laws, jurisdiction and other actions of territorially and coercively as well as monopolistically "united" States. - Much more than differences in temperaments are involved. And neither temperaments nor other distinctions between them need necessarily mean incompatibility, e.g. for peaceful exchanges and communication and collaboration, except within territorial States. - Can territorial boundaries be established by reason, as Read seems to imply? He answers this in very general and somewhat biased terms on page 132: "Suppose we were to ignore these boundaries, or abolish them. The realities are, after all, human beings with certain desires: with certain primitive needs. These human beings, according to their needs and sympathies, will spontaneously associate themselves into groups for mutual aid, will voluntarily organize and economy which ensures the satisfaction of their needs. This is the principle of mutual aid, and it has been explained and justified with much historical and scientific evidence by Kropotkin. It is this principle which the anarchist makes the foundation of his social order…" - Kropotkin was not led by his studies to recognize the anarchism of market relationships or the possibility and rightfulness of exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities, whether they are anarchistic or statist ones. Without clarity in public opinion about the possibilities of exterritorial tolerance the majority of statist territorialists will again re-established their more or less territorial despotism over all dissenters in a territory. The discussion of the panarchist alternative has barely begun in libertarian and anarchist circles. - J.Z., 17.5.00. - DEFENCE, AGGRESSION, UNITY
DIVERSITY: There is really not much difference between people - but whatever there is of it is very important.” - Peasant saying, quoted by J. Martin. - PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALLY
DIVERSITY: there's not ONE master solution but a multiplicity of small ones.” - Wilson Clark, in reviewing Richard Cornuelle: De-Managing America, LFB REVIEW, Winter 76. – Each adult individual should be free to choose for himself the one he or she likes best – also among whole political, economic and social systems. Most would certainly not choose one of those, which tends to produce one crisis or one crash after the other, and more and more largely unknowable laws, bureaucracies and regulations and more an and more and ever higher taxes, and continuing inflations, even if they do not understand why they do occur so persistently under some systems and not in others. Their choice would be as simple for them as is the choice of electricity and electric light-bulb supply and light switches rather than candles for their lighting requirements. None of them would have to fully understand the technology involved. – J.Z., 16.11.10. – Each modern car and aircraft consists not only out of thousands of parts but is the result or thousands of mostly small solutions or the problems involved in these means of transport. – Solutions to the remaining social, economic and political problems can also be arrived at step by step, provided there is experimental freedom for these innovators. – Introduction of it is, however, a very large step, seeing public opinion on such matters and the vested interests of most ruling power addicts, in their usual short-term views. - J.Z., 13.12.11. - SOLUTION, PANACEA, RULE, PROGRAM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OF VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIAL DOMINATION BY A GOVERNMENT
DIVERSITY: This the true human knows: // the strings of all the ways // make up a cable of great strength // and great purpose.” - Kerro Panille, The Collected Poems. - Quoted by Frank Herbert, The Jesus Incident, p.357. - A common national purpose I would deny, when it goes beyond e.g. the intention to preserve a language and culture, preserve the peace and security, liberty and justice, prosperity and progress. - J.Z., 17.5.00. – But even for such purposes territorial and hierarchical organizations are the worst possible ones. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - MANY DIFFERENT PATHS, UNITY IN DIVERSITY, STRENGTH THROUGH FREEDOM
DIVERSITY: Under the exterritorial and voluntary model our political associations and activities can be as individualized and diverse as our sports, fashion and amusement activities. Mencken has often enough compared political activities to amusing circus performances. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DIVERSITY: Unity in diversity" comes somewhat close to indicating the ideal "society" as a society of exterritorially autonomous and very diverse societies, all free also by having only voluntary members but otherwise as self-restricted as their members want to be. - J.Z., 17. & 20.5.00. – Nozick called this tolerant general society a “meta-utopia”, i.e., a utopia for all kinds of utopias. – J.Z., 30.8.08, PANARCHISM, UNITY, META-UTOPIA
DIVERSITY: Unity is the greatest diversity. - Starr in ST JOHN'S BREAD. - What did he mean by that? The rulers of a seemingly uniform territorial State do often not care about cultural diversity and grant freedom of movement to minorities in the empire's territory and somewhat protect one minority against the other. But they do not grant any minority, except the ruling one, full exterritorial autonomy. And only under this greatest diversity, voluntarily selected by each individual for himself, can the greatest degree of voluntary uniformity, that is practical in any community, be freely practised, within these volunteer communities. Quite likely, most of their decisions on major subjects, will be made unanimously or find unanimous consent. - J.Z., 16.5.00. - VS. UNITY, DIS., PANARCHISM, FREE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES
DIVERSITY: we frankly recognized the right to differ, the right of each one to choose his own path because we respected and cherished the will, the intelligence, the free choice of others, as much as we respect and cherish these things in ourselves, and were resolved never to trample, for the sake of any plea, for any motive, on the higher parts of human nature…” (*) - Auberon Herbert, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.415. - Frankly, we do not fully recognize this until we recognize individual sovereignty, individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities! - - (*) Alas, Herbert meant that probably only for the large private sphere recognized in the better democracies, not for the political, economic and social spheres that the governments have everywhere territorially and coercively monopolized. - J.Z., 16.5.00. - THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE OWN PATH, TO BE THE SMITH OF ONE'S OWN DESTINY, SELF-DETERMINATION IN EVERY SPHERE, FREE CHOICE
DIVERSITY: We offer diversity of choice - Communists do not.” - John F. Kennedy. - At most they offer a choice between different kinds of statist or anarchist communism. That choice may satisfy them, but hardly all other people. - J.Z., 17.5.00. – However, territorial welfare statists like J.F.K. do not offer sufficient individual choices, rights and liberties, either. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - CHOICE VS. COMMUNISM, DIS., WELFARE STATE, PANARCHISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM.
DIVERSITY: We want a world of diversity and change where some people are free to lie under a tree and other people are free to work themselves to death.” - Milton Friedman in Australia, 1975, p.39. – CHANGE, CHOICE
DIVERSITY: Were all alike, instead of free, t'would mean the end of me and thee.” - Leonard E. Read, THE FREEMAN, 5/74. – EQUALITY, INEQUALITY, INDIVIDUALITY, MAN, MANKIND
DIVERSITY: Without diversity there would be no choice and without choice there is no freedom.” - Prince Philip, A Place for the Individual, Royal Society of Arts Lecture, 1976. - It is almost a joke, if not a tragedy, that a modern prince has to lecture to people about individualism - and to English people at that! - J.Z., 17.5.00, 30.11.08. - FREEDOM & CHOICE
DIVIDE & CONQUER: Divide and conquer is also an individualist device. - B A., BLACK & RED, 4/73. – Exploit the schism and minorities on the other side – by making common cause with them against the common enemy, a despotic regime, or even two, one on each side. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS, FRATERNIZATION, DESERTION, SEPARATE PEACE TREATY, UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATION, DIVISIVENESS, DESERTION, DECENTRALIZATION, SECESSION, DISOBEDIENCE, REVOLUTION, DISUNITY, FRAGMENTATION, SCHISMS, COMPETITION, CHOICE
DIVIDED AUTHORITY: divided authority is the bulwark of freedom…” - Frank Chodorov, The Income Tax …, p.86. - The utmost division is achieved through free individual and group secessionism, individual sovereignty and exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. Chodorov, to my knowledge, did not go far enough in this direction. - J.Z., 17.5.00. , DIVISION OF POWERS, INDIVIDUALISM, STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, DECENTRALIZATION, SECESSION, EXTERRITORIALITY.
DIVINE RIGHT: The King Can Do No Right. Divine Right doctrine manifested in modern "kings" of planned economy and welfare state variety.” - Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, summarizing chapter 6 on page VIII. – Let each be a king – but over his own affairs only. Then these “kings” would usually be so busy with their own affairs and projects – and so free to demonstrate them to others, that they would not be inclined to attempt to force them upon others. – J.Z., 30.11.08. THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG, RULES, ABSOLUTISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, RIGHT, EXTERRITORIALITY & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALITY, DOMINATION, STATE, STATISM
DIVINITY: recognize the divinity within you…” - L. J. J. Nye, Escape to Elysium, p.154. – The very nature of man is for me a good enough authorization for all genuine individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 13.12.11. - GODLINESS, MEN INTO SUPERMEN OR GODS, CREATIVITY, MAN, GOD, AUTONOMY. Compare: “Release all creative energies!” – Leonard E. Read.
DIVISION OF LABOR: the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market.” - Stigler, The Intellectual and the Market Place, p.35. – The market knows no borders. Only State governments do and do enforce them, against the rights and interests of all participants in an otherwise free market. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - MARKET, FREE TRADE, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, PROTECTIONISM, POPULATION
DIVISION OF POWER: to divide up the power would merely be to divide up the corruption.” - Oscar B. Johannsen, quoted in GOOD GOVERNMENT, 4/74. - That's true for territorial governments, i.e. those short of individual self-government - and complete exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. - J.Z., 1974, 17.5.00, 16.11.10. - POWER, CORRUPTION
DIVISION OF POWER: to divide up the power would merely be to divide up the corruption.” - Oscar B. Johannsen, quoted in GOOD GOVERNMENT, 4/74. - That's true for territorial governments, i.e. those short of individual self-government - and complete exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities. - J.Z., 1974, 17.5.00, 16.11.10. - POWER, CORRUPTION
DIVISIVENESS: Politicians interested in centralized power in their own hands do often attack what they call "divisiveness" or "factionalism". - We have to become much, much more divisive to arrive, finally, at freedom, justice, security and peace for everyone except official or private criminals with victims. - Divisiveness, or separation of interests, on a voluntary basis and for exterritorially autonomous communities is the solution, not the problem. It is like a divorce for an unworkable marriage. - J.Z., 4.7.95, 12.5.00, 16.11.10. – FRAGMENTATION, SCHISMS, FACTIONALISM, UNITY, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, PARTY SPIRIT, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, DIS.
DIVORCE FROM THE STATE, UNILATERAL: Panarchism is based on the unilateral divorce option from the State and on voluntary marriage or free love relations only with any government thereafter, for anyone, anywhere and at any time. - J.Z. 28.12.92.
DIVORCE FROM THE STATE: The territorial State rests upon the suppression of divorce from it. - J.Z. 28.12.92.
DIVORCE FROM THE TERRITORIAL STATE, UNILATERAL, INDIVIDUAL: Panarchism is based on the unilateral divorce option from the State and on voluntary marriage or free love relations only with any government or society thereafter, for anyone, anywhere and at any time. - J.Z. 28.12.92.
DIVORCE, MARRIAGE: Divorce is one of the preconditions for better marriages or free love relationships. Individual secessionism is one of the preconditions for better governments and free societies. - J.Z., 27.10.94, 11.5.00. - INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM
DIVORCE: Divorce from a marriage by one's person's wish should be a private affair and not obstructed. Much more important and in the public as well as in the private interest, is the divorce option for individuals from the State. It is at least as important as once was, for an individual, his free divorce from the ruling, monopolistic, centralized, coercive and territorially exclusive church. The divorce option for individuals should not only be applied to all levels of governments, federal, state and local ones, but also to privileged organizations, like the QUANGOs, e.g. the Australian Broadcasting Board, any compulsory trade union or other body under special government grants and exclusions. Refuse easy divorces from marriages and some more murders will result. Refuse easy divorces from territorial States and wars will continue indefinitely, while any people are alive. - J.Z., Dec. 73 & 17.5.00.
DIVORCE: Divorce is a declaration of independence with only two signers.” - Source? – Panarchism would mean unilateral divorce actions by millions of signers, followed by millions making different individual choice for their next association with any government, society or community. – J.Z., 28.11.08.MARRIAGES & DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL INDEPENDENCE FOR ALL MINORITIES DESIRING IT: PANARCHISM
DIVORCE: The productive and peaceful citizen should be free to effectively say to any government: Henceforth, I divorce myself from thee! - J.Z. 28.12.92.
DIVORCE: The territorial State rests upon the suppression of divorce from it. - J.Z., 28.12.92.
DIVORCE: We should become free to divorce ourselves, individually and unilaterally, from any or all of our politicians and from any or all of their unwanted interferences and charges for them. - J.Z., 11.11.92, 4.1.93.DO IT: If it feels good, do it."- It's another story if we amend the advice to read: "If it's right, do it."- Edmund A. Opitz, THE FREEMAN, 5/73. - The popularity of unqualified slogans like this one indicates the “quality” of our public education system. - J.Z., 17.5.00.
DO NOTHING: Continuously they ask what they should do. And they need only do one thing: do nothing. They should no longer obey. But precisely this seems to be very difficult for them.” - John Henry Mackay, Abrechnung, 163. – As if territorial governments were making it easy to secede from them and to live with like-minded people under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. How could a long-term individualist anarchist like him disregard such facts for so long? – J.Z., 30.11.08. – DISOBEDIENCE.
DO NOTHING: May not Shun be instanced as having governed efficiently without exertion? What did he do? He did nothing but gravely and reverently occupy his imperial seat.” - The Wisdom of Confucius, 26, Analects, bk. xv, c.iv. - For the government to actually do "nothing", it will have to stop doing a host of things that it presently does. …” - Robert Poole, Jr., in anthology Outside Looking In, p.254. – For the subjects of a territorial government it is certainly not made easy to suddenly cease obeying it in every respect. Would a sit-down of Jews have saved them from the gas chamber mass murders? – - How would most people survive, if they did not work for a living? - J.Z., 30.11.08. - GOVERNMENT, LAISSEZ FAIRE, DIS.
DO NOTHING: The dauphin (son of Louis XV, father of Louis XVI) once asked the Physiocrat, Quesnay, "What would you do if you were King?" - "Monsieur, I would do nothing."- "Who would govern then?"- "The laws". - SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 10/76. – Alas, the laws do already do too much wrong and harm. – J.Z., 30.11.08. – Let all individuals live under self-chosen personal law systems. – 16.11.10. - LAWS, LAISSEZ FAIRE, GOVERNMENT, LAWS
DO YOUR OWN THING: Do your own thing and let others do theirs - that's all that tolerance demands. - J.Z. in Tolerance pamphlet. - How many such common sense sayings do exist and yet remain ignored in all spheres pre-empted by territorial governments? - J.Z., 15.10.11.
DO YOUR OWN THING: You do your thing and I'll do mine.” - Existentialist slogan. – It is also a panarchist slogan. – J.Z., 30.11.08. - PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT
DO-GOODERS: In a free society, it is hard for "good" people to do "good", but that is a small price to pay for making it hard for "evil" people to do "evil", especially since one man's good is another's evil.” - Milton Friedman, Social Responsibility of Business, N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE, Sep. 13, 1970. - If one wants to be charitable in a free economy, with one's own money, then that would be much easier, because one would be much more prosperous and there would be many less genuinely poor and unfortunate people left to help. And, by the "good people", any kind of welfare system could be freely tried, at the own expense and risk, under exterritorial autonomy for all such voluntary experimenters. - One man's good isn't another man's evil under free exchange, because then such exchanges do not take place voluntarily. It plays neither negative nor zero sum games but only positive sum games: both sides winning in a free and informed exchange. - J.Z., 12.11.82, 4.4.89, 17.5.00.
DO-GOODING: No more good must be attempted than the nation can bear.” – Quoted by Joseph F. Johnston, Jr., The Limits of Government, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1984, p.267. – Rather, no more than voluntary supporters are willing to support. – J.Z., 2.10.07. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY
DOCTORS: Doctors pour drugs of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, into human beings of which they know nothing.” - Voltaire – How many of the medicines you ever took did really come up to the promises of their manufacturers or vendors? – But modern doctors do perform minor miracles e.g. with many of their operations. – On the other hand, the common cold is still all too common. - J.Z., 8.8.08. – What makes the present condition bearable is free choice of doctors. We need the equivalent of it for governments, communities and societies, J.Z., 28.11.08. – PANARCHISM, MODERN MEDICINE, PILL PUSHERS, HEALTH, SURVIVAL, CITIZENSHIP, JOKES
DOCTORS: Doctors, like many other professionals, get much of their income and influence under false pretences. But at least there is an orthodox science behind them, with many real achievements, even if the individual doctors do not know and master all of them. Furthermore, they have not yet tried or succeeded in outlawing all alternative healers or self-healing options. – J.Z., 1.3.07. – To each his own and self-chosen quack or natural healer as well, not only a free choice between orthodox doctors. Alternative healers, politicians, presidents, prime ministers, bureaucrats, priests, lawyers, psychologists, economists, political scientists, official peace makers, diplomats, psychiatrists, teachers – all to be subject to individual choices: panarchism or polyarchism. – J.Z., 28.11.08 - POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS, PRIESTS, LAWYERS, PSYCHOLOGISTS, ECONOMISTS, POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, OFFICIAL PEACE MAKERS, DIPLOMATS, PSYCHIATRISTS, TEACHERS
DOCTRINAIRES: Almost all social, economic and political evils can be ascribed either to the territorial rule by doctrinaires or by doctrinaires aspiring to rule territorially. - Or simply: To ignorant people who rule or want to rule and to people who still foolish enough to wish themselves to be territorially ruled and who imagine others to be foolish enough to have the same desire and if not, then that they ought to be so ruled, anyhow. - J.Z., 27.6.85 & 17.5.00, 16.11.10. - IDEOLOGUES, TRUE BELIEVERS, FANATICS, STATISM, INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM
DOCTRINES, FAITHS, CONVICTIONS & PANARCHISM: Freedom to live oneself and with like-minded people only subject to the own doctrines, teachings, beliefs and convictions. No power at all, for anyone, to impose his doctrines, laws and institutions – or his crimes – upon any dissenter. – J.Z., 19.4.93, 14.1.99.
DOGMA: All the dogmatists are so little sure of themselves and their theses that they want to force the whole world to confirm something which they themselves never believe.” - Konstantin Wecker, Im Namen des Wahnsinns, p.31. – Anyone who truly believes in a dogma - and is somewhat rational and moral - would with for nothing more than the chance to apply it to himself and like-minded people, confident that from their example it would spread. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DOGMATISM: There is less certainty about what is right for others. With an awareness of multiple realities, we lose our dogmatic attachment to a single point of view. A new sense of connection with others promotes social concern. A more benign view of the world makes others seem less threatening; enemies disappear. There is a commitment to process rather than programs. It matters a great deal how we accomplish our ends. We can now translate intention into action, vision into actuality, without intrigue or manipulation." - M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, pp 208/209. - Are we as free already? To each the program & process of his or her choice, as long as he or she allows others the same free choice of action and experimentation, not only the freedom of thought and expression and information. 17.5.00. - Does she realize the exterritorial options fully, and panarchism as a process and the diversities among possible competing panarchies in the same area? Do we already possess in every respect, especially regarding political and economic systems, the choice she presumes to already exist in the last sentence? In limited spheres for private activities, those she is mainly interested in, we already do, but in these few and important others? People get often carried away by general terms without realizing their implications and would deny them if they are drawn for them. Anyhow, I favour for each the program and process of his or her choice - as long as he or she allow others the same free choice. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 3.7.89. - CERTAINTY, OTHERS, TOLERANCE
DOING THE OWN THINGS, PANARCHISTICALLY: Freedom to do so, at the own expense and risk would tend to pacify even most of the radicals, revolutionaries, terrorists and fanatics, at least in the long run. - J.Z., 04-11. - PEACE, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, HARMONY, COEXISTENCE
DOING: Doing a thing for the sake of doing it is not a definition of ritual; it's a definition of science. - James Blish, They Shall Have Stars, p.166. - Not only science can be a purpose in itself for rightful actions. - J.Z., 17.5.00. – There is a world of difference between rightful, rational and tolerant actions and wrongful, irrational and intolerant ones. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - MORALITY, JUSTICE, PEACE, FREEDOM, ART FOR ART'S SAKE, PURPOSE IN ITSELF, ACTION, ACTIVISM, SCIENCE, TOLERANT ACTIVISM IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES OR PANARCHISM.
DOING: Try one's best and hope for the best; outdistance everyone you possibly can, and hope that others will outdistance you. Make hatching a game of leapfrog - the greatest game in life!”(*) - Leonard E. Read, in FEE reply envelope. - (My PEACE PLANS No. 20, proposing a kind of libertarian Ideas Archive, lists over 1000 libertarian projects. These and thousands more should all be tackled at the same time, world-wide, by ten-thousands of libertarians, in world-wide division of labor.) - J.Z., 30.11.08. – How many other such projects are there? Are they anywhere as yet listed together, online? Shouldn’t they be, to achieve sufficient division of labor and participation among ourselves, with each becoming still more active in the sphere of his highest priorities, but this time with the help of some more and like-minded libertarians? – (*) However, first of all try to gain full liberty for this kind or rightful and tolerant action, starting with the right to secede from the territorial power establishment. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - WHAT TO DO, WHAT IS TO BE DONE? ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, DRAFTING AN IDEAL DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, LIST OR LIBERTARIAN PROJECTS.
DOING: You do your thing and I'll do mine. - Doing your own thing. - Popular expressions, alas, rarely consistently applied to the political, economic and social spheres now preempted by governments. - J.Z., 17.5.00. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL.
DOLLAR VOTE: Become free to hire and fire your own politicians and bureaucrats with your own dollar vote. Free yourself of the votes, taxes and spending programmes of others. Opt out and pay your own way. Exterritorial autonomy under personal laws for all volunteer groups. Each learns best from his own mistakes and successes.- J.Z., 13.1.93.
DOMESTICATION: Violating the freedom of rational beings by domesticating or manipulating them is a heinous crime. What the author calls "domestication" is exploitation by shielding from challenge. The free will, individuality, and self-awareness of one group is damped by another until these essential properties atrophy: "A slave may or may not obey. But a domestic animal has got to obey. His genes won't let him do any different" (The Master Key, 1964). The thrust of domestication plainly alarms the author. He fears the emasculating consequences of some contemporary trends: loss of option, initiative, and meaningful work; collectivization and homogenization; decline of rationality, taste, and competence…” - Sandra Miesel in: Poul Anderson: The Book of P.A., p.191. – DOMESTICATION BY VIOLENCE, TERRORISM, OPPRESSIVE LAWS, TERRITORIALISM DOMINATION VS. CREATIVITY, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS
DOMINANCE - LET THE SADO-MASOCHISTS HAVE IT, FOR THEMSELVES, IN THEIR OWN PANARCHIES: Let he who in freedom seeks dominance, have it. - Ben Best, "IDEA CATALYST", No. 1, 1966.
DOMINATION & INTOLERANCE, TERRITORIAL: Almost all of our public institutions in the political, economic and social sphere amount to ritualized 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, voluntaristic and non-coercive institutions, each of them doing its own things for its own members, and subscribers, as best as they can, while leaving all others to their own and freely chosen actions and relationships among themselves. - J.Z., 1986, 2004.
DOMINATION ATTEMPTS: Domination does not work very well even in a family or friendship circle. Far less does it work territorially, by bureaucratic government for a whole country and all its inhabitants. - J.Z., 5.10.88.
DOMINATION, RULE, GOVERNING DISSENTERS: The realization of panarchy would mean that each would have to give up all his domination attempts towards the peaceful and creative activities of others, in order to receive, in return and from them, the same kind or recognition and respect for his own fully autonomous actions under his choice of exterritorial and personal laws. - J.Z., 29.8.87, 1.4.89, 13.9.04.
DOMINATION: 49 should never dominate 51. 51 should never dominate 49. But 51 should always be free to rule themselves and enjoy the same freedom as the 49 - to rule themselves. - J.Z., 22.5.77. - MAJORITY, RULE, CONSENT, VOTING, AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT
DOMINATION: Herrschsucht ist die Freiheitsliebe einzelner; Freiheitsliebe ist die Herrschsucht aller." - Boerne. (The urge to dominate indicates the love of licence, of some individuals, for themselves. The love of freedom indicates the urge in all towards self-determination. - J.Z. - I would welcome a better translation. - J.Z., 21. 11. 06. ) - Whoever loves to dominate neither loves the freedom of others nor his own. And if anyone wants to dominate all others in a territory, then he should never be given that opportunity. Otherwise we would just get the usual territorial politics and its messes, destructions, obstructions, mass-murders, over-regulations and over-kill "defensive" or "deterrent" powers. - The love of licence and wilfulness and arbitrariness and domination should not be mixed up with the love of freedom. Domination is the wrong road. It leads not to liberty but to despotism, totalitarianism and ultimately the nuclear holocaust. The urge to dominate or the love of wilfulness and arbitrary actions towards others is rather the opposite of the love of freedom, for others and oneself. Its most important and most ignored characteristic is territorialism. - J.Z., 5.7.92, 15.1.93, 10.12.03. - Boerne should have added: "ueber die eignen Angelegenheiten". (Selbstherrschaft), ("regarding the own affairs": self-government, in the meaning of government over the self only.) - J.Z., 5.9.04.
DOMINATION: I do not believe that there will ever be peace or harmony in the world before the time of the domination of one over the other is passed. … I believe that the domination of the one by the other contradicts the spirit of our times, no matter whether the domination of a State, an economic system, a class or a race is involved.” - Nehru, DIE MENSCHENRECHTE, 31. Jahrgang, Nr.3. – However, did he or his successors resign or allow individuals and minorities to secede from them? – J.Z., 16.11.10. - GOVERNMENT, PEACE, HARMONY, TERRITORIALISM
DOMINATION: In any human relationship where power is present, someone is dominant and someone is subordinate. The subordinate party tends to be diminished, the dominant party corrupted, and both are made less human.” – Richard C. Cornuelle, Demanaging America, p.44/45. – Domination dehumanizes. J.Z., n.d. - Territorialism even leads to totalitarianism and mass murders. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DOMINATION: It is appropriate here to recall that the so-called Dark Ages began with the flight of the individuals into the protection of lords or chapters and came to an end when the individual again found it to his advantage to set forth on his own. We live at a time when everything conspires to push the individual into the fold. - Bertrand de Jouvenel – So far only a few have demanded individual and minority group secessionism combined with full exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 28.11.08. – TERRITORIALISM, VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, PERSONAL LAWS, PROTECTION, UNIFICATION, LORDSHIPS
DOMINATION: Love thy neighbour as thyself" does not mean that you must be mild in your dominion over him; it means that you shall not have any dominion over him. He is a son of liberty no less than you, and the relationship between you and him can be built only on a system which assumes the identity of your rights. This is the democratic principle.” - Shalom Ash, 1880 - ? - The Wisdom of Israel, p.582. – The usual territorial democracy still continues with territorial domination of peaceful but dissenting minorities and individuals by temporary majorities. Only the voluntarism, exterritorial autonomy, personal law and experimental freedom tolerance of panarchism applies the non-denomination principle in full, for all who desire it for themselves and confines domination attempts to those who favor them – at their risk and expense. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - DOMINATION VS. LOVE, DIS.
DOMINATION: Man Lording Over Man: I am unaware of any evil more pronounced than man lording it over man. Not even God does this. Indeed, He has given us a freedom so radical that we may deny our Maker or otherwise make fools of ourselves. As I see it, the domineering habit is the root of all evil and unless there is some realization that it is, we will continue to ascribe non-reasons for our troubles …” - Leonard E. Read, Who's Listening? p.29.
DOMINATION: Prevent the domination of society by any one organized idea or power.” - Max Eastman, Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, p.44. - Domination by ideals voluntarily adopted should be distinguished from ideas or dogmas or institutions that are imposed upon dissenters. I do favor different people freely pursuing their common high priority ideals, like e.g. individual rights, freedom, justice, peace, progress, science, technology, longevity, intelligence expansion, space exploration. But never should all be forced to contribute to all of these ideals via taxation and slave labor. - J.Z., 17.5.00.
DOMINATION: The individual is the Anarchist's center of society. In his or her interest, social relations of domination and servility must be repudiated, for they degrade the one and deprave the other. The replacement of these relations with free ones is the essence of positive social development; the freedom of the individual is the touchstone of progress.” - Berman, Anarchist Quotations, p.5. - SERVILITY, STATISM, RULE, ANARCHISM, INDIVIDUALISM, VOLUNTARISM
DOMINATION: When anyone attempts to run the life of another, to mold the other to his own design, to cast anyone else in his own image - regardless of intent, be it degrading or generous - the other should indeed run for his life. Why? It is this domineering trait that arouses conflict and disharmony in society and accounts for the taking of lives by the millions.” - Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, 4. – Seeing that all territorial States have this domineering habit, and that living off this planet is not yet an option, where can we run to? We have to open up internal “emigration” or, rather, secession and exterritorial autonomy or personal law or experimental freedom options for dissenting volunteers, all doing their things only to themselves. Alas, Read, to my knowledge, never discussed that option. – J.Z., 30.11.08. – Even the proposed “limited” governments of most libertarians are still in this territorial domination habit, custom and tradition. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DON'T: While my mother believes in the Golden Rule, she also advocates a second maxim, which she terms her Iron Rule: 'Don't do for others what they wouldn't take the trouble to do for themselves.' " - Mrs. D. Fulton, READER'S DIGEST, 1/65. - ALTRUISM, HELP, AID, HANDOUTS, FOREIGN AID, STIMULUS PAYMENTS, SUBSIDIES, WELFARE STATE
DONALDSON, TOM: 28, in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PEACE PLANS 869.
DOUBLE STANDARDS: You can't have double standards!" - We all have different standards, anyhow and we can, have, had and will have again different legal standards for different people in the same country, according to their own choices. - J.Z., 6.7.82. - Panarchism means multiple standards - but none that are forced upon anyone, unless they are criminal aggressors. - J.Z., 18.5.00. - PANARCHISM & EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, DIS.
DOWNARD, JIM: 8, in PEACE PLANS No.505; p.105,107 in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507.; p.3, 22, in ON PANARCHY V, in PP 554; p.56, 57, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585; in ON PANARCHY XIV, in PP 870; p.17-18, 37, in ON PANARCHY XVI, in PP 901.
DRAWING THE LINE, WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE: As far as only the own affairs are concerned, not the affairs of others, each should be free to draw the line for his own actions, risking only himself, his health and his property. There is no genuine crime without a victim. Even suicide is justified in many cases. It can be a moral and rational action. Already excessive eating as well as smoking and drinking are slow forms of suicide, more or less pleasant to the actor. Without self-responsibility life is hardly worth living. - J.Z., 23.9.04.
DREAMERS: The world must be reorganized in a way to allow the realization, as far as possible, of all dreams about just, free, tolerant and peaceful alternatives, all only among volunteers, no matter how impracticable they appear to others. - J.Z., 2.12.74, 30.7.78, 1.12.08. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAWS
DREAMERS: We have had all too many "practical" men. What we need is more, not less dreamers. Especially dreamers dreaming dreams for themselves only and for like-minded people, not maniacs who, like some of the "practical" men, dream dreams of domination and then act to prevent the alternative free the lives of dissenters. - J.Z., 17.7.89, 16.11.10. - VS. PRACTICAL MEN
DREAMING: All men dream, but unequally. Those that dream at night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake the next day to find that their dreams were just vanity. But those who dream during the day with their eyes wide open are dangerous men; they act out their dreams to make them reality.” – T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. – They are not dangerous but peaceful and freedom as well as justice promising when they realize their dreams only for their kind of volunteers. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - IMAGINATION
DREAMS: Carry out your dreams - but at your own expense and risk. - J.Z., 10.9.82. – Do so in every sphere. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - Upon reading in THE READER'S DIGEST Sep. 66: "It is wonderful to see someone carry out his dream. … So few of us take a chance."
DREAMS: don't make me live up to your dreams, just mine.” - Alan Brennert, All the Charms of Sycorax. - LIVING UP TO DREAMS
DREAMS: Each dream can be turned into a creation by those who are strong enough to believe in them.” - G.B. Shaw, retranslated from a German version. - Some only in form of novels, plays, poetry, fantasies or SF. Anyhow, that is no excuse for trying to realize authoritarian or even totalitarian territorialist dreams over the lives of others, which would be nightmares for them. – To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dream or choice. - J.Z., 17.6.93, 19.5.00. - CREATIVITY, REALIZATION, TOLERANCE, PANARCHISM
DREAMS: Follow your own dreams, rather than those of any politician or bureaucrat. - J.Z., 26.11.93 & 19.5.00.
DREAMS: Reality, apart from raw nature, consists of realized dreams and, alas, also out of realized nightmares. - J.Z., 19.9.94. – Nightmares which power addicts were able to impose upon dissenters due to territorialism, which is still all too little doubted and criticized. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - REALITY, IDEAS & UTOPIASDREAMS: We care who forces our dreams onto us.” - Frank Herbert, The Lazarus Effect. - We will resist when someone tries to force his dream world upon us! - J.Z., n.d. & 19.5.00. – When they are forced upon us then they are obviously not our dreams. – People, including me, are often all too careless in some of their statements. – J.Z., 1.12.08.
DREAMS: We libertarians are dream merchants. … We do not worship dreams. We work for our dreams. We do not serve dreams. Dreams serve us. – But only if we work to make them real … We most love our dreams. Then we must live our dreams. – As Rudyard Kipling said, “If you can dream, and not make dreams your master …” - Michael Cloud, Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion, The Advocates for Self-Government, 2004, info@TheAdvocates.org - www.TheAdvocates.org - p.192. - - But if it is only a territorial dream, of a single libertarian government for all, then it is just not good enough and the attempt might be self-defeating. One dream for all is not good enough – and should not be realized for all. We ought to take the different dreams of non-libertarians into consideration and allow them their own dreams and their attempts to realize them for themselves. Only then will we get a good chance to realize our dream for ourselves. To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams. – as K.H.Z. suggested in his Manifesto for Freedom and Peace, 1977. – Alas, this kind of tolerance is still in short supply among libertarians and anarchists. - J.Z., 30.9.07. - LIBERTARIAN DREAMS
DROPPING OUT: Social Security is a gigantic fraud from which taxpayers cannot legally "drop out". - Schiff, The Greatest Con, from its cover. – SOCIAL SECURITY
DRUG LAWS: I’m in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my value system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal.” – Milton Friedman. - Statism is the worst addiction. Power is a close second runner up. - J.Z., 26. 11. 06. – Would any penal laws help against power addiction? – J.Z., 28.11.08. - WAR AGAINST DRUGS, TERRITORIALISM, POWER
DRUG LAWS: It is possible to stop most drug addiction in the United States within a very short time. Simply make all drugs available and sell them at cost. Label each drug with a precise description of what effect - good or bad - the drug will have on the taker. This will require heroic honesty. Don't say that marijuana is addictive or dangerous when it is neither, as millions of people know - unlike "speed," which kills most unpleasantly, or heroin, which can be addictive and difficult to kick. Along with exhortation and warning, it might be good for our citizens to recall (or learn for the first time) that the United States was the creation of men who believed that each person has the right to do what he wants with his own life as long as he does not interfere with his neighbors' pursuit of happiness (that his neighbor's idea of happiness is persecuting others does confuse matters a bit).” - Gore Vidal, 1970. – If G.V. were sufficiently consistent then even he would be a panarchist. – I do not know whether he is still alive and active. - J.Z., 16.11.10.
DRUG LAWS: Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments … Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.” – Von Mises, Human Action. – Territorialism may be the worst addiction, the one with the most involuntary victims. – J.Z., 16.11.10. - THEIR CONSEQUENCES FOR GENERAL DESPOTISM, FLAWED IDEOLOGIES ARE MUCH WORSE ADDICTIONS, STATISM INCLUDED
DRUG LAWS: The illegal drug trade is the financial engine that fuels many terrorist organizations around the world, including Osama bin Laden.” – Dennis Hastert, House Speaker. – Older means, like bank robberies, extortion and kidnapping or hostage taking are also still largely applied. Territorial despotism does, among other things, motivate and terrorism while its monetary despotism makes bank robberies more profitable because of the large circulation sphere of legal tender money. – J.Z., 1.2.08. - TERRORISM
DRUG WAR: The “war on drugs” restricts supply and raises prices. When we bust up one drug operation, another one emerges virtually overnight to take its place. When drug warriors make a big drug bust, law abiding citizens shouldn’t be that jubilant. Instead, we should expect higher prices, more ruthless participants, more crime, corruption, and greater social costs.” - Walter E. Williams, More Liberty Means Less Government. Our Founders Knew This Well, Hoover Institution Press, 1999, http://www-hoover.stanford.edu – p.262. – Even in its prohibition is territorialism not only not very effective but, at least sometimes, counter-productive. – J.Z., 16.11.10.
DRUGS & GOVERNMENT: The worst kind of drug addiction is that to governments. - J.Z., 6.6.81. – And there by politicians to territorial power. – J.Z., 1.12.08. – Addiction to territorial governments is the worst addiction. It sickens, debilitates and kills more people than any other drug. - J.Z., 29.9.93. - The addiction to political leadership, to power and to be led by the nose, through one's territorial statism, is the worst drug addiction of all. - J.Z., 5.12.83, 19.5.00. - The addiction to political leadership, to power and to be led by the nose, through one's territorial statism, is the worst drug addiction of all. - J.Z., 5.12.83, 19.5.00. – TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, POLITICIANS, OBEDIENCE GOVERNMENTS, STATISM, POWER ADDICTION
DRUGS & WAR ON DRUGS: Wars on drugs – but only among their enemies! – The „war on drugs“ is actually a misnomer. One can make war only on people, not on drugs, on the air, the land, the sea etc. And this war has already claimed, probably, more victims than the prohibited drugs did and far less victims than the legalized drugs like alcohol and tobacco claim. – J.Z., 9.1.05.
DRUGS: All the narcotic drugs combined are not as dangerous to the survival of man as are the addictions to powers, including the power over military forces, and especially ABC mass murder devices. A mental addiction to territorial, military and ABC mass murder devices is the worst addiction of all times. It has driven territorial statism to the pinnacle of murderousness, destructiveness and absurdity. - J.Z., 10.7.88, 10.5.00. - POWER & NUCLEAR WEAPONS
DRUGS: Dangerous drugs should be tackled at their source, the source of the demand for them, i.e., the willingness of their consumers to buy them, even at a high price and risk. That is largely an educational, psychological and economic problem. - J.Z., 2.11.95. - Under full political, economic and social freedom, including that for exterritorially autonomous experiments, most people would have better things to do than to chemically dowse their brains. - J.Z., 11.5.00.
DRUGS: The most dangerous drug is power.” - Tibor Machan, LA DAILY JOURNAL, March 4, 1989 & Liberty & Culture, p. 68. - POWER
DRUGS: The only truly dangerous drug is power.” - John Andrews, 1990, Colorado Republican. – Some other drugs are not exactly harmless, either. But political power over them makes matters worse. – J.Z., 1.12.08. - POWER
DU RAUSAS, G. P.: Regime des Capitulations dans I'Empire Ottoman, 1910.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP, BATES & SEALAND: To Hoy (TC80, p22): One thing to keep in mind about Bates & Sealand is that Britain permits dual citizenship, which means that Bates can be a citizen of Sealand and still keep fragment missing! (his British citizenship?)
DUBNOW, SIMON: 1860 - 1941, History of the Jews, 1, From the Beginning to the Early Christian Era, 904pp, 2. From the Roman Empire to the Early Medieval Period, 833pp, JZL. From the introduction on the cover: "This monumental work is not merely encyclopedic in plan and scope, but also in spirit, synthesis, and method. It breaks with the tradition that had become established in Western European Jewish historiography. In opposition to this tradition, Dubnov stressed economic and social factors against the spiritualistic. He aimed to provide currency Jewish life with a philosophy which would supply it with the necessary foundation for carrying on Jewish community existence and retaining Jewish national values in a secular and enlightened world. This he did in his theory of 'National Autonomism,' which enabled him to view the Jewish community not as a historical mummy, embalmed by theological scholasticism, or a religious tribe with a metaphysical mission, but as a living nation, as a universal people with its own world history."
DUBNOW, SIMON: History of the Jews in Russia and Poland from the earliest times until the present day, 3 vols., 1916 - 1920, new edition by KTAV Publishing House, 1975, 438pp, 429pp, 501pp, with an outline of the history of Russian and Soviet Jewry 1912-1974 by Leon Shapiro. JZL.
DUBNOW, SIMON: Nationalism and History, Essays on Old and New Nationalism, K.S. Pinson, ed., Philadelphia, 1958.
DUBOIS, J. EDWARD: ON PANARCHY, 5, 13, in PEACE PLANS No. 505. 98, in ON PANARCHY XV, in PP 879.
DUCKBOOK II: in PP 1243, sheets 13ff.
DUEHRING, EUGEN, Dr.: Der Wert des Lebens (The Value of Life) page 330: "If politics were to rise to a level where the same kind of tolerance which had previously such a beneficial effect in the religious sphere - would also largely be applied in the political sphere and in party matters, then endless senseless misery could be avoided."
DUEHRING, EUGEN, Dr.: Kursus der National und Sozialoenokomie, 1. Auflage 1873, 4. Auflage, 1893, von U. Duehring, in PP 1241/42. - Das 3. Kapitel der 1. Auflage befasste sich mit neuen Gesellschaftsformen. S. 283 dieser Auflage empfahl Ulrich von Beckerath. Fuer kleine oertliche Gruppen: 347/48. Fuer Individualsouveraenitaet: 312 & 349. Fuer autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften - aber unter Gesetzen: 354/55 oder 304/5? Private Verteidigung: 355. Fuer Geldfreiheit: 412ff, 504.
DUKE OF AVRAM: Do your own research on his secession and free banking attempt in Tasmania. In my Google search for "Duke of Avram" in 2009, I got 133 results. - J.Z., 20.9.11.
DUMONT, J.: Corps universel diplomatique, 8 vols., Amsterdam, 1726-31.
DUN, FRANK van, Kritarchy. - Frank van Dun - Kritarchy - July 18, 1999 (last revised May 2003).
DUNCAN, ROBERT MOORE: The Peiping Municipality and Diplomatic Quarter, N.Y., Garland Pub].,1980, VII,146p. (UNE)
DUNN: in ON PANARCHY XIII, in PP 869.
DUNNING, WILLIAM ARCHIBALD: A History of Political Theories, Recent Times, ed. by Charles Edward Merriam & Harry Elmer Barnes, N.Y., The Macmillan Co., 1924, indexed, 597pp, JZL. He cites panarchistic ideas at least on pp 30, 65, 92, 113, 118, 198 & 204 and also many anarchistic ones.
DUPLICATION OF STATE FUNCTIONS: Eliminate all Federal departments which duplicate State functions.” - Progress Party Queensland. - Then eliminate all State departments which duplicate local government functions. Then eliminate all local government functions which duplicate the functions of freely competing private or cooperative enterprises. - J.Z., 11.5.00. - CENTRALIZATION, DECENTRALIZATION, FEDERALISM
DUTY FREE SHOPS, FREE PORTS & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ZONES: Alas, all of them are only partly exempted from government laws, regulations, taxes, tariff restrictions and the general territorial rule. and regulations, not completely, as they should be. – J.Z., 15.3.05.
DUTY FREE SHOPS: Duty free shops in cities and especially in air ports. Then there are "areas" from duty-free shops to free ports and industrial development zones that are at least partly exempted from the taxation and - Mere tax exemptions, at least for direct taxes, exist for numerous people. - FREE ENTERPRISE ZONES. -
DUTY: it is the duty of All-of-us (that is, the State) to establish justice for all, from the least to the greatest, and in all matters. …” - W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, p.140. – The territorial State is, by its very nature, unable to achieve that aim. – J.Z., 1.12.08. - SOCIAL CONTRACT, JUSTICE, DIS.
DUTY: My first duty is to myself. My second duty is to my family. My third duty is to my country.” - Dr. David Cunningham. - The third applies only if it is a self-chosen country, with a self-chosen government or a self-chosen free community, from which one could divorce oneself, if one wanted to. - J.Z., 29.6.84. – PANARCHISM, PATRIOTISM
DUTY: no man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave'.” - Nathaniel Branden, OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, Sep. 62. - Quoting Rand?
DUTY: One ought to distinguish supposed “duties” for men as involuntary members of territorial, coercive, oppressive and monopolistic States and duties of men as voluntary members of exterritorially autonomous, voluntaristic and competitive States or free societies, that they have freely chosen for themselves and while they remain freely stay in or to secede from them. – Under this condition a person will adopt extra duties only in accordance with his own convictions. But this condition also imposes the general duty not to meddle with the affairs of other communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 14.5.00, 1.12.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, FREEDOM OF ACTION, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, MINORITY AUTONOMY
DUTY: Then why don't they stop fighting?" - "They can't", Wentworth said. "They're ordinary human beings, and ordinary human beings never do what they should. They're gamblers, gambling with human lives. Only a mighty smart gambler knows enough to stop when he should. Ordinary gamblers go right ahead risking all their resources - risking ruin, even - when they haven't a chance to win." - Kenneth Roberts, Oliver Wiswell, p.394. – Man will either grow up sufficiently and fast enough or he will wipe himself out with modern “weapons”. – The rights, duties and liberties of man with regard to territorial governments and nuclear “weapons” have still to become fully and optimally formulated or published. – I consider this to be one of the primary duties and also one of the most neglected ones. - J.Z., 1.12.08. – WAR, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT
DUTY: There is a matter of transcendental importance that I believe is everybody's business: the structuring of a good society! Were we to concentrate on this aspect of our own business as much as we are inclined to meddle in what is surely none of our business, as good society would be a viable prospect. Why all of this emphasis on the good society? It is the environment prerequisite to individual fulfillment. And that is your business - and mine! - The need for a good society is and always has been low on the list of popular human cravings and aspirations. Yet, there is no other subject since the dawn of history about which more has been written. Here is a matter that is everybody's business, but relatively few recognize their responsibility.” - Leonard E. Read, Having My Way, p.25. - Read, too, failed to extend the concept of a good society to societies that are voluntaristic and exterritorially autonomous. He remained to the end a territorialist, although in favor of mini-government or limited government on the territorial model and favoring monetary freedom rather than monetary despotism. - J.Z., 20.5.00. – DUTY TO SOCIETY OR TO WORK FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JUST, FREE & PEACEFUL SOCIETY, MYOB
DUTY: Thus he must not only be self-responsible but, at the same time, understand that he owes to others no infringements on their rights.” - Leonard E. Read, Then Truth Will Out, p.2. – I would rather say that he owes to others respect for their rights. At least all those genuine rights that they claim for their community of volunteers and respect for what they consider to be their internal civil rights, customs or traditions, even when he disagrees with them. As long as they are not imposed upon others these claimed and declared “rights” should be tolerated by outsiders. – J.Z., 1.12.08. - RIGHTS
DUTY: To live honestly is to hurt no one and to give every one his due.” - Lysander Spooner, Natural Law, Sec. I. – But e.g. taxes force us to help finance many wrongs committed by our territorial government and they wrong and harm us, directly, in the first place. – J.Z., 1.12.08. - HONESTY
DWIGHT, TIMOTHY, Dr.: At Yale, Calhoun studied under the formidable Dr. Timothy Dwight, Yale’s president, a Federalist, and at times a strong anti-unionist. Dr. Dwight was a bitter critic of Jefferson and his followers, and along with many other New Englanders in the early nineteenth century proposed secession as a solution for sectional conflict.” – C. Gordon Post, in his introduction to: “John C. Calhoun. A Disquisition on Government and Selections from the Discourse”, The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1953, page VIII. – Alas, he did not state whether he only favored geographical secession or also individual secession. Most likely, it was only the former. But a consistent geographical secessionist and decentralist would, finally, arrive at individual secession, too. – J.Z., 17.1.05.DYCK, A VAN: Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire, Report of A. Van Dyckj, consular clerk of the U.S. at Cairo, upon the capitulations of the Ottoman Empire since the year 1150, Washington, U.S., Dept. of State, Govt. Printing Office, 1881-82, 2 vols. (Ann Arbor, Univ. of Mich.)